[hhoglives]

in 4th seat. partner opens 2s which is supposed to be 5s, 4 or 5 clubs or diamonds and 7-11. i alerted and explained and mentioned pd may be a little stronger since it is 4th seat. turns out part has forgotten and bid a 5/5 hearts and spades hand with maybe 8pts. anyhow is have a good 11 and raise to 4 spades which makes. lho ways he would have bid if i had alerted 5spades, 4-5 other suit. director adjusted out 620 to 500. im not mad at lho or partner. i just wondered about the ruling as i think the 2s 4s sequence stopped him from bidding . lollllll
we are playing in vienna and i dont speak german so i did not get to argue the pt. i guess im a little irritated

[mgoetze]

Did you forget to fill out a convention card?

[hhoglives]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-25, 18:59, said:

Did you forget to fill out a convention card?

[hhoglives]

no

[BunnyGo]

hhoglives, on 2011-June-25, 22:05, said:

no

Then (I believe that) if you explained the convention correctly and it was on your card but your partner misbid, then it is an incorrect ruling. Your partner is allowed to misbid, and there is no redress for this.

[Bbradley62]

Welcome to the BBO Forum, HH. Please excuse our rude German friend; we're still trying to house-break him.

If your convention card clearly indicates that you explained your convention correctly, then I believe that Bunny is right. However, there is a forum for posting rules questions, and the moderators there are more qualified to answer. Under the heading of International Bridge Law, this would belong under Simple Rulings. I will ask the moderators to move this post and reply.

[mgoetze]

Bunny got it right.

If, on the other hand, that part of the CC was left blank, the laws tell the TD to assume mistaken explanation rather than misbid. In that case one would need to see the hand to check the ruling.

[hhoglives]

i appreciate your moving to the internationalforum. i was not bothered by the "german guys" post. we all know he was just trying to learn something.
thanx for all replies

[blackshoe]

I've asked Inquiry to move this thread, since I don't have the privs for it. Once it's moved, I'll see if I can answer it.

[blackshoe]

There is evidence that it was a misbid (your explanation, and the system card, if it said the same thing you did). The only evidence that it was a misexplanation is the fact that partner's hand doesn't match your explanation. You said he'd forgotten the agreement. I would discount that as self-serving, but if he said it (without prompting) I would not, or at least I'd discount it less. So the preponderance of the evidence is that it was a misbid, and I would so rule. That being the case, and there being no evidence of a CPU (no evidence, IOW, that partner forgets this one frequently), there is no basis for a score adjustment. I would have allowed the table score to stand.

[gordontd]

mgoetze, on 2011-June-26, 01:08, said:

If, on the other hand, that part of the CC was left blank, the laws tell the TD to assume mistaken explanation rather than misbid.

That's not what the laws tell us:

Quote

L21B1b The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather
Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

No mention of whether or not that part of the CC is filled out.

[bluejak]

I was just about to post about what the Laws tell us when ...

Gordon said what I was going to!

Let me put it differently: the Laws give us a default if the TD is not convinced. But if he considers the evidence such as it is is sufficient that there is no MI then he rules that way.

The other thing is that the OP is a little confusing: if I understood it correctly - someone please correct me if necessary - 2♠ was opened fourth in hand, described as spades and a minor, weak, and was actually bid on spades and hearts - and was raised to 4♠, which made. Ok, if it was ruled no MI, just a misbid, that's fine, no infraction, no redress.

But suppose the TD decided that there was MI, and it should have been described as spades and another, where's the damage? It is actually pretty difficult to see damage, unless the defence can beat it and misdefended because they thought the second suit could not be hearts.

[nige1]

hhoglives, on 2011-June-25, 18:35, said:

in 4th seat. partner opens 2s which is supposed to be 5s, 4 or 5 clubs or diamonds and 7-11. i alerted and explained and mentioned pd may be a little stronger since it is 4th seat. turns out part has forgotten and bid a 5/5 hearts and spades hand with maybe 8pts. anyhow is have a good 11 and raise to 4 spades which makes. lho ways he would have bid if i had alerted 5spades, 4-5 other suit. director adjusted out 620 to 500. im not mad at lho or partner. i just wondered about the ruling as i think the 2s 4s sequence stopped him from bidding. lollllll we are playing in vienna and i dont speak german so i did not get to argue the pt. i guess im a little irritated

bluejak, on 2011-June-27, 09:43, said:

I was just about to post about what the Laws tell us when ...Gordon said what I was going to! Let me put it differently: the Laws give us a default if the TD is not convinced. But if he considers the evidence such as it is is sufficient that there is no MI then he rules that way.
The other thing is that the OP is a little confusing: if I understood it correctly - someone please correct me if necessary - 2♠ was opened fourth in hand, described as spades and a minor, weak, and was actually bid on spades and hearts - and was raised to 4♠, which made. Ok, if it was ruled no MI, just a misbid, that's fine, no infraction, no redress.
But suppose the TD decided that there was MI, and it should have been described as spades and another, where's the damage? It is actually pretty difficult to see damage, unless the defence can beat it and misdefended because they thought the second suit could not be hearts.

To discuss this case properly, we need more facts, including the full deal. On the facts given, there does not seem to be MI. But If there is MI, then opponents may have a case for damage. They say they would sacrifice, with correct information. For instance, they may be keener to sacrifice in a minor if they know opener has the majors.

[hhoglives]

points the cc was filled out the way i alerted and described.
lho was 5/5 in minors and said he MIGHT have found a sac (i actually dont believe he will bid over 4s regardless as he is red.
my wife used to play 2s as 5 s, and 4-5 other. she just forgot we were playing it 5s and 4-5 of a minor.
that is all i have
thanx for answers the question is settled as far as im concerned. there is no appeal available now anyhow. lho stated to a friend that he was just trying to place higher in the little tourney we played. (we came in second and i was not happy)

[aguahombre]

hhoglives, on 2011-June-27, 21:01, said:

lho stated to a friend that he was just trying to place higher in the little tourney we played.

Ruling or no ruling.....Now I am curious. Your pard is allowed by the opponents to open in 4th chair with an extremely unbalanced 8-count. Then the vulnerable opponent who chose not to act in third seat on the previous round decides he might have tried for a 5-level sac with no participation from his partner.

Interesting and successful try to "place higher in the little tourney". Not his fault. Just excercizing his rights and finding a weak director; but I don't think I would want to play with your LHO as a partner.