[dickiegera]

---

This was played last Friday

3♥ was explained as weak by East when North asked before bidding 3♠.
4♠ was down 1.

I was sitting North and after play was over and seeing that West had 11 points called for
director. I told director that we were misinformed. South said that she would not have bid 4♠
if she knew that 3♥ was not weak. I probably would still have bid 3♠ knowing that we had a 9 card fit.

At our partners table they got to play it in 3♥ making. Should have been down 1.
Director took it under consideration and ruled the contract was 3♠ making 3. Plus 140
This board decided the match.

Now {Tuesday}it is being said that the 4♠ should have been the final contract. Down one.
It is too late to change it now however

What is correct.
Thank you

[barmar]

What is EW's actual agrement about the 3♥ call? We need to know if you were misinformed.

If the actual agreement is that it's invitational, we need to see South's hand, to decide whether we believe that he would have passed 3♠.

But I wonder if the overbid can actually be blamed on the misinformation. Even knowing that West is weak, he doesn't know how strong East is (he's only limited by not starting with a double, but that's still a pretty wide range). Does the strength of West's hand change whether North's 3♠ is merely competitive or invitational?

[sfi]

 barmar, on 2011-October-26, 17:53, said:

Does the strength of West's hand change whether North's 3♠ is merely competitive or invitational?

Sure - the number of points available for North and East to hold increases. North might still have been under pressure to compete with a minimum, but it makes it more likely that partner has extra values.

[dickiegera]

 barmar, on 2011-October-26, 17:53, said:

What is EW's actual agrement about the 3♥ call? We need to know if you were misinformed.

If the actual agreement is that it's invitational, we need to see South's hand, to decide whether we believe that he would have passed 3♠.

But I wonder if the overbid can actually be blamed on the misinformation. Even knowing that West is weak, he doesn't know how strong East is (he's only limited by not starting with a double, but that's still a pretty wide range). Does the strength of West's hand change whether North's 3♠ is merely competitive or invitational?

[dickiegera]

Their cc both indicated that a jump is weak and when North asked East to explain East said it was weak. I, north, knew partner had 5♠ and I having 4♠ and 14 high card points and not white against red had no problem bidding 3♠ . I have forgotten the actual hand or I would have posted them.

I do remember saying that I would have doubled 4♥ if they would have bid 4♥

Thank you

[aguahombre]

 dickiegera, on 2011-October-26, 16:49, said:

---

Now {Tuesday}it is being said that the 4♠ should have been the final contract. Down one.
It is too late to change it now however

What is correct.
Thank you

Both are correct; 4♠ should have been the final contract, and it is too late to change it. There was no misinformation; their agreement, per both cc's was "weak". Their agreement was disclosed.

[bluejak]

First of all, it is only too late if it is outside the Correction Period. Not everyone leaves it unchanged from the default in the Law book.

Second, before we just assume it is weak because the SCs say so [and a lot of SCs are written by one member of the partnership, so I am never too impressed that SCs agree] I would ask West why he bid 3♥ and what he considered the correct 'system bid' to be. If he answers that he considers 3♥ the correct system bid and that is why he bid it I think there must be doubt about how this pair plays it.

[aguahombre]

Let's see. This is a forum question.

OP says it is too late for correction, but we are told not to necessarily believe him.

We are given that both cc's explain the bid the same way the player explained it, but we are told this isn't good enough to answer a forum question on "simple rulings". If we are never to rely on the evidence as presented, we should never offer an opinion on what the ruling should be.

[blackshoe]

If by "forum question" you mean "a question posed on a forum", that's fine, but I fail to see what difference it makes. If you mean something else, pray explain yourself.


The OP said it's too late. To the best of my recollection though, he is a player who, from previous posting, may not be aware of what correction period has been established at his club (and this may not even be his regular club). It is true that the default correction period ends 30 minutes after the scores are posted; it is also true that many clubs, often informally, establish a different correction period (for example, until the beginning of next week's session).

All that said, I would tend to go with "it's too late" unless told otherwise by someone in the know. That said, the point is that it may or may not actually be too late, but that in itself does not affect discussion of whether the original ruling was correct.

I too would be interested to know more of the alleged offending side's agreement. "Points shmoints", but 11 highs is a bit much for "weak" imo.

All things considered, I would ask dickie who is saying it should have been changed, and why. The TD? West? J. Random NoseyBugger?

On the evidence in the OP, I would say that either the reportage is incomplete, or the director did not investigate very thoroughly, or both. If it is the TD who is now saying the original ruling was incorrect, then it sounds like somebody convinced him of that privately after the match. That's not a good way to do business. I would at least have gone back to the table NS with the later arguments, to see how/if they refute them.

In answer to the question posed in the OP ("what is correct.") I reply "insufficient data".

[bluejak]

 aguahombre, on 2011-October-26, 20:17, said:

Let's see. This is a forum question.

OP says it is too late for correction, but we are told not to necessarily believe him.

We are given that both cc's explain the bid the same way the player explained it, but we are told this isn't good enough to answer a forum question on "simple rulings". If we are never to rely on the evidence as presented, we should never offer an opinion on what the ruling should be.

The forum question was quite clearly presented by someone who was not sure and was seeking advice. So I offered advice.

We can always offer opinions. I and others do try to make the opinions helpful. If we are offered inadequate evidence, it is helpful to explain that it is inadequate and why it is inadequate. Relying on two SCs without asking relevant questions is often inadequate and I have explained that.

The OP sounded unsure as to whether it was out of time. So I helped with a comment which might or might not be relevant. I am willing to bet there are some people who read this who believe the Correction Period ends thirty minutes after the end of the session, which is not right, or thirty minutes after the scores are posted, which is often wrong. It is wrong for every EBU event, for example. Does everyone here know that?

Look at the last question I posted: the replies have pointed out a lack of information, which I sadly cannot remedy, and some opinions based on what they think happened or what might have happened given certain circumstances. Do you think none of those answers should have been made?

When the SC and the call made do not agree, it is vital that the player is asked why he made the call. Nothing in the OP tells us whether the question was asked nor what the answer was if it was asked.

I am not criticising the OP, but giving an inadequate answer on insufficient evidence may not be the most helpful thing to do.

[dickiegera]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-27, 07:32, said:

The forum question was quite clearly presented by someone who was not sure and was seeking advice. So I offered advice.

We can always offer opinions. I and others do try to make the opinions helpful. If we are offered inadequate evidence, it is helpful to explain that it is inadequate and why it is inadequate. Relying on two SCs without asking relevant questions is often inadequate and I have explained that.

The OP sounded unsure as to whether it was out of time. So I helped with a comment which might or might not be relevant. I am willing to bet there are some people who read this who believe the Correction Period ends thirty minutes after the end of the session, which is not right, or thirty minutes after the scores are posted, which is often wrong. It is wrong for every EBU event, for example. Does everyone here know that?

Look at the last question I posted: the replies have pointed out a lack of information, which I sadly cannot remedy, and some opinions based on what they think happened or what might have happened given certain circumstances. Do you think none of those answers should have been made?

When the SC and the call made do not agree, it is vital that the player is asked why he made the call. Nothing in the OP tells us whether the question was asked nor what the answer was if it was asked.

I am not criticising the OP, but giving an inadequate answer on insufficient evidence may not be the most helpful thing to do.

It was outside the the correction period.
However I would like to know if the director's were correct their ruling of rolling the contract back to 3♠ making 3. I was told by the captain of the other team that it was not proper.
He said it gave our team 2 shot at getting a good score.

West indicated that he forgot when bidding 3♥ and would have bid 4♥ over my 3♠
if North had not bid 4♠. 3 ♥ made at the other table, should have been down 1.
4♥ would have been down 2 vunerable [-200] if not doubled.
I just wish to know what is correct for the future

[wyman]

If partner were to pass 3S, W has a snowball's chance in hell of being allowed to have his 4H call stand after E explained 3H as weak.

edit: W is, however, allowed to forget their agreement. You were not misinformed, and 4S-1 is probably the correct ruling.

[blackshoe]

I would suggest that the next time the captain of the other team tells you a ruling by the director was incorrect, you should tell him to take it up with that director. He does, after all, have the right to appeal. Alternatively, ask him to read you the correct ruling from the law book.

Wyman's statement about snowballs is only true in the event that 4♥ damages the other side. If 4♥ goes down 2, giving the other side (who would have been down 1 in 4♠) a good score, that score should stand.

[wyman]

 blackshoe, on 2011-October-27, 14:19, said:

Wyman's statement about snowballs is only true in the event that 4♥ damages the other side.

Correct, of course. Thanks for the addendum.

[barmar]

If the two players differ in their explanation of the partnership agreement, the CC is often used as evidence to break the tie. There's not much else for the TD to go on.

There are occasional exceptions, such as the other partner saying something like "Don't you remember, we discussed last week that we were changing that?". But even then, you'd like to hear a response like "Yeah, I forgot to update the cards." Without corroboration, I'm generally going to believe the explanation that's consistent with the CC's.

[mycroft]

As always, people "misunderstand" the doubleshot, and it's legality. You are absolutely allowed to find out if their unlawfully bid contract is a good score for you before finding out whether you were damaged by the UI or MI. What you can't do is decide that you have received MI, and fail to clear it up because you want them to be confused, and then complain that you were damaged by the explanation (which you knew/expected/strongly suspected was wrong) later.

So, like all the above, the other team's captain's argument doesn't wash in the Law, and he should be asking the TD about the ruling/preparing to appeal (the captain has that right, even if not at his table). Like all the above, however, it looks like (from the evidence available) you were *not* misinformed about their agreement. "You are entitled to know what they play, not the contents of their hands." *Usually*, when they forget their agreements, they get a bad score. Rarely, they don't - and when they don't, there is nothing in the Laws that allows a adjustment (barring things like "well, they forget it a lot", or "partner's audible gasp made it clear that he misbid", or "regulations are in place for this high-level event that state that players should know their agreements in the first round of an auction", or ...)

So, *if* it is the TD's belief that their agreement about the jump-raise was "weak", and you were told it was "weak", the fact that they didn't have a weak hand is not a problem - unless West bids again with his minimum limit raise, "knowing" he's stronger than he claimed. 4♠-1 it is, just like the other captain said, for totally different reasons.

Having said *that*, this all has to go through the TD - who is the only one that can change a ruling (okay, so can an appeal committee/DIC, but you still have to talk to the TD to get an AC/DIC).

[bluejak]

Of course we take two SCs that agree as strong evidence. But not such strong evidence that we do not ask questions: before ruling we find out all the evidence possible.

Now we know that there apparently was no MI the ruling was wrong: the table score should have remained because there was no infraction.

 dickiegera, on 2011-October-27, 14:02, said:

However I would like to know if the director's were correct their ruling of rolling the contract back to 3♠ making 3. I was told by the captain of the other team that it was not proper.
He said it gave our team 2 shot at getting a good score.

Their captain is not correct. If he wants you never to have two chances of a good score then he must make sure his team plays to the rules. The so-called double shot is legal in bridge except when the Laws say otherwise, and that is actually quite rare. Non-offending players who take wild or gambling action after the infraction do lose some redress, and players who know they are misinformed but pretend they do not know will often lose redress. But in most situations the double shot is legal.

In this case the ruling was wrong because there was no MI. But suppose there had been MI [suppose the TD found out they should have told you 3♥ was stronger] then the ruling would have been correct, and asking for the ruling at the end of the hand would be normal and legal.