[DaveB]

---

2♦ 23+ or game force
3♦ alerted and explained as at least 5-5 in the Majors

Director is first called after dummy is faced with South complaining that there has been misinformation and that they would never have been in 6♥.
Director ruled that play should continue and that he should be called back at the end of the hand if N/S feel that they may have been damaged.

Shortly thereafter the Director is called back to the table when Declarer has made 11 tricks.

Investigation reveals that A♦ won the first trick (throwing a ♣), followed by the Q♠ covered by the K♠ and won with A♠
Thereafter ♥ were played from the top and ultimately lost the last 2 tricks.
All that was required to make the contract was to cross to dummy with one of the ♥ entries and play East for K♣

So how do you rule?

[ahydra]

What, East had the CK and the SK while West was the one overcalling a GF bid? Wow. I guess West had a genuine bucketload of diamonds.

If NS are claiming they would have stopped in game, and we believe them, then EW get -650, that much is clear. Whether we rule not trying the club finesse a serious error depends on the level of the player - but I'd expect even a lowish level club player to get this right, and it's definitely unrelated to the infraction. However that's where I get stuck... without the error the score is 1430, so NS wouldn't have been damaged - does that prevent us adjusting? Or do we take 680 (the score without the infraction and without the error) as the base point for determining "such part of the damage that was self-inflicted"?

To work out the actual score, you need to know the form of scoring, etc.

ahydra

[blackshoe]

It's certainly an error, but a serious error (within the meaning of the laws)? I don't know about that.

Even if they didn't stop in 4♥ they might have stopped in 5. What the heck was 5♠, anyway? Third round control?

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2014-May-22, 12:49, said:

It's certainly an error, but a serious error (within the meaning of the laws)? I don't know about that. Even if they didn't stop in 4♥ they might have stopped in 5. What the heck was 5♠, anyway? Third round control?

North's 3♦, 5♦, and 5♠ might be predicated on East's explanation that West is at least 5-5 in the majors. From North's point of view. East-West have a massive ♥ fit and South has twice cue-bid ♥ with a mountain. North-South tread carefully, eschewing speculative inferences, to avoid possible SEWOG traps in the auction.

[Bbradley62]

So, after Trick 3 declarer can see that there is a 50% line of play to make this contract, and he chose something else? He knows at that point that the explanation he was given of 3♦ does not at all match the hand West holds (regardless of whether it was a misexplanation or a misbid). And he tried for what, the drop of ♣K? He deserves his bottom board, even if he is a beginner.

[blackshoe]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-May-22, 15:23, said:

So, after Trick 3 declarer can see that there is a 50% line of play to make this contract, and he chose something else? He knows at that point that the explanation he was given of 3♦ does not at all match the hand West holds (regardless of whether it was a misexplanation or a misbid). And he tried for what, the drop of ♣K? He deserves his bottom board, even if he is a beginner.

He may "deserve" it in some sense, but it is only the legal sense with which we are concerned here.

[gnasher]

 nige1, on 2014-May-22, 14:55, said:

North-South tread carefully, avoiding speculative inferences, to avoid possible SEWOG traps in the auction.

The way to avoid a "SEWOG trap" is to not make a serious error, and not to take an unsuccessful wild or gambling action. That's a good idea in all situations.

[Trinidad]

What is a serious error depends on South's level.

If you have precisely one reasonable way to make your contract, and it relies on you being able to:
- take a finesse
- recognize that you have the necessary entry to dummy

then I would say that not taking that chance is a serious error for every player for whom taking a finesse and recognizing the entry is an absolutely normal play.

So, unless South just came out of the bridge course, I would rule this a serious error. And I am very hesitant in calling serious errors.

So South can pick his poison: Either I rule it a serious error, or I label him a rank beginner (which will work against him e.g. the next time when he claims).

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

Is it totally ridiculous for declarer to decide (wrongly in this case) that for this W to have bid 3♦ here, he needed ♦ KQJ and a black K, so for 6♥ to be makable, he has to finesse the K♠ and then find the K♣ singleton or doubleton.

[StevenG]

Is this just a club game? What standard is declarer? I've seen countless hands played like this by life novices.
1) They pull trumps without attempting to calculate what happens next.
2) They don't see that the 10 is an entry.
If they draw trumps in three rounds, and by chance end up in dummy, they'll take the finesse and make the contract, but they won't even have realised they need the finesse until that stage.

I have to assume that declarer is a very poor player, otherwise the play of the hand is incomprehensible. Therefore I'm very reluctant to say it's a serious error, without knowing a lot more.

[hotShot]

After the ♦ lead it should be obvious to a declarer of any level that there are only 4♥ left of Wests 5-5 in the majors. (And strange enough East gave preference for ♥.)

Perhaps it is more likely that West hast long ♦, but couldn't West also hold 5-5 in ♠ and ♣ or ♠ and ♦ or even both minors? If someone messes up his 2 suits bids anything is possible.
After finding the ♠K with East doesn't it get more likely that West has the ♣ K , even with long ♦ we expect a little more than ♦KQJ.
There is no risk in running the ♥ twice to see what the real distribution is.

Playing the 3rd round of ♥ (when the entry is needed to finesse East for the ♣K) is careless if the ♥ were split 3-1 if I assume the player would be intermediate on BBO.

[DaveB]

OK - a bit more information as it may be relevant.

The event was a local inter-club team of 8 competition.
So the players would have been selected to represent their club.
They were NOT novices and knew sufficient to summon the director after misinformation.
They may however have been inexperienced enough to find the incident "disconcerting".

On the first round of Hearts West discards a Diamond.

[barmar]

 DaveB, on 2014-May-23, 04:59, said:

They may however have been inexperienced enough to find the incident "disconcerting".

That's what I was thinking happened -- he got confused and flustered by the MI, and forgot how to play bridge. Something like that happened to me a couple of weeks ago -- I made a mistake on trick 2, and got myself so confused that I proceeded to throw away trick after trick. This was self-inflicted, but a similar psychological problem.

However, is being "disconcerted" the type of thing the lawmakers had in mind when the specified that the SEWOG must be related to the infraction to absolve you? I think not, because most infractions will have such effects. I think they meant that it has to be related in a bridge sense. If the MI said that LHO promises a certain number of HCP, and you've determined that he has to have the ♣K to achieve that, playing for the drop instead of finesse is related to the MI. But just getting confused and messing up your communications is not.

[blackshoe]

The EBU White Book has this to say about "serious errors":

Quote

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:

• Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).
  
• Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing so.
  
• An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’: Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.

• Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in ruling a contested claim.
  
• Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously not the percentage line.
  
• Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.

Although the laws themselves do not mention "class of player' in connection with this, it does seem prudent to consider it. Also, in this particular case, would we rule in a contested claim that declarer's line was "'normal', albeit careless or inferior"? If so, says the WB, we should not call it a "serious error".

[barmar]

I find that last bullet point strange. Playing for an opponent to have a 14-card hand is just careless/inferior, not a serious error?

But I get the general point. Poor play, even very poor play, is not a SE. You pretty much have to forget how to play for it to be considered a SE.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-May-24, 21:03, said:

I find that last bullet point strange. Playing for an opponent to have a 14-card hand is just careless/inferior, not a serious error?

But I get the general point. Poor play, even very poor play, is not a SE. You pretty much have to forget how to play for it to be considered a SE.

Note the bit about "detailed analysis". I think the idea is that a hurried or incomplete analysis is merely careless, not a serious error.

[barmar]

Ahh, I misunderstood it. I thought they were saying that you did the detailed analysis, yet still played for that impossible layout. What they're actually saying is that failing to do the detailed analysis is a normal error, not a serious error.

[blackshoe]

 barmar, on 2014-May-24, 21:30, said:

Ahh, I misunderstood it. I thought they were saying that you did the detailed analysis, yet still played for that impossible layout. What they're actually saying is that failing to do the detailed analysis is a normal error, not a serious error.

Yep.