[par31]

---

Club multiple teams-of-four, IMPs -> VPs

There was an agreed break in tempo by South before the pass over 4♠.

Final contract 5♣x by North, let through on a misdefence for NS+550. Director called at end of the hand by East.

What is your ruling?

[RMB1]

I assume 4♣ was natural - not ♣ and ♥.

Can you give more details of the play in 5♣ - what was the nature of the "misdefence".

[par31]

 RMB1, on 2014-December-24, 10:24, said:

I assume 4♣ was natural - not ♣ and ♥.

4♣ was natural.

Quote

Can you give more details of the play in 5♣ - what was the nature of the "misdefence".

See the diagram in the original post for the first four tricks, after which it makes easily.

[blackshoe]

Was there a serious error in the defense, unrelated to the infraction? It doesn't seem so to me. So this should be a straightforward UI ruling, I think.

• Was there a BIT?
  
• Could it have conveyed UI about South's hand?
  
• Did North choose from among LAs one which could demonstrably have been suggested by the UI?
  
• Were the opponents damaged?

Seems to me the answers are

• Yes.
  
• Yes - it suggests that South was contemplated bidding 5♣.
  
• Maybe — Is pass an LA? If so, yes, if not, then no.
  
• Yes - had 5♣ not been bid, EW would at worst have gone down 1 in 4♠

So the ruling rests on the question whether pass is an LA. If it is adjust the score to some percentage of 4♠ making averaged with some percentage of 4♠ down 1. 60/40? If pass is not an LA, result stands.

I don't know what a poll would show, but I suspect that pass may not be an LA.

[RMB1]

I am content that the UI suggests bidding over passing.

I think Pass may be a logical alternative. It is probably irrelevant but would 4NT instead of 5♣ show 6 ♣ and 5 ♦/♥?

I do not think the defence was a serious error. The error was not playing a second ♠ expecting West to have 7 (3♠ might be wild/gambling but that was before the infraction).
The double of 5♣ has a suggestion of a "double shot" - is it gambling?

If adjusting to 4♠, I would award 100% of 4♠ -1.

(If there is a Law 12C1(b) calculation to be done we would need to know the result at the other table.)

[barmar]

 RMB1, on 2014-December-24, 11:40, said:

I do not think the defence was a serious error. The error was not playing a second ♠ expecting West to have 7 (3♠ might be wild/gambling but that was before the infraction).

3♠ was at worst aggressive at this vulnerability. But as you say, it was before the infraction, so irrelevant.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2014-December-24, 11:22, said:

Was there a serious error in the defense, unrelated to the infraction? It doesn't seem so to me. So this should be a straightforward UI ruling, I think.

There's only one thing that could be considered related to the NS action, I think. The fact that North bid again suggests that he has only 1 spade, which supports the expectation that West has a normal 3♠ opening. This may have contributed to the misdefense.

[Cascade]

I do not see anything here that would be inconsistent with north thinking that south was thinking of hitting 4♠. If it is a real possibility that south has no club fit and a marginal double of 4♠ then I do not think that pulling to 5♣ could be demonstrably suggested by the hesitation.

As it is 5♣ trades a plus score for a minus score. 5♣ in an of itself caused no damage to EW. All of the damage was self-inflicted. I certainly can see an argument that 5♣ caused no damage.

As to whether this was a serious error, we would need to investigate EW's carding methods. If ♠K simply says I have the queen and passively continueing is likely to be best then a switch is a serious error and it is unrelated to the infraction.

Kaplan's booklets said something like: i/ Was there an infraction? ii/ Was there damage? iii/ Was the damage caused by the infraction?

I answer i/ Yes (counting UI) ii/ Yes iii/ No.

So no adjustment.

[blackshoe]

 RMB1, on 2014-December-24, 11:40, said:

If adjusting to 4♠, I would award 100% of 4♠ -1.

Fair enough.

[par31]

The table director ruled fairly quickly that pass was not an LA so score stands.

Discussing the ruling afterwards, we thought it seemed unusual to rule on the basis that the only LA was bidding a non-making contract over a non-making contract by the other side. At this point, it occurred to us that double might be an LA.

It's not clear to me what the correct ruling is if one decides that pass is not an LA but double is. It seems to me that the LAs are then X and 5♣. I don't see why the hesitation would suggest one of these actions over the other (South might have been thinking of bidding 5♣ or of doubling 4♠) so I think I would have ruled score stands. But I'm not sure if this is the correct view on what might be suggested by the hesitation so I'd be interested in other opinions.

[Trinidad]

 par31, on 2014-December-25, 20:12, said:

It's not clear to me what the correct ruling is if one decides that pass is not an LA but double is. It seems to me that the LAs are then X and 5♣. I don't see why the hesitation would suggest one of these actions over the other (South might have been thinking of bidding 5♣ or of doubling 4♠)...

It's unlikely that South was thinking of doubling 4♠. Forget about the actual South hand, because North could not see it during the auction when he needed to interpret the BIT. Just look at the North hand and the auction.

West opens, at adverse vulnerability, with a 3 level preempt. That sounds a lot like a 7(+) card suit. East, who is a passed hand, can not be raising on high card strength. And East is just as vulnerable as West. So, East is expected to have at least 3 spades. North is looking at 2 spades in his own hand. That means that North expects South to hold at most a singleton spade.

With a singleton or void in spades South would not think about doubling 4♠. His thinking, therefore, indicates that he considered to compete.

Rik

[jallerton]

 par31, on 2014-December-25, 20:12, said:

The table director ruled fairly quickly that pass was not an LA so score stands.

Discussing the ruling afterwards, we thought it seemed unusual to rule on the basis that the only LA was bidding a non-making contract over a non-making contract by the other side. At this point, it occurred to us that double might be an LA.

I don't think this is unusual at all. At the table, people do not always bid to the par contract or play/defend hands double dummy. Logical alternatives are assessed based on the authorised information available: (in the auction) from the player's own hand and the auction to date.

 par31, on 2014-December-25, 20:12, said:

It's not clear to me what the correct ruling is if one decides that pass is not an LA but double is. It seems to me that the LAs are then X and 5♣. I don't see why the hesitation would suggest one of these actions over the other (South might have been thinking of bidding 5♣ or of doubling 4♠) so I think I would have ruled score stands. But I'm not sure if this is the correct view on what might be suggested by the hesitation so I'd be interested in other opinions.

For a start it depends what double would mean. Some play it as strict penalties, but others will play it as general high cards/convertible values.

[Trinidad]

 jallerton, on 2014-December-26, 05:00, said:

For a start it depends what double would mean. Some play it as strict penalties, but others will play it as general high cards/convertible values.

Can you come up with a passed hand with a spade singleton or void (because that is what North will assume from his hand and the auction) that would make, or even consider, any of those doubles?

If NS can show that double would have been pure takeout then South might have considered doubling. Any other double is highly unlikely from North's point of view.

Rik

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2014-December-26, 05:22, said:

Can you come up with a passed hand with a spade singleton or void (because that is what North will assume from his hand and the auction) that would make, or even consider, any of those doubles?

x KJxxx Axxxx xx, or a similar hand with 4-6 in the red suits.

[Trinidad]

 gnasher, on 2014-December-26, 07:09, said:

x KJxxx Axxxx xx, or a similar hand with 4-6 in the red suits.

I didn't ask you.

But, indeed, if you play double as "values" / "do something intelligent partner" and you don't have an opening bid for such a hand in your toolbox then such a hand is a possibility.

The point is that if partner was thinking about a double that contains the hands that you give (or a bid) then the LA would be suggesting bidding on: South took the most passive action, but the BIT showed he was contemplating something more active.

So, either North thinks that South could have a penalty-ish double (which he is unlikely to have) or the UI points to bidding on because double wasn't penalty. Either way the UI suggests bidding on.

Rik

[gnasher]

 Trinidad, on 2014-December-26, 08:10, said:

The point is that if partner was thinking about a double that contains the hands that you give (or a bid) then the LA would be suggesting bidding on ...

Yes, I think Jeffrey was making the same point. He was responding to the comment " I don't see why the hesitation would suggest one of these actions over the other (South might have been thinking of bidding 5♣ or of doubling 4♠) so I think I would have ruled score stands."

[whereagles]

6-5 come alive. Pass is not an LA for me.

[blackshoe]

Are you a peer of the player who was at the table?

[whereagles]

No. Just the best player around.. (around my house, that is )

[blackshoe]

 whereagles, on 2015-January-01, 06:17, said:

No. Just the best player around.. (around my house, that is )

Fair enough, but the question is not whether it's an LA for you, but whether it's an LA for the player involved.