Double-shot
The bidding goes:
1H by South
1S by West
4H by North
Pause and Pass by East (BIT admitted)
Pass by South
4S by West
5H by North
South calls the Director to reserve rights against the BIT by East.
Not sure whether South called the Director before his partner had bid 5H, simultaneously or after. But 5H was on the table when the Director got there. So it would appear that N/S are looking to eat their cake and have it too.
One would imagine that this would not be allowed.
However, while reading an ACBL Casebook I came across items very similar to the above, where not only did the Director give a ruling after the game was over but appeals were also admitted.
What would the correct procedure be?
Is there a difference between treatment of such cases in different regimes?
Comments
This is what Law 12C1e was intended to deal with, but whether or not it applies in this particular case depends on facts that we don't know. Note though that if redress were denied for NS under this law, EW would still be subject to an adjustment if the 4S bid was deemed to be contrary to Law 16B.
Alan
Break in tempo
"Pause and Pass by East (BIT admitted)"
I assume that this break in tempo was significantly longer than the 10 seconds that East is required to pause for after a jump bid.
"Not sure whether South called the Director before his partner had bid 5H, simultaneously or after. But 5H was on the table when the Director got there."
It doesn't matter when South summoned the Director, nor when he arrived.
"So it would appear that N/S are looking to eat their cake and have it too.
One would imagine that this would not be allowed."
Provided that North's 5H bid has some element of reasonableness about it, there is absolutely no reason why N/S should not have their cake and eat it, or rather, have two bites of the cherry. I often get people saying (in cases of UI, and the possessor of the UI taking an action that may be found to be disallowed) that the NOS (non-offending side) should not be allowed to choose later whether they want an adjustment depending on whether they got a good score in which case they don't call the TD back, or whether they got a bad score and do call the TD back. But if this were so, it would be very unfair to the NOS.
In the OP auction, although, as Gordon says, we don't know all the facts, particularly what North actually holds, and while it is conceivable that we might consider North's 5H to be "gambling", I would suggest that a 5H bid is far less likely to be considered as "gambling" than a double.
Doubling is the flexible action here. If 4SX makes or scores less well than South playing in 4H, we ask the TD for a ruling. If 4SX goes enough off, we don't ask for a ruling. This would be how North looks for two bites of the cherry. And if North doubles and then asks for a ruling, this is when we would look to check that the double is semi-reasonable and not "gambling"
The 5H bid is far less likely to be "gambling". North has given up an option of seeing what might happen in defending a spade contract
"However, while reading an ACBL Casebook I came across items very similar to the above, where not only did the Director give a ruling after the game was over but appeals were also admitted."
The way you have worded this makes it look as if you think that the TD should give a ruling during the auction or play, but I am sure that this is not what you intended. Of course appeals must be permitted as per Law 92.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Over the years I have often heard something along the lines of "The double shot is not permitted". There has never been such a law in Bridge. What there have been and still are are laws limiting certain types of double shot, but the standard reserving rights is not just legal but appears in the laws. Currently the only limit on a double shot is applied by L12C1E.
The term BIT came into use because UI can be transmitted by a long pause, often referred to as a hesitation, but also by an overly quick call. So the term BIT was coined to cover both possibilities. In fact hesitation is really a misnomer but it is in such common use we cannot get away from it.
I don't see how this is a double shot, because 5!h can't possibly score better than 4!h. It's a probable attempt at a single shot (at 4!h). A double shot is basically trying two things to see which is better (e.g. doubling 4!s would give a double shot at 4!sX and 4!h), on the basis that you call the TD to claim you were harmed if your second shot fails, and keep the result if it works. In this particular case, if E/W benefited from the break in tempo (and the other conditions required for UI to be adjustable are met, i.e. passing was a logical alternative to 4!s and the tempo demonstrably suggested that 4!s might work better than pass), you get the result for 4!h no matter what, so it isn't a double shot; there's no second shot to be taking.
That said, double shot attempts are not inherently illegal anyway (and don't redress the right to an adjusted score if they're sufficiently reasonable).
Thanks for your detailed response.
No, I was not suggesting that the TD should give a ruling during the auction or play. I had believed that if a player takes two bites of the cherry he loses the right to seek redress, so the TD does not have to give a ruling at all, he just lets the table result stand. Then no ruling, no appeal.
My (mis)understanding was based on the White Book item 4.1.1.3, where it states 'This is known as the double shot, permitted in many sports but not acceptable in bridge'. I interpreted 'not acceptable' to mean 'if you try it and it doesn't work don't come to me for redress'.
Does a 'double shot' only have to arise from a gambling action? Can it not take the form of a call over the questionable call as in the case described in the OP?
You bid 5H over the questionable 4S by your RHO. If your 5H makes you keep the score and move on, if it goes down 1 you call the TD and point a finger at the 4S bid. Not two bites of the cherry?
< Does a 'double shot' only have to arise from a gambling action? Can it not take the form of a call over the questionable call as in the case described in the OP?
The laws changed in 2017 and the new 12C1e states
If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own
damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling
action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:
(i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the
consequence of rectifying its infraction.
(ii) The non-offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is selfinflicted.
The key point here is that the type of (disallowed) gambling is more clearly defined than in the 2007 laws.
I can't really see how a double shot can arise other than with a gambling action. Players still have to 'play bridge' - taking an anti-percentage action in the hope that it would come off e.g. a speculative double, knowing that you can be rescued by the TD disallowing the opponents' previous action, is a double shot.
All actions in bridge are pretty-well gambling - you are gambling that the action you take will lead to a better result than any different action. If you bid 4 !s over a questionable 4 !h because you have a reasonable expectation that the course of action will result in a better score than defending 4 !h then that is a gamble (and allowable). If you bid 4 !s because if it doesn't work you will have succor then that is proscribed. (or rather you keep your bad score, opponents lose their good score).
IMHO I think that the double shot occurs far more often than is actually ruled. Many a player must have thought in a competitive auction "I'll bid a borderline game and if that doesn't work then I'll call the TD over the pause". There are no firm rules, but I would be suspect if two players had limited their hands/ did not have extras and then progressed.
"You bid 5H over the questionable 4S by your RHO. If your 5H makes you keep the score and move on, if it goes down 1 you call the TD and point a finger at the 4S bid. Not two bites of the cherry?"
Indeed it is two bites of the cherry, but I often say to folks that it's an urban myth that you can't have two bites of the cherry.
" .... so the TD does not have to give a ruling at all, he just lets the table result stand."
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" (from the song Free Will by Rush)
To let the table result stand is still to give a ruling.
The critical thing to all this is how reasonable was the action over the questionable action. The first example in White Book 4.1.1.3 refers to the double over the questionable bid as "ridiculous". What is important for the NOS is to continue to play reasonable bridge. If the NOS can show that their subsequent actions have some element of reasonableness, they should not be ruled as having taken a "gambling" action, and their right to two bites of the cherry should not be lost.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
@SDN said:
No. Because you get exactly the same result whether you call the director later or immediately. Here are the four situations:
1. 5!h makes. The director, if called, would agree that the contract needed to be reset to 4!h.
2. 5!h doesn't make. The director, if called, would agree that the contract needed to be reset to 4!h.
3. 5!h makes. The director would not adjust the contract if called.
4. 5!h doesn't make. The director would not adjust the contract if called.
Suppose you have a strategy of "call the director only if 5!h goes down". This will give you the score for 5!h making in scenarios 1 and 3, 4!h making in scenario 2, 5!h going down in scenario 4.
Suppose you have a strategy of "call the director immediately". This will give you the score for 5!h making in scenario 3, 4!h making +1 in scenario 1, 4!h making in scenario 2, and (assuming you bid 5!h after the director refuses to adjust the contract) 5!h going down in scenario 4.
See what's happened here? Regardless of whether you call the director immediately or not, you get the same score, because 4!h and 5!h score the same number of points when you get the same number of tricks.
A double shot would only occur if the second shot is in a strain that plays or scores differently from the first (e.g. putting the opponents in doubled, or changing the suit).
Please bear with me if I sound dense, but I am looking at a scenario where the 5H bid is not gambling, it is a close estimate by North that either 5H will make or if it goes down it would be a profitable sacrifice against 4S which may be making. The kind of situation that occurs very frequently, except that in this case the opposing bid of 4S is questionable.
So if 5H makes N/S would not call the TD at the end of play.
If 5H goes down one then there are two potential scenarios, both assuming that the 4S bid is ruled as being based on the BIT by East:
5H down 1 while 4S would have made,
5H down 1 while 4S would also have been down 1.
Should we adjust the contract to 4H by S making in both cases? Because if 4S is going down then N/S would have converted a plus score into a minus with their 5H bid.
You have to gamble as to whether to sacrifice over 4!s or not, but you're put into that situation by the infraction. If 4!s had never been bid you'd just play in 4!h with no issues. As a result, the only reason you have to take a guess over 4!s is due to the 4!s bid in the first place.
Not sacrificing over 4!s would be just as much of a gamble (in fact, probably a bigger one). So because the opponent's bid has placed you in a situation where you have to guess either way, you're not taking a double-shot by taking the guess which puts you back, in the best case, to where you would have been without the suspected infraction.
And yes, the director will adjust the contract to 4!h making in both cases (assuming they believe an adjustment is warranted at all). After 4!s has been overcalled, it is no longer a possible outcome. A double-shot would be passing 4!s, because then the outcome in 4!s is relevant. But if you're bidding on, then 4!s can never happen in any scenario; the only possible contracts are 5!h (the contract bid at the table), and 4!h (the contract that would be produced with the 4!s bid disallowed).
Thanks.
We are in the process of updating the White Book on this whole area; this is helpful to point out that the section could be understand in more than one way.
If you are looking to amend the wording of this section then you may also wish to consider giving examples of what is or is not a double-shot.