Lack of alert - mock appeal
The hands:
A 5
Q 7 6 3 2
J 9 8 7 5 4
-
K J T 7 6 4 Q 9 3
A T 5 J 9 8
void K Q 6
A Q 5 4 J T 7 3
8 2
K 4
A T 3 2
K 9 8 6 2
The bidding:
W N E S
- - P P
1S P 2S 3C
3D* P 3S P
4S
* Not alerted. No system cards.
Lead H2
Table result 4S by W +1= -650
The Director who normally officiates was away, I was playing but was not the official director.
At the end of play I was called to the table, South complaining of damage and asking my opinion.
I said that I would take a closer look later, after seeing the hands and results at other tables.
I found out afterwards, when the scores were received, that the same contract was played at six other tables, results being 4S = at two and 4S +1 at five including the above. At no table was the contract of 4S by West defeated; the only positive score for N/S was +110 at one table. Based on this I opined that if I were to give a ruling I would award a weighted score, maybe 50/50 for 4S= and 4S+1. This would, incidentally, make no difference to the ranking for NS.
Let's imagine that N/S appeal. At the appeal hearing N says (as he in fact said to me later) that after his partner's HK was taken by the Ace West led a trump, he (N) took the Ace and, believing West's 3D call to be a help suit try, which is what would normally be the case in this situation, placed him with four diamonds which, together with the six in his hand and three in dummy, left his partner with a void. So he played a diamond for his partner to ruff and return a club for a ruff by himself, and was disagreeably surprised when S played the Ace and West trumped. North maintains that if the 3D bid had been alerted/explained as control showing he would have cashed his HQ and played another H which his partner would ruff and return a club for him (N) to ruff, knowing N to be void in clubs since he had not led a club given South's 3C bid. The result would then be one down.
Does this case interest any of you for a reaction? If so, how would you decide on the appeal?
Comments
Reformatted for readability:
A 5 Q 7 6 3 2 J 9 8 7 5 4 - K J T 7 6 4 Q 9 3 A T 5 J 9 8 - K Q 6 A Q 5 4 J T 7 3 8 2 K 4 A T 3 2 K 9 8 6 2 W N E S P P 1S P 2S 3C 3D¹ P 3S P ¹ Not alerted. 4S Lead H2; Table result 4S W +1 = -650You can force the forum to interpret what you write literally, with a fixed-width font, by starting each line with four spaces.
You and I were both fiddling with it at the same time! Hopefully others will gain from your helpful tip.
As for the ruling:
W is declarer, so should have pointed out that E failed to alert before the opening lead. If W had done so, there'd be no problem here, as the misinformation only had an effect later on in the hand. As W didn't, the relevant law is 47E2b, allowing the Director to adjust the score when a player has made a play while misinformed and another card was played subsequently.
North's (hypothetical) statement that "I wouldn't have lead a diamond if I were informed correctly" is entirely reasonable. A help suit try wouldn't necessarily show 4 cards (3 is pretty common), so North's reasoning is fairly dubious as-is, but it's reasonable to believe that an unalerted game try is a shape-showing try (which would often show 4 cards), as that's the only sort of game try that's entirely natural. In any case, if East had alerted the bid as "short, maybe a void", North would not be looking for a ruff in diamonds and might think twice about trying to hit an Ace.
That said, it's far from guaranteed that North's alternative to a diamond would be heart, heart ruff, club ruff. If N/S can prove an agreement that they never lead a 2 in a side suit when partner has bid a suit, the club ruff would be automatic, but I somehow suspect that they don't have such an agreement. North probably won't play a low trump after taking the Ace, so the first heart, at least, is obvious once you decide that North isn't playing a diamond. It would be helpful to learn how South would follow to North's hearts from an original holding of K54 or KT4; if the cards would be played top-to-bottom in N/S's signalling system, then North knows that South is void upon seeing the 4, but if K45/K4T would be the agreed order, North has to worry about a potential heart void in declarer's hand (and given that North doesn't know that declarer is void in diamonds – only short – North might well try to cash the likely diamond Ace in partner's hand rather than ruffing a heart there). So to work out the likely result in the absence of misinformation, you would probably need a poll. (One problem with just taking a player's word is that players have more information when discussing the hand afterwards than they would have done at the time, which often subconsciously biases them when they're thinking about what they would have done in the situation.)
It looks just fine for me, but it wouldn't surprise me if it looked different depending on what browser and/or operating system you were using.
Yes: "here" included on this browser/OS/computer. ... and user (as by fellow TDs would add :))
Just being slightly pedantic: You haven't stated what the 3D bid means in their system. If E and W are both adamant that the bid is a standard trial bid and that W just got it wrong then there is no MI and hence no damage.
Not having system cards doesn't mean anything, but having them might tip the balance in favour of misbid rather than MI if there is disagreement between the opponents as to their system.
If you have the lead data available, that may well prove useful. If I'm not mistaken, a diamond lead is straight 11 tricks and a trump lead probably 10. We can't readily compare that to the situation where a heat has been led.
My first reaction was that you would probably adjust to 4S-1, but then I read the summary by ais523 and I'm not so sure anymore. Polling players would help, a weighted ruling is likely but probably should include some percentage of 4S -1
Thanks for doing this.
Shouldn't we be considering ruling this back to 3S anyway under UI not MI? West makes a game-try and East signs off - and then West accepts his own game try. - Does the failure to alert make any difference? "I was always going to bid 4S"
We don't know what EW's agreement was for 3D.
That's the problem!
Its not a problem for a ruling on unauthorised information. We can ask West what he intended by 3D - assuming he intended 3D as artificial then the lack of alert gives him unauthorised information that the intended meaning has not been understood, which suggests over-ruling the sign-off in 3S.
I suspect that he simply wanted to make a forcing bid and that he was always going to game, which he should probably just bid straight off or splinter in 4D if he really wants some useful information, although I'm not sure what his partner can tell him.
I did a poll on bridgewinners for the opening lead. Out of 17 respondents, 10 lead diamonds, 5 lead hearts and 2 the spade ace.
Surely the hand is not worth a slam try opposite a single raise. I would just make a Landy game try, i.e. bid game and try to make it, but the fact that this player bid 3 !d logically means one of two things:
(a) he undervalued the hand and thought he was making a game try; or
(b) he overvalued the hand and thought he was making a control bid with a view to trying for slam.
If (a) there is no reason for him to overrule partner's sign-off, apart from the lack of alert, so my inclination would be to adjust to 3 !s making some number of tricks, perhaps weighted.
If (b) there is presumably no logical alternative but to continuing over the sign-off, so no basis for adjusting for UI.
You would ask the player what he had in mind when he bid 3 !d , although you should treat his answer with a healthy degree of scepticism.
It's slightly surprising that E didn't accept if he thought 3 !d was a help suit game try. Perhaps he knew it was shortage but forgot to alert or thought that it wasn't alertable. Or perhaps W always overbids because E always underbids.
And don't forget the warning (at least) for not correcting the MI before the opening lead.
Very useful, on that basis the pair in the appeal seem to already be ahead of most of the field, so it's not so relevant that nobody else beat 4S, they were well placed to do so. We also have to consider AbbeyBear's argument about UI, these are always complicated hands that way.