Mistaken explanation Law 75B
South opens 2D and it is alerted as Multi by North . N bids 2nt ( asking point range and suit ) S bids 3D ( 8-9 showing Sp) but
this time N alerts as 6-7 hcp and Heart. and bids 3H . S gets furious and bids 4Sp then all Passes. 4Sp= , and at most of the other tables score = 3Sp+1 . Td is called.
in N-S 's convention card 3D= 6c Sp 8-9
since 3D is alerted as H and 6-7 hcp it is mistaken explanation In this case ;
A) what does S have to bid ?
a) pass to 3H
b) 3SP or 4SP
B) According to Law 75 B3 S has used the unauthorised information ( Law 16) and corrected 3H to 4Sp .
a) İs N to carry on bidding as if his partner has void in Sp and is asking EKCB ? ( Contract is played 5 or 6H ?) b) N can pass to 4Sp because he uses his logic or he remembers that 3D indicates Sp not H ( in this case does TD adjust the score acording to 5H ? )
Comments
What happens after S's illegal 4!s bid is pretty much immaterial (unless the opponents happen to get a better result than they would have without the infraction, which clearly hasn't happened here). In particular, your questions in the box at the bottom are irrelevant; assuming the "furiousness" wasn't visible at the table, North doesn't have unauthorised information (it's South that has unauthorised information), so North can do what they like, but it's immaterial because the situation shouldn't have come up in the first place.
To work out an adjustment, we need to project what would have happened instead of the 4!s bid. This is, out of the actions that are logical given S's hand, the one that's least suggested (most counter-suggested) by N's incorrect explanation. Passing 3!h may well be logical, unless S is very short in hearts (it's easy to imagine N bidding that way with a weak hand with many hearts). Raising 3!h to 4!h may also be logical if S has a better heart holding than expected. In this scenario, I don't see N/S going above 4!h (but E/W may well have doubled, depending on their hands; S can't pull due to the UI, N has no information with which to pull).
If S "being furious" is unauthorised information available to N, then you need to work out what 4!s would have meant systemically (if anything), and what bids would be logical with the N hand in that situation. For example, if N/S are playing Exclusion and 4!s would logically be Exclusion in that sequence, it makes sense to treat the correct Exclusion answer as a logical alternative. As a side note, N isn't allowed to use UI as a reminder of the bidding system, so if S's furiousness is what prompts N to realise there's been a system mistake, N has to call the director (due to having misexplained), and then nonetheless bid as though there hasn't been one (unless there are no logical explanations for the bidding so far other than a bidding mistake).
You'd probably need to look at the hands to get a more detailed answer than that (e.g. as to whether E/W would have doubled various contracts, and as to what actions are logical for N and/or S).
Could 3 !d also have shown a strong hand with diamonds? It may have some relevance to the meaning of 3 !h in this sequence as it might be a relay.
If it is a relay, then if South bids 3 !s as it seems he should, North (who has got the HCP range wrong as well as the suit wrong) might well not raise to 4 !s
If 3 !d can't show a strong hand (as you seem to suggest), and if 3 !h would not be a relay in this sequence, what would 3 !h mean, given that North has already bid 2NT?
Re. your later questions, 4 !s can't possibly be Exclusion Key Card Blackwood and must signify that a wheel has come off and that South has almost certainly used UI to bid the !s which should wake North up, even without the added fury!
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
To make it simple , under the following conditions If you were a Td and summited to the table what would be your rulling ?
Conditons they you , as TD , are aware of
Facts ;
a) Both of the oppenents are silent throughout the contract
b) N 's explanation is inncorrect
c) N-S had the best score (4Sp= )
d) N's bid of 2nt is 14+ and he has only 2cs in Hearts but 3cs in Spades
e) 2D Multi and after 2nt 3D = 6c Sp with 8-9 hcp it is alerted as 6-7 and Hearts
a) After N ' inncorrect explanation does S have the right to correct 3H to 4Sp ( even to 3Spd) based on their system ( in this case is S in the position to have used unauthorised information ?
if not , when N passes to 4sp ,as TD , will you assume that N has made an infraction as well ? ( Should N go on bidding as if S ' bid were an EKCB over H contract)
b) if you agree that S has not the right to correct N's bid what will be your decision on rulling ?
( assumed that the contract has been played 3H and consecuently a score adjustment is in need of )
or what else ?
c) should S or N call the director ? If you say "yes" when and who should do it , In this case how will the contract proceed ? ( does law 20 apply here ? and waht would be your decision ?)
If 2NT guarantees 14+, that's relevant information that wasn't mentioned earlier, as depending on South's hand, it may make Pass not a logical alternative.
If you want a ruling here, you're going to have to show the hands (and may have to poll people on them). It isn't legal to make a bid suggested over a logical alternative by unauthorised information, but if the "obvious" alternatives are illogical with the actual hand, then the bid may turn out to be legal after all. (For example, what style of trial bids were N/S playing? From S's point of view, the partnership has an implied spade fit and 22+ HCP with partner unlimited, so even in the absence of unauthorised information, the only logical interpretation of 3!h may be as a trial bid for spades, and it's easy to imagine hands for S where 4!s would be the only reasonable bid in response.)
However, there's a stock answer to question c) that doesn't depend on the details: S should call the Director at the point where the final bid is passed out, and not earlier, assuming N/S are declaring (because N has misexplained S's bid; Law 20F5). If N realises their own misexplanation, they must call the Director at the end of the auction, and may do so earlier (Law 20F4). The director will react by cancelling the most recent bid by E/W (who, in this case, will probably just repeat it), and adjusting the score at the end of the hand if E/W misbid due to misinformation, or if N/S made illegal use of the UI.
With the given facts only, there's also possibly a stock answer to the second part of a): If North has no unauthorised information, any bid is legal. (It's North who misexplained, after all, not South). The only possible sources of unauthorised information North could have here would be things like mannerisms from South, or South failing to alert (or misexplaining) one of North's bids. The answer to this therefore depends heavily on what the actual bidding sequence, 2!d, 2NT; 3!d, 3!h; 4!s, actually means; in particular, if the actual meaning of 3!h in N/S's system is alertable, N has UI from the failure to alert, if it isn't alertable, N has no UI and can do what they want.
The first part of a), and the whole of b), can't be answered without the players' hands, and possibly extensive details as to what their system is. In fact, answering b) may also need full detail on their opponent's hands and system to work out what would have happened instead!
Pretty much as ais523 says.
It seems likely that the 3 !h bid is inviting to 4 !s if, as you say, the 3 !d bid must (as far as South and partnership agreement is concerned) show an upper range weak 2 in spades. It must be very unlikely that the 3 !h bid can be natural.
You again mentioned 4 !s possibly being Exclusion RKCB but the reason I said it can't be is because it would make absolutely no sense for South, with the defined (as North thinks) weak 2 in hearts, to suddenly be looking for a slam when he can't know (beyond 14 HCP) what North has got.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
As with others, I think we need to see the deal to make a ruling. A useful exercise might be a "screen test". Imagine how the auction would have gone playing with screens. N and S neither see alerts nor hear explanations - these are done in writing, N to E and S to W. This way N and S should consider each other to be following their agreed system perfectly and bid accordingly. Of course, we may reach a point when it becomes clear that one or other has made an error. We will probably, knowing the pairs agreements, need to ask other players what they would do at various points with the hands to determine what Logical Alternatives exist.
You don't have an automatic right to have your last pass/ call cancelled. - Law 21 (in part)
. . . a player may change a call without other rectification for his side
when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been
influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent....
there is a difference between being given misinformation and realising that the opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding.
A typical example may be that the correct explanation of a call would be that the call is actually weaker than explained and thus you can deduce that the opponents have overbid. You can't now double for penalties based on that information, since all you are entitled to know is the correct meaning of the auction - and if you would not have doubled given the correct meaning of the auction then your decision "was not influenced by the misinformation".
The lay-out is in the attached file.
Please kindly make your decisions as ;
a) 4Sp = ( accepted) why :?
b) 4Sp not accepted and score adjusted to 3H or 5H ( dbld) -2/3/4 or else why :
c) I call the td ( as N) after 4sp bid ( if you are called then what will your decision be on rulling ?)
I think I would like to know:
a) is there a partnership agreement what 2D - 2N - 3D - 3H - means?
b) Is there a partnership agreement what 2D - 3H means?
Remember we have to base UI on "using the methods of the partnership" (16B) - we can't impose our own interpretations on the calls made.
If the actual sequence is impossible then that is AI to South and he can bid what he likes.
if 3H indicates e.g. a trial bid in support of spades then we have to poll as to what South would do.
If 3H is natural and invitational then we poll to see if South would raise
So there is a reasonable chance that 4 Spades might be allowed. If it is not allowed then we find out what may happen after South is deemed to make a LA - which may be 3S or pass. The 3S response might wake up North for the same reason (an anti-system bid).
Only if 4S is allowable (12C1c) do we consider North's actions. (Yep N has UI as well).
I would say the UI demonstrably suggests that North not carry on bidding. If North cannot conceive of any possible meaning to 2D - 2N - 3D (6-7 points/ hearts) - 3H - 4S then he is entitled to assume there has been a misunderstanding and can pass.
I assume North is calling the director because he realises he has given an incorrect explanation. I do not see how East would change his call given the correct information (he isn't going to double for the lead for instance). Equally I don't see how West would do anything different knowing what the 3D call actually means. The same applies if South calls the TD at the end of the auction.
Giving NS a PP has been covered
In summary
3H = impossible bid : 4S Stands
3H = Genuine heart suit: Poll if Pass/ Correct to 3S/ raise
3H = Something in support of spades: poll if 3S/ raise.
3H = undiscussed: Poll what it suggests/ action over it.
(there is a difference between 'undiscussed' and 'impossible')
If South can bid 3S or 4S we have to poll North's hand on
2D - 2N - 3D (6/7 with hearts) - 3H - 3S? and
2D - 2N - 3D (6/7 with hearts) - 3H - 4S?
According to the N-S 'convenvention Card
2D ( opening) = Multi ------ 2nt = 14+ ( asking description)
3H= (pass/correct )
2D 2NT
3Cl= 6cH 8-9
3D= 6cSP 8-9
3H= 6cH 6-7
3SP =6cSP 6-7
at most of the other tables 3SP +1 made.
3D by S was explained by N as 6cH 6-7 hcp
S ( dealer) W N E 2D P 2NT P 3D (Alerted) P 3H P 4SP P P P4SP = made
3D was alerted byN as 6cH 6-7 ( Mistaken explanation)
S got angry at his parner and bid 4sp.
If N's explanation were correct ( 3D= 6cH 6-7 ) what would 4Sp by S mean ? ( 3Sp= control , 4Sp = EKCB ? )
If N's explanation were 3D = 6cSp 8-9 and bid 3Sp by N wouldn't " pass " by S be a LA and made 3sp+1
In both of the cases above , due to the mistaken expanation by N N-S reached the right contract and received a better score.
My question is that
As TD (you were called by E/W at the end of the contract ) what would you decide ?
a) 4SP good
b) 3H
c) 5H (dbld or not)
d) 3sp+1
e) or else
please give yor reasons as well.
You seem to be ruling out any possibility that 3H makes sense to South within the constraints of their system. As such, South can reasonably work out that North has had a "forget" and is free to bid whatever he likes. Yes, he has the UI of the mistaken explanation but this merely duplicates the AI of the "nonsense" 3H bid.
North, on the other hand, has the UI of partner's anger and I wouldn't allow him to wake up that he has mistaken partner's 3D bid as hearts when it really shows spades, since his partner has effectively come out and said, "You idiot, I was showing spades". As such, I would insist that he makes sense of the 4S bid in the context of partner having long hearts and we find ongoing bids from there. Given his plentiful supply of Aces and Ace-doubleton in partner's obviously solid suit, 6H doubled or 6S doubled might be reasonable stopping points.
I'd then apply a PP for the outburst.
Why can't 3H show a hand with a singleton spade and a self supporting heart suit ... I find it a bit too glib to just say partner is clearly an idiot so I can bid what I want. I also agree with Tag that we could easily end up in a doubled slam ... and S gets a PP.
I think it is a bit insulting to pairs who know what they are doing to suggest that 3H cannot exist. Clearly 3H should mean something - there is not a lot of room for constructive bidding after a multi 2D and all bids below 3NT should be used to sort out level and strain.
İt is obvious that N was mixed up assuming that his partner had 6c H with only 6-7 points he bid 3H to play.
Fom there on the problem existed because S corrected his partner missexplanation with 4S ,which was an infraction.
Let put it this way if S had bid 3Sp instead of 4Sp N would concider it as a control over a Heart contract
and they will in any way be getting to 4H . İn the same way 4Sp may not be deemed to play.
Therefore 4SP by S sould be EKCB and N sould reply to it accordingly .
Really? From N's point of view S has shown 6-7 and 6H, and N has signed off in hearts. He would now be wondering why S is bidding on. It is not obvious to me what would happen next.
It depends very much of what 3H bid systemically means, or indeed, whether they have any agreement as to its meaning. IF there is no agreement then it starts to become apparent that a wheel has come off and N might wake up, and S has some justification for punting 4S. But we don't know without further information as to their systemic agreements and polling as to what other players would have done if playing that system.
But then, I'm not an expert :)
Thanks for your comments. But as I am not an axperienced TD director I had decided to adjust to score to 3Sp+1
at the table. But there is something still disturbing me , especially regarding Law 75B . Perhaps after 4sp (EKCB) correcting it to 5H ( in reply to EKCB ) with 3 or 4 down would have been a more satisfactory decision. I am
expecting a final score ( 3SP +1, 5H-3,4 / 4SP= , with a reason and related law ) from experienced TDs so that I can make a right decision in a similar case next time and feel much better before going to bed :)
Your help is very much appraciated
I have twice given my strong opinion that 4 !s cannot be EKCB. Why do you think I am wrong?
Does this pair even play EKCB? If this pair are sufficiently experienced that they play EKCB, then they will surely have an agreed meaning for the 3 !h bid in the sequence at the table, and we can go from there because everything depends on what the 3 !h means and we don't know.
It is quite common when doing judgement rulings like this, to have to go back to the players to find out more about their agreements.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
To adjust on the basis that responder cannot Pass 4S, you need to find logical alternatives. If you poll and find enough treat 4S as a slam try and bid then there are logical alternatives, but we suspect that almost everyone will Pass ("I must have got it wrong").
Can we allow him to "wake up" after the alleged outburst from South, which makes it clear that he's had a forget?
Yes if a poll finds no logical alternative to waking up
Since there is no screen ( club tournament) , 3H is alerted and explained by N verbally as 6-7 6cH , then 3H must be to play. In this case what do 4Sp by S mean to N ? If it is a correction S must have used the UI existing from the mistaken explanation.
as a result, N-S had a better score than the other N-S(s) and E-W was damaged. . This was my reason for adjusting the score 3sp+1 But getting to 5H was a serious consideration for me as well May be I was on the wrong way.
Ozdeniz: "Since....3H is alerted and explained by N verbally as 6-7 6cH , then 3H must be to play."
Not to South it isn't. South has to assume that 3 !h means whatever it would mean in response to a multi-2 !d opener and a 3 !d rebid showing a good weak two in spades. South has to consider what reasonable rebids they would consider in this situation, and take care not to choose any of these that are suggested by the unauthorized information that North thinks they have a poor weak two in hearts. The consensus of those who have responded so far is that the call actually chosen (4 !s ) is unlikely to be one that South would be allowed to choose.
Since we are unlikely ever to know what the 3 !h bid systemically means, my favourite candidate for the partnership agreement for the 3 !h bid is that it is a further enquiry on South's hand. Has South got a good or poor hand in the context of his 8-9 HCP?
On such a basis, South must bid 3 !s or 4 !s. Any spade bid by South must surely wake North up. I am not convinced that the UI suggests 4 !s rather than 3 !s, and in any case, if South bids only 3 !s (as I would, but the intermediates make it close), surely North will raise to 4 !s anyway with his hand.
Incidentally, I have been a bit bemused by the explanation of the 2NT response being "14+ HCP". I am familiar only with the 2NT bid showing interest in playing in a game whether opener is weak with hearts or is weak with spades. This "14+ HCP" seems very strange and I would need some convincing that this is actually what this pair play, because to me it makes no bridge sense.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
There is no such an agreement for 3H requiring further information on S' distribution and strength.
What N receives from S' bidding 3D is that S has only 6-7 hcp and 6cH. ( Because he was mixed up and forgot their system.) He verbally explained what 3D meant . For that reason he bid 3H to stop the bidding and play there.
Due to the lack of my experience I would like to learn the following.
1) Isn't N's explanation UI to S ? ( S learnt that N hadn't understood his bid)
2) N got angry with his partner and bid 4SP ( isn' this the use of UI if it is so ? )
3) İf so shall we accept that N-S 's getting to a better contract ( 4sp instead of 3Sp ) through UI damages to EW ?
4) Even though 4sp is a wake ap for N Does N have the right to stop there ? Or is he forced to carry on the bidding ?
( Imagine , if there were a screen after 2nt bid, 3D would be alerted to W as 8-9 6cP but 6-7 6cH by N to E
Then when S saw 3H on the tray he would bid 3sp or 4Sp freely then what would N assume these bids and what conciderations he would take ? In this case is to go on bidding by N a LA ? if so the contract would easily be exceed 4Sp )
I will be very pleased if you comment one by one and give your decision on the final score ( 4sp = , 3sp+1, 5H, or else )
Thanks for your comments and help.
My answers are:
1) Yes
2) Probably, but it's difficult to know without knowing the hands and what 3 !h would mean to South
3) Yes, but only if there's no legal way for them to reach 4 !s
4) If North's expression of annoyance conveyed UI to South (quite possible), then it's possible that South has to continue bidding as if 4 !s had some other meaning, what it would have meant in an auction with no unauthorized information.
It's impossible to say what score adjustment should be awarded, if any, without knowing the hands and asking the players about their agreements.
My understanding of a "standard" multi is rather different from Barry's. I think it's quite normal for 2NT to show virtually any 14+ (or otherwise strong) hand, as any immediate bid in a major is played as "pass or correct". I would expect the subsequent 3 !h bid to show a strong hand with hearts (perhaps an Acol two opener, or thereabouts).
The hands can be accessed via Ozdeniz' post on 11 June.
I think with Ozdeniz' latest question No 2, North and South have become the wrong way round, reflected also in Vix' answer to Q4, but beyond that, I go along with what Vix says.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I've once used the 2NT bid with a relatively weak hand which had seven decent diamonds and five hearts. If partner had come back with 3C, showing hearts, I was going to bid 4H. She came back with 3D, so I passed it. We explain that the 2NT bid doesn't necessarily promise strength but that we wouldn't use the bid merely to increase the pre-empt if, say, I was weak with tolerance for either major.
OK, I've seen the hands now.
First of all, if we look at the auction from North's perspective, he's made a strong enquiry and heard a minimum weak two in hearts, signed off in 3 !h , and heard partner jump to 4 !s . This can't be a splinter in support of hearts that North (as far as he's concerned) hasn't shown, nor a slam-going move in a new suit, so North is probably entitled to assume a wheel has come off the cart and pass, South's grimace notwithstanding.
Now from South's perspective: Partner's shown a strong hand with hearts opposite a maximum weak two in spades. I was probably a little hasty earlier when I said it had to be as good as an Acol two, but a hand that would open and jump rebid in hearts, certainly, say five losers or seven playing tricks, minimum. What would you do now? Raise to 4 !h ? Cue-bid your !d K? (You might as well show where you have values in case partner has a really powerful hand, as you've already limited your hand.) North would have no reason to remove 4 !h , so I could see myself adjusting the score to 4 !h (N) -5, although some might put a case for a worse NS contract and score.
NS will no doubt strenuously deny that 3 !h has this meaning, and as there seems to be some doubt as to the "standard" meaning (if there is such a thing), I'd listen to what other people think, particularly as I'm not an expert on the multi, but this is looking like my most likely choice for a ruling.
I've done some research on what a rebid of three of a new major shows after a 2NT response to a multi. "The Mysterious Multi" (Horton and van Cleef) doesn't really mention it. A current discussion on Bridge Winners shows popular methods for playing in four of responder's major to be to make a pass-or-correct bid in your major (trusting partner not to pass) and then rebid or jump rebid in the major, or to jump to four-of-a-minor directly over 2 !d to force partner to bid their major (4 !d ), or a step below their major (4 !c ). They don't mention how to try for slam in your major, but presumably you could transfer to your major and then cue-bid or ask for keycards if you have a self-supporting suit. What you do if your suit is not that good and you want to know if partner has some support, or you can't risk partner passing a two-level response I don't know.
I wouldn't assume any multi partnerships actually play these methods without some evidence, though.
As in all these situations, it is helpful to deal with these things systematically.
For each player on the N/S side you have to ask:
(a) Did he have UI?
(b) Did the UI suggest the action taken over other possible actions?
(c) Were any of the less-suggested possible actions logical alternatives?