[moose]

S W N E
2S p p 3H
p p 3S (delay then pass)
p 4H

west held K6, 10xx, Ajxxx, xxx

If you decide that pass was a logical alternative for south what is your next step, the board was not played time ran out.

[paulg]

Following Lusobrasil's advice on unfinished boards (Principle of Equity) I would seek to judge the likely outcome of the board.

First I would try and get a consensus on the hesitation. If generally agreed, then there is unauthorised information and I consider that Pass is a logical alternative for West. In this situation bidding is suggested by the hesitation so I need to consider the likely outcomes of a 3♠ contract by North and the 4♥ contract by West.

I would adjust the score to the more favourable contract for North-South (for both sides).

Disclaimer - I am not a TD but I try my best!

Paul

[pigpenz]

i would call the TD after the long hesistation pass immediately. Thats the easiest way to take care of it as the TD tells the players of the raminfications of not bidding their hand.

[moose]

Paul I agree in this case the board could not be played Law12C must be used and an adjusted score be given.

law12C2:
Assigned score: When the td awards and assigned score in place of a result directly obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occured or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all possible.

If the irregularity had not occured EW would not play 4H, is the TD within their rights giving an adjusted score of 4H? being the most favorable for the non offending side or must they consider only most favorable result of 3S by South?

[jdonn]

moose, on Apr 19 2006, 09:49 AM, said:

S W N E
2S p p 3H
p p 3S (delay then pass)
p 4H

west held K6, 10xx, Ajxxx, xxx

If you decide that pass was a logical alternative for south what is your next step, the board was not played time ran out.

If you decide pass was a logical alternative for west (I agree) then the contract gets rolled back to 3♠ and a result imposed in that contract, with doubtful points in the play judged in favor of the non offenders.

[luis]

Was this IMPs or MPs ? And what vulnerability?
I think that may matter because West's bid can make a lot of sense at MPs where you bid 4♥ as a defense against 3♠.
Depending on the vulnerability and scoring I might opt for an average of several scores depending on how likely West's will bid 4♥.
Something like 30% of 4♥ and 70% of 3♠ for example.

Luis

[cherdano]

luis, on Apr 19 2006, 08:20 PM, said:

Was this IMPs or MPs ? And what vulnerability?
I think that may matter because West's bid can make a lot of sense at MPs where you bid 4♥ as a defense against 3♠.
Depending on the vulnerability and scoring I might opt for an average of several scores depending on how likely West's will bid 4♥.
Something like 30% of 4♥ and 70% of 3♠ for example.

Luis

Luis, this is just blatantly wrong. 500% wrong. If passing is a logical alternative, you cannot allow the 4H bid. If it is not, the 4H bid is allowed.

Your ruling would give the unethical player who raises to 4H influenced by the UI an advantage over the ethical who might have raised without UI, but knows he has to pass with the UI.

Arend

[paulg]

moose, on Apr 19 2006, 05:47 PM, said:

Paul I agree in this case the board could not be played Law12C must be used and an adjusted score be given.

law12C2:
Assigned score: When the td awards and assigned score in place of a result directly obtained after an irregularity, the score is, for a non offending side, the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occured or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all possible.

If the irregularity had not occured EW would not play 4H, is the TD within their rights giving an adjusted score of 4H? being the most favorable for the non offending side or must they consider only most favorable result of 3S by South?

The reason to look at the 4♥ contract is to establish whether there was damage - for example, if 3♠ and 4♥ both go down then there is no reason to adjust the score.

In the UK you are absolutely right that you would not include the 4♥ contract in a weighted result (unless it could have been achieved by other means) and erroneously doing this is known, apparently 'affectionately', as a 'Reveley ruling'. Some jurisdictions apparently do allow this.

p

[jillybean]

delete

[moose]

luis, on Apr 19 2006, 01:20 PM, said:

Was this IMPs or MPs ? And what vulnerability?
I think that may matter because West's bid can make a lot of sense at MPs where you bid 4♥ as a defense against 3♠.
Depending on the vulnerability and scoring I might opt for an average of several scores depending on how likely West's will bid 4♥.
Something like 30% of 4♥ and 70% of 3♠ for example.

Luis

IMP EW vulnerable

[inquiry]

With this hand, yes even at MATCHPOINTS, the hesitation makes bidding on much more favorable. After all if partner streched to bid 3♥ he would have a very easy (and quick pass). And since this hand holds two spades to an honor and an ACE, it seems clear that partner is not thinking of doubling. RHO after all has something to bid 3♠ upon (especially at imps).

I think the ruling should be clear, roll the contract back to three spades, doing whatever 3♠ does (makes, down, whatever).. again perfect defense will not be assumed. Normal average defense maybe to average minus defense.