[jeffford76]

---

By agreement X is penalty over this range of NT, but South meant to show a single suited hand. She tried to change her bid, and it was not accepted, so everyone at the table knew that she had a single suited hand. The director explained that it was UI to her partner and AI to her opponents, and the auction proceeded as shown.

Although 4♠ is an easy make, at the table declarer failed to ruff a club before pulling trump and made 9 tricks for a bottom. Now what?

[Edit - fix typo East to South]

This post has been edited by jeffford76: 2014-January-13, 15:34

[Vampyr]

Is pass at South's second turn forcing? What would double of 2♣ by North or South have meant?

In any case, there was obviously no damage, so what are you considering - PPs?

[ArtK78]

I am confused. Do you mean that South tried to change her bid? That the double by South was meant to show a one-suited hand?

If that is the case, then there is no problem. NS got a bad score for 3♠ making 3, and NS was the offending side. Justice is served.

Or are you saying that North opened 1NT, and East doubled? Please clarify. This is very confusing.

I still don't see why South doesn't just bid 4♠. As for making 10 tricks, any declarer who cannot make 10 tricks with spades as trump is going to get a bad score, no matter how he got to his contract.

[jeffford76]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-13, 15:10, said:

Is pass at South's second turn forcing? What would double of 2♣ by North or South have meant?

It is unlikely that N/S have any agreements about any of this.

Quote

In any case, there was obviously no damage, so what are you considering - PPs?

Perhaps I should have left out the part about 0 matchpoints. I was interested in whether you would assume 9 tricks in 4♠ or if you would assume 4♠ would be played differently rather than cashing out for down one. I'm also interested in whether a PP is deserved.

[jeffford76]

ArtK78, on 2014-January-13, 15:15, said:

I am confused. Do you mean that South tried to change her bid? That the double by South was meant to show a one-suited hand?

Yes, after doubling, South attempted a correction to 2♣, the systemic "single suited hand" bid for that partnership against that range of NT. This was not accepted so the double stood and the auction continued.

[blackshoe]

If I'm understanding this correctly, North has UI from South's attempted change of call. So the question is whether North used that information in the subsequent auction. North made three calls in the subsequent auction: pass, 2♦, and 3♠. In which of these three cases did North choose a call that could demonstrably have been suggested over a LA by the UI? If the answer was none, the only infraction is South's attempted change of call - and I can't see a PP for that.

[Vampyr]

jeffford76, on 2014-January-13, 15:31, said:

Perhaps I should have left out the part about 0 matchpoints. I was interested in whether you would assume 9 tricks in 4♠ or if you would assume 4♠ would be played differently rather than cashing out for down one. I'm also interested in whether a PP is deserved.

Yes, if it was the case that the NOS could have suffered damage, it is different. I would need to know the answers to the second post before deciding whether UI was used. That decision in turn would be necessary to determine the final contract.

If after all that I decided that the contract was 4♠, I would give nine tricks and a word to South, who obviously didn't know the rules.

A general question: Can it ever be right to give the OS a better score in a better contract than what they actually achieved at the table?


If you are right that N/S have no agreements about what to do after doubling 1NT, then it is all a little harder. But 4♠= is out of the question, as far as I am concerned.

[ArtK78]

jeffford76, on 2014-January-13, 15:31, said:

I was interested in whether you would assume 9 tricks in 4♠ or if you would assume 4♠ would be played differently rather than cashing out for down one. I'm also interested in whether a PP is deserved.

No competent player would make less than 10 tricks in spades on this hand.

[Vampyr]

ArtK78, on 2014-January-13, 21:00, said:

No competent player would make less than 10 tricks in spades on this hand.

Competent players are irrelevant. The player in question made nine

[jeffford76]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-13, 19:18, said:

If I'm understanding this correctly, North has UI from South's attempted change of call. So the question is whether North used that information in the subsequent auction. North made three calls in the subsequent auction: pass, 2♦, and 3♠. In which of these three cases did North choose a call that could demonstrably have been suggested over a LA by the UI? If the answer was none, the only infraction is South's attempted change of call - and I can't see a PP for that.

It would be more helpful if you expressed an opinion on the question you put forth. I don't think anyone is confused that no one is getting a PP if at all points North made legal calls.

[jeffford76]

This is a hand I was consulted on. At the time I was consulted I didn't know that N/S had a bottom. Here are the things I wasn't sure about.

1. Do you adjust the score even when the matchpoints don't change if the bridge score changes - that is, is "damage" only if there's a different score in the form of scoring, or is it enough that the bridge score is worse? I had always thought damage meant the bridge score, regardless of the form of scoring.

2. How much credit does the OS get in a different contract? Given that they made nine contracts in 3S I thought they should be stuck with 9 tricks in 4S, but one of the other people consulted said there was no way that declarer wouldn't make another trick if they needed to to make their contract. Does your experience with the declarer matter? What if you know they always play to make their contract at matchpoints without particular regard for overtricks? Obviously there is no damage if the ruling is that they would have made 4S if they were in it.

3. At what point do you award a PP? North was an experienced player. Both 2D and 3S are non-forcing bids opposite a partner that has shown a penalty double of a 13-15 NT. I thought that this was egregious enough to deserve a PP.

[Vampyr]

jeffford76, on 2014-January-14, 00:40, said:

2. How much credit does the OS get in a different contract? Given that they made nine contracts in 3S I thought they should be stuck with 9 tricks in 4S, but one of the other people consulted said there was no way that declarer wouldn't make another trick if they needed to to make their contract. Does your experience with the declarer matter? What if you know they always play to make their contract at matchpoints without particular regard for overtricks? Obviously there is no damage if the ruling is that they would have made 4S if they were in it.

I don't understand any of this.

[Trinidad]

jeffford76, on 2014-January-14, 00:40, said:

This is a hand I was consulted on. At the time I was consulted I didn't know that N/S had a bottom. Here are the things I wasn't sure about.

1. Do you adjust the score even when the matchpoints don't change if the bridge score changes - that is, is "damage" only if there's a different score in the form of scoring, or is it enough that the bridge score is worse? I had always thought damage meant the bridge score, regardless of the form of scoring.

You are right. You are supposed to adjust to the correct bridge score. There is damage. I would adjust to 4♠-1. However, given that it doesn't affect the matchpoint score, I wouldn't waste a lot of energy on details. If someone would argue that South would make 4♠, at least part of the time, I wouldn't waste any time on that.

jeffford76, on 2014-January-14, 00:40, said:

2. How much credit does the OS get in a different contract? Given that they made nine contracts in 3S I thought they should be stuck with 9 tricks in 4S, but one of the other people consulted said there was no way that declarer wouldn't make another trick if they needed to to make their contract. Does your experience with the declarer matter? What if you know they always play to make their contract at matchpoints without particular regard for overtricks? Obviously there is no damage if the ruling is that they would have made 4S if they were in it.

I agree that the OS might / would have played differently in a different contract. In some situations they obviously will. In this case, I think it is so obvious to play for 10 tricks that I get the idea that declarer "punished" himself to avoid a TD call. Many opponents won't call when they obtained a fantastic score. And without a TD call, there won't be a PP.

jeffford76, on 2014-January-14, 00:40, said:

3. At what point do you award a PP? North was an experienced player. Both 2D and 3S are non-forcing bids opposite a partner that has shown a penalty double of a 13-15 NT. I thought that this was egregious enough to deserve a PP.

If North knew that one of the calls was non forcing, he will get a PP. This North was experienced enough to know that, therefore he gets a PP.

Rik

[barmar]

jeffford76, on 2014-January-14, 00:40, said:

This is a hand I was consulted on. At the time I was consulted I didn't know that N/S had a bottom. Here are the things I wasn't sure about.

1. Do you adjust the score even when the matchpoints don't change if the bridge score changes - that is, is "damage" only if there's a different score in the form of scoring, or is it enough that the bridge score is worse? I had always thought damage meant the bridge score, regardless of the form of scoring.

Most of the time you're making rulings before the event is over, and you don't know the matchpoints/IMPs. So the only adjustment you can make is to the bridge result. And even if you do know, it's possible that there may be corrections to other tables playing the same board, which would affect the matchpoints.

If you know none of this is going to happen, I suppose you could say "Well, I would have adjusted to XXX, but I'm not going to waste time updating all the records because it makes no difference."

[jeffford76]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-14, 01:04, said:

I don't understand any of this.

Suppose that you think without the UI, the OS would end up in 4S. At the table they made 3S. So if the correct adjustment is to 4S-1, there was damage, and you adjust. If the "correct adjustment" is to 4S making, then you don't actually adjust as there is no damage.

My question is how much to take into account the play in the table contract when considering the number of tricks in a different contract. This seemed like a hand where it was plausible that even though they made 9 tricks in 3S they would make 10 tricks in 4S.

[RMB1]

jeffford76, on 2014-January-14, 11:13, said:

My question is how much to take into account the play in the table contract when considering the number of tricks in a different contract. This seemed like a hand where it was plausible that even though they made 9 tricks in 3S they would make 10 tricks in 4S.

We had a similar question some years ago at the teams final in Brighton (mamos was the TD and paulg on the NOS).

The offending side used UI to stop in 2H and made 8/9 tricks, but 10 tricks were easy. We considered adjusting to 4H but thought that declarer would not be distracted in that contract and would make 10 tricks (at least most of the time). The IMP odds being what they are, and given the result at the other table, an adjustment to 30% of 4H= would not benefit the non-offending side, so we ruled no damage and no adjustment.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-13, 19:51, said:

A general question: Can it ever be right to give the OS a better score in a better contract than what they actually achieved at the table?

In general, no, it can't ever be "right" if there is only one offending side. Even an offsetting PP for the offenders won't unscrew the score for the NOS. In specific, however, someone seems to want to lawyer it into the realm of possibility.

jeffford76, on 2014-January-14, 00:40, said:

Given that they made nine contracts in 3S I thought they should be stuck with 9 tricks in 4S, but one of the other people consulted said there was no way that declarer wouldn't make another trick if they needed to to make their contract.

Apparently, Jeffford agrees with you; but one of his "consultants" is on the other planet.

Vampyr, on 2014-January-14, 01:04, said:

I don't understand any of this.

Reasonable, and probably sane, not to understand it.

[iviehoff]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-13, 19:18, said:

If I'm understanding this correctly, North has UI from South's attempted change of call. So the question is whether North used that information in the subsequent auction. North made three calls in the subsequent auction: pass, 2♦, and 3♠. In which of these three cases did North choose a call that could demonstrably have been suggested over a LA by the UI? If the answer was none, the only infraction is South's attempted change of call - and I can't see a PP for that.

A player with a 13 count opposite a penalty double of 1N needs to make clear he wants to be in game, and is not just competing for the part-score, once the ops escape from the double. If 2D and 3S are both unambiguously forcing, then he hasn't taken advantage of UI. But I doubt that is true. So at least one of those calls is taking advantage of the UI.

I agree that the player likely cashed 9 tricks because he was in 3S, and most likely would have made 10 if in 4S, so there is no damage.

[mycroft]

I've been in several contracts where, because I know I'm in a matchpoint inferior contract, I play for the "right" contract to go down, even if it means I slip a trick 90+% of the time (because, frex, +650 is as much of a bottom as +680, so let's play for everything wrong and the slam fails).

I would hate that, if I was in that contract, and we would be ruled to get to the matchpoint normal contract without the UI, that my attempt to save a zero would be considered to be my play a level higher.

Frequently, of course, this argument doesn't apply, and it should be obvious from the play whether it was.

How far are they forced after the penalty double? I do have an issue with North not reaching game - not even looking for game - with 13 opposite a penalty double, especially if they're playing their penalty doubles "equal or better" - 13-13-13-1 is not only feasible, but likely. I would argue that "the auction and my hand shows that partner forgot" does not apply when South showed she forgot, and it doesn't require a psychic to get to 40 HCP.

[jeffford76]

mycroft, on 2014-January-14, 14:47, said:

I've been in several contracts where, because I know I'm in a matchpoint inferior contract, I play for the "right" contract to go down, even if it means I slip a trick 90+% of the time (because, frex, +650 is as much of a bottom as +680, so let's play for everything wrong and the slam fails).

I would hate that, if I was in that contract, and we would be ruled to get to the matchpoint normal contract without the UI, that my attempt to save a zero would be considered to be my play a level higher.

Presumably you would also be capable of explaining this when the director asked why you didn't take all the tricks you were entitled to. I was interested in how to make a ruling when the player is less articulate, but you think might have played differently in a higher contract.

There was an interesting story on BridgeWinners about someone who was in one contract and suspected that the score was going to be adjusted to a higher one after their partner used UI, so they played to make the higher contract (which was anti-percentage for their lower contract but it worked) because they didn't want to count on the director to assign them the correct line in the higher contract as the offending side. There were mixed reactions on whether this was ok.