sanst, on 2016-October-30, 11:52, said:
There are quite a few questions here, such as "What are the agreements about the 2♦ call?", "What level are these players?", "MP's or IMP's?" and "What about the body language?". To that last question none of us can give a answer based on facts. If the TD decided that there was no body language, that is it. You think that there is no agreement about the 2♦, but we can't check that either, but for argument's sake I will assume there was none. Which means that there was MI and W should have explained accordingly.
What is West's position? W thinks that E has 5♥, 4+♦ and that the situation is GF (a new suit a the 3-level). Would I have had his hand, I would probably have bid 3NT too, especially in MP's. But whether that is everybody's choice, remains to be seen; 4♥ is certainly a LA. A poll could shed some light and it's not unthinkable that the score for EW will be a weighed one between 3NTx made and 4♥x one off, if that's possible in the jurisdiction involved.
But for NS nothing changes. I don't see the connection between the infraction and the result. N decides to double based on his own hand, but there are no more that four tricks. So it's gamble whether S will make a trick or not. Well, he didn't and therefore NS will keep their result. The double was a shot in the dark that didn't work out and it's not the director's job to take away the lousy score that was the result of that gamble. Indeed, you can't have your cake and eat it.
Well some of the decision depends on jurisdiction: the EBU are very lenient on defenders who make mistakes defending a contract that they should not have to - and I am giving my thoughts under EBU guidelines as I understand them.
First of all: If 2
♦ is natural on the system card, then East should have called the director at the end of the auction to advise them that an incorrect explanation had been given. Note that both East and West can refer to their system cards during the clarification period to find this out. If the explanation (it was a transfer to
♥) was correct then East need not say anything. (The TD is to assume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call unless there is evidence to the contrary).
Secondly: North (or South) should have got agreement from EW that there was unauthorised information from table demeanour to West that their explanation of 2
♦ was incorrect as soon as it appeared and if EW dispute that then they (EW) should call the director.
Thirdly: I cannot see how South could have protected himself any further. He has seen West alert 2
♦ and been given an explanation. The laws state quite clearly that every player is entitled to know about the methods the opponents play and at his turn ask about the auction or a particular call(at the risk of giving UI). The only offence South MIGHT have committed would be to ask the question for the benefit of his partner - but no one has suggested that.
Now we'll look at the auction startiung with the UI that East has (that partner thinks that 2
♦ is a transfer). Normally rebidding one's suit again is regarded in the EBU as 'unauthorised panic' and is frowned upon. However one can bid 3
♦ if there is no logical alternative.
In this case, however, East has the AK of partner's presumed 5-card suit, which must surely count as tolerance and if (absent the UI) passing is a LA then it would have to be done. (It is very difficult to poll these since it is obvious from being asked that it is a natural vs transfer UI problem as they occur so often.)
So the initial supposition is that the contract should be rolled back to 2
♥ (probably 1-off but I haven't worked that out). This could be affected if EW are playing any kind of super-accept methods over 2
♦.
Now let us assume that the 3
♦ call is allowable. West assumes that it is 5-4 or longer in the red suits. Absent any UI he can do what he wants - and it is up to the director to ascertain from North how 'everyone knew that East had not made a transfer'. (hence my second note above). If there is UI then polling would be required to see if 4
♥ is a LA (since it would seem that 3NT is demonstrably suggested by the BIT). (If the director finds out that there WAS UI then despite West's protestations I might consider a PP for use of it.)
Even absent the UI, it looks as if West is fielding a misbid by East and that therefore maybe EW are playing that 2
♦ means EITHER diamonds OR hearts. In the EBU (level 4) this is a permitted convention. As this is not disclosed then there is MI.
It is, of course, probable (absent any system cards) that EW are in fact playing "no partnership agreement", which is alertable - again there is UI and MI.
There should NOT be any split decision anyway because NS haven't committed a 'serious error' - a misdefence is not a serious error. So the question then is: is the double 'wild or gambling' - with 4 tricks off the top (16 HCP) and knowing that the diamonds aren't running, I would probably say no - but this is a judgement call. (If this is a gamble then a huge percentage of doubles involve gambling.)
BTW - if 4
♥ is a LA then we cannot allow 3NT as part of a weighted decision as the player 'may not select' it. Doing so is known in the EBU as a 'Reveley ruling'.
Obiter - the Director should not make facetious comments like "North is trying to have his cake and eat it." EBU TDs are taught first and foremost to be polite to all and sundry when obtaining evidence and giving a ruling.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
Help
