After the bidding ends, West asks South what's the meaning of the doubles. South explains the first double was for take-out and the second for penalty. Before leading the ♥Q, North writes in a piece of paper that the first double was for penalty. The hand is played, West finesses spades into South and goes an extra down. He calls the Director. What would you do as Director?
Double explanation How would you rule?
#1
Posted 2012-April-10, 19:30
After the bidding ends, West asks South what's the meaning of the doubles. South explains the first double was for take-out and the second for penalty. Before leading the ♥Q, North writes in a piece of paper that the first double was for penalty. The hand is played, West finesses spades into South and goes an extra down. He calls the Director. What would you do as Director?
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#2
Posted 2012-April-10, 21:41
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
Posted 2012-April-10, 22:12
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#4
Posted 2012-April-10, 23:00
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#5
Posted 2012-April-11, 02:28
Hanoi5, on 2012-April-10, 19:30, said:
Quote
his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75)
but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:
(i) for a defender, at the end of the play.
This business of writing something down on a piece of paper has no legal basis, and had the player followed the correct procedure EW would likely have been better off.
I must say though that I would need some more evidence before I accepted North's assertion in any case, given the hands they each have and the way the auction proceeded.
This post has been edited by gordontd: 2012-April-11, 02:32
London UK
#6
Posted 2012-April-11, 03:16
We aren't told how the play went in 3♠x, but it's possible that West misplayed it. If North led ♥K, marking him with KQ, and also has ♠Q, and 1NT was 15-17, that means both diamonds are onside. Depending on the sequence of plays, it might have been right to play South for SQ anyway. However, I can't see that coming close to being a "serious error".
With the original information given by South, I think it's clearly right to play South for ♠Q. It's suggested by the original explanation of North's first double, by the opening bid, and by the considerations about the diamond layout. Hence I'd give 100% of 3♠x= to both sides.
Unless North was very inexperienced, I'd fine him as well. I'd resist the temptation to put him in the stocks for a couple of hours.
#7
Posted 2012-April-11, 03:39
#8
Posted 2012-April-11, 03:54
#9
Posted 2012-April-11, 06:51
What the heck did North think he was doing? Agree with adjusting to down 1.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#10
Posted 2012-April-11, 11:18
https://www.youtube....hungPlaysBridge
#11
Posted 2012-April-11, 20:41
Does this change anyone's decision?
Wasn't this clear from the first post?
wyman, on 2012-May-04, 09:48, said:
rbforster, on 2012-May-20, 21:04, said:
My YouTube Channel
#12
Posted 2012-April-11, 21:40
Hanoi5, on 2012-April-11, 20:41, said:
Wasn't this clear from the first post?
Probably not.
No.
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#13
Posted 2012-April-12, 02:22
But we don't allow improvisation like this. The Law says you wait, and then if the TD judges that the MI affected the result, he adjusts.
And since this correction is an infraction, and North could have known that the infraction would mislead declarer into finessing the wrong way, we adjust.
#14
Posted 2012-April-12, 02:55
Hanoi5, on 2012-April-11, 20:41, said:
Not mine. North still broke the laws, and he still gained by it.
#15
Posted 2012-April-18, 11:55
I know "cheat" is a 4-letter word in bridge, but this smells... Adjust the score, and PP to North.
And by PP, I mean Public Phlogging.
- Ludwig van Beethoven
#16
Posted 2012-April-19, 04:43
Nonetheless, what barmar says is correct - North could have known that going out of his way to write the correct explanation of X on the paper might mislead declarer, so I'm definitely adjusting it back to -1.
ahydra
#17
Posted 2012-April-19, 06:12
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#18
Posted 2012-April-19, 07:07
blackshoe, on 2012-April-19, 06:12, said:
Looks to me like West is declarer, not East.
#19
Posted 2012-April-19, 07:40
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#20
Posted 2012-April-25, 08:25
Mind you, I have found some posts confusing, so I may have mixed everything up. Is my understanding correct?
- the hand with ♠xx doubled 2♠
- this was described as a takeout double
- the player who held ♠xx passed a private note to declarer saying it was a penalty double
If this is correct adjust and give the player with ♠xx a PP. If I have messed the facts up, ignore this post!
Merseyside England UK
EBL TD
Currently at home
Visiting IBLF from time to time
<webjak666@gmail.com>