Tough Decision
#1
Posted 2013-April-21, 01:41
#2
Posted 2013-April-21, 01:50
Chris3875, on 2013-April-21, 01:41, said:
But according to the diagram South has 5-5 in the minors - not North.
"Robin Barker is a mathematician. ... All highly skilled in their respective fields and clearly accomplished bridge players."
#4
Posted 2013-April-21, 02:06
it went West 1C, North 2NT, East Double, South 3D, West 4C, all pass
#5
Posted 2013-April-21, 02:09
I would like to ask South why she bid three diamonds and not support hearts with four-card support. Perhaps South was uncertain about their agreement too, casting some doubt on whether it was really a firm agreement?
I'd also ask North why she did not bid on over three diamonds, when partner has shown real support and is clearly very short in clubs. I expect that this is a reflection on experience and standard of the players, but still worth asking.
The law itself would be considered tough if the offending pair often got a good score, but in reality it is very rare - except when written up in law forums

#6
Posted 2013-April-21, 08:13
Edit - thinking further, if West passes or doubles, then NS are playing 3D rather than 3H or 3NT (possibly doubled), so they benefit and we should, I think, rule fielded misbid in this case. However, when West bids 4C (which I think is rather "speculative"

However, consider that if South bids the correct 3H, West will probably pass or X (poll peers to find out which?) rather than 4C, in which case NS are destined for anywhere from 4D-1 to 3NTX-3 or -4. Indeed there are so many possible combinations of actions that I'd be tempted to just award the simple 60/30 for fielded misbid.
ahydra
#7
Posted 2013-April-21, 08:39
Had South bid 3♥ (anyone for 4♥?) West would have been less inclined to bid 4♣ (a terrible bid, but it occurred after South's infraction). West could double 3♥, and I can see no compelling reason not to rule that 3♥x is the final contract.
PP for South as well. Law 40c1 if anyone cares.
#8
Posted 2013-April-21, 11:56
#9
Posted 2013-April-21, 13:04
PhilKing, on 2013-April-21, 08:39, said:
I agree but west opening that trash and bidding 4♣!!!! With those red suits yet.
Can I do a split score, result stands for e/w and 3♥ doubled for n/s? PP for south and a drug test for west, an(other) oops for north and my profound sympathies to east.
What is baby oil made of?
#10
Posted 2013-April-21, 13:48
#11
Posted 2013-April-21, 14:34
ahydra
#12
Posted 2013-April-21, 14:47
ahydra, on 2013-April-21, 14:34, said:
ahydra
If South has a weak hand with long hearts and no minor fit, as the bidding would suggest to North:
♠xxx
♥QJT9xxx
♦xx
♣x
Then 3♥x will make, but 3NT will go 5 down unless diamonds break.
#13
Posted 2013-April-21, 15:53
#14
Posted 2013-April-21, 16:13
Chris3875, on 2013-April-21, 15:53, said:
I think it's tough to consider everything when the players have not - you gave the right ruling on the facts presented. As a director you are not necessarily solving the Murder on the Orient Express.
I don't know if there is a recommended protocol - there are several people here who will obviously know. It's not as if this kind of shennanigans is overly common, but two-suited fields are probably the most frequent, and a more experienced E/W might have noticed anyway.
#15
Posted 2013-April-22, 05:12
#16
Posted 2013-April-22, 06:06
paulg, on 2013-April-21, 02:09, said:
paulg, on 2013-April-21, 02:09, said:



#17
Posted 2013-April-22, 06:26
PhilKing, on 2013-April-21, 08:39, said:
Had South bid 3♥ (anyone for 4♥?) West would have been less inclined to bid 4♣ (a terrible bid, but it occurred after South's infraction). West could double 3♥, and I can see no compelling reason not to rule that 3♥x is the final contract.
PP for South as well. Law 40c1 if anyone cares.
Agree with almost all of that, just that I think 4♣ cannot be SEWoG because it was related to the infraction. It is not enough that it came after it. Fielded misbid and 3Hx-5, NS-1100 it is.
#18
Posted 2013-April-22, 07:09
#19
Posted 2013-April-22, 07:29
lamford, on 2013-April-22, 06:26, said:
Agree and just maybe, this will begin to cure south of such actions. I hope it was IMPs to boot.
-gwnn
#20
Posted 2013-April-22, 10:45
Having said that, yeah, barring agreements to the contrary, 3♦ is prima facie evidence that South had a guess that his explanation may have been incorrect. I will be talking to South as well, to find out what was going through his head; and a player of any skill who decided to play the 8-card minor fit over the 9-card major fit without any inkling is either going to sound like an idiot (which I'll happily publicise) or convicting himself (and getting -1100).
Note: I had Kxxx KTxxxx xx x last week. 1♠-2NT-p, and the right call is 3♥. Partner might raise (she has a huge hand, with ♠A ♥Ax), but at least 4♥ won't get doubled, and I make the same 9 tricks as we do in 5♦ when partner bids that (our teammates failed to double the same auction with ♦KJTxx and out over the length, grumble grumble lose 5.) So yeah, I'm not allowing a pull.