[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-22, 06:26, said:

Agree with almost all of that, just that I think 4♣ cannot be SEWoG because it was related to the infraction.

That's what I thought I said, though I see there is a distinction.

[Chris3875]

Chris3875, on 2013-April-21, 01:41, said:

This is my week for having to make pretty mean decisions at the table. East asked the meaning of the 2NT overcall and South said that it showed 5+ hearts and 5+ of the other minor (diamonds). South bid 3♦, West bid 4 and all passed. North came to me away from the table and said that she had made a mistake and that her bid had actually shown 5/5 in the minor suits. Their agreement, according to their system card, was as described by South. E/W went well off in 4♣ and were upset. I showed them Law 75C - Mistaken Call "Here there is no infraction of Law since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North=South agreement, they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. Regardless of damage, the director shall allow the result to stand". This seems to be a tough law in this instance - was I correct? I did tell East-West that I would send it to this website for a second opinion.

---

[Chris3875]

So, my question again is, WHEN should I have looked at this hand? I thought the facts were pretty cut and dried when I went to the table, but of course with hindsight I see that if I had looked at South's hand I would have had more questions to ask. David S has always been pretty strong on not looking at hands at the table which I have tried to follow - should I have gone and checked the hand record? He doesn't like that much either. Are there certain TYPES of situations when checking the hands is advised?

[mycroft]

At the table, you find out what happened, and potentially why. Send North back to the table, tell them to play it (and warn South of his UI obligations), and call at end of hand. You don't look at the hand at the time, because you can't say "he's got his bid" - you can see the implications of that if you're right; and I (at least) have been known to not be right! (we all have been known - that's why you consult on judgement rulings, and certainly don't make them at the table).

At the end of the hand you explain what North told you away from the table, you show the Laws, and you investigate. Now you can look at the hands.

E/W have no recourse on the misbid - the Laws are, explicitly, rub-of-the-green about that. The arguments people are using here is that 3♦ is such a weird bid, given the explanation, that a very likely explanation for it is "partner's forgot before, I at least know he has diamonds"; *that*'s a CPU (the tendency to forget, especially if it's strong enough to allow for and miss possibly the highest-scoring contract, is clearly disclosable as "partnership experience"), and now, it's not Mistaken Bid, it's Mistaken Explanation, despite the evidence to the contrary (because the evidence of the auction overrides it). *If* that's the explanation, or even if the explanation for why 3♦ and not 3♥ is Probst-cheat worthy, then rule according to Mistaken Bid, at least for N/S.

Then look at 4♣ and see if it's SE (it's clearly not Wild or Gambling; I don't gamble, but I wouldn't take those odds if I did) and unrelated to the infraction (I'm not as sure of that as others are - again, give N 10 red cards and East the same club support, now South has 5 and picked the "better red suit"). If it is, we're in double-bad territory. It's unfortunate that diamonds looks like it's going to resolve 10 tricks; 9 at least.

This is a very tricky, very complicated ruling, by the way. If you are getting hit by these randomly in the club, you have my sympathies.

[Chris3875]

I'm so disappointed to think that South would have fielded this misbid - I can quite imagine that he probably got some reaction when he explained the 2NT bid to East. He used to be my playing partner
I'm really cranky with myself too for not picking it up earlier.

[bluejak]

ggwhiz, on 2013-April-21, 13:04, 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.

There's a little too much sympathy going on for the wrong people.

A TD's prime job is to apply the Laws, and, where it does not conflict will applying the Laws, keep the customers happy.

If you think West made an awful call then either it is SEWoG or it isn't. If it is, Law 12C1B applies: if it isn't then just adjust and stop worrying about your personal feelings. And before you decide it is SEWoG, remember that this is clearly four ordinary club players, and it is a generally held view that nothing is bad enough to be SEWoG with lesser club players.

Chris3875, on 2013-April-21, 15:53, said:

OK - this is sort of related to this topic - but at what stage do you look at the hands. I didn't look at all so really had no idea that South held more hearts than diamonds so didn't ask the question about why he didn't bid his hearts. I agree now that it looks like a field of a misbid.

With a judgement ruling you collect the facts at the end of the hand. You then go away, look at the hand, consider and consult, and then rule some time later.

In this case the 3♦ bid shows that either North has got this wrong before or South was not sure of the meaning or both. Sadly, a lot of players, when asked a question, guess the answer, or give it without doubt when they are not sure, one of my client partners included.



In general, Chris, you must stop feeling too worried about "cruel" rulings. The game sometimes requires them, and since judgement rulings have two sides, if you decide not to give a correct ruling for fear of upsetting one side [which, I have been told, is often the American approach for TDs in small clubs] then you upset the other side, and unfairly. A good idea after giving a cruel ruling is to say "I did not really want to rule this way, but I am afraid I have to because the WBFLC/ABF/that nasty David Stevenson in England who runs that nice Sim Pairs say I have to." Over here we blame the EBU for everything, even in Wales.

[Chris3875]

bluejak, on 2013-April-23, 08:12, said:

There's a little too much sympathy going on for the wrong people.

A TD's prime job is to apply the Laws, and, where it does not conflict will applying the Laws, keep the customers happy.

If you think West made an awful call then either it is SEWoG or it isn't. If it is, Law 12C1B applies: if it isn't then just adjust and stop worrying about your personal feelings. And before you decide it is SEWoG, remember that this is clearly four ordinary club players, and it is a generally held view that nothing is bad enough to be SEWoG with lesser club players.


With a judgement ruling you collect the facts at the end of the hand. You then go away, look at the hand, consider and consult, and then rule some time later.

In this case the 3♦ bid shows that either North has got this wrong before or South was not sure of the meaning or both. Sadly, a lot of players, when asked a question, guess the answer, or give it without doubt when they are not sure, one of my client partners included.



In general, Chris, you must stop feeling too worried about "cruel" rulings. The game sometimes requires them, and since judgement rulings have two sides, if you decide not to give a correct ruling for fear of upsetting one side [which, I have been told, is often the American approach for TDs in small clubs] then you upset the other side, and unfairly. A good idea after giving a cruel ruling is to say "I did not really want to rule this way, but I am afraid I have to because the WBFLC/ABF/that nasty David Stevenson in England who runs that nice Sim Pairs say I have to." Over here we blame the EBU for everything, even in Wales.

[Chris3875]

Thanks - I'm cheered up considerably now. Because I didn't consider it a "judgement" ruling at the time, I didn't go away and look at the hands - it wasn't until I got home later that I was reviewing the day and checked. I will be having a "word" to South today ..... just so he knows he didn't 100% get away with it.