[lamford]

---

This wild hand caused some ill-feeling in a teams match last night. South's 2NT was not alerted, and was systemically a good pre-empt in a minor, clearly shown on the CC. North-South were an occasional partnership. South did not advise West of the failure to alert before the opening bid, and he fully accepted that he should have done so. West led the king of hearts which South won and led a spade, both at the speed of light. West ducked smoothly, but declarer guessed to put in the king and claimed. West argued that ducking was only wrong if South had ten clubs, a distributional constraint for a natural 2NT bid which would surely have been alerted. South intended to open 2NT and then jump to 5C to show a good 5C opener. South in the other room just opened 5C ending the auction and scoring +600.

The TD decided that North-South should get -500 for 6NT doubled - the score if the infraction had not occurred. West, however, had committed a serious error under 12.8.3 of the White Book: "Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam," and they kept the bad result attributed to the serious error, which was the difference between -1680 and +500. The former lost 14 IMPs and the latter would have won 15 IMPs, so the serious error cost 29 IMPs. So the net effect was -14 IMPs for East-West. West was not a happy bunny, but the TD said his hands were tied as West's play was given in the WB as an example of a serious error. In fact he had ducked the setting two tricks, the TD pointed out. West responded that he though the TD was "quackers" and it all got out of hand.

[bluejak]

Examples in the White book are examples, and nothing more, and do not require TDs to suspend judgement.

West's duck is reasonable and clearly not SEWoG.

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-10, 09:15, said:

Examples in the White book are examples, and nothing more, and do not require TDs to suspend judgement.

West's duck is reasonable and clearly not SEWoG.

I agree completely, so is the TD allowed to use judgement that opening 2NT on a 12 count, in another thread, is also not SeWoG?

[ArtK78]

On the face of it, West's argument was reasonable. His duck would only be a serious error if he had reason to believe that South had 10 more tricks available. How could that be possible?

On the other hand, West should be aware that something is definitely afoot. He has 16 HCP and dummy has 11 HCP. Where is South's 2NT opening bid? Clearly, there is something wrong. There was no alert, so West has no reason to assume that 2NT was anything out of the ordinary. And West can't very well examine his opponent's convention card at this point (assuming that it is permitted to do so) as any hesitation would give away the location of the ♠A. Still, West knows that something is very strange. A psyche is not out of the question. Perhaps ducking is not as safe as he thinks it should be.

The TD is wrong to say that his hands were tied by the examples in the rule book. But, having said that, it is not at all clear that ducking is not a serious error.

[bluejak]

 lamford, on 2011-March-10, 09:39, said:

I agree completely, so is the TD allowed to use judgement that opening 2NT on a 12 count, in another thread, is also not SeWoG?

Of course. But he won't, since it clearly is a serious error.

[phil_20686]

It seems hard to claim that 6N should be -500, if south felt his bid had been properly explained he probably would have cashed out after the heart lead for -1? Im pretty sure that south has made a serious infraction by not calling attention to the failure to alert, and should be penalised. It seems like his attempt to profit by leading a spade up represents some questionable ethics. Its inconceivable that he could expect west to duck if west thought the had a good pre-empt in a minor? A PP against south might be indicated here.

Agree that ducking is not at all a SEWOG. Even from my limited knowledge Ruling seems bizarre and lots of sympathy for west's exasperation.

[ahydra]

I believe W can examine the opps CC at his turn to play.

Doesn't everyone and their grandma cash out when presented with an opportunity to set a slam by two tricks? For a start, he already went the non-grandma route by not cashing his two aces!

As ArtK78 mentioned, W should think that even if South has all remaining 13 HCP, his 2NT bid is more than a touch light. So he exercises his right to look at the CC, finds out it's a pre-empt, considers briefly the possiblity of South holding a feckload of clubs (and/or realise that the DA, HQ and SA are the only tricks he can make anyway), and decides to cash out.

In my opinion "giving away the location of the spade ace" is a little irrelevant because West already doubled 6N. And if I were a TD I think I would rule this as a serious error (though of course NS should still get -500).

ahydra

[nigel_k]

This may be a newbie question, but what happens if you give a split score in a teams match? Does it make a difference if it is knockout or Swiss?

[gordontd]

 lamford, on 2011-March-10, 09:08, said:

West, however, had committed a serious error under 12.8.3 of the White Book: "Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam," and they kept the bad result atributed to the serious error, which was the difference between -1680 and +500. The former lost 14 IMPs and the latter would have won 15 IMPs, so the serious error cost 29 IMPs. So the net effect was 14 IMPs to East-West. West was not a happy bunny, but the TD said his hands were tied as West's play was given in the WB as an example of a serious error. In fact he had ducked the setting two tricks, the TD pointed out. West responded that he though the TD was "quackers" and it all got out of hand.

In what way would the duck, if it were to be considered a Serious Error, have been unrelated to the infraction?

[Vampyr]

 nigel_k, on 2011-March-10, 12:59, said:

This may be a newbie question, but what happens if you give a split score in a teams match? Does it make a difference if it is knockout or Swiss?

What do you mean? If you give a split score, the teams receive different scores on the board no matter what form the tournament takes. In matches scored by VPs, the total VPs given to the two teams may be higher or lower than the total normally available.

[BunnyGo]

 Vampyr, on 2011-March-10, 13:51, said:

What do you mean? If you give a split score, the teams receive different scores on the board no matter what form the tournament takes. In matches scored by VPs, the total VPs given to the two teams may be higher or lower than the total normally available.

Continuing the "newbie" questions:
How can the teams get different scores if it's a knockout. Only one of the teams can move on.

[barmar]

N.M.

[gordontd]

 BunnyGo, on 2011-March-10, 14:46, said:

Continuing the "newbie" questions:
How can the teams get different scores if it's a knockout. Only one of the teams can move on.

Quote

L86B. Non-balancing Adjustments, Knockout Play
When the Director awards non-balancing adjusted scores (see Law 12C) in
knockout play, each contestant’s score on the board is calculated separately.
The average of the two scores is then assigned to each contestant.

[bluejak]

If a split score is given in teams, the score for each side is computed separately by imping it with the result in the other room. You thus get two scores, for example team A gains 7 imps, team B loses 10 imps.

If it is not knockout the two different scores now apply to the two teams. If, as is common, it is now converted to Victory Points, the victory Points need not balance, and often will not.

If it is knockout then Law 86B applies, and the two scores are averaged. So, in the example I have given, team A gets +8.5 imps, team B gets -8.5 imps. Local regulations may tell you what to do with 0.5 imp, which could be left as it is. In England it would be rounded to 9 imps.

Hello Gordon: you seem to have posted while I was writing.

[Phil]

Rather than determining how a spade duck can cost, perhaps we should ask West how he thought a spade duck can gain?

[ArtK78]

 Phil, on 2011-March-10, 15:01, said:

Rather than determining how a spade duck can cost, perhaps we should ask West how he thought a spade duck can gain?

I fully agree that any reasonable player would assume that setting a voluntarily bid doubled slam two tricks has to be a pretty good result. So, West should have taken his spade ace and cashed out. Then we wouldn't have to worry about trying to recover in the committee what we didn't win at the table.

As to these questions about examining the opps convention card, or trying to determine how a duck can lose, or how a duck can gain, query - how can any of these things be done in tempo?

[gordontd]

 Phil, on 2011-March-10, 15:01, said:

Rather than determining how a spade duck can cost, perhaps we should ask West how he thought a spade duck can gain?

What we should really be asking is if any of this would have occurred had NS not infracted by failing to alert, and then again by failing to advise EW of the failure to alert. If the situation wouldn't have arisen had NS not infracted, then it's not "unrelated to the infraction".

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2011-March-10, 15:26, said:

What we should really be asking is if any of this would have occurred had NS not infracted by failing to alert, and then again by failing to advise EW of the failure to alert. If the situation wouldn't have arisen had NS not infracted, then it's not "unrelated to the infraction".

I don't think that's how it's intended. See the thread about the "silly slip". Just because you wouldn't have been in a position to make the error without the original infraction, doesn't mean it's related to it. There has to be some direct causal link between the infraction and the error. The two undertricks staring him in the face break the link.

[gordontd]

 barmar, on 2011-March-10, 15:46, said:

Just because you wouldn't have been in a position to make the error without the original infraction, doesn't mean it's related to it.

In this case it certainly is:

Quote

West argued that ducking was only wrong if South had ten clubs, a distributional constraint for a natural 2NT bid which would surely have been alerted.

If they had alerted as required, or notified the failure to alert, as required, West wouldn't have ducked.

[mrdct]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-10, 09:15, said:

Examples in the White book are examples, and nothing more, and do not require TDs to suspend judgement.

West's duck is reasonable and clearly not SEWoG.

I disagree. West can fly with the ♠A and pick up a guaranteed +500 and to not do so when it's obvious that South has a hand full of ♣ is a pretty serious error in my books.

Once he's seem dummy, West knows that South can have a maximum of 13 hcp, so what else could South have?

Quite rightly North-South deserve their -500 as the TD ruled, but I'm going rule that West made a SEWoG and his team will keep the table result. Also, West should probably face some sort of discplinary action for making a derogatory comment about the TD.

 lamford, on 2011-March-10, 09:08, said:

West led the king of hearts which South won and led a spade, both at the speed of light.

The actions by South of both not correcting the failure to alert and deliberately playing out of tempo in an attempt to induce an error by West are nothing short of cheating and perhaps some equity could be restored by addressing that issue.