[twcho]

---

NS are inexperienced young players while EW are veterans. After the 5♣ by North, East asked what is the meaning of 5♣. South said that this shows high card in ♣. No further question was asked. After the end of auction and before East made his lead, North voluntarily corrected his pd's explanation and said that 4♣ is splinter and 5♣ shows void. Now East called director at this point (before making any lead). He told director all the facts and both sides agreed. East asked whether he could change his bid after 6♥ since he was misinformed. Director, after checking Law 21, decided that it was too late for East to change his bid after his pd has bid the final pass. He told East to continue the board and informed him again if East thought that he was damaged by the Misinformation. The board finished quickly with 6♥+1. East called director again and said that he will bid 7♣ after 6♥ if given the correct information. Director, taken into consideration of his call before, decided that EW was damaged and adjusted the score to 7♣X -4.

Do you agree with the director's rulings?

[trevahound]

I don't even understand it (meaning e/w's complaint -- edit). Is the claim that the experienced E/W thought N/S had a big ♣ fit? 2♣ was alerted, 4♣ on any planet I've walked on is at least sufficiently unusual as a natural ♣raise as to be worth asking about, if it mattered, and obviously a delayed alert if artificial. I would not be teammates with e/w period.

[ggwhiz]

E/W stealing a result. Take your 5 mp's and ........ please go away. And take the Director with you.

Regardless of such things as "laws" I would allow 7♣ just to impose 7♥ making as no logical alternative and would rule that against my aunt Dorothy.

Obviously E/W determined that 7♣ was a good save BEFORE calling for an adjustment (and/or knew what 4♣ meant from the get go) and that sucks.

[mink]

The director should have offered West the opportunity to change his final pass if he feels that with the correct information he would have chosen some other call. However, if he really wanted bid 7♣ then, he could not legally do so considering the UI by partner's question about 5♣.

The probability that East would have bid 7♣ all alone by himself with the correct information is zero IMO.

Karl

[lamford]

mink, on 2013-April-20, 06:50, said:

The probability that East would have bid 7♣ all alone by himself with the correct information is zero IMO.

I agree, but the TD should have polled a few Easts with the correct information. He would then have ruled no adjustment.

[sfi]

Maybe I'm being overly suspicious, but given that EW are described as veterans I think this scenario is plausible.

What if East knew the law well enough to know that it was too late to be able to change his bid? In that case, East has a free double shot by strongly suggesting that he might have saved in 7C. If it turns out that 6H isn't making or that 7Cx is too expensive he quietly (and possibly even magnanimously) drops it - after all his opponents are the "offending side". If 7Cx is the right spot to play, he has already shown the director that he was considering the sacrifice. A no-lose ploy. Even if the director mistakenly lets him bid 7C, he'll get an average-plus due to director error.

The blind sacrifice is straight out of La-La Land. Especially against inexperienced players it's just not happening. And the mere fact that North has a void rather than a singleton ace doesn't change that one whit.

Table score stands and as a director I would be talking to the recorder and other directors to investigate any previous incidents. Something really looks dubious.

[gordontd]

sfi, on 2013-April-20, 07:26, said:

Even if the director mistakenly lets him bid 7C, he'll get an average-plus due to director error.

It is not the case that a ruling under director's error guarantees you an Av+ score.

[sfi]

gordontd, on 2013-April-20, 07:58, said:

It is not the case that a ruling under director's error guarantees you an Av+ score.

True enough. He's still protected though.

[barmar]

I can just barely imagine someone trotting out a 7♣ sacrifice if they were white versus red. But bidding with that ratty suit vulnerable? No way.

[ahydra]

"East called director again and said that he will bid 7♣"

Yea, and I'm the King of England. Result stands.

ahydra

[mycroft]

Didn't ask about the auction, didn't do anything after 4♣ and 5♣, hoping the opponents would play in his K-7th suit? And now he'll find 7♣?

I can see arguments that "With the correct information I would have doubled 5♣, and *partner* would have bid 7..." but what's the difference between "high card" and "void"? Surely he didn't expect Axxx to go with the hearts? He's on lead to hearts, so partner knows the double is suggesting a sacrifice, not a lead.

Okay, I'll poll, but I'm not sure I'm finding anyone who can stand to not ask about (Alerted, so shouldn't be an issue) 2♣, 4♣, ask about 5 and pass. If I do, I'll see if they find a out-of-the-blue 7. If they do, they'll be put on the list of players I won't play with because they don't think they need a partner.

[bluejak]

Shoot the TD.