[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Table result NS +1660

South was an inexperienced player on the hand above, and North had only been playing a few years. East-West were an experienced pair. North asked prior to passing over 5S whether East now had a strong Michaels and was told that he did. He thought for a short time and then passed, and South decided to bid 6H. I doubt whether South would have been aware of any UI considerations. How would you rule?

[helene_t]

I wonder if the question conveys anything (given that North is an inexperienced player) and whether a "short time" is a BIT under these circumstances.

But assuming that it is, I would role back to 5♠=. I think pass is a LA (at matchpoints) and bidding is suggested by the BIT. It is likely (from South's perspective) that North considered doubling, but that would have to be based on two aces which means that 6♥ is likely to make.

[StevenG]

helene_t, on 2016-January-06, 08:53, said:

I wonder if the question conveys anything (given that North is an inexperienced player) and whether a "short time" is a BIT under these circumstances.

But assuming that it is, I would role back to 5♠=. I think pass is a LA (at matchpoints) and bidding is suggested by the BIT. It is likely (from South's perspective) that North considered doubling, but that would have to be based on two aces which means that 6♥ is likely to make.

With the distribution and the top clubs, I'm not convinced that pass is a LA, even at matchpoints. I think the choice is between 6♥ and double. I'm not going to say that either is suggested and I'll let the score stand.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2016-January-06, 08:11, said:

Matchpoints. Table result NS +1660
South was an inexperienced player on the hand above, and North had only been playing a few years. East-West were an experienced pair. North asked prior to passing over 5S whether East now had a strong Michaels and was told that he did. He thought for a short time and then passed, and South decided to bid 6H. I doubt whether South would have been aware of any UI considerations. How would you rule?

---

IMO the UI from North suggests that South bid 6♥. A poll would probably show that Pass and double are logical alternatives for South. If so, the director should wind the contract back to 5♠ or 5♠X.. The fact that NS are inexperienced should not mean that they are above the law; but it does mean that the director should take trouble to explain his ruling simply and clearly, emphasizing that he is not impugning South's ethics. Another possible consideration is whether East's double is wild and gambling. I hate SEWOG law, but fear that it might be.

[Cyberyeti]

Does E's double get into SEWOG territory, he has no reason to suppose it's going off, what does he think S has bid 6♥ on vulnerable.

I think N's pass suggests most of the time he was close to a double. This could easily be say KQ9 of spades instead of A10x, so bidding the slam I would say is not greatly suggested, and double would be more suggested. S is basically on a guess, I would allow 6♥ and pass, but convert X to pass.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-January-06, 09:56, said:

Does E's double get into SEWOG territory, he has no reason to suppose it's going off, what does he think S has bid 6♥ on vulnerable.

It might be an error, but it hardly seems like a serious error. Nor is it wild or gambling. If 6♥ is making, they're already getting a bad board, the double will just cost a little.

[aguahombre]

I believe the only fair thing is for South to thank his RHO. After showing his playing strength with the 2nd call, he decided his partner wasn't listening --- giving N/S another opportunity to stumble into the slam South should have been thinking about on the first round.

Cyber, above, has covered what might have been suggested. Result stands.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2016-January-06, 10:36, said:

It might be an error, but it hardly seems like a serious error. Nor is it wild or gambling. If 6♥ is making, they're already getting a bad board, the double will just cost a little.

Looks like an attempt to "have your cake and eat it", which certainly used to be quoted to me by directors as something you couldn't do.

[lamford]

nige1, on 2016-January-06, 09:51, said:

IMO the UI from North suggests that South bid 6♥. A poll would probably show that Pass and double are logical alternatives for South. If so, the director should wind the contract back to 5♠ or 5♠X.. The fact that NS are inexperienced should not mean that they are above the law; but it does mean that the director should take trouble to explain his ruling simply and clearly, emphasizing that he is not impugning South's ethics. Another possible consideration is whether East's double is wild and gambling. I hate SEWOG law, but fear that it might be.

I agree that one adjusts regardless of the experience of NS, although the TD did not do so because South was not a strong player, and he thought 6H was the only LA for someone of that ability. And even if you decide that double is gambling, you would only deny redress for that part of the bad result attributable to the WoG action. As this was zero, in that 6H= was a top, the same adjusted score applies to NS and EW.

The main question for me is why South would bid 6H if she was happy to give in to 4S a couple of rounds earlier!

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2016-January-06, 12:45, said:

The main question for me is why South would bid 6H if she was happy to give in to 4S a couple of rounds earlier!

Because partner bid 5♥ on his own which changes a lot

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-January-06, 12:51, said:

Because partner bid 5♥ on his own which changes a lot

Partner did not bid 5♥ on his own. He peeked and saw that you had bid 4♥.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2016-January-06, 13:15, said:

Partner did not bid 5♥ on his own. He peeked and saw that you had bid 4♥.

Yes, but he bid it knowing you could have a hand potentially about 4 or 5 tricks worse than the one you have and (I don't know what system was being played) you now know he doesn't have a flattish hand with the minimum number of hearts where it could have been disastrous to bid.

[wank]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-January-06, 11:08, said:

Looks like an attempt to "have your cake and eat it", which certainly used to be quoted to me by directors as something you couldn't do.

better that they quoted the law. x isn't wild and gambling (lol it's not even in the same timezone) or a serious error.

without wanting to hear a lecture on the brilliance of norwegian regulations pertaining to high level auctions, north's tempo sounds perfectly normal for this type of auction, so no UI and no issue.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2016-January-06, 08:11, said:

I doubt whether South would have been aware of any UI considerations. How would you rule?

If by that you mean that South would not have been capable of drawing any inference from North's question/short pause, then I don't see which Law has been broken. Table result stands.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2016-January-06, 16:36, said:

If by that you mean that South would not have been capable of drawing any inference from North's question/short pause, then I don't see which Law has been broken. Table result stands.

No, I don't mean that. I think South would have been unaware of any UI obligations, but her partner's questions and BIT (around 10 seconds after the questions) would still have told her that he wanted to do something. The only way to really tell is to poll a few players of the same ability (a 4 on the NGS for what it is worth) and find out what they would do.

[Cyberyeti]

wank, on 2016-January-06, 16:16, said:

better that they quoted the law. x isn't wild and gambling (lol it's not even in the same timezone) or a serious error.

without wanting to hear a lecture on the brilliance of norwegian regulations pertaining to high level auctions, north's tempo sounds perfectly normal for this type of auction, so no UI and no issue.

It wasn't in the laws, it was in one of the other EBU books. There certainly used to be a comment about taking a double shot, ie making an unwise double in the expectation of getting a bigger gain if it went off and getting a ruling if it didn't. From what I remember of this it had a standard less than completely barking to fall foul of this.

[barmar]

There's no prohibition against double shots, although many people would wish there was, and some directors mistakenly act as if there were.

Many WoG actions are double shots, but double shots aren't always WoG. If it's WoG you can deal with it based on that rule.

[campboy]

This isn't even a double shot IMO. A double shot is when you go for a really good score, expecting you can fall back on an adjustment to a decent score if your action doesn't work out. But here East is surely expecting the adjusted score to be better than the penalty he can get in 6♥x.

The double shot here would be to bid 6♠. If it makes, great; if not you can ask the TD to give you back your 5♠=.