[LH2650]

---

The first double was alerted and explained as a Support Double. The actual agreement was more like "responsive" or "cards". South claimed that the 3♥ bid was made only because the opponents had shown a 5-3 ♠ fit, and that he would have passed with a proper explanation. Does Law 12C1b, regarding wild or gambling asctions unrelated to the infraction, apply here? If so, do you feel that South's action reaches that standard? How would you adjust the score? The actual result was down one, and you can assume that 2 ♠ would have also been down 1.

[xcurt]

It would help to know the class of player involved, although my gut reaction is that 3♥ is a sufficiently poor call that it broke the link.

[dwar0123]

So south was expecting them to obey the law of total tricks and bid 3♠?

I actually have some sympathy with south but I am not a director, curious how this turns out.

[barmar]

dwar0123, on 2012-March-27, 21:18, said:

So south was expecting them to break the law of total tricks and bid 3♠?

FYP

If his partner has the expected ♠ void, yet couldn't find a 3♥ call of his own, could it really be right to compete?

[dwar0123]

barmar, on 2012-March-27, 22:43, said:

FYP

If his partner has the expected ♠ void, yet couldn't find a 3♥ call of his own, could it really be right to compete?

Duh, I cant count, ya no sympathy for south.

[iviehoff]

LH2650, on 2012-March-27, 19:38, said:

Does Law 12C1b, regarding wild or gambling asctions unrelated to the infraction, apply here? If so, do you feel that South's action reaches that standard?

Nowhere near, not even faintly. We normally reckon that there is a element of "deliberateness" about wild/gambling actions, ie, the guy must have known he was doing something extraordinarily off-beat to be wild/gambling. Serious errors are less deliberate, but nevertheless very serious errors. Ordinary everyday miscalculations come nowhere near. If you were telling us the guy bid 5H, 4C, or 3N or something, we'd have something to talk about.

[campboy]

LH2650, on 2012-March-27, 19:38, said:

Does Law 12C1b, regarding wild or gambling asctions unrelated to the infraction, apply here?

It's worth pointing out that wild or gambling actions do not have to be unrelated to the infraction in order to deny redress. Only in the case of a serious error does it matter whether it is related to the infraction. I agree with Iviehoff about the difference between SE and WoG, and that this is neither.

[billw55]

LH2650, on 2012-March-27, 19:38, said:

South claimed that the 3♥ bid was made only because the opponents had shown a 5-3 ♠ fit, and that he would have passed with a proper explanation.

This argument does not make sense to me. Partner can also see his void if it is there.

[aguahombre]

LH2650, on 2012-March-27, 19:38, said:

South claimed that the 3♥ bid was made only because the opponents had shown a 5-3 ♠ fit, and that he would have passed with a proper explanation.

billw55, on 2012-March-28, 09:05, said:

This argument does not make sense to me. Partner can also see his void if it is there.

True, South's re-raise of his own raise is poor IMO, anyway.

But, stupid doesn't necessarily mean wild or gambling for the purpose of rulings.

[mycroft]

I agree with "stupid, but not wild or gambling." Isn't South's hand *better* for hearts with the 5-1 break that actually existed than the 5-0 that he expected?

Yeah, so the 7-card fit will be harder to play than the 8, but enough to overcome "there's a chance I'm not getting to the board?"

[ahydra]

South's argument makes no sense. Result stands.

ahydra

[Trinidad]

ahydra, on 2012-March-29, 06:32, said:

South's argument makes no sense. Result stands.

ahydra

But the criterion is not whether South's argument makes sense. The criterion is whether South's action is wild or gambling (or a serious error, unrelated to the infraction).

Rik

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-28, 11:08, said:

True, South's re-raise of his own raise is poor IMO, anyway.

But, stupid doesn't necessarily mean wild or gambling for the purpose of rulings.

What I mean is that I am inclined to be suspicious about south's statement. His "reasoning" is so silly that I consider it plausible that he was not thinking any such thing during the auction, and rather concocted it afterward to as a means to seek a favorable ruling.

Although I suppose suspicion does not enter into a ruling either. Oh well, I guess EW will not make this mistake again.

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2012-March-29, 06:37, said:

But the criterion is not whether South's argument makes sense. The criterion is whether South's action is wild or gambling (or a serious error, unrelated to the infraction).

Not for "result stands". If you were to rule wild or gambling you would still adjust for OS. In order to reach "result stands", ahydra presumably thinks that South would not have done anything differently with the correct explanation.

Personally I have no doubt South would have passed with correct information, but it is certainly something we need to decide as part of the ruling.

[bluejak]

billw55, on 2012-March-28, 09:05, said:

This argument does not make sense to me. Partner can also see his void if it is there.

While true, the number of times in my life when a player has justified his action by saying that "partner must be short in {some suit}" when of course partner can see whether he is short is amazing.

campboy, on 2012-March-29, 08:36, said:

Personally I have no doubt South would have passed with correct information, but it is certainly something we need to decide as part of the ruling.

I wonder. I cannot see any justification for South's bid on either explanation and am not sure what difference it makes.

[ahydra]

Trinidad raises a valid point. Did I mean "if the X had been explained correctly, South would still bid 3H" or did I mean "the 3H was a serious error unrelated to the MI"?

I think, when I wrote it, that South's argument made so little sense to me that I was classing 3H as a serious error. Just looking at the hand again, I'm sticking with that (though it would, of course, depend on the level of the players).

ahydra

[mgoetze]

LH2650, on 2012-March-27, 19:38, said:

South claimed that the 3♥ bid was made only because the opponents had shown a 5-3 ♠ fit, and that he would have passed with a proper explanation.

This is obviously a self-serving statement, and I don't believe it. I want South to explain to me why he bid 3♥ with the given explanation. He will have to convince me that there is a reason why doing so is better when opps have a 5-3 spade fit than when they don't. If he can't, I will rule no damage.

(Note: it doesn't have to be a valid reason, but South must at least be convinced that it is.)

[campboy]

I suspect he will say "because of the law of total tricks".

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2012-March-30, 02:16, said:

I suspect he will say "because of the law of total tricks".

And that seems like a fine reason to me for a mediocre player who has only read "To bid or not to bid" and not "Following the Law".

At my club we used to have a pair that had "We follow the LAW" written on their CC. And they did, on the hands where it made sense as well as on the hands where it didn't.

I suspect that those guys would have bid 3♥ (with the explanation given at the table) even if they would have held SIX spades.

Rik

[barmar]

Did they miss the section of the book on reducing the number of total tricks when you have minor honors in the opponents' suit?