[pescetom]

MP

---

BBO tournament following Italian regulations as far as possible, both sides are regular BBO partnerships.
E opens 2♥ alerted and explained as weak, S pauses for almost a minute and then cues 3♥, which after a request by W is explained as "two suited".
W raises hearts to game, N doubles and S bids clubs, N corrects to spades which becomes the final contract, undoubled.

E leads ♣A and dummy is exposed, W calls the Director, complaining about the pause by S and the probably misleading explanation.
Director asks all to play on in silence and then confirms the score of 5♠-5 saying that "NS gave EW a top".
W points out that it is actually a MP bottom, Director is unimpressed.

Two other tables allowed NS to play spades, but doubled. At two EW made 3NT+2, at most others EW were in 4/5♦=.

Was W just looking for excuses because he missed the boat, or was the Director in too much of a hurry here?

[Cyberyeti]

W has failed to play bridge by not doubling unless 2♥ can be spectacularly awful (which I can't imagine it would be if he's bidding 4♥ with that). W also pretty much knows S has what he has if playing standard weak 2s, the doubler is not going to have 6 small, he must have something so say 21+6+3 if playing 6-10 doesn't leave much for the 2 suiter.

We need to establish exactly what NS's agreements are, if there's a clear misexplanation, NS are not keeping their score although EW might be. W could have asked what strength of 2 suiter.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-December-28, 14:07, said:

W has failed to play bridge by not doubling unless 2♥ can be spectacularly awful (which I can't imagine it would be if he's bidding 4♥ with that). W also pretty much knows S has what he has if playing standard weak 2s, the doubler is not going to have 6 small, he must have something so say 21+6+3 if playing 6-10 doesn't leave much for the 2 suiter.

We need to establish exactly what NS's agreements are, if there's a clear misexplanation, NS are not keeping their score although EW might be. W could have asked what strength of 2 suiter.

Those are some elements of the stew. NS "two suiter" might either be any two of the three unbid suits, or the other major plus a minor: W could have asked, although the burden is on NS to explain the latter. EW might have a decent defence against the former which they were unable to use. The agreement about N's possible calls over 4♥ (including but not limited to double) should have been asked too, and maybe some effort to identify any logical alternatives. Yes W knows that NS have <14 points, but S presumably makes up in length what the pause says about strength. W should have doubled, but is not doubling a 'serious error' here?

[sfi]

pescetom, on 2021-December-28, 14:52, said:

W should have doubled, but is not doubling a 'serious error' here?

In a word, yes. From what I understand, the possible UI is the failure to specify spades as one of the suits. The bidding shows N/S on the same wavelength about that, so I'm comfortable with the finding that West had UI. I'm also comfortable with the suggestion that West may have considered a 3S call on the first round, although I would want to hear more about what it might show and why it might lead to a different outcome.

The question of the pause was raised as well. My instinct is that it shows one of two things - either South is trying to remember their agreement or South has a weak hand for their bid. The subsequent auction doesn't clarify that - South still could have a single-suited club hand and have been looking for a heart stopper - but North's 5S bid suggests they were on firm ground about their agreements and that South's hand is weak. North is likely to be able to work all of this out, but there is no evidence they acted on the information. No adjustment there.

So there is a case for an adjustment if E-W would have had a substantively different auction after a 3S cuebid by West. I don't really buy it, but I would be prepared to consider it further.

But then there's the pass of 5S - that's just crazy. I don't think it's possible to construct a hand where a diamond lead fails to beat the contract (South needs 6 spades for a start, and would not have bid 5C with that hand), and declarer is likely to lose control much of the time. It's probably going to be even worse for N-S if South does have the minors so the MI didn't lead West astray. Down 5 is about par for the hand, so I am comfortable ruling this as "an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction)", to use the terminology from Law 12.

[sfi]

BTW, I just ran the hand past an international player. Holding West's hand they wanted to double for penalties at every point in the auction.

[johnu]

sfi, on 2021-December-28, 16:23, said:

BTW, I just ran the hand past an international player. Holding West's hand they wanted to double for penalties at every point in the auction.

BTW, I just ran the hand past a non-bridge player. Holding West's hand they wanted to double for penalties at every point in the auction.

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2021-December-28, 12:12, said:

E leads ♣A and dummy is exposed, W calls the Director, complaining about the pause by S and the probably misleading explanation.

3♥ was alerted as 2 suited, and South had a 2 suiter. WTP??? The long pause is problematic, but didn't seem to affect the rest of the hand.

[sfi]

johnu, on 2021-December-28, 19:28, said:

BTW, I just ran the hand past a non-bridge player. Holding West's hand they wanted to double for penalties at every point in the auction.

I’m not sure I believe that. I asked a newish player (better than novice but would not belong in open fields). They bid 4H - I was pleased they contemplated double and not 3NT - and passed 5C. They doubled 5S happily but were slightly concerned they were getting a poor score when I said only one diamond was cashing. Declarer losing control didn’t enter into the decision.

[sanst]

sfi, on 2021-December-28, 16:23, said:

BTW, I just ran the hand past an international player. Holding West's hand they wanted to double for penalties at every point in the auction.

I rather doubt EW are the peers of an international player. Or is that someone, e.g a Dutchman, who is having a holiday on a camping in France playing a game on a sunny afternoon?

[sanst]

Did EW explain how they are damaged by the infractions? In what way is the explanation misleading and how put that them on the wrong footing? In what way did N make use of the unauthorized information caused by the pause?
BTW, I’m a fairly moderate player and out of practice, but I can’t come up with a reason for W not to double 5♠. That is self-inflicted damage.

[Douglas43]

This may come across as a bit Walter the Walrus, but when I have a 20 count with AKxx in trumps and the opponents are at the 5 level, I tend to double. Mind you maybe Victor Mollo could have constructed a hand where HH makes eleven tricks...

[Cyberyeti]

Douglas43, on 2021-December-29, 04:05, said:

This may come across as a bit Walter the Walrus, but when I have a 20 count with AKxx in trumps and the opponents are at the 5 level, I tend to double. Mind you maybe Victor Mollo could have constructed a hand where HH makes eleven tricks...

This is my feeling exactly. I can see hands where 5♠ can make, but not where you can't beat it. It's also not difficult to construct hands where you are making 6♦.

Yes you need to establish whether 3♥ guarantees spades, and what a 3♠ cue bid would mean over that.

I would have doubled over 3♥ whether it showed spades or not.

[pescetom]

johnu, on 2021-December-28, 19:33, said:

3♥ was alerted as 2 suited, and South had a 2 suiter. WTP???

The problem is that N seems to know that one of the 2 suits is spades, which was not explained to EW.

johnu, on 2021-December-28, 19:33, said:

The long pause is problematic, but didn't seem to affect the rest of the hand.

Agreed, from what I can see, but I would want to know about NS agreements to decide.

Cyberyeti, on 2021-December-29, 04:28, said:

Yes you need to establish whether 3♥ guarantees spades, and what a 3♠ cue bid would mean over that.

Yes. A 3♠ cue bid over 3♥ promising spades might be a forcing raise of hearts over which E can show his unexpected ♣A in some way.

sanst, on 2021-December-29, 03:00, said:

BTW, I’m a fairly moderate player and out of practice, but I can’t come up with a reason for W not to double 5♠. That is self-inflicted damage.

I agree, like all writing here, although I'm not sure that WBF Laws Committee would. Their guidance is that a 'serious error' must be 'truly egregious' and failure to double 5♠ here certainly is. But 'extremely serious error' has to be more extreme than 'serious error' and the only example they supply is a revoke.
In minutes from 2008 they state:
"The standard for judging a ‘[extremely] serious error’ must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant."
For the EBU, pass rather than double would have to be "blatantly ridiculous":

Quote

8.12.5.3 ‘Extremely Serious Error’
It should be rare to consider an action ‘an extremely serious error’. In general only the following types of action would be covered:
• Failure to follow proper legal procedure (e.g. revoking, creating a major penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).
• Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be considered in relation to the class of the player concerned;...

[mycroft]

Potentially paradox - I'm willing to play 5♠x or 6♦x? I "know" partner has spades because I have ♦xxxx? Given 5♣ wasn't doubled, does he think that 5♠ or 6♦ could *make*? I mean, sure, he should know that west raised on at most two, therefore it was bid on power, but given the rest of the auction, will he?

I don't know the Alerting regulations in Italy - it could be that some cuebids are Alertable and some are "self-Alerting". Or all. Or none. Or, given this is online, some equivalent to ACBL's Appendix O "it's encouraged to explain unusual things, even if not technically Alertable" applies. I definitely would have explained straight up, but then again, I know that "Michaels over weak 2s" isn't a universal thing - those that play it mostly don't.

It could also be that the correct explanation is "spades and a minor" same as (1♥)-2♥ would be and again, South doesn't know any better and can't tell the difference between what he said and what their agreement is.


But the damage was "failure to double in an auction where you bid game on power not shape". Even if it turns out that the 5 level can only go down 2, I don't see any use of UI here. Okay, so what the director said was wrong - "NS gave you the chance for the top, not their fault you didn't take it" - but equally unimpressed.

It took forever to bid 3♥? And what, precisely does that show? That's a question that needs answering and to me, it means "I don't really have my two-suiter for some reason." What that reason is seems difficult to guess (here it's "don't preempt over a preempt", but it could have been 4216 or 4126 [*] and "I can't double, but I don't want to lose the spades by bidding 3♣", or it could be some other flaw, or it could even be "do we play this as Michaels or as stopper-ask? Is partner going to be sure?"

And even if partner knows it's "don't preempt over a preempt", how did he use that information? He doubled 4♥ for penalty, and when partner pulled it, he chose to play in the other suit.

So that's use of UI. "Whenever there's MI, there's UI, and vice versa" (though less so online). So what about the MI?

Let's assume for argument that "two suits" is misleading and it is actually "spades and a minor" (note that if "two suits" is correct, but North thought it was "spades and a minor", the "we don't really have an agreement as to which two suits" is the "correct agreement" for the purposes of calculating damage). Would West do anything different at all? I mean, they complained when dummy came down, not when they found out about North's hand. So...? I can't see any difference to West's bidding if South guaranteed spades over South guaranteeing a pointed suit ("I didn't double in case South had the minors and we can't set 6♣ with 100 honours in their second suit on a trump lead (automatic given North pulled 5♣)?")

Allowing 5♠ to play undoubled is what caused the damage, and it was not caused by anything the opponents did or didn't do.
There isn't in my eye any use of UI - I can't even tell what the UI "demonstrably suggests".
There might have been a misdescription of their agreement, but while that is an infraction, it doesn't lead to an adjusted score without damage. And I think a quick "so now you can see why your explanation was both incomplete and misleading, and on other hands could have caused damage?" solves that problem for the future.

I am a strong proponent of "We don't have to make the case, that's what the director is for. We just have to call the director when it looks like there is an issue." But this director can't see any infraction causing damage. If E-W disagrees, now they will in fact have to make the case to the director. I am very happy to be shown my blind spots; I am not going to give out "they did something wrong, we get a good score."

Okay, if the argument they give me (reading the thread more carefully) is that 3♠ is an option over "spades and a minor", and that was their agreement, then I have to look. But North is still going to double 4♥, and South is still going to pull, and they're still going to get to 5♠, and is the ♣A the tipping point, even if they're going to show it? Similarly, without the known cuebid, X-then-4♥ gets the same point across, and East now knows to double with the ♣A (assuming that doesn't mean "I want to sacrifice", I guess).

Now, if I did believe that there was use of UI or MI that caused damage, do I think that failing to double is an extremely serious error? In the ACBL, if they're of any skill at all, yes. This is "failing to play bridge to your level". You bid game on power, they don't get to play undoubled, even if it makes. But the ACBL is known to be overly harsh here (with good reason, even if that good reason is irrelevant to 90% of players). In RoW, I'm not sure.

* Minor add: okay, with the hearts North has, it won't be 42 anything. But how about 40(45) or 5035 and being concerned that his next action is what to lead?

[pescetom]

At first sight I'm comfortable with most of that, thanks.

Just a quick clarification:

mycroft, on 2021-December-29, 10:30, said:

I don't know the Alerting regulations in Italy - it could be that some cuebids are Alertable and some are "self-Alerting". Or all. Or none. Or, given this is online, some equivalent to ACBL's Appendix O "it's encouraged to explain unusual things, even if not technically Alertable" applies. I definitely would have explained straight up, but then again, I know that "Michaels over weak 2s" isn't a universal thing - those that play it mostly don't.

The alerting regulations in Italy are WBF inspired, so all cuebids that are not natural ('I too have hearts') are alertable. Explaining the cue of a 1 level bid as "two suits" would raise eyebrows and probably lead to further questioning, as an agreement not specifying one or both suits would be very unusual; "spades and clubs" or "spades and a minor" or "both minors" are normal explanations. But over a weak 2 there are no standard expectations and "two suits" is plausible as an actual agreement.

[mycroft]

So, this sounds like one of those "Alerts that are frequently missed, and nobody cares, because they also wouldn't believe it was natural". Which is an issue, and possibly the reason South didn't Alert her Alertable cuebid. Again, my guess from the auction and the timing is that they're good enough to play, but not good enough to understand any of the issues E-W are bringing up. They're the kind that say "well, it's obvious, everybody plays Michaels, don't they?" (well, in Italian). They're the kind that see that players they respect don't Alert 1♥-2♥ and therefore "know" about 2♥-3♥.

I do agree that "two suits" is a plausible agreement. As a player, there are calls over "any two suits" that unambiguously show "strong hand" in a way that 4♥ doesn't. Just because the cuebid allowed by "spades and a minor" is also there doesn't mean there wasn't that option. West chose not to do so, and left East (and North and South, he hopes) in the dark. It bit him on this hand. As a director, I don't get to say "a good player would have done something different that works here" or even "it was possible to do something different that works here", in the face of an infraction causing damage. I do get to say that it wasn't the infraction, but your choice of continuations, that caused the damage; but even then, if it's much easier to do it with the right information than with the wrong one (contextually or systemically), then we look at it.

But that all is saying "if West made it clear to East that 4♥ was on strength, then East would have looked at the ♣A and doubled 5♠, saving West from having to look at his 6 tricks and a potential ruff and assuming only two of them would cash in either black suit." Which I am not sure I believe, thank you. But if it comes to it, I'm willing to poll. But first, we have to work out whether there was a way to show strength in either auction; whether it makes sense that the correct agreement would lead to a strength-showing call over the "try to kill the Zia transfer" direct 4♥ (more than "doing the strength thing over "two suits" would); and then whether East's peers would do something different in the two different auctions. And then, of course, if passing here is "extremely serious error" or "gambling action, which if unsuccessful [] might have hoped to recover through rectification", in which case I might just say that "the entire damage is due to playing 'if this makes I win, if it goes down the director will give me back the double'."

I'm sorry, I have real trouble getting past "5♠ undoubled". But I have been blinded by my own prejudices many times before, and have forgotten how "bracket 10" plays (and have only an inkling of how National Champions play).

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-December-29, 12:12, said:

So, this sounds like one of those "Alerts that are frequently missed, and nobody cares, because they also wouldn't believe it was natural". Which is an issue, and possibly the reason South didn't Alert her Alertable cuebid. Again, my guess from the auction and the timing is that they're good enough to play, but not good enough to understand any of the issues E-W are bringing up. They're the kind that say "well, it's obvious, everybody plays Michaels, don't they?" (well, in Italian). They're the kind that see that players they respect don't Alert 1♥-2♥ and therefore "know" about 2♥-3♥.

I do agree that "two suits" is a plausible agreement. As a player, there are calls over "any two suits" that unambiguously show "strong hand" in a way that 4♥ doesn't. Just because the cuebid allowed by "spades and a minor" is also there doesn't mean there wasn't that option. West chose not to do so, and left East (and North and South, he hopes) in the dark. It bit him on this hand. As a director, I don't get to say "a good player would have done something different that works here" or even "it was possible to do something different that works here", in the face of an infraction causing damage. I do get to say that it wasn't the infraction, but your choice of continuations, that caused the damage; but even then, if it's much easier to do it with the right information than with the wrong one (contextually or systemically), then we look at it.

But that all is saying "if West made it clear to East that 4♥ was on strength, then East would have looked at the ♣A and doubled 5♠, saving West from having to look at his 6 tricks and a potential ruff and assuming only two of them would cash in either black suit." Which I am not sure I believe, thank you. But if it comes to it, I'm willing to poll. But first, we have to work out whether there was a way to show strength in either auction; whether it makes sense that the correct agreement would lead to a strength-showing call over the "try to kill the Zia transfer" direct 4♥ (more than "doing the strength thing over "two suits" would); and then whether East's peers would do something different in the two different auctions. And then, of course, if passing here is "extremely serious error" or "gambling action, which if unsuccessful [] might have hoped to recover through rectification", in which case I might just say that "the entire damage is due to playing 'if this makes I win, if it goes down the director will give me back the double'."

I'm sorry, I have real trouble getting past "5♠ undoubled". But I have been blinded by my own prejudices many times before, and have forgotten how "bracket 10" plays (and have only an inkling of how National Champions play).

I agree with your conclusion, but some of the premises are shaky, partly my fault in OP.

A cue would almost never go unexplained in Italy: the alert might be omitted, but an explanation would be requested anyway. There is a legacy here, in that previous regulations were very strict about 2-suiters, including length/strength requirements, and that culture has remained even though those rules have disappeared. Also there is no single standard convention: an increasing number play Michaels and Unusual, but many opponents have never heard of either and so they get explained correctly just like the other conventions. In this case, S did alert her cue (sorry, my omission in OP) but without an explanation, which only arrived after E requested it. Saying just "two suits" over 1M would be considered suspicious and evasive by almost anyone. Over 2M no, because showing a 2-suit here is fairly unusual and that might well be the actual agreement.

EW probably have no agreements about how to handle two suited interference over 2M. They will have an agreement about handling Michaels over 1M, and if the cue over 2M was correctly explained as "spades and a minor" they would probably apply that same agreement, as far as it goes. If the opps agreement is "(any) two suits" then they would almost certainly have no pre-defined "strength thing", although double then hearts still looks obvious.

[sfi]

sanst, on 2021-December-29, 02:51, said:

I rather doubt EW are the peers of an international player. Or is that someone, e.g a Dutchman, who is having a holiday on a camping in France playing a game on a sunny afternoon?

I agree. The point was that an international player wanted to double two levels lower than the final contract. My second poll was more likely to be a peer of West. Their choices (surprisingly) aligned with West at the table, and they found double at the five-level beyond obvious.

[pescetom]

sfi, on 2021-December-29, 17:11, said:

I agree. The point was that an international player wanted to double two levels lower than the final contract. My second poll was more likely to be a peer of West. Their choices (surprisingly) aligned with West at the table, and they found double at the five-level beyond obvious.

I think anyone capable of playing bridge would find double at the five-level obvious. The question is whether or not passing is an extremely serious error, considering that for WBF "The standard for judging a ‘[extremely] serious error’ must be extremely high and the calibre of the player is also relevant" and that for EBU "It should be rare to consider an action ‘an extremely serious error’", clarified as "blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count", or a revoke which is cited by both bodies.

Mycroft gave us a clear yes for ACBL. A TD would be allowed to make his own judgement in Italy, I would say yes. Curious to know how this would be evaluated in other jurisdictions, in particular by EBU TDs in the light of White Book and case history.

[mycroft]

Well, my guess is that failing to double, if it meets "obvious for anyone capable of playing bridge", is really close to "failing to take the setting trick against a slam".
However, having played my share of 5♣ undoubled -4 because the opponents didn't understand "when you bid game on power, the opponents - even the 'really good' flight A declarers - don't get to play undoubled", though, I think it's "obvious for anyone not in the Novice or Life Novice category". Which does change matters somewhat, especially if West is, say, decent flight B in a decent club.

But I would be more concerned with the other half of the 12C1e, as I quoted above: "or by a gambling action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification". I didn't double because it might make if they actually have the rest of the spades and the club A (unless partner magically finds the diamond lead). When it turns out that's not the problem, I'll call the director and argue that we would have done something different if I got the right explanation/north didn't guess right due to the long pause before 3♥/whatever they think "would have happened" if the opponents weren't unscrupulous bastards that use tempo and minimal explanations to get away with murder.