This is the ARCHIVE website for Mountnessing Bridge Club
2006 - 2015
For current news, results, etc please visit
http://www.bridgewebs.com/mountnessingbc/

Search This Site

When the material facts are disputed

Hand played on:	06/09/2012
Board number / section:	24
Dealer:	West
Vulnerability:	Love All

The Hands and the Bidding

	North ♠K Q J 10 3 ♥7 3 ♦Q 2 ♣Q 10 9 3
West ♠4 2 ♥ J 8 6 5 4 ♦J 8 5 4 ♣ 8 2		East ♠7 6 5 ♥A 9 ♦A 7 6 ♣A K J 6 5		The Bidding
	South ♠A 9 8 ♥K Q 10 2 ♦K 10 9 3 ♣7 4			North 1♠ 1 2♠ No	East 2♣ x 3 No	South No 2 No 4 4♠	West No No 3♣ End

Footnotes:

1. Playing 5-card majors
2. Well, South is entitled to risk a pass-out...
3. Not alerted, therefore taken as for take-out
4. Let's see what happens

Description:

Unfortunately, the material facts as to what was said when are disputed by the players at the table. All are agreed that East announced that her partner should have alerted the double of 2♠, because it was intended as a penalty double, but there is a difference of opinion as to whether this happened before South bid 4♠, or after the auction had been concluded but before the opening lead was selected. By doing so at either of these points in time, East, in principle, could have given partner 'unauthorised information' (UI), which must be ignored in all subsequent bidding and play by West. [When a DEFENDER thinks that mis-information has been given by partner, then that situation should be alerted AFTER the play of the hand - to avoid giving partner UI while it could still influence events; if DECLARER or DUMMY perceives that mis-information has been given by partner, then that situation should be alerted before the opening lead is selected and faced.] In practice, it looks as though the UI had no bearing on subsequent events, so in a sense East 'got away with it'.

To make matters even more complicated, the East / West system card said that the partnership were playing take-out doubles to the level of 2♠, though East was insistant that the particular circumstances of this hand over-ruled that basic agreement.

Analysis:

Given that the facts are disputed, then Law 85 comes into play and it says that "in determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities". The clear 'balance of probabilities' is that when South bid 4S he was unaware that the double of 2S was intended to be for penalties. What I can't be absolutely sure of based on the comments I have heard is whether this situation arose because, as claimed by South, the clarification was given AFTER the bid was made, or, as is implied by East's comments, South had misunderstood the explanations that had previously been given. Law 85 then directs me to Law 84, sub-point D of which says that I should rule any doubtful point in favour of the 'non-offending' side. So adding all that up, given that there is doubt, I have to accept South's assertion that he would not have bid 4♠ had he understood that the double of 2♠ was intended to be for penalties. I have to 'rewind the bidding' back, and deem that the hand was played in 3♣ by East. The hand-sheet says that East should only make 6 tricks, but I have studied the hand long and hard and think that in practice, at the table, East would almost certainly make 7 tricks. The only pair who played the hand in clubs by East in fact made 8 tricks, but that was after a mis-defence that I could not expect to be repeated.

The Ruling:

The hand should be adjusted to 3♣-2 by East.

Comment

In my opinion, some of the bidding on this hand looks to be a bit unusual, but so long as the bid is 'legal' and, as necessary, is explained by the partner fully and accurately in accordance with the system agreements, then a player is entitled to bid whatever he / she likes. Personally, I would think that the South hand holds a perfect take-out double of the 2♣ bid, but had such a bid been made, then North would have been under some pressure. With such a weak hand, North would be advised to bid 2♠, and after that East may well have stayed silent, and allowed North / South to subside in the self-same 4♠ contract. However, that is NOT how things progressed at this table...

Additionally, I consider that if East's double of 2♠ was intended as a penalty double, then it is rather optimistic, though as a bid to show additional values it would be perfectly appropriate. In a sense, East 'shot herself in the foot' by suggesting that it was intended to be for penalties.

Lessons for everyone:

• When a DEFENDER thinks that mis-information has been given by partner, then that situation should be alerted AFTER the play of the hand - to avoid the likelihood of giving partner Unauthorised Information while it could still influence events;
• If DECLARER or DUMMY perceives that mis-information has been given by partner, then that situation should be alerted before the opening lead is selected and faced. By that stage, any UI is of no use to partner, as the bidding has been completed and Declarer can see both hands, but such an alert could avoid the possibility of the Defenders proceeeding on the basis of mis-information.