Join Bridge Winners
Is this the right ruling?

In a MP pairs event, sitting North at both vul, I had the following situation.


At this point, my LHO, East, asked about my partner's 3 bid. I said preemptive, and East doubled, all pass. 

Before he chose his lead, my partner stopped him and told him that our agreement (not true, according to our convention card) was that this was a mixed raise. Our card is marked, as I thought our agreements were, mixed without competition, preemptive in competition. Before we even started discussing this, I summoned the director to make sure nothing wrong happened here, and the opponents agreed that would be prudent.

We showed her the auction and explained what had happened. Her first ruling was to roll back the 4S bid as being guided by the UI of my explanation, but our opponents immediately pointed out that, at that point, there was no MI or UI. (It's nice to have opps who are not trying to just get the best ruling score they can, and I thanked them after the round for being the ones to point out that the question was not asked until after the 4 bid.)

While we all laughed at the mistake (she's an excellent, nationally ranked director, and it was way too early in the day for any of us to have to cope with this director call), she suggested we play on and that she would consult with the other director. 4 was cold, and I duly rang up +790.

After the round, we were informed that they were going to allow East to take back his double. This struck me as fair (still does), and I thought nothing else of it.

After the game, I was thinking about the ruling and I realized that, while it certainly restored equity, and that I would therefore HOPE it's the right ruling, it might not be. This is not about the hand. If I had the power, I would certainly have let my LHO take back his double as soon as the problem came to light.

However, my card was marked correctly, and my LHO looked at it. (I don't know about partner's card, but nobody looked at it.) The explanation, as far as I know, comported with our agreements. There was a difficult bid (pard had about 7 or 8 HCP and a 5 card spade suit), but there was not, as I understand the term, misinformation.

As I say, this is about understanding the rules for the next time that this happens to me or that it happens BY me. So, what's the ruling.

The ruling is correct. The MI about partner's hand caused the double.
The ruling is incorrect. The opponents are entitled to your agreement, not your hand.
Giving LHO a pass instead of double restores equity, and that's what the rules strive for. The ruling was correct, but for the wrong reason.
Other (please explain)

Sorry, to answer polls. Registered users can vote in polls, and can also browse other users' public votes! and participate in the discussion.

Getting results...
Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top