BBO Discussion Forums: Icelandic Pairs 2011 - BBO Discussion Forums

 nige1, on 2011-March-15, 09:51, said:

And why, pray tell, is a nonsystematic pass superior to a nonsystematic 3♥ or, for that matter, any other nonsystematic bid?

The only reason that you're getting all pissy about the 3♥ bid is that it happened to work out well. I guaruntee you that, had East chosen an a-systemic pass, and said pass lead to a good score, the opponents would be bitching up a storm that he didn't chose some other action.

 nige1, on 2011-March-15, 09:51, said:

I made no such claim... I did, however, directly state the following

Quote

which would appear to point in the opposite direction.

Perhaps the sentence structure was overly complex.
Alternatively, maybe I shouldn't use big worlds like "equivalent"...

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-15, 10:46, said:

IMO...

• A pass is not a bid.
• "3♥ promises three hearts" mistates the EW implicit agreement.
• East cannot be penalised for passing if his (legal) system mandates it.

 ICEmachine, on 2011-March-12, 21:42, said:

Given that the AC has found that there is MI (which I accept is a controversial decision), I find this a surprising adjustment. 1/5 should be the odds that if this player is given the "correct" info that "3H is invitational, usually with 3 hearts" (rather than "always"), he will play a spade rather than cash the diamond. The player has been thoughtful about cashing the DA, to minimise the risk of going to bed with it, make things easy for partner. He has a clear Lavinthal signal available which should get him a diamond return with high probability. So I think if he had a sniff there might be a 3rd trump in partner's hand, there is a high chance he would attempt to get 2 ruffs. I don't wish to defame them, but it does look a bit like the AC have used 1/5 as the probability there was MI, rather than the probability about what would happen instead with what they think there is MI.

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-15, 10:54, said:

Duh
I was seeking common ground but I'm sorry if I misrepresented Brothgar's views.

 nige1, on 2011-March-15, 11:15, said:

East can't be penalised for making what he considers the best available call, because there is no penalty for deviations from system. Once this pair have learned from the bridge-lawyers to cover their tail by describing many bids as "usually holds", they will have no problem with it in future, apart from sometimes ending up in an uncomfortable 5-2 fit.

I agree with the AC. If there is an identifiable hole in your system then you have an implicit agreement that hands in the hole have to make a call that the system does not cover. Your implicit agreement for any call = systemic agreement + any hole hand. This is disclosable, even if the hole has not been identified before.

"You have to disclose this hole." "I didn't know there was a hole." "That's irrelevant."

 RMB1, on 2011-March-15, 11:37, said:

So, in the future, to protect myself, I should attach meaningless qualifiers to each and every bid that I make...

True, this doesn't provide any useful information
And, of course, this will waste enormous amounts of time

However, at least I'll be protected from idiots on appeal committees and, if I get lucky, providing extraneous information will confuse and distract the opponents.

Do the opponents have a systemic agreement that they can bid 3♥ on doubleton? It seems that they have not formally made such an agreement, but I think there are two cases where a director or committee should still rule that an agreement exists. One is where they have substantial partnership experience of such calls being made on doubleton (implicit agreement). This seemed not to be the case. The other is where there is a common hand-type which cannot be described accurately in their system, where they might choose such a distortion frequently. This seems like it might be the case here, but apparently they were not aware of the potential problem! I guess we could rule that they "should've been aware" but that's a tough ruling to justify in most cases (it might depend on their general reputation as system theorists I guess).

I rather think the table result should stand, but if we're ruling MI then it shouldn't be one of these fractional rulings... the result should be 4♥-1.

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-13, 15:47, said:

 bluejak, on 2011-March-13, 16:03, said:

If E/W had been playing a relatively simple system such that N/S could reasonably know the meanings of all alternative calls, then N/S would have had as much informstion as East and West about the E/W methods and hence would have as much chance to detect any "unbiddable" hands in the E/W methods.

But if, as here, E/W play are playing an unusual method and all they tell N/S is that 3♥ showed 3+ hearts, then N/S are entitled to assume that E/W have agreed to make particular alternative calls on all hands with 0-2 hearts.

In the circumstances, a more accurate explanation of the 3♥ bid might be "natural, invitational, usually 3+ hearts". West may not have been aware of the system hole, but East clearly was. Should East have corrected West's explanation by, for example, adding the words "in principle"?

 awm, on 2011-March-15, 16:31, said:

What's wrong with a weighted ("fractional" as you call it) ruling? If you consider that, with correct information, South might or might not have found the right defence, then weighted rulings are the best estimate that can be done to "restore equity".

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-15, 11:54, said:

It would certainly be relevant... if only it were credible.

If you go through the trouble of devising a relay system, you will be aware of the holes in your system and you will know what to do about them. And in this case we are dealing with opener's rebid in a non contested auction.

"You have to disclose this hole." "I didn't know there was a hole." "Go and fool somebody else."

Rik

 awm, on 2011-March-15, 16:31, said:

 jallerton, on 2011-March-15, 17:15, said:

There is nothing wrong in general with weighted rulings. I think that Adam means that in this case there is something wrong with such a ruling. He believes (and I do too) that South would have set 4♥ 100 % of the time if he would have known that 3♥ could have been bid on a doubleton.

I think that South would have set 4♥ also in the case where he would not have had any information about the amount of hearts that were promised.

Rik

Some strange posts here.

Clever, Nigel, to pick up on a trivial pedantic error: of course when he said "there was no systemic bid for the hand" he meant "there was no systemic call for the hand" and I think your suggestion that that enforces a pass very silly indeed.

I think that if you rule there was MI and believe that the correct defence would be found 100% of the time you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The correct explanation was [possibly] it shows 3+ hearts, but there are a few shapes that are not biddable under our methods. Anyone who believes that a defender knowing this will always play the bidder to have only two hearts seems an incredible optimist: that is just not what players do.

Perhaps the most interesting suggestion is whether a pair has committed an infraction in not disclosing that there is a hole in their system of which they are not aware. My view is simple: no. But I understand the argument for yes. I think people get too much affected by the artificiality of such a system: if you play a simple natural system you will often get to a state where a hand seems unbiddable, but no-one really suggests that you should have told the opponents if you had not realised this previously.

You want an example of hole in a simple natural system? Ok, how do you bid the following playing Acol or Standard American:



I shall tell you the answer in a day or so.

One view that intrigued me is the one that they did know there was a hole in the system because if you devise a complex system you will know the holes. From experience of many years this is plain wrong: there are always unknown holes, and I have devised a few in my time!

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-15, 12:05, said:

What for?

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-15, 12:05, said:

So why do it?

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-15, 12:05, said:

 bluejak, on 2011-March-15, 18:46, said:

I didn't mean to steal your thunder, Bluejak
My opinion is that there was a misexplanation not a misbid.
My view is similar to RMB1's but he stated it more succinctly.

 bluejak, on 2011-March-15, 18:46, said:

I agre with Bluejak that It's easy to leave holes in your system. But when an opponent asks the meaning of partner's call in a new context, the suggestion is that you mentally check whether the call could be mandated by a previously unconsidered hole; and, if so, let the opponents in on the secret.

Was the Appeal Committee on the right track? Possibly yes, but this is a wery difficult case for many reasons: Highly unusal system, very uncommon to their opponents. And let´s not forget the statement from East: He had no other rebid on an fairly balanced hand and 3♥ was the only bid available for his hand. Misinformation? Yes, to some degree. Fair...and fair to whom? I dont know, justice is blind!
More tomorrow about the AC ruling.
Jón Thorvardarson, Iceland

My feeling is that if this hole in the system has happened before, meaning an implicit agreement exists, no one can possibly know without administering sodium pentathol.

If it is a legit first-time occurence hole in the system, the pair playing such an unusual and artificial method should pay the price in committee and will therefore fix it immediately. And with a recorded history of this "thing" they invented should it happen again.

 Math609, on 2011-March-15, 19:57, said:

Let's also not forget that he told us he couldn't bid 2NT because it was non-forcing.... so he bid 3H which was non-forcing.