[TimG]

I wasn't thrilled with either appeal (cases 5 & 6) that appeared in the Thursday Bulletin. Not that I think the committee necessarily got either wrong.

In Case 5, the committee's explanation included:

Quote

With a singleton spade or the ace or king of diamonds and the ♣A, West would almost surely have taken action over 4♠. So, at best, 5♣ or 5♦ would require a finesse or two and might be hopeless. On the other hand, East’s doubleton diamond (as opposed to having three diamonds) was all right for defense. It would not be surprising for East-West to have four tricks in the red suits on defense or one black suit trick and three tricks in the red suits.

It strikes me that if east had doubled (or even passed), NS could have appealed along these lines: bidding on was a logical alternative, west's BIT suggests something extra, but with a hand that would make 5m a good contract, he would clearly have bid, so the hesitation must suggest defending. Since defending and bidding on are both LA for east, he must select bidding on -- the one not suggested by the BIT.

The committee seems to have based their decision on their feeling that "Players seldom take a long time considering whether to double, but more often are thinking about bidding." But, their explanation (quoted above) indicates that they think west "almost surely" would have taken action when it was right to bid to 5m.

Anyway, it seems to me that NS could have had it either way, EW defend 4♠, they appeal saying EW should bid on, EW bid on and they appeal saying EW should have defended 4♠.

It also strikes me as strange that EW bidding on over 4♠ turned their +50 (for defending 4♠) into -100 or more (for declaring 5m). That is, east took the losing action over 4♠. Maybe he should be commended for bidding on when the BIT made defending even more clear than it already was.

In Case 6, "West asserted that had he known that 3♠ was non-forcing he would have doubled." When the auction ends and the failure to alert is discovered, how can it cost for West to make this claim? If it turns out that it was right to stay out of the auction, the director is not called back. If taking action over 3♠ turns out to be correct, he calls the director back and says: "but, before the play started, I said I would have taken action had I known 3♠ was non-forcing."

Anyway, it seems that in both cases, the non-offending side had available something of a double-shot.

_______________

A further question about Case 6. If East, before her final pass, had asked if 3♠ was non-forcing and North confirmed, shouldn't the director have been called at that point? An irregularity had occurred. And, if the director had been called at that point, wouldn't west have had the option of changing his last call? That is, East could have taken action to avoid the need for the director (or appeal committee) to apply his judgment to the situation. But, it was in her best interest not to ask and not to call the director because then her side would have extra options.

I'm not questioning East's ethics -- I think most of us would note the apparently forcing auction and pass thinking that the opponents had just experienced a bidding misunderstanding.

[jtfanclub]

http://www.acbl.org/...lletins/db7.pdf

Page 7.

On appeal 6, what can I say but ARRRGH. The auction ends when the opening lead is FACED. The director should back up the auction to the 3 spade call, and let the auction continue from there, which the knowledge that it was non-forcing. Then we could just continue the auction, no harm, no foul.

The appeals team should apologize to both sides. Any result is going to be less fair than if the director had known what he was doing.

Law 17 E: The auction period ends when all four players pass or when AFTER three pass in rotation have followed any call THE OPENING LEAD IS FACED.

Emphasis mine.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Jul 26 2007, 09:28 AM, said:

On appeal 6, what can I say but ARRRGH. The auction ends when the opening lead is FACED. The director should back up the auction to the 3 spade call, and let the auction continue from there, which the knowledge that it was non-forcing. Then we could just continue the auction, no harm, no foul.

Can the auction be backed up that far? I seem to think that only East would have the option to change her call.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Jul 26 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 26 2007, 09:28 AM, said:

On appeal 6, what can I say but ARRRGH.  The auction ends when the opening lead is FACED.  The director should back up the auction to the 3 spade call, and let the auction continue from there, which the knowledge that it was non-forcing.  Then we could just continue the auction, no harm, no foul.

Can the auction be backed up that far? I seem to think that only East would have the option to change her call.

Yeah, you're right, law 21B. I guess I didn't know what I was doing.

However, that means that the offended party could have called the director after the problem was exposed (the 3 spade bid was passed by partner) but before his partner made a call, since you don't have to wait until its your turn to bid to call the director. By waiting, he got a guaranteed doubleshot- if his partner made a call, then the director wouldn't be called, if the partner passed, then the auction gets back up to him.

I can certainly understand how the timing would become an issue here, however.

[ralph23]

Case 6 confuses me.

It appears NS were a new or pick-up partnership and that North was rusty. They obviously (at least to me) had not discussed this particular auction, and North mistakenly thought that 3♠ non-forcing was "standard". South knew of course that forcing was standard, and that his bid was forcing in standard (which would be the default assumption about what they were playing), and was probably a bit surprised when North passed, but oh well, stuff happens.

They just had a bidding misunderstanding, didn't they?

[So what actually happened at the table ? Looks like East passed without inquiry, and then one of EW inquired about the unusual pass of 3♠? There was no reason for declarer to unilaterally state "Hey my partner passed a forcing bid!" so someone must have asked.]

This just seems like a case of "incomplete" partnership agreement, rather than misinformation, doesn't it ? In fact, the write-up almost states that very thing. "Should they decide to agree that new suits ... are non-forcing ...".

And as best I can tell, there's no penalty for having a poor or incomplete agreement. Maybe you get bolixed up, maybe the opps get bolixed up, but that's bridge. ..Is that not right ??

[david_c]

jtfanclub, on Jul 26 2007, 04:08 PM, said:

However, that means that the offended party could have called the director after the problem was exposed (the 3 spade bid was passed by partner) but before his partner made a call, since you don't have to wait until its your turn to bid to call the director.  By waiting, he got a guaranteed doubleshot- if his partner made a call, then the director wouldn't be called, if the partner passed, then the auction gets back up to him. 

I disagree - until the auction is over and an explanation has been given, West cannot be sure that he has been misinformed. Maybe N/S do not have any agreement, and/or North has misbid. So West should not call the director after North's pass, because it is not his turn to ask about the opponents' bidding, and there is no proof yet of MI. Indeed, if West does call the director at that point, he would be giving his partner UI, since he is implying his call might have been different if he knew 3♠ could be passed.

[TimG]

david_c, on Jul 26 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 26 2007, 04:08 PM, said:

However, that means that the offended party could have called the director after the problem was exposed (the 3 spade bid was passed by partner) but before his partner made a call, since you don't have to wait until its your turn to bid to call the director.  By waiting, he got a guaranteed doubleshot- if his partner made a call, then the director wouldn't be called, if the partner passed, then the auction gets back up to him. 

I disagree - until the auction is over and an explanation has been given, West cannot be sure that he has been misinformed. Maybe N/S do not have any agreement, and/or North has misbid. So West should not call the director after North's pass, because it is not his turn to ask about the opponents' bidding, and there is no proof yet of MI. Indeed, if West does call the director at that point, he would be giving his partner UI, since he is implying his call might have been different if he knew 3♠ could be passed.

I agree. But, East could ask and reveal the irregularity, at which point the director should be called. But, East is under no obligation to ask. And, there is reason for her not to -- asking would imply that the answer would make a difference to her choice of call and this could create an UI situation. (In addition to removing the potential to get something of a double shot...)

[jtfanclub]

david_c, on Jul 26 2007, 10:44 AM, said:

Maybe N/S do not have any agreement, and/or North has misbid.

But in fact, N/S did not have any agreement, and the auction was still effectively canceled.

I don't think it can be helped that calling the director passes UI. Whether the director is called before or after the pass by East, UI is still passed, and I fail to see how it's less Unauthorized if you wait until after East's pass.

[mycroft]

Yes, but in the case at hand, West asked at his turn - before leading. So West is passing UI, but not all that much, as this is an odd auction.

If East asks before passing out, I wouldn't think it's too big a deal - passing a forcing bid is odd enough that I might want to make sure I know what's going on, especially in the ACBL where a fair more questions of "what's going on here" are asked, and there isn't as much of a "I want to bid depending on the answer" stigma to the question as there is in the UK, for instance. In this case it works out, because if East asks, the TD can roll back the auction to West, who can take his chances with a double.

Note: *calling the Director* shouldn't pass UI - if everybody followed the Laws, then they'd have to as soon as the mis-Alert/misunderstanding came to light. Note that because everybody doesn't follow the Laws, calling the TD does express interest, but anyone who tried to play that card would come up hard against Law 9B1 - especially 9B1a and 9B1c. Unless you can establish a pattern of not following the Laws/regulations, I think very few directors will punish someone for doing the proper thing.

Asking the question, of course, may pass UI.

I have to admit I would have doubled a NF 3S call NV with 5-5. I also have to admit I'd feel a little sick about how little defence I have, especially if the auction continues ...4S-X-P.

Michael.

[jdonn]

ralph23, on Jul 26 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

Case 6 confuses me.

It appears NS were a new or pick-up partnership and that North was rusty. They obviously (at least to me) had not discussed this particular auction, and North mistakenly thought that 3♠ non-forcing was "standard". South knew of course that forcing was standard, and that his bid was forcing in standard (which would be the default assumption about what they were playing), and was probably a bit surprised when North passed, but oh well, stuff happens.

They just had a bidding misunderstanding, didn't they?

[So what actually happened at the table ? Looks like East passed without inquiry, and then one of EW inquired about the unusual pass of 3♠? There was no reason for declarer to unilaterally state "Hey my partner passed a forcing bid!" so someone must have asked.]

This just seems like a case of "incomplete" partnership agreement, rather than misinformation, doesn't it ? In fact, the write-up almost states that very thing. "Should they decide to agree that new suits ... are non-forcing ...".

And as best I can tell, there's no penalty for having a poor or incomplete agreement. Maybe you get bolixed up, maybe the opps get bolixed up, but that's bridge. ..Is that not right ??

I think you mix up the two issues of north thinking that nonforcing was their agreement, and north thinking it was the standard agreement (and thus not alerting). Sure the first one is no crime, but the second one is a misdemeanor and (maybe) damaged the opponents. It was an innocent mistake, but nonetheless he broke the law which may have cost his opponents, so the ruling should go for E/W.

[ralph23]

jdonn, on Jul 26 2007, 05:28 PM, said:

ralph23, on Jul 26 2007, 10:32 AM, said:

Case 6 confuses me.

It appears NS were a new or pick-up partnership and that North was rusty. They obviously (at least to me) had not discussed this particular auction, and North mistakenly thought that 3♠ non-forcing was "standard". South knew of course that forcing was standard, and that his bid was forcing in standard (which would be the default assumption about what they were playing), and was probably a bit surprised when North passed, but oh well, stuff happens.

They just had a bidding misunderstanding, didn't they?

[So what actually happened at the table ? Looks like East passed without inquiry, and then one of EW inquired about the unusual pass of 3♠? There was no reason for declarer to unilaterally state "Hey my partner passed a forcing bid!" so someone must have asked.]

This just seems like a case of "incomplete" partnership agreement, rather than misinformation, doesn't it ? In fact, the write-up almost states that very thing. "Should they decide to agree that new suits ... are non-forcing ...".

And as best I can tell, there's no penalty for having a poor or incomplete agreement. Maybe you get bolixed up, maybe the opps get bolixed up, but that's bridge.  ..Is that not right ??

I think you mix up the two issues of north thinking that nonforcing was their agreement, and north thinking it was the standard agreement (and thus not alerting). Sure the first one is no crime, but the second one is a misdemeanor and (maybe) damaged the opponents. It was an innocent mistake, but nonetheless he broke the law which may have cost his opponents, so the ruling should go for E/W.

Maybe. I think North was just clueless. But he reasons ( ) as follows:

"Hmmm. We have not discussed this sequence. But a good general "default" rule (to which partner surely adheres, as do most players) is, if we have not discussed it, then we play "standard". Standard is NF, so I will keep quiet and pass."

South on the other hand had reasoned: "Hmmmm. We have not discussed this sequence. Etc etc. default rules etc. etc. Standard is forcing, so I will bid that and partner should figure it out."

So, it seems clearly that they don't have an agreement. Each one "thinks" they do, but each is mistaken, because they have different opinions (one right, one wrong) on what is "standard".

(NB -- It's the Peerless case, for those US/UK lawyers reading this. The court held, each party was mistaken as to the meaning of the term "the ship Peerless", -- there were actually TWO ships with that name --so there was no "meeting of the minds" and hence, no contract between the litigants.)

Now: if you buy all that , what was it that was supposed to be alerted ? I thought you only alerted "your agreements." But in truth, they don't HAVE an agreement, so what was the alert supposed to say ? How do you alert something that, by hypothesis, does not exist ?

"We don't have an agreement" ? True, but neither party knows that.

"It's NF". If THAT were the alert, then that would be a false statement. South didn't intend it as NF, and they have no agreement that it is NF. That WOULD be misinformation, to give that as an alert. It would misdescribe their non-agreement.

I guess I don't understand that IF you don't in truth HAVE an agreement, how in the world can you be responsible for not alerting your ....er, non-agreement? "Alert! Yes ?? I have no idea whether it is forcing or not and whether we have an agreement on that." Even that wouldn't be correct on the facts presented here...

Does anyone out there have any sympathy for this position, and if it's confused can you explain why ? Thanks, my confusion continues unabated I fear .

[jdonn]

ralph23, on Jul 26 2007, 06:07 PM, said:

Maybe. I think North was just clueless. But he reasons ( ) as follows:

"Hmmm. We have not discussed this sequence. But a good general "default" rule (to which partner surely adheres, as do most players) is, if we have not discussed it, then we play "standard". Standard is NF, so I will keep quiet and pass."

So north believed the agreement to be NF. And NF is alertable and he didn't alert. So he violated the rules. It was an accident based on ignorance of the alert procedures, but that doesn't matter as far as the ruling. This is an easy case with the facts as given.

[ralph23]

jdonn, on Jul 26 2007, 08:10 PM, said:

ralph23, on Jul 26 2007, 06:07 PM, said:

Maybe. I think North was just clueless. But he reasons ( ) as follows:

"Hmmm. We have not discussed this sequence. But a good general "default" rule (to which partner surely adheres, as do most players) is, if we have not discussed it, then we play "standard". Standard is NF, so I will keep quiet and pass."

So north believed the agreement to be NF. And NF is alertable and he didn't alert. So he violated the rules. It was an accident based on ignorance of the alert procedures, but that doesn't matter as far as the ruling. This is an easy case with the facts as given.

Does it matter what he believed, or whether they had an agreement ? His belief was false. And his belief that they had an agreement was false.

South believed that his bid was forcing. That belief was false too.

They both believed they had an agreement, and both were mistaken.

[jdonn]

You are right about one thing. You truly are confused. I'll try one last time.

North's defense was that he didn't know this treatment is alertable, but as far as I can see he never claimed it was not their agreement. In fact, since he thought the bid was standard, it was implicitely their agreement to him. This is absolutely proved since he passed! I don't know what you are talking about with 'he believed it but it was not really true', and in any case that is just an assumption on your part. Partner's don't have to discuss something to have an agreement.

By the way, south did not think 3♠ was forcing no matter what he says. If that were true he would have bid 4♠ were he going to bid at all. I find the claim that they did not have an agreement 3♠ isn't forcing when north passed! and south bid it on this hand to be quite suspect.

Think of it all this way. If E/W didn't get a ruling here, what would stop anyone from playing this bid as not forcing, never alerting, then claiming they didn't think it was alertable and they had no agreement anyway?

[ralph23]

jdonn, on Jul 26 2007, 10:28 PM, said:

You are right about one thing. You truly are confused. I'll try one last time.

North's defense was that he didn't know this treatment is alertable, but as far as I can see he never claimed it was not their agreement. In fact, since he thought the bid was standard, it was implicitely their agreement to him. This is absolutely proved since he passed! I don't know what you are talking about with 'he believed it but it was not really true', and in any case that is just an assumption on your part. Partner's don't have to discuss something to have an agreement.

By the way, south did not think 3♠ was forcing no matter what he says. If that were true he would have bid 4♠ were he going to bid at all. I find the claim that they did not have an agreement 3♠ isn't forcing when north passed! and south bid it on this hand to be quite suspect.

Think of it all this way. If E/W didn't get a ruling here, what would stop anyone from playing this bid as not forcing, never alerting, then claiming they didn't think it was alertable and they had no agreement anyway?

So you think they did have an agreement, implicit or otherwise, that 3♠ was non-forcing. Is that right?

That's of course a purely factual decision on somewhat nebulous facts and certainly one for the fact-finders. And they heard the live witnesses etc. and are in a better position to judge demeanor and all that.

So . . . let's suppose hypothetically that the fact-finders are really great detectives and factual judges, and indeed, NS did have such an agreement (implicit or otherwise) that the new suit would be NF in this circumstance.

If they did indeed have such an (explicit/implicit/otherwise) agreement, then obviously there was a failure to alert and disclose this agreement -- and the appellate decision is unremarkable.

Now, since we're taking hypotheticals, let's suppose (counterfactually for you, since you believe there was a NS agreement) that in fact, NS did NOT have an agreement about this situation.

Just didn't have one. We don't know why. Never thought about it, perhaps. Assume they were a pick-up partnership. Maybe one assumed forcing because that's standard, one assumed NF because he didn't know squat about what was standard and guessed wrong. Maybe no one ever thought about it. WHY they don't have an agreement doesn't matter for the hypo. Just assume that they don't.

On that purely hypothetical state of affairs, what is the right decision? That's my confusion ... not over the factual issue of agreement vel non. That's always a matter of fact finder judgment. I'm interested in the legal issue.

NB -- On the purely factual issue (But don't get distracted away from the legal issue!) , the decision write-up states (see earlier post where it is quoted verbatim) something like "If NS should come to agree upon this treatment in the future ..." (emphasis added).

Huh ? This language pretty strongly suggests that they didn't have an agreement at the time of the game. But maybe it just means "If they should think about it fully and come to an express agreement etc. etc." and the writer just didn't articulate it as precisely as he could have.

The note following the auction, though, says "Non forcing by agreement" so this is what the committee found.

But then the writeup also says that "NS were encouraged to decide what agreement they would follow in the future", which makes it sound like they didn't have an agreement at the time. And South testified that they didn't have an agreement ... and that he thought that his bid was forcing, but he didn't care and was making it anyway, hell or high water.

Effectively, he testified that he more or less psyched, although he didn't use that term apparently.

NB2 -- Although there isn't a check box on 3-level preempts to state "F or NF", there is indeed one on the weak-2 openings. But the NS convention card on this issue was never mentioned in the factual hearing apparently. While it's a different situation, surely the result in the check box there (whatever it was) would be probative in this hearing... I guess no one thought of it ?

NB3 -- I guess you think South is a liar and he knew it wasn't forcing all the time? That seems to be your conclusion. And a cheat too, because he apparently did not say "Failure to alert" after the third pass... a fact which would only be explained (I think) by either South's (1) being a cheat or (2) thinking it was forcing and partner had erred.

But hey ... enough on the factual issue. That wasn't really my confusion. Reasonable minds can differ on that.

Any others having a viewpoint, please contribute. Thanks.

[barmar]

ralph23, on Jul 26 2007, 06:07 PM, said:

Now: if you buy all that , what was it that was supposed to be alerted ? I thought you only alerted "your agreements." But in truth, they don't HAVE an agreement, so what was the alert supposed to say ? How do you alert something that, by hypothesis, does not exist ?

You're supposed to alert whatever the Alert Regulations say requires alerts. Both of them assumed they had a default agreement, and in one case (North) his assumed meaning was the alertable one.

But his problem was that his ignorance of modern bidding extends to the alerting requirements. It's not unreasonable that he'd assume that what he thought is "standard" bidding would not have to be alerted. But ignorance of the regulations is not a valid excuse. It saved him from a PP, but he still got ruled against.

[cherdano]

I think the committee did fine in both cases, I am very surprised about the TD decision in case 6. Did he really think a takeout double of (3C) P (3S = NF) white vs red at matchpoints with A J9xxx Q9xxx Ax was so unlikely that he didn't even consult other players about it? I would have thought the double is pretty clear.