[Phil]

Had an interesting ruling problem today at our Unit Game today:

Scoring: MP

---

The auction:

1♣ - dbl - redbl - 2♣
2♥ - 2N - AP

1♣ was Precision

Double was alerted. When asked for an Explanation, the South player said, "I know its alertable, but I forget what it means"

Redouble alerted as a negative (0-4)

The rest of the auction was natural.

After the 2♣ call, the West player looked at the NS cc and saw they played Mathe over a strong club, so double should show the majors.

Before the opening lead, the North player gave an explanation of the double in that it conventionally showed the majors.

The opening lead was the ♦10, so North took 9 tricks for +150.

------

I was called after the hand. I asked the North player why she bid that way and she said that she didn't know how to bid with a hand that strong over the strong club. I said she might have passed.

I reprimanded the South player for forgetting their agreements, however, her 2♣ call made it clear to me that she did, in fact, forget what it means. I thought about giving NS a PP for convention disruption, but decided not to.

I didn't feel EW were damaged. East's bridge reasoning for the diamond lead was that her partner was going to be 'finessed', aside from being unsure what 2♥ meant. I though that East made a poor lead. Her partner bid hearts INTO a hand that supposedly had hearts and spades, which gives her more of a reason to lead a heart, not less.

What say you?

[blackshoe]

Well, first of all, your comment to North regarding how she might have bid her hand has nothing to do with the ruling.

Second, there's no such infraction as "convention disruption".

Was there MI? Sure. Did it cause damage? Well, given that West found the correct explanation on NS's convention card, I imagine East could have done the same. Did East look? No? Why not?

While I might agree that a heart lead might have been better, I don't think that's relevant to the ruling. OTOH, I don't think the MI caused any damage.

What about UI? There was UI to North in that South didn't know what the double meant. However, I don't think North has taken advantage of it. So no cause for adjustment there.

I would let the result stand. I agree with a warning to NS about remembering their agreements, and I would caution both sides that this is a "bread and butter" auction, given Precision Club, and they should both be sure they know what they're doing.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Apr 5 2009, 11:01 PM, said:

Was there MI? Sure. Did it cause damage? Well, given that West found the correct explanation on NS's convention card, I imagine East could have done the same. Did East look? No? Why not?

I agreed with everything you said (especially first two parts) but this. Frankly I'm shocked west even looked. There is no place for this on the convention card and very few people put it on there (probably virtually none who don't remember what they play there!) It would not occur to me to look.

Well I guess I can't really disagree with a question, but you know what I mean.

[blackshoe]

There's no box specifically marked "defense to strong club", but that's because the design of the ACBL CC basically sucks. There is room to write it in. I would do so, and I would recommend to anyone who plays conventional defenses to opponents' bids to do so as well.

I wouldn't say I'm shocked West looked. I grant you it's a bit surprising in our current bridge culture. I don't actually think that's a good thing, though.

Once, playing with a novice partner against fairly experienced (but not necessarily good) opponents, one of them started asking repeated questions of my partner about my bidding. As my partner was clearly having trouble answering, and I knew the answers were clearly written on our CC, I suggested the opponent look there. She replied, rather superciliously, "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions." Frankly, I think that attitude is counterproductive, rude, and just plain stupid. But I guess that just me.

[FrancesHinden]

I more or less agree with blackshoe (not very surprisingly).

Technically there may not have been exactly MI, rather there was lack of I. South didn't say it meant something it didn't, South simply said (s)he didn't remember. If EW wanted to know what the systemic agreement for the double was, they could have called the TD at that point, who could send South away from the table and ask North what the agreement was. Looking at the convention card is a short-cut (just be careful you are looking at the right convention card!).

So given that there wasn't MI, it doesn't matter how poor the opening lead was, the result is going to stand.

If you decide that there was MI - that their agreement was "majors or a strong hand" (which might be true if North's problem had come up in this partnership in the past and been solved in the same way), then I can't see that the opening lead could be considered a result of damage, as it's less likely rather than more likely that North has the majors.

I particularly agree that there is no need to tell North how she might have the bid hand, when you are a TD you need to forget your other role as a bridge teacher. Also, it's not clear if you said anything at the table, but having decided that there is no MI, it's irrelevant how bad we consider the opening lead.

[brianshark]

I don't see any infraction at all, by anybody. What did EW say to you when they called you over? Did they just say "ooooh, misinformation - give us some matchpoints please director"?

South told the opps it was probably conventional but couldn't remember what it meant. West looked at the convention card and found out what it was. East didn't bother. I'm not sure if he didn't think to look or didn't care because his bids were going to be the same no matter what. BTW, I assume East saw his pard looking at the convention card. That might have reminded him to look there if he wanted.

Oh and I wouldn't give north a warning (let alone a PP) for anything. North can bid whatever way she wants, South and North conducted themselves correctly when forgetting an agreement and had a properly filled out convention card to cater for when south wasn't able to tell what the bid meant but still alerted the opps to the fact that it is conventional. I think it's very commendable.

I might give EW a warning for wasting your time unless they are inexperienced or very unfamiliar with the laws.

[Oof Arted]

Phil, on Apr 5 2009, 10:17 PM, said:

Double was alerted. When asked for an Explanation, the South player said, "I know its alertable, but I forget what it means" 

Redouble alerted as a negative (0-4)

The rest of the auction was natural.

After the 2♣ call, the West player looked at the NS cc and saw they played Mathe over a strong club, so double should show the majors.

Before the opening lead, the North player gave an explanation of the double in that it conventionally showed the majors.

The opening lead was the ♦10, so North took 9 tricks for +150.

------

I was called after the hand. I asked the North player why she bid that way and she said that she didn't know how to bid with a hand that strong over the strong club. I said she might have passed.

I reprimanded the South player for forgetting their agreements, however, her 2♣ call made it clear to me that she did, in fact, forget what it means. I thought about giving NS a PP for convention disruption, but decided not to.

I didn't feel EW were damaged.  East's bridge reasoning for the diamond lead was that her partner was going to be 'finessed', aside from being unsure what 2♥ meant. I though that East made a poor lead. Her partner bid hearts INTO a hand that supposedly had hearts and spades, which gives her more of a reason to lead a heart, not less.

What say you?

is the north explanation of the bid they made not relevant here ???

Surely North has mis-informed Opponents about the bid, then either north has Deliberately misbid but then told opps what the bid meant effectively giving mis-information to opps before the opening lead; or has phsyced this bid deliberately knowing that East in this instance will NOT now lead a Major suit

[Phil]

brianshark, on Apr 6 2009, 07:50 AM, said:

I don't see any infraction at all, by anybody. What did EW say to you when they called you over? Did they just say "ooooh, misinformation - give us some matchpoints please director"?

South told the opps it was probably conventional but couldn't remember what it meant. West looked at the convention card and found out what it was. East didn't bother. I'm not sure if he didn't think to look or didn't care because his bids were going to be the same no matter what. BTW, I assume East saw his pard looking at the convention card. That might have reminded him to look there if he wanted.

Oh and I wouldn't give north a warning (let alone a PP) for anything. North can bid whatever way she wants, South and North conducted themselves correctly when forgetting an agreement and had a properly filled out convention card to cater for when south wasn't able to tell what the bid meant but still alerted the opps to the fact that it is conventional. I think it's very commendable.

I might give EW a warning for wasting your time unless they are inexperienced or very unfamiliar with the laws.

EW seemed like they were moderately familiar with the laws.

I disagree that there hasn't been an infraction. South alerted and couldn't give an explanation. Had I been called at the time, I think I would have taken the South player away from the table (without her cc (chuckle)) and just had N explain their agreement. Just because the West player takes time to find it on NS's cc, doesn't let NS off the hook for an inadequate explanation. Maybe we play in different games, but there's nothing 'commendable' about having a filled out cc. It's required LOL.

In my experience, defenses to artificial calls are put on the lower right under "other conventional calls". No other location makes sense.

To Blackshoe:

Maybe I read too much Bobby Wolff, but I hate it when a pair interferes with an auction like this and can't adequately explain their agreements. Don't you think a PP is appropriate?

[peachy]

Phil, on Apr 6 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

[snipped]

To Blackshoe:

Maybe I read too much Bobby Wolff, but I hate it when a pair interferes with an auction like this and can't adequately explain their agreements. Don't you think a PP is appropriate?

I know this was a note to blackshoe, but I can't help myself...

No, PP is very inappropriate! South did exactly the right thing. He alerted because he knew that the bid was onventional. Then, when asked, he explained he had forgotten what the bid meant except that it is conventional. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The opponents can always find out the meaning of the bid from the convention card or, with the help of TD, from North.

As to "can't adequately explain their agreements" either you can (because you remember) or you can't (because you don't remember). There was nothing inadequate in South's explanation, under the circumstances. Inadequate would be something quite different, like explaining 2C opener as "strong & artificial" while fully well knowing partnership agreement that it could also be a preemptive type onesuiter with 8-9 tricks.

[blackshoe]

Phil, on Apr 6 2009, 10:17 AM, said:

To Blackshoe:

Maybe I read too much Bobby Wolff, but I hate it when a pair interferes with an auction like this and can't adequately explain their agreements. Don't you think a PP is appropriate?

Mr. Wolff, if I remember what I've read correctly, would have "convention disruption" result in an automatic PP. At the level at which he plays, he may have a point. But the majority of games aren't played at that level, and I think the TD needs to make a judgement call. A PP in MPs or IMPs may be appropriate. A PP(Warning) may be appropriate. Simple education may be appropriate. Each case is different, and each should be decided on its on merits.

Edit: Peachy has a point: South followed the alert regulation, which does tell us to alert even if we can't remember the agreeement. In this case, the agreement was on the System Card (SC), and there was at least one SC on the table. So a PP is not, in this case, appropriate, IMO.

[olegru]

blackshoe, on Apr 5 2009, 11:01 PM, said:

Was there MI? Sure. Did it cause damage? Well, given that West found the correct explanation on NS's convention card,

I have some doubt here. If both partners have no ideas about meaning of particular bid, should we still think they agreed to play convention written in their CC or it will be more honest to assume they have no real agreement about this bid? If second option is correct - West was missinformed by convention written in CC opponents.

For illustration if I recently agreed to play Cappelletti against week NT, but by mistake took the old convention card with DONT written there and opponents intead of asking meaning of alerted bid look at convention card - it will be clear case of MI, isn't it? We agreed to play something and opponents must be informed about our actuall agreement even if in our convention card marked something else.
I believe here is the same case. NS agreed to play something (in this particular case nothing, I mean they have no agreement). And they actual agreement (absence of agreement about this bid) should be given to opponents, but not convention Mathe wchih is in the Convention card but not in use.

[Oof Arted]

the MI if there is/was any was in North's explanation to the opps that it showed both majors surely ; East does not have to consult the convention card he has been told the meaning; however North has not played to the system card

[keylime]

I don't think there's any infraction here, and I wouldn't give anything more than a "N-S, please have agree on the same thing" statement at the table. I wouldn't have even taken South away from the table.

Frankly, West by not opening a suit missed out on possibly getting a partial here or in aiding the defense.

[the hog]

Would someone please explain the phrase "convention disruption"? I have no idea what it maens. Is it an ACBL thing?

[Mbodell]

The_Hog, on Apr 6 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Would someone please explain the phrase "convention disruption"? I have no idea what it maens. Is it an ACBL thing?

In brief (and possibly inaccurate) summary: Bobby Wolfe hates artificial auctions and ambiguous conventions and thinks this means people who play them have a special responsibility to never get them wrong at the table and always be able to explain them. And thinks messing up a convention and explaining it incorrectly to the opponents is worthy of a convention disruption PP even if it has no effect on the play/auction.

You see that in his latest book, his bridge blog, and sometimes in write ups of acbl nabc appeals cases.

[barmar]

When South was asked for an explanation, and couldn't remember, why didn't he hand his CC to the opponents so they could read it themselves? Did he also forget that it was written on the CC?

[the hog]

Mbodell, on Apr 7 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

The_Hog, on Apr 6 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Would someone please explain the phrase "convention disruption"? I have no idea what it maens. Is it an ACBL thing?

In brief (and possibly inaccurate) summary: Bobby Wolfe hates artificial auctions and ambiguous conventions and thinks this means people who play them have a special responsibility to never get them wrong at the table and always be able to explain them. And thinks messing up a convention and explaining it incorrectly to the opponents is worthy of a convention disruption PP even if it has no effect on the play/auction.

You see that in his latest book, his bridge blog, and sometimes in write ups of acbl nabc appeals cases.

Thanks.

[Gerben42]

So should opener get a PP now because he opened with something artificial and caused his opponents trouble? Apparently they never had such a strong hand after a strong 1♣ opener, and no doubt they had known what to do opposite a natural 1♣!

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Apr 5 2009, 11:01 PM, said:

Well, first of all, your comment to North regarding how she might have bid her hand has nothing to do with the ruling. 

Oh yes, it does. The TD is supposed to make sure what the actual meaning of Double is. Asking North why she bid this way is an excellent way to figure out what North idea about the meaning of the double is.

She could have responded that double shows majors or a good hand.

She could have responded that Dbl is the only forcing call. That implies that it is the bid to make with a strong hand (since North evidently didn't know that she could have passed).

All kind of good things could have happened to the TD. That makes it a very good reason to use this kind of a question when trying to establish the facts.

Rik

[TimG]

Trinidad, on Apr 8 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 5 2009, 11:01 PM, said:

Well, first of all, your comment to North regarding how she might have bid her hand has nothing to do with the ruling. 

Oh yes, it does.

I'm pretty sure the comment that has been criticized a few times in this thread is

Quote

I said she might have passed.

not

Quote

I asked the North player why she bid that way and she said that she didn't know how to bid with a hand that strong over the strong club.

The former sounding like a bridge lesson given by the director; the latter, as you say, a good way to find out about the actual agreement.