[jallerton]

Scoring: MP

P-1C-1H-2C-
P-P-dbl-2H-
P-3NT-P-P-
P

---

Table result: 3NT+2(W), N/S -460

E/W play 5-card majors. 1♣ is either (i) natural or (ii) 15-19 balanced with 2+ clubs.

East intended 2♣ to be forcing; West interpreted it as a non-forcing limit raise.

North claims that, had he known that 2♣ was intended to be forcing, he would have passed out 2♣.

The E/W convention card confirms that E/W play 1♣-Pass-2♣ as an inverted raise but does not mention the auction 1♣-overcall-2♣.

TD's Ruling
The Director awarded a score of 80% of minus 150 to the North-South pair, 20% of minus 460.

Basis of TD's Ruling
Having spoken to East and West, he was "convinced" that they did not have an agreement about the meaning of 2♣. This, in addition to the fact that East-West did play 2♣ as forcing if North had passed, was all the information to which North was entitled. In those circumstances North might bid again but would probably pass – the weighting assigned to the respective probabilities was that North would pass four times out of five.

Basis of Appeal
East/West appeal, saying that (i) they are not sure what they have done wrong ; (ii) N/S misdefended 3NT to allow it to make 11 tricks and (iii) the TD's adjustment has turned a very good score into a very bad score for them.

Suppose that you are on the AC. Would you like to ask any more questions? If not, how do you rule and why?

[PeterE]

jallerton, on Aug 28 2010, 12:11 PM, said:

Suppose that you are on the AC.  Would you like to ask any more questions?  If not, how do you rule and why?

Yes, I would like to ask the TD under what law(s) he made his ruling.

If the TD was "convinced" that EW had no agreement about 2♣ after interference, than this 2♣ was not alertable. At the table it was not alerted - so no infraction.
If North had asked about the meaning of 2♣ he should (according to the TD) have gotten the answer "no agreement after interference, forcing w/o interference". But North did not ask - so no MI and no infraction either.

I second EW's Basis of Appeal under i)

[Cyberyeti]

I would also ask E what he thought 2♥ shows. IMO this shows extra values and a GF opposite an 11 count which I don't think he necessarily has, particularly when partner has failed to alert his inverted raise and may well have values. Wouldn't 3♣ show the 5th club and 11 or so points after the inverted raise from E's point of view (but a lot less from W's) ? Not sure what W does over 3♣, possibly depends on what other raises were available initially.

[peachy]

What did the TD say was the infraction?
If there is no infraction, table result must stand.

[Mbodell]

Yeah I think no MI but maybe UI? I'm not sure, I think I'd rule table results stand.

[tgoodwinsr]

If the real agreement about two clubs was "We have no agreement, but we do play inverted raises when there is no intervention," why wouldn't that have to be Alerted (and explained exactly that way), in the interest of full disclosure? If instead that isn't the real agreement, but East thought two clubs was strong and West thought it was weak, then West was right not to Alert (if he thought the agreement was that two clubs was weak), and his failure to Alert wasn't an infraction. But there may well have been an infraction involving UI in the latter scenario: East thought the agreement was that two clubs was strong, but his partner's failure to Alert suggested that he was was wrong, and either it was the "weak" agreement, or it was "We have no agreement, but we do play inverted raises when there is no intervention."

It does seem to me that North-South were damaged, either by a failure to Alert or by the use of UI, depending on what the actual East-West agreement turned out to be. You could say that North might have protected himself by asking before he balanced: but isn't the point of the Alert procedure precisely to obviate the need for asking about an unAlerted call?

Whatever the correct ruling is in this case, one has sympathy for Wolff's "convention disruption" principle.

[peachy]

tgoodwinsr, on Aug 28 2010, 02:16 PM, said:

Whatever the correct ruling is in this case, one has sympathy for Wolff's "convention disruption" principle.

I have no doubt that this was a "convention disruption". The facts given in OP were clear that it was. I hate those as much as the next man! However, legally, I see no reason to adjust the table result because lack of agreement is not illegal. Higher level bridge, I do hope all Conditions of Contest require partners to have agreements for simple everyday auctions as well as defined PP penalties for violations.

[blackshoe]

tgoodwinsr, on Aug 28 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

but isn't the point of the Alert procedure precisely to obviate the need for asking about an unAlerted call?

No. The purpose of the alert procedure is to inform the opponents that they may wish to ask questions about an alerted call. That does not imply that they will not need to ask questions about calls not alerted, or (as suggested, if not required, by Law 20) about the auction as a whole.

[barmar]

tgoodwinsr, on Aug 28 2010, 03:16 PM, said:

If the real agreement about two clubs was "We have no agreement, but we do play inverted raises when there is no intervention," why wouldn't that have to be Alerted (and explained exactly that way), in the interest of full disclosure?

It's not generally required to alert a bid because it would be alertable in a different auction.

If you're not sure what the bid means, but you think partner might be extrapolating from the other context, then it might be appropriate to alert and explain this. But that doesn't seem to be what happened here. West apparently just assumed that inverted minors was off over interference (this is very common in ACBL territory, the OP doesn't say where this occurred), so he didn't think it was necessary to bring up the alternate context.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Aug 28 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

Higher level bridge, I do hope all Conditions of Contest require partners to have agreements for simple everyday auctions as well as defined PP penalties for violations.

Well, if they do, I hope they define it better than "simple everyday auctions".

[peachy]

blackshoe, on Aug 28 2010, 04:06 PM, said:

peachy, on Aug 28 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

Higher level bridge, I do hope all Conditions of Contest require partners to have agreements for simple everyday auctions as well as defined PP penalties for violations.

Well, if they do, I hope they define it better than "simple everyday auctions".

In the past, in ACBL (or USBF, I don't remember which) I saw something like "first round of bidding". I am not going to go search, I think you have a point. But TD's make judgment rulings all the time so they are authorized to use their judgment in determining what is "simple everyday bidding", if that particular phrase happened to appear in the CoC

[Pict]

2H? Pass looks like an LA since East appears to have a basic inverted raise. If I am reading it correctly I am not accepting this EW auction.

[jdonn]

Pict, on Aug 28 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

2H?  Pass looks like an LA since East appears to have a basic inverted raise.  If I am reading it correctly I am not accepting this EW auction.

West passed the 2♣ bid, it is 100% that partner forgot about inverted raises or didn't think they were on here.

[aguahombre]

No use of UI. The pass was the clue to East that West was not on the same page. I think "non-forcing limit raise" as stated in the OP is not what the OP meant. I think he meant non-forcing raise. Certainly opposite a "limit raise", West would have made a move with that hand.

East knows from the pass about the accident, since he thought 2C was forcing. 2H is the clear and legitimate way to get the auction back on track. This woke West up, and the result should stand. 3C would not have done the job --could have just been an extra club.

[bluejak]

peachy, on Aug 28 2010, 09:32 PM, said:

tgoodwinsr, on Aug 28 2010, 02:16 PM, said:

Whatever the correct ruling is in this case, one has sympathy for Wolff's "convention disruption" principle.

I have no doubt that this was a "convention disruption". The facts given in OP were clear that it was. I hate those as much as the next man! However, legally, I see no reason to adjust the table result because lack of agreement is not illegal. Higher level bridge, I do hope all Conditions of Contest require partners to have agreements for simple everyday auctions as well as defined PP penalties for violations.

Speaking as the next man, I hate the idea of penalising for Conventing Disruption. First, you will drive novices and weaker players out of the game. Second, I prefer my opponents not to know their system, and I hate this idea of some people that if their opponents get their system wrong, they get a good board, they crow about it: but if their opponents get their system wrong and it happens to rebound to their opponents' benefit, they cry crocodile tears and say "It's not fair".

jdonn, on Aug 28 2010, 11:40 PM, said:

Pict, on Aug 28 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

2H?  Pass looks like an LA since East appears to have a basic inverted raise.  If I am reading it correctly I am not accepting this EW auction.

West passed the 2♣ bid, it is 100% that partner forgot about inverted raises or didn't think they were on here.

... or had psyched.

If my partner opens 1♠, I bid 2♣, and he passes, do I think "Oh no, my partner has forgotten that 2♣ over 1♠ is forcing"? No, of course not, I think the silly prat has psyched.

So when I bid a forcing inverted minor and he passes, I assume he has psyched - unless I have UI to tell me otherwise.

[gnasher]

This looks familiar. Have you recycled this from some old appeals booklet?

Anyway, North was entitled to the explanation "no agreeement, but it would be forcing in an uncontested auction". Given that explanation, he might or might not have bid, so the TD's ruling was on the right lines.

I think North would bid a lot more than 20% of the time - it looks hard to pass out 2♣ when you have the makngs of seven winners. I'd give 50% of 150 and 50% of 460.

As for EW's stated grounds for appeal:
(i) You failed to alert an alertable call
(ii) Yes, that's why you're getting x% of 3NT + 2
(iii) Yes, sometimes that happens when the director adjusts the score.

[dburn]

gnasher, on Aug 28 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

This looks familiar. Have you recycled this from some old appeals booklet?

Unlikely - the hand occurred this year in Brighton. I was part of the AC with Jeffrey and Mike Ash; our deliberations lasted longer than those of any other AC on which I have sat (though I have taken longer to make up my mind acting as a single referee).

Comments so far have followed the different lines of thinking that the original AC members pursued. I will continue to watch and learn.

[peachy]

bluejak, on Aug 28 2010, 06:18 PM, said:

Speaking as the next man, I hate the idea of penalising for Conventing Disruption. First, you will drive novices and weaker players out of the game. Second, I prefer my opponents not to know their system, and I hate this idea of some people that if their opponents get their system wrong, they get a good board, they crow about it: but if their opponents get their system wrong and it happens to rebound to their opponents' benefit, they cry crocodile tears and say "It's not fair".

There are no weaker players or novices at high level events - that is where (if anywhere) such conditions might be found. I am in favor of it, but not at clubs etc.

[peachy]

gnasher, on Aug 28 2010, 06:24 PM, said:

Anyway, North was entitled to the explanation "no agreeement, but it would be forcing in an uncontested auction". Given that explanation, he might or might not have bid, so the TD's ruling was on the right lines.

North never asked. So if 2C had become the final contract, do you think either the opener or the responder should volunteer information about the mishap? They had no agreement whether Inverted was on or off in competition.

[blackshoe]

peachy, on Aug 28 2010, 05:14 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Aug 28 2010, 04:06 PM, said:

peachy, on Aug 28 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

Higher level bridge, I do hope all Conditions of Contest require partners to have agreements for simple everyday auctions as well as defined PP penalties for violations.

Well, if they do, I hope they define it better than "simple everyday auctions".

In the past, in ACBL (or USBF, I don't remember which) I saw something like "first round of bidding". I am not going to go search, I think you have a point. But TD's make judgment rulings all the time so they are authorized to use their judgment in determining what is "simple everyday bidding", if that particular phrase happened to appear in the CoC

Oh, certainly. But I don't think RAs ought to make things any more difficult for TDs than they have to.