[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-June-05, 09:03, said:

(3) East was certainly aware of the gap at the table. Why? He said more than once when we discussed the bidding: "I had no other bid for my hand!"

The discussion you are citing occurred post hoc.
This does not establish a priori knowledge.

Quote

(5) East, aware of the inaccurate answer from his partner and also aware of the gap in the system, remained totally silent. Should he?

East is obligated to explain the partnership's systemic agreements.
East is not required to disclose a one time deviation; indeed, should not explain a deviation.

Quote

I really don't know what more facts you need, or what further questions is needed to be asked here.

You need to establish whether whether there is any systemic basis for bidding 3♥ with a doubleton.

Has either member of the partnership ever made a similar bid?
Has the partnership ever discussed whether the 3♥ bid might be made with a doubleton?

[Math609]

Whether there was an systematic basis for bidding 3♥ with a doubleton? It certainly was...hence Easts comment: "I had no other bid on this hand" It must be added that 2NT would not be a forcing bid here, which is rather unusual. But that systematic agreement was never explained to NS which must be of some importance. We surely can assume that there was some hidden systematic agreement involved in their system, therefore East noticed the gap at the table...and therefore we have some gap in his partners explanations.

Regarding the two last questions in the last letter, I think I can guarantee that the pairs answer is NO. East certainly observed the systematic gap at the table.

Maybe this is enough for everybody and will not lead to any conclusion. Probably a very difficult case for any AC.

[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-June-05, 17:08, said:

Whether there was an systematic basis for bidding 3♥ with a doubleton? It certainly was...hence Easts comment: "I had no other bid on this hand" It must be added that 2NT would not be a forcing bid here, which is rather unusual. But that systematic agreement was never explained to NS which must be of some importance. We surely can assume that there was some hidden systematic agreement involved in their system, therefore East noticed the gap at the table...and therefore we have some gap in his partners explanations.

I don't think that there is enough information to claim that this is a systemic agreement.

I agree that after the fact, East stated that 3♥ was the only bid that he could make with that hand.
This is not equivalent to a statement that there is a systemic agreement that 3♥ could be made on a doubleton.
Its entirely possible that E/W only became aware of this hole after when East ran into this hand at the table.

This is the key question that needs to be asked.
Without this information, the Committee can't make an informed opinion.

Quote

Regarding the two last questions in the last letter, I think I can guarantee that the pairs answer is NO. East certainly observed the systematic gap at the table.

If this is true

1. The pair has never before bid 3H with a doubleton
2. The pair has never discussed the possibility that 3H could be made with a doubleton

AND

The pair's explicit agreement is that 3H shows at least 3H then there is no cause for an adjustment.

The decision to bid 3H with this hand is a deviation and not a systemic bid
East should not correct the explanation.
Result stands

[nige1]

Agree with Marth609. IMO...

• You haven't discussed what to do with a common hand-type in an unfamiliar auction context.
• Unfortunately, you can't just eat your cards and bury your head in your bidding box..
• Luckily, your other partnership understandings mandate one and only one possible call.
• The understanding about that call is therefore implicit in your system, even if you ve never discussed it and it's never come up before.
• Your idiosyncratic methods prevent opponents from following the same logic..
• But your implicit understanding is disclosable.
• Partner, when questioned, gives it insufficient thought and fails to mention your hand-type as a novel possibility,
• But you must disclose this implicit meaning before opponents lead.
• If there is a weakness in this chain of reasoning, then Hrothgar and Gnasher will rip it open.

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2011-June-05, 19:03, said:

Agree with Marth609. IMO...

• You haven't discussed what to do with a common hand-type in an unfamiliar auction context.
• Unfortunately, you can't just eat your cards and bury your head in your bidding box..
• Luckily, your other partnership understandings mandate one and only one possible call.
• The understanding about that call is therefore implicit in your system, even if you ve never discussed it and it's never come up before.
• Your idiosyncratic methods prevent opponents from following the same logic..
• But your implicit understanding is disclosable.
• Partner, when questioned, gives it insufficient thought and fails to mention your hand-type as a novel possibility,
• But you must disclose this implicit meaning before opponents lead.
• If there is a weakness in this chain of reasoning, then Hrothgar and Gnasher will rip it open.

An agreement describes an understanding between two parties

We have no knowledge whether West would reach the same conclusion as East that "2NT is the only possible call" with the hand in question.
Even if West were to agree that 2NT was the only possible call with this hand, West has never seen said hand so West couldn't draw the same inference.
North / South was not deprived of any systemic that was not available to the E/W partnership.

I'd like to pose a counter-factual.

Let's assume for the moment that East actually held three Hearts.

The same auction occurred and East made a systemic 3H call.
After making the 3♥ call, East suddenly realized that that there is a hole in their system.
If East happened to hold two hearts and a balanced hand, he'd be stuck for a rebid.
Therefore, East decides that the 3♥ systemically shows 2+ Hearts.

Prior to the opening lead, East informs the opponents that his partner provided an incorrect explanation and that his hand could (systemically) hold a doubleton heart.
In this case, South fails to cash the Ace of Diamonds...

How would you rule?

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-05, 20:04, said:

An agreement describes an understanding between two parties
We have no knowledge whether West would reach the same conclusion as East that "2NT is the only possible call" with the hand in question.
Even if West were to agree that 2NT was the only possible call with this hand, West has never seen said hand so West couldn't draw the same inference.

Why must you see partner's hand to draw inferences from your partner's call? In your example below, you are quite capable of a similar feat of imagination.

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-05, 20:04, said:

North / South was not deprived of any systemic that was not available to the E/W partnership.

You can't be sure that partner will be aware of those parts of your system that are relevant to your call or that he will bother to think through their consequences. But if you're sure that your call is a logical necessity, given your system, then you should divulge it's meaning.

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-05, 20:04, said:

I'd like to pose a counter-factual.
Let's assume for the moment that East actually held three Hearts.
The same auction occurred and East made a systemic 3H call.
After making the 3♥ call, East suddenly realized that that there is a hole in their system.
If East happened to hold two hearts and a balanced hand, he'd be stuck for a rebid.
Therefore, East decides that the 3♥ systemically shows 2+ Hearts.
Prior to the opening lead, East informs the opponents that his partner provided an incorrect explanation and that his hand could (systemically) hold a doubleton heart.
In this case, South fails to cash the Ace of Diamonds...
How would you rule?

No director should find fault with a player, who, in good faith, divulges the the systemic meaning of a call, whether or not it has been explicitly agreed.

[blackshoe]

if there is not an agreement as to the meaning, is the meaning "systemic"? (Assuming the pair have not agreed to play some specific "book" system).

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2011-June-05, 20:39, said:

Why must you see partner's hand to draw inferences from your partner's call? In your example below, you are quite capable of a similar feat of imagination.

You don't need to see your partner's hand to draw inference.

However, in the specific case that we are discussing, the reason that East was able to recognize the existence of a hole was that that he had seen a specific hand. This point is central to this case.

In any case, I don't believe that an agreement can be unilateral.

For example, you and I are having a discussion
I have come to the conclusion that you are an idiot
It would be inaccurate for me to state that we have an agreement that you are an idiot.

[Math609]

The result stands, says Hrothgar. And maybe he is right...in the "darkness" of the law.

The EW pair is obviously playing a very unusual system with a great deficiencies. That is not what you assume from a former National Champions. And all their explanations is as minimalism in art...

The message from Hrothgar is very clear: Guys, you have a serious and obvious hole in your unusual system. But according to the law I just call this deviation. And that's alright if you fix it before the next tournament. I rule that NS should pay the price for this modification. Good luck!

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-June-08, 03:42, said:

The result stands, says Hrothgar. And maybe he is right...in the "darkness" of the law.

The EW pair is obviously playing a very unusual system with a great deficiencies. That is not what you assume from a former National Champions. And all their explanations is as minimalism in art...

The message from Hrothgar is very clear: Guys, you have a serious and obvious hole in your unusual system. But according to the law I just call this deviation. And that's alright if you fix it before the next tournament. I rule that NS should pay the price for this modification. Good luck!

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

I believe that my interpretation of the Law is correct. However, I also suspect that the opinions of folks like Bluejak are far more likely to represent the status quo.

With this said and done, the Law isn't there to punish people because they're playing a poorly designed system.
This obviously strikes you as unfair. However, this is the way things work.

As for your comments about seriously and obvious hole:

You were the one who stated that East became aware of the systemic gap at the table...

[bluejak]

 Math609, on 2011-June-08, 03:42, said:

The EW pair is obviously playing a very unusual system with a great deficiencies. That is not what you assume from a former National Champions.

Yes, it is. In my view nearly everyone has holes in their system. You have holes in your system with your favourite partner - and sometime you will find them out. Being told that you already had an agreement about them will not please you because it is not true.

[Vampyr]

Nigel's comments, particularly in post 144, are 100% spot-on.

[gordontd]

 bluejak, on 2011-June-08, 06:07, said:

Yes, it is. In my view nearly everyone has holes in their system. You have holes in your system with your favourite partner - and sometime you will find them out. Being told that you already had an agreement about them will not please you because it is not true.

Being told they have nothing to disclose will not please their opponents, who will not have as much of a chance to work it out as those whose system it is.

[Math609]

Htothgar base his ruling on that very dubious base that 3H was an deviation from the system. How can 3H be an deviation if it was the only right bidding on this hand?

Bluejak says that everyone has a hole in their system, including me. True, very true. But what bothers me is that when a pair discover a hole in their system which proves to be very expensive for their opponents, you put forward a three sentence ruling: Deviation. Fix your system. The opponents pay the price!

So, we are dealing with lots of holes, not only in a bidding system. We have possibly holes in the law of bridge and it seems to me that we also have holes in a flawless reasoning.

[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-June-09, 02:39, said:

Htothgar base his ruling on that very dubious base that 3H was an deviation from the system. How can 3H be an deviation if it was the only right bidding on this hand?

Bluejak says that everyone has a hole in their system, including me. True, very true. But what bothers me is that when a pair discover a hole in their system which proves to be very expensive for their opponents, you put forward a three sentence ruling: Deviation. Fix your system. The opponents pay the price!

So, we are dealing with lots of holes, not only in a bidding system. We have possibly holes in the law of bridge and it seems to me that we also have holes in a flawless reasoning.

Actually, I would base my ruling on facts that you provided.
You stated that E/W had no knowledge of this system hole prior to encountering this hand.
Therefore, the bid is not systemic. It must fit into some other category.
"Deviation" seems to be the best way to describe what happened.

FWIW, I think that you're making too much of East's statement that 3H was the only correct bid with this hand.
Do we have any idea what West might have done?

[nige1]

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-08, 20:51, said:

Nigel's comments, particularly in post 144, are 100% spot-on.

Wow! Thank you Vampyr! and it seems that you up-voted me too

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-09, 07:31, said:

FWIW, I think that you're making too much of East's statement that 3H was the only correct bid with this hand. Do we have any idea what West might have done?

Are West's hypothetical actions relevant? IMO, East's disclosure duties are clear if he believes that the partnership system allows no other option.

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2011-June-09, 19:04, said:

Are West's hypothetical actions relevant? IMO, East's disclosure duties are clear if he believes that the partnership system allows no other option.

I'm dosed up on pretty serious cold meds right now and my memory isn't what it should be.

I seem to recall an appeals case from a few years back that is

1. Relevent to this case.
2. Generated a fair amount of discussion (though not on these forums)

As I recall, it involved volunteering information which caused the declarer to take the wrong line...
Don't suppose that this rings any bells?

(Sorry to be so vague, but I am really not at my best right now)

[Vampyr]

 nige1, on 2011-June-09, 19:04, said:

Wow! Thank you Vampyr! and it seems that you up-voted me too

Well, I thought your post was clear and concise, yet thorough. I really don't understand how there can be any further discussion following it.

[hrothgar]

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-10, 10:13, said:

Well, I thought your post was clear and concise, yet thorough. I really don't understand how there can be any further discussion following it.

How cute... Nigel has a sockpuppet.

Going back to Nigel's original post:

Quote

Luckily, your other partnership understandings mandate one and only one possible call.
The understanding about that call is therefore implicit in your system, even if you've never discussed it and it's never come up before.

I don't recall anyone ever establishing that the decision to bid 3♥ was mandated by partnership understanding. From my perspective, we don't have anything remotely resembling an explanation why East chose to bid 3♥.

For example, the verbiage accompanying the 3♥ bid seems to have changed rather dramatically during the course of the conversation.

In the original post, Math609 made the following statement

Quote

When East after the hand said that he had no bid for this hand in his system, South called the TD and asked to change his defense as he was never informed that East could have this hand.

TD said that South got the correct explanation and the score stands.

This was appealed and the Appeals Committee made the following ruling:

EW play a system that is uncommon and that most would be unfamiliar with. Its in their responsibility to inform NS of all possibilities and make sure they understand the mechanism. EW never tried to explain what possibilities East had, so South had no chance to play East for the hand he had. East on the other hand picked 3♥ out of possible bids, knowing he would promise 3+ hearts at the time he bid, so this was not a case of misexplanation of the EW agreement of the bid, but more of too little explanation of possibilities East had.

Three days later, in post #38 Math609 has significantly changed his story. Here, for the first time, we see the claim that the 3♥ was the only possible bid with the given hand.

Quote

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.

I'm not claiming that Math609 is deliberately lying, however, there is all sorts of evidence that the human mind has a habit of rewriting memories...

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-20, 08:23, said:

Let's not go there, Math. If you wish to ignore Richard's posts, feel free to do so, but just leave it at that. Further posts along the lines of the above will be disapproved.

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-10, 11:16, said:

I'm not claiming that Math609 is deliberately lying, however, there is all sorts of evidence that the human mind has a habit of rewriting memories...

Once more, Hrothgar is safe in the knowledge that if Math609 objects to Hrothgar's slanders, Math609 will again incur the censure of the moderators,