[Vampyr]

Mods -- what is the policy regarding banning users?

[uday]

I have removed the offensive ( and yes, it was beyond the pale even for you, RW ) post. I'll let the usual moderators decide what else to do. Meanwhile, back to appeals?
Uday

[bluejak]

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-14, 06:35, said:

If East was, and I believe he was, an experienced players, he no doubt knew that he was required to disclose this to his opponents. He didn't want to do it because it would have revealed much about his hand. But we've all been there, haven't we, and taken our lumps, and so should East have.

I am an experienced player, and I do not believe it should have been disclosed, so saying he is an experienced player in a way that suggests he has done something wrong, because he is, is not fair.

You are required to disclose partnership agreements. Something you find out for yourself and have not communicated to partner is not an agreement. It seems clear to me that, experienced or not, East has no reason to disclose this.

Several of your arguments have suggested that the whole business is obvious, and that the solution is as you say. The one thing you can be sure of is that it is not obviously your way otherwise there would be no argument.

 Vampyr, on 2011-June-14, 07:15, said:

Mods -- what is the policy regarding banning users?

The policy is that we do not allow posts that are merely rude. Thus I am getting rid of both your posts and hrothgar's.

An overall ban would be considered by myself and Ed in consultation, or by the BBO moderators including uday. We shall look at any complaint. But rudeness by both sides means that if we look at such a complaint, even if only against one side, we shall consider both posters.

[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2011-June-14, 07:55, said:

You are required to disclose partnership agreements. Something you find out for yourself and have not communicated to partner is not an agreement. It seems clear to me that, experienced or not, East has no reason to disclose this.

I think that East has discovered something that was in fact part of the system all along, and therefore he should have disclosed it.

Quote

Several of your arguments have suggested that the whole business is obvious, and that the solution is as you say. The one thing you can be sure of is that it is not obviously your way otherwise there would be no argument.

What I meant was that it is obvious to everyone -- one way or the other.

Quote

The policy is that we do not allow posts that are merely rude. Thus I am getting rid of both your posts and hrothgar's.

I am not sure that I was rude; I was responding to two personal remarks by posters who were, as least to me, anonymous (although one apparently posted his name years ago in an old thread). And I am quite certain that I was not obscene.

[vigfus]

Hello everyone.

Vigfus Palsson here. The TD who was in charge in this case.

I Think the discussion has has come to an end here.

Ceasefire now ???

[Math609]

 Trinidad, on 2011-June-14, 06:56, said:

All right. I did the mathematics on a rough basis. I calculated the percentage of 5233, 5224 and 5242 hands with 17-19 HCP. I calculated how often there will be 5+ and 6+ hearts opposite the doubleton (using the tables from the Encyclopedia of Bridge).

Pretty soon I came to the conclusion. My statement "8 days a week" was completely false. In fact "12 months a year" would be false too. The frequency of this situation arising is in the order of once a year if you play together once a week.

Therefore, I was completely off. It is entirely possible that these people have played this system for a few years without this situation coming up. Is this too political or am I allowed to change my point of view and still keep my seat in the forums?

Rik

I think we can do lot better than that. For the first we have similar situation when holding a heart suit against 5+ spade suit so the same problem rises there after the transfer bid to spade. Secondly it's not necessary to have 5 cards in the heart suit, you can also have 6-cards and we are facing a similar problem. Only when holding void/singleton in the transfer suit you can rebid your 6-card suit. The frequency? Hard to say, but obviously no rarity.

[Math609]

I am not sure how instructive this discussion has been. Overall I think Nigel’s post has impressed me the most.

But I must admit that in many cases the discussion here is confusing and directless as it does not touch the real issue. One think it’s sufficent to confirm his statement with “experince” while another one is asked to proof his statement with a mathematical proof!!

In other words one has to proof mathematically that a certain distribution beetween two hands is a everyday distribution! What kind of distribution? The distribution when an 16-19 hcp opening hand with a major is facing a partner with the other major, which of course is a everyday problem so to speek. The answer “experince” was of course adequate here if we are talking to an experinced player. And every experinced player knows that! And the ask for mathematical proof was really a naive question and got the smile from someone, wery understandable.

And now the guy turned his pages in his Encyclopedia and got it all wrong, sad to say. Everyday hand was no longer a everyday hand...major facing a major is not a everday problem

[hrothgar]

 Math609, on 2011-June-16, 15:39, said:

I am not sure how instructive this discussion has been. Overall I think Nigel’s post has impressed me the most.

But I must admit that in many cases the discussion here is confusing and directless as it does not touch the real issue. One think it’s sufficent to confirm his statement with “experince” while another one is asked to proof his statement with a mathematical proof!!

In other words one has to proof mathematically that a certain distribution beetween two hands is a everyday distribution! What kind of distribution? The distribution when an 16-19 hcp opening hand with a major is facing a partner with the other major, which of course is a everyday problem so to speek. The answer “experince” was of course adequate here if we are talking to an experinced player. And every experinced player knows that! And the ask for mathematical proof was really a naive question and got the smile from someone, wery understandable.

And now the guy turned his pages in his Encyclopedia and got it all wrong, sad to say. Everyday hand was no longer a everyday hand...major facing a major is not a everday problem

I don't think that this is an accurate reflection of my opinion.

Throughout this exercise, my opinion has been that we can't proceed further without more information about East / West's partnership agreements (both written and inferred).

Later in the thread, I restated this in the following quote:

Quote

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?

At which point in time, you stated the following:

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.

You now seem to be trying to walk all of this back...

1. This isn't a rare sequence
2. Even if this precise sequence didn't occur, maybe there was a similar hand with Spades

FWIW, I don't disagree with any of this...

I would be surprised if N/S could have played this system for any significant length of time without noticing this hole (or similar ones).
(Hence the need to talk to N/S about partnership history)

However, once you specify that there is no partnership history that suggests the existence of a hole the ruling becomes exceptionally clear

[Math609]

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-17, 06:49, said:

You now seem to be trying to walk all of this back...

1. This isn't a rare sequence
2. Even if this precise sequence didn't occur, maybe there was a similar hand with Spades

FWIW, I don't disagree with any of this...

I would be surprised if N/S could have played this system for any significant length of time without noticing this hole (or similar ones).
(Hence the need to talk to N/S about partnership history)

However, once you specify that there is no partnership history that suggests the existence of a hole the ruling becomes exceptionally clear

Correction: We are talking about E/W heren not N/S. It's true that E/W has not played this system for significant length of time, 1 year I think, maybe a little more. But if my memory is right, East had played this system before with another partner. Is this information of a great importance? I don't think so.

I just repeat what Nigel has said before: The understanding about that call (3♥) is therefore implicit in your system, even if you have never discussed it and it's never come up before.

But the point I would like to stress here is what E/W did not say at the table. Is a minor answer of "at least 3 hearts" good enough when playing a highly unusual system, totally unknown to the opponents? Was it really souths responsibility to ask for further information? Given a better information the defence might have worked things out at the table. See my post #187.

[hrothgar]

Quote

I just repeat what Nigel has said before: The understanding about that call (3♥) is therefore implicit
in your system, even if you have never discussed it and it's never come up before.

Nigel has a lot of interesting theories which have little to do with the practical details of producing accurate rulings based on the existing Laws.
As far as I know, he's not even a director. (Nor am I, for that matter)

As far as I am aware, the highest level Director who is an active participant on this board is Bluejak.
(I believe that he was chosen to serve as Director of Appeals at at least one of the previous IcelandAire Opens)

Bluejak has already describe his opinion regarding this hand.

FWIW, I posted an abbreviated version of this hand onto the Bridge Laws Mailing list. You can review that complete thread at

http://lists.rtflb.o...une/010524.html

However, here is a typical response

>> Question for the peanut gallery:

>> When East is asked about the definition critical bid, what is he legally
>> required to disclose?

>> The partner's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand

> **Yes**

>> The partnership's systemic agreement before they encountered this hand plus
>> information about this (new) hand type.

> **No, I have seen no evidence of any new partnership agreement, explicit or
> implicit and it is likely that one will not start to emerge until the end of
> he hand when dummy also sees fully what has happened. East has fully
> explained the partnership system, agreements and understandings at the time
> the bid <<something>> was made.

Quote

But the point I would like to stress here is what E/W did not say at the table. Is a minor answer of "at least 3 hearts" good enough when playing a highly unusual system, totally unknown to the opponents? Was it really souths responsibility to ask for further information? Given a better information the defence might have worked things out at the table. See my post #187.

Simply put

1. Yes
2. Irrelevent
3. Irrelevent

1. The partnership accurately described their agreements.
2. South shouldn't need to ask for additional information, however, this is irrelevent because the partnership accurately described their agreements
3. It doesn't matter that N/S was damaged, because E/W accurately described their agreements.

[hrothgar]

BTW, I should note that some people who posted on the thread took an approach very similar to the one that Math609 has advanced.

For example: http://lists.rtflb.o...une/010527.html

[Math609]

 hrothgar, on 2011-June-17, 08:47, said:

1. The partnership accurately described their agreements.
2. South shouldn't need to ask for additional information, however, this is irrelevent because the partnership accurately described their agreements
3. It doesn't matter that N/S was damaged, because E/W accurately described their agreements.

Accurately described, accurately described and again accurately described! Tell me another one
On the contrary the description of their agreement over 2♦ was obviously very inaccurate. So inaccurate indeed that they left the opponents, with no knowledge of the system, in total darkness. And that prooved to be very harmful for the defence.

It is now obvious that West believed that that his partner had 3 hearts and East believed that the system bid was 3♥ on a doubleton ("my only bid"). So much of accuracy here!

But to justify some kind of ruling here some put a new variable in the equation and very convenied one, "deviation". Wery easy task after that.

[nige1]

In the BLML thread, Gordon Rainsford quoted

TFLB, L20F1 said:

...He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding

BLML opinions also seem to have been fairly evenly divided. Some agree with Hrothgar and Co that opponents are entitled only to pre-exisiting understandings and have no right to be warned about newly discovered "holes". This view seems to accord with the dictionary definition of "agreement" or "understanding". Others feel that the essence of Disclosure Law was violated: Opponents weren't privy to information that they needed to make the same deduction that the bidder made. That there is...

• A hole in the discussed system and
• A logical repair to that hole.

The ACBL insists that you supply information relevant to the interpretaion of a call, even when answering a badly phrased question. Hence, some BLML posters consider a PP for MI in this case!. "Relevant calls that were not made and relevant inferences" may have helped opponents. Nevertheless. arguably, they would not have been enough, here.

Some say that the director should rely on his assessment of the probity of the explainers. Others (like Trinidad here) are concerned that an expert partnership are likely to be aware of this weakness, from previous experience and similar auctions -- even if this anomaly has not yet warranted change to their formal agreements. (As Trinidad points out, none of this implies that they are deliberately lying).

As a non-director guest in this forum, I naively imagined this case might be simple enough for the correct application of current laws to arrive quickly at an agreed ruling.

In The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Samuel Taylor Coleridge said:

He went like one that hath been stunned,
And is of sense forlorn:
A sadder and a wiser man
He rose the morrow morn.

[dburn]

For clarity: suppose I were this East and I actually had ♠AQJxx ♥Kxx ♦QJ ♣AJx. Is it the contention that I should explain 3♥ as "might be based only on two-card support", because although I have never supported hearts with a doubleton on this auction in my life before, it has just occurred to me to wonder what I would do with ♠AQJxx ♥Kx ♦QJ ♣AJxx and I have concluded that I would indeed bid 3♥? Indeed, some appear to me to contend that East should tell South that East might only have two hearts even though it has never occurred to East that East might only have two hearts.

One can see problems with this approach. I don't know what this particular East would have done with ♠AQJxx ♥KJ10x ♦QJ ♣Jx, but if I were playing his system I imagine I would bid 3♥. If East then told South that East might only have two hearts, so that South tried to give North two spade ruffs with ♦A as an entry for the second, thus letting through with an overtrick a game with four off the top, South might well be justified in screaming blue murder.

And yet, the next time this deal occurs East is mandated to tell South that East might only have two hearts even when East actually has four, because East-West have now established an agreement that East might only have two. Good luck to the Director who has to sort that one out.

Judging by the paper clip, I seem to have posted in this thread already. I cannot be bothered to look at what I said, and it is possible that I may now be contradicting myself (I am large, I contain multitudes). But as a practical matter: if I were East on the actual deal I would correct my partner's explanation of "at least three-card support" because on the actual deal I don't have it - I bid 3♥ because I have applied my judgement within the context of my system, and the opponents don't know the context of my system. If I actually had three hearts but it occurred to me that I might bid 3♥ with only two, I would stay schtum - what reason would I have to speak, after all?

It is entirely possible that in so doing I might be acting illegally. But I sleep at night.

[Math609]

It seems to me that we are again and again comparing apples and oranges.

For some reason many think that East had deviated from the system by jump-rising partner’s suit with only doubleton. But actually he had many reason for doing so: If partner is weak he has 6♥. If partner has game invitational hand he has 6+♥ or probably 5+♥ and 3+♠.

What other choises has East over 2♦? 2 ♥ is to play opposite a weak hand, 2♠ shows 6+♠ and singleton/void in ♥, 2NT is non-forcing as already has been confirmed, 3 in a minor is natural, a hand too strong to bid 2♥, but not willing to play 4♥ even if responder has good six card suit. Usually around 17-18 with ♥shortness, not forcing. If you look at theese possibilities then it is rather obvious that 3♥ was a quite natural/normal bid on East’s hand. And that was confirmed at the table that 3♥ was simply the only right bid on this hand. After all it´s rather surprising to learn that the EW-par had this "hole" in their system. Maybe a lack of partnership discussion is the reason. Or maybe they could´nt handle this unusal and complex system.

Having explained the main stucture after 1♥ – 2♦, how can we talk about deviation? In my mind you deviate from your system when you open 1NT on a say ♠AQxx ♥KG10x ♦A ♣QJxx. You clearly had the option to open 1♣, but chosse to deviate from the system by open this hand with 1NT. And clearly 1NT was not the only right bid on this hand.

And now to the main point concerning deviation. I’m rather surprised that no one has mentioned a similar non contested sequence in a normal system: 1♠ – 2♥ – 3♥ – 4♥/4♠

I think no experinced player would ask for clarification here, but let’s say for arguments sake that the defence ask for clarification. Any one here that would say that 3♥ promises at least 3 hearts? I dont think so! Would the rise to 3♥ on a doubleton be a deviation here? Certainly not, on the contrary it’s somtimes the only right bid as all experinced players know. Although it’s not very common (but not rare by any sense) to rise partners suit on a doubleton in this sequence, you wouldn’t dear to state that partner has promised at lesat 3 hearts.

I think the conclusion is very obvious: We can skip the deviation-variable when dealing with this problem.

[alphatango]

 Math609, on 2011-June-19, 06:00, said:

What other choises has East over 2♦?
(snip)
And that was confirmed at the table that 3♥ was simply the only right bid on this hand.
(snip)
I think the conclusion is very obvious: We can skip the deviation-variable when dealing with this problem.

Hmm. I may not have been following the thread closely enough, but "only right bid" seems to be an overly strong assertion. First, the only statement at the table to this effect was given by opener, who made the bid -- there seems to be no evidence that responder agreed with this assessment. Nor is it manifestly obvious to me that it is the "only right bid"; for example, give responder ♠Kx ♥AJxxx ♦Txx ♣Qxx and opener will find himself raised to a dangerous 4♥ contract when 3NT was essentially cold. (3NT may well be inferior to 3♥ as a choice of call, of course, but I certainly do not think it is irrational.)

What do we expect a 3♥ bid to look like, based on the agreement? ♠AQJxx ♥xxx ♦Q ♣AQxx?
What do we expect a 3NT bid to look like? ♠AQJxx ♥K ♦QJx ♣AJxx would qualify, yes?
Is it then sensible to call a 3♥ bid on ♠AQJxx ♥Kx ♦QJ ♣AJxx systemic but a 3NT bid a deviation?

[Math609]

 alphatango, on 2011-June-19, 10:18, said:

Hmm. I may not have been following the thread closely enough, but "only right bid" seems to be an overly strong assertion. First, the only statement at the table to this effect was given by opener, who made the bid -- there seems to be no evidence that responder agreed with this assessment. Nor is it manifestly obvious to me that it is the "only right bid"; for example, give responder ♠Kx ♥AJxxx ♦Txx ♣Qxx and opener will find himself raised to a dangerous 4♥ contract when 3NT was essentially cold. (3NT may well be inferior to 3♥ as a choice of call, of course, but I certainly do not think it is irrational.)

What do we expect a 3♥ bid to look like, based on the agreement? ♠AQJxx ♥xxx ♦Q ♣AQxx?
What do we expect a 3NT bid to look like? ♠AQJxx ♥K ♦QJx ♣AJxx would qualify, yes?
Is it then sensible to call a 3♥ bid on ♠AQJxx ♥Kx ♦QJ ♣AJxx systemic but a 3NT bid a deviation?

It´s very difficult to participate in a discussion if you dont follow all the time.

No evidence that responder agreed with this assessment? Let´s only say that he didn't disagree!

Not manifestly obvious that 3♥ was the "only right bid"? He, who played the system, thought so and confirmed his opinion at the table! Do we need any more confirmation? Or are we going to argue with the player who plays the system and most presumably knows the system better than we do?

Maybe I forgot to explain in my last answer that 3NT rebid to 2♦ shows singleton/void in hearts, most probably 6+♠ and 18+. So this hand does not fit under that category. Sorry, I thought is was rather obvious that 3NT shows no tolerance for hearts.

If responder, by any chance, holds ♠Kx ♥AJxxx ♦Txx ♣Qxx as alphatango is suggesting and are facing a rebid of 3♥ from opener, then he has the obvious call of 3NT. Meaning game invitational hand with excactly 5 hearts.

[alphatango]

Math609 said:

No evidence that responder agreed with this assessment? Let´s only say that he didn't disagree!

I refer to your post at #212 in which you said that "It is now obvious that West believed that his partner had 3 hearts", which implies that he also believed that 3H was not systemic on doubleton heart.

Quote

If responder, by any chance, holds ♠Kx ♥AJxxx ♦Txx ♣Qxx as alphatango is suggesting and are facing a rebid of 3♥ from opener, then he has the obvious call of 3NT. Meaning game invitational hand with excactly 5 hearts.

...♠Kx ♥AJxxxx ♦Txx ♣Qx. Or ♠Kx ♥AJxxxx ♦Txxx ♣Q. And so on.

Quote

Maybe I forgot to explain in my last answer that 3NT rebid to 2♦ shows singleton/void in hearts, most probably 6+♠ and 18+. So this hand does not fit under that category. Sorry, I thought is was rather obvious that 3NT shows no tolerance for hearts.

Throughout my reading of this thread, it has not been clear to me what parts of their system were stated at the table and/or documented, and which parts you are inferring from what you already know of their system. Do you play it, or do you have system notes for it, or some other source of information? (FWIW, I find it hard to believe the assertion that 3NT even suggests a sixth spade -- 5=1=3=4 GF hand types, an example of which I suggested in my previous post, need to to go somewhere.)

In any case, all I was trying to point out is that the actual hand is about as far away from the "expected" hand shape for another bid (3NT) as it is from the "expected" hand shape for 3♥.

[aguahombre]

218 posts. IMO, we should discuss this more thoroughly.

[Math609]

Of course West believed at the table that 3♥ promised “at least 3 herats”. He said so when asked for clarfication of the bidding. All I’m saying is that in the post mortem he didn’t disagree with his partners explanition that he had “no other bid” playing this system.

I dont understand what alphatango is trying to show us with theese game invitational hand with 6-card in hearts. What is the problem with these hands after openers rebid of 3♥?

I have alredy in post #215 given some information of the system EW played. Of course I have information of this system they play, not their actaul notes, but general notes of the system. I have also learned some of their own notes from that time. So for further information for alphatango I can describe more better the meaning of two bid after responders 2♦:

3♠: 6+♠s, singleton/void in ♥s, 18+.
3NT: 6♠s, singleton/void in ♥s, stopper(s) in the minors, 18+.

In my opinion the main reason for this "hole" in their system is that they dont play 2NT as a forcing bid as is suggested in the system notes i have in hand. For some reason or another they choose to deviate from the general system.

I suggest that alphatango and others read my post #215 for further information. I would also like to know how they describe this natural bidding sequence (non contested):

1♠ - 2♥
3♥ - 4♥/4♠

As I said before, no experinced player would ask for clarification here. But suppose he did. Would you say "3♥ promises at least 3 hearts"? Would anyone with some experince confirm this understanding? Of course not! We all know that in some situation partners best and only bid is to give a raise on a good doubleton. So we wouldn't dear to say that the 3♥-bid promises 3 hearts. Just a natural bid and natural bridge, can be doubleton.