[twcho]

---

Team match. Result 3 down.
EW calls director when they found that north did have ♥ instead of ♠. There is no CC to substantiate the explanation by south. How will you rule this hand?

[mrdct]

 twcho, on 2011-March-22, 00:05, said:

---

Team match. Result 3 down.
EW calls director when they found that north did have ♥ instead of ♠. There is no CC to substantiate the explanation by south. How will you rule this hand?

First I need a little bit more about north-south's methods. Just because they don't have a convention card doesn't mean you can't ask a few probing questions.

Do they have any agreements about transfers in other low-level competitive aucitons?
What do they play over an opponent's 1NT opening?
What did north-south say when you asked them what their agreements are?
Do north-south have a general agreement about changes of suit being forcing?
Does the 2♠ bid promise reversing values if 2♥ is natural?

[jillybean]

Stop!

#1 the pair do not have a convention card, this restricts the pair to playing "SAYC" (assuming this is ACBL land) and standard carding.

You must rule misinformation rather than misbid.

[blackshoe]

There's no evidence this is ACBL. Even if it is, you can't restrict the players to SAYC on this hand. So investigation into their system methods is certainly warranted. Such investigation may well provide "evidence to the contrary" — evidence of misbid rather than MI. It then becomes a TD judgement call which interpretation the preponderance of the evidence supports.

[bluejak]

 jillybean, on 2011-March-22, 06:01, said:

Stop!

#1 the pair do not have a convention card, this restricts the pair to playing "SAYC" (assuming this is ACBL land) and standard carding.

You must rule misinformation rather than misbid.

Like Ed, I do not see why we should assume this is ACBL. But anyway I do not think this approach is right. If they have no SC then the TD may insist they play an SAYC card. But that does not mean they are playing SAYC before a TD says they have to.

[ahydra]

There is the rule that the director must assume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary - so if asking some questions doesn't get me anywhere, we'd rule it a misexplanation (and so all the possible UI stuff as well, i.e. from North's point of view can he pass 2S? *)

However what do people make of X by east? If it was intended as penalties but W misunderstood, EW shouldn't be given a "perfect" result?

Given that without the MI, the bidding probably continues pass (by east) - p - X - p - 2S - all p, I say award 2S by E making 8 tricks to both sides.

ahydra

* Actually I'd say he can here - W overcalled 1NT so game unlikely, spade fit better than club fit.

[campboy]

 ahydra, on 2011-March-22, 15:07, said:

Given that without the MI, the bidding probably continues pass (by east) - p - X - p - 2S - all p, I say award 2S by E making 8 tricks to both sides.

"Without MI" doesn't mean "if South had known what was going on". If some good fairy had come along and correctly informed E/W then South would still have bid 2♠.

To address your other point, I have sympathy for West not being sure the double is penalties based on what he has been told about the N/S bidding and his own length in spades -- how can partner have a penalty double? If it were not for the MI, I don't suppose he would have made that mistake.

In addition to MI, as twcho suggests, we might consider the UI position for North's pass.

[jillybean]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-22, 11:03, said:

Like Ed, I do not see why we should assume this is ACBL. But anyway I do not think this approach is right. If they have no SC then the TD may insist they play an SAYC card. But that does not mean they are playing SAYC before a TD says they have to.

So a pair without a SC may play whatever methods they like until a TD rules they can't? The laws seem woefully inadequate here.

[bluejak]

Did I say that? No.

Players are governed by Laws and Regulations. Players break Laws and regulations all the time, whether they are Bocchi, Meckstroth, Mrs Guggenheim or the lady who tends the bar in the golf club and sits in if they are a player short. Sensible TDs apply the Laws and Regulations with commonsense and with differing effect in different situations.

Players are generally required to have SCs available and, in England/Wales, to exchange them with their opponents for each round. When I played in th Nationals in South Africa I think I was the only pair with two completed SCs. In Northern I Ireland fewer than 20% have completed SCs: in France very few. Despite comments about SCs in th ACBL it is actually far better there than in most jurisdictions: the majority of pairs have them.

In clubs players tend not to have them everywhere. In an English club where player after player plays "Benji, weak no-trump" it rarely matters. That is probably the same in clubs worldwide where most pairs play the normal local system. The Regulations may say that the TD can go to each and every such pair and insist on them playing some sort of set card but this is nonsensical: in some cases the basic card is more complex than what they play, but the main thing is that that sort of treatment just gets people to leave the game.

There are long term solutions, such as persuasion and education. But the big stick approach is not the way to go.

Nothing is black or white. When a pair do not have a completed SC to say not just that they are expected to play a simple card but they are deemed to have played it all along [even if they have not even heard of the regulation nor ever seen such a card] is not the way to go. On the other hand if a pair comes in playing a forcing pass system with transfer pre-empts and three way no-trump openings without a SC they will be treated harshly and rightly so.

You do not go to stupid extremes as a TD. Neither do you penalise a pair playing simple local methods for not having an SC nor do you permit people who should know better to treat the regulations with contempt while playing complex methods.

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2011-March-23, 06:46, said:

When I played in th Nationals in South Africa I think I was the only pair with two completed SCs.

Playing with yourself?

[PeterAlan]

 lamford, on 2011-March-23, 08:54, said:

Playing with yourself?

Well it wouldn't be the first time. I remember one exemplary defence written up by Pat Cotter when he was the Country Life correspondent; the text made clear that he was responsible for the key plays on both sides of the table.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2011-March-23, 08:54, said:

Playing with yourself?

Hopefully not in a bridge club!

(Does that have the same meaning on all sides of the ponds?)

[mrdct]

 barmar, on 2011-March-24, 14:33, said:

Hopefully not in a bridge club!

(Does that have the same meaning on all sides of the ponds?)

Just make sure nobody shoots their wad.

[RMB1]

 barmar, on 2011-March-24, 14:33, said:

(Does that have the same meaning on all sides of the ponds?)

I think so.

The appropriately named user "wank" used the phrase "playing with a mirror" in the topic "Wuss" recently, which avoids the double ententre.

[mycroft]

 RMB1, on 2011-March-24, 15:29, said:

The appropriately named user "wank" used the phrase "playing with a mirror" in the topic "Wuss" recently, which avoids the double ententre.

Unless the speaker is a narcissist, of course...

[barmar]

 RMB1, on 2011-March-24, 15:29, said:

I think so.

The appropriately named user "wank" used the phrase "playing with a mirror" in the topic "Wuss" recently, which avoids the double ententre.

You can also simply replace "with" with "by". But I suspect the double entendre may have been intended.