[jallerton]

I found this hand in an EBL Appeals Booklet. The deal in question was played with screens.

1C was Polish. Final contract 3♣-4 by E, N/S +400. Matchpoint Pairs Scoring.

---

Quote

The Facts:
East/West called the Director after the board. West said South had explained 2♣ as a cue-bid, so West had misunderstood 3♣ as natural.
The Director:
Tried to establish the facts, and decided that in all probability, the sequence of events was:
South did not alert 2♣, and passed over 3♣. West asked South what 2♣ was, and before replying,South asked West what 3♣ was. West said 3♣ was natural, and South then explained 2♣ as a cue-bid.
The Director ruled that East/West had been misinformed, and would not have played 3♣. He could not establish what would have happened with correct explanation and applied Law 12C1d.

Ruling:
Score adjusted to Average Plus for East/West, Average Minus for North/South.
Relevant Laws:
Law 40B4
Law12C1d

North/South appealed.

South confirmed that he had not alerted 2♣. He had asked what 3♣ meant, and was told that it showed 18+ with hearts and clubs. He had then passed, and West had asked him what 2♣ meant. Since 3♣ was natural, he had concluded 2♣ was a cue-bid and explained it that way.
South was asked if there was any place in their system where 2♣ was a cue-bid in response to a double, and he could not mention any.
When asked how it could be possible for 2♣ to be a cue-bid when the 3♣ came after it, he could not explain.
West explained that he had waited for an alert of 2♣, but none had come. He was about to pass, when he remembered to ask what 2♣ was. South responded with a question about 3♣, and he had explained that it showed 18+ with the two suits. Then South said 2♣ was a cue-bid, and he had passed.

How would you have ruled if you had been on the Appeals Committee?

[blackshoe]

"Can we shoot them?" -- "Fiona Glenanne" (Gabriel Anwar), in "Burn Notice".

[barmar]

Assuming the TD correctly ascertained the sequence of events, South's question was inappropriate. The meaning of North's bid cannot depend on what East's bid means. What would he have said if East had asked the question BEFORE bidding? "Are you planning on bidding 3♣ natural?"

West should have realized this, though. The meaning of East's bid is dependent on what North's bid means, so he can't answer South's question until after South answers his question.

So West gave misinformation first, and this led to the misinformation South gave. So I rule that table result stands

[iviehoff]

barmar, on 2011-May-11, 00:51, said:

So West gave misinformation first, and this led to the misinformation South gave.

It was only South's warped logic that led him to base his answer to "what is 2C" on what he was told 3C meant. He should not have based his answer upon it, because in reality it did not depend upon it. It is much more plausible that what 3C means depends upon what 2C means. Though in fact it seems that W was able to explain 3C wrong without any information on 2C, and didn't change his explanation even when S gave an explanation inconsistent with his previous lack of alert.

W also has a plausible argument that the misinformation he got was damaging, whereas S wasn't damaged by the misinformation he got.

[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2011-May-11, 00:51, said:

So West gave misinformation first, and this led to the misinformation South gave. So I rule that table result stands

How can a certain explanation of 3♣ lead to a certain explanation of 2♣? This causality is unacceptable to me.

Yes, there are two MI cases here. The misexplanation of 2♣ caused damage, and the misexplanation of 3♣ did not. Therefore there is only one MI case that needs to be rectified. And "table result stands" is not a sufficient rectification.

[bluejak]

There was MI by South: there was damage: so an adjustment is suitable. Using Law 12C1D is lazy and unnecessary. West would bid 3♥ over a cue-bid - probably - East might easily bid 4♥. Nine or ten tricks seems the outcome dependent on whether East tries to ruff a spade or discard a diamond. So a weighting between 3♥ and 4♥, nine or ten tricks seems routine.

[barmar]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-12, 05:41, said:

How can a certain explanation of 3♣ lead to a certain explanation of 2♣? This causality is unacceptable to me.

South has length in clubs, and is told that East also has clubs. So he thinks it's unlikely that North could have a natural club bid.

[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2011-May-12, 23:15, said:

South has length in clubs, and is told that East also has clubs. So he thinks it's unlikely that North could have a natural club bid.

He is supposed to describe his agreements, not his hand - especially behind screens!

[savphantom]

Cue Bid Confusion Are we still shooting everything that moves?

Ruling table score of 3CE -4 stands under Law 21A.
Agree West has been given MI by South explaining 2C as a cue bid, without explaining what is shown by a cue bid in this auction.

Highly irrregular for South to ask and West to explain 3C by East without obtaining a meaning for 2C. Expect that West should call the Director when South seems unable to explain 2C.

Astonished that East did not seek explanation from North, his screenmate, of the meaning of 2C by North and risked a "cue bid" in a void when he knows little more than partner is negative. His bid of 3C is self inflicted and not caused by misinformation provided to his partner.
East - West need sound systemic agreements to distinguish 18+ with Hearts from a minimum balanced hand with 3+ Hearts to demonstrate how they are damaged resulted from this case of misinformation or was it misbehaviour?

[mgoetze]

savphantom, on 2011-May-13, 06:36, said:

Astonished that East did not seek explanation from North, his screenmate, of the meaning of 2C by North and risked a "cue bid" in a void when he knows little more than partner is negative. His bid of 3C is self inflicted and not caused by misinformation provided to his partner.
East - West need sound systemic agreements to distinguish 18+ with Hearts from a minimum balanced hand with 3+ Hearts to demonstrate how they are damaged resulted from this case of misinformation or was it misbehaviour?

a) Why should East ask about an unalerted 2♣?
b) It is obvious you have never played Polish Club. With 12-14 balanced and 3-4 hearts East has an absolutely automatic instapass. 3♣ definitely and unambiguously shows 18+.

[barmar]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-13, 01:48, said:

He is supposed to describe his agreements, not his hand - especially behind screens!

He may not be totally sure of the agreement in this situation. He's not describing his hand, he's making an inference based on what he knows about the hand.

[savphantom]

To mgoetze
You are correct i am not familiar with Polish Club as at the principal clubs in our state capital no leading players are using it (Australia)
I o not understand how auctions like !C

[savphantom]

mgoetze, on 2011-May-14, 07:53, said:

a) Why should East ask about an unalerted 2♣?
b) It is obvious you have never played Polish Club. With 12-14 balanced and 3-4 hearts East has an absolutely automatic instapass. 3♣ definitely and unambiguously shows 18+.

Reposted sorry about prev incomplete effort.
You are correct that I am not familiar with Polish Club systems as no leading players in my city use it.
I cannot see how the auction 1C P 1D(neg) P
1H X P 2C
3C Shows Clubs and 18+ points. whatever 2C was showing!

Perhaps an auction like 1C P 1D P
2C or 3C might show Clubs and 18+

You must be lucky directing players who know their systems and have clear convention cards and reliably alert
I experience situations such as 1C(Std but maybe2) 2NT alerted and then explained as lowest two undid suits but the partnership confuses C+D or D+H.
Similarly after a Precision 1D opening. I consider a player who hears an opponent cue bid his artificial opening bid and does not protect themself but assumes they are playing like his partnership is contributing to his own distress.

[bluejak]

savphantom, on 2011-May-15, 05:47, said:

You must be lucky directing players who know their systems and have clear convention cards and reliably alert
I experience situations such as 1C(Std but maybe2) 2NT alerted and then explained as lowest two undid suits but the partnership confuses C+D or D+H.
Similarly after a Precision 1D opening. I consider a player who hears an opponent cue bid his artificial opening bid and does not protect themself but assumes they are playing like his partnership is contributing to his own distress.

No doubt, and these situations are common around the world. Nevertheless, when one side commits an infraction, then we should be careful about ruling in their favour because the opponents become confused. If they have committed no infraction that is, of course, different.

[mgoetze]

savphantom, on 2011-May-15, 05:47, said:

You must be lucky directing players who know their systems and have clear convention cards and reliably alert

If this is in answer to my question why East should ask about an unalerted 2♣, I would like to point out that this deal took place behind screens, and thus East would be the one to see whether North SELF-alerted his bid. Yes, at a level where you play behind screens, I 100% expect a player making an artifical 2♣ bid in this situation to realise he needs to self-alert it to his screenmate, even if only to point out that he has no agreement about it whatsoever.

These players you talk about who don't know what a 2NT overcall of 1♣ means, do they play behind screens much?

PS I have never directed a bridge tournament in my life.

[bluejak]

At the level at which screens apply, ie local leagues in Italy, for example, there are, as usual, players who have no idea of the Laws and get their system wrong. Actually, people do so at much higher levels too.

Who cares? We are not trying to teach the world to sing. We apply the Laws when there is an infraction. Whether an infraction of a certain type is likely to happen at any particular level does not seem relevant.

[dburn]

No doubt East did not ask North what 2♣ meant because: [a] North did not alert 2♣; and [b] it was obvious (to East and North at any rate) what 2♣ meant - it showed clubs. South's second-round double was takeout of hearts, so club bids by North and South should be as natural as they would be if the auction had started 1♥ - double - pass - 2♣ (as indeed it had started for practical purposes).

East in all innocence cue-bid 3♣, and then the tray went over to the dark side of the screen. There, a profoundly confused South and an even more profoundly confused West contrived to confuse one another even more profoundly by saying and doing some nonsensical things.

By his own admission, West was about to pass out 3♣ when it occurred to him to ask South what 2♣ meant. It was perhaps fortunate for West that he did so, for upon hearing South say that 2♣ was a cue bid (despite not having alerted it), West felt on firmer ground in leaving East in 3♣. That South gave West MI because of some discussion involving the meaning of 3♣ is neither here nor there; the fact is that South did misinform West as to the meaning of 2♣, and West was damaged thereby (had South correctly explained 2♣ as natural, West would not have passed out 3♣).

One could of course take the view that West's pass of 3♣ was a serious error unrelated to the infraction, but I would not be so inclined; West's pass of 3♣ was certainly a serious error, but West's confusion in passing was directly related to South's infraction in misexplaining 2♣. That West committed an infraction of his own in misexplaining 3♣ is true but irrelevant; it was South's duty correctly to explain 2♣ in the context of his partnership methods, not in the context of some alternate universe that was at least partly of his own making.

In short (and, be it said, not for the first time) I find myself in complete agreement with my learned brother bluejak, whose analysis of the position appears to me flawless. I have not troubled to assess in detail his weightings of the various possible outcomes had West bid 3♥; I am sure that they are at least reasonable and very probably better than that.

[AlexJonson]

So, everyone bids more or less sensibly except West.

West is scared to bid with his poor hand.

It turns out badly for him, but Burn and Bluejak to the rescue.

[bluejak]

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-20, 14:40, said:

So, everyone bids more or less sensibly except West.

West is scared to bid with his poor hand.

It turns out badly for him, but Burn and Bluejak to the rescue.

Perhaps N/S should follow the Laws of bridge and then their opponents will not get rescued by adjustments.

[AlexJonson]

bluejak, on 2011-May-20, 15:31, said:

Perhaps N/S should follow the Laws of bridge and then their opponents will not get rescued by adjustments.

So you and dburn think that South breached the Laws of Bridge when he got confused and West exploited his confusion.

And the idea that the TD is there to use judgement, means what for you guys in this case?