[szgyula]

The hand:

---

[HV added later, the play may not be 100% correct but has the key elements]

N KJT62.542.42.965
E:A43.T9.T96.AJ843
S:87.KJ73.KQJ73.T7
W:Q95.AQ86.A85.KQ2

Vul. EW, dealer N. The auction went 2D-p-p-X-p-p-p. Screens were in use. N alerted E and explain "mini multi". S did not alert W. After the opening lead W call the TD and indicated (seeing 5 diamonds from S) that something is wrong. The TD told us to continue to play.

The lead was D (to A), CK, CQ followed by a neutral lead. S from dummy, Q, K and A. H was not lead and as a consequence, 2Dx= was the table result for 180.

After the game, TD was called back. The following ruling was made:

1. There was clear MI. S should have alerted W that it is not a weak2 but mini multi.
2. 3N+2 was the adjusted score.
3. Then TD argued that the defense in 2Dx was not optimal, the contract should go down. This is a SEOWG so 12C1b applies. The difference between +180 (2Dx=) and -100 (2Dx-1) is self inflicted so 7IMP-s are subtracted from the NOS score.

The result for other tables was 3N mostly, with results split evenly between +1, +2 and +3.

This is Hungary, which has the 2007 rules without modifications.

The main issue: W assumed that 2D is natural (no alert). Thus, I (I was west) tried a takeout double to find a H fit or to play NT. EW has an agreed defense for multi: 2H and 2S is a takeout with shortness in the suit bid, 2N is a 1N opening with stoppers, X shows diamond holding. E interpreted the X as W having Ds. It is important to note the X is typically a not very strong hand, i.e. normally not above opening strength. It has a "partner, I have minors, they have the upper hand, leave them alone" meaning. This can be made with weak hands as it is rare that the opponents can play D.

E opened with D as he assumed that opponents are playing my suit. By the time he was to lead again, he saw SQ, DA, CK and CQ from me. 11HCP. The bid (showing diamonds and weak to opening strength) ruled out AQ in H (17 HCP). Thus, he tried (I think) C so I can ruff. As he marked me with trumps and not too much strength, he misunderstood the KQ play from me. He also misunderstood the SQ signal. Our signaling depends on the situation. He simply read it as attitude (thus, he was not afraid to play the A) while it was suit preference asking for H...

Now the questions:
1. Is this SEOWG? In my opinion it is neither serious nor unrelated to the infraction.
2. If you assume for a moment that it is: Is this calculation correct? Can you rule that contract B is assigned but mistakes in contract A are calculated?
3. Looking at the hand, 3N+2 is automatic for a S lead (happened at all tables but one) as there are 2S, 3H, 1D and 5C tricks. Making a mistake in defense is easy (this is the lowest division of the national championship, where absolute beginners play). Thus, I would think about weighting the +3. The TD ruling on this was that +2 is the double dummy score and +3 is a defense error so NOS is not entitled to it.
4. As the play ended with a claim, it was not discovered: N opened 2D mini-multi with a five card suit. This is brown sticker (weak opening, not indication a minimum 4 suit and not a "weak two in either major with possible strong options"). If this was not discovered during the event but only during the appeal (in progress), what are the options for the TD? Yellow and Red systems and Brown conventions are banned in this event.
5. A more generic question: How should banned treatments be dealt with? How do you handle this in other countries? I tried this once and I got as far as the opponents got a 1VP penalty for not having a CC during the second time we had to play (in the playoffs).

[campboy]

1. I don't think it is SEWoG.
2. Yes and no. You can rule that contract A is assigned but mistakes in contract B are calculated. However, the calculation itself is not correct. The actual self-inflicted damage is the difference between the IMP score for +100 (which sounds like it would be about -11) and the IMP score for -180 (about -13). So only 2 IMPs should be subtracted for SEWoG.
3. I agree with you that the possibility of a defensive error by OS should be taken into account. However, on the actual hand it is likely that a diamond would be led against 3NT, since North has heard his partner pass a multi. What happened at other tables is not necessarily relevant
4. This is not generally regarded as brown sticker: it shows a weak two in a major, no second suit is guaranteed, and the multi does not have to have strong options. Of course, Hungary's regulations may differ slightly from the WBF ones.
5. In the EBU, using a convention which is not permitted gets you whichever is worse out of table score and average-minus. A PP would not normally be given for a first offense unless the pair might reasonably be expected to know that the method was not permitted.

[szgyula]

campboy, on 2013-September-22, 03:22, said:

4. This is not generally regarded as brown sticker: it shows a weak two in a major, no second suit is guaranteed, and the multi does not have to have strong options. Of course, Hungary's regulations may differ slightly from the WBF ones.

The mini-multi, showing a weak two is not brown sticker. On the other hand, in the actual case the hand is 4HCP, FIVE CARD major without a side suit. I do not think it qualifies as a weak-2. Thus, the mini-multi is NOT brown sticker but this is not what the pair seems to be playing. I would argue that the player passing with at least two in both majors knew about the 5 card possibility (i.e. implicit partnership agreement). Thus, what they play IS brown sticker.

With D lead, west still makes 11 tricks. 5C, 1D (taking the second round with A), 3H and finally two in S exiting in S in trick 11 and now N must play S...

[Trinidad]

A weak two may well be based on a five card suit. That still makes it a weak two.

South has two good reasons to pass 2♦.
1) He has an excellent diamond suit
2) East may well hold a good hand (but decided to pass and wait what happens). Now it will be very difficult for EW to sort things out. (The fact that East thought West must be weak with diamonds already indicates this: If West would really be weak with lots of diamonds, he should be delighted to pass it out in 2♦.)

But, to answer your main question: I agree for 100% with campboy: This was not a SEWoG, the TDs calculation was wrong and campbooy was right on the other questions too.

Rik

[blackshoe]

Your TD needs some education. For one thing, the full phrase in the laws is "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" and your defensive errors were clearly related to the infraction. For another, as Campboy pointed out, his calculation of the adjusted score was flawed. For a third, the TD perhaps should have given your partner the opportunity to change his final pass to some other call (Law 21). What exactly should have happened when the TD was first called depends on your screen regulations. Were you (West) given a corrected explanation at that time? Is "play on" (as the director instructed) without any other rectification correct under your screen regulations?

[szgyula]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-22, 09:44, said:

Your TD needs some education. For one thing, the full phrase in the laws is "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" and your defensive errors were clearly related to the infraction. For another, as Campboy pointed out, his calculation of the adjusted score was flawed. For a third, the TD perhaps should have given your partner the opportunity to change his final pass to some other call (Law 21). What exactly should have happened when the TD was first called depends on your screen regulations. Were you (West) given a corrected explanation at that time? Is "play on" (as the director instructed) without any other rectification correct under your screen regulations?

The TD was called after the opening lead so Law 21 does not apply. The TD could have cleared the MI and warn both NOS players. He did not. Screen regulations do not have anything relevant to the case. The OS player could have noticed the MI after the TD was called and I was complaining about no alert and too many diamonds in dummy. In that case he must have corrected the MI. This would not have helped much as the key points were my incorrect bid (based on MI) and my partner misinterpreting my bid, not knowing that I was given MI. What would have helped is warning my partner that I was given MI before I doubled the 2D. This brings up the issue of authorized information: I do not see a way to inform my partner about the MI. Strictly interpreting Law 16, even the TD can not warn him (and he can not use that info if TD gives it).

No, I was not given a correct explanation, even after the TD call. Worse: My partner did not know that I was given MI, thus, he did not even know that his interpretation of my bid is WRONG. We have a specific defense against multi (with and without the strong options). I just had a discussion with my partner and he correctly pointed out that our defense convention can easily show "the other major". Me not using those bids made him think that I do not have anything of high value in the majors...

Let me go back to the brown sticker issue: All "old" literature definitions had "six card suit" as a requirement. "Modern" literature allows a strong 5 card suit (KQJxx or better) and also allows 7 cards. No definition I saw so far allows a weak-2 with KJT62 with a 5332 distribution. The obvious law question is: Just what IS a weak-2? The brown sticker definition makes a special excemption for weak-2 (in either suit). To be usable, there must be a definition of a "weak-2 in either major". I agree that there is no problem opening this hand with 2S, as it shows a 4 card specific suit. 2D does not show a specific suit so it must be a weak-2 in either major for it to be "non brown sticker".

The ACBL yellow card has this definition: "Weak two-bids show a six-card suit of reasonable quality and 5-11 HCP.
On rare occasions it may be a very good five-card suit. It is possible to open a weak two with a poor seven-card suit (not good enough to open with at the three level)."

[blackshoe]

szgyula, on 2013-September-22, 10:36, said:

The TD was called after the opening lead so Law 21 does not apply. The TD could have cleared the MI and warn both NOS players. He did not.

You're right, that part of Law 21 that allows a change in call does not apply, though 21B3 about adjusting the score does; I misread your OP. I'm not sure what you mean about "clearing the MI".

As far as the brown sticker question is concerned, we first have to know exactly what their agreement as to the meaning of 2♦ is. In particular, do they have any agreements as to what constitutes a weak two bid? Only then can you compare their agreement to the brown sticker regulation.

Going back to your OP, I would say that the director was correct to tell you to play on, and correct not to do anything to correct the MI. I think he was incorrect to rule that your defense constituted a serious error (not related to the infraction). I would have adjusted the score, as the table director did, to 3NT+2 for EW and left it at that.

[lamford]

I think it's a serious error not to use the hand editor, as you will get many not wanting to bother with the thread.

[blackshoe]

Screens. N explained 2D to E as "mini-multi", S did not alert it. TD called when dummy came down, he said "play on".

---

I have not included the play because it's unclear to me exactly how it went.

For all our readers, please note that when creating or editing a post, the icon at the right end of the second row of "tool" icons — the one which started with B and I — is the hand viewer. It looks like a black spade symbol on a white background bordered a vertical red stripe on each side. Click on it and you get a panel which should be self explanatory, but if you have questions, please ask.

[szgyula]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-22, 14:06, said:

As far as the brown sticker question is concerned, we first have to know exactly what their agreement as to the meaning of 2♦ is. In particular, do they have any agreements as to what constitutes a weak two bid? Only then can you compare their agreement to the brown sticker regulation.

Going back to your OP, I would say that the director was correct to tell you to play on, and correct not to do anything to correct the MI. I think he was incorrect to rule that your defense constituted a serious error (not related to the infraction). I would have adjusted the score, as the table director did, to 3NT+2 for EW and left it at that.

I beg to disagree on the brown sticker issue. The WBL Systems policy has this (and Hungary has the exact same rule):

"The following conventions or treatments are categorised as ‘Brown Sticker’:
a)Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that:
i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength) AND
ii)does not promise at least four cards in a known suit.

EXCEPTION: The bid always shows at least four cards in a known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is not a Brown Sticker Convention.)

EXCEPTION: a two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types containing 16 high card points or mre, or with equivalent values. Defensive measures are permitted for opponents as in 6 below."

The 2D opening is weak (below average strength), is 2C through 3S and does not promise 4 cards in a known suit. Thus, for it not to be a brown sticker, it must be " two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major" (or strong). For this rule to have any menaing, there must be an objective definition of "weak two in a major". Otherwise a pair playing in fact CRO preempt can say that "this is how we define weak two in hearts". The TD (or regulatin authority) must be able to say that "no, this is not a weak two in either majors", otherwise the regulation is unenforcable. My claim was that weak two has 6 cards or exceptionally good 5 cards. An exceptionally weak 7 card is also allowed. Anything else is not a weak two.

As for the MI and screens: The MI, when screens are in use, often affects both sides. Even if this is discovered and the player corrects the MI, he can not communicate this correction over the screen. Even the TD can not tell the NOS player on the other side that there was a MI as that would be UI per laws. This hand is a prime example of this situation. East was not told that there was a MI on our side, thus, he misinterpreted my bid. Were he told about this, he could have taken my CQ with his CA (interpreting my X as takeout, i.e. majors) and lead HT, showing his SA. That would be 2C, DA+Druff, 3H and 1S tricks for down 4, 800. I do not see a way to inform him about the situation. Without screens it is trivial as the OS can clear the MI and both NOS players can legally reinterpret the bids accordingly.

[blackshoe]

szgyula, on 2013-September-23, 00:27, said:

My claim was that weak two has 6 cards or exceptionally good 5 cards. An exceptionally weak 7 card is also allowed. Anything else is not a weak two.

That's your opinion. What has this pair agreed?

SAYC is the last place I'd look for definitions of conventions.

IMO, and I expect a lot of folks will agree with me, North's hand qualifies as a weak two in spades. it's a little light on HCP for me (I normally play 5-11) but that's not a big deal.

szgyula, on 2013-September-23, 00:27, said:

As for the MI and screens: The MI, when screens are in use, often affects both sides. Even if this is discovered and the player corrects the MI, he can not communicate this correction over the screen. Even the TD can not tell the NOS player on the other side that there was a MI as that would be UI per laws. This hand is a prime example of this situation. East was not told that there was a MI on our side, thus, he misinterpreted my bid. Were he told about this, he could have taken my CQ with his CA (interpreting my X as takeout, i.e. majors) and lead HT, showing his SA. That would be 2C, DA+Druff, 3H and 1S tricks for down 4, 800. I do not see a way to inform him about the situation. Without screens it is trivial as the OS can clear the MI and both NOS players can legally reinterpret the bids accordingly.

Earlier you said "The TD could have cleared the MI and warn both NOS players. He did not." Now you're saying that because there were screens he could not do that. IMO, you were wrong the first time.

[szgyula]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-23, 07:02, said:

Earlier you said "The TD could have cleared the MI and warn both NOS players. He did not." Now you're saying that because there were screens he could not do that. IMO, you were wrong the first time.

I agree. I revisit the statement: He could have cleared the MI on my side and explain to the player that he has to correct the information NOW (to me). I do not see how this information can legally cross the screen. Thus, the TD can not warn my partner that my bid was based on MI and my partner is not allowed to reevaluate his assumptions about my hand. He should act on the assumption that my X of the D was for penalty, holding D's, no matter what happens. He should asusme that the TD call was simply to fix a typo in the Bridgemate and had nothing to do with the party. Agreed?

I just got a new argument from the TD, by the way: He argues that after the first TD call, the MI was cleared so it can not possibly affect the play. Thus, all errors after the first TD call are "unrelated". He also claims that with double dummy -3 is pretty straightforward so to calculate the correction, -500 was used. I.e. +690-500 (closed room, actual score) vs. +690+180, i.e. 5 IMP vs. 13IMP. The self inflicted damage is 8IMP, which is on top of the 1IMP (3NT+3 in closed room vs. 3NT+2 assigned for us).

[blackshoe]

szgyula, on 2013-September-23, 08:24, said:

I agree. I revisit the statement: He could have cleared the MI on my side and explain to the player that he has to correct the information NOW (to me). I do not see how this information can legally cross the screen. Thus, the TD can not warn my partner that my bid was based on MI and my partner is not allowed to reevaluate his assumptions about my hand. He should act on the assumption that my X of the D was for penalty, holding D's, no matter what happens. He should asusme that the TD call was simply to fix a typo in the Bridgemate and had nothing to do with the party. Agreed?

Maybe. I'll have to think about it.

szgyula, on 2013-September-23, 08:24, said:

I just got a new argument from the TD, by the way: He argues that after the first TD call, the MI was cleared so it can not possibly affect the play.

Did you and your partner both have a correct explanation of their agreement after the first call? If not, this new argument is bullshit. And you can tell him I said so.

[ahydra]

How does the clarification period work when screens are in use? Must the declaring side compare any explanations given to make sure they match?

ahydra

[FrancesHinden]

szgyula, on 2013-September-22, 10:36, said:

Let me go back to the brown sticker issue: All "old" literature definitions had "six card suit" as a requirement. "Modern" literature allows a strong 5 card suit (KQJxx or better) and also allows 7 cards. No definition I saw so far allows a weak-2 with KJT62 with a 5332 distribution. The obvious law question is: Just what IS a weak-2? The brown sticker definition makes a special excemption for weak-2 (in either suit). To be usable, there must be a definition of a "weak-2 in either major". I agree that there is no problem opening this hand with 2S, as it shows a 4 card specific suit. 2D does not show a specific suit so it must be a weak-2 in either major for it to be "non brown sticker".

The ACBL yellow card has this definition: "Weak two-bids show a six-card suit of reasonable quality and 5-11 HCP.
On rare occasions it may be a very good five-card suit. It is possible to open a weak two with a poor seven-card suit (not good enough to open with at the three level)."

The ACBL regulation is irrelevant. What is relevant is the regulation in Hungary.
You say that the Hungarian regulation is the same as the WBF one.
The WBF do not explicitly define what they mean as a weak two, but there is an indication in the WBF systems booklet that this hand qualifies easily. To quote Eric Kokish in the "Guide to completion of the WBF Convention Card" you should specify your style, either standard, undisciplined or random. The definition of random is that "anything is acceptable".

I have certainly played in WBF events and watched them when a hand such as Jxxxx xxx xx xxx is considered OK for a multi.

You may not like this, but I can't see any evidence that the quoted hand is not a perfectly respectable multi under WBF rules.

[szgyula]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-September-23, 14:40, said:

The WBF do not explicitly define what they mean as a weak two, but there is an indication in the WBF systems booklet that this hand qualifies easily. To quote Eric Kokish in the "Guide to completion of the WBF Convention Card" you should specify your style, either standard, undisciplined or random. The definition of random is that "anything is acceptable".

Here is the reference: http://blakjak.org/wbf_cnbk.htm

It is by by Grattan Endicott, WBFLC Secretary. Basically there is standard (6 cards), undisciplined (i.e. bad six card suit or often fair five card suit acceptable) or random (anything is acceptable) versions of the weak 2M. Thus, this 2D multi is not a brown sticker.

I still take it to the regulating authority as they have a tendency to call any system "red" that has a randomness in the system, i.e. the player may or may not bid X with a certain hand in a certain situation. Their argument is that there is not true "random" choice, which leads to implicit partnership agreements (even if the pair can not clearly define it), which is not disclosed. They do not want to have it in low level games. But the question here would be different: "Do they always open a KJTxx with 5332 distribution and 4HCP in the first seat, green over red with 2D?" If yes, no problem. If not, it is red (still playable at many levels).

Anyway, the brown sticker issue is closed, it is not a BSC in the WBF sense.

[Vampyr]

szgyula, on 2013-September-24, 04:29, said:

But the question here would be different: "Do they always open a KJTxx with 5332 distribution and 4HCP in the first seat, green over red with 2D?" If yes, no problem. If not, it is red (still playable at many levels).

Do they always open the same hand with 11 HCP at the one-level? LOL choosing your moments for hands that are marginal in your system does not make your system red.