szgyula

[hv=pc=n&s=sa8642h865dk8cqj6&w=sk7hkj2d9432ckt52&n=sjt95ht9daqjt75ca&e=sq3haq743d6c98743&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=pp1d3cp3hppp]399|300[/hv] Screens are used. East explains to North "two suiter, clubs and hearts". West explains to South "Ghestem, two suiter, hearts and spades". It is established (CC, etc.) that EW plays Ghestem and it is a two suiter, hearts and spades. North argues that HE (North) did not reopen spades because of the infraction of EW. He assumed that his partner got the same explanation (C and H). As the partner did not bid spades, he (S) can not have spades. Now I strongly disagree. In my opinion, there was a clear bidding error and a clear misinformation to North. On the other hand, South got the correct explanation from West. Sure, this explanation provided the partnership agreement, not the actual hand of East. Thus, the auction is not affected up to the point of p-p-1D-3C-p-3H. The only question is what could North do differently, knowing the acutal partnership agreement, i.e. H and S. One can argue 4D but in this case it would be 4D=, which is worse than the actual table score of 3H-3. The TD ruling was "we can not figure out so AVG+/AVG-". In my opinion the ruling should have been bidding error (irrelevant) and MI to North. Since North could not use the correct information, no damage, result stands. E made a bridge error and EW was lucky. It was an IMP event, if that matters. Typical result was 4S=. Gyula

Hi, As the title implies. We are playing IMP against good players. Their "weak2" promises 5 cards, not 6. Otherwise quite standard. Yes, they open Axx.Q8xxx.Jx.Qxx with 2H. What is the suggested defense? We only play 8 boards and we have no chance to practice, etc. Past experience shows that the agressively raise the weak2. In the past (different pair, same system) we used a DSI double quite effectively after such raises (e.g. 2D-2S-3D-X with good spades but many defensive tricks -- went down 3 doubled). That may work here. What to do in direct seat after a 2D/H/S? 1. What should be X? Probably take-out but how strong, etc.? SHould we relax the standard take-out requirements? 2. What about overcalls? A 2D opening makes it hard to find a 44 fit in a major. 3. Is it worth to show 2 suiters somehow? 4. What about 2NT? 15-18, balanced and stopper? 5. What about cue bid? Thanks, Gyula

Is "I do not remember" MI? Is "A or B, I do not know which" MI? Is "A or B, no agreement" MI? Is "A but partner often makes mistakes so I am prepared for B" MI?

Hi, This is about general priciples but lets give an example to demonstrate the issue: Auction is 1C-1H-2C. Screens are used. The third player (2C) is asked what the 2C bid is. Lets assume that they play inverted minors, they do have an agreement about inverted minors over interference but (s)he does not remember it. Questions: 1. (S)he certainly can alert (screens). What is the correct explanation? Can (s)he mention inverted minors as a possibility? I heard the argument that a "may be ..." explanation is, by definition MI as it is confusing the opponents. 2. Should the TD send the player away, ask the other side of the screen and inform the NOS player about the meaning of the bid? 3. If the answer is yes, what is the legal base of this? 16A is very restrictive about what is AI. 16A1© leaves a back door open but you still need a "legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations" that covers this (TD asks the other OS player and informs the NOS player on the other side). 4. What changes if there is no agreement for this situation (i.e. they did not discuss interference)? 5. If the NOS player wants to know how the 2C bidder interprets the situation, what is the correct method? Is it possible at all? Can the 2C player say that "I do not know what my 2C means but I bid it anyway and I will not help". I was in a situation once (two possible meanings of the bid from partner) and I choose a bid that reasonably fits both situations. I did not really want to explain what my hand is. 6. How can you avoid a double barell approach from the NOS? I.e. there are two possible meaning of the bid, NOS play assuming one of these and asks for redress if the other was the case... Thanks, Gyula

I fully agree that in general it is a bad and outdated idea. On the other hand, in this case, the argument is the following: There should not be much doubt that the 3♥ bid was intended as forcing over an inverted minor raise, i.e. week. There is at least 9 ♠ known, why would you use a negative free bid, especially in a 4 card suit (could be 4-0). There is not much doubt, either, that on the other side (me) the 3♥ over a limit raise was taken as non forcing. It was passed, after all. I do not think you can argue much with these two statements. Now you have three alternatives: 1. The NOS players are lying and they see an opportunity to cover up a mistake THEY made 2. The NOS players did not actually have an agreement like this, they both subconsciously "invented" an agreement after the fact without actually explicitly discussing it 3. They are telling the truth I do not see an easy way to choose one. The real danger is choosing between 2 and 3. Using this convention (positive free bid after weak answer, negative free bid after strong reply from opponent) certainly fits our style. We have lots of agreements along this line. Can you be sure that this particular case was discussed and agreed on? No. Can you establish that there are elements like this in the system? Sure. Is it enough to call it an implicit agreement? I don't know. I truly do not know how to decide in a situation like this. The players state something but there is no proof. Sure, you can make a completely subjective decision but it is not a good idea. You can still express your doubt in a weighted adjustment. There is a practical aspect. The NOS knows what really happened. Neither the OS, nor the TD knows it. Thus, no matter what you decide, only the NOS will know if it was correct. Of the 4 possible combinations, there is only one that causes prompt permanent damage: the NOS is telling the truth and you do not accept it. Sure, the NOS lying and ruling in favour of them causes damage in the long run but a) in the long rune we are dead, b) eventually you will get suspicious. This also works in the other direction: you decide not to believe the NOS. Next time a different TD encounters the same players, (s)he will have a preconception: theses SBs already tried to pull one dirty trick. Lets make sure thay will not succeed this time, either...

There is a new argument from the other side: In the example above, the TD agreed that 3♥ was forcing on that side. How does the TD establish that I am telling the truth when I claim that 3♥ was not forcing on my side? I can try to argue that after a normal opening (13 points), overcall (lets say 10 points) and limit raise (11 points) there is not much need for a bid from the 4th player that forces me to the 4th level. It is much better to play it as a negative free bid in that case. The fact that I in fact passed also supports the claim that it is a passable bid. Thus, you have two options open, how do you decide which one is true: 1. After a limit raise 3♦ the 3♥ bid is negative free bid, i.e. passable, i.e. consequent damage. 2. After a limit raise AND an inverted minor raise 3♦ the 3♥ bid is always a positive free bid, West did not know the system and made an unrelated error by passing the 3♥. Thus, no consequent damage. There is no CC that helps to decide this issue. You only have statements from both players, common sense (see above -- with ~8 points you do not want to force the partner to the 4th level) and the fact that west passed. Somebody argued that when in doubt, rule in favor of the NOS.

There are a few things to clarify: I have a long history with this particular TD. I always claim that rules are sacred, no matter what. In this particular case the event specific CoC very clearly says that appeal intent must be announced and appeal fee must be paid by midnight (event ends at 22:15). The actual appeal has 24 hours extra, i.e. until midnight the next day. The ruling was sent at 10AM. In my interpretation intent was not announced and fee was not paid, i.e. it would be illegal to accept an appeal. The TD thinks differently. As for the being always right, here is a previous case, where the argument went: It is not only the strict wording of the laws but the intent of the law maker that we have to consider. Since I am the person who wrote the law (CoC), we do not have to interpret the law to figure out what the law maker intended. You just have to simply ask me what the intention was. Accordingly, any argument with me is stupid by definition. The question was simple: can you modify the official result of an event two weeks after the event. As for the TD comment on the appeal: This was made after the event and not as an official communication but as a personal opinion. Basically he claimed that in the case I submitted an appeal, the AC would send my appeals fee to Satan before returning it to me and I obviously know this. As for the comment on the 3♥ bid: This was made by a good player that is completely unrelated to the story. He was saying that 3♥ was stupid and we should take it as a man and should not expect the TD to protect us from our stupidity. This is the de facto national pairs championship. Since there is just one venue for this event, all divisions get identical conditions, i.e. screens and bridgemate. There was some argument that in lower divisions the screen should be removed but this never actually happened. It was not even agreed on, as far as I know. As for inexperienced, I have to admit that I would be in trouble in some cases, too. We do not have all bases covered and I could easily end up in a situation where I do not know what the agreement is. This is sad but part of life. I have no issue with someone not having an agreement or not remembering it. I have a problem with this messing up our system. To be honest our current system can not handle a weak 6-5 in majors properly. I always announce this if asked. I would fully accept a correction if this caused a problem for them.

This is only an issue with screens. One possible solution: TD goes over, gets the information (what was the explanation) and informs the non offending player WITHOUT informing the offending side. Just to confuse it further: In the case (I was west) South askes me about the 3♥. I explain that it is a non forcing bid, showing a good ♥ and very little in ♠. Now THEY cry foul as this is MI. What do you do in this case? Was it MI? Yes. Did it cause damage? Lets say it did. Can you say that an infraction is the consequence of an infraction and thus, it is not an infraction? What rules is this based on? For example I decide to show my clubs, they double, we make 5...

Not that it matters but a forcing bid and than 4♠ shows strength. Direct 4♠ shows distribution. This may matter after a 5♦. Since it is "free", you can as well inform west which is the case. East also saw a very slight chance of 6♠ and wanted to know more about the hand. His choice. May be wrong.

[hv=pc=n&s=sk8ht53dkqj93ck32&w=sq9543h96dac98754&n=s76hkj84d87654cjt&e=sajt2haq72dt2caq6&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1d1s3d3hppp]399|300[/hv] Screens are used. North alerts and explains that 3D is an inverted minors raise, showing a long diamonds and it is weak. No alert, no question on the other side. TD is called after and EW explains that after inverted minor raises (weak) they play positive free bids. After normal raises (strong, invitational) they play negative free bids. Thus, the 3H was forcing on one side, non forcing on the other. The actual MI was established by the TD. Apparently NS had no agreement on this (inverted minors after interference -- they play inverted minors normally). TD ruling is "result stands" as the pass by West is not a direct consequence of the MI. As the ruling happens after the appeals deadline, there is no appeal, but the TD (who was a TD on the European Championship) explains that the appeal would have been rejected and would have been ruled frivolous. To me, this does not make sense. What am I missing? There was an independent opinion from someone, who said that the 3♥ licit was a mistake (not illegal, but pointless) so there should be no correction and the appeal is indeed frivolous. He also criticized the 1♠ bid. These could all be valid statements (both bids are questionable) but I do not see the relevance. Why does it matter? All happened BEFORE the MI.

I think this is the correct conclusion. We do not know what 3D means in their system. To be honest, I do not think you can actually figure this out. As a matter of fact, I have an agreement with many of my occasional partners that "if I do not understand the bid, I do not pass". So pass is not a logical alternative in our system. We do play 2NT as a 2 suiter and we have no explicit agreement on a "4th suit" bid.

How was 3S made? 2♠ and 2♦ loosers and 1 ♥ (Q or trumped, unless west played the ♠5 in a trump trick).

You can make a 7♠ contract without the ace -- you just need a revoke committed by the opponents. That is fair#1 but it is unfair#2. In the actual 47E1 case there is some unfairness#2. An experienced and cunning player would always ask "is it my lead?" a newbie will not. That would give the experienced plazer a fair#1 but unfair#2 advantage. Analogy: A friend of mine, visiting Japan won a sumo game. He read the rules carefully and found that "harite" (slapping the opponent's face with an open hand) is legal. His opponent was not aware of this and was so shocked that he lost in the end. Was this a fair victory? Yes and no. One more thought: where "judgement"is involved, you can not possibly avoid being subjective. Read the topics here and you will see it often. A TD will be creative against an SB. This is unfair but fair in the long run.

Indeed that is what I am looking for. I am playing in a very inbred culture and "judgement" is nearly a synonym of "loyalty"... As I am also a TD: Can I always apply 47E1 in favor of the defendents IF 47E1 CAN BE applied? This would be "objective", albeit sometimes unfair. I have no problem with unfair as these situations are always gray but you have to make it black and white. I do not trust myself so I rule objectively instead of "fairly".

In the clubs that I go to, the TD does not ask in a Law 53-54 case if opponents misinformed the player. Thus, facts are identical. ESTABLISHED facts are not. This should not be the case. Thus, TDs should always ask if there was any discussion about the lead, i.e. the applicability of 47E1 should be up to the TD. As for the rest: "If the declarer or the dummy makes any definite and incorrect statement -- spontaneous or solicited -- that implies in any way that a certain defender is to make the opening lead, next lead or next play, law 47E1 applies". Is this the interpretation you are suggesting? I guess that if there is any uncertainty in the statement made, law 47E1 does NOT apply.

You can interpret the text very strictly or very broadly. I do not know where to draw the line. To give a few examples: 1. "Is it my lead?" Opponent does not answer. 2. "Is it my lead?" Opponent answers "may be, I am nor sure". 3. "Is it my lead?" Answer is "the contract is 3S by South" (when in fact it is by North). You were misinformed but not about the lead. 4. Player asks for the auction sequence and South recites it but makes a mistake. In the correct auction, the declarer is North. In the recited one, it is South. No further questions. 5. At one point South asks for the auction and West recites it incorrectly. In the correct auction, North is the declarer. In the recited one, it is South. Now West asks South "is it my lead" and South confirms yes, based on the incorrect recital. 6. Player asks "who is declarer" and gets an incorrect answer. He was not informed about who is to lead, etc. 7. Player asks if he is declarer (when he should be dummy). Did he "inform"? 8. Player makes a remark like "you end up with 5 opening lead out of 7 boards". 9. Same as before but the gay already made five opening leads. Was he "informed"? We can go on and make up lots of situations on "both sides" of the line that I want to get defined. What disturbs me is that in real life it is often the player making the opening lead and one of his opponents together that cause the irregularity. The rules always put the blame on one of them. Even if it were objective (it is not) and even if rule 47E1 was applied consistently (i.e. TD always investigating the communication leading up to the incorrect lead), more experienced player would be able to take advantage of this law. This is legal but not necessarily nice. A beginner will go home one evening with two boards, once he made an incorrect opening lead, once his opponent. Everything was identical. Same question, same answers, etc. In both cases the TD ruled against him. That is not "good", even though it is "legal".

Now that everything else was cleared up, can someone define the standard for "the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play"? Is there any guidance for this law anywhere?

The background noise was too high. It was not obvious on the other side that the TD was called and that he arrived. It WAS obvious that something irregular happened. The screen is 2m high and not transparent. The TD was not visible, neither approaching nor being there. He can not be heard, either. Now how about law 47E? The TD used it to claim that the opening lead can be retracted without consequence as it was based on misinformation from declaring side. Misinformation being "dummy" agreeing that he is the declarer.

Hi, A funny situation. 1. Screens in use. 2. After the auction, North is the declarer. 3. On the other side of the screen, West and South discusses the situation and they agree that South is the declarer. 4. Accordingly, West makes the opening lead, face up. 5. South opens the screen. 6. North and East is surprised and they start discussing, who is the declarer. They recite the auction and agree that North should be the declarer. 7. South and West calls the director. This is not obvious on the other side of the screen. 8. The director starts to asses the facts. The other side (N and E) is not aware of this. 9. East, aware of the opening lead by West and aware of the fact that West was not supposed to make the opening lead, maks an opening lead, face up. How would you rule? There was an initial, later retracted ruling: This was a faced opening lead out of turn and Law 54 applies. Since South opened the screen, 54D is no longer an option, i.e. the lead can not be refused. The declarer (North) was not offered a choice between 54A (North, the declarer spreads his hand and South becomes the declarer) and 54B (North remains declarer, plays from hand, etc.). The card played initially by East as "opening lead" becomes a major penalty card. a) Was this correct? After some reading, the TD changed the ruling: Unfortunately, the official translation of 47E1 is plain wrong. Somehow "lead" was translated into "opening lead" so 47E1, in hungarian is "An opening lead out of turn or play of a card may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play." The TD applied this rule, i.e. the opening lead was based on misinformation from South. Thus, opening lead by West never happened and the real opening lead was made by East. The card by West can be retracted without rectification. The table result was adjusted accordingly. b) Was this the correct ruling? 47E2(a) clearly mentions "opening lead" so Law 47 applies not only to "leads" but also to the "opening lead". On the other hand, a defender asking "is it my lead" and after a "yes" making the opening lead face up should not render Law 54 void. Thus, what is the standard for "mistakenly informed"? Thanks, Gyula

Just to be pedantic here: sometimes opening the shorter minor, i.e. not always... And no, this is not a Canape system, either. E.g. a 1♣-p-1♦-p-2♦ sequence promises 4 diamonds in both hands. The ♣ can be 3, 4 or 5. There is no method to find the length of the ♣. And there is no method to always find a 4-4 fit in a minor. E.g. after 1♣ opening, responder will not bid ♣ with 4 cards. The opener will not repeat ♣ with 4. Thus, the 4-4 fit is never found.

Thanks all. I think it was beaten to death. Local regulation says(*) that it makes the system Red, thus, banned in many cases. This seems not to be the case in other countries. Alerting is sensible and done consistently it is not UI as you always alert. Explanation is arguable. The point is that the system does not contain anything to help the pair to discover the fit in the other minor. This is an accepted shortcoming of the system. The benefit is that opponents can not figure out the minors, either, which can be a huge advantage in 1NT... Thanks for the input... (*): Literally "says" as this regulation is not written down anywhere but the TDs know it. The players may learn about it eventually if they happen to play it against a TD...

Dear All, Just a quick question about "random minor openings": A pair plays a standard based system where (lacking a 5 card major) any 3 card minor can be opened. Thus, the minor bid only denies the 5 card majors and promises 3 cards in that suit. Nothing more, nothing less. If both minors have three, there is no definite rule about which one to bid: For 33 or 44, either one can be bid. For 43 it is not obviously defined, either -- in some cases the short may be opened. For 53 it is the longer. I think the general idea behind is to make defense harder when the likely end contract is NT. Or something like that. My understanding is that it is truly (close to) random... Now the questions: 1. What is it: green/red/brown? 2. Do you alert? 3. What is the proper explanation of this bid? Thanks, Gyula

Just one more angle: Opponents could have psyched. Thus, you can not be sure that your partner has the weak variant. Unlikely, but... The bottom line is this: Opponents are entitled to know the SYSTEM you are playing. They are not entitled to know what is in your hand. Simple example: You have 25 HCP. Partner opens 2NT (20-22HCP balanced). When asked, you MUST tell this (20-22HCP balanced), even if you know for sure that it is not possible -- based on your own hand. And you must not give any hint that you know it is not the actual hand. If there is some way to tell partner which version it is, than you must disclose this, alert it, etc. But again, this is the SYSTEM, not the actual hand that you disclose...

Have YOU read the thread, I wonder :) I quoted the ACBL alert chart: (mandatory alert) "Non-forcing suit bids by an unpassed hand" is to be alerted. Going back to Cicero: "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis" (the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted), we can safely conclude that certain non-forcing suit bids by an passed hand are not to be alerted. The counter argument was raised that even if 2H in that situation is not forcing in general and not to be alerted, a 2H with "six hearts and five hcp" is not a generally expected agreement, thus an alert is required. My points were made about this: 1. The TD must establish what the 2H agreement is. Either six hearts and five hcp is an agreement (can be implicit) or it is a psych. The TD can just as well establish that the agreement for this situation is 4+♥ and invitational strength, i.e. 2♥ was a psych. Or even a mistake (e.g. player did not notice the 2♣ intervention). 2. The TD must also investigate how the actual weak holding was established by the player calling the TD. One possibility is that the player added up the points in his hand and the points promised by the 1♦ and 2♣ bids and concluded that the 2♥ bid must be very weak. If this happened (unlikely), the TD call was illegal and equity must be restored.

On one hand, the TD should never ever make an MI ruling based on the cards a particular player holds. An MI ruling is based on the system the players play. Law 20F(4) may apply (call the TD if you gave MI), 21B3 gives the TD the explicit right to adjust the score. So does 40B4. The UI issue you raise is quite simple: How was the potential MI discovered? Either asking for an explanation later or by looking at the dummy when dummy is faced. In that case it is correct to call the TD and ask for a ruling. There is not UI generated. On the other, calling the TD claiming that "My opponents can not have more than 5 points so his bid is not in sync with the explanation or lack of alert" is clearly a blatant UI case and shoul dbe treated harshly. The 2H in the example is not necessarily non forcing. The player making the bid may have psyched. Thus, calling the TD that "player X can not have enough points to make a forcing 2H, thus, the 2H is not forcing, thus, I was given MI" is insane. As a counter example, if you ask for explanation before the opening lead (heck, even during play) and you are told that 2H was indeed non forcing, you can call the TD and the TD should rule MI/not MI on the spot. Just one side remark: I can not interpret the 'If you knew that "everyone" in an area plays it one way...' argument. One bid is either alertable or it is not. This does not depend on what you suspect, how well you know people, what is the phase of Jupiter and what is the price of tea in China. A Martian dropping in for just for a hand must be able to alert properly. If he can not, the rules are vague, which leads to trouble.