The Heart of the Matter

[hrothgar]

For what its worth, I'm going to post the background history for the hands that were discussed in the Nothing Complicated / A Bit More Complicated threads.

 

This problem was taken from another thread entitled "A Sad Story" which was posted on Rec.Games.Bridge on April 14th.

For convenience, I'll post the complete deal with South as Dealer.

 

[hv=n=sxhjt9xxdkq9cktxx&w=skqxxxhaxxxdjtcjx&e=sajxhkqxxdaxxxxca&s=stxxxhdxxxcqxxxxx]399|300|[/hv]

 

At the table, the following auction occurred

 

(P) - P - (1♥) - P

(2♣) - P* - (3♣) - P

(P) - P - (P)

 

After the 2♣ Advance, West asked about the meaning of 2♣ and was told that this was "Natural". West passed, North raised to 3♣ and the hand was passed out.

 

At the close of the hand, West called the Director and complained that she didn't know that the 2C bid could be based on this weak a hand and that had she known she would have taken action. The Director adjusted the score to 4S +1 versus 6♥ -2 at the other table.

 

This hand generated a hell of a lot of discussion with people voicing a number of strongly held opinions. (The discussion has died down some what.

 

From my own perspective, I think that the Director got the ruling wrong. As is oft the case, I think that its necessary to consider two separate questions.

 

Question 1: Did the offending side provide full / appropriate disclosure? The offending side argued that she thought that West was asking whether the 2C bid showed clubs or was some form of conventional Heart raise (Drury or some such). Accordingly, she simply described her hand as "clubs". Regardless of this excuse, it seems as if the weak 2C advance was systemic (we don't have any first hand descrptions of the N/S methods). North/South certainly could have provided some range information.

 

Question 2: Was the non-offending side damaged by the incomplete disclosure? I don't believe that the damage to the non-offending side was sufficient to require an adjusted score. First and foremost, South is a passed hand playing a strong club system. South is limited by the fact that she didn't open 2C or 3C earlier in the auction. I think that players at this level should be aware that 2C could show a weak hand. Equally significant, its unclear to me whether the non-offending side's bidding would change if they had a more complete description of N/S methods. While South could have a very weak hand, the odds that South holds 0-4 HCP are extremely low. I'm incredulous that West would make significant changes to her overcall style based on the fact that there is a one in ten chance that South could hold an exceptionally weak hand.

 

In short, I argue that the damage was subsequent to the infraction, but not consequent. E/W should not receive an adjusted score. However, it might be appropriate to award a proceedural penalty to N/S for incomplete disclosure.

 

With this said and done: If you do decide that a proceedural penalty is appropriate, you better be prepared to award a hell of a lot of proceedural penalties to anyone who describes "Good/Bad Michaels" as "Michaels" or anything similar.

[pbleighton]

There should have been no adjustment. East chose to pass with a 17 count when he could have doubled or bid 1NT. I also agree with your point on a better explanation probably not influencing West's bidding.

 

OTOH, if the 2C call was systemic, the explanantion was insufficient.

 

Peter

[inquiry]

On 2♣ being systematic, it is natural and less than an opening hand. This is exactly what is held. The fact that the "less than opening" happened to be 2 hcp, rather than 8 or 9 hcp is hardly a great issue. I would consider procedural penalties against NS for hidden agreement if and only if one of the following statements was true:

 

1) 2♣ systemically denied any sort of heart fit (always raise with hearts)

 

2) there was some other bid that is used to show hands with clubs and 8 to 10 hcps.

 

And no matter what I thought about lack of full disclosure by NS, I would not be adjusting EW score.

 

Playing last night, an opponent in second seat overcalled 1♠ (after a 1♥ opening) on ♠QJ9xx ♥Jx ♦xx ♣QT9x (they not vul, we vul). Should I call the director? This is certainly not a "standard" overcall, and it was weaker than anticipated. But this seems to be "bridge" (of a fashion).

[Echognome]

I have seen the rgb discussion and also discussed this problem at great length with several good players and TDs here.

 

There was one thing that wasn't clear to me in the posts. Namely, is the South hand systemically agreed that it can be this weak or was it a deviation?

 

If it was the latter, then clearly there is no issue whatsoever.

 

If it was the former, then let us consider the issue more deeply. First off, since South is a passed hand, 2♣ should not be alerted if it is natural (it is) and non-forcing (it is). The reason that I say the latter is because South is a passed hand, so the 2♣ was not "forcing or non forcing in a way opponents might not expect." I'm sure the alerting procedures might vary slightly from country to country, but all I'm saying is that I can't imagine that there is a problem of forcing or non forcing.

 

Now 2♣ was NOT alerted. So it is a bit strange that opponents asked about a natural bid. However, since the opponents KNOW it is natural (by the non-alert) then why are they asking? (Answer: b/c they want to get an idea as to the range of the bid) Regardless, once a question was asked, North should give full disclosure as to their agreements whether they were asked in detail or not. This last bit gets a bit hairy as it is difficult to know what is the appropriate amount of detail to give and, when you start including all of the negative inferences, can get quite involved. Because of that, I wouldn't issue a PP, certainly not for a first time offense, but I would explain to North that if asked she should say "natural, may be very weak." (again, if that is their agreement) So, I would rule MI because I do not believe the explanation "natural" was sufficient.

 

Now we get on to the crux of the matter which is damage. Here we are on to a judgment ruling and I would definitely want the advice of at least one other TD. I might rule that EW may have been damaged and thus adjust advising NS they may appeal. Then the appeals committee can sort out whether they thought there was damage.

 

As an appeals committee the problem becomes really interesting. I wonder if a split score to EW and NS would be appropriate. However, I have not served on enough appeals to have a good feeling for it, so I leave that discussion to some of the esteemed players that have.

[hrothgar]

Now 2♣ was NOT alerted. So it is a bit strange that opponents asked about a natural bid. However, since the opponents KNOW it is natural (by the non-alert) then why are they asking? (Answer: b/c they want to get an idea as to the range of the bid)

Hi Matt

 

As I noted in the past, I don't think that information regaridng the range of South's 2♣ advance is particularly significant to a decision to intervene in the Sandwhich position.

 

If I had to make a guess, I suspect that West was worried that 2C might have been Drury. If 2C were Drury, than the presence of a Heart fit makes it more advantageous to show Spades.

[pbleighton]

Ben - in the ACBL, if memory serves, simple overcalls are only alertable if they can normally be less than 6 hcp, so your opp is OK, at least in the ACBL :D

 

Peter

[jdonn]

I think an adjustment is appropriate, if a hand this weak can systematically bid 2♣. E/W took some inferior actions, but nothing that I think is bad enough to forfeit their right to an adjustment, and the contention that west would have overcalled if he knew south could have nothing at all seems believable. They asked about the bid, what more are they supposed to do! N/S should have given all relevent information. I reject the notion that E/W should have to ask what the strength range is if they want to know, they have the right to assume that all relevent information was given in the original explanation, and frankly it's borderline harassment to badger your opponent about a bid that he has already explained.

 

I feel so strongly about this that I might give an adjustment even if they hadn't asked about 2♣, just based on it not being alerted. Just to reiterate, all of this assuming that 2♣ can be this weak systematically. If south just took a chance, no adjustment.

 

I don't agree with Inquiry at all. You are making up a meaning for 2♣ as 'less than an opening bid' which is just based on bridge logic but no particular agreement as far as I can see. That is a reference to the top end of the bid, not the bottom end. It is like saying you could open that hand 1♣ because you are limited to 'less than a 2♣ opener' so the opponents should know.

 

With this said and done:  If you do decide that a proceedural penalty is appropriate, you better be prepared to award a hell of a lot of proceedural penalties to anyone who describes "Good/Bad Michaels" as "Michaels" or anything similar.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I don't know of any period in history that Michaels ever promised any more values than overcalling, and I would apply the same standards as I do to normal overcalls. There are well known standards for making a 2/1 bid, even by a passed hand, and though it may be debatable exactly where they cut off I think any reasonable person could agree that this hand falls well below them.

[mikeh]

I echo jdonn. I would add that, as east, I voted for pass at my last turn, altho I strongly rejected the original pass. Had I been told that 2♣ could be on garbage, rather than, say, the 8-11 I'd expect by a passed hand, then I would have doubled 3♣... or, perhaps more accurately, I certainly would not have passed as automatically as I did: and if we look at the comments supporting pass (of 3♣) we see that some passers expressly noted that the opposition sequence showed that partner was bust... clearly those posters would have had to consider bidding had they been given full disclosure.... assuming that the 2♣ was systemic.

[hrothgar]

With this said and done:  If you do decide that a proceedural penalty is appropriate, you better be prepared to award a hell of a lot of proceedural penalties to anyone who describes "Good/Bad Michaels" as "Michaels" or anything similar.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I don't know of any period in history that Michaels ever promised any more values than overcalling, and I would apply the same standards as I do to normal overcalls. There are well known standards for making a 2/1 bid, even by a passed hand, and though it may be debatable exactly where they cut off I think any reasonable person could agree that this hand falls well below them.

I think that the comparison is very appropriate:

 

The argument in favor of a proceedural penalty for the original hand hinges on whether the offending side provided the opponents with a complete description of their methods.

 

Issues like damage or standard usage don't factor into the decision.

 

I can make an argument that a player could potentially be damaged by the failure to disclosure that a pair was playing Good / Bad Michaels:

 

Good-Bad Michaels promises a bi-modal distribution. Partner is either sitting on a very good hand or a very bad hand. This makes bidding quite attractive. Partner will either have enough values that bidding is attractive OR will be broke in which the other side is likely to have a game available.

 

Without the good/bad connatation, a Michaels type bid is going to promise a uni-modal distribution. Partner will normally have intermediate strength. In this situation, bumping the bidding is much less attractive.

 

With this said and done: This argument about damage is completely extraneous.

Either you are committed to issuing proceedural penalties to pairs that fail to provide complete disclosure or you aren't.

 

You can't factor your own assumptions about "well known standards"

[luis]

I agree a lot with many different posters here, I agree a lot with Richard's initial comments and I agree a lot with Inquiry's comments.

 

This is a hand that should go straight to the AC since no matter what the TD does he should recommend himself both sides to appeal since there are bridge matters involved that might change the decision and the TD can't rule on bridge matters only on the rules.

 

The TD should rule

- Missinformation (assumed since I think the CC says nothing about 2♣ by a passed hand)

- Damage (EW win game in spades and they are defending 3♣)

- Damage not related to the MI

Result stands, both sides should appeal, or the TD himself should send the hand to the AC.

 

Why the damage is not related to the MI? Because the fact that 2♣ can be weaker than what EW expected is not enough to assert they would have bid something with the proper explanation. They already know 2♣ is less than an opening bid (passed hand) so what would they change if they are told that 2♣ instead of 8-10 is 0-10 ? The TD can't create a bid that didn't happen at the table based on just this so the result should stand.

 

Now to the AC

I think the AC should further investigate the agreement that NS have about 2♣ to determine if they should get a PP or not.

The result will still stand since EW probably failed to play bridge passing with such good values on a hand where one opponent opened in third seat and the other made a non forcing weakish bid. The fact that the opening was in third seat should not be overlooked to determine that it was EW failure to act what caused the problem and not the way 2♣ was explained to them.

I would return the deposit because there probably was a problem in the way 2♣ was explained to EW but I won't change the result.

 

Luis

[fred]

Not sure I can say it any better than jdonn, but here is my take on this:

 

If a partnership has agreed that 2C is the normal systemic action on the hand in question, they have made a highly unusual agreement (since almost all bridge players would agree that 2C in this sequence suggests "reasonable HCP values").

 

Whether or not they should alert 2C would depend on the rules of the organization that sponsored the tournament (ACBL, WBF...). My opinion is that this agreement *should* be alertable (and that the vast majority of bridge players would agree). However, I suspect that the rules of some sponsoring organizations do not clearly address this situation.

 

Still, I would expect any experienced player to know that it is appropriate to alert 2C here, regardless of whether or not the rules explicitly say you must. If my opponent failed to alert 2C, I would assume that either he was a beginner (unlikely given the system he was playing), a complete slimeball, or that he was having a momentary lapse of consiousness and/or ethics.

 

Suppose you give the player who failed to alert 2C the benefit of the doubt and assume that the mistake was innocent. OK, but when asked to explain 2C, this semi-consious player should have woke up and given a proper explanation. Sorry, but "natural" just doesn't cut it (and the semantics of "natural" is not the point here).

 

People who play extremely non-mainstream methods should bend over backwards to disclose their full agreements to their opponents.

 

This pair did just the opposite.

 

As TD, I would bend over backwards to punish them for this. If I was the TD I would not agree with the EW bidding, but if I found their arguments even remotely credible (most likely I would since none of their choices were "absurd" in my view), I would adjust the score.

 

I would also issue a procedural penalty if the rules of the sponsoring organization allowed this. If there was some kind of recording system in place, I would record this incident. Finally, I would give the NS pair a speech on their responsibilities regarding proper disclosure.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[jdonn]

On the contrary, I would have to say you did say it better than I did Fred :D

 

I would note that in the ACBL anyway, a 2♣ bid that can be this light is specifically alertable. On the alert chart, under "Responses to One-Level Opening Bids in a Suit", in the "No alert" column it states "2/1 which shows at least game invitational values". The obvious implication is that a 2/1 which promises less than such values is alertable.

 

Even if the bid weren't specifically listed though, your point remains. The overriding concern shouldn't be the exact wording of whatever laws were in place. It should be the concept of full disclosure, and making sure your opponents are aware of everything they might want to know about the agreed meanings of all your bids.

[hotShot]

I'd like to know what reason, should allow an adjustment.

Each player is allowed to make any bid he likes.

 

1) North opened with 9 HCP (3rd seat), why should he bid 3♣, if he expected that 2♣ might be on a 2 count. So even if north might have known that south may be weak, he did not try to "field" a psyche.

 

2) South did not open and did not raise 3♣. Both indicate that south is not strong.

 

3) Both east and west are holding 4♥ and know that NS do not have a ♥ fit.

They know that south is bidding under pressure.

 

4) What difference does it make to WEST, if south might be weak. Remember WEST called the director and claimed damage.

Even if the systemic agreement might allow to bid that weak, this does not mean that this hand is weak.

East has an 18 count, if south had 8 HCP, east would still have opening strength.

West knows that he and opener share 9♥ and that he and opps share at least 10 (more like 11)♣.

So west knows that partner has to have lots of cards in ♠ and ♦.

 

5) East has 18 HCP, expects 12 from opener and 8+ from south. This leaves 2 HCP for his partner. Why should west ask for the meaning of a bid with 2 HCP?

This question sends a clear message to east that west is not weak, i wonder how you would judge, this UI problem.

 

6) If west (or east) needed to know the HCP range, he could have asked for it.

 

1) I don't see a systemic agreement to bid weak 2 level bids.

2) I don't see any missinformation given

3) I don't see any damage caused by NS. The damage to EW was caused by east and west successfully hiding their strength.

[Echognome]

Whether or not they should alert 2C would depend on the rules of the organization that sponsored the tournament (ACBL, WBF...). My opinion is that this agreement *should* be alertable (and that the vast majority of bridge players would agree). However, I suspect that the rules of some sponsoring organizations do not clearly address this situation.

 

Still, I would expect any experienced player to know that it is appropriate to alert 2C here, regardless of whether or not the rules explicitly say you must. If my opponent failed to alert 2C, I would assume that either he was a beginner (unlikely given the system he was playing), a complete slimeball, or that he was having a momentary lapse of consiousness and/or ethics.

I only mention here that even experienced players may not be fully aware of all the alerting procedures. Alerting rules are dictated by zonal organisations and what may be obvious to alert in one area is not alertable in another. As a case in point we have the rule in the EBU that if a call may be artificial but you do not know its meaning, you should alert it. Whereas I'm sure Luis would tell me "you're being unethical if you alert a call you have no agreement on."

 

So that being said, you are being ethical specifically if you alert bids that are supposed to be alerted and do not alert bids that are not supposed to be alerted. If the vast majority of bridge players in a zone feel that this type of bid should be alerted, then shouldn't the alert regulations reflect this? (Perhaps they will in the future.) My opinion is that in the EBU this bid would NOT have to be alerted because it shows clubs and it is non-forcing.

 

It can also be the case that this pair did not know that the call needed to be alerted. However, as a TD I should tell this pair immediately if they need to do so in the future. There is a separate question of what you may want to pre-alert to opponents, but that is not the issue at hand here.

 

All that being said, as I mentioned above, I believe the explanation to be inadequate and MI to be ruled.

[jdeegan]

B) Why not look at it this way: South's 2♣ bid was psychic. When queried, the responder gave a correct, but incomplete answer. West did not press for further information. The ploy worked because East, with 18 prime HCP and a singleton club, never bid. You can make a note that N-S used a psychic bid for future reference, but I can't see giving E-W an adjusted score.

[Free]

I don't see any reason for North to pass EVER on the 2♣ call. Even if it's weak, he should bid 3♣, especially since opps didn't bid when they have game available. And if you expect some values, 3♣ is the normal bid since you expect opps to have at least 9 ♠s.

 

I don't know what the best ruling is here since I'm not a TD, but I find EW's bidding REALLY poor! Complaining afterwards is always easy. And yes, it could've been a psych, but North didn't give clear information. He said natural, but what is 'natural'? Is it ♣, or is it the normal meaning of the bid? Errors were made for sure here, by both sides, but NS's errors play with the borderline of ethics and cheating accusations imo...

[uday]

I prefer a light initial action system myself. In one of my partnerships, I would open the N hand routinely in 1st seat vul. We also make 2/1's with 8HCP, occasionally 7, and the raise to 3C would be non-forcing for us.

 

But, when we sit down to play in acbl land, we pre-alert (among other things)

- we routinely open shapely 8, and consider 5422 shapely

- we routinely bypass 4 card majors, especially weak ones

- our 2/1 does not promise a rebid and might be as weak as 7 or 8 HCP

 

 

here, tho, unless there was some pre-alerting, EW were caught unawares. The big EW hand ( and to an extent, the little EW hand) were working in the belief that NS had some HCP, and were handicapped by not knowing that the bottom range of the NS actions could be as low as 11 HCP combined.

 

As a TD, I would not believe that the weak EW hand would have always chimed in over 2C, nor that the big EW hand would have routinely acted over 3C, but I would leave that up to the AC to decide -- these are bridge judgements . I would supply a temporary ruling favourable to EW and encourage both sides to seek out an AC.

 

As long as the AC is an option, it doesnt matter so much to me whether the TD gets the at-the-table ruling right or wrong.

 

If the AC is not an option, then the td/judge/jury/executioner needs to make a single final ruling, and unless i missed something there isn't enough data to do that (what is the ns system? what did they pre-alert? Was this a long match? had the NS style become clear already? Were NS steaming from a bad result? Was there prior acrimony at the table? Were NS psyching ? What are the skill levels of the players? How long have NS/EW been playing together? How serious was this event? what was the state of the match/event for both sides? ).

[cherdano]

I think these were all long-term partnerships, and they had played each other before several times, so I don't think pre-alerting is an issue.

 

I wonder whether this is a bit of a cultural problem. The crux of the matter seems to be that "natural" suggests "clubs, and somewhere in the normal range you expect for that bid". Maybe this normal range differs between North America (where this was played) and Australia (where, I think, the offending pair comes from). For example, I don't think anyone in the US when asked about 1♣-1♠ would think it necessary to explain this bid can be made on JT-5th and out, whereas I am sure most people around here (Germany) would be pretty surprised about such a bid.

Maybe in Australia it's more common to bid aggressively with distributional light hands opposite limited openings? Add to that that the pair probably did not have an explicit agreement about 2C being 2-10 hcp, since the hands where it's useful to bid with 2hcp should be extremely rare.

 

I am not saying the TD was wrong, just that some of the harsh critique in this thread may be, well, a little too harsh.

 

Arend

[asdfg2k]

There are a couple of points brought up on rec.games.bridge that are not identified here.

 

First, there were screens in place so the misinformation came from South and the question raised by West was never heard by East, nor was the incorrect information provided to East.

 

Second, we don't really have 100% of the facts. We know that West called the director, but we don't know the extent to which the director decided that the misinformation (lack of an alert by North describing South's bid as 0+ HCP) put East behind the 8-ball.

 

I think it is likely that the director, once called, looked at ALL the hands, decided there WAS misinformation and that if provided with the proper information, East was more likely to have made a call which would have resulted in EW finding their game.

 

I think I'm correct when I say that, once called, the director will normally look at all of the hands, rather than just the hand of the individual that happened to call the director.