Directorial Question

[kfay]

Played a huge game in the STaCs this evening. Here's an interesting situation that came up.

 

 

Edit: Hand removed.

 

 

First an auction:

 

1♦-(P)-1N-(Dbl)* *Takeout

P-(2♥)-3♣-(3♥)

P-(P)-3♠

 

What does 3♠ mean, in your opinion?

 

In actuality the 3rd round of the auction actually went:

 

Dbl-(P)-3♠

 

What do you think 3♠ means here?

 

The reason I ask is that I (partner on this hand) actually bid 3♠, looked at the table and said 'Oh Shoot!' and reached my hand towards my 3♠ bid and then sat back in my chair.

 

If you hold this hand at the table are you obligated to pass 3♠ now? I'm proud to say my partner did. But how would you rule if this hand had pulled to 4♦?

 

Thanks.

[Elianna]

It might not be a good idea to post hands from STaCs while people may still be playing them (and they are on the West Coast). I am not saying that people would purposely cheat, but if someone had a sit-out and an iPhone and was bored, and couldn't tell by your title that they shouldn't look...

[kfay]

It might not be a good idea to post hands from STaCs while people may still be playing them (and they are on the West Coast). I am not saying that people would purposely cheat, but if someone had a sit-out and an iPhone and was bored, and couldn't tell by your title that they shouldn't look...

Very good point. My mistake. I think just the auction is fine to have, though.

[Elianna]

I just realized that you may be in a different STaC, anyway. I thought that you were in the midwest, and therefore the Western Conference STaC, but I now see that there are several others going on, so sorry that I said something before checking.

[awm]

It should be a three-card suit, likely with shortness somewhere, offering the opportunity to play there. I would expect a 3136 hand.

 

I think opener can remove it if not holding 4♠, but would be ethically obligated to pass holding a four-card spade suit.

[JoAnneM]

You have put a huge pressure on your partner as he is not allowed to take any inference from your remark or physical actions. For the director it would be much the same situation as in a hesitation. Is there a reasonable alternative to pulling to 4D? If the reasonable alternative is to pass then he must pass. And since your partner cannot have heard your remark or seen your action he must assign some sort of reasonable meaning to your bid and then make the decision.

 

It would be interesting to know what was happening at your chair, and the director would probably be asking you that. If the bid was a mechanical error you would have been allowed to change it. If the bid was just ill advised you still could have changed it but the best score your side could have received would be an average minus. Making the remark and then doing nothing was a serious breach of proprieties, but it happens all the time. Unfortunately the director is seldom called so the players do not learn their rights and responsibilities, the first of which is to call the director.

[blackshoe]

If the bid was just ill advised you still could have changed it but the best score your side could have received would be an average minus.

This is no longer true.

 

  Making the remark and then doing nothing was a serious breach of proprieties, but it happens all the time.  Unfortunately the director is seldom called so the players do not learn their rights and responsibilities, the first of which is to call the director.

 

Making the remark was a breach of etiquette (Law 74B2). Serious? Well, that law uses the word should (in "should refrain"), so not refraining (from making an extraneous remark) is an infraction of law, but "one that will draw a procedural penalty only rarely" (or words to that effect - it's late and I'm tired). I don't know what "and then doing nothing" is about. What do you think he should have done?

 

The responsibility to call the director (except in one case that does not apply here) is on all four players at the table, but only after attention is called to an irregularity. Did someone do that?

[kfay]

If the bid was just ill advised you still could have changed it but the best score your side could have received would be an average minus.

This is no longer true.

 

   Making the remark and then doing nothing was a serious breach of proprieties, but it happens all the time.   Unfortunately the director is seldom called so the players do not learn their rights and responsibilities, the first of which is to call the director.

 

Making the remark was a breach of etiquette (Law 74B2). Serious? Well, that law uses the word should (in "should refrain"), so not refraining (from making an extraneous remark) is an infraction of law, but "one that will draw a procedural penalty only rarely" (or words to that effect - it's late and I'm tired). I don't know what "and then doing nothing" is about. What do you think he should have done?

 

The responsibility to call the director (except in one case that does not apply here) is on all four players at the table, but only after attention is called to an irregularity. Did someone do that?

No one called the director and the auction was passed out without incident.

 

I'll tell you what was actually happening. I hadn't seen my partner's double and after placing the 3♠ call on the table couldn't repress my surprise when the red card seemed to have shot up from nowhere amongst my partner's bids. Maybe I don't say 'Oh Shoot!' but merely just 'OH!'. I think my partner knew what was going on, at least he said so afterwards. He also knows I almost never would pull this double since it is, in my opinion, clearly for business.

 

I believe there is a law that says you aren't obligated to accept what is obviously going to be a bad score for your side (i.e. if you bid 1N-4♥ naturally and partner takes it as a Texas Transfer... where you are then whacked you are certainly allowed to bid 5♥). Does this situation fall within those bounds? Or does the UI from partner preclude any sort of intelligent speculation as to whether 3♠ is a suggestion to play or not, etc.

[brianshark]

The only meaning I can think of for 3♠ is a suggestion to play with a 3 card suit (or a very bad 4 card suit if you are known to bid 1NT with such hands. But opener is certainly not obliged to leave it if he has a hand that is unsuitable. 3♠ can never be a sign-off, only a suggestion. Probably a 3-1-3-6 or 3-0-3-7 type hand.

 

If however opener has a close decision, I think he is obliged to leave it because of the unauthorised information that you aren't really happy with your 3♠ bid.

 

Edited.

[blackshoe]

No one called the director and the auction was passed out without incident.

 

I'll tell you what was actually happening. I hadn't seen my partner's double and after placing the 3♠ call on the table couldn't repress my surprise when the red card seemed to have shot up from nowhere amongst my partner's bids. Maybe I don't say 'Oh Shoot!' but merely just 'OH!'. I think my partner knew what was going on, at least he said so afterwards. He also knows I almost never would pull this double since it is, in my opinion, clearly for business.

 

I believe there is a law that says you aren't obligated to accept what is obviously going to be a bad score for your side (i.e. if you bid 1N-4♥ naturally and partner takes it as a Texas Transfer... where you are then whacked you are certainly allowed to bid 5♥). Does this situation fall within those bounds? Or does the UI from partner preclude any sort of intelligent speculation as to whether 3♠ is a suggestion to play or not, etc.

You are mistaken. There is no such law. What the law actually says is that if you have UI, you are not permitted to choose amongst logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by that UI if there is another LA available. If you make such a choice, and the other LA would have led to a better score for your opponents, then they were damaged by the choice of call, and the TD should adjust the score. If you have no LA to the call you made, then there is no infraction of law, and no score adjustment.

 

Your partner has UI from your remark and reactions. That UI suggested to him that you weren't aware of his double. If there had been no UI, then he would have considered what call he might make on the basis that you pulled his penalty double. Now there is UI, he must consider what call he might make on the assumption he had not doubled, and what alternatives there would be. He must, if one (or more) of the possible calls is suggested over another, choose the call least likely to gain.

 

Without seeing the hands, we can't tell what the LAs are, so we can't tell what the ruling (if one had been requested) should be.

 

Your Texas Transfer example is interesting, since it came up for me just last Friday. Playing with a pickup partner, with little time to discuss system (I was also directing) we agreed strong NT and four suit transfers. We did not discuss Texas, nor what to do over interference. I had 6 hearts to the Queen, 3 spades, and 10 points. My partner opened 1NT, RHO overcalled 2 diamonds, and I bid 4 hearts. Partner alerted and (without being asked, which is a procedural error) explained my call as Texas. LHO passed, partner bid four spades. When it came back to me, after much thought, I passed. Maybe I was being overly ethical, but it seemed to me the right thing to do. Partner played well in our 3-3 fit, going down only 2. I never looked, but I suspect 4 hearts was making, and 5 hearts was down 1. If passing was not an LA with my hand (what would 4 spades mean over Texas?) then perhaps a 5 heart call was justified. Wouldn't have mattered - a bottom is a bottom.

[blackshoe]

Brian: I think you mean "unauthorized information" rather than "misinformation", no? :)

[shintaro]

:)

 

Law 16 Unauthorised Information

 

A Extraneous Information from Partner

 

After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information

that mat suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question,

a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed,

special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the

partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that

could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous

information.

 

That is the Law as in force in the UK (and I assume WBF)

 

Thus the Director is the one who decides whether offenders partner has his bid should he make one.

 

:)

[Fluffy]

3♠ looks like both minors, 4-6 or 4-7, weak hand. You are of course free to remove it, it cannot be natural.

[blackshoe]

Don't forget Law 73C, which is directed at players:

When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e., unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

 

Kinda hard for a director to make a decision if he isn't called to the table.

 

The law is international; it applies everywhere. Regulating Authorities may make certain elections, but none, I think, that apply to these particular laws.

[blackshoe]

3♠ looks like both minors, 4-6 or 4-7, weak hand. You are of course free to remove it, it cannot be natural.

"Looks like"? "Cannot be natural"? Well, maybe. Maybe not. All I can say is, make your case to the TD, and see how he rules.

[Fluffy]

Maybe you are right brian, but I actually read the bidding, and before knowing about the UI I though of the meaning of 3♠, an my conclusion was something very shapy in clubs or both minors.

 

This is because on my partnerships, we use the impossible suit to show this kind of hands, I can understand that for people not used of this methods, 3♠ could be natural in some way and should be taken as that.

[Vilgan]

seems like passing 3♠ is only a LA if opener has 4 spades. If they do... not sure. If they don't, allowing a correction to a minor seems pretty easy.

[JoAnneM]

If the bid was just ill advised you still could have changed it but the best score your side could have received would be an average minus.

 

This is no longer true.

 

 

 

Thanks for that, I am still learning the new laws. I think the suggestion, in another thread, for a forum on director issues and bridge law would be well received.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps so, JoAnne. OTOH, I remember a large number of responses to my statements of what the law says along the lines of "who care? it's online, not f2f. The laws are irrelevant." :P :)

 

In the meantime, there's IBLF.

[JoAnneM]

Bridgetalk is very nice but is mostly British and there is a lot of "not in ACBL" or "who knows what ACBL does". Has that changed?

[blackshoe]

One of the hosts on IBLF is a guy from the ACBL - me. :-)

 

That said, yes, a lot of the folks there are British. There are quite a few Americans, too, I think.

 

Edit: that above doesn't mean that I work for the ACBL. I don't. I just live in North America. :)

Edited December 12, 2008 by blackshoe

[barmar]

That is the Law as in force in the UK (and I assume WBF)

There's only one set of Laws of Duplicate Bridge, they apply everywhere. A handful of the Laws give explicit discretionary power to the Regulating Authority, but if the Law doesn't say otherwise it's the same worldwide.

[JanM]

Your Texas Transfer example is interesting, since it came up for me just last Friday. Playing with a pickup partner, with little time to discuss system (I was also directing) we agreed strong NT and four suit transfers. We did not discuss Texas, nor what to do over interference. I had 6 hearts to the Queen, 3 spades, and 10 points. My partner opened 1NT, RHO overcalled 2 diamonds, and I bid 4 hearts. Partner alerted and (without being asked, which is a procedural error) explained my call as Texas. LHO passed, partner bid four spades. When it came back to me, after much thought, I passed. Maybe I was being overly ethical, but it seemed to me the right thing to do. Partner played well in our 3-3 fit, going down only 2. I never looked, but I suspect 4 hearts was making, and 5 hearts was down 1. If passing was not an LA with my hand (what would 4 spades mean over Texas?) then perhaps a 5 heart call was justified. Wouldn't have mattered - a bottom is a bottom.

This example raises an issue that I see often, and a resolution of that issue by an ethical player that I think is wrong. The issue is what you are supposed to do when your partner has improperly made you aware of the fact that s/he interpreted your bid differently from the way you intended it (in this case, partner did so by volunteering information, but even the "alert" would have been enough; sometimes partner does so by what would be a proper announcement "transfer" when your actual agreement is that the bid is natural). As I understand the laws, in that situation:

a. You are required to bid as if your bid meant what you believed it meant when you made it (even if partner's action reminds you that you remembered your system wrong).

b. A director or committee may force you to choose, from among logical alternatives, a call other than that suggested by partner's action.

 

So what happened here? Partner opened 1NT, the opponent overcalled 2♦ and I bid a natural 4♥. Partner bid 4♠. Assuming that I know partner and I are on the same wavelength, surely 4♠ has to be a slam try in hearts. Of course it's unusual for a limited opener to make a slam try over what most would consider a sign-off, but maybe partner opened a slightly off-shape 1NT that is so good for hearts s/he is willing to take the risk that 5♥ will go down in order to be able to get to a good slam. Maybe partner thinks I'll have a slammish hand for 4♥. Who knows? But what I'm pretty sure I do know is that 4♠ can't be intended as natural. You just don't open 1NT with a hand that would want to play in 4♠ if partner wanted to play in 4♥ opposite a "normal" 1NT.

 

So Pass is actually not a logical alternative here. Partner just made a bid that agreed my suit and showed a good hand - the meaning of that bid may depend on partnership agreement (for me it would be Keycard, a really strange bid), but I can't imagine a partnership agreement where it would be natural. Responder has to bid as if opener knew that 4♥ is natural - with my agreements, responder should answer keycards; if 4♠ would be a cue bid, responder should either cue in response with a good hand or bid 5♥ with a bad one.

 

Sometimes partner's bid can wake me up to the fact that partner misinterpreted my bid - maybe making a slam try in this auction is so unusual that I would know without the alert that partner thought 4♥ was a transfer, particularly when we don't have clear agreements. Then I am allowed to "field" this, just as (see the psyching thread) I can field my partner's psyche. What I should do if I have authorized information that partner misunderstood my bid is not clear - maybe passing is the best way to avoid a total disaster, but probably not.

 

I've gone on and on about this because it's my experience that committees virtually never force action as opposed to non-action, and players trying to be ethical virtually never recognize that the ethical thing is to bid more. If UA shows that partner's slam try is really a signoff, committees very rarely force a player to bid slam. I don't know why, but blackshoe's post suggests to me that part of the reason may be a misunderstanding of how the person with UA is supposed to behave.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

in your first auction, the 3S bid does not exist.

After the X, the 3S bid could be a suggestion to

play, a strong 3 carder.

 

If opener has a 4 card spade suit, he should pass,

else he can do what he thinks is best.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: It may make sense to assign a artificial meaning

to the bid, but that is the same as saying the bid does

not exist, at least with a natural meaning.

[blackshoe]

As I understand the laws, in that situation:

a. You are required to bid as if your bid meant what you believed it meant when you made it (even if partner's action reminds you that you remembered your system wrong).

b. A director or committee may force you to choose, from among logical alternatives, a call other than that suggested by partner's action.

Not exactly.

 

Your first item is fairly close. The laws say that a player who has UI from his partner must carefully avoid taking advantage of it. That's Law 73C - a "player's law", if you will. There's also a "director's law", Law 16, which tells the director that a player "may not choose from among logical alternatives one which demonstrably could have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". In practice, if you continue to act as if your bid meant what you thought it meant when you made it, and partner's subsequent calls mean whatever they would mean in that context, you'll do pretty well. But the laws actually require you to consider what the UI might suggest, and then actively avoid taking any such action.

 

On your second point, I understand what you mean, I think, but the words as written are wrong, because neither the director nor a committee can force a player to do anything. What they can do is say that in their judgement, the player committed an infraction in choosing the call he did, and adjust the score if that choice damaged the opponents, damage being defined as a worse score than they might have gotten had the infraction not happened.

 

So what happened here? Partner opened 1NT, the opponent overcalled 2♦ and I bid a natural 4♥. Partner bid 4♠. Assuming that I know partner and I are on the same wavelength, surely 4♠ has to be a slam try in hearts. Of course it's unusual for a limited opener to make a slam try over what most would consider a sign-off, but maybe partner opened a slightly off-shape 1NT that is so good for hearts s/he is willing to take the risk that 5♥ will go down in order to be able to get to a good slam. Maybe partner thinks I'll have a slammish hand for 4♥. Who knows? But what I'm pretty sure I do know is that 4♠ can't be intended as natural. You just don't open 1NT with a hand that would want to play in 4♠ if partner wanted to play in 4♥ opposite a "normal" 1NT.

 

So Pass is actually not a logical alternative here. Partner just made a bid that agreed my suit and showed a good hand - the meaning of that bid may depend on partnership agreement (for me it would be Keycard, a really strange bid), but I can't imagine a partnership agreement where it would be natural. Responder has to bid as if opener knew that 4♥ is natural - with my agreements, responder should answer keycards; if 4♠ would be a cue bid, responder should either cue in response with a good hand or bid 5♥ with a bad one.

 

This was a pickup partnership. We agreed four suit transfers; we did not discuss Texas. To me, that means Texas is not on, even if that's partner's favorite convention and she plays it with every regular partner in her address book. So 4♥ is a sign-off, and 4♠ does not exist. That was the heart of my dilemma. :) What are the LAs now? I thought pass and 5♥. 4♣ (I held the ace) did not occur to me, though perhaps it should have. To me, the UI suggests that I bid 5♥, and I can now only bid it if I have no other LA. Since 4♣ didn't occur to me, and I didn't recognize that pass was not an LA, well, that's why I passed. If the director or a committee had pointed out to me that my logic was flawed, I would have accepted their score adjustment, and perhaps learned something. But it didn't happen that way. See next paragraph. B)

 

It is true, on reflection now I'm not under the gun, that 4♠ cannot be natural, whatever partner is doing. It is true that makes the bid forcing, and pass not an LA. It may not matter as far as the TD is concerned, though, because 4♠ down 2 is a better score for the opponents than 5♥ down 1 would have been, so there was no damage, and there would be no score adjustment. The real question is whether I should have cue bid my club ace, and whether that would have got us to 6 of something, or 5♠. If the UI means I should have done that, and if we would have (or might have) ended up in whatever going down (possibly) 3 or more, then the opponents were damaged. In practice, they were happy with down 2, so there was no director call. If there had been, I would have had to recuse myself. Fortunately, there was another director playing that night. On the other hand, I can't remember whether she was at another table, or was one of the opponents!

 

Sometimes partner's bid can wake me up to the fact that partner misinterpreted my bid - maybe making a slam try in this auction is so unusual that I would know without the alert that partner thought 4♥ was a transfer, particularly when we don't have clear agreements. Then I am allowed to "field" this, just as (see the psyching thread) I can field my partner's psyche. What I should do if I have authorized information that partner misunderstood my bid is not clear - maybe passing is the best way to avoid a total disaster, but probably not.

 

Um. If you have no LA to whatever action would be "fielding", then yes, you can do that. But you have UI, and if you have LAs, and one (or more) could demonstrably be suggested by the UI, then the UI laws apply, whatever AI you may also have.

 

I've gone on and on about this because it's my experience that committees virtually never force action as opposed to non-action, and players trying to be ethical virtually never recognize that the ethical thing is to bid more. If UA shows that partner's slam try is really a signoff, committees very rarely force a player to bid slam. I don't know why, but blackshoe's post suggests to me that part of the reason may be a misunderstanding of how the person with UA is supposed to behave.

 

There is certainly a lack of understanding on this, by players, directors, and committee members. I've been studying it (as a director) for a number of years, and I'm still unsure of myself - as witness this case. I think education is the answer, but first you have to find someone who, in the words of an expert bridge player friend of mine, "owns" this particular matter (that is, he knows what should be done, and will always get it right) and who can teach what he knows to others.

 

I was going to say that the one thing I was sure of is that I didn't take advantage of the UI in passing, but if in fact I should have bid 4♣, then I guess I can't be sure of that, either. I am sure that I don't know what would have happened next. B)