Penalty for this "undiscussed" agreement

[TimG]

The ACBL has recently added the appeals cases from the Houston NABC to their website. This one might be of interest to those discussing penalties for forgotten conventions in another thread.

 

Brief summary: After 1♣-1♥, 2N-3♣*, 3♥-3N, opening leader asked about the alerted 3♣ call and was told "checkback", then asked if 3N was "choice of games" and was told "I don't know". Soon-to-be-dummy said nothing at the time and later said it was "undiscussed". This took place in the North American Pairs Flight A.

 

If a partnership is playing "checkback", do they have a responsibility to be on solid ground when it comes to what the follow-ups mean?

 

It might be considered general bridge knowledge (especially at this level, though apparently not for opening leader, opener or responder) that responder has shown 44 in the majors on this auction. Does that absolve the partnership from the responsibility of knowing their agreement?

[barmar]

I agree with the commentary in the case book, that bridge logic strongly suggests that responder has 4-4 majors. Checkback Stayman exists to find either a 5-3 fit in responder's major or a 4-4 fit in the other major, and I can't imagine an experienced player not being able to infer this.

 

E-W had just recently changed conventions over the 2NT bid (they'd previously been using Wolff Signoff). If they're still getting used to the new convention, they might legitimately be unsure of precisely what the sequence promises, rather than just suggests. However, I find it difficult to believe that expert players like them would not be confident of this sequence.

 

I liked the suggestion in the commentary that E-W should be given a procedural penalty. They gave a misleading explanation, but I don't think it directly caused the misdefense. I have a hard time believing a player could make it to the national level of the NAP-A and be confused by this sequence. Note in particular that E-W never said that the auction denied West holding 4 ♠. That's what I think it would take for me to decide in favor of N-S.

[jdonn]

I can't click on the link from work. However I think it's perfectly reasonable to use this auction as a choice of games with 5 hearts. I am far from thinking you can just assume 4-4 in the majors here (perhaps responder had to bid 3♠ instead of either of his last two bids to show that).

[Hanoi5]

I'm with jdonn. Usually after checkback responder goes back to NT to show a balanced or semi-balanced hand (5422) willing to play NT in case opener so prefers (this is great specially at Mp's). When responder is 4-4 in the majors it is better to bid it over the NT (1x-1♥-1NT-2♠) although I could understand a different agreement (though it wouldn't sound normal to me, so I'd like to be alerted).

[aguahombre]

It might be considered general bridge knowledge (especially at this level, though apparently not for opening leader, opener or responder) that responder has shown 44 in the majors on this auction.  Does that absolve the partnership from the responsibility of knowing their agreement?

It might not be general knowledge that responder has 4-4 in the majors, but it certainly can be assumed because of the 3NT rebid after opener showed 3-card heart support. And, if so, the "I don't know'er" could certainly have contributed that information at the end of the auction and before the opening lead. Questions still unanswered are:

 

1) Was it really "checkback" of some kind as stated, or was responder attempting a Wolff-type signoff with a very weak BBO forum response and 4-6 in the reds?

2) If it was a check-back, this presumes opener would bypass spades with a balanced hand 2NT rebid. Most, but not everyone, do that. Forget responder checking with 5 hearts, because he found out a 3-card fit and still bid 3NT.

3) Would responder have bid 3S instead of 3C with 4-5 in the majors?

 

Am trying to focus on the ruling, not recommending or commenting on the usefulness of the various styles. Knowledge of the opponents' style would seemingly clear up what the sequence meant and assist in the opening lead, after which the sight of dummy will help.

[TimG]

My intention was to start a discussion of this matter in relation to Fred's "penalties for forgetting system" thread. Do you think that in Fred's world this ruling should have been different? The incident recorded/tracked?