An appeal that wasn't

[campboy]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sq98654h9dk62ck75&w=sthkt743d543cj843&e=sa3ha8652daj87cqt&s=skj72hqjdqt9ca962]399|300|Scoring: IMP

-----2♠ dbl pass

2NT pass 3NT dbl

4♥ all pass[/hv]

 

This is from the B team in an inter-county teams-of-eight competition.

 

2♠ was announced as "weak". 2NT was not alerted, but was lebensohl; EW have the agreement that doubler always bids 3♣.

 

West called the director at the end of the auction, and said that 2NT should have been alerted. South was offered the chance to change his final pass, but declined.

 

Can't remember what the table score was; I think it went one off. Director ruled that there was UI which suggested 4♥, and that pass was a logical alternative, so adjusted the score to 3NTx-2.

 

West initially wanted to appeal, on the basis that AI from the anti-systemic 3NT made it clear that East had forgotten, but decided not to risk his deposit since the match wasn't at stake.

 

What would you do in an AC?

[Vampyr]

I know that the popular trend is to accept the contention that an undefined systemic call means that partner had forgotten the system. So I believe that that is what an AC would do, though I don't agree with it.

 

Do EW really have the agreement that doubler always bids 3♣? Even when he cannot afford to be passed out there?

[jallerton]

I would construct a few East hands where East has game in his own hand and ask East and West separately what they would bid on them after 2♠-dbl-P-2NT-P.

[mjj29]

[Can't remember what the table score was; I think it went one off. Director ruled that there was UI which suggested 4♥, and that pass was a logical alternative, so adjusted the score to 3NTx-2.

It made (although it shouldn't). NS mis-defended, which was probably most of the reason they were asking for a ruling. South was also complaining that he wanted to bid 3♠ and couldn't because East didn't bid 3♣ (yes really).

 

The ruling swung 16 IMPS and hence 2VPs

[helene_t]

The UI suggests that E may be weaker than he should have been (3NT after a natural 2NT may be some 15-22 while 3NT over a lebensohl 2NT is more like 20-28). As for his expected shape his is likely to have a balanced hand but could also have a long minor, that isn't affected by the UI. But after a lebensohl 2NT, 3NT would show a spade stopper, with the UI W may fear that E expects W to have the stopper.

 

Without the dbl, pass is certainly a LA. Now 3NT has been doubled it is less obvious but I think it still is. So agree with the adjustment.

[lamford]

The comment by EW that East always bids 3♣ appears self-serving. As jallerton says, what will East do if he does not want to languish in 3♣ opposite a one count with five (or even four) clubs?

 

The UI does demonstrably suggest bidding 4♥ and I would retain the deposit (or award an AWM); some undefined systemic calls might well give the AI that partner has forgotten the system - for example 2NT - 3NT* (systemically to play but previously played as Baron) - 4C. This does not fit into that category, however.

[bluejak]

The comment by EW that East always bids 3♣ appears self-serving.

It is self-serving, but so what? If you are asked how you respond to Stayman when there is a ruling concerning the sequence 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ you would reply that 2♦ shows no major, and that reply is self-serving.

[lamford]

The comment by EW that East always bids 3♣ appears self-serving.

It is self-serving, but so what? If you are asked how you respond to Stayman when there is a ruling concerning the sequence 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ you would reply that 2♦ shows no major, and that reply is self-serving.

The difference is that it is unplayable to have no bids other than 3C in response to Lebensohl, so one might doubt the claim that 3C is completely forced; in your example, it is normal to have the only permitted responses to simple Stayman being below 2NT.

[Pict]

If I were on an appeal committee in this case, I would agree with all the arguments that Lamford has given and quite quickly decide to support the TD and recommend retaining the deposit.

 

I am quite comfortable with players having agreements about named conventions that are extremely unusual and seem to me unworkable, but I would expect the agreement to be on their card.

[bluejak]

The comment by EW that East always bids 3♣ appears self-serving.

It is self-serving, but so what? If you are asked how you respond to Stayman when there is a ruling concerning the sequence 1NT - 2♣ - 2♦ you would reply that 2♦ shows no major, and that reply is self-serving.

The difference is that it is unplayable to have no bids other than 3C in response to Lebensohl, so one might doubt the claim that 3C is completely forced; in your example, it is normal to have the only permitted responses to simple Stayman being below 2NT.

Of course it is unplayable, but:

• Players often have unworkable agreements because they take up conventions they are told about without thinking them through, but
  
• Your objection seems to be because the agreement is unworkable, not because the explanation is self-serving.
  

[campboy]

I imagine the players did not realise it was abnormal, and so I wouldn't expect to find anything more than "lebensohl" on the card.

 

Even assuming you have that agreement, though, I would think it reasonable to see that auction and realise that partner could have a hand which forced him to make an anti-system bid.

[helene_t]

They don't really mean that 2NT forces 3♣.

 

Lot's of people explain the 2♥ response to multi as "mandatory". Then you ask if they would also bid 2♥ with 20 points. Then they look at you as if you are a moron. Of course "mandatory" should read "mandatory unless having a strong hand".

[lamford]

[*]Your objection seems to be because the agreement is unworkable, not because the explanation is self-serving.

No, players are indeed allowed to play bad methods whether by accident or design. The expression "self-serving" seems to have been used (on here and other forums) to describe statements whose veracity is questionable. So, it would be more accurate to say that I think West's statement that he concluded his partner had forgotten the system from his partner's failure to bid 3♣ rather than from his partner's failure to alert is the self-serving aspect.

 

And I did not have an objection as such, but would attach less weight to West's statement for the stated reasons.

[RMB1]

I think the agreement about "always" bidding 3♣ is a red herring.

 

West thinks 3NT is not an agreed response to Lebensohl, so either East has forgotten that 2NT is Lebensohl or he has forgotten their responses to Lebensohl. Surely there is some chance (absent UI) that it is the latter, undiscussed 3NT bids tend to be to play, so I think Pass is a logical alternative. The UI (failure to alert) suggests that East has forgotten that 2NT is Lebensohl and suggests bidding over playing in 3NT.

[bluejak]

Self-serving is a name for a statement whose correctness benefits the person saying it, for example "I think you are the most beautiful girl alive" when trying to get a girl to kiss you. It is generally accepted that less weight is given to it, eg the girl would probably more likely to believe the statement if Stephanie had said it.

 

But non self-serving statements can be of doubtful veracity, and self-serving ones can be definitely true. It appears to me that you said that 3♣ "appeared self-serving" when what you meant is that it appeared doubtful.

 

I do feel the subject is important. Over the years there have been arguments here and on RGB where someone has said something is self-serving with the clear inference that you ignore it completely, which is not the right approach.

[lamford]

But non self-serving statements can be of doubtful veracity, and self-serving ones can be definitely true. It appears to me that you said that 3♣ "appeared self-serving" when what you meant is that it appeared doubtful.

Campboy indicates that one would only expect "Lebensohl" to be on the cards of East-West in this case, so let us assume that is the case. Presumably therefore the statement "EW have the agreement that doubler always bids 3♣." came from East-West after the infraction, and this is not on the CC.

 

It benefits EW to make this claim, as that justifies West bidding 4♥. So, yes I do also think it is doubtful that this was the full East-West agreement, but I would not ignore the possibility completely. My understanding of self-serving statements is indeed that less weight is normally accorded to them, particularly if they seem implausible.

[jdonn]

My understanding of self-serving statements is indeed that less weight is normally accorded to them, particularly if they seem implausible.

Well I don't see what self-serving has to do with the last part. I wouldn't give any statement much weight if it seemed implausible (as does this agreement).

[lamford]

If someone says "I was always bidding slam after partner used Blackwood", we give this less credence, because the claim is self-serving. As Mandy Rice-Davies said of Lord Astor, "well, he would (say that), wouldn't he" (apologies if this is unfamiliar to non-UK forumites; and the quote is often misquoted with "say that" in it). There are two issues therefore. If a claim is self-serving, we give it less credence, as it benefits the person stating it to make the claim. We also give it less credence if, as here, it is implausible.

[Pict]

Self serving generally implies a lack of evidence, and IMO it is the lack of evidence (or as in this case the existence of a large amount of contrary evidence) that is normally important in Bridge appeals.

 

For that reason I've never felt it helpful to involve the 'self serving' part of the concept or to have a refined definition of what it means.

[mycroft]

Yes, Pict, but that's the problem. "Self serving" implies lack of evidence, but that's not what it means. Now I'm not necessarily a denotative prescriptivist (although I have been termed "mildly anal-retentive" by my somewhat sarcastic colleagues), so "if everybody uses it this way, that's what it means in practise" isn't exactly anathema.

 

Unfortunately, what it means is actually a very useful point in resolving appeals, and there is a necessity for a term for that condition. What it "implies" is *also* a useful point in resolving appeals, but it's not the same thing. Those who wish to use "self serving" for it's denotative purpose will distinguish between the two; and read others' comments as distinguishing the two. When they didn't, it causes great difficulty in communication.

 

As I said, I'm not a prescriptivist, but like Fowler, if the phrase has a useful meaning difficult to express without it, and the "new" meaning is easier to express in another way, I shall fight to keep the original meaning. Unlike Fowler, I can't turn phrases eloquently, so you'll have to put up with this one.

 

When I mean "statement made without external evidence", I say so. When I mean "self serving statement", I say that. And I encourage others to so do.

[Pict]

Mycroft, very few people would make a bridge appeal in order to tell the committee, for example, that 'everyone knows I'm as honest as the day is long'.

 

The problem is not that their statements inherently lack evidential quality, but that there is no corroboration including no corroboration from standard or local practice. This renders their statement implausible rather than self serving.

 

So I will disregard your advice and not personally use the term self serving where I think it inappropriate and unhelpful.

[campboy]

Surely Mycroft and Lamford are right that whether a statement is self-serving or not matters. The issue is not that the statement lacks evidence, it is that the self-serving quality of the statement means we are unwilling to accept it without evidence. Players make plenty of equally unsubstantiated statements which we accept simply because they do not benefit that player.

 

(That is intended to be a general comment; I know the players involved here to be honest.)

[Pict]

Surely Mycroft and Lamford are right that whether a statement is self-serving or not matters. The issue is not that the statement lacks evidence, it is that the self-serving quality of the statement means we are unwilling to accept it without evidence. Players make plenty of equally unsubstantiated statements which we accept simply because they do not benefit that player.

 

(That is intended to be a general comment; I know the players involved here to be honest.)

It would be very surprising in the context of an appeal if the statements prepared were not designed to support the interest of the person appealing.

 

I think your point would have significance while a TD was asking questions to make a ruling.

[bluejak]

Surely Mycroft and Lamford are right that whether a statement is self-serving or not matters. The issue is not that the statement lacks evidence, it is that the self-serving quality of the statement means we are unwilling to accept it without evidence. Players make plenty of equally unsubstantiated statements which we accept simply because they do not benefit that player.

First of all, a self-serving statement does not lack evidence, because it is evidence. Whether it is sufficient evidence of itself or not is something to be judged. It is an unfortunate fact that self-serving statements by offending sides are not usually accepted without corroboration, while self-serving statements without corroboration are often accepted from non-offenders.

 

Secondly, using the term "self-serving" to mean something quite different seems pointless and I hope people will not do so here.

 

That is intended to be a general comment; I know the players involved here to be honest.

It is not as simple as that. One of the worries with 'honest' people is that they look at things through rose-tinted spectacles when they benefit themselves, which is where the 'self-serving' idea comes from, and why sensible people neither discount completely nor accept fully self-serving statements.

 

It would be very surprising in the context of an appeal if the statements prepared were not designed to support the interest of the person appealing.

That is a very sad comment, which I [fortunately] know to be wrong. For example, if I am one side in an appeal, I look after my own ethics, and because I am jealous of my own ethics, I am perfectly prepared to make a statement that benefits the opposition if I know it to be true.

 

It is strange that lamford should be involved in this misuse of the term, because I know him to be a similar type of person, and I am thus far more likely to accept a self-serving statement from him with little corroboration than from many other people.

[Pict]

If I prepared my statement (singular) for an appeal and I believed it did not support my case, I would save everyone's time and withdraw the appeal.

 

Doubtless there may be sentences in my statement that contain facts that lend support to the other side. I would not feel the need to congratulate myself on that. Can't quite see anything 'sad' in any of this.