Uncertain agreements

[gordontd]

This hand came from the Cambridge University President's Teams, which I directed yesterday.

 

Several of those playing in it regularly post here, so they will no doubt correct any details I might have wrong.

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=skjhdakj654ca9873&w=sat875hkt6dqckqj6&e=sq9432ha98dt82ct4&s=s6hqj75432d973c52]399|300|Scoring: Hybrid

2♥ - 2♠ - X - XX

P - P - P[/hv]

 

Scoring is a mixture of Point-a-Board (Board-a-Match) and IMPs converted to Victory Points - each three-board match had a total of 14 hybrid points available.

 

2♥ was weak.

2♠ was intended as natural, but was alerted and it was explained that EW (who enjoy system!) had recently changed their overcall structure and a 1♠ overcall of 1♥ would have shown ♣ or ♠+♦. East thought that this also applied here, though he did mention the possibility that his partner might just have spades.

X showed an interest in penalising EW.

XX showed interest in playing in 2♠xx if West happened to have spades.

West's pass showed spades.

North passed on the basis that if West had spades he also had diamonds.

 

2♠xx made 10 tricks.

[Finch]

2♠ was intended as natural, but was alerted and it was explained that EW (who enjoy system!) had recently changed their overcall structure and a 1♠ overcall of 1♥ would have shown ♣ or ♠+♦.

Just in case anyone notices this...

The event has no system restrictions, anything goes. So that system of overcalls over 1H is entirely legal.

[Finch]

2♠ was intended as natural, but was alerted and it was explained that EW (who enjoy system!) had recently changed their overcall structure and a 1♠ overcall of 1♥ would have shown ♣ or ♠+♦. East thought that this also applied here, though he did mention the possibility that his partner might just have spades.

If this full explanation was given at the table, I would probably rule that the result stands. It seems to be a full description of their agreements.

[campboy]

(I was South)

 

I felt that the explanation of 2♠ was fine, but the problem was the explanation of rdbl ("to play if I have spades"), which made it sound like West did intend it as S+D or C.

[mich-b]

(A view from a player who is not a laws expert)

 

I would be very happy to see some kind of penalty applied towards EW.

I think they should be strongly discouraged to play in an event without knowing their own methods during the 1st round of bidding in a very basic situation.

I don't know if penalizing them is permited by laws and regulations , but if it isn't IMHO it should be. I consider it irresponsible by EW towards everybody else in the event.

 

This does not mean that I am suggesting adjusting the score for NS. I am not convinced by North's actions and reasoning though I appreciate he was put in a more difficult position by the vague explanations.

[StevenG]

What actually was the agreement? If the 2♠ bid was a misbid, then EW appear to have done nothing wrong. If, however, 2♠ is systemically natural (or there is no agreement), then, as Campboy says, the explanation of the redouble gives clear misinformation.

[Finch]

(I was South)

 

I felt that the explanation of 2♠ was fine, but the problem was the explanation of rdbl ("to play if I have spades"), which made it sound like West did intend it as S+D or C.

I agree this is getting a bit more complicated now.

It comes back to what their agreement actually is.

 

It's possible that when West heard the explanation, he thought "oh yes, we did agree it was that, I'd forgotten". He's now obliged to explain correctly (even though he has to continue bidding on the assumption he has only spades).

 

If double is penalties, do they play redouble as natural, or as SOS?

 

Mind you, I'm still not convinced about North's decision to defend, even if we decide he was misinformed.

[Gerben42]

I'm always surprised about those who suddenly extend such special agreements (as in place here) to a different situation (here a 2-level opening).

 

What would the redouble have been if 2♠ had been natural. Also to play. Still, West should explain as if he hadn't seen the alert of 2♠ and should have replied "strong" or something similar. This is MI.

 

Nevertheless, passing 2♠XX with the North hand is "irrational, wild or gambling" in context of the Laws. So score stands for NS, yet it is unthinkable that North sits for it after 2♠ is declared as strong. So perhaps one should adjust EW to 4♠ making.

[campboy]

IIRC they had not discussed whether it applied over a weak two, and after the hand decided that it would in future.

 

Similarly, we had only discussed actions after these two-way overcalls on the assumption that we had opened a 1-bid (and only briefly as there were lots of other things in the EW system we thought were more important to discuss a defence to :)).

[gordontd]

2♠ was intended as natural, but was alerted and it was explained that EW (who enjoy system!) had recently changed their overcall structure and a 1♠ overcall of 1♥ would have shown ♣ or ♠+♦. East thought that this also applied here, though he did mention the possibility that his partner might just have spades.

If this full explanation was given at the table, I would probably rule that the result stands. It seems to be a full description of their agreements.

Isn't this why we have L21B1b?

 

The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than

Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

 

They have an agreement to play something in a different situation. They haven't discussed whether it applies in this situation, but one of them hopes it does and the other doesn't see it that way. That doesn't seem like an agreement to me.

 

And, while the intent was doubtless to be helpful, adding in the possibility that the call might be natural after all, simply makes it even harder to defend against.

[helene_t]

They have an agreement to play something in a different situation. They haven't discussed whether it applies in this situation, but one of them hopes it does and the other doesn't see it that way. That doesn't seem like an agreement to me.

But the explanation was that they didn't have a firm agreement. So the explanation was correct.

 

And, while the intent was doubtless to be helpful, adding in the possibility that the call might be natural after all, simply makes it even harder to defend against.

Yes, agree with that. Also, while being of no help to opps it gives UI to partner.

 

Players need to learn that if they don't have an agreement, they should say just that.

[mjj29]

And, while the intent was doubtless to be helpful, adding in the possibility that the call might be natural after all, simply makes it even harder to defend against.

Yes, agree with that. Also, while being of not help to opps it gives UI to partner.

 

Players need to learn that if they don't have an agreement, they should say just that.

(I was West)

 

We are required to disclose in these situations though:

... a player must alert any inferences drawn from partnership experience or practice which have a potentially unexpected meaning. A call with an alertable meaning arising from an implicit agreement must be alerted

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is going to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player's partner's actions are also consistent with that agreement

...If the player believes that the meaning of partner’s call is affected by relevant partnership experience the answer should be along the lines of “we have not specifically discussed it, but we have agreements in analogous situations which may be relevant”. For example, an undiscussed situation might be analogous to something which has been discussed, so that both partners might expect that they would reach the same conclusion at the table.

If I had thought about it at all I would have come to the conclusion that the overcall was artificial as described, is was perfectly reasonable for my partner to assume that his explanation was correct, we normally do reach the same conclusion at the table about the bids, given the rest of the system it was clearly the correct thing to be playing.

[helene_t]

sorry mij29, you are right.

 

I don't like the explanation "I am going to take it as ...." since it may alert partner about a possible misunderstanding while not really being helpful to opps. But maybe I should change my mind about this, after all opps can make the simple agreement that if opp take a call by his p as meaning X then we also take it as meaning X.

 

I have made a habit of never asking "what does this mean?", I always ask "do you have any specific agreements about this call?". Many players take the extreme opposite view, namely asking the question "how do you interpret this call?", which I think is wrong since it encourages opps to disclose general bridge knowledge rather than just agreements.

 

It is not so much that I am afraid that opps take advantage of the UI but rather that I want to avoid MI issues which are likely to occur in situations where the explanation is something like 50% likely to be wrong. And I don't want to put opps under the ethical pressure related to the UI.

 

If you say "we have no firm agreement but I take it as X", and then it turns out the call was intended as Y, is there MI? I think not (but OK this is what we are discussing in this thread), but if there is no MI then I think it would put opps in a better position if you don't disclose at all.

 

But OK if the regulations say you must disclose then you better adhere to it.

[gordontd]

They have an agreement to play something in a different situation. They haven't discussed whether it applies in this situation, but one of them hopes it does and the other doesn't see it that way. That doesn't seem like an agreement to me.

But the explanation was that they didn't have a firm agreement. So the explanation was correct.

I don't think that's really satisfactory. Introducing the idea that it might be one thing (without having any really firm basis for that idea), but then adding that it might be natural, simply introduces uncertainty and creates a situation that is very difficult for opponents to deal with.

[mjj29]

They have an agreement to play something in a different situation. They haven't discussed whether it applies in this situation, but one of them hopes it does and the other doesn't see it that way. That doesn't seem like an agreement to me.

But the explanation was that they didn't have a firm agreement. So the explanation was correct.

I don't think that's really satisfactory. Introducing the idea that it might be one thing (without having any really firm basis for that idea), but then adding that it might be natural, simply introduces uncertainty and creates a situation that is very difficult for opponents to deal with.

How else do you disclose as required when you have two similar situations with different systems?

 

Matt

[dburn]

They have an agreement to play something in a different situation. They haven't discussed whether it applies in this situation, but one of them hopes it does and the other doesn't see it that way. That doesn't seem like an agreement to me.

But the explanation was that they didn't have a firm agreement. So the explanation was correct.

No, it wasn't. If they did not have an agreement to play that 2♠ showed (inter alia) spades and diamonds, then any explanation to the effect that 2♠ showed (or might show) spades and diamonds is not correct. And clearly they did not have such an agreement, otherwise West would not have bid 2♠.

 

It is one thing to forget an agreement; it is another thing altogether to invent an agreement and then claim that it pre-existed. This East-West pair ought to have been disqualified, and probably executed.

[gordontd]

How else do you disclose as required when you have two similar situations with different systems?

 

Matt

Well you must do as you did if you think the one agreement applies in the other situation (though I must say that it wouldn't occur to me that when I agreed to play Leaping Michaels over a two-opener, it might also apply over a one-opener). But when it turns out that your partner hasn't made the same assumption it seems inevitable that you will be deemed to have given misinformation, and expressing uncertainty at the time of the explanation doesn't really help your opponents at all. It's actually harder for them to defend against a bid that shows C or S+D or S than against one that shows C or S+D.

 

I must stress that I have no doubt about the ethical motives of all at the table, and I was impressed by the grace with which everyone accepted my ruling. However I'm not convinced by the argument that has been presented in this thread that the explanation that was given is sufficient to deny your opponents redress.

 

For those reading who don't already know it, my ruling was that EW had misinformed NS and so their score was adjusted to 50% of 4S= & 50% of 5Dx-1.

 

I agree with those who think that North's final pass was "wild or gambling" (although I have no doubt that was not her intention) and so I allowed NS to keep the table score.

 

This ended up being one match where the hybrid points gained didn't add up to 14 - the score for these three boards was 2-4!

 

Finally, may I say what a pleasant day it was, and in what a friendly and enjoyable spririt it was played?

[blackshoe]

Players need to learn that if they don't have an agreement, they should say just that.

I was taught that if you have pertinent agreements in similar situations, you should include that in your explanation. I was not given explicit narrow definitions of "pertinent" and "similar". It seems to me that this player has done his best to explain the situation. If doing that makes it "harder to defend" well, it is not the purpose of the law to give the opponents their best possible defense on a silver platter.

[blackshoe]

This East-West pair ought to have been disqualified, and probably executed.

The Burn solution to these problems would certainly encourage others to never make the same error. On the other hand, it would kill not only players who commit irregularities, but also the game of bridge.

[JanM]

An interesting, somewhat related, situation arose at the Cavendish this weekend. Different because of screens, but related. I don't have the hands available, and they're not really relevant. Auction:

 

1♠-2♠(Michaels)-4♣

 

Fourth hand was on the same side of the screen as the 1♠ opener and asked what 4♣ was. The 1♠ opener said it was either a splinter or a fit-showing jump, but he didn't know which (in other words, they hadn't discussed it). 4th hand passed for the moment and it proceeded:

 

4♠-DBL-P

 

Now fourth hand (who was 3-2-4-4 with Kxxx of clubs I think) decided that if 4♣ was a splinter, he wanted to play 5 of partner's minor, but if it was fit-showing, he wanted to play 4♠X. He didn't want to base his decision on what he thought 4♣ should be, or on what his screen-mate thought it should be, he wanted to know what his RHO thought it was. He called the Director and asked whether he could be told what his partner had been told about 4♣. The Director said no. The player wasn't happy, but finally decided to bid 4NT and play 5 of partner's minor. It turned out that 4♣ was fit-showing. 5♦ made, for +600; 4♠ would probably have been down 3 for 500, so 4th hand's decision gained a few IMPs (or a few hundred given the Cavendish IMPs), and nothing more was done about it.

[jdonn]

I see nothing wrong with the initial explanation of 2♠, in fact it seems to be very ethical and more than is required. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an adjustment, but based on what he knew and believed at the time I think east absolutely did the best he could.

[MFA]

How else do you disclose as required when you have two similar situations with different systems?

 

Matt

Well you must do as you did if you think the one agreement applies in the other situation (though I must say that it wouldn't occur to me that when I agreed to play Leaping Michaels over a two-opener, it might also apply over a one-opener). But when it turns out that your partner hasn't made the same assumption it seems inevitable that you will be deemed to have given misinformation, and expressing uncertainty at the time of the explanation doesn't really help your opponents at all. It's actually harder for them to defend against a bid that shows C or S+D or S than against one that shows C or S+D.

For those reading who don't already know it, my ruling was that EW had misinformed NS and so their score was adjusted to 50% of 4S= & 50% of 5Dx-1.

Your ruling is not unproblematic, as I see it, but I'm not sure what I would have done.

 

1)

Sure it's harder to defend against C or S+D or S than C or S+D. But hopefully it would have been equally harder for EW to handle if they happened to have the problems.

Ill-defined systems give less information to both partners and opponents, in principle nothing wrong with that.

 

2)

There always exist a correct explanation, no matter what uncertainties there might be in somebody's system. If we had access to all prior partnership communication we would be able to suggest exactly what east should say, and that might well be something along the lines of what he actually said.

 

... But when it turns out that your partner hasn't made the same assumption it seems inevitable that you will be deemed to have given misinformation, and expressing uncertainty at the time of the explanation doesn't really help your opponents at all.

We can't demand the impossible. If no firm agreement exists there can be no firm explanation either. The laws don't require that one takes a guess (and suffer MI if he guesses wrongly). The word "inevitable" sounds wrong. If we rule MI we should at least be able to suggest how the explanation could reasonably have been better. We can't rule MI regardsless of what east happen to say just because he makes a reservation. That would be punishing EW for not knowing their system - not for giving MI.

 

I'm not sure what I would have done, though.

[CamHenry]

(I was West)

 

<snip>

 

If I had thought about it at all I would have come to the conclusion that the overcall was artificial as described, is was perfectly reasonable for my partner to assume that his explanation was correct, we normally do reach the same conclusion at the table about the bids, given the rest of the system it was clearly the correct thing to be playing.

I was East.

 

It was only after Matt made his 2♠ overcall that I realised we hadn't discussed whether our artificial overcalls applied over higher-level openings; these overcalls are not generally permitted so we were playing them for the first time. That goes some way to explaining why we hadn't discussed their applicability here!

 

I don't recall the detail of Matt (West's) explanation of my redouble. He definitely said that I was happy playing in 2SXX if he had spades; I believe he didn't say anything either way about his diamond suit/shortage/unspecified. Would it have helped matters if he'd said "As Henry says, we haven't discussed whether artificial overcalls apply here. If it's an artificial overcall, he's happy playing in 2S opposite the option with spades and diamonds; if it's a natural overcall, he's showing an undefined strong hand"? That would have been the most complete disclosure available, yet would probably be even more confusing.

 

The alternative position we could take as EW is simply to say "no agreement" and clam up, but given we have agreements in similar situations that could apply here, it seems unfair to do so.

 

On the actual ruling, I agree that we didn't provide as much information as we could have done, and if I'd been directing and uninvolved in the case I don't know that I'd have ruled any differently.

[campboy]

I think either "undiscussed" or the "depending on the meaning of 2♠ it could be..." as an explanation of the redouble would have helped. North asked about the redouble, then thought for some time before passing; I imagine she got the impression, as I did, that the answer given was incompatible with 2♠ being natural.

[RMB1]

I think the original explanation of XX was misleading and adjustment was required. I think someone should have called the TD before the explanation of XX was given. "The explanation of two spades was ambiguous and this makes it difficult to properly explain the redouble". The TD could then extablish that 2♠ was ambiguous, and XX was strong and to play opposite S+D or a natural S overcall. This would prevent West from giving the impression that he necessarily had shown S+D when he passed the redouble. The adjustment should be on the basis that West could have S+D or just S.