Cluster

[CSGibson]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s87652hqt32dj5ct2&w=skj943hkjdkt6cj93&e=sh64d98732caq8764&s=saqtha9875daq4ck5]399|300|Scoring: MP

1♠-(p)-2♣*-(2♥),

P-(P)-3♣-(P),

P-(3♥)-4♣-(4♥),

P-(P)-5♣-X,

All Pass[/hv]

 

This is a general convention chart event

 

2 clubs was alerted as drury, which E-W have agreed to play on in all seats (confirmed agreement by both E & W). At the time of the explanation of 2♣, N-S called the tournament director because they believed drury to be an illegal agreement after a first seat opener.

 

After confirming that 2 clubs indicated a spade fit, South led the ace of spades against 5 clubs, trying to give partner a spade ruff. East then led a small heart to the king, pitched a heart on the K of spades, and proceded to go down 1. N-S called the director again after the hand because E-W had nothing like the hand they described, and the information given led to a sub-optimal defense.

 

What should happen here?

[pran]

[karlson]

I can't imagine letting E-W off as easily as pran does. There's no way that West can pass 3♣ without some kind of information that partner might not have spades. Either it's part of the system and the opponents are entitled to it, or, as is my suspicion, West realized somehow that East forgot the system. Of course one can ask him why he passed and maybe something intelligent will come out. But without any extra information, I don't see why E-W wouldn't continue to bid 3♠-4♣-4♠ I don't see how East can pull this without the alert UI, so score it as 4♠x down however many.

 

Otoh on the actual auction, South gets no sympathy in the defense. When one guy bids 2♣,3♣,4♣,5♣ and no one makes any further attempt to play spades, they have clubs.

 

Split score?

[campboy]

2 clubs was alerted as drury, which E-W have agreed to play on in all seats (confirmed agreement by both E & W). At the time of the explanation of 2♣, N-S called the tournament director because they believed drury to be an illegal agreement after a first seat opener.

And what did the TD say? EW were correct; the GCC only permits Drury by a passed hand.

[cherdanno]

Passing 3♣ at Matchpoints with a known spade fit? Seems clearly a fielding of a misbid to me.

 

Does that make "drury" misinformation? I would think so.

[blackshoe]

I don't know what the TD said when called the first time, but it seems to me that there's not much he could say except "this is an illegal agreement; after this hand, you may no longer use it — you must modify your system before the next board. Further, NS should call me back after the hand. If they were damaged by this illegal agreement, I will adjust the score." If he is very thorough, he will also remind East that West's alert and explanation of 2♣ is UI to him (East), of which he must make every effort not to take advantage.

 

If the TD is going to issue a PP for use of an illegal agreement, he should probably say so the first time he's called.

 

While the ACBL does not treat these situations in quite the same way as the EBU, I wonder how an EBU TD would classify this. Given the agreement that 2♣ is Drury (and not "Drury or clubs"), East's 2♣ is a misbid - but is it Red, Amber, or Green?

[campboy]

I would think that the failure to correct 3♣ to 3♠ at matchpoints makes it red, possibly amber. It hardly matters, though, since the adjustment in the EBU for a fielded misbid is the same as that for an illegal method, viz:

If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a psyche, deviation or misbid then the deal should be completed. If he attains a score of A– or less then the score stands. Otherwise he gets A– and his opponents get A+.

In the case of a fielded psyche there is a further penalty to the offending side of at least the standard amount.

[blackshoe]

Well, yes, but absent the EBU's regulation (which I'm not sure is legal when a result was obtained, but never mind that) you should award an assigned adjusted score, not an artificial one.

[peachy]

[CSGibson]

2 clubs was alerted as drury, which E-W have agreed to play on in all seats (confirmed agreement by both E & W).  At the time of the explanation of 2♣, N-S called the tournament director because they believed drury to be an illegal agreement after a first seat opener.

And what did the TD say? EW were correct; the GCC only permits Drury by a passed hand.

The tournament director basicly said "the damage has been done already, continue on while I consult with the other TDs"

[Phil]

Its ACBL so I'm not sure why others are discussing red / amber or whatever. What is the penalty for using an illegal treatment? Take it off your card for the rest of the session? Yeah, that's a serious penalty. Ouch.

 

For some reason I'm more concerned about this pass of 3C especially if the 3C was made with any emphasis. I'd also want to know what the pass over 2H means - this might also be 'fielding'. Like Karlson I would adjust to X spades down whatever for EW.

 

I don't love the AS lead but I don't think its 'irrational' if NS are alerted properly. Deaf to the table action certainly, such I can't see how its such a serious error to pardon EW playing an illegal treatment, and fielding a misbid via an alert. Its the duck of the heart that is bizarre and would sway me to give a split score. NS definitely earned their +100 (which won't be a zero).

[blackshoe]

We're discussing red/amber because I wondered how EBU TD's would view it. If it were deemed green (which I would think highly unlikely) then perhaps an ACBL TD might consider no damage, so no adjustment. If it were deemed amber, an ACBL TD would probably adjust. If it were deemed red, an ACBL TD would almost certainly adjust. But you're right that the red/amber/green question is not per se relevant to this particular case.

 

I think the TD's initial ruling was correct as far as it went — there's nothing to be done at the time of that TD call except to let the hand play out, and consider adjusting the score afterward.

 

If the score is to be adjusted (and it should be for EW at least) then EW get "the most unfavorable result that was at all possible had the irregularity not occurred". NS get "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred". The irregularity here is the illegal agreement. If NS are found to have committed a serious error, or wild or gambling action, then they don't get redress for whatever part of the damage that caused, but I don't see a case for that here.

 

I would consider a procedural penalty against EW for use of an illegal convention. Also, the adjustment would be for that offense — whether EW fielded a misbid is really irrelevant.

 

What was the TD's final ruling?

[LH2650]

We're discussing red/amber because I wondered how EBU TD's would view it.

2♣ was not a psychic call because it was not a deliberate misrepresentation. In the EBU, if memory serves without consulting the OB, use of an illegal convention limits the offending side to A- or the table result, whichever is worse. Since the lead of the ♠A seems resonable, the NOS would presumably receive A+. Use of the illegal convention induced the lead, and the contract seems certain to fail without it, so in the ACBL I would adjust to 5♣ doubled, down 1.

[CSGibson]

Its the duck of the heart that is bizarre and would sway me to give a split score. NS definitely earned their +100 (which won't be a zero).

I asked about this. South was still in shock from the ace of spades being ruffed, and ducked in tempo without thinking. Apparently there was less than 2 seconds between the spade ruff and the low heart.

[blackshoe]

Nobody, least of all me, suggested that 2♣ was a psych. Misbids, however, are in the EBU classified in the same red/amber/green way as psychs. So I wondered how 2♣ would be classified if it were deemed a misbid.

[bluejak]

The pass of 3♣ fields the misbid, ie is a breach of Law 40. Yes, the EBU has a regulation that now E/W get Ave- or table score if worse, which used to be of doubtful legality but now has been decreed to be an interpretation of Law 12C1D. But the lack of a regulation elsewhere in the world does not make it legal. So the TD needs to adjust because of potential damage from both fielding and use of an illegal convention.

 

Put it another way, who believes that West, when he passed 3♣, had no experience of his partner bidding "Drury" with no spade fit before? If any of you do, I have a natty bridge over the Thames for sale, not to mention some prime real estate in Florida. :ph34r:

 

As for the spade lead, how naive was the defender? When did he learn bridge? Yes, I know it was yesterday, but what time yesterday? :lol:

 

The rules have changed, even in the ACBL. Whether the defence gets full redress depends on Law 12C1B. Of course, adjustments may also be split because of the different standards in Law 12C1E, but that is different.

[CSGibson]

As for the spade lead, how naive was the defender?  When did he learn bridge?  Yes, I know it was yesterday, but what time yesterday?  :ph34r:

To be fair, the N-S pair in question would have finished 2nd overall in a 2 session 26 table open event if they even got an average on this board. They did wind up 3rd overall among the 52 pairs. The directors ruled that the table result stood.

[nige1]

The pass of 3♣ fields the misbid, ie is a breach of Law 40.  Yes, the EBU has a regulation that now E/W get Ave- or table score if worse, which used to be of doubtful legality but now has been decreed to be an interpretation of Law 12C1D. But the lack of a regulation elsewhere in the world does not make it legal.  So the TD needs to adjust because of potential damage from both fielding and use of an illegal convention. Put it another way, who believes that West, when he passed 3♣, had no experience of his partner bidding "Drury" with no spade fit before?  If any of you do, I have a natty bridge over the Thames for sale, not to mention some prime real estate in Florida.  :ph34r:

As for the spade lead, how naive was the defender?  When did he learn bridge?  Yes, I know it was yesterday, but what time yesterday?  :lol: The rules have changed, even in the ACBL.  Whether the defence gets full redress depends on Law 12C1B.  Of course, adjustments may also be split because of the different standards in Law 12C1E, but that is different.

I agree with Bluejak but I don't think South's defence is as bad as others do. When I learnt Bridge (earlier this evening) it was considered wild and gambling to plan your defence on the belief that an opponent blatantly fielded his partner's psychs. Declarer is known to have spades, so the "revoke" already puts defenders ahead of the game.

[Mbodell]

Man can we hit each of W and E separately with PP? I think W passing 3♣ is pretty questionable, and I think E's bidding clearly uses UI. If you held the East hand and knew that you were not going to sell out to any number of hearts (up to at least 4) and that you didn't want to jump to 5♣ right away, wouldn't you try 3♦ instead of 3♣ knowing that you'll give partner a choice and that you'll likely not have the auction die here? I could see saying that you don't think your hand is strong enough to force to the 4 level if you bid 3♣ and then passed through out but if you bid 3♣ on the way to 4♣ and then 5♣ I think the only reason you didn't introduce your diamonds is because you know your partner doesn't think your 2♣ showed clubs.

[blackshoe]

Man can we hit each of W and E separately with PP?

We can, certainly. Should we? Particularly in the ACBL, where the "standard" PP is 25% of a top, if you give that for two offenses on the same hand, that half a board. Actually, there were three offenses, including the use of the illegal convention, so that's 3/4 of a board. At some point these players are going to feel pretty hard done by.

 

Of course, the TD doesn't have to give the "standard" PP whenever he gives one. So he could for example say "10% of a top for this one, 10% of a top for this other one, and 5% of a top for the last one, total 25% of a top".

 

The real problem as I see it is that we generally give out PPs sparingly, so suddenly hitting this pair with two or three PPs on the same board is going to draw some strange looks, at the very least.

[campboy]

Certainly in EBU-land we would not normally give a PP for a fielded misbid, and this looks like a pretty run-of-the-mill fielded misbid to me. East may have used UI, but it wasn't particularly blatant. And if they genuinely didn't realise that this convention was not allowed, I don't see why we should be rushing to give a PP for that either. On the other hand, three separate reasons on the same board which aren't quite enough individually for a PP certainly should add up to one...

[dburn]

[RMB1]

Now: should the Director rule that East-West keep their "table score" after the adjustment that would have been made once the hand had been played to a finish?

Grattan Endicott answered in the affirmative (in another place).

 

He said that you should adjust for misinformation (if an illegal convention was wrongly explained) before considering whether an artificial adjustment (for use of an illegal convention) should be applied. I imagine the same would apply for the use of unauthorised information where the offenders had also used an illegal convention.

 

Searching the RGB or BLML archives (and having to guess how Mr Endicott expressed this) is not something I will attempt.

[awm]

There really should be an automatic PP for playing an illegal convention. The problem is that most players (and directors!) do not know/understand the convention charts, so a pair playing an illegal method will get away with it the vast majority of the time. If there's no actual penalty when a pair is actually caught using an illegal method (just tell them to take it off the card), then playing illegal methods is very much to the advantage of the offenders. It's also not clear what it means to say "opponents were damaged by the illegal method" -- without the illegal method the auction would be totally different and it's impossible to say what would actually have happened.

 

In addition, west seems to have fielded east's "forget" of drury. East has also taken advantage of UI in the bidding to bid his clubs so many times (why not pass at some point and let west raise? because west doesn't know east has clubs... why not bid diamonds at some point? because west doesn't know what's going on).

 

South's opening spade lead is bad as it turns out, but assuming east actually has his call as described (i.e. spade fit with very long clubs) it is a good lead. I don't think we can blame south for not working out that east has "psyched" his illegal convention and west has fielded it, even though that does perhaps seem likely for the auction. Ducking the heart at trick two is a more serious error, but under the circumstances...

 

I'd rule average-plus and average-minus (unless N/S table result is already better than average-plus); I believe this is fairly standard in situations where a result on the board cannot readily be obtained (for example due to an illegal method). I'd also give E/W an additional procedural penalty for playing an illegal convention and for their conduct on this board (psyching or forgetting the illegal convention, fielding the psych/forget). This is really pretty bad. Perhaps we should give them multiple PPs on the same board, but probably the one PP combined with the adjustment to "average-minus" will be sufficient.

[awm]

I'd also comment that "table result stands" on this board without even a PP for E/W is the kind of awful ACBL ruling that makes me not want to play in their events.

 

What more could E/W have done wrong here? They play an illegal method. They didn't have the hand described. They fielded the misbid (or whatever it was) by west never correcting to spades. East arguably used his UI (west doesn't know what he holds) to find a sacrifice.

 

Yet the directors decide to shoot the non-offending side and let them keep their lousy table result. They don't even penalize the offending side for what amounts to blatant cheating. It sounds like they didn't even tell E/W to take the illegal method off their card.