Decison in a Teams Match

[relpar]

In a recent ACBL Teams match the following situation came up. All 8 players are "C" level players. At Table 1 East/West are silent throughout the auction. North opens 1♥ and South responds 2NT. North alerts and upon request states that it is a Jacoby 2NT bid. South's reaction makes it abundantly clear that she has misbid. North now states that she is responding as if it was Jacoby 2NT!! North now rebids 3♦ with a 2542 15 point hand!! South now re-bids 3NT with her 3244 9 point hand and that becomes the final contract. The TD is called and tells the players to play the hand out and then call him back. 3NT made and it needs excellent defense to stop it making. TD is called back and rules that the result stands and a 3 IMP PP will be allocated against N/S.

 

Do you agree with this ruling? Could/should the TD cancel the board at both tables, or make some other ruling?

 

At Table 2 N/S did NOT play in 3NT.

[blackshoe]

Well, to start with, it's irrelevant what happened at the other table.

 

South's reaction to North's explanation is UI to North, who must make every effort to avoid taking advantage of it.

 

North's statement is both UI to South and a violation of Law 73.

 

North's 3♦ is a misbid given any interpretation of Jacoby 2NT of which I'm aware. South's 3NT seems to me to field the misbid.

 

Cancel the board? On what grounds? An adjustment, though, seems appropriate, assuming there was damage (i.e., that without all the infractions, NS would have landed in a less lucrative contract).

 

I do agree with the PP. Even "C" level players should know better.

[awm]

The PP is appropriate. More information about what's going on might be necessary before determining whether the result of the board should be adjusted. This is quite a mess because there are three possible calls which may take advantage of UI (3♦, 3NT, and pass of 3NT). It seems as though:

 

(1) If north ignored the UI and made his normal rebid over Jacoby, that is probably 3NT and would lead to a better likely result than 3♦. In fact, bidding 3NT (definitely a LA) is also suggested by the UI (arguably 3♦ isn't even a LA, but so be it). So I think North's 3♦ call should be allowed to stand here.

 

(2) South's 3NT bid may be the only LA, if south intended to invite in notrump and is taking 3♦ as forcing. If south thought she originally bid 1NT, then 3♦ would (obviously) be forcing and depending on the nature of south's black suit holdings bidding 3NT may also be clear-cut. Without seeing south's hand it's hard to know for sure what the LAs are. However, it seems fairly likely that this call should also be permitted to stand.

 

(3) The really dubious one is north's pass of 3NT. Given a nine-card heart fit, it must be a LA to correct to 4♥. The UI suggests that there is not a real heart fit and makes passing 3NT more likely to succeed.

 

So I think the result should be adjusted to 4♥ making a logical number of tricks (in addition to the PP for gratuitous reactions and comments at the table). Of course, if 4♥ scores the same (or better) for the offending side than 3NT, the director's ruling seems fine.

[dburn]

North's 3♦ is a misbid given any interpretation of Jacoby 2NT of which I'm aware.

Eh? In the methods I play with at least four different partners (all of whom are, shall we say, not C flight players), the sequence 1♥-2NT-3♦ shows diamonds.

 

No doubt South intended to respond 1NT. As to what she should have done with her actual hand after 3♦, that depends on what sort of nine count it was. With such as ♠AQx ♥xx ♦xxxx ♣ K10xx, it would be OK to bid 3NT; with the minors the other way round, maybe she should bid 4♦ and maybe 3♠ (though a C flight player might not think of the latter call).

 

As to what North should have done after South's 3NT, that might depend to an extent on North's actual hand and on the significance of 3NT in a "real" Jacoby auction. Probably, though, North should not pass - it is hard to imagine a hand and a method where there were no LAs to a pass.

 

Without knowing the actual hands one can only guess, but I imagine I would adjust the contract to 4♥ by North and the number of tricks to some percentage of this, some percentage of that and some percentage of the other.

 

I would not penalize C flight players for this kind of thing. I would hope to explain the relevant issues in such a way that these particular players would not commit a similar offence again, though I am not sure I would succeed.

[wank]

as above, i would assume 3D to be the normal call on a 2542 15 count with a random partner, though obviously you would ask NS about their jacoby continuations.

 

if south meant to bid 2Nt but forgot it was artificial, south must bid on on the assumption that partner has taken 2NT as natural. it depends on south's hand what he/she must do then. raise diamonds (again assuming 3D is systemically natural)? bid 3h as a waiting bid? go back to 3nt? 3nt is suggested by the UI so if there are any LAs with his hand, he's debarred from bidding 3NT, but it's hard to know without seeing the hands, e.g. AQJ xx xxxx KJTx seems like an auto 3nt call.

 

if south pulled the wrong card, e.g. he meant to bid 1NT, he has AI from the bidding that he's made the wrong call and that partner will have interpreted it accordingly, as such he can do what he likes.

 

north undoubtedly used UI when he passed 3NT, eschewing a known 9 card fit. ok some people do purposefully eschew 9 card fits, but i find it impossible to think of a hand where going back to 4H is not a LA.

 

as such i would assume minus all the UI NS would end up in 4H. of course not having seen the hands, this is just a guess.

 

so south may have done nothing wrong, but north certainly did and deserves a PP. as for letting the table result stand, it depends how many tricks there were in hearts. if 4H goes off, i think an adjustment to 4H-x would be in order. if 4H makes, EW weren't damaged, so the score can stand.

[bluejak]

North's 3♦ is a misbid given any interpretation of Jacoby 2NT of which I'm aware.

Eh? In the methods I play with at least four different partners (all of whom are, shall we say, not C flight players), the sequence 1♥-2NT-3♦ shows diamonds.

I don't think it matters how you play it, and good players are more likely to work out some sensible system than to just play "standard".

 

When I have played with a random partner on OKBridge, I am fairly sure they have told me it is "standard" to play 3♦ as a shortage.

 

So the two questions that intrigue me are:

• How do this pair play 3♦?
  
• What is the normal meaning of 3♦ amongst average players?
  

[dburn]

if south pulled the wrong card, e.g. he meant to bid 1NT, he has AI from the bidding that he's made the wrong call and that partner will have interpreted it accordingly, as such he can do what he likes.

No, he (or she, as I believe was the case) can't. All of your partner's alerts, non-alerts, explanations and so forth are UI to you, and you may not make any use of them - in particular, you may not use them to conclude that you have misbid.

 

Suppose partner opens 4NT, asking for specific aces. You absent-mindedly bid 5♣, thinking that this shows the ace of clubs. Partner explains that you don't have any aces, and bids six clubs. You may not raise this to seven even if you had realised your error before partner gave his explanation.

 

In the actual case, South must continue to bid as if she had responded 1NT and her partner had jumped to 3♦. She has no "AI from the bidding" - what AI could she have, after all?

[dburn]

North's 3♦ is a misbid given any interpretation of Jacoby 2NT of which I'm aware.

Eh? In the methods I play with at least four different partners (all of whom are, shall we say, not C flight players), the sequence 1♥-2NT-3♦ shows diamonds.

I don't think it matters how you play it, and good players are more likely to work out some sensible system than to just play "standard".

 

When I have played with a random partner on OKBridge, I am fairly sure they have told me it is "standard" to play 3♦ as a shortage.

 

So the two questions that intrigue me are:

• How do this pair play 3♦?
  
• What is the normal meaning of 3♦ amongst average players?
  

Well, if North announced (as she did) that she intended to treat 2NT as Jacoby and then she bid 3♦ over it, one might tentatively assume that this pair plays 3♦ as natural.

 

As to how average players use the sequence 1M-2NT-3♦, I neither know nor care - it appears to me utterly irrelevant.

[wank]

really? surely it's up to the director to use his judgement to ascertain why a player made the error in the first place.

 

pulling the wrong card isn't the same as changing one's mind about the correct call. the calls made are AI, yes? if the player can convince the director he simply pulled the wrong card, then he can be woken up by the bidding, not his partner's explanation, non-explanation, etc.

 

of course, the player might have difficulty convincing the director, but that's life.

 

.

[peachy]

In Jacoby 2NT, 3-level bid shows a singleton or void. There are a multitude of other methods where 2NT is a LR or GF raise of opener's major, and some erroneously call those "Jacoby 2NT".

 

However, this was ACBL and "C", where Jaoby 2NT is the mainstream so I believe they did play Jacoby 2NT and that opener used UI to misbid 3D. PP is correct even for C level payers for the reactions, gratuitous remarks, and use of UI by both partners.

[dburn]

In Jacoby 2NT, 3-level bid shows a singleton or void.

Really? I should like to see an authority for that (sadly, the originator of Jacoby 2NT is no longer with us, but still...)

[dburn]

really? surely it's up to the director to use his judgement to ascertain why a player made the error in the first place.

 

pulling the wrong card isn't the same as changing one's mind about the correct call. the calls made are AI, yes? if the player can convince the director he simply pulled the wrong card, then he can be woken up by the bidding, not his partner's explanation, non-explanation, etc.

 

of course, the player might have difficulty convincing the director, but that's life.

 

.

The view adopted by Regulating Authorities the world over is that there is no argument by which you can convince the Director that you "simply pulled the wrong card" once partner has given you UI by alerting the call you made.

 

If you really did pull the wrong card - well, you had better be playing natural methods rather than artificial ones, because if partner does not have to alert the call you made, you get until Tuesday week to change it. But if you want to play artificial methods, you had better not be clumsy.

[blackshoe]

dburn, if you google "Jacoby 2NT" you'll find plenty of websites, including some that might be considered those of authorities, that say that a 3 level bid in response to 2NT shows a shortage in that suit. It's also described that way in Kantar and Dimitrescu's four volume Classic and Modern Conventions and in Amalya Kearse's Bridge Conventions Complete, and Barbara Seagram's 25 Bridge Conventions You Should Know. The latter book's chapter 9 covers the convention and is available in pdf from one of the links that turned up when I did that google search just now.

[peachy]

In Jacoby 2NT, 3-level bid shows a singleton or void.

Really? I should like to see an authority for that (sadly, the originator of Jacoby 2NT is no longer with us, but still...)

 

deleted.

 

Edit: Didn't realised blackshoe already responded. Mine is then unnecessary.

[suprgrover]

Page 3 of the SA-YC (Standard American Yellow Card) booklet also has 3♣, 3♦, and 3 of the other major all showing a "singleton or void in that suit. Other bids deny a short suit."

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/...gle%20pages.pdf

 

While not everything on the SA-YC is truly standard, this treatment really is bog-standard around this part of the ACBL for the 3-level rebids to Jacoby 2NT. (4-level rebids are a different story, in that some play that they show voids and some play that they show second suits.)

[JanM]

North's 3♦ is a misbid given any interpretation of Jacoby 2NT of which I'm aware.

Eh? In the methods I play with at least four different partners (all of whom are, shall we say, not C flight players), the sequence 1♥-2NT-3♦ shows diamonds.

:) and in my methods, 3♦ shows extra values without a splinter. But also not this with flight C players :). OTOH, some flight C players seem to play a lot of exotic bidding methods (undoubtedly more than they should) so who knows.

[campboy]

The view adopted by Regulating Authorities the world over is that there is no argument by which you can convince the Director that you "simply pulled the wrong card" once partner has given you UI by alerting the call you made.

 

If you really did pull the wrong card - well, you had better be playing natural methods rather than artificial ones, because if partner does not have to alert the call you made, you get until Tuesday week to change it. But if you want to play artificial methods, you had better not be clumsy.

This is at odds with my understanding of the EBU policy here, which came from a case I saw in print about six years ago (so, admittedly, before the new lawbook). A player who thought he had made a 2♠ wjo was surprised by partner's alert, and looked down to find he had accidentally pulled 2NT. The question had been sent to the EBU and Nick Doe responded to say that the TD should permit a law 25A change.

It is authorised information to a player that he has made a particular call. If you look down and find that you have bid 2NT when you intended to bid 2♠ and thought you had bid 2♠, it is not a problem that it was partner's alert which caused you to look down.

[aguahombre]

Wow, campboy. that makes me glad that neither I nor the posted case was in EBU. Probably a lot of EBU posters are glad I am not there, also :(

[hrothgar]

really?  surely it's up to the director to use his judgement to ascertain why a player made the error in the first place.

 

pulling the wrong card isn't the same as changing one's mind about the correct call.  the calls made are AI, yes?  if the player can convince the director he simply pulled the wrong card, then he can be woken up by the bidding, not his partner's explanation, non-explanation, etc. 

 

of course, the player might have difficulty convincing the director, but that's life. 

 

.

The view adopted by Regulating Authorities the world over is that there is no argument by which you can convince the Director that you "simply pulled the wrong card" once partner has given you UI by alerting the call you made.

Has anyone tried saying "Oh *****?"

[aguahombre]

Nah, good try though. It could still mean, "oh *****, I forgot the convention again."

[hrothgar]

Nah, good try though. It could still mean, "oh *****, I forgot the convention again."

"Oh *****!" has a very specific meaning in bridge jurisprudence...

[campboy]

Wow, campboy. that makes me glad that neither I nor the posted case was in EBU. Probably a lot of EBU posters are glad I am not there, also :)

If you mean my post is a bit off-topic, guilty :) But I was responding to a post which was talking about "regulating authorities the world over", which presumably was intended to include the EBU.

[bluejak]

If a call is unintended it may be changed per Law 25A if it is within the time limits in that Law. This applies even if the realisation is because of partner's alert. This is a matter of Law, so is true in any jurisdiction, EBU, ACBL, or wherever.

[relpar]

"If a call is unintended it may be changed per Law 25A if it is within the time limits in that Law."

I was not present, but I believe that at no stage did the 2NT bidder claim she had intended to bid 1NT. Given that there was no such statement, and that 3NT made and 4♥ has no chance, do you rule that Pass of the 3NT is not an LA for the opening bidder, and award an adjusted score of 4♥ - whatever the most likely result is ? It is interesting to note that if the opening bidder responded 3NT (showing no singleton or void and 15-16 points) to the supposed Jacoby 2NT, the 2NT bidder could now pass!

[campboy]

Yes, I agree with the people who said to adjust to 4♥ making however many tricks.