MickyB Posted December 31, 2010 Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 [hv=pc=n&s=s532hat53dqj63cq9&w=sk876hk976d52cjt4&n=sqj4h2dkt84ck8652&e=sat9hqj84da97ca73&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1n(14-16)ppd(4M5+m)p2c(Pass/Correct)p(Asks%20about%20dbl)pdp2hppp]399|300[/hv] North called the TD at the end of the board, having agreed that there was a potential UI issue when dummy went down. Table result - 9 tricks on the QS lead. This hand is from the mixed pairs. North and West are strong players, East and South are weaker. Both pairs would consider themselves to have a chance of winning the 84-pair event. The North/South convention card was lacking in fine detail, and merely said "Multi-Landy" in the defences to 1NT box, and West says he knew this at the time, hence having to ask about the double. N/S can prove that this was their agreement, despite the hand not matching the description, and say that South had no reason to expect this - it has never happened before in this partnership. How do you rule? Apologies if "Spoilers" are considered inappropriate for this forum, but I am interested in both the ruling with the facts that I have presented, and with the full facts, which are below. When the TD was called, no mention was made of the NS convention card. During the next board, West looked at it, then went to find the TD to inform him what it said in the "defence to 1NT" box. As previously mentioned, when the TD asks him, he says that he already knew that it merely said "Multi-Landy" when he asked about the double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted December 31, 2010 Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 Having not read the spoiler, I am confused. I might give an opinion if I knew what ruling was being sought: UI for E/W, MI for N/S? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted December 31, 2010 Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 I'm guessing this is supposed to be a UI case. I would like to ask West what he would have done differently in that round of bidding if he had received a different explanation of double. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted December 31, 2010 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 Having not read the spoiler, I am confused. I might give an opinion if I knew what ruling was being sought: UI for E/W, MI for N/S? The former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted December 31, 2010 Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 This hand is from the mixed pairs. North and West are strong players, East and South are weaker. Both pairs would consider themselves to have a chance of winning the 84-pair event. Are you trying to tell us that East and South were the men? ]The North/South convention card was lacking in fine detail, and merely said "Multi-Landy" in the defences to 1NT box, and West says he knew this at the time, hence having to ask about the double. N/S can prove that this was their agreement, despite the hand not matching the description, and say that South had no reason to expect this - it has never happened before in this partnership. How do you rule? Well, it depends. If West always asks in this type of position (and East knows this) then East has no UI, in which case no UI adjustment should be considered. On the other hand, if West is known to follow the EBU recommendation of only asking when s(he) is thinking of bidding, then East has UI to suggest that West is not completely devoid of values. Even at this vulnerability, double "could demonstrably have been suggested" over Pass by this UI and Pass is a logical alternative. Hence the contract would be rolled back to 2♣ by South. As it is not clear how many tricks this contract might make, a weighted score would be appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted December 31, 2010 Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 It looks like disallowing the double is correct. Of course, I have this real dislike of 4333 hands but I do think on balance letting the opponents play the contract when I am 4333 is a winning action. But whether East's peers think this way is another matter. A poll might seem helpful. Since West has read the SC, and since the problem would, it appears, not have occurred with a properly filled-in SC, I think a PP is in order for N/S. I do think PPs are suitable whenever a real problem is caused, while a warning suffices if a real problem is avoided. :ph34r: I suppose now I shall have to go back and read the spoiler. My personal view is that a post suggesting more will come later, then post more in a couple of days, might seem a better approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted December 31, 2010 Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 On the other hand, if West is known to follow the EBU recommendation of only asking when s(he) is thinking of bidding, then East has UI to suggest that West is not completely devoid of values. Even at this vulnerability, double "could demonstrably have been suggested" over Pass by this UI and Pass is a logical alternative. Hence the contract would be rolled back to 2♣ by South. As it is not clear how many tricks this contract might make, a weighted score would be appropriate.I agree so far, but a further adjustment may be in order. If West is telling the truth, he had very sensibly read the relevant part of the opponents' convention card either surreptitiously or in advance. Given that:- If the convention card had been properly completed, he would not have needed to ask the question, and no UI would have been conveyed.- North-South's failure to fill in the convention card correctly was a breach of the regulations, which is an infraction.- This infractionled to the the transission of UI between West and East, which in turn led to the adjusted score awarded by Jeffrey.- North-South could have been aware, at the time that they filled in their card, that their infraction might have this effect.- Therefore I adjust the score back to 2♥+1 under Law 23. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted December 31, 2010 Report Share Posted December 31, 2010 When the TD was called, no mention was made of the NS convention card. During the next board, West looked at it, then went to find the TD to inform him what it said in the "defence to 1NT" box. As previously mentioned, when the TD asks him, he says that he already knew that it merely said "Multi-Landy" when he asked about the double.Now I show my faith in West's probity by not issuing a PP, merely telling N/S to correct their SC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 How many people at the congress had put the meaning of a passed hand double of 1NT on their CC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 If the convention card had been properly completed, Just out of curiosity, does the EBU actually specify anywhere what proper completion of a convention card entails? In Germany, there are no regulations whatsoever on this subject, so you can pretty much fill up your CC with whatever you want... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 How many people at the congress had put the meaning of a passed hand double of 1NT on their CC?Well, me for one. But I see what you mean: I expect a lot of people have an arrangement but do not show it. But it is improper to do so. This is not like a call on the third round of the auction: there is a box for Defence to 1NT opening and there is no excuse for not filling it in properly. So, if someone does not fill this in and it causes no damage, as in most cases, we tell them to fill it in correctly. But when there is damage therefrom I do not think the idea that lots of other people do not follow the rules means we should not issue a PP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 (edited) 4 C 3 Particular care must be taken when describing two-suited overcalls. 'Ghestem' shouldnever be used as a description of such methods since there are many differentversions. A full description of each bid should be given.4 C 4 Similar care must be taken with defences to 1NT, especially with agreements that areeither two-suiters or the suit bid. Such agreements should be described in full.I don't think we should have any sympathy with someone who ignores this rule and then tries to get an adjusted score because the opponents couldn't get the information they needed from the convention card. If I had an agreement about this double, I would normally have it written on the card: in a serious partnership I would naturally have a properly completed card; in an adhoc partnership I would have filled in the card whilst agreeing the system. Edited January 1, 2011 by gnasher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 I agree so far, but a further adjustment may be in order. If West is telling the truth, he had very sensibly read the relevant part of the opponents' convention card either surreptitiously or in advance. Given that:- If the convention card had been properly completed, he would not have needed to ask the question, and no UI would have been conveyed.- North-South's failure to fill in the convention card correctly was a breach of the regulations, which is an infraction.- This infractionled to the the transission of UI between West and East, which in turn led to the adjusted score awarded by Jeffrey.- North-South could have been aware, at the time that they filled in their card, that their infraction might have this effect.- Therefore I adjust the score back to 2♥+1 under Law 23. That chain of logic is quite a stretch. Players who do not complete their convention card properly could be aware that they might be providing misinformation, but it's probably never occurred to anyone before now that advantage could be gained in the manner you describe. In any case, had West instead looked at the convention card and found the information required, his partner would presumably have seen the reading of the convention card and still have received the UI that West was interested in the meaning of double/2♣ (The Year End Congress is not played with screens). Assuming that West is not an "always ask" person, the problem was caused by West. If West is not going to double 2♣ on being given the actual explanation, I can't see what different meaning of double would have persuaded him to act. In that case, passing in tempo without asking would have avoided giving partner any ethical problem. It's also interesting to note that another way to avoid this situation is for East (the 1NT opener) to ask about the double of 1NT. It's hard to accuse East of conveying UI of significant extra values or any particular suit holdings in this position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 1, 2011 Report Share Posted January 1, 2011 So, if someone does not fill this in and it causes no damage, as in most cases, we tell them to fill it in correctly. But when there is damage therefrom I do not think the idea that lots of other people do not follow the rules means we should not issue a PP. I remember once I complained to a state trooper, who had stopped me for speeding, that giving me a ticket was unfair because, after all, other people had been passing me. He said "yeah, but I got you!" :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 (edited) That chain of logic is quite a stretch. Players who do not complete their convention card properly could be aware that they might be providing misinformation, but it's probably never occurred to anyone before now that advantage could be gained in the manner you describe.It had occurred to me before I read this thread. I don't think I possess any special insight into this sort of situation. It's no different from a player failing to announce his opening notrump range, causing an interested opponent to ask the range, thereby creating UI for the other opponent. There was a thread about that in this forum a few weeks ago. In any case, had West instead looked at the convention card and found the information required, his partner would presumably have seen the reading of the convention card and still have received the UI that West was interested in the meaning of double/2♣ (The Year End Congress is not played with screens).In Mike's original post, there was no suggestion that West had been seen to look at the convention card, but "West says he knew [what the card said] at the time." If we believe West, he had contrived to read this part of the card without conveying UI. I don't find that hard to believe - I often have the opponents' convention card open in front of me, and others do likewise. Assuming that West is not an "always ask" person, the problem was caused by West. If West is not going to double 2♣ on being given the actual explanation, I can't see what different meaning of double would have persuaded him to act. In that case, passing in tempo without asking would have avoided giving partner any ethical problem.Perhaps West's action would depend upon the meaning of the double. If, for example, double showed both minors, West might bid 2♦. Or, more likely, West knew that to consider every possible meaning of this double, and the appropriate action in each case, would take so long that it would create UI anyway. It's also interesting to note that another way to avoid this situation is for East (the 1NT opener) to ask about the double of 1NT. It's hard to accuse East of conveying UI of significant extra values or any particular suit holdings in this position.Yes, I always do that. However, we are told that East was "weaker", so perhaps he can be excused this omission. Also, as you mentioned in your earlier post, the EBU's recomendation is not to ask unless you are considering acting. It seems unfair to expect East to have a better understanding of the rules and their consequences than the authors of the Orange Book. Edited January 2, 2011 by gnasher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 West's argument seems to be that (s)he wouldn't have had to ask about the double if (s)he had read this on the convention card before the hand. Since there is absolutely no reason to ask in this position anyway, I don't think that argument holds much weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 That chain of logic is quite a stretch. Players who do not complete their convention card properly could be aware that they might be providing misinformation, but it's probably never occurred to anyone before now that advantage could be gained in the manner you describe.In any case, the test in Law 23 is "an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the nonoffending side". It doesn't say he has to know how the damage might occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 If West knew what the agreement was written on the card, I would at least like to ask West why they asked. It at least strikes me as a possibility that West was asking so as to make East (a "weaker player") aware of the meaning and tune East into the auction. I ask as a question whether this is a separate violation than just potential UI violations from asking such a question (since conveying UI is not necessarily an infraction). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted January 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 If West knew what the agreement was written on the card, I would at least like to ask West why they asked. It at least strikes me as a possibility that West was asking so as to make East (a "weaker player") aware of the meaning and tune East into the auction. I ask as a question whether this is a separate violation than just potential UI violations from asking such a question (since conveying UI is not necessarily an infraction). I don't think I did a very good job of describing the East and South's level - while they were weaker than the "strong players" [and yes Jeffrey, they were the men, but I'm sure that's a coincidence :P] they are both above average when compared with the other women in this mixed pairs field, and East is very experienced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjj29 Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 If West knew what the agreement was written on the card, I would at least like to ask West why they asked. It at least strikes me as a possibility that West was asking so as to make East (a "weaker player") aware of the meaning and tune East into the auction. I ask as a question whether this is a separate violation than just potential UI violations from asking such a question (since conveying UI is not necessarily an infraction).Because the card said "multi-landy", which only specifies the meaning of 2 clubs through 2 spades, not double, hence needing to ask. Incidentally, I also don't have the meaning of a passed-hand double on my card and there is no room to add it. The box isn't very big there, particularly when you also have to (according to the aformentioned orange book) disclose that a penalty double might be based on a running suit not just points. I've already also filled all the supplementary notes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Incidentally, I also don't have the meaning of a passed-hand double on my card and there is no room to add it. The box isn't very big there, particularly when you also have to (according to the aformentioned orange book) disclose that a penalty double might be based on a running suit not just points.Where does it say that? There is a part that (very sensibly) reads "The practice of doubling an opening 1NT for penalties (especially in the direct seat) on balanced hands which have fewer than 15 HCP must be shown on the convention card.", but I can find nothing about running suits. If such a requirement did exist, it would rather strange - every bridge book that discusses a penalty double of 1NT is likely to give one example of a balanced hand and one example with a solid suit. And, more pertinently IMO, which piece of information do you think is of more interest to an opponent looking at the card: the fact that a double by an unpassed hand might be based on a running suit, or the meaning of an artificial double by a passed hand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Incidentally, I also don't have the meaning of a passed-hand double on my card and there is no room to add it. The box isn't very big there, particularly when you also have to (according to the aformentioned orange book) disclose that a penalty double might be based on a running suit not just points. I've already also filled all the supplementary notes.If you play an artificial defence to 1NT and do not put it on your SC I really am amazed and disappointed. This is a clear breach of regulation. The OB is at pains to point out that defences to 1NT and two-suited defences must be described in full. :ph34r: It had occurred to me before I read this thread. I don't think I possess any special insight into this sort of situation. It's no different from a player failing to announce his opening notrump range, causing an interested opponent to ask the range, thereby creating UI for the other opponent. There was a thread about that in this forum a few weeks ago.I think it completely different. When someone forgets to announce it is normal to check, thus such a question provides no UI. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dburn Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 I think it completely different. When someone forgets to announce it is normal to check, thus such a question provides no UI.Yes, but failure to ask such a question does provide UI. Or do you mean to assert that when a 1NT opening is not announced, the next player is obliged to ask a question? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 If you play an artificial defence to 1NT and do not put it on your SC I really am amazed and disappointed. This is a clear breach of regulation. The OB is at pains to point out that defences to 1NT and two-suited defences must be described in full.Despite which the sample CC in the OB does not say how Messrs Smith and Jones play a passed-hand double of a weak 1NT. (My CCs for partnerships where I've discussed the meaning of a passed-hand double do have it on, FWIW.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Despite which the sample CC in the OB does not say how Messrs Smith and Jones play a passed-hand double of a weak 1NT.From which we can infer that Smith and Jones haven't discussed it, or have agreed that it doesn't exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.