Implicit agreements

[McBruce]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj85hkqt765d2c984&w=s972haj94dkq4ckq3&n=sk6h32daj9753ca62&e=saqt43h8dt86cjt75&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1d1s2hdp2sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This deal occurred in an ACBL Grand National Teams club game. East's second bid was actually an insufficient 2♣, not accepted by South and corrected to 2♠, preventing West from bidding further. No calls were alerted.

 

At the end of the play, I was called back to the table. A result of +170 to E-W had been agreed, but West claimed that the South hand had failed to alert a negative free bid. A non-forcing 2♥ is alertable in the ACBL. North and South refused to admit at the table that this call was unusual for their partnership and argued that the extra length in hearts made the call OK, albeit lighter than expected. Away from the opponents later they claimed 2♥ was a mistaken bid and that what they were trying to say was that the South player had the right to make a non-system bid. Had West not doubled, North would be forced to make a call, they now claimed.

 

In the meantime I had ruled that they had an implicit agreement that 2♥ might be weak, evidenced by the hand, their comments at the time, and the rest of the auction, in which North chose to sell out to 2♠ with an opening hand opposite a free bid. I ruled it likely that West would choose 3NT with this knowledge and make it for +600, and found this to be also the most unfavorable result that was at all probable for N-S had the implicit agreement been known. Since N-S at the other table was +500 in 4♠ doubled, this turned a +12 into a +15 in IMPs, making the ruling itself responsible for a single VP.

 

1) Is there enough evidence here to make the ruling that N-S have the implicit agreement that free bids can be quite weak?

2) How much evidence does a TD need to assume an implicit agreement?

3) If I had decided that the 2♥ call was a mistaken bid and let the score stand, what should happen to the pair the next time this (or something similar) happens?

4) What can a TD do when a player makes a non-system action that works, such as an underbid or a strange choice of lead, and the opponents claim that the player or the partnership does this sort of thing quite often?

[Phil]

1. Did you ask North why he sold out to 2♠?

 

2. What was the meaning of West's double. If its penalties (very possible looking at his hand), why would N consider other contracts?

 

3. Do you have more evidence that NS play NFB's? The fact that 2♥ was fielded doesn't terrible concern me. This time.

 

OTOH, I'd be a little suspicious of the 2♣-->2♠ 'Alcatraz Coup' and a Law 27B(3)--> Law 23 adjustment might be in order to perhaps 4♠ x'd -1 (how did it go -2 at the other table?).

[ggwhiz]

I'm no authority but tend to think you got this tough call right.

 

Experience level? I know lots of intermediates (and a couple of pluses) that play NFB's, don't alert or really understand what they are and why they should.

 

The pass of 2♠ by north has me convinced, perhaps body language or a fast pass by south after west was barred?

 

Again, passing 2♠ if pards 2♥ call was truly standard and forcing is a non-starter as west is barred for the REST OF THE AUCTION.

 

I can easily see myself shooting 3nt as west to gain a tempo in my minor suit holdings if 2♥ is alerted as well.

[Bbradley62]

OTOH, I'd be a little suspicious of the 2♣-->2♠ 'Alcatraz Coup' and a Law 27B(3)--> Law 23 adjustment might be in order to perhaps 4♠ x'd -1 (how did it go -2 at the other table?).

Agreed!! I'm way more suspicious of this than I am of anything N/S did. South made an aggressive bid, presumably willing to live with the consequences if North bid a lot after it, but West took them off the hook. I'd file a Recorder form on East.

[gnasher]

You seem to be conflating "2♥ could be weak" with "2♥ is non-forcing". It is possible to play that 2♥ is forcing but doesn't promise any more than what South actually had.

 

I can see no evidence in South's hand, North's actions, or North-South's comments that they play this 2♥ bid as non-forcing. So I don't think you have any grounds for ruling that they failed to alert a "negative free bid".

 

There is evidence that they play it as weaker than most people do. That might make it alertable anyway, on the grounds that it's less than "about the expected strength" for 2♥.

 

 

If there has been a failure to alert a forcing, but potentially weak, 2♥ bid, I don't see why West would have bid any differently. He has the same 15 points that he had on the actual auction; why would he choose to start with double on one auction but 3NT on the other?

 

It semes to me that the main reasons EW didn't bid 3NT were (a) they didn't have enough points, and (b) East made an insufficient bid.

[bluejak]

There is no real connection between the two sides: it is perfectly possible that East did something fishy and that N/S play negative free bids and then lied about it. You should always look at these things separately.

 

I think Phil's questions are very much on point: if you think North's actions suggest something the first thing you should always do is to ask him why he made the calls he did. Too often TDs do not do this.

 

You ask whether there is a sufficient evidence to assume that they are playing negative free bids: the answer is that since this is a judgement decision you find everything out and make a judgement: if you think the judgement is that they were playing negative free bids then that is sufficient evidence.

 

As for the future I suggest that whenever an action seems suspicious without it being enough to rule against a pair you do what the EBU does: take and keep a written record, making it clear to the pair that you are doing so. Whether you ever look at this record again or not, you will have made your intentions clear, and a repeat is considerably less likely as a result.

[ggwhiz]

Very tough to uncover the real facts here. You can ask this and that but have to weigh the credibility of the response.

 

However, after west has been barred forever, I find the north pass of 2♠ to be out of bounds unless 2♥ was non-forcing (which requires an alert).

 

A 3♦ call is a stand out otherwise on these cards. On the actual hand, this might end the auction or 3 hearts by south would and I would be MUCH more inclined to accept the N/S arguments.

[barmar]

I don't understand everyone's questioning North's final pass. Even if South has his expected values, North is likely to downgrade his hand because of the poorly positioned ♠K. And West's double suggests that South's hearts won't be a source of many tricks. So their presumed combined 22 HCP might actually be worth only 16-18 HCP.

[ggwhiz]

I don't understand everyone's questioning North's final pass.

 

It's IMPs and 2 hearts was forcing without an alert

[bluejak]

I don't understand everyone's questioning North's final pass. Even if South has his expected values, North is likely to downgrade his hand because of the poorly positioned ♠K. And West's double suggests that South's hearts won't be a source of many tricks. So their presumed combined 22 HCP might actually be worth only 16-18 HCP.

Fine. So opposite South's game values, North will downgrade his hand and make no slam try!

 

What presumed 22 count? If partner's 2♥ is forcing it is unlimited, and is not the pass over 2♠ is forcing?

 

Ok, it is possible 2♥ is forcing, South is an real optimist, and North is a real pessimist. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, let's assume it is a pigeon. :(

[gnasher]

Are we all looking at the same rules? This is what I read:

 

Two-over-one bids are not Alertable if they are natural and forcing for at least one round.

 

If South's 2♥ was forcing for one round, that means that North was expected to keep the bidding open for one round. If it had gone

1

♦

1

♠

2

♥

pass

North would have been required to bid. When, however, West doubled over 2♥, North could keep the bidding open by passing. His first pass fulfilled his obligations for this round.

 

The "one round" covered by South's 2♥ bid ended with East's 2♠ bid. North's third call occurred in a subsequent round, and he was therefore not obliged to act.

[McBruce]

Interesting comments so far. Let me elaborate further on some of the subjects raised:

 

I don't think East sought any advantage by making the insufficient bid and then barring partner with the 2♠ call. Away from the table East told me that it had simply not registered that South had bid at the 2-level and a bid at the 3-level was necessary to show the club suit. South was made aware before declining to accept the insufficient call that the replacement call would bar partner. At the table I got the impression that East was going to reluctantly bid 3♣ until informed that any other legal call would bar partner. So if the insufficient bid was deliberate to get partner barred, it was an Oscar-worthy acting job, and rather foolish, especially if partner is doubling for penalties without a spade fit.

 

I didn't specifically ask North about selling out to 2♠, but the other comments North made seemed to imply that "extra length without strength" was a possibility for partner's call. North claimed that the auction had uncovered a misfit, and bidding on was dangerous. To me this seemed to indicate that North expected significantly less than what South showed, thus there was some implicit idea that 2♥ could have a wide range--even if they played it as 'forcing'. E-W are entitled to this information and without it could have been damaged.

 

I realize that if an agreement is implicit a player may not realize it at the time, making disclosure difficult. But the normal approach-- do you play this? is it on your system card? why did you do this then? --seems to me to allow players to conceal conventions by claiming there is no agreement, which many have learned to do quite skilfully. A good player who knows North well told me the solution was for North to better communicate that there is no agreement. That's part of it, but another part of it is making calls that show you believe partner more than the opponents.

 

North continued to discuss/argue the point after I had left the table to look at the hand record and decide what to do, so much so that I had to return more than once to tell them to quiet down and get on with the other boards. West does have a history of being a needler (although mostly to East!) but in this case North was responsible for the continued discussion (while the same preduplicated boards were in play throughout the room). They called once more to ask for a ruling and although I had decided by then I told them I would not give them the ruling until they finished the match, since this would cause even more bickering. Predictably, North was incensed at the decision, South argued that the auction had gone 'the same way at the other table with no alert' (untrue: it began 1♦ - DOUBLE - 2♥, believe it or not!). In a post-game discussion, I accepted North's assurance that their free bids would never be so weak again but left the 3 IMP/1 VP swing that resulted from the ruling in: call it a fine instead of an adjustment!

[helene_t]

FWIW, I think North's final pass is normal. I would have done the same.

 

As for South's 2♥ bid, assuming it is forcing, I am not sure how normal it is. His hand is a lot weaker than the minimum I would have for that bid myself, but I have seen people making such bids.

 

I really dislike accusing people of lying so I would be inclined to believe that 2♥ is forcing. And even if it isn't, it is not clear if West wouldn't have doubled also over an alerted 2♥ bid so that the result would have been the same.

 

Oh wait, if 2♥ had been alerted, then East might have payed more attention to South's bidding and not made the insufficient bid. And: did NS have a convention card that confirmed that they were not playing NFB? If not then it might be a good opportunity to teach them that failure to fill in a CC weakens their position when the TD needs to know their true agreements.

 

So this case is difficult and it's a pity that you can't assign weighted results in the ACBL (for example based on the assumption that W might have bid 3NT 50% of the time if 2♥ had been alerted). Fortunately, both sides should feel a little embarrassed about it (E for the insufficient bid, NS for the vagueness of their agreements) so neither side has reason for being upset by an unfavorable ruling.

[Bbradley62]

South argued that the auction had gone 'the same way at the other table with no alert' (untrue: it began 1♦ - DOUBLE - 2♥, believe it or not!).

Wow! Did you quiz the second E/W about their implicit agreements about that double?

[gnasher]

I realize that if an agreement is implicit a player may not realize it at the time, making disclosure difficult. But the normal approach-- do you play this? is it on your system card? why did you do this then? --seems to me to allow players to conceal conventions by claiming there is no agreement, which many have learned to do quite skilfully. A good player who knows North well told me the solution was for North to better communicate that there is no agreement. That's part of it, but another part of it is making calls that show you believe partner more than the opponents.

 

I don't understand this paragraph at all. From what you've said, both North and South told you that the South hand was in range for a 2♥ bid in their methods. Which aspect of their methods do you think they tried to conceal from you?

[pretzalz]

I don't understand. The result was entirely caused by the insufficient bid; why would you ever adjust in E/W's favor?

[bluejak]

Probably because some of us think the result was in part caused by North-South playing methods that they had concealed from the opposition which is an infraction. Or to put it another way, if we had agreed with your premise then no doubt we would agree with your conclusion, but some of us do not agree with your premise.

[pretzalz]

Probably because some of us think the result was in part caused by North-South playing methods that they had concealed from the opposition which is an infraction. Or to put it another way, if we had agreed with your premise then no doubt we would agree with your conclusion, but some of us do not agree with your premise.

 

Even if I agreed with you, doesn't that just mean NS gets -600 and EW +170?

[gnasher]

Probably because some of us think the result was in part caused by North-South playing methods that they had concealed from the opposition which is an infraction.

As I understand it, you think NS failed to alert a bid that requires an alert. Just to be clear, are you saying that NS's bid is alertable because:

(1) Their agremeent is that 2♥ could be followed by two passes

(2) Their agreement is that 2♥ is less than "about the expected strength"

(3) An agreement that North can pass out 2♠ makes 2♥ alertable.

(4) Something else

[hotShot]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj85hkqt765d2c984&w=s972haj94dkq4ckq3&n=sk6h32daj9753ca62&e=saqt43h8dt86cjt75&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1d1s2hdp2sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This deal occurred in an ACBL Grand National Teams club game. ...

 

At the end of the play, I was called back to the table. A result of +170 to E-W had been agreed, but West claimed that the South hand had failed to alert a negative free bid. A non-forcing 2♥ is alertable in the ACBL.

 

Maybe there was a misinformation, but it caused no damage to West. North opened, East overcalled and West holds 15 HCP. It is obvious to West that South can only have a minimum hand, probably upgraded because of the shape. If West assumes 12HCP with opener, 8 HCP in partners hand and 15 in his own, there are only 5 left for South. Knowing that which other bid would West have made leading to a better contract? No adjustment for EW.

 

North knows that LHO overcalled and that RHO dbled, that is sufficient warning not to overbid and even if the 2♥ bid was forcing, there is no need for him to bid.

I don't think there is enough evidence for a split score.

[bluejak]

As I understand it, you think NS failed to alert a bid that requires an alert. Just to be clear, are you saying that NS's bid is alertable because:

(1) Their agremeent is that 2♥ could be followed by two passes

(2) Their agreement is that 2♥ is less than "about the expected strength"

(3) An agreement that North can pass out 2♠ makes 2♥ alertable.

(4) Something else

(1)

[gnasher]

(1)

 

What is the evidence that they play 2♥ as non-forcing (rather than as a one-round force, potentially this strength, and not setting up a force over an opposing 2♠)?

[bluejak]

The evidence in the OP.

[WellSpyder]

The evidence in the OP.

I understand gnasher's doubts about this since I don't see any clear evidence in the OP that NS play 2♥ as NF. Sure, West claimed they must be playing negative free bids, but there is no sign that NS agreed that 2♥ was NF.

[shyams]

As I understand it, you think NS failed to alert a bid that requires an alert. Just to be clear, are you saying that NS's bid is alertable because:(1) Their agremeent is that 2♥ could be followed by two passes(2) Their agreement is that 2♥ is less than "about the expected strength"(3) An agreement that North can pass out 2♠ makes 2♥ alertable.(4) Something else

(1)

Disagree