Icelandic Pairs 2011

[iviehoff]

East cannot be penalised for his pass if his (legal) system mandates it.

East can't be penalised for making what he considers the best available call, because there is no penalty for deviations from system. Once this pair have learned from the bridge-lawyers to cover their tail by describing many bids as "usually holds", they will have no problem with it in future, apart from sometimes ending up in an uncomfortable 5-2 fit.

[RMB1]

I agree with the AC. If there is an identifiable hole in your system then you have an implicit agreement that hands in the hole have to make a call that the system does not cover. Your implicit agreement for any call = systemic agreement + any hole hand. This is disclosable, even if the hole has not been identified before.

[blackshoe]

"You have to disclose this hole." "I didn't know there was a hole." "That's irrelevant." :( :blink:

[hrothgar]

I agree with the AC. If there is an identifiable hole in your system then you have an implicit agreement that hands in the hole have to make a call that the system does not cover. Your implicit agreement for any call = systemic agreement + any hole hand. This is disclosable, even if the hole has not been identified before.

 

So, in the future, to protect myself, I should attach meaningless qualifiers to each and every bid that I make...

 

True, this doesn't provide any useful information

And, of course, this will waste enormous amounts of time

 

However, at least I'll be protected from idiots on appeal committees and, if I get lucky, providing extraneous information will confuse and distract the opponents.

[awm]

Do the opponents have a systemic agreement that they can bid 3♥ on doubleton? It seems that they have not formally made such an agreement, but I think there are two cases where a director or committee should still rule that an agreement exists. One is where they have substantial partnership experience of such calls being made on doubleton (implicit agreement). This seemed not to be the case. The other is where there is a common hand-type which cannot be described accurately in their system, where they might choose such a distortion frequently. This seems like it might be the case here, but apparently they were not aware of the potential problem! I guess we could rule that they "should've been aware" but that's a tough ruling to justify in most cases (it might depend on their general reputation as system theorists I guess).

 

I rather think the table result should stand, but if we're ruling MI then it shouldn't be one of these fractional rulings... the result should be 4♥-1.

[jallerton]

There is a requirement, iirc, to disclose relevant information from calls not made (for example, in the case of a "full set" of super-accepts) so I suppose that full disclosure in answer to "what's 3♥?" should include the meaning of 2NT and any other super-accept. OTOH, I would be very surprised if more than a very few players actually did that. I would expect a lot of resistance to "all that wasting time". Maybe, as suggested in another thread, we should rule MI when this is not done, and let the cards fall where they may, but I'm not so sure that would have the desired effect.

 

I am sure that all pairs have holes in their system. Just because the system is complicated is no reason to treat it differently.

 

But I believe that what matters is whether E/W know they have a hole in their system. If they did know it before this hand came up, then they have an implicit agreement that 3♥ shows three hearts, but because of a known hole in the system it might not be, and that is disclosable. If they do not realise the hole or the specific hands not covered they have no agreement so nothing to disclose.

 

If E/W had been playing a relatively simple system such that N/S could reasonably know the meanings of all alternative calls, then N/S would have had as much informstion as East and West about the E/W methods and hence would have as much chance to detect any "unbiddable" hands in the E/W methods.

 

But if, as here, E/W play are playing an unusual method and all they tell N/S is that 3♥ showed 3+ hearts, then N/S are entitled to assume that E/W have agreed to make particular alternative calls on all hands with 0-2 hearts.

 

In the circumstances, a more accurate explanation of the 3♥ bid might be "natural, invitational, usually 3+ hearts". West may not have been aware of the system hole, but East clearly was. Should East have corrected West's explanation by, for example, adding the words "in principle"?

[jallerton]

I rather think the table result should stand, but if we're ruling MI then it shouldn't be one of these fractional rulings... the result should be 4♥-1.

 

What's wrong with a weighted ("fractional" as you call it) ruling? If you consider that, with correct information, South might or might not have found the right defence, then weighted rulings are the best estimate that can be done to "restore equity".

[Trinidad]

"You have to disclose this hole." "I didn't know there was a hole." "That's irrelevant." :( :blink:

It would certainly be relevant... if only it were credible.

 

If you go through the trouble of devising a relay system, you will be aware of the holes in your system and you will know what to do about them. And in this case we are dealing with opener's rebid in a non contested auction.

 

"You have to disclose this hole." "I didn't know there was a hole." "Go and fool somebody else." :P

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I rather think the table result should stand, but if we're ruling MI then it shouldn't be one of these fractional rulings... the result should be 4♥-1.

What's wrong with a weighted ("fractional" as you call it) ruling? If you consider that, with correct information, South might or might not have found the right defence, then weighted rulings are the best estimate that can be done to "restore equity".

There is nothing wrong in general with weighted rulings. I think that Adam means that in this case there is something wrong with such a ruling. He believes (and I do too) that South would have set 4♥ 100 % of the time if he would have known that 3♥ could have been bid on a doubleton.

 

I think that South would have set 4♥ also in the case where he would not have had any information about the amount of hearts that were promised.

 

Rik

[bluejak]

Some strange posts here.

 

Clever, Nigel, to pick up on a trivial pedantic error: of course when he said "there was no systemic bid for the hand" he meant "there was no systemic call for the hand" and I think your suggestion that that enforces a pass very silly indeed.

 

I think that if you rule there was MI and believe that the correct defence would be found 100% of the time you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The correct explanation was [possibly] it shows 3+ hearts, but there are a few shapes that are not biddable under our methods. Anyone who believes that a defender knowing this will always play the bidder to have only two hearts seems an incredible optimist: that is just not what players do.

 

Perhaps the most interesting suggestion is whether a pair has committed an infraction in not disclosing that there is a hole in their system of which they are not aware. My view is simple: no. But I understand the argument for yes. I think people get too much affected by the artificiality of such a system: if you play a simple natural system you will often get to a state where a hand seems unbiddable, but no-one really suggests that you should have told the opponents if you had not realised this previously.

 

You want an example of hole in a simple natural system? Ok, how do you bid the following playing Acol or Standard American:

 

[hv=pc=n&e=sj654h8d54ckq7654&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1hp]133|200[/hv]

 

I shall tell you the answer in a day or so.

 

One view that intrigued me is the one that they did know there was a hole in the system because if you devise a complex system you will know the holes. From experience of many years this is plain wrong: there are always unknown holes, and I have devised a few in my time!

[nige1]

So, in the future, to protect myself, I should attach meaningless qualifiers to each and every bid that I make...

What for?

True, this doesn't provide any useful information. And, of course, this will waste enormous amounts of time

So why do it?

However, at least I'll be protected from idiots on appeal committees and, if I get lucky, providing extraneous information will confuse and distract the opponents.

:) :) :)

[nige1]

Clever, Nigel, to pick up on a trivial pedantic error: of course when he said "there was no systemic bid for the hand" he meant "there was no systemic call for the hand" and I think your suggestion that that enforces a pass very silly indeed.

I didn't mean to steal your thunder, Bluejak :)

My opinion is that there was a misexplanation not a misbid.

My view is similar to RMB1's but he stated it more succinctly.

 

Perhaps the most interesting suggestion is whether a pair has committed an infraction in not disclosing that there is a hole in their system of which they are not aware. My view is simple: no. But I understand the argument for yes. I think people get too much affected by the artificiality of such a system: if you play a simple natural system you will often get to a state where a hand seems unbiddable, but no-one really suggests that you should have told the opponents if you had not realised this previously.

I agre with Bluejak that It's easy to leave holes in your system. But when an opponent asks the meaning of partner's call in a new context, the suggestion is that you mentally check whether the call could be mandated by a previously unconsidered hole; and, if so, let the opponents in on the secret.

[Math609]

Was the Appeal Committee on the right track? Possibly yes, but this is a wery difficult case for many reasons: Highly unusal system, very uncommon to their opponents. And let´s not forget the statement from East: He had no other rebid on an fairly balanced hand and 3♥ was the only bid available for his hand. Misinformation? Yes, to some degree. Fair...and fair to whom? I dont know, justice is blind!

More tomorrow about the AC ruling.

Jón Thorvardarson, Iceland

[ggwhiz]

My feeling is that if this hole in the system has happened before, meaning an implicit agreement exists, no one can possibly know without administering sodium pentathol.

 

If it is a legit first-time occurence hole in the system, the pair playing such an unusual and artificial method should pay the price in committee and will therefore fix it immediately. And with a recorded history of this "thing" they invented should it happen again.

[gordontd]

And let´s not forget the statement from East: He had no other rebid on an fairly balanced hand and 3♥ was the only bid available for his hand.

Let's also not forget that he told us he couldn't bid 2NT because it was non-forcing.... so he bid 3H which was non-forcing.

[gnasher]

My feeling is that if this hole in the system has happened before, meaning an implicit agreement exists, no one can possibly know without administering sodium pentathol.

Couldn't we just ask them?

[Trinidad]

One view that intrigued me is the one that they did know there was a hole in the system because if you devise a complex system you will know the holes. From experience of many years this is plain wrong: there are always unknown holes, and I have devised a few in my time!

You will certainly have holes in any system. There are holes everywhere, certainly when the opponents come into thet auction.

 

But I find it highly unlikely that:

- You play a relay system.

- You play in a serious tournament.

- You get into an uncontested auction.

- And suddenly there you discover that you have a hole in your system: Opener doesn't have a rebid for an 18-19 NT without three card support for partner.

 

Do you really believe that this pair has not had an 18-19 balanced opener with a doubleton in partner's suit before?

 

Rik

[gnasher]

East's statements aren't entirely consistent, but one interpretation is that they did have a system bid for a balanced 18-count with a doubleton heart - 2NT - but East chose not to make it, possibly because of the weak diamond holding, or possibly because he just doesn't like playing in 2NT. Similarly, they did have a system bid for a hand with spades and clubs, but East chose not to make this because of the weak clubs and strong hearts.

 

If that's the case, what East has actually done is to intentionally misrepresent his heart length, departing from the partnership's agreed methods, because in his judgement that is preferable to either of the systemic choices. If he doesn't do this often enough to make it an implicit agreement, I don't think there's any misinformation.

Edited March 16, 2011 by gnasher

[Math609]

South played the correct defense according to the information available to him. South combined all his chances he had in theory by cashing ♦A (3-4 hearts in the East hand): 1) Spade ruff+♣A or 2) club to partners AQ or 3) club to partners Ace, securing all the defensive tricks in a pairs tournament.

 

This deal was put before the Appeal Committee (AC) and I think it is of a great interest to discuss its ruling: 1/5 versus 4/5. It is very important for us to understand the logical and mathematical thinking behind this ruling. The AC worked according to the requisite (principle) that it was fair to estimate that East holds ♥Kx 20% of the time. Let´s say, for arguments sake, that this estimation is correct. Now South, given the necessary information about the highly unusual EW-system (which he did not get in the opinion of the AC), should be given the opportunity to base his defense on this ground. This understanding of the AC is confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt. Hence this ruling: 1 down 20% of the time and contract made 80% of the time (in reality a 10% correction from topscore).

 

It is rather easy to see why this conclusion is wrong and where the failure in the line of thought lies. If South is allowed to assume for ♥Kx in the East hand 20% of the time you must also allow him to assume for ♥Kxx at the same time! Namely one thing leads to another and are combined. Let’s say, also for arguments sake, that East holds ♥Kxx 50% of the time. And remember we have an agreement for ♥Kx in the East hand 20% of the time. Then South can plan his defense by combining his chances and his plan should work 70% of the time – playing a spade immediately. Either putting the contract down or securing all the defnsive tricks. Only when East holds exactly 4-card suit in hearts is this the wrong defense. So, by putting a new variable into the defense-equation (20%-variable) it changes the whole landscape enormously for the defense. My conclusion is that the AC was a little too hasty and did not not work out this problem properly, at least not from a mathematical point of view.

 

Was there a severe damage to the defense? Yes, as I have shown...and much greater than just allowing NS to put the contract down 20% of the time. Maybe a reverse ruling was justifiable or even 4♥-1 was justifiable because of serious damage to the defense.

Misinformation or lack of information? That is another story!

Jón Thorvardarson, Iceland

[dburn]

If that's the case, what East has actually done is to intentionally misrepresent his heart length, departing from the partnership's agreed methods, because in his judgement that is preferable to either of the systemic choices. If he doesn't do this often enough to make it an implicit agreement, I don't think there's any misinformation.

He has just done it often enough to make it an implicit agreement.

[gnasher]

He has just done it often enough to make it an implicit agreement.

<br><br>Sorry, I should have said "If he hasn't done it often enough..."<br><br>I was trying to avoid having to define "often".

<br>

[dburn]

Did anyone ask East why he did not correct his partner's explanation?

[ggwhiz]

South lead ♠2 and declarer took it with ♠K and lead a heart to the ♥K and ♥A. Now South reguired further information about the bidding and was told that 3♥ was at least 3-card support and invitational to game. Now South took the ♦A and gave his partner a ♠ ruff and declarer took the rest of the tricks.

 

 

This portion of the original post with the timing and nature of the requested information suggest that South would always get the defence right with a full explanation. Doesn't it?

[Math609]

This portion of the original post with the timing and nature of the requested information suggest that South would always get the defence right with a full explanation. Doesn't it?

We can obviously not think along this line while analysing this particular problem. Why? South, beyond any doubt, had to ask this question at this moment in the defense. He could obviously not play spade back without further information, Why again? Because it is the wrong defense if East had promised 4-card suit in heart with his jump to 3♥. Bridge is not a poker <_<

[gnasher]

Did anyone ask East why he did not correct his partner's explanation?

 

If they had, it seems likely that East would have said that he believed his partner had correctly described their agreements, and therefore no correction was necessary. It may be that the rules require East to modify the explanation by adding a description of the unbiddable hand-type(s), but if so I think few players would realise that.