Icelandic Pairs 2011

[Bad_Wolf]

I once met a pair who claimed their opening suit lengths were 5543! They had opened 1C. At the time we stupidly played methods contingent on openers club length. We asked what they bid with 4432, they had no idea, of course. "we just do the best we can" sort of thing.

 

It all depends on familiarity of course, in a simple natural method everybody knows that 1s-2c might be less than 4 clubs, so one doesn't need to "appease the lawyers", but if I strike a moscito pair who open 1d and say "9-14 4+h unbalanced" I will be surprised if it has only 3h. If they claim that this is a hole in their system I will say "bullshit".

 

I liken the current case to the moscito example, and thus agree with Nigel.

[blackshoe]

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

 

Were we talking about relay systems? I must've missed that memo. :o

[ggwhiz]

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 <_<

 

Fair enough. I was thinking imps, not matchpoints.

 

I feel strongly that if you are going to put a homegrown gadget on the table you have an obligation to plug all the holes or should suffer an adverse ruling when a hole you didn't cover comes up and now you can plug it putting the onus on the perpetrators, where it belongs.

 

This ruling has the tail wagging the dog. Can you really trot out a half-baked thing like this and win rulings while you complete it? Why bother to complete it if you win the rulings?

[hrothgar]

 

I feel strongly that if you are going to put a homegrown gadget on the table you have an obligation to plug all the holes or should suffer an adverse ruling when a hole you didn't cover comes up and now you can plug it putting the onus on the perpetrators, where it belongs.

 

 

Discriminating against systems that you don't like isn't one of the design goals of the Laws

[ggwhiz]

Discriminating against systems that you don't like isn't one of the design goals of the Laws

 

I don't dislike ANY systems if they come with full disclosure.

[hrothgar]

I don't dislike ANY systems if they come with full disclosure.

 

Couldn't care less...

 

What I do find highly objectionable is your statement that people playing particular systems should be treated differently by the legal system.

 

Inept disclosure is inept disclosure.

The Laws shouldn't care whether an infraction is generated by some senile LoL playing bog standard or incompetent kids playing a souped up system they don't understand.

[dburn]

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.

They might not realise that, and maybe they are not legally obliged to do so.

 

But if I'd been this East, and partner had categorically told South that I had three hearts, I might have said "actually, there are some hands in the context of our system on which I might bid 3♥ with only two". This is as close to full disclosure as I can get for practical purposes, but it may be that I'm just being masochistic again despite (or perhaps because of) already having gone eight down in four spades doubled elsewhere in these forums.

[Vampyr]

What I do find highly objectionable is your statement that people playing particular systems should be treated differently by the legal system.

 

 

The problem is that an unusual system will be unknown to the opponents; so they will not be able to make whatever negative inferences that might be available, and they will be totally unaware of holes in the system that might necessitate the use of a "wrong" bid for an otherwise unbiddable hand.

 

I also believe that when a player discovers such a hole, and finds a bid at the table with which to "plug" the hole render the unbiddable hand biddable, then such use of the bid was actually always a part of the system, and non-disclosure of this part of the system is MI, regardless of whether the OS knew about the possibility beforehand.

[gnasher]

They might not realise that, and maybe they are not legally obliged to do so.

 

But if I'd been this East, and partner had categorically told South that I had three hearts, I might have said "actually, there are some hands in the context of our system on which I might bid 3♥ with only two".

 

I might too, but it would depend on whether I thought I'd discovered a hole in the system, or had merely deviated from our agreed methods.

[hrothgar]

I also believe that when a player discovers such a hole, and finds a bid at the table with which to "plug" the hole render the unbiddable hand biddable, then such use of the bid was actually always a part of the system, and non-disclosure of this part of the system is MI, regardless of whether the OS knew about the possibility beforehand.

 

Let's extend the precise same logic to psyches:

 

1. You are claiming that "agreements" are based on bids made rather than explicit discussion

2. Furthermore, a single use of a bid renders that bid systemic, subject to disclosure, and (presumably) subject to system regulation...

 

See where I am going?

[gnasher]

Let's extend the precise same logic to psyches:

 

1. You are claiming that "agreements" are based on bids made rather than explicit discussion

2. Furthermore, a single use of a bid renders that bid systemic, subject to disclosure, and (presumably) subject to system regulation...

 

See where I am going?

That's not at all the same. When you psyche, you are making a non-systemic call even though you had a systemic call available. Vampyr and others are discussing the situation where you discover that there is no systemic call for a particular hand.

[bluejak]

I also believe that when a player discovers such a hole, and finds a bid at the table with which to "plug" the hole render the unbiddable hand biddable, then such use of the bid was actually always a part of the system, and non-disclosure of this part of the system is MI, regardless of whether the OS knew about the possibility beforehand.

I do not think this is right. If you make a call, knowing it shows a different hand from the one you hold, it is a principle oft repeated that you are under no obligation to tell your opponents. Compare a psyche where you do it deliberately or a misbid where you do it accidentally.

[Math609]

East, looking at a fairly balanced hand, had for some unknown reason problem with his first rebid. I think we should listen more carefully to what East said at the table, namely he had no other bid and 3♥ was the only bid available for him, playing this system. That is exactly what he said.

Do we need any further confirmation to go on?

Implicid or systematic agreement? I think so, hence MI or at least lack of information, but very unfortunate one.

Experienced or inexperienced par? Wery experinced par indeed!

[gnasher]

I do not think this is right. If you make a call, knowing it shows a different hand from the one you hold, it is a principle oft repeated that you are under no obligation to tell your opponents. Compare a psyche where you do it deliberately or a misbid where you do it accidentally.

 

Why should we compare this situation with a psyche or a misbid? The argument is about pre-existing agreements: if your agreements mean that a particular hand-type is unbiddable, that is arguably "special information conveyed to [you] through partnership agreement", and therefore information that must be passed on to the opponents under Law 40B6(a).

 

I can't see any parallel with auctions involving a psyche or a misbid.

[gnasher]

East, looking at a fairly balanced hand, had for some unknown reason problem with his first rebid. I think we should listen more carefully to what East said at the table, namely he had no other bid and 3♥ was the only bid available for him, playing this system. That is exactly what he said.

 

I have reread ICEMachine's posts, and I can't find anything to suggest that 3♥ was the only bid available. Where did you get that from?

 

There seem to be three relevant statements:

"East after the hand said that he had no bid for this hand in his system."

"The reason East didnt bid 2N was that he didnt want to bid it as it was NF"

"He didnt fancy to bid 3♣ with only 4 and Hx in hearts."

 

The last two seem to imply that he had two systemic alternatives, but chose a third non-systemic action. However, that's not really consistent with the first one.

[bluejak]

Why should we compare this situation with a psyche or a misbid? The argument is about pre-existing agreements: if your agreements mean that a particular hand-type is unbiddable, that is arguably "special information conveyed to [you] through partnership agreement", and therefore information that must be passed on to the opponents under Law 40B6(a).

 

I can't see any parallel with auctions involving a psyche or a misbid.

You are arguing that a player with no agreement to bid this way on this hand should invent an agreement he does not have. That is unnecessary for this hand, as for a psyche, as for a misbid: they are identical.

[bluejak]

I have reread ICEMachine's posts, and I can't find anything to suggest that 3♥ was the only bid available. Where did you get that from?

 

There seem to be three relevant statements:

"East after the hand said that he had no bid for this hand in his system."

"The reason East didnt bid 2N was that he didnt want to bid it as it was NF"

"He didnt fancy to bid 3♣ with only 4 and Hx in hearts."

 

The last two seem to imply that he had two systemic alternatives, but chose a third non-systemic action. However, that's not really consistent with the first one.

No, it suggests he was choosing between alternatives none of which suited this particular hand. This is reasonably common.

[ICEmachine]

East, looking at a fairly balanced hand, had for some unknown reason problem with his first rebid. I think we should listen more carefully to what East said at the table, namely he had no other bid and 3♥ was the only bid available for him, playing this system. That is exactly what he said.

Do we need any further confirmation to go on?

Implicid or systematic agreement? I think so, hence MI or at least lack of information, but very unfortunate one.

Experienced or inexperienced par? Wery experinced par indeed!

 

He said that without stoppers in diamonds there was no bid for him. With Kx in diamonds instead of QJ, I think he would have chosen 2NT which was NF.

East also said that EW agreements was that 3♥ was to be bid on hands with at least 3 card support.

 

East had to choose from available bids, and he chose 3♥. After choosing 3♥, why would East say that he could have chosen any other bid, when he chose this one?

 

This is similar to K - AJxx - AJxx - KJxx

 

Playing 5-card majors would you open 1♣/♦ and then .......

or would you open 1N?

 

The hand above is not balanced, but many would treat it as such. Choosing to show balanced hand when the hand is unbalanced by normal definitions.

If you decide to define 1444 distribution with a honour singleton as a balanced hand if it falls in your 1NT range, you should tell opponents and you should have it on your CC,

but of those that do.... do they ?

[gordontd]

If you make a call, knowing it shows a different hand from the one you hold, it is a principle oft repeated that you are under no obligation to tell your opponents. Compare a psyche where you do it deliberately or a misbid where you do it accidentally.

I remember consulting with you about a hand a couple of years ago in the Brighton Teams finals when the auction had gone:

 

1♥-1NT

2♣*-2♥

4♥

 

They had agreed to play transfer rebids, so that the 2♣ rebid showed diamonds; they had also agreed to play that a 3♣ rebid was natural and game-forcing. They had no agreement as to what to do with weaker hands with clubs and the player (a professional playing his partner's system) chose to rebid 2♣ with a 2524 17-count.

 

We ruled that the defending side had been mis-informed because they were entitled to know of the gap in the system for hands with clubs that were not strong enough for a 3♣ rebid.

 

However, we also ruled that the misinformation had not damaged them because the opening bidder had effectively changed his mind and continued the auction as though he had a game-forcing hand (even though he had not), and so the information that we thought the defenders were entitled to would not have led them to conclude on this auction that he might have a hand with clubs rather than diamonds.

[gnasher]

You are arguing that a player with no agreement to bid this way on this hand should invent an agreement he does not have. That is unnecessary for this hand, as for a psyche, as for a misbid: they are identical.

No I'm not. The argument I stated was:

 

If your agreements mean that a particular hand-type is unbiddable, that is arguably "special information conveyed to [you] through partnership agreement"

 

I'm not saying East should claim to have an agreement to bid 3♥ on this hand. I'm saying that agreements about the meanings of other bids may convey special information to East, and if so this special information should be given to the opponents.

 

I'm not entirely convinced by this argument, but I'm confident that it wouldn't apply in a situation where East had pschyed or misbid.

[gnasher]

He said that without stoppers in diamonds there was no bid for him. With Kx in diamonds instead of QJ, I think he would have chosen 2NT which was NF.

Where does it say that in ICEMachine's post?

[ICEmachine]

Where does it say that in ICEMachine's post?

 

This is what East said when asked why he bid 3♥. So from that you can say that 3♥ was the only bid on this hand from East's point of view.

 

Still, when I asked him what his alternatives were, he told me his options that I wrote in the first post, so when he bid 3♥ he was choosing 1 bid from among 3 that all had flaws.

 

2NT would show a balanced hand without 3-card support, but when I asked him why he didnt chose that one, he said it was because he didnt have a diamond stopper.

[Math609]

Lets get all the facts. EW is a very experinced par and wery honest par indeed. I have already pointed out what East said at the table: I had no other bid on this hand (no other than 3♥). And he did repeat this again a few moments later. This was an honest explaination from an honest player, no doubt about that. But still...something was wrong here. EW was playing a very rare and highly unusal system and they did obviously not have more normal bid available on this pretty normal hand. So, if they didnt, 3♥ must be the systematic bidding in this case. If not, we better talk about non-system. And as I said before: Do we need any further confirmation to carry on?

 

How do I know all this for sure? I was at the table, I was talking to East! Our conversation is firmly confirmed.

 

It sounds like a paradox if East had picked 3♥ out of ,,possible,, bids because no such possibillities was explained, neither at the table nor in front of the tournament director. On the contrary 3♥ was the only bid available for the East hand and that was confirmed by East. So, all explainations about so called ,,possible,, bids are indeed afterwards-explainations and was brought in to the daylight 2-3 days after the ruling of AC. Also this so called hole in EW-system.

 

As I have said before this was a rather unfortunate incident, but who is going to pay the bill? The offensive par or the defenders?

 

Now you have all the facts!

[nige1]

As I have said before this was a rather unfortunate incident, but who is going to pay the bill? The offensive pair or the defenders?

Like Math609, I think there was a misexplanation; but like everyone else, I agree that the law is often equivocal when a player seems stupid, ignorant, lazy, or careless.

 

In this case and in other contexts, the law seems to specify no duty of care.

 

An extreme example: an opponent leads ♥A against your 7♠ contract. On casual inspection, you seem to have a heart void. If so, you have an easy thirteen tricks. There is no practical incentive for you to check further. If you ruff and claim, then the worst that is likely to happen is the director rules against you when it is discovered that, unbeknownst to you, a heart is lurking somewhere. On a lucky day, however, opponents will be out of contention and may not even check themselves. The deliberate omission of deterrence means that, for some kinds of infraction, "Equity" Law positively rewards such carelessness.

[gnasher]

Now you have all the facts!

 

Do we? We seem to have at least two different versions of the facts.

 

Can I suggest that you and ICEMachine agree between you what the facts actually are, then tell us your agreed version of the facts, and then don't change it again?