Icelandic Pairs 2011

[bluejak]

Again I am not referring to all conventions, not even close. But it is kind of a zoo out there, and as I have stated before, my views are mostly aimed at disruptive/destructive conventions which are certainly not better for any sort of constructive bidding but are designed to raise havoc for the opponents.

If you are - and you certainly did not say so - then everything you have written on the subject is irrelevant to this case where it was constructive bidding not destructive bidding that was involved.

[bessi2]

If you are - and you certainly did not say so - then everything you have written on the subject is irrelevant to this case where it was constructive bidding not destructive bidding that was involved.

I apologize if I was unclear but I did use the word "mostly". A convention played by perhaps 4-8% (by no means sure, but according to my experience, I feel that I am being generous) of pairs in the world, in my opinion, falls under the definition of a highly unusual convention. I also apologize for being unclear as to what conventions I was referring. Was just getting tired of writing "highly unusual (often disruptive) conventions, as I had done so before. After reading previous posts, it was my intention to discuss the point of unusual conventions in general as well as the case itself. Actually, I believe I mentioned in my first post that this case was a mild case of what I was discussing. But it certainly falls under the scope of it.

It might be interesting to discuss what people consider unusual or highly unusual conventions especially when it comes to constructive conventions. I guess there would be somewhat individual based answers, partly based on the region where they live. What is considered standard in, for example, Italy would probably not be considered standard in Iceland, or the US, so on and so forth. Who or what decides what is considered mainstream nowadays ?

[Math609]

As I have looked more closely into this case I’m convinced that West wasn’t carefull enough when describing his partners bid of 3♥, especially when playing a rare and unusual system unknown to his opponents. Hence, his (very) inaccurate description misled the defence with horrible consequences for the defence as you all know. But whether this is classified under misexplaination, misinformation or something else I will leve it to the law experts to discuss.

 

In my opinion West should have described the bidding of 3♥ closely to the following way:

,,3♥ is an invitational (natural) bid, 2NT wouldn’t have been a forcing bid,,

 

With this wery brief description he says about everything that has to be said concerning the pairs method of bidding and some of the main structure of the system. That 2NT is not a forcing bid is a substantial and valuable information that should not be a ,,hidden folder,, in the EW-system. Certainly not.

 

Whether West’s very inadequate or misleading answer was due to carelessness or laziness is not the issue here. We all pay our price for that kind of behavior at the bridge table (many times actually) and also according to the law. My final verdict: 4♥-1 (both ways). True, it is a harsh ruling but what else can we do?

[bessi2]

In my opinion West should have described the bidding of 3♥ closely to the following way:

,,3♥ is an invitational (natural) bid, 2NT wouldn’t have been a forcing bid,,

I don't think anyone can fault west for a very reasonable answer, in his mind his pd surely promised fit, as it probably would to anyone playing the convention i would imagine. Not sure how west could ever foresee this if it was a first time occurrance. In my opinion it was e-w's convention structure, or the seemingly lack thereof, that did the real damage. Either that or simply east's peculiar decision to bid 3♥, depending on what your opinion of the case is.

There is another point I would like to mention. I have already stated that, in my opinion, e-w's convention structure is undiscussed. Subsequently, I suggested that in that case e-w had no real agreement = misinformation. It was the BID itself that makes it somewhat obvious in my opinion. Now let's give east a hand like AJ109x KQ Axxx xx. If he had bid 3♥ on a hand like this (with the same following ruckus) I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever, then the bid suggests nothing else than good bridge judgment and, unusual convention or not, I would definately not be in favour of ruling against them in any way.

It should be noted that such hands are extremely rare so 3+♥ is an overwhelming likelihood. But if east can bid 3♥ on his actual hand or, given east's own comments, any good hands not including both minor stoppers, then the it most be deduced that it is rather frequant for east to hold a doubleton ♥

[ggwhiz]

I don't think anyone can fault west for a very reasonable answer, in his mind his pd surely promised fit, as it probably would to anyone playing the convention i would imagine. Not sure how west could ever foresee this if it was a first time occurrance. In my opinion it was e-w's convention structure, or the seemingly lack thereof, that did the real damage. Either that or simply east's peculiar decision to bid 3♥, depending on what your opinion of the case is.

There is another point I would like to mention. I have already stated that, in my opinion, e-w's convention structure is undiscussed. Subsequently, I suggested that in that case e-w had no real agreement = misinformation. It was the BID itself that makes it somewhat obvious in my opinion. Now let's give east a hand like AJ109x KQ Axxx xx. If he had bid 3♥ on a hand like this (with the same following ruckus) I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever, then the bid suggests nothing else than good bridge judgment and, unusual convention or not, I would definately not be in favour of ruling against them in any way.

It should be noted that such hands are extremely rare so 3+♥ is an overwhelming likelihood. But if east can bid 3♥ on his actual hand or, given east's own comments, any good hands not including both minor stoppers, then the it most be deduced that it is rather frequant for east to hold a doubleton ♥

 

 

I don't disagree with any of this, especially the way the laws are currently structured however, it just feels REALLY wrong that we simply take the potentially guilty parties word for it that it is a first time occurence. Very rarely would the non-offending side be able to prove otherwise.

 

Not to say it isn't true here but aren't we better off to rule against them (they then fix this hole) to prevent a free run to repeated violations?

[bluejak]

The way the Laws are written when something occurs we judge what we think has happened then apply the Law. We do not rule on a basis of what is good for the game or for the future unless the Law permits this. Generally it is the job of the WBFLC and the people who decide Regulations and CoCs to get things right for the good of the game.

 

There is an exception where penalties are concerned: whether to give a PP or DP and how much is very much a judgement matter for the TD and he can use his discretion as to how much good such a penalty will do.

 

But it is not acceptable for a TD or AC to decide whether something has happened by considering the effects of their ruling.

[Math609]

More as I read it looks to me we might get a different ruling depending on who of the law experts here inside were in AC. So what is your final verdict?

1) Agree with TD?

2) Agree with AC?

3) Another ruling?

4) Unsolveble problem?

[bluejak]

No to all four. :lol:

 

The point is that we are not on the AC. Unlike some situations which can be resolved online in this case you needed to be there. We need as AC members to talk to the players, ask them questions, find out whether they really had a hole in their system, whether they knew it if so, how far the description should or should not be watered down, and so forth.

 

Furthermore, one of the advantages of ACs is that they do not consist of one person. Suppose three [or five] of us who have posted in this thread comprised the AC. Having asked lots of questions, considered the Law and so forth, we would then discuss it with all the information we have gathered. Having done so we would then come to our conclusion which would be . . . . . . . .

[Math609]

No to all four. :lol:

 

The point is that we are not on the AC. Unlike some situations which can be resolved online in this case you needed to be there. We need as AC members to talk to the players, ask them questions, find out whether they really had a hole in their system, whether they knew it if so, how far the description should or should not be watered down, and so forth.

 

Furthermore, one of the advantages of ACs is that they do not consist of one person. Suppose three [or five] of us who have posted in this thread comprised the AC. Having asked lots of questions, considered the Law and so forth, we would then discuss it with all the information we have gathered. Having done so we would then come to our conclusion which would be . . . . . . . .

Thank you for your answer, but it raises another question: Is it a standard operating procedure for AC to ,, talk to the players, ask them questions, find out whether they really had a hole in their system, whether they knew it if so, how far the description should or should not be watered down, and so forth,,?

[bluejak]

Yes. When I was asked to be Chairman of Appeals in Iceland last year I was very surprised when, at my first appeal, we were not expected to talk to the players, and because of time constraints we could not do so.

[sfi]

Sorry to revive an old thread, but one point immediately occurred to me and does not seem to have been mentioned in the seven pages that followed.

 

West may or may not have known about the hole in the system, but East certainly realised it. East had a clear opportunity to correct the misinformation by pointing that out before the opening lead and failed to do so.

 

So, if it was a system gap that required a 3♥ bid rather than merely East's judgment, it seems clear to adjust.

[bluejak]

I don't know about "clear": I do not think there is agreement over whether a system gap means MI. I do not think so, for example.

 

When there is MI, declarer or dummy is required to correct it: very true, but not a basis for whether there is MI nor for whether we should adjust.

[sfi]

But if there are gaps in the system that means that there are times when 3♥ will be bid on a doubleton, then describing it as 'showing 3 hearts' without any further elaboration surely is misinformation. If not, why not?

 

I am not talking about judgment here - just actual holes in the system akin to the 5543 opening bid agreement which I think you brought up earlier.

[bluejak]

All systems have holes in them - there are just too many possible hands. Players need not be aware of the holes. My guess is that very few players if any realise all the holes. If this pair had no realisation in advance that there was a hole then they have nothing to disclose.

[Math609]

In my opinion all facts are very clear and I doubt that any further talk to the players will clarify things better. Here is the facts that are relevant:

 

(1) EW is a strong pair, former National masters. They are honest and know their duties.

 

(2) It has been established after this hand that there was a gap in EW system.

 

(3) East was certainly aware of the gap at the table. Why? He said more than once when we discussed the bidding: "I had no other bid for my hand!"

 

(4) West's explanation was very inaccurate, to say the least: "At least 3 hearts". He gave no further detail of the system. His explanation of course meant that East hold at least 3 or more hearts, but NEVER 2 hearts. Hence his description was very misleading with severe consequences for the defense. The defense was indeed helpless after his explanation.

 

(5) East, aware of the inaccurate answer from his partner and also aware of the gap in the system, remained totally silent. Should he?

 

I really don't know what more facts you need, or what further questions is needed to be asked here.

[hrothgar]

 

(3) East was certainly aware of the gap at the table. Why? He said more than once when we discussed the bidding: "I had no other bid for my hand!"

 

 

The discussion you are citing occurred post hoc.

This does not establish a priori knowledge.

 

(5) East, aware of the inaccurate answer from his partner and also aware of the gap in the system, remained totally silent. Should he?

 

East is obligated to explain the partnership's systemic agreements.

East is not required to disclose a one time deviation; indeed, should not explain a deviation.

 

I really don't know what more facts you need, or what further questions is needed to be asked here.

 

You need to establish whether whether there is any systemic basis for bidding 3♥ with a doubleton.

 

Has either member of the partnership ever made a similar bid?

Has the partnership ever discussed whether the 3♥ bid might be made with a doubleton?

[Math609]

Whether there was an systematic basis for bidding 3♥ with a doubleton? It certainly was...hence Easts comment: "I had no other bid on this hand" It must be added that 2NT would not be a forcing bid here, which is rather unusual. But that systematic agreement was never explained to NS which must be of some importance. We surely can assume that there was some hidden systematic agreement involved in their system, therefore East noticed the gap at the table...and therefore we have some gap in his partners explanations.

 

Regarding the two last questions in the last letter, I think I can guarantee that the pairs answer is NO. East certainly observed the systematic gap at the table.

 

Maybe this is enough for everybody and will not lead to any conclusion. Probably a very difficult case for any AC.

[hrothgar]

Whether there was an systematic basis for bidding 3♥ with a doubleton? It certainly was...hence Easts comment: "I had no other bid on this hand" It must be added that 2NT would not be a forcing bid here, which is rather unusual. But that systematic agreement was never explained to NS which must be of some importance. We surely can assume that there was some hidden systematic agreement involved in their system, therefore East noticed the gap at the table...and therefore we have some gap in his partners explanations.

 

I don't think that there is enough information to claim that this is a systemic agreement.

 

I agree that after the fact, East stated that 3♥ was the only bid that he could make with that hand.

This is not equivalent to a statement that there is a systemic agreement that 3♥ could be made on a doubleton.

Its entirely possible that E/W only became aware of this hole after when East ran into this hand at the table.

 

This is the key question that needs to be asked.

Without this information, the Committee can't make an informed opinion.

 

Regarding the two last questions in the last letter, I think I can guarantee that the pairs answer is NO. East certainly observed the systematic gap at the table.

 

If this is true

 

1. The pair has never before bid 3H with a doubleton

2. The pair has never discussed the possibility that 3H could be made with a doubleton

 

AND

 

The pair's explicit agreement is that 3H shows at least 3H then there is no cause for an adjustment.

 

The decision to bid 3H with this hand is a deviation and not a systemic bid

East should not correct the explanation.

Result stands

[nige1]

Agree with Marth609. IMO...

 

• You haven't discussed what to do with a common hand-type in an unfamiliar auction context.
• Unfortunately, you can't just eat your cards and bury your head in your bidding box..
• Luckily, your other partnership understandings mandate one and only one possible call.
• The understanding about that call is therefore implicit in your system, even if you ve never discussed it and it's never come up before.
• Your idiosyncratic methods prevent opponents from following the same logic..
• But your implicit understanding is disclosable.
• Partner, when questioned, gives it insufficient thought and fails to mention your hand-type as a novel possibility,
• But you must disclose this implicit meaning before opponents lead.
• If there is a weakness in this chain of reasoning, then Hrothgar and Gnasher will rip it open.

[hrothgar]

Agree with Marth609. IMO...

 

• You haven't discussed what to do with a common hand-type in an unfamiliar auction context.
• Unfortunately, you can't just eat your cards and bury your head in your bidding box..
• Luckily, your other partnership understandings mandate one and only one possible call.
• The understanding about that call is therefore implicit in your system, even if you ve never discussed it and it's never come up before.
• Your idiosyncratic methods prevent opponents from following the same logic..
• But your implicit understanding is disclosable.
• Partner, when questioned, gives it insufficient thought and fails to mention your hand-type as a novel possibility,
• But you must disclose this implicit meaning before opponents lead.
• If there is a weakness in this chain of reasoning, then Hrothgar and Gnasher will rip it open.

 

An agreement describes an understanding between two parties

 

We have no knowledge whether West would reach the same conclusion as East that "2NT is the only possible call" with the hand in question.

Even if West were to agree that 2NT was the only possible call with this hand, West has never seen said hand so West couldn't draw the same inference.

North / South was not deprived of any systemic that was not available to the E/W partnership.

 

I'd like to pose a counter-factual.

 

Let's assume for the moment that East actually held three Hearts.

 

The same auction occurred and East made a systemic 3H call.

After making the 3♥ call, East suddenly realized that that there is a hole in their system.

If East happened to hold two hearts and a balanced hand, he'd be stuck for a rebid.

Therefore, East decides that the 3♥ systemically shows 2+ Hearts.

 

Prior to the opening lead, East informs the opponents that his partner provided an incorrect explanation and that his hand could (systemically) hold a doubleton heart.

In this case, South fails to cash the Ace of Diamonds...

 

How would you rule?

[nige1]

An agreement describes an understanding between two parties

We have no knowledge whether West would reach the same conclusion as East that "2NT is the only possible call" with the hand in question.

Even if West were to agree that 2NT was the only possible call with this hand, West has never seen said hand so West couldn't draw the same inference.

Why must you see partner's hand to draw inferences from your partner's call? In your example below, you are quite capable of a similar feat of imagination.

North / South was not deprived of any systemic that was not available to the E/W partnership.

You can't be sure that partner will be aware of those parts of your system that are relevant to your call or that he will bother to think through their consequences. But if you're sure that your call is a logical necessity, given your system, then you should divulge it's meaning.

I'd like to pose a counter-factual.

Let's assume for the moment that East actually held three Hearts.

The same auction occurred and East made a systemic 3H call.

After making the 3♥ call, East suddenly realized that that there is a hole in their system.

If East happened to hold two hearts and a balanced hand, he'd be stuck for a rebid.

Therefore, East decides that the 3♥ systemically shows 2+ Hearts.

Prior to the opening lead, East informs the opponents that his partner provided an incorrect explanation and that his hand could (systemically) hold a doubleton heart.

In this case, South fails to cash the Ace of Diamonds...

How would you rule?

No director should find fault with a player, who, in good faith, divulges the the systemic meaning of a call, whether or not it has been explicitly agreed.

[blackshoe]

if there is not an agreement as to the meaning, is the meaning "systemic"? (Assuming the pair have not agreed to play some specific "book" system).

[hrothgar]

Why must you see partner's hand to draw inferences from your partner's call? In your example below, you are quite capable of a similar feat of imagination.

 

You don't need to see your partner's hand to draw inference.

 

However, in the specific case that we are discussing, the reason that East was able to recognize the existence of a hole was that that he had seen a specific hand. This point is central to this case.

 

In any case, I don't believe that an agreement can be unilateral.

 

For example, you and I are having a discussion

I have come to the conclusion that you are an idiot

It would be inaccurate for me to state that we have an agreement that you are an idiot.

[Math609]

The result stands, says Hrothgar. And maybe he is right...in the "darkness" of the law.

 

The EW pair is obviously playing a very unusual system with a great deficiencies. That is not what you assume from a former National Champions. And all their explanations is as minimalism in art...

 

The message from Hrothgar is very clear: Guys, you have a serious and obvious hole in your unusual system. But according to the law I just call this deviation. And that's alright if you fix it before the next tournament. I rule that NS should pay the price for this modification. Good luck!

 

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[hrothgar]

The result stands, says Hrothgar. And maybe he is right...in the "darkness" of the law.

 

The EW pair is obviously playing a very unusual system with a great deficiencies. That is not what you assume from a former National Champions. And all their explanations is as minimalism in art...

 

The message from Hrothgar is very clear: Guys, you have a serious and obvious hole in your unusual system. But according to the law I just call this deviation. And that's alright if you fix it before the next tournament. I rule that NS should pay the price for this modification. Good luck!

 

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

 

I believe that my interpretation of the Law is correct. However, I also suspect that the opinions of folks like Bluejak are far more likely to represent the status quo.

 

With this said and done, the Law isn't there to punish people because they're playing a poorly designed system.

This obviously strikes you as unfair. However, this is the way things work.

 

As for your comments about seriously and obvious hole:

 

You were the one who stated that East became aware of the systemic gap at the table...