Ruling when one partner forgot agreement

[WellSpyder]

I've been in similar situations to this a couple of times, because at my club we have a standard convention card for pick-up partnerships to use if they wish, and this includes four-suit transfers. Twice I've played as a standby player with partners who haven't noticed this, and we've had the auction 1NT-2NT(transfer to diamonds)-3C(diamond fit) and in both cases partner then bid 3NT. In one case we were ruled against in spite of partner having a 12-count (12-14 NT) with AQxx clubs, playing IMPs. Certainly the possibility of me bidding 3C as an attempt to play in 3C is zero, but the various players who were consulted were not, in that sense, our peers.

Stranger still, I once had an auction where partner doubled the opening bid for take-out, I responded a natural 2N and partner bid 3C. Because he alerted 2N, the TD ruled I should have passed 3C, but to me anyone who makes a take-out double and then bids a new suit is showing a hand too strong for a direct overcall, and a pass would be completely irrational on a hand with significant values.

[bluejak]

Neither have seen it in print in the ACBL bulletin or BridgeWorld. Has anyone ever seen such a bidding sequence in real life ?

Sure. It was a documented part of our methods when at University. 1NT 2NT 3♣ suggested minimum with long clubs, making a part-score more likely to make when partner passed, and to snatch a quick game when he had a club fit and bid game.

 

My point was that if having racked my brains the sequence has alerted me to the fact that we are playing an artificial method in this situation, then there would be no "probably" about it. It would be one extreme or the other. The only occasion where I might have a judgement call is if having racked my brains I have concluded that all the bidding is natural.

LAs are not really worked out that way.

 

Justin earlier made the good point that a 1NT overcall in fourth seat is different because partner will be much less tempted to try an offshape 1NT (or a psyche) when he has long clubs and could just bid 2♣ instead.

It is a good point if true but with a poor six card suit I might easily bid 1NT rather than 2♣.

 

If you have had this sequence, I'd really be curious to see it. Is it on-line somewhere ?

I do not think our University bidding is online anywhere! :lol:

[sathyab]

RE: Forget agreement, try to salvage

...

From:

"Rulings@ACBL.ORG" <Rulings@ACBL.ORG>

...

View Contact

To: s_bettadapura@yahoo.com

 

Dear Sathya,

 

The way I play, 3C after an invitational 2NT shows a five card club suit and invites opener to bid 3NT with a fit.

If that is the case, it might be logical to either pass or bid 3NT with the hand shown below. Since I have only a 10 count and a partner who could not take action over the 1H opener, I suspect that pass is a logical alternative to bidding 3NT. therefore, I do agree with the ruling.

 

Regards,

 

Mike Flader

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: sathya bettadapura [mailto:s_bettadapura@yahoo.com]

To: rulings@acbl.org

Sent: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 10:48:21 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Forget agreement, try to salvage

 

This took place in a GNT game a while ago. South held

 

♠9x ♥KJ8 ♦A9xxx ♣Q8x

 

EW Vulnerable, East opened 1♥, pass, pass and North balanced with 1nt. Over which South bid 2nt meaning it as an invite, a somewhat (state-of-the-match-induced) aggressive call, but forgot that with this partner he was playing "systems ON". North alerted it and bid 3♣, over which South bid 3nt. The director was called to the table before the opening lead and the auction was fully explained, i.e, that South intended 2nt as invite but that North interpreted it differently. East led a 4th best ♥ and 3nt was made. The opponents contended that South's 3nt was influenced by the alert of 2nt. Conventionally, 2nt was either a ♣bust or 4414 hand with values. The director came back later and said that NS should be passing 3♣, which was down one instead of 3nt making.

 

South contended that: even if he never heard partner alert his 2nt bid, i.e, if they were using screens for instance, he'd still try to bid 3nt because 3♣ was never the expected response to a 2nt invite. Any hand that wants to bid a natural 3♣ over a 2nt invite would have balance with 2♣ in the first place, making 3♣ as natural bid virtually impossible. The only explanation for the 3♣ was a system mix-up and so South would try to salvage what he could by hazarding a 3nt bid.

 

Do you agree with the ruling ?

 

P.S. Partner had KQJ 9xxx JTx AKx

[Fluffy]

I ahve seen players on similar situations where they don't know exactly if 2NT is conventional or not, fail to alert to avoid UI, and then bid 3♣.

 

Is this correct?, what would have been ruled on that case?

[blackshoe]

If they're bidding 3♣ to account for the possibility that 2NT was conventional, then failure to alert 2NT is MI. There is a legal obligation to correctly inform opponents according to the laws (Law 40) and regulations (alert regulations) in force. While it would be nice to avoid giving UI to partner, there is no legal obligation to do so. The requirement to correctly inform is superior to the desire to avoid UI.

 

So the answers to your questions, Fluffy, are "no" and "if the MI caused damage, adjust the score".

[mike777]

This took place in a GNT game earlier in the day. I held

 

♠9x ♥KJ8 ♦A9xxx ♣Q8x

 

RHO opened 1♥, opponents Red, pass, pass and partner balanced with 1nt. Over which I bid 2nt meaning it as an invite, somewhat (state-of-the-match-induced) aggressive, but forgot that with this partner I was playing "systems ON". He alerted it and bid 3♣, over which I bid 3nt. RHO led a 4th best ♥ and partner made the contract. The opponents contended that my 3nt was influenced by partner's alert. Conventionally, 2nt was either a ♣bust or 4414 hand with values. The director came back later and said that I should be passing 3♣, which was down one instead of 3nt making. My contention is that even if I never heard partner alert my bid, i.e, if we were using screens for instance, I'd still try to bid 3nt because 3♣ could be very wrong as a result of forgetfulness and I'd try to recover from my error.

 

Do you agree with the ruling ?

 

P.S. Partner had KQJ 9xxx JTx AKx

 

 

fwiw I also play this 2nt meaning. However I wonder if your agreement is really that 3nt now is a slam try not just "values" if so it is 4=4=4=1 slam try. I believe this is the common way to play this convention and I wonder if this is your partnership understanding? In any case it appears that 3nt was not alerted at the table.

[Fluffy]

If they're bidding 3♣ to account for the possibility that 2NT was conventional, then failure to alert 2NT is MI. There is a legal obligation to correctly inform opponents according to the laws (Law 40) and regulations (alert regulations) in force. While it would be nice to avoid giving UI to partner, there is no legal obligation to do so. The requirement to correctly inform is superior to the desire to avoid UI.

 

So the answers to your questions, Fluffy, are "no" and "if the MI caused damage, adjust the score".

So it is not correct, but since MI is never going to cause any damage to opponents going to pass thoughtout it has no penalty.

 

Looks like a good trade, to avoid a possible penalty, lets commit a crime that will be forgiven.

[mjj29]

This took place in a GNT game earlier in the day. I held

 

♠9x ♥KJ8 ♦A9xxx ♣Q8x

 

RHO opened 1♥, opponents Red, pass, pass and partner balanced with 1nt. Over which I bid 2nt meaning it as an invite, somewhat (state-of-the-match-induced) aggressive, but forgot that with this partner I was playing "systems ON". He alerted it and bid 3♣, over which I bid 3nt. RHO led a 4th best ♥ and partner made the contract. The opponents contended that my 3nt was influenced by partner's alert. Conventionally, 2nt was either a ♣bust or 4414 hand with values. The director came back later and said that I should be passing 3♣, which was down one instead of 3nt making. My contention is that even if I never heard partner alert my bid, i.e, if we were using screens for instance, I'd still try to bid 3nt because 3♣ could be very wrong as a result of forgetfulness and I'd try to recover from my error.

 

Do you agree with the ruling ?

Going back to the OP, the reason given for pulling 3C to 3NT is not a good one, given the UI - we're not allowed to cater for a mistake once we have UI that suggests there was one. However, if you were to poll me on the subject (without the UI) my response would be 'well, I've made an invite, partner has clearly accepted (since we can't play 2NT any more) and if he's showing a club suit then great - my Queen-third will make them a source of tricks" and bid 3NT - while I guess you might find people who would pass I would have thought that 3C is always wanting to go to some game after 2NT and I'm going to play in 3NT at most forms of scoring, not 5C, particularly matchpoints (did the OP say what the form of scoring was?).

 

So it may well be the case that passing 3C is not an LA (although I agree it's suggested over 3NT by the UI).

[blackshoe]

So it is not correct, but since MI is never going to cause any damage to opponents going to pass thoughtout it has no penalty.

 

Looks like a good trade, to avoid a possible penalty, lets commit a crime that will be forgiven.

 

 

If there's evidence that the failure to alert was deliberate, then "has no penalty" is incorrect. It is illegal to deliberately violate the law.

 

Added: the score adjustment the TD would apply if the MI damaged the NOS is not a penalty, it's redress of the damage. If you do something wrong, then you cannot logically consider such redress a penalty, unless you believe you're entitled to a good result when you do something wrong. :blink:

[Fluffy]

I only said penalty when referring to the fact that partner is barred from logically taking 3♣ as a parntership missunderstanding. This is a penalty for me, but english is not my mother tongue so I might just be saying nonsense.

 

 

If there's evidence that the failure to alert was deliberate, then "has no penalty" is incorrect. It is illegal to deliberately violate the law.

 

Sadly illegal on my land often goes with "you are a bad guy but I won't do anything about it". Even a simple PP is exremelly unlikelly here :(. If the rules don't specifically say what should be done or what penalty should be applied, most TDs will just do nothing.

[bluejak]

So it is not correct, but since MI is never going to cause any damage to opponents going to pass thoughtout it has no penalty.

They might double 3NT. If they have the meanings of the auction wrong they may well be damaged, doubling when they should not or vice versa.

[blackshoe]

Sadly illegal on my land often goes with "you are a bad guy but I won't do anything about it". Even a simple PP is exremelly unlikelly here :(. If the rules don't specifically say what should be done or what penalty should be applied, most TDs will just do nothing.

 

Then your NBO needs to be encouraged to train your TDs better.