Right ruling here?

[TylerE]

♠AK7532

♥T9

♦A

♣Q753

 

None Vuln, MP

 

South deals and opens 2♠, no alert.

 

Auction proceeds:

2♠ - p - p - 5♦

5♠ - X - AP

 

Result: 5♠=, +650

 

East calls the TD after the hand and complains about the 2♠ bid, stating that there was no alert, and CC is marked as weak, and that if he'd known it could be an intermediate hand, he would pass out 2♠. (E has a 9 count with 7 not-very good diamonds and a spade void).

 

What's your ruling?

 

Does it change if there is a history found of the player opening "weak" 2's on holdings like AK AJ, etc, several times over a year?

[hrothgar]

Comment 1: Players are allowed to psyche

 

Comment 2: When you say holdings like "AK AJ". I assume that you mean opening a weak 2♠ with hands like the following

 

♠ AKTxxx

♥xx

♦AJx

♣xx

 

From my perspective, the expression "Weak 2♠" does not describe this hand if opened in 1st - 3rd seat

 

Comment 3

 

If a player really makes a "Weak 2♠ bid in 1st - 3rd seat several times a year with the same partner, then it maybe reasonable to pursue action for a concealed partnership agreement. (However, if North South are aware enough of said history to bring this to the attention of the Director, they're going to have a hard time claiming that this agreement was concealed)

 

My ruling:

 

No adjustment for East/West. I don't think its credible to claim that you have a hand that is worth a 5D balance after a weak 2♠ opening, but would pass after wider ranging 2♠ opening. You might not have bid 5♦, but I sure don't believe that pass is a reasonable claim.

 

Ask whether North / South want to level a cheating accusation against East / West. If so, the normal way to process is suspension for three months and barring the partnership from playing together.

[blackshoe]

Ask whether North / South want to level a cheating accusation against East / West. If so, the normal way to process is suspension for three months and barring the partnership from playing together.

 

Only if you're the Red Queen.

[Rossoneri]

What's your ruling?

 

Does it change if there is a history found of the player opening "weak" 2's on holdings like AK AJ, etc, several times over a year?

 

Table result stands. South is allowed to deviate from partnership agreement provided there is no concealed partnership understanding/agreement, which leads to the second question - yes, if South has a history of doing the same with the same partner, it points to a (very likely) concealed partnership understanding/agreement. The change would be that I would give N/S a warning or PP (depending on how experienced/previous offences).

 

As for the table result, I quite agree with Richard so it will still stand.

 

In both cases, I think a recorder form would be appropriate.

[Vampyr]

 

If a player really makes a "Weak 2♠ bid in 1st - 3rd seat several times a year with the same partner, then it maybe reasonable to pursue action for a concealed partnership agreement. (However, if North South are aware enough of said history to bring this to the attention of the Director, they're going to have a hard time claiming that this agreement was concealed)

 

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Normally a CPU is fairly difficult to establish because there aren't enough instances to show that the incident in question is not a one-off. In this case the CPU can be established much more easily.

[iviehoff]

However, if North South are aware enough of said history to bring this to the attention of the Director, they're going to have a hard time claiming that this agreement was concealed

This isn't correct. Your past experience of how this pair have bid is not part of their explanation of their agreement. If you ask them today, and they say weak today, when it isn't, then that is certainly MI, and it is a CPU. How whether NS deserve a lecture on proper disclosure, or some more serious sanction, depends upon their level of understanding.

[hrothgar]

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Normally a CPU is fairly difficult to establish because there aren't enough instances to show that the incident in question is not a one-off. In this case the CPU can be established much more easily.

 

I am pointing out that there is a Catch-22 at play:

 

Let's assume that the partnership in question has a habit of making weak two bids with strong hands.

 

Case 2

 

I play at the same club as the partnership in question...

Because I play against this pair on a weekly basis, I know their habits...

I am in a position to claim that the partnership's alert doesn't always match their hands. However, since I know this information, I can hardly claim that I was damaged because the information was not made available.

 

Case 2

 

I have never played against the partnership in question before

I have now knowledge regarding their preemptive style

Here, the lack of disclosure definitely puts me at a disadvantage, however, I don't have the right information to know whether this is a one time deviation or a Concealed Partnership Understanding.

[A2003]

Does it change if there is a history found of the player opening "weak" 2's on holdings like AK AJ, etc, several times over a year?

How do you establish History when there is no computer recordings of hands and bids?

[TylerE]

The hand did in fact take place online. I didn't mention that in the OP because I didn't think it relevent to the facts.

 

The research into the player's previous instances was done after the fact.

 

I was East, as I'm sure has probably been guessed. What we really rubbed me the wrong way about this hand is that the TD stated to me after ruling results stands "He said that was a weak hand". I really could care less wrt to the actual score on the hand, but I think there is no room in santioned play for that sort of rediculous definition warping to go on is just wrong. The ACBL clearly states that Intermediate 2 level bids are alertable, and this player seems to make "weak 2" bids on 12+ with some frequency, perhaps a few times a month. How is that not improper disclosure? </endrant>

[Vampyr]

 

 

Case 2

 

I play at the same club as the partnership in question...

Because I play against this pair on a weekly basis, I know their habits...

I am in a position to claim that the partnership's alert doesn't always match their hands. However, since I know this information, I can hardly claim that I was damaged because the information was not made available.

 

 

This is, quite simply, incorrect.

 

The hand did in fact take place online. I didn't mention that in the OP because I didn't think it relevent to the facts.

 

The ACBL clearly states that Intermediate 2 level bids are alertable, and this player seems to make "weak 2" bids on 12+ with some frequency, perhaps a few times a month. How is that not improper disclosure? </endrant>

 

Was this on BBO? Do they use ACBL alert regulations?

 

If the bid was described as weak, of course this is improper disclosure. I am not sure what can be done about it online, but surely something should be done.

[hrothgar]

The hand did in fact take place online. I didn't mention that in the OP because I didn't think it relevent to the facts.

 

The research into the player's previous instances was done after the fact.

 

I was East, as I'm sure has probably been guessed. What we really rubbed me the wrong way about this hand is that the TD stated to me after ruling results stands "He said that was a weak hand". I really could care less wrt to the actual score on the hand, but I think there is no room in santioned play for that sort of rediculous definition warping to go on is just wrong. The ACBL clearly states that Intermediate 2 level bids are alertable, and this player seems to make "weak 2" bids on 12+ with some frequency, perhaps a few times a month. How is that not improper disclosure? </endrant>

 

The ACBL alert structure is based on partnership agreement rahter than the contents of one's hand

 

When you researched this player's actions, did these bids happen with a single partner (or a small number of partners?)

Alternatively, was the player competing in an Individual or playing with a large number of partners.

[hrothgar]

Was this on BBO? Do they use ACBL alert regulations?

 

If the bid was described as weak, of course this is improper disclosure.

 

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

 

There is insufficient information available to make this statement

[hrothgar]

This is, quite simply, incorrect.

 

I disagree

 

I think that you'll be in a good position to prosecute the offending side for a Concealed Partnership Agreement.

You'll be in a miserable position to claim damage and you need to prove damage to get your score adjusted.

[campboy]

Of course, there are cases other than case 2 and case 2 above.

 

Case deux:

Opponents are damaged because East was unaware of South's tendancies, but West is aware of them.

 

Case zwei:

Opponents are damaged because they were unaware of South's tendancies, but the TD is aware of them (isn't this why we record hands?).

[hrothgar]

Of course, there are cases other than case 2 and case 2 above.

 

Case deux:

Opponents are damaged because East was unaware of South's tendancies, but West is aware of them.

 

Case zwei:

Opponents are damaged because they were unaware of South's tendancies, but the TD is aware of them (isn't this why we record hands?).

 

No argument

[TylerE]

Yes, to clarify futhur, online ACBL Speedball.

[mycroft]

in which case, full CCs are required. What's the recorded strength for a 2M opener? If they say 5-11, well, then history shows he frequently overstrengths his, and if done with the same partner, there's serious evidence of CPU, that should be dealt with. If it says 8-13, well, now, is that intermediate? I don't think so.

 

Having said that, I tend to agree with most of the people here that says that 5D is highly unlikely to be any better opposite a 6-12 as an 8-13 (or even a 11-15) 2S opener, and that opener's 5S call is probably based on you having the kind of hand that thinks you can make 5D (best guess) - i.e. a solid 8 and a trick outside. At which point, 5S looks like a good sacrifice, as it's likely that you have a spade void...So I don't think you were damaged. But that shouldn't stop the TDs from ensuring that proper disclosure occurs in future (and, of course, that he isn't falling afoul of DISALLOWED, 7).