Simple (I think) judgement ruling

[NickRW]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj4ha65dj975cq94&w=sq96hkj82dqt3c652&n=s3h974dak862cat83&e=sat8752hqt3d4ckj7&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1d1s3dpp3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

IMP scored club game. Table result 3♠X-1 by East, NS+100

 

NS open shapely hands fairly light and especially so in 3rd seat, and are playing inverted minors (in and out of competition). The 3♦ bid was alerted, and East enquired. North said it was "weak".

 

After being doubled and before the lead, declarer commented that "it didn't sound that weak". North commented, "I didn't say it didn't have spades".

 

At the conclusion of the hand it transpired that NS were the only pair to be plus and East said she "wouldn't have bid 3♠ had I known it (South) could have been that strong".

 

Other pairs (in diamonds) made 9 tricks in diamonds (though they were all at the 4 level).

 

EW are an average club pair who do not themselves play inverted minors, and inverted minors is not the norm at this particular club - though NS have been playing this way there for years and one or two other pairs also play inverted minors.

 

North was, in fact the director for the session and referred this to a less experienced club director after the session - who suggested that it "should be an average" - but that isn't a legal ruling as far as I am aware.

 

How do you rule? Is describing the 3♦ bid as "weak" MI? If so, rolling the hand back to 3♦ making actually worsens the result for EW!

 

I would appreciate a more learned and independent comment. Thanks for your time.

 

Nick

[mjj29]

Other pairs (in diamonds) made 9 tricks in diamonds (though they were all at the 4 level).

 

EW are an average club pair who do not themselves play inverted minors, and inverted minors is not the norm at this particular club - though NS have been playing this way there for years and one or two other pairs also play inverted minors.

 

North was, in fact the director for the session and referred this to a less experienced club director after the session - who suggested that it "should be an average" - but that isn't a legal ruling as far as I am aware.

 

How do you rule? Is describing the 3♦ bid as "weak" MI? If so, rolling the hand back to 3♦ making actually worsens the result for EW!

'average' is certainly not a legal ruling. Quick rule of thumb is (aside a couple of specific cases) if there was a result obtained at the table then any adjustment must also be an actual result (or a weighting).

 

On a heart lead, doesn't 3♦ require picking up trumps for no losers to make? Which I can certainly see some people failing to do, so you might consider some weighting of 3♦ going off depending on how likely you think that is.

 

If you believe 3♦ is always making then, as you say, the table result is better for the NOS - so we don't adjust the score because there was no damage - in fact they got a better score because of the MI, which they are perfectly entitled to keep.

 

As to whether there is MI - it depends on what NS's real agreement is. Certainly the south hand is not a weak raise, but there's two explanations for that. Either they have agreed that south should bid 3♦ on that hand - in which case it is MI and we would adjust, except that there's no damage - or they genuinely have agreed a weak raise and south has forgotten (or psyched). In that case, there's nothing to do. Oppo are only entitled to know your agreements, not whether your hand actually matches them. The laws do tell us to rule MI not misbid if we are in doubt, so unless they can show evidence that south should have bid something else it will probably be treated as MI.

[NickRW]

As to whether there is MI - it depends on what NS's real agreement is. Certainly the south hand is not a weak raise, but there's two explanations for that...

 

Well, I was, in fact, the North player. South had really only two choices, 2♦ which would have been inv+ and forcing to 2NT/3♦ at least and 3♦, not inv, could be very weak. Opposite a third seat opener, though it is a close call between the two, I was not dissatisfied with my partner's judgement.

[Vampyr]

Well, I was, in fact, the North player. South had really only two choices, 2♦ which would have been inv+ and forcing to 2NT/3♦ at least and 3♦, not inv, could be very weak. Opposite a third seat opener, though it is a close call between the two, I was not dissatisfied with my partner's judgement.

Fair enough, but if this is the case the bid must be described differently. "Weak" hands are assumed to be below invitational strength.

 

Anyway, I would have been dissatisfied if I were you. If you can make the same bid on KJ4, A65, J975, Q94 and xxx, Qx, J10xxx, Kxx (or weaker) you will miss a lot of laydown 3NT contracts. Or reach a lot of ridiculous ones.

 

Also, only two choices? What's wrong with 1NT? Some people would even call this a 2NT bid! And...how do you play 2♥?

[mrdct]

The director needs establish whether or not this is a misbid/psyche or misexplanation. The first thing I'd do is ask South why she bid 3♦ but I'd also ask North if this sort of hand conforms to their partnership agreement for a 3♦ raise in competition by a passed hand. Do North-South have a convention card?

 

The facts as outlined in the OP state that NS play "inverted minors (in and out of competition)" and that NS have been "playing this way for years" seem fairly compelling, so unless North or South say something self-incriminating I'd be inclined to treat this as a misbid and let the table result stand.

 

If, on the other hand, the facts point towards North-South having an understanding that this sort of hand does conform to their partnership agreement, I'd adjust to North-South playing in 3♦ with some weighting between making, one down and two down - probably 60%, 35% and 5% for NS +40.

[mrdct]

Well, I was, in fact, the North player. South had really only two choices, 2♦ which would have been inv+ and forcing to 2NT/3♦ at least and 3♦, not inv, could be very weak. Opposite a third seat opener, though it is a close call between the two, I was not dissatisfied with my partner's judgement.

Well that changes everything in my mind. Your alert and explanation of "weak" was manifestly inadequate and misleading and this is now clearly a case of misinformation so I adjust to 3♦ with a weighted mix of making/non-making.

 

The way you have subsequently described your agreement seems more like a "mixed raise"; although the fact that it could be "very weak" adds a bit of a twist. The bottom line, however, is that you didn't adequately disclose your agreements to East-West and they were damaged.

 

Also, nothing to do with the ruling but I don't really understand why South wouldn't want to show herself as a maximum passed hand with ♦ support and ♠ stopper - unless it was a cunning trap to induce East-West to compete to 3♠ over the seemingly weak 3♦ bid with a plan then double 3♠ for penalties. A legitimate strategy provided you don't have partnership experience/agreement to employ that technique.

[NickRW]

Fair enough, but if this is the case the bid must be described differently. "Weak" hands are assumed to be below invitational strength.

 

Well, exactly. You're hitting the nail on the head. Weak hands are assumed to be below invitational strength - and it was my partner's judgement that her hand was, indeed, below invitational strength. And I am not about to criticise her judgement in context. Indeed I might have called exactly the same thing if I were South playing with the agreements we've got. I acknowledge it is close. I acknowledge that some others might disagree.

 

Anyway, I would have been dissatisfied if I were you. If you can make the same bid on KJ4, A65, J975, Q94 and xxx, Qx, J10xxx, Kxx (or weaker) you will miss a lot of laydown 3NT contracts. Or reach a lot of ridiculous ones.

 

Well, fair point, but the sanity or otherwise of our general agreements is not really salient to the ruling.

 

Also, only two choices? What's wrong with 1NT? Some people would even call this a 2NT bid! And...how do you play 2♥?

 

1NT and 2NT would have been natural, but tending to deny a diamond fit. Since our 1♦ opener guarantees 4, they are - well - possible I suppose. But the same question arises - does South want to think of her hand as invitational or not - and you get the same close decision.

 

2♥ would have suggested a 5 card suit.

[NickRW]

Well that changes everything in my mind. Your alert and explanation of "weak" was manifestly inadequate and misleading...

 

Well, clearly you think the same way as East did. My understanding and that of my partner and that of another poster was that '"Weak" hands are assumed to be below invitational strength' and this is considered by us to be below invitational strength - just.

 

... and this is now clearly a case of misinformation so I adjust to 3♦ with a weighted mix of making/non-making.

 

Cough - I'm hardly playing for the diamonds to be 2-2 am I?!

 

The way you have subsequently described your agreement seems more like a "mixed raise"; although the fact that it could be "very weak" adds a bit of a twist. The bottom line, however, is that you didn't adequately disclose your agreements to East-West and they were damaged.

 

Well, they weren't damaged - not if you assume 9 tricks are available in diamonds - and they are both DD and in real life at other tables.

 

Also, nothing to do with the ruling but I don't really understand why South wouldn't want to show himself as a maximum passed hand with ♦ support and ♠ stopper - unless it was a cunning trap to induce East-West to compete to 3♠ over the seemingly weak 3♦ bid with a plan then double 3♠ for penalties. A legitimate strategy provided you don't have partnership experience/agreement to employ that technique.

 

I've played many thousands of boards with this partner. This is the first time she (or I) have ever X'ed after this sort of raise.

[655321]

How a passed hand 11 count with 4 card support and KJx in the overcalled suit is weak rather than invitational is completely beyond me, constantly posting to say it is a close choice does not make it so. In addition a 3rd seat opener may choose to pass the invitational 2♦ raise, so making a weak raise to 3♦ to stay low makes no sense.

 

OP deserves some credit for confessing that South's hand is within the expected range. Agree with blatant MI and giving a weighted mix of 3♦ making and not making.

 

Someone with more knowledge of the laws than me will know if the non-offending side is allowed to lead a heart all the time, for a 100% weighting for 3♦ down 1. On a heart lead it is far from clear to *cough* double hook the diamonds - personally I would just play them from the top.

[mrdct]

Cough - I'm hardly playing for the diamonds to be 2-2 am I?!

Well there is a school of thought along the lines of "eight ever nine never" so it's not beyond the realms of possibilities and it needs to be given some weighting when determining the adjusted score. The problem is that we will never know, so judgement needs to be applied as to what the range of likely outcomes would be.

 

On the board in question (board 27 from the Crowborough Bridge Club Monday night duplicate) it was only played in ♦ two times and both times in 4♦ so it's hard to draw any conclusions about how it might have been played in 3♦ at your table.

[NickRW]

Well, put it this way - I've been playing this way and alerting this way for yonks with this and other partners both at this club and elswhere against pretty well all classes of opponents and nobody has so much as queried it before. Indeed one of the other players with whom I play this way saw the South hand and did not think it particularly unreasonable to have responded 3♦.

 

Perhaps some of you come from other places and have different norms???

[mrdct]

Perhaps some of you come from other places and have different norms???

It seems so. I'm not aware of any place on earth where the expression "weak" when describing a passed-hand encompasses an 11-count with primary support for partner's suit and a sound stopper in the opponents' suit. You might have got away with it if you'd described it as "weaker than a 2♦ raise"; but you can't just say "weak" and expect your opponents to contemplate South having such a good hand.

 

Indeed one of the other players with whom I play this way saw the South hand and did not think it particularly unreasonable to have responded 3♦.

There is nothing wrong with the 3♦ call, it's just the dodgey explanation that need to be spanked.

 

Reconsidering my ruling, I guess some weight might need to be given to East still bidding 3♠ even when given the correct explanation of 3♦ as whilst being alerted to the possibility that South might have a good hand might reduce East's inclination to bid, it won't eliminate it. Something like 25% table result, 50% 3♦= and 25% 3♦-1 which would turn NS' +100 into +70. I think I'll slap a procedural penalty on North for inadequate disclosure now too, particularly given his lack of remorse for the infraction.

[Cascade]

I too think that if the range of hands expected by north-south includes this eleven count that an explanation that suggests "weak" is misleading.

 

6-10 or 6-11 or whatever with if necessary a comment regarding alternative options near the boundaries would be much better.

 

"Weak" in many places is defined as "high-card strength below that of an average hand" clearly 10 or 11 hcp are not below average strictly in terms of high card strength.

[BunnyGo]

Well, put it this way - I've been playing this way and alerting this way for yonks with this and other partners both at this club and elswhere against pretty well all classes of opponents and nobody has so much as queried it before. Indeed one of the other players with whom I play this way saw the South hand and did not think it particularly unreasonable to have responded 3♦.

 

Perhaps some of you come from other places and have different norms???

 

I was enjoying reading this thread, but it seems that tempers have flared slightly.

 

I will not express my opinion one way or the other about the merits of responding 2 diamonds, 3 diamonds, 2 spades, some no trump, or any other bid. That does not seem to be germane to the original question.

 

I will say that this explanation of "weak" strikes me as hard to fathom as fully descriptive of the partnership agreement. I didn't see almost any 12 count not opened during the (many hours) of US and Canada open trial matches on vugraph. Changing that Jack of diamonds to the Queen then would make this an opening hand (or at least very close to one) in many experts eyes (and in EVERY junior's eyes :D ). It's hard to understand how a hand goes from "opening" to "weak" by changing a queen to a jack.

[RMB1]

North was, in fact the director for the session and referred this to a less experienced club director after the session - who suggested that it "should be an average" - but that isn't a legal ruling as far as I am aware.

 

The TD might have done better to ring some to get a proper ruling on the hand.

[NickRW]

The TD might have done better to ring some to get a proper ruling on the hand.

 

Well, that may well be - except that this TD never carries a mobile, there is no phone in the club, it was the last round but one and the table was a little behind, while at the same time the round had to be called and the arrow switching explained properly for the last round. In the discussion which followed the last round, most involved were as much interested in getting home on time as they were in getting to the bottom of what the right ruling is.

 

Anyway, weighted results don't seem to be compatible with Scorebridge - eugh - it seems that to get this scored right will waste another hour putting it all into Pairs Scorer - assuming that will do it either.

 

Nick

[mjj29]

If, on the other hand, the facts point towards North-South having an understanding that this sort of hand does conform to their partnership agreement, I'd adjust to North-South playing in 3♦ with some weighting between making, one down and two down - probably 60%, 35% and 5% for NS +40.

Except you weight the matchpoints, not the raw score, so it would be 60% of the matchpoints for 3D=, 35% of the matchpoints for -1 and 5% of the matchpoints for -2.

[NickRW]

Something like 25% table result, 50% 3♦= and 25% 3♦-1 which would turn NS' +100 into +70.

 

That gets you some thanks - at least it is something like independent and vaguely sensible.

 

I think I'll slap a procedural penalty on North for inadequate disclosure now too, particularly given his lack of remorse for the infraction.

 

That is more likely to earn you a - well I won't say what. I'm more interested than the complainant in getting a correct result - so you can take your "lack of remorse" and put it where the sun don't shine.

 

Nick

[mjj29]

Well, exactly. You're hitting the nail on the head. Weak hands are assumed to be below invitational strength - and it was my partner's judgement that her hand was, indeed, below invitational strength. And I am not about to criticise her judgement in context. Indeed I might have called exactly the same thing if I were South playing with the agreements we've got. I acknowledge it is close. I acknowledge that some others might disagree.

If that hand bids 3D, what hands will bid 2D that would not have opened originally?

[NickRW]

Except you weight the matchpoints, not the raw score, so it would be 60% of the matchpoints for 3D=, 35% of the matchpoints for -1 and 5% of the matchpoints for -2.

 

It was Butler scored IMPs.

[NickRW]

If that hand bids 3D, what hands will bid 2D that would not have opened originally?

 

Well, though I said that we open aggressively with shape, with balanced hands, particularly 4333 shapes, we are very conservative. Further I think that point is well known to all the regular players at this club. Change it to a 4432 shape with the same honours and we would have called it invitational, but not an opener. Change the ♣9 to a jack and we would also call it invitational.

[mrdct]

weighted results don't seem to be compatible with Scorebridge - eugh - it seems that to get this scored right will waste another hour putting it all into Pairs Scorer - assuming that will do it either.

I would've thought that you simply replace 3♠E-1 (+100) with 1♦N= (+70) and scorebridge will calculate a new datum and re-imp the board.

 

Assuming the datum calculations drop the outliers, the datum won't actually change in this case (NS -50 if the top and bottom scores are excluded) so the only change is you score 3 imps on the board instead of 4 imps which doesn't actually affect the finishing position of either of the pairs involved. Although if you run with my suggested procedural penalty, say 3 imps, that will drop you down to =8th.

 

Nick, the path to redemption begins with admitting one's wrong-doing. The consensus is quite clear that the explanation of "weak" was an infraction and the sooner you come to terms with that the easier it will be for you to reconnect with your inner being and move on with the important task of developing a more sensible raise structure in competitive auctions by a passed-hand.

[mrdct]

"Weak" in many places is defined as "high-card strength below that of an average hand" clearly 10 or 11 hcp are not below average strictly in terms of high card strength.

That is precisely how "weak" is defined in section 171.1 of the EBU White Book.

[NickRW]

I would've thought that you simply replace 3♠E-1 (+100) with 1♦N= (+70) and scorebridge will calculate a new datum and re-imp the board.

 

As far as I recall, and I could be wrong here, that isn't how it is supposed to be done.

 

Assuming that the ruling is 25% of 3s-1 by E, 50% of 3d making by N and 25% of 3d-1 by N, then what is supposed to happen is that the board is effectively separately scored with each of these results and they are then weighted accordingly. Not weight the scores for that one table and combine them into a single score which is then compared at 100% weighting with the other tables.

 

Scorebridge can only do it by the latter method - which you are suggesting is correct - but which I think it wrong.

 

Anyway, PairsScorer can accept weighted inputs for a board. However, it doesn't show you how it arrives at its eventual score and, in this case, makes no difference at all, compared to 100% of the table result. Worse, when I upload the result to BridgeWebs, though it shows the correct ordering of the pairs, no total IMPs is displayed on the web. And on this board, Bridgewebs seems to be incapable of displaying any result at all for this table for this board.

 

So the upshot seems to be that this has been a complete waste of everyone's time and that weighted scores are something that appears in a rule book which are obviously so little used in practice as to have been effectively ignored by the software developers and are, in fact, unusable in the real world.

 

Anyway, as for "moving on", I loathe being a complainant in a judgement ruling. I doubly loathe being the person complained about. I triply loathe being the poor director who has to sort out the argument. And I really, truly, utterly detest being involved on two counts. This puts me off the game big time. Right now the only place I want to move on to is nowhere near a card table.

[mamos]

I'd like to comment on some of the posts in this thread. The topic is interesting and although in my opinion the issues are fairly simple there has been a lot of muddled thinking which needs correction.

 

Initially was there MisInformation? (MI) Yes I think is a clear answer. Alerts and explanations are for the benefit of your opponents. The idea is that you do the utmost to make them understand your agreements. NS have demonstrably failed here. It was possible that South had deviated from partnership agreements, but North has told us that he agrees with the choice of the bid. My understanding is that "inverted minors" means that a partnership swaps the meaning of the sequences 1 minor 2 minor and 1 minor 3 minor. I don't think most players would respond with 2 ♦ to an opening bid of 1♦with this hand. - I'd guess the norm is 6-9 points. If your partnership "by agreement" includes something stronger than this then your explanation needs to reflect this. If I was your local TD, I'd tell you clearly that you should improve your explanation to make it clear that hands like the one South held are included.

 

Number of tricks in 3♦ : You cannot assume that the traveller will be the fount of knowledge here - making nine tricks in 4♦ or 2♦ does not always equate to 3♦=. Players defend and play differently in different contracts - I'd guess this is especially true in Butler Pairs, where making/defeating contracts is much more significant in many cases then the extra trick in either declaring or defending. It's not always easy either to forget all four hands when you can see them and try to put yourself in declarer's position at the table. Watch some vugraph on BBO and you'll see what I mean.

 

So I would discuss this hand with other players and TDs, maybe take a poll about bidding 3♠ or even about the play in 3♦ but I expect I's adjust - to 3♦= sometimes and 3♦ -1 about the same amount of time as making and table result only a small amount of the time. I expect that this would be quite low -- after all East asked about 3♦ so we know he was considering Pass. 40% 40% 20%? - maybe say.

 

Butler and weighted scores is complicated if you don't have a scoring program (PairScorer - Jeff Smith http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jasmith/ ) that does it properly because you need to work out the score for each of the assigned results and weight the outcomes. Technically this involves weighting every pairs' score. It's worth downloading PairScorer just to play with the weighted score facility. When the scores are large or extreme they will have quite an effect on the datum especially in small fields.

 

Mike Amos