Jacoby 2NT

[pran]

The least I shall expect from a NOS player is that he might have considered a different line of play absent the irregularity. Then I shall assess the possibilities and the probability that he would have obtrained a better result.

 

Do you really imply that when a player calls TD without any indication on how he feels damaged then the TD shall analyze the board for him and rule that the player for instance would have made his 6NT contract which was set at the table on a double squeeze because that is what would have happened had the player selected that line of play?

 

I never as TD play the cards for any player, but I frequently assess the various lines that can be considered from his own statement - including lines that he has not spelled out completely.

[hotShot]

The least I shall expect from a NOS player is that he might have considered a different line of play absent the irregularity. Then I shall assess the possibilities and the probability that he would have obtrained a better result.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that when I'm told that declarer has a single in ♦, that I should waste my time and energy to consider what I would have done when declarer has in fact at least 3 ♦ cards? The moment declarer pulls his 2nd ♦ card, I know that I was damaged, but I have no idea (yet) what I would have done.

 

Do you really imply that when a player calls TD without any indication on how he feels damaged then the TD shall analyze the board for him and rule that the player for instance would have made his 6NT contract which was set at the table on a double squeeze because that is what would have happened had the player selected that line of play?

No it's not your job to analyze the board for him, but you should accept that a player might need a few minutes before he can tell you what different course his bidding/play would have taken.

 

I never as TD play the cards for any player, but I frequently assess the various lines that can be considered from his own statement - including lines that he has not spelled out completely.

But it seems our positions are not that much apart as my first impression was.

[blackshoe]

Just confirming my point: It seems to me that someone is out looking for a reason to penalize rather than to give redress for damage?

 

And I say again, no, you are wrong. And quit saying "someone" when it's perfectly clear you mean me, since I brought it up.

 

First, redress and penalty are separate issues; there is no "rather than". If there was damage, that should be redressed. Whether a penalty should be given is a question of the seriousness of the offense. The law says, in this case, that a player whose partner has given an incorrect explanation or, as did happen, failed to alert when required, must, if his side declares, correct the explanation before the opening lead is faced. North did not do that for his 2NT bid which South failed to alert. The laws say that when a player "shall" do something, and does not, he should receive a PP "more often than not", and that when a player "must" do something, and does not, this is a more serious offense, in fact "must" is "the strongest word, a serious matter indeed". So if anything, I'm looking for a reason why the TD should not give a PP, when the law seems to require one.

[pran]

And I say again, no, you are wrong. And quit saying "someone" when it's perfectly clear you mean me, since I brought it up.

 

First, redress and penalty are separate issues; there is no "rather than". If there was damage, that should be redressed. Whether a penalty should be given is a question of the seriousness of the offense. The law says, in this case, that a player whose partner has given an incorrect explanation or, as did happen, failed to alert when required, must, if his side declares, correct the explanation before the opening lead is faced. North did not do that for his 2NT bid which South failed to alert. The laws say that when a player "shall" do something, and does not, he should receive a PP "more often than not", and that when a player "must" do something, and does not, this is a more serious offense, in fact "must" is "the strongest word, a serious matter indeed". So if anything, I'm looking for a reason why the TD should not give a PP, when the law seems to require one.

Honestly, I was not thinking particularly on you.

[RMB1]

So, when the bidding proceeds 2♥-pass-4♥-pass-pass, West knows that 2♥ is weak and that North has raised to 4♥. He is not entitled to know what North thought 2♥ was - he is only entitled to know what 2♥ actually was.

 

The problem in question 1. is partly a practical one. How should the TD make sure that West only changes his final Pass for the right reason?

 

The right reason being that he is now entitled to know that 2♥ is weak.

(The wrong reason being that he now knows that 2H is weak but North described it as strong.)

 

And if the TD correctly instructs West as to the right reason for changing West's call and West changes his final Pass to Double, what sanction does the TD have if the TD decides West's reason for changing was the wrong reason.

[nige1]

It is the TD's job to assess damage, not the players'.

I agree with Blackshoe.

Quite true. But do you ever expect the TD to assess damage when the NOS player has no idea of how he could have obtained a better result without the irregularity? You should put the horse before the cart and have the player tell you how he feels (possibly) damaged. Then you assess damage based on his statement.

Part of the TD's investigation should be damage assessment. To avoid missing anything, It is a good idea to ask for the putative victim's help. But I don't think the director should depend on it, completely.

The least I shall expect from a NOS player is that he might have considered a different line of play absent the irregularity. Then I shall assess the possibilities and the probability that he would have obtrained a better result. Do you really imply that when a player calls TD without any indication on how he feels damaged then the TD shall analyze the board for him and rule that the player for instance would have made his 6NT contract which was set at the table on a double squeeze because that is what would have happened had the player selected that line of play? I never as TD play the cards for any player, but I frequently assess the various lines that can be considered from his own statement - including lines that he has not spelled out completely.

IMO, a player should not need to be a secretary-bird, in order to qualify for redress. Some infraction-victims are embarrassed to volunteer self-serving remarks. Others lack imagination. Anyway, the laws are too complex for most players to properly work out potential damage. Naturally, some directors also suffer from the same problem but I think they should do their best.

[phil_20686]

I dont understand. It seems like everyone was given correct information, south just misbid/psyched. There is no penalty for either of those things.

[blackshoe]

Phil, the 3♦ bid was correctly (per agreement) described, and yes, South misbid (I doubt very much that he psyched). But there's another problem. North bid 2NT, artificial. This requires an alert, but South did not alert it. That is MI. Further, North is required to explain, before the opening lead is faced, this failure to alert, and he did not do that. The MI may (or may not) result in a score adjustment. That would be rectification, or redress for damage, not penalty. North's failure to explain, when the law says he must do so, should result in a procedural penalty, as I read the law.

 

West was given correct information only about the agreed meaning of the 3♦ bid. And no, he's not entitled to know that South misbid. But he is entitled to know that 2NT was artificial (Jacoby). Armed with that information, he might have guessed (at his own risk) that, since South did not alert 2NT, he did not recognize that it was Jacoby, and so might well have bid a "natural" 3♦. If he did guess that, he might well have defended differently. Or so it seems to me, anwyay. Whether that would make a difference to the table result we can't know, of course, since we don't have the hands. But I think it's something the TD should have considered, and neither he nor Mike Flader appear to have done so.

[peachy]

It is the TD's job to assess damage, not the players'.

Correct. I was going downvote the post to which this is a reply, but apparently downvoting is out again because I couldn't.

[joostb1]

A similar problem was doing the rounds at the level of WBF LC a year or so ago (I hope I get his right).

 

South is dealer and opens 2♥ and is raised to 4♥. 2♥ is weak (in fact and by agreement) but when asked (before the opening lead) North says it is strong. West did not double the final contract, and would not double if 2♥ was weak (or if it was strong) and North knew this when he bid 4♥. But West would double if 2♥ was weak and North thought it was strong when he bid 4♥. 4♥ will not make.

 

Two questions:

1. South corrects the explanation before the opening lead, is West allowed to change his final Pass to Double?
   
2. South does not correct the explanation before the opening lead, but the corrrect explanation comes to light at the end of the hand. Are East/West entitled to an adjustment on the basis that had South corrected at the right time, West would have changed his final Pass to Double?
   

 

The matter was discussed in Sao Paulo in September 2009 (WBF LC minute Brazil 2009 - 1 and WBF LC minute Brazil 2009 - 2) and after a lengthy discussion it was determined:

" a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call “could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player”. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3.

(b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information.

[*Secretary’s note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.]"

[barmar]

It is the TD's job to assess damage, not the players'.

So the common reaction to a director call regarding a call that may have been made based on a BIT, "Call me back at the end of the hand if you feel you've been damaged", is wrong?

 

Last week I balanced over the opponents' part score bid, and the opponent called the TD for protection because he thought my partner broke tempo (he didn't -- he hesitated an appropriate amount of time after a skip bid). Did we really need to call the TD back to confirm that the 400 they got when I went down 4 vulnerable was better than anything they could have gotten had I passed?

[blackshoe]

Law 16B:

1. {a} After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information.

 

* i.e., unexpected in relation to the basis of his action.

 

{b} A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it.

 

2. When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the regulating Authority (which may require that the director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the director later. The opponents should summon the director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.

 

3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the director when play ends*. The director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

 

* It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later.

 

What all this means, in practice, is that when you believe that something has happened which might convey UI (see the list in Law 16B1{a}), you should ask the opponents if they agree with you. If they do not, they are supposed to call the TD. Of course, what usually happens is that they don't agree, they get upset, and they don't call the director. So you may have to call him yourself. If things go well, they agree something has happened which might convey UI, and there's no need to call the director (yet). At the end of play, if you believe an opponent who had UI chose an action that could have been suggested by it, when he had a logical alternative, you should call the director. People who don't believe they were damaged frequently decline to call the TD, on the theory that it doesn't matter, but in fact even if there was no damage, if a player has illegally chosen a suggested alternative, the TD should take the opportunity to educate the player about his obligations. That can't happen if the TD isn't called.

 

Side note: The footnote to Law 16B3 contradicts the established usage mentioned in the Introduction to the Laws, which states that when a player "should" do something, failure to do it is an infraction. I suspect a better wording for the intent (or at least, what I believe to be the intent) of this footnote is "he should summon the director. He does so when play ends." IAC, I would not, as director, fault a player who called me "earlier or later".

 

Heh. I see I still haven't directly answered your question. The purpose of calling the director when there is a disagreement as to whether UI may be present is so that the TD can establish, at the time, whether there was. He cannot (yet) rule on the question of whether UI was illegally used, whether it caused damage, and so on, so that's why he says "call me back at the end of the hand if you feel you've been damaged." As I said above, it's probably better, from the point of view of education, for the TD to say "call me back if you feel the player with UI has chosen an action suggested by it, when he had a logical alternative", but that's likely to confuse people. Note also that if the TD determines there was no damage, you're not going to get a score adjustment, and most players are more interested in getting that than in educating their opponents (or seeing that the TD does so).

 

In the case you cite, it appears your opponents weren't damaged, so they would probably, in practice, not have needed to call the TD (save for the education thing, but he should have already done that). But it sounds like the TD should have ruled that there was no break in tempo, so he should have told the table that, and that no further call would be necessary. Did he rule there was a break?

[RMB1]

The matter was discussed in Sao Paulo in September 2009 ...

 

A have replied in a separate thread: Misexplanation, misunderstanding and corrected explanation.

[bluejak]

When a TD is called a player may know how he has been damaged: he may suspect he has been damaged but does not quite know how: he may just feel there is an infraction but is not really sure of the effect. It is the TD's job in each case to consider whether to adjust. Of course he will take into account whether the player knows how he has been damaged, but there are all sorts of other things to consider, like the abilities of the players [novices may not know how they have been damaged: that does not mean they should never receive adjustments], the complexities [TDs who are called for MI or UI after a call and an explanation disagree are instructed to look at both MI and UI] and so forth. So there is no simple answer, like TDs never give redress if the player does not know how he has been damaged or TDs always give redress if they can find any way he might have been damaged whether he realises it or not.

 

I have the feeling that the basic question asked here is generally treated as rub-of-the-green: if a player might have been in a better position if the opposition had pointed out the MI at the right time it is generally not considered when adjusting. I can see the argument to say it should be.

[Vampyr]

The problem in question 1. is partly a practical one. How should the TD make sure that West only changes his final Pass for the right reason?

 

The right reason being that he is now entitled to know that 2♥ is weak.

(The wrong reason being that he now knows that 2H is weak but North described it as strong.)

 

And if the TD correctly instructs West as to the right reason for changing West's call and West changes his final Pass to Double, what sanction does the TD have if the TD decides West's reason for changing was the wrong reason.

 

So West must ignore some of the information he possesses in order for his decision to be considered valid? This is insane.

[barmar]

In the case you cite, it appears your opponents weren't damaged, so they would probably, in practice, not have needed to call the TD (save for the education thing, but he should have already done that). But it sounds like the TD should have ruled that there was no break in tempo, so he should have told the table that, and that no further call would be necessary. Did he rule there was a break?

I don't recall precisely, but I think he was kind of vague on this point, but mostly leaning towards there not being a break because of the skip bid.

 

My partner did actually have something to think about. He was 5=6 in the majors after the auction (1♣) Pass (3♣*weak). He took somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds to pass. I then balanced with 3♦, holding 11HCP and ♦Jxxxx ♣Kx and 3-3 majors. I think my only LAs were double and 3♦, and double would have turned out to be far more successful.

[blackshoe]

"Vague" is typical of many club level TDs on this point, I'm afraid. Still, it seems to me that he should have made a decision one way or 'tother, and if the decision was "no break", then he should not have suggested he be called back later. :blink: :ph34r:

[mycroft]

"call me if you think you were damaged" does not - or should not, at least - mean "I'm going to assume everything's fine unless you call me back."

 

I will frequently walk away with "call me if you think you were damaged", and go and look up the hand records, and determine whether, in my opinion, there's a potential case for damage. Now, I'm not as good at your system as you are, and I'm not as good (or as bad) a player as some, so I may miss something. So, call me back if you think you have a a reason, and I'll trigger an investigation myself if I think you have a reason, and I'll try to explain if you think you have a reason but it's not legally valid, or if there is a reason, but there is no damage because of...

 

Obviously, if I'm a playing TD, I'm going to put a little less effort into it, but I'll still try - after I've played the hand, if possible, but if not, then not. One of the downsides to playing TDs, but it's better than a half-table.

[barmar]

"Vague" is typical of many club level TDs on this point, I'm afraid. Still, it seems to me that he should have made a decision one way or 'tother, and if the decision was "no break", then he should not have suggested he be called back later. :blink: :ph34r:

This was at a regional, and he was a pretty experienced TD. Thinking back on it, what I think he may have said was something like "I don't think there was a hesitation, but call me back if you think there was a problem."

[blackshoe]

Doesn't make any sense to me. If there was no hesitation, then there's no basis for a score adjustment. Did he expect he would change his mind?

[barmar]

Doesn't make any sense to me. If there was no hesitation, then there's no basis for a score adjustment. Did he expect he would change his mind?

Maybe it was to give him an opportunity to try to convince him that there really was a hesitation. I don't know.

 

I just remember that it wasn't a definitive "Sorry, no hesitation, play on."

[enjoyaja]

I want to ask something

Is 1S - 2C - 2NT a Jacoby 2NT?

[blackshoe]

I suppose some could agree that it is, but generally, no. Why?