Any rectification?

[mgoetze]

German team trials, screens are in use.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqhj74dkqca7532&w=sj6542ha8da43ct96&n=st98hkq652d86cq84&e=s73ht93djt9752ckj&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp2dp2hppp]640|480[/hv]

 

On the NE side of the screen, 2♦ was explained as weak 2 and 2♥ as natural, NF. On the SW side of the screen, 2♦ was explained as "18-19 balanced, no 5-card major", 2♥ as transfer to spades, and pass as "I guess he forgot the system again."

 

The convention card does say that 2♦ is "18-19 bal.", the followups are not explained. EW are a regular partnership who have changed their system in this and other aspects in recent months.

 

2♥W went down 5, the other room had 4♥N=, so the NOS lost 3 IMPs.

 

The NOS argues that North might have gotten into the auction with a double given correct explanations.

 

A poll in the BBF A/E Forum ( http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/50737-stick-your-neck-out/page__mode__show ) has 14 passes and 4 doubles with the North cards given the explanations from the SW side of the screen.

 

Your ruling?

 

Note: the on-site TD conducted a smaller poll resulting in 5 passes and 0 doubles. I am mainly interested in how you would rule given the BBF poll results.

[wank]

i'd like to go for a split ruling.

 

south was given correct information and passing 2♥ out to me looks like a serious error, not connected to the original MI given to north.

 

i can well believe many norths would X 2♥ for the lead given correct information so i don't feel EW should keep the table score.

 

the bar is set quite high though for a serious error so i suppose we must relent on south, so weighted rulings all round.

[mgoetze]

i'd go for a split ruling.

 

south was given correct information and passing 2♥ out to me looks like a serious error,

 

It may have been a bad decision, but I think far from SEWoG. Before his final pass South also asked carefully about the bidding alternatives West had etc., so it's not like he just shrugged and thought "oh well, who cares".

[aguahombre]

Addressing just the poll, as requested in the small print of the OP:

 

The question of the poll, on either BBF or at the scene in effect was whether North would make a lead-directing double of a transfer after his lefty had shown a super strong 1NT opening bid. It is not surprising that four forum posters would double. But, I would go with the zero number by selected peers at the site.

[RMB1]

A poll in the BBF A/E Forum ( http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/50737-stick-your-neck-out/page__mode__show ) has 14 passes and 4 doubles with the North cards given the explanations from the SW side of the screen.

 

Your ruling?

 

I conduct another poll where North is given the correct desciption of EW understandings: card says 18-19 BAL but he has forgotten before, 2♥ is a transfer to spades, but if he thinks 2♦ is weak then 2♥ is NF.

[wank]

It may have been a bad decision, but I think far from SEWoG. Before his final pass South also asked carefully about the bidding alternatives West had etc., so it's not like he just shrugged and thought "oh well, who cares".

i was busy editing my original post to relent on south while you were typing your's evidently

[mgoetze]

The question of the poll, on either BBF or at the scene in effect was whether North would make a lead-directing double of a transfer after his lefty had shown a super strong 1NT opening bid. It is not surprising that four forum posters would double. But, I would go with the zero number by selected peers at the site.

 

Personally I would consider it quite fair to say that two of the doublers in the BBF poll are peers of the NS pair here.

[mgoetze]

I conduct another poll where North is given the correct desciption of EW understandings: card says 18-19 BAL but he has forgotten before, 2♥ is a transfer to spades, but if he thinks 2♦ is weak then 2♥ is NF.

 

This sort of poll of course screams "TD case" very loudly. Of course if you are the TD of the event approaching players on-site, it's pretty obvious anyway. The nice thing about BBF is that you can conduct a poll without people realising immediately that UI or MI must be involved. But feel free. :)

[aguahombre]

Personally I would consider it quite fair to say that two of the doublers in the BBF poll are peers of the NS pair here.

O.K. But, that would seem to be an indicting opinion of North and his peers. The liklihood of 2HXX rapped around N/S's neck for a number in the 1900 range seems greatly increased if the opener has some balanced 18-19.

[mgoetze]

O.K. But, that would seem to be an indicting opinion of North and his peers. The liklihood of 2HXX rapped around N/S's neck for a number in the 1900 range seems greatly increased if the opener has some balanced 18-19.

 

I'm also pretty sure the two people I mentioned would be happy to play you for money.

[lamford]

the bar is set quite high though for a serious error so i suppose we must relent on south, so weighted rulings all round.

I agree with others it is not quite SeWoG, but if you do not give North a double of 2H, then the score would stand, so there would be no weighted ruling. I prefer RMB1's approach, that North is entitled to know that East has forgotten before (assuming he has, based on West's remark). South is also entitled to know that East has forgotten before, and will then surely bid, 2NT or something, and they will get to game in hearts. So, 4H = and a flat board seems close to the mark.

 

And I confess in the other thread I had noticed North had passed. Perhaps I should double; the people who doubled counted as several votes for me.

[mike777]

I wonder are there not penalties for a player repeatedly forgetting their system as stated here?

 

Also would it not be best for south to call the director before his final pass once he is told that? I would not even understand how the hand is playable at this point but in any case I would ask the director for protection and what my options are here.

 

Sidenote when I play bridge for money I get to play with everyone as my partner at the table over the evening.

[mgoetze]

Also would it not be best for south to call the director before his final pass once he is told that?

And what exactly is that supposed to accomplish?

[mike777]

And what exactly is that supposed to accomplish?

 

 

As I stated I would ask for protection and want to know what my options are here. I would also ask what if any options my partner has at this late point.

 

I would also ask if there are any penalties or bridge laws broken by rho repeatedly forgetting his system and how could I protect myself.

[mgoetze]

As I stated I would ask for protection

Pointless.

 

and want to know what my options are here.

Probably something like pass, double, 2NT or 3♣, but the TD is not there to give you bridge advice.

 

I would also ask what if any options my partner has at this late point.

You don't even know what explanation your partner received and the TD is hardly going to tell you at this point. In any case, it's not your partner's turn to call. When it's his turn again his options are likely to be a spade, a heart, a diamond or a club.

 

I would also ask if there are any penalties or bridge laws broken by rho repeatedly forgetting his system and how could I protect myself.

This can certainly wait until you've had a chance to find out whether RHO did, in fact, forget his system. For all you know he might be psyching.

 

I guess you've never played with screens before.

[aguahombre]

I'm also pretty sure the two people I mentioned would be happy to play you for money.

They certainly would be; but I decline...am woefully uneducated on the nuances of money bridge. However, I suspect a whole lot of the 19 passers from the two polls would be willing to accept.

[mike777]

Pointless.

 

 

Probably something like pass, double, 2NT or 3♣, but the TD is not there to give you bridge advice.

 

 

You don't even know what explanation your partner received and the TD is hardly going to tell you at this point. In any case, it's not your partner's turn to call. When it's his turn again his options are likely to be a spade, a heart, a diamond or a club.

 

 

This can certainly wait until you've had a chance to find out whether RHO did, in fact, forget his system. For all you know he might be psyching.

 

I guess you've never played with screens before.

 

 

so you tell me i have no legal options and no protection...i am just suppose to bid and shut up is the msg you send.

[Finch]

The problem with the BBF poll is the many of the posters, and hence potentially many of the voters, did not read the auction before commenting (voting). Once you remove the people who didn't realise you were a passed hand, and those who thought 2D was a multi, you don't know what's left.

[joostb1]

Although NS can guess something has gone wrong with the bidding of EW, I don't think you can blame them for not getting in 4♥. So I correct the score to 4♥= for NS. Besides I would seriously consider a PP for EW. At this level you should know your system.

I would suggest to the original poster not to reply to or discuss every single answer he gets. You asked your question and it would be wise to see what replies you get.

[bluejak]

I wonder are there not penalties for a player repeatedly forgetting their system as stated here?

He had forgotten before does not quite have the same flavour as "repeatedly forgetting" which I do not think was said. But anyway, the idea of penalising players for forgetting their system has been basically shown to be undesirable. It is a fact, forgotten very quickly by those who get a bad board from a forget, that forgets get bad boards far more often than good. I personally would like my opponents to forget their system often and would expect to gain seriously thereby.

 

Also would it not be best for south to call the director before his final pass once he is told that? I would not even understand how the hand is playable at this point but in any case I would ask the director for protection and what my options are here.

I cannot understand how the hand cannot be playable: everyone has got thirteen cards and there are four people at the table, yes? Of course it is playable. The normal method of dealing with MI is by adjustment at the end.

 

You do not communicate across a screen so calling the TD seems pointless. You decide what to do, and play the hand. The TD will not tell your partner what has happened your side of the screen during the hand. So I really do not see the point in calling the TD now.

 

:ph34r:

 

However, South's pass of 2♥ interests me. I should ask what else E/W had played, presumably getting the answer that they used to play 2♦ as weak. I know someone decided that the pass of 2♥ was not a serious error, but is it not a classical gambling double shot attempt? If West has passed as dealer and East seems to have a weak 2♦ the only reason for passing is to get the game at the end if it makes by a ruling, and a small plus without a ruling if game does not make.

 

I am not sure whether we should adjust for E/W but South's gamble will get no adjustment under Law 12C1D [cited from memory, please adjust if necessary]. Yes, I know we do not just say "no redress" any more, but if [for example] we decide N/S can make 4♥ then the full adjustment between table score and 4♥ is what the gamble cost, so in this case it is a no redress case for N/S.

 

:ph34r:

 

Note that 'Review the complete topic (launches new window)' which did not work with IE9 seems to work with Google Chrome! :)

[dburn]

What bothers me somewhat about this case is West's "I guess he forgot the system again". This implies that the explanation South should have received from West before South called over 2♦ was not "18-19 balanced" but "18-19 balanced if he remembered, a weak two in diamonds if he forgot" (recall that partnership experience is part of partnership method and must in Law be fully disclosed).

 

South may argue as follows: "my opponents were playing an opening bid of 2♦ as two-way: weak if the opener forgot, strong balanced if he remembered. Had I known in advance that this was their method, my partner and I would have had the opportunity to discuss a defence to it, and might have come up with (inter alia) "double means I think RHO forgot" (certainly that is the defence I would suggest without overmuch cerebration).

 

Because South may quite correctly argue that way, the notion that South is not entitled to redress when 2♥ comes round and he does the wrong thing, given that he would have done the right thing over 2♦ had he known what his opponents actually played, is based only on the very stupid "principle" that "most of the time the opponents forget we get a good board, so we shouldn't complain when they forget and we get a bad one". For some reason Brian Senior also thinks this, the only one of his opinions on the game that is other than non-ridiculous. Must be the Northern air, or lack of it.

[mgoetze]

However, South's pass of 2♥ interests me. I should ask what else E/W had played, presumably getting the answer that they used to play 2♦ as weak. I know someone decided that the pass of 2♥ was not a serious error, but is it not a classical gambling double shot attempt? If West has passed as dealer and East seems to have a weak 2♦ the only reason for passing is to get the game at the end if it makes by a ruling, and a small plus without a ruling if game does not make.

 

Good reasons for South to pass:

• Opponents are very likely to be in a horrible contract now. To do better NS would have to get to game at least.
  
• However, it is not obvious, from South's point of view, that game is possible.
  
• Even if game is possible, the question is how to get there, as this is an undefined bidding situation with a high risk of misunderstandings.
  

 

What would you have done as South?

[Vampyr]

What bothers me somewhat about this case is West's "I guess he forgot the system again". This implies that the explanation South should have received from West before South called over 2♦ was not "18-19 balanced" but "18-19 balanced if he remembered, a weak two in diamonds if he forgot" (recall that partnership experience is part of partnership method and must in Law be fully disclosed).

 

Most partnerships in this situation will not make West's statement. So there are lots of people who are playing this sort of undisclosed 2-way bid, but their opponents will never know. I do not see that anything can be done about this, though.

[bluejak]

What bothers me somewhat about this case is West's "I guess he forgot the system again". This implies that the explanation South should have received from West before South called over 2♦ was not "18-19 balanced" but "18-19 balanced if he remembered, a weak two in diamonds if he forgot" (recall that partnership experience is part of partnership method and must in Law be fully disclosed).

 

South may argue as follows: "my opponents were playing an opening bid of 2♦ as two-way: weak if the opener forgot, strong balanced if he remembered. Had I known in advance that this was their method, my partner and I would have had the opportunity to discuss a defence to it, and might have come up with (inter alia) "double means I think RHO forgot" (certainly that is the defence I would suggest without overmuch cerebration).

 

Because South may quite correctly argue that way, the notion that South is not entitled to redress when 2♥ comes round and he does the wrong thing, given that he would have done the right thing over 2♦ had he known what his opponents actually played, is based only on the very stupid "principle" that "most of the time the opponents forget we get a good board, so we shouldn't complain when they forget and we get a bad one". For some reason Brian Senior also thinks this, the only one of his opinions on the game that is other than non-ridiculous. Must be the Northern air, or lack of it.

I think you are confusing two entirely different things.

 

First, there is the question of whether we should adjust in a case where the opponents are misinformed. Of course I am not suggesting that we should not nor that they should not complain.

 

Second there is the general principle of whether we should give PPs for forgets because we do not see them as a bad thing. It is true I think they are not a bad thing in general and dislike PPs for forgets.

[Vampyr]

 

Second there is the general principle of whether we should give PPs for forgets because we do not see them as a bad thing. It is true I think they are not a bad thing in general and dislike PPs for forgets.

 

Do you really think they are not a bad thing? I strongly disagree. Come back, Convention Disruption, all is forgiven!