Player education

[jallerton]

3♣ was undiscussed, obviously. The poll by Frances had "Many of the respondents thought that partner's 3C bid was not necessarily particularly strong but if so was very distributional." Exactly my arguments to the AC, with "not" substituted for "so". If 3C is not game-forcing, your whole argument breaks down. How then can Pass of 3H be forcing?

 

You seem to have conveniently ignored the main finding of Frances's poll:

 

Following the ruling, I did a poll of a number of players I considered approximately peers of South (some rather better, some rather worse, no-one has an exact peer) together with a few much better ones. I tried quite hard not to ask too many people in my 'circle' whom I would often expect to agree with me. Another EBU referee who had been shown the hand did a poll of a group of 'county players' on his mailing list; I recognised most of the names and would also consider them, if not exact peers, at least similar in ability and experience. Both polls were carried out under my instructions:

 

- They were given the South hand, the vulnerability, form of scoring and identity of the opponents

- They were told that uncontested 1S-1NT-3C was game forcing, but that this auction was undiscussed

- They were asked if they agreed with the pass over 3Cx, and then, if so, or if they were prepared to live with it, what they would do on the next round.

- Polls were sent bcc i.e. no-one could see what anyone else said (this is a very important point)

- None of them had seen or played the hand

 

The results of the poll were as follows:

 

Pass: 1

3S: 14

Double: 1

4C: 1

Disagree strongly with pass on the previous round, would have bid 3D: 4 (of whom one would now pass, 2 would now bid 3S and one would now bid 4C)

 

So 16 out of 17 thought that either Opener's Pass was forcing or else Responder's hand was too strong to pass the hand out.

 

One final point; as Dburn wrote in May 2011, "One uses a poll not to determine what the methods of a partnership are, but to determine what logical alternatives exist given that the methods of the partnership are what they are." In this case, that has to be the methods the partnership thinks they would be. I told the TD when he arrived that I did not regard 3C as game-forcing, nor did I regard 3H as forcing. I asked partner today what she would bid in my authorised auction (if 1NT were natural) with something like AK10xx x xx AK10xx and she said "3C, but we probably need some methods here", before realising that they would not apply. She would not regard 3H in my authorised action as forcing." How our partnership would play 3C, and Pass over 3H, in the authorised auction should not be decided by a poll of what others would play.

 

As you point correctly point out, you and your partner had no specific agreement about the meaning of 1♠-dbl-1NT-P-3♣. When guessing the meaning of an undiscussed bid, people usually consider how the bid might generally be played. [if I had been on the AC, I would have asked North/South the meaning of 1♠-P-1NT-P-3♣ in their methods.]

 

In your own poll there was only one vote for a jump to 3♣ on that hand (compared with 17 votes for jumping to 3♣ on hands at least a working queen stronger). That seems a fair indication of what you could reasonably expect partner to hold based on the authorised auction. The fact that you have apparently found out a week later that your partner "would have bid 3♣" on such a weak hand over a natural 1NT is not really relevant: at the time you could not have known that.

 

This leads to a point which even dcrc2 may find instructive, if he is still reading our "should be private" discussions. Consider this scenario:

 

A player has UI, telling him that partner has not interpreted his bid as the player had intended.

The partner now makes a bid which is undiscussed in the authorised auction, but must logically have either meaning A or meaning B.

In the absence of UI, the player would have been able to guess whether meaning A or meaning B had been intended and choose his subsequent auction accordingly.

 

However, because the player has UI, in order to "carefully avoid taking any advantage" of the UI, he must assume whichever of meaning A and meaning B is more likely to make the earlier misunderstanding cause the auction to get out of hand.

 

In the present case, it is very convenient for South to assume a weaker meaning for 3♣ because that gives him an excuse to avoid getting to a silly contract. South knows that if he assumes the (normal) stronger meaning for 3♣ and has to keep the auction open, there is likely to be ambiguity about the meaning of subsequent bids, becase of the partners being on different wavelengths from the earlier auction.

[lamford]

In the present case, it is very convenient for South to assume a weaker meaning for 3♣ because that gives him an excuse to avoid getting to a silly contract. South knows that if he assumes the (normal) stronger meaning for 3♣ and has to keep the auction open, there is likely to be ambiguity about the meaning of subsequent bids, becase of the partners being on different wavelengths from the earlier auction.

Many of Frances' pollees also assigned a weaker meaning to 3C. And the TD poll clearly did, or it would otherwise not have thought that it was unclear whether there was an LA to Pass. Combined with partner's failure to double 3H, and the RHO opponent having doubled twice, the authorised auction indicates that partner has a minimum for the auction to date. I assumed that minimum was roughly the "not necessarily strong but distributional hand" that is suggested by Frances' poll, much the same as I told both the TD and the AC. If partner had a maximum, perhaps AKQxx x Kx AKQxx, she would have an obvious double, as she would with any hand with extras. I do not agree that partner will pass with six spades and five clubs at these colours, as defending 3H is unlikely. Dburn argues that nobody chose 4S because they did not think of it. Those that choose 3S are not thinking that partner can double 3H, and therefore Pass is clearly non-forcing. Had there been no opposition bidding, we would have indeed been forced to 3S or 4C, because partner can have "a monster" but after the further double, there is no reason why North cannot distinguish whatever her minimum hand is, and the 21 count above that everyone would bid 3C on. Indeed it is poor bridge not to so distinguish.

 

In my view, the only possible meaning, from the AI alone, is a minimum hand. No alternative to double and pass was suggested by the TD poll, and only a few do so on this thread, as far as I can see, other than Frances' poll. The UI obliges me to select from LAs, not to select what I do not consider LAs. I cannot conduct a poll before bidding, therefore have to decide what they are by judgement. This thread and the TD poll vindicated my judgement. The AC disagreed. I think double is suggested over Pass because partner will have fewer clubs and Pass is suggested over double because partner will generally have more points. Therefore neither is demonstrably suggested. RMB1 argues, I think, that if double will end the auction it is suggested over Pass because it will damage the non-offending side. I am not sure this is so, and I may have misunderstood him as I would expect double to end the auction. I would have no idea that partner might bid 4C on the authorised auction. Are you suggesting I should do anything other than what I did, considering my L16 and L73 obligations, deciding what is authorised and unauthorised, and proceeding accordingly?

 

In a much discussed thread last year, you argued that the opponents' auction was authorised. Now you are arguing that I have to treat 3C as game-forcing, and hence Pass of 3H as forcing, despite evidence to the contrary from the authorised auction. And my partner should have been asked how she would play 3C with any partner that is not playing transfers. That would have confirmed whether my estimate of the strength of the bid was reasonable.

[Zelandakh]

Are you suggesting I should do anything other than what I did, considering my L16 and L73 obligations, deciding what is authorised and unauthorised, and proceeding accordingly?

 

I really do not get this at all. Obviously you should consider your obligations. You should also not be surprised to be ruled against when your peers have different views about what LAs are available. And that is the end of it.

 

Polls found that there was at least one additional LA (3♠) to the ones that you considered for your peers. This LA was likely to give a worse result given the misunderstanding. I agree that is difficult to judge what LAs your peers might consider at the table. There has been no suggestion that you deliberately used the UI, the AC merely ruled according to the evidence and the Laws. Did this decision really warrant (at least) 5 threads to debate the minutiae of the details?

[gnasher]

Those that choose 3S are not thinking that partner can double 3H, and therefore Pass is clearly non-forcing. Had there been no opposition bidding, we would have indeed been forced to 3S or 4C, because partner can have "a monster" but after the further double, there is no reason why North cannot distinguish whatever her minimum hand is, and the 21 count above that everyone would bid 3C on.

 

Perhaps I've missed something in the earlier discussions (some of which I only skimmed through), but there seems to be some new information here. Are you saying that:

- In this partnership, the uncontested sequence 1♠-1NT;3♣ is forcing only as far as 3♠.

- In this partnership, when you have forced to a particular (non-game) level in a contested auction, passes below that level are non-forcing and show a minimum.

 

Did you explain to the appeals committee that you had these agreements?

[lamford]

Perhaps I've missed something in the earlier discussions (some of which I only skimmed through), but there seems to be some new information here. Are you saying that:

- In this partnership, the uncontested sequence 1♠-1NT;3♣ is forcing only as far as 3♠.

- In this partnership, when you have forced to a particular (non-game) level in a contested auction, passes below that level are non-forcing and show a minimum.

 

Did you explain to the appeals committee that you had these agreements?

In our partnership, uncontested, we play 3C as game-forcing. I told the TD and the AC that I regarded the auction with a double as "hugely different". Neither asked my partner how she would play 3C in a partnership where 1NT was natural. Partner is less likely to have a big hand, and the only reason 3C has to be forcing is that it could be huge. In other auctions pass might indeed be forcing, but here double of 3H is available to show a good hand, unambigously. "Many" of Frances' pollees think that 3C is "not necessarily strong but if not very distributional". How else can they show this not necessarily strong hand except by passing over 3H? I do think it is similar to our agreements that a Michaels cue bid is wide ranging, from a weakish 5-5 to a game-force. After 1H-(2H)-2S*-(P)-3H-(Dble) is extra values. Here the hand can be game forcing, but pass is not forcing, for obvious reasons. It is nothing to do with the level to which you were committed originally. It is the need to differentiate a wide ranging bid.

[lamford]

There has been no suggestion that you deliberately used the UI, the AC merely ruled according to the evidence and the Laws. Did this decision really warrant (at least) 5 threads to debate the minutiae of the details?

3S was not regarded as an LA by me, nor by any of those polled by the TD. After the second takeout double and partner's failure to bid 3S, I think it is a poor bid. The poll conducted by Frances was very different to the conducted by the TD, and the one I conducted, and the one on here. I have no problem with the AC deciding according to the evidence and the Laws. But the issue of a PP is a suggestion that I breached either Law 16 or Law 73.

[Zelandakh]

3S was not regarded as an LA by me, nor by any of those polled by the TD. After the second takeout double and partner's failure to bid 3S, I think it is a poor bid. I have no problem with the AC deciding according to the evidence and the Laws. But the issue of a PP is a suggestion that I breached either Law 16 or Law 73.

The TD did believe you had breached Law 16. This is clear in the post from mamos (#3). We have not been given details of the TD poll that I am aware. The AC poll though is very clear and we are discussing the AC decision here given that this is the A&AC forum. I am aware that you think 3♠ is a poor bid; can you honestly say it is not a bid that you considered though? Of course the AC have to go by what your peers believe. Once you found out that your peers thought 3♠ was a LA then I really think that should have been an end to the subject.

[gnasher]

I have no problem with the AC deciding according to the evidence and the Laws. But the issue of a PP is a suggestion that I breached either Law 16 or Law 73.

 

Paul's quite right about the meaning of the PP. A score adjustment implies merely that your judgement is poor (as whose is not?). A PP implies that your breach of the rules was intentional or careless.

[lamford]

Once you found out that your peers thought 3♠ was a LA then I really think that should have been an end to the subject.

The poll by Frances in which 3♠ was the main choice was conducted days after the event. I did not consider 3♠ an LA and only regarded pass and double as LAs. The appellant thought he would bid 4♣ on my hand, and I did not regard that as an LA either. I did not appeal, nor did I start this thread. The first I became aware of Frances' poll was in this thread. Neither the TD poll at the site, nor my poll at the site, including two by telephone, considered any bids other than Double and Pass. Around 18 months ago, I commented on an AC ruling where our side had appealed, and produced four opinions by top European directors at San Remo in our favour. Frances' reply was that she did not believe in polls conducted by one of the parties, as frequently the wrong or leading questions are asked, or words to that effect. I cannot find the thread now. However, that poll, of 4, was conducted just by showing the L&E minutes to those directors, and asking for their comments, without any other input from me. There is a similar danger in Frances' poll; for whatever reason, it produced a completely different result to both the TD poll and my poll. The exact votes of the TD poll are not stated on the appeal form.

 

The AC decision can only be appealed to the national authority under very strict requirements, clearly not fulfilled in this complex case. I have made representations to the L&E over the PP, as I did not regard it as intentional or careless. "And that is the end of it." as you say. I am not sure why I regard this as more important than completely merited PPs for careless things I have done in the past, such as playing the wrong board, or sitting at the wrong table, but it seems that way.

[lamford]

In this partnership, when you have forced to a particular (non-game) level in a contested auction, passes below that level are non-forcing and show a minimum.

 

Did you explain to the appeals committee that you had these agreements?

In many partnerships, a one-round force does not oblige either partner to bid again. Do you play that 1D - (Pass) - 1S - (2C)-Pass is forcing? Or 1S - (Pass) - 1NT [forcing] - (2C) - Pass? They are not that similar, except that the need to define a wide-ranging bid is present. Our general agreement where double would be either takeout or extras is that pass is a minimum. At least that is how I have always played. Playing that all further bids by the 3C bidder are forcing is inefficient and poor bridge, IMHO.

[Zelandakh]

I have made representations to the L&E over the PP, as I did not regard it as intentional or careless. "And that is the end of it." as you say. I am not sure why I regard this as more important than completely merited PPs for careless things I have done in the past, such as playing the wrong board, or sitting at the wrong table, but it seems that way.

 

FWiiW I do not think a PP was appropriate in this case either.

[bluejak]

Paul's quite right about the meaning of the PP. A score adjustment implies merely that your judgement is poor (as whose is not?). A PP implies that your breach of the rules was intentional or careless.

I think this post might be lost in the thread but it has wide application to a lot of things. There is often a dislike of giving or receiving PPs because people often believe they mean that someone has breached the rules intentionally. But that is not the case. As gnasher says, PPs are often given [and often not given when they should be] because of a lack of care where the rules are concerned.

 

People will then argue that if you make a simple mistake you should not receive a PP, except perhaps a warning, for example if you put a board on the table wrong. But PPs are subject, as so many things that TDs do, to judgement, and if you make a habit of putting the board on the table wrong, the TD will eventually start fining you [an English term meaning issuing PPs or DPs as points rather than warnings].

[lamford]

If Double is going to end the auction, then it is likely that it is suggested over Pass and choosing Pass over Double would damage the non-offending side.

Could you possibly clarify this sentence, please, Robin? If Double ends the auction, it scores +300, while Pass scores +100. Did you mean "choosing Double over Pass would damage the non-offending side"?

 

And, more generally, rather than for this case, do people think that an LA is demonstrably suggested just because it is likely to score better, when one has UI? I recall someone arguing, in a choice between Five Clubs and Six Clubs, after a Ghestem mixup, that Six Clubs had to be chosen because it would go one more off.

[RMB1]

If Double is going to end the auction, then it is likely that it is suggested over Pass and choosing Pass over Double would damage the non-offending side.

Could you possibly clarify this sentence, please, Robin? If Double ends the auction, it scores +300, while Pass scores +100. Did you mean "choosing Double over Pass would damage the non-offending side".

 

Sorry, nothing deep here: I think there is a "not" missing. (... would NOT damage the non-offending side)

[lamford]

Sorry, nothing deep here: I think there is a "not" missing. (... would NOT damage the non-offending side)

Does it therefore follow that if South thinks that Double will end the auction it would be an infraction, as it is suggested over Pass? From South's point of view, he would expect Double to do so, even more so if partner's Pass were forcing.

[Pig Trader]

Ok, so, so far we have heard from two of the players, two of the AC as well as the DIC. All it needs now is for the original TD to come wading in to this thread to give his tuppence-worth! Oh, heck, here he comes now! Aarg! :rolleyes:

[Pig Trader]

Certainly an AC should make use of any valid poll performed by the TD. Here though it seems that something has gone seriously wrong with the poll. Where did the TD find these people who apparently opted to defend 3♥undoubled non-vulnerable when partner had forced to game from strength? More likely, I suspect, the TD gave them a wrong auction or told the people asked about about the unauthorised information when conducting the poll. Judging from his comments, the Chief TD can to the same conclusion.

 

There have been many comments about my poll. I made it clear at the Appeal and on the Appeal Form that I started by polling players (and I also polled and consulted the DIC). It was immediately clear to me that I was very likely to need to poll many more players before being able to decide whether doubling was a LA to passing. It was also a complicated poll as there were two calls by South that were in question.

 

I therefore switched my approach to the ruling to the other direction and considered how I would adjust were there LAs that may have been less suggested by the UI. 3♥ doubled, and partscores and games in either black suit and various numbers of tricks, all came to mind and it was immediately clear to me that my weighting would result in a no-damage ruling.

 

Therefore, I stated that even on a LA ruling, there was no damage to the NOS. I didn’t need to resume polling players as it had become unnecessary for the outcome of the ruling. I gave no further details of my poll as it was so limited that I didn’t feel that it would be helpful.

 

I have no problems with the AC producing a weighting that became favourable enough for the NOS that a score adjustment became due. I do remain a little surprised that the AC imposed a PP as I asked Paul why he chose his actual calls and I received coherent reasons, but it seems that the AC were less persuaded than I was, but again, I have no problem with that.

 

The TD ruled that the table result should stand. The basis of the TD's ruling was that although South's Pass over 3♥ may have been an infraction, there was no damage from the infraction as (according to Deep Finesse) ten tricks are available for North/South in both clubs and spades.

 

I am a little bewildered by the reference to Deep Finesse. I can’t believe that any EBU TD would give any weight to the output of Deep Finesse. Sure, I might look in passing – it’s difficult to miss on the hand record sheets – but who would want to take any notice without analysing why it claims what it claims?

 

Barrie