Imprecision

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj64hq7dt87cakq65&w=saq75hkj64dk65c84&n=s93h983dqj943c732&e=skt82hat52da2cjt9&d=s&v=ew&b=7&a=1c(16+%3B%2017+%20if%20balanced)p1d(0-7)p1n(17-19)ppp]399|300[/hv]

 

North-South were inveterate precision players and this was the last board of a close match. South could not explain how he came to open a strong club, but was awake enough to alert North's 1D reply and explain it as 0-7. He now thought that the only LAs were Pass, 1NT, and 2C. In the methods of the partnership, Pass did not exist, 1NT was 17-19 and 2C was 23+, so he thought 1NT was the most accurate description. The +200 for E/W was scant consolation for the missed major-suit game, and they were unhappy and called the TD.

 

How would you rule?

[aguahombre]

The 1♣ misbid was not illegal because it wasn't a deliberate (as presented) mistatement of values for the artificial bid. The 1NT rebid was a gross misstatement of values and deliberate, but not an artificial opening bid. Responder didn't field anything.

 

Nothing to rule about.

 

Alternatively, you rule that South's 1C bid was deliberate and illegal. How do you determine that? "South could not explain" is a bit vague. Perhaps if we were at the table and had the exact things South did and said, we could work it out.

 

South was wrong about his alternatives. Pass does exist. It suggests that he believes pass will be best and doesn't answer the question whether he deliberately mistated his values with the 1C opening bid. If opener's minors were reversed, a pass would be quite reasonable.

[Phil]

Might have mentioned this here at one time but at the 2000 Anaheim NABC I 'forgot' (I really did) that I was playing a strong club and opened 1♣ with an 11 count.

 

The directors awarded my creativity with an A(-) for psyching a strong artificial opening.

 

I think they made the right ruling.

[lamford]

Might have mentioned this here at one time but at the 2000 Anaheim NABC I 'forgot' (I really did) that I was playing a strong club and opened 1♣ with an 11 count.

 

The directors awarded my creativity with an A(-) for psyching a strong artificial opening.

 

I think they made the right ruling.

It used to be the case that psyching your strongest bid in the UK was illegal, but not any more. If South had psyched it, there would be no issue, but having misbid and been woken up by the alert, he has extra obligations.

[lamford]

Pass does exist.

I don't think it does "exist" in the "authorised" world of someone who, as we seem to (probably wrongly) interpret Law 16, must continue to forget his basic system, and must therefore make up some other system where 1C is the opening bid. Presumably a natural, strong NT system.

[lamford]

"South could not explain" is a bit vague. Perhaps if we were at the table and had the exact things South did and said, we could work it out.

If pressed, South would have said that he chose 1C because it was his longest suit, and seemed a good idea at the time.

[aguahombre]

If pressed, South would have said that he chose 1C because it was his longest suit, and seemed a good idea at the time.

If that means he knew 1C was a strong-forcing, artificial bid at the time he bid 1C, then he gets ruled against as Phil did. If it means he was just spaced out at the time, no IMO.

[barmar]

"could not explain" sounds like a brain fart. Since it wasn't intentional, it's not a psyche, it's a misbid.

 

Since he opened as if he were playing a natural system, I think the appropriate way for him to avoid taking advantage of the UI from the alert is to continue to bid as if he were playing something standardish. In that case, he must treat 1♦ as forcing (which he did), and the natural rebid is 1NT.

 

As I think we concluded in another thread, when there's a system forget, and you have to determine the forgetter's LAs, where the law says "playing the methods of the partnership" you should interpret that as meaning what the forgetter apparently thought their methods were when he misbid; it doesn't make sense to base the LAs on their actual methods. I think if you poll players who would open that hand 1♣, probably the vast majority would rebid 1NT, so that's the only LA.

[Trinidad]

In principle, and the way the case is presented, there is nothing to rule. South made a mistake. That is not forbidden. End of story.

 

In practice, there are some complicating factors.

 

A) South will have to convince the TD and AC that he had a brain fart. If they think it might have been a deliberate psyche, they sh/could rule against South if psyches of strong conventional openings are restricted in the jurisdiction.

 

B) In practice, South has UI (unless they were playing with screens). After all, North will have alerted the 1♣ opening. Normally, this is the point where South realizes his mistake. The knowledge that he made an antisystematic 1♣ opener is UI for South, and he will have to bid (and defend if applicable) the rest of the hand as if he was playing the system that made him open 1♣ to begin with. It is fair to assume that South opened 1♣ because he forgot he was playing Precision and thought he was playing a standard system (with a strong 1NT). Then South will have to continue playing this system. This means that 1NT is the normal rebid. Doing anything else (e.g. Pass) is using the UI. Since South did bid 1NT, there is no infraction.

 

Rik

[chasetb]

I would rule the result as stands, because if West isn't intelligent enough to make some sort of noise over 1♣ (yes, even Vul) and if East doesn't keep the auction open in the balancing seat (though it's close), they deserve that result. As is, just because 4 of a Major makes, doesn't mean they will make it (though it is more than likely, I open all balanced 11s and quite a few balanced 10s at favorable vulnerability in 1st seat 1♦ so partner has plenty of room).

[Cyberyeti]

One of two situations exist, and I believe what happens next depends on which applies.

 

Opener miscounted and thought he had a 16 count and now realises he hasn't, in which case there is no UI and he can do what he likes. This reminds me of a situation where I blew a mental gasket and opened 1N on 4 queens as 4x3=12 :)

 

Opener opened a natural club (which he plays with other people) and wakes up when partner alerts. In this case, the question is "What no trump do I play with other people", if a 1N rebid is the 12-14 bid then fine, if it's 15-17 then I may have to bid 2♣ and we could be off to the Wacky races. I'm not sure that if I thought I was playing a natural club (hence the diamond is natural too without UI) that 2♦ isn't in the frame either.

 

If there is no UI adjustment, I can't see any grounds for any other form of adjustment, there is no fielding or misinformation.

 

btw I think criticism of EW is unfair, certainly in the UK it's very common for methods over a strong club including X to be destructive with 1M as the only constructive overcall, and I'm not sure I fancy that vul, nor do I fancy coming in over 1N.

[lamford]

the question is "What no trump do I play with other people", if a 1N rebid is the 12-14 bid then fine, if it's 15-17 then I may have to bid 2♣ and we could be off to the Wacky races.

I don't think this is the right approach at all. I think the right question is "what did I think my methods were with this specific partner when I opened 1C?" The problem is that the answer to this was "Precision", as South had successfully negotiated the addition stage and got to 16 on three previous occasions in this same match. The question is "Playing Precision, you open 1C on the South hand, and are alerted to your misbid by partner's alert. What do you rebid over the 1D response?" To establish the LAs under Law 16, the correct procedure is to poll ten lawful players with that question, and then select from those not demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

A few Precision players I polled here thought Pass was the only LA now, and I think it is forced upon South, as other bids are demonstrably suggested, while Pass will expose the misbid, and allow the opponents to reach game. 1NT, in my opinion, should be disallowed. If it is not an LA, however, then it seems permitted to choose it, but there is case law which shows that this is not what the laws mean, and choosing a non-LA is not permitted either.

[helene_t]

A few Precision players I polled here thought Pass was the only LA now, and I think it is forced upon South, as other bids are demonstrably suggested, while Pass will expose the misbid, and allow the opponents to reach game. 1NT, in my opinion, should be disallowed. If it is not an LA, however, then it seems permitted to choose it, but there is case law which shows that this is not what the laws mean, and choosing a non-LA is not permitted either.

I don't understand this. Surely pass is suggested by the UI? My partner thinks I am strong, I better pass to expose my misbid before we end up in 3NTx-3.

 

Probably 2♣ is the rebid least suggested by the UI so if 2♣ is a LA then South should bid that. But I think there is no LA other than 1NT.

 

I don't agree with bluecalm that EW should have bid something. Unless they have methods to show both majors at the 1-level I don't think either of them can say anything.

 

There is a sligt possibility that S is very prone to forgetting the strong club in which case we could rule on the basis of MI. But that seems unlikely.

 

So result stands.

[lamford]

I don't understand this. Surely pass is suggested by the UI? My partner thinks I am strong, I better pass to expose my misbid before we end up in 3NTx-3.

LAs are decided before considering the UI. Once we have a list of LAs, we then choose the one not demonstrably suggested. If Pass and 1NT are both LAs, then neither is demonstrably suggested. Pass will work when partner would have raised 1NT to 3NT and that would go for more than the opponents can make. 1NT will work when partner will pass that - the opponents are quite likely to have game on. I would guess that if partner has 5-7, pass works best; if partner has 0-4, then 1NT works. About the same considering values nearer 10 are more common. The other question is whether the meaning of 1D is UI or AI to South. Even if is UI, he should use it to his detriment in selecting LAs, however.

[Cyberyeti]

I don't think this is the right approach at all. I think the right question is "what did I think my methods were with this specific partner when I opened 1C?"

 

Agreed, what I said was meant as the same sort of thing, but in the context of "I thought I was playing a natural NF club" presumably with somebody else unless I play 2 systems with this partner.

 

The problem is that the answer to this was "Precision", as South had successfully negotiated the addition stage and got to 16 on three previous occasions in this same match. The question is "Playing Precision, you open 1C on the South hand, and are alerted to your misbid by partner's alert. What do you rebid over the 1D response?" To establish the LAs under Law 16, the correct procedure is to poll ten lawful players with that question, and then select from those not demonstrably suggested by the UI.

 

A few Precision players I polled here thought Pass was the only LA now, and I think it is forced upon South, as other bids are demonstrably suggested, while Pass will expose the misbid, and allow the opponents to reach game. 1NT, in my opinion, should be disallowed. If it is not an LA, however, then it seems permitted to choose it, but there is case law which shows that this is not what the laws mean, and choosing a non-LA is not permitted either.

 

This is silly. You clearly forgot for whatever reason you were playing 1♣ as 16+ when you opened 1♣ or you psyched it, and in the first case cannot be reminded to the fact that you showed 16+ by the alert. What you are saying is that you remembered you showed 16+ before the alert, which I believe TDs are instructed to ignore.

 

Similar situation:

 

You have a SJO in clubs with ♠Kxx and make your strong jump over 1♥, unfortunately partner alerts it (correctly) as a bad hand with diamonds and spades, and bids 3♠. By the logic you've used for this, you know you play this 2 suited so don't have to go slamming in spades. GL in getting away with that one.

[WellSpyder]

I think the right question is "what did I think my methods were with this specific partner when I opened 1C?" The problem is that the answer to this was "Precision"....A few Precision players I polled here thought Pass was the only LA now, and I think it is forced upon South

I can't remember the last time I thought lamford had got a legal question so completely wrong. Usually when he reaches an apparently perverse conclusion there at least seems to be some logic behind it, but that is not the case to my mind here. I think the root of the issue lies in the second sentence I have quoted above - I don't think there is any convincing evidence that the answer to the question posed in the first sentence was "precision", and indeed I think there is convincing evidence from the bid chosen that the answer was something else. The fact that the answer to the same question on previous boards would indeed have been "precision" does not alter that conclusion in my mind.

 

Having got that far, I think it is inconceivable that pass would be a LA in whatever system was in south's mind at the time. It also looks like a bid that has been suggested by the UI, so, far from imposing such a bid on south, I would expect to rule against him if he made such a bid. In this case it appears that the opponents might not have been damaged had south chosen to pass, but I think a PP might well still have been in order if pass had been chosen.

 

Edit: I see the abominable cyberman has made the same point while I was typing. In the meantime, let's sympathise with poor south. OK, he made a pretty silly error by forgetting what he was playing, but he now finds himself in the unfortunate position where someone is telling him that the only bid he can legally make is pass, and others are telling him that if he passes he risks a penalty for illegally using UI....

[campboy]

Isn't a relevant question what "natural, strong NT system" South normally plays, since a short club would also be alertable?

 

Anyway, if South thought he was making a natural opening in a strong NT system then 1NT is the only LA. If he thought he was making a natural opening in a weak NT system then 2♣ is the only LA. If he thought he was opening a precision club but miscounted or whatever then there is no meaningful UI so it doesn't matter what the LAs are.

[lamford]

I don't think there is any convincing evidence that the answer to the question posed in the first sentence was "precision", and indeed I think there is convincing evidence from the bid chosen that the answer was something else.

The Laws clearly say "the methods of the partnership", not the methods of some other partnership, or the methods considered by the player at the time. If 1C had been wrongly alerted as precision, where the actual methods of the partnership were "strong and 5", the methods of the partnership would be "strong and 5". "The methods of the partnership" are a matter of fact not what South thought they were. And one misbid does not change the "methods of the partnership" one iota. So you are wrong in both law and logic, despite my generally high opinion of your posts. There is no downside to interpreting Law 16 exactly as it states. Now whether it should be rewritten is another issue ... and another forum section.

[lamford]

Isn't a relevant question what "natural, strong NT system" South normally plays, since a short club would also be alertable?

No. That would be the methods of some other partnership, unless you are arguing that "the methods of the partnership" does not refer to the two players sitting opposite each other.

[Cyberyeti]

The Laws clearly say "the methods of the partnership", not the methods of some other partnership, or the methods considered by the player at the time. If 1C had been wrongly alerted as precision, where the actual methods of the partnership were "strong and 5", the methods of the partnership would be "strong and 5". "The methods of the partnership" are a matter of fact not what South thought they were. And one misbid does not change the "methods of the partnership" one iota. So you are wrong in both law and logic, despite my generally high opinion of your posts. There is no downside to interpreting Law 16 exactly as it states. Now whether it should be rewritten is another issue ... and another forum section.

This would make this law an idiot's charter (rather than a cheat's charter, the cheat simply claims to have psyched after he knows dummy hasn't fielded provided it's legal in his jurisdiction), and it's never been interpreted in this way. It would mean every UI case where somebody forgets a bid can be saved by this method. If this is the purpose of your post, I ve said this also a few times, and most directors know what the law means even if it's not what it says. If this happens to me again, I might try this argument to see what the TD does, but normally nobody interprets it this way.

[Cyberyeti]

No. That would be the methods of some other partnership, unless you are arguing that "the methods of the partnership" does not refer to the two players sitting opposite each other.

What if (as we used to) you were playing strong club at some vuls and approach forcing at others and clearly got the vul wrong/forgot ? Any difference ?

[campboy]

No. That would be the methods of some other partnership, unless you are arguing that "the methods of the partnership" does not refer to the two players sitting opposite each other.

The part of my post you quoted was nothing to do with LAs. I was suggesting that we attempt to find out whether the alert was actually unexpected: if the player was expecting an alert because he thought he was playing short club then partner's alert does not suggest otherwise.

[barmar]

The part of my post you quoted was nothing to do with LAs. I was suggesting that we attempt to find out whether the alert was actually unexpected: if the player was expecting an alert because he thought he was playing short club then partner's alert does not suggest otherwise.

Unless the opponents asked for an explanation. Also, it depends on the jurisdiction. in ACBL we don't alert short clubs, we announce "could be short". I think EBU is similar.

 

Also, the perpetrator correctly alerted his partner's 1♦ response. That means that he has woken up to his mistake. Since the UI could have been responsible for this, I think we're supposed to rule on the assumption that it was. I don't think you can say that the UI is specific for the purpose of alerting, but ambiguous for purposes of constraining his actions.

[barmar]

Anyway, if South thought he was making a natural opening in a strong NT system then 1NT is the only LA. If he thought he was making a natural opening in a weak NT system then 2♣ is the only LA. If he thought he was opening a precision club but miscounted or whatever then there is no meaningful UI so it doesn't matter what the LAs are.

But if he thought he was playing natural + weak NT, he would have opened 1NT. So I think we can rule on the assumption that he thought he was making a natural opening in a strong NT context.

 

Yes, you could say that if he was having a brain fart, he could also forget to open NT even though it's in his range. But now you're talking about not only the actual brain fart that occurred, but some hypothetical brain fart in the system of the first mistake. I think that's taking things a bit too far -- we're not playing bridge in Wonderland. Let's just deal with the actual mistake, and assume that his bidding is consistent with that one forget, or we end up in a maze of counterfactuals.

[WellSpyder]

The Laws clearly say "the methods of the partnership", not the methods of some other partnership, or the methods considered by the player at the time.

OK, my earlier post was wrong - you did have a logical reason for arguing the way you did. Your argument is still rubbish, though, since it is universally accepted by everyone else that in the particular instance of system forgets the law has to be interpreted as referring to what the bidder thought the system was before the UI reminded him otherwise.