Appeal from today

[TylerE]

Here's a hand I was involved in a sectional Swiss teams event today. I'll present just the facts as well as I can recall (I didn't think to make a record of the hands, unfortunately.

 

N/S are a first time partnership on a Flight B team, E/W are both A players, with E holding several thousand masterpoints

 

N: some random 1♠ opening

E: A 19 count with AKxxx of ♣

S: A 4-3-2-4 8 count

W: nothing of note

 

Auction (North dealer)

 

1♠ - X - 3♣ - p

p - X - 3♠ - p

p - X - p - p

p

 

Before E leads to 3♠ (but card is on the table, face down), south volunteers that they had agreed to play Bergen raises, but had not discussed if it was on over doubles or not - N/S are a first time partnership, and partnership "agreement" totally about 2 minutes of south looking over north's CC before the session. CC is marked Bergen with no further notes.

 

At this point E calls the director and says if had "known" it was Bergen he would have not Xed 3♣ simply passed it out.

 

Director states the contract is 3♣ and tells W to lead.

 

Table Result: 3♣ -5, -500 for NS (Edit: contract fixed)

 

N/S appeal, stating that as there was no firm agreement in place, there had not been a lack of alert, and that S had merely bid hoping partner would be on the same wavelength but wasn't sure, and that's why he'd volunteered the bit about Bergen after the auction, and that it was obvious that he had guessed wrong, since partner had passed 3♠.

 

This did go to a (quick, small) committee, but I won't post their decision yet.

 

Thoughts?

[nigel_k]

The director was wrong to make them play 3♣. They should have played 3♠X and the director adjust to E/W +500 at the end if he wishes.

 

On the substantive issue:

 

The director should rule mistaken explanation, unless there is evidence indicating a mistaken call. I don't think there is evidence of that here, unless the evidence is that very few people play that Bergen is on after a double. But N/S would have to make that case specifically, not just effectively say that there was no firm agreement therefore they can bid 3♣ on any hand and it will always be mistaken bid.

 

Probably East could and should have figured out for himself what had happened. But I don't think this is so clear that East can be denied redress. So I agree with +500 to E/W.

[CSGibson]

My thoughts - If E is experienced, he should have been aware enough to ask about the meaning of 3♣ if it would have influenced his call. After all, in competition the meaning of such calls can vary dramatically. And, also, it is not clear that his 2nd double is pure penalty even if it was natural - it is likely that his partner, short in both clubs and spades, would have taken it out.

 

In short, it appears that E did not take steps to protect himself during the auction, and did the best he could to profit from general confusion rather than just playing bridge. I would give E-W the result of 3♠ doubled, but N-S -500 if I knew enough laws to make that a legal ruling; if I couldn't work a split score, I would be inclined to just rule against E-W for not protecting themselves.

[blackshoe]

There are UI considerations here, are there not?

[nigel_k]

There are UI considerations here, are there not?

South has UI from the failure to alert but I don't think passing 3♣X is a logical alternative. Is South supposed to conclude that North psyched a 1♠ opening with a long club suit when South also has four clubs and East a penalty double?

[RMB1]

 

Director states the contract is 3♣ and tells W to lead.

 

Table Result: 3♠ -5, -500 for NS

 

 

This is inconsistent - presmably the second line should be: 3♣ -5, -500 for NS.

 

(Of course, the first line is nonsense - an illegal ruling - but nevermind.)

[paulg]

I'm not sure what I can do when there is director error, but I'd like to rule that the contract is three spades doubled and assign the appropriate score. I'd also revoke the director's licence for this level of competition until he has retaken the exam.

[bluejak]

What you can do with TD error is to adjust the scores, treating both sides as non-offending for the purpose. Now, this does not mean that if there was MI then you treat it as though there was no MI. What it means is that if there is a doubt, then each side gets the benefit of it.

 

Another mistake that is regularly made with TD error, ok used to be regularly made, less so nowadays, is that people give averages. For some reason they read give an adjusted score as give an artificial adjusted score, which is nonsense. Adjusted scores are a matter for Law 12C, which tells you whether to give an assigned or an artificial adjusted score.

 

The problem with this case, of course, is that not only did the TD give a completely illegal ruling, but also it is not clear whether there is MI or not. My own feeling is that there wasn't.

 

If there wasn't MI then the correct ruling is 3♠ doubled, but the TD/AC needs to decide the number of tricks. Since this is a matter of doubt, you give each side the benefit of the doubt. For example, if both 8 and 9 tricks seem feasible, then you rule as follows:

 

For N/S:

3♠ x =, NS +730

 

For E/W:

3♠ x -1, NS -200

 

As to revoking the TD's licence, I am all for that. Not even untrained club TDs around here would tell players to play a different contract.

[jeffford76]

Before E leads to 3♠ (but card is on the table, face down), south volunteers that they had agreed to play Bergen raises, but had not discussed if it was on over doubles or not - N/S are a first time partnership, and partnership "agreement" totally about 2 minutes of south looking over north's CC before the session. CC is marked Bergen with no further notes.

 

The situation where one partner thinks an agreement applies and the other does not is a fairly common one, and it would be nice if it were addressed more explicitly in the laws.

 

However under the current law we must determine whether or not an agreement exists. I think that there is sufficient evidence that they do not have this agreement given the pass of 3♣. The alert procedures call for alerting agreements, not for alerting undiscussed situations, so I don't think the bid of 3♣ requires an alert. Thus there is no infraction.

 

As others have said, the director made a clear error in not allowing the hand to be played in 3♠X. As a practical matter, any suggestion on what one should do at the table in a case like this? In a case where my side clearly did give misinformation I have had the director remove two rounds of bidding when I knew this wasn't a legal ruling.

[blackshoe]

The situation where one partner thinks an agreement applies and the other does not is a fairly common one, and it would be nice if it were addressed more explicitly in the laws.

 

However under the current law we must determine whether or not an agreement exists. I think that there is sufficient evidence that they do not have this agreement given the pass of 3♣. The alert procedures call for alerting agreements, not for alerting undiscussed situations, so I don't think the bid of 3♣ requires an alert. Thus there is no infraction.

 

As others have said, the director made a clear error in not allowing the hand to be played in 3♠X. As a practical matter, any suggestion on what one should do at the table in a case like this? In a case where my side clearly did give misinformation I have had the director remove two rounds of bidding when I knew this wasn't a legal ruling.

If you know the ruling isn't legal, ask him to read it from the book. If he declines and still rules that way, appeal on the grounds of director error.

[jeffford76]

If you know the ruling isn't legal, ask him to read it from the book. If he declines and still rules that way, appeal on the grounds of director error.

 

I've heard this before about asking for a reading from the book, and I don't think it really works with most directors.

 

In the case I mentioned I said, "I didn't think you could rewind the auction that far, do you mind checking?" and got the response, "I'm the director and you need to be quiet and play the hand." I spoke to him after the match to find he had at least looked it up in the meantime, and realized he was wrong, but he never came back to the table to see if there was a problem with the incorrect ruling. It was a KO match we lost, and our opponents were made worse off by his ruling, so there was nothing more to pursue.

[blackshoe]

I've heard this before about asking for a reading from the book, and I don't think it really works with most directors.

 

In the case I mentioned I said, "I didn't think you could rewind the auction that far, do you mind checking?" and got the response, "I'm the director and you need to be quiet and play the hand." I spoke to him after the match to find he had at least looked it up in the meantime, and realized he was wrong, but he never came back to the table to see if there was a problem with the incorrect ruling. It was a KO match we lost, and our opponents were made worse off by his ruling, so there was nothing more to pursue.

I would complain to his boss - the district TD coordinator — on the grounds that this TD was (a) arrogant and (b) wrong. At the very least he should have returned to the table (or called the players together later) and apologized for his incorrect ruling, even if the correct ruling would have made no difference to the final outcome.

[barmar]

My thoughts - If E is experienced, he should have been aware enough to ask about the meaning of 3♣ if it would have influenced his call.

If he'd asked, surely North would have said something like "I take it as a weak jump shift", which is exactly what you can infer from his pass. So what would he learn by asking that wasn't obvious from the auction? And I'll bet the CC would have "Weak Jump Shift" checked, either just in competition or perhaps both.

 

He could ask a more pointed question like "Do you play Bergen Raises?". But we generally frown on questions like this, don't we?

[CSGibson]

If he'd asked, surely North would have said something like "I take it as a weak jump shift", which is exactly what you can infer from his pass. So what would he learn by asking that wasn't obvious from the auction? And I'll bet the CC would have "Weak Jump Shift" checked, either just in competition or perhaps both.

 

He could ask a more pointed question like "Do you play Bergen Raises?". But we generally frown on questions like this, don't we?

 

Surely North would not say something like "I take it as" anything unless he has no clue about how to answer questions properly.

 

Surely North would instead say "We are a first time partnership and have not discussed this situation. In an uncontested auction it would be a Bergen raise."

 

Alternatively, surely the convention card would have Bergen raises on it.

[Bbradley62]

N/S are a first time partnership, and partnership "agreement" totally about 2 minutes of south looking over north's CC before the session. CC is marked Bergen with no further notes.

So, is "North's CC" now on the table, being presented as NS's CC?

 

There is a box on the CC labelled "Over Opps' Takeout Double". Shouldn't this box tell us what NS's "agreement" is over 1♠-(X), even if South doesn't know what he did or didn't agree to?

[barmar]

Surely North would not say something like "I take it as" anything unless he has no clue about how to answer questions properly.

Surely you know many players say that even though it's not proper procedure.

Surely North would instead say "We are a first time partnership and have not discussed this situation. In an uncontested auction it would be a Bergen raise."

He might. He just as likely might not. If he'd thought of it, he might have alerted the bid and given this explanation when asked (ACBL recommends alerting when you're not sure if).

Alternatively, surely the convention card would have Bergen raises on it.

But it probably wouldn't say whether they're on over doubles.

[barmar]

So, is "North's CC" now on the table, being presented as NS's CC?

 

There is a box on the CC labelled "Over Opps' Takeout Double". Shouldn't this box tell us what NS's "agreement" is over 1♠-(X), even if South doesn't know what he did or didn't agree to?

True, there's a set of checkboxes for what a jump shift means; it has the choices Forcing, Invitational, and Weak (Bergen isn't mentioned). But many people play (in uncontested auctions) both WJS and Bergen -- WJS applies when jumping to the 2 level, Bergen when jumping from a major to 3 of a minor. There's no reason the same logic couldn't apply over a double, so the checkbox might not help.

 

There's a line for "Other", where one could write "Bergen". But if it's blank, what's the default assumption if you play Bergen in uncontested?

 

I rarely play Bergen, and I don't know what most people do.

[CSGibson]

Surely you know many players say that even though it's not proper procedure.

 

He might. He just as likely might not. If he'd thought of it, he might have alerted the bid and given this explanation when asked (ACBL recommends alerting when you're not sure if).

 

But it probably wouldn't say whether they're on over doubles.

 

You are missing my point. He apparently didn't even try to get explanation, and case precedent with the ACBL indicates that a player of certain experience is expected to ask questions in common situations like this if the answer effects his action. I am quoting from Appeal case #4 from the 2011 Fall Nationals:

 

"The ACBL Alert Procedure states that 'Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves.' The ACBL Club Directors Handbook says, 'Note that an opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening even though not properly informed may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation.'"

 

Surely East knew that a bidding mix-up may have just occurred, and that South may not have been bidding clubs as a weak jump shift just by looking at his own hand. In that case, he needs to make some step to clarify the situation before acting.

[sailoranch]

If North marked 2NT over a double as a limit raise (plus), it means they're not playing Bergen over a double.

[barmar]

If North marked 2NT over a double as a limit raise (plus), it means they're not playing Bergen over a double.

Jordan/Hamilton would replace the 3♦ response, but not 3♣, which only shows constructive values (swap these if you play Reverse Bergen). Also, I know some people who play that the 2NT can include 3-card support (I prefer to use redouble followed by a single raise to show this), so the Bergen raise could guarantee 4.

[sailoranch]

Jordan/Hamilton would replace the 3♦ response, but not 3♣, which only shows constructive values (swap these if you play Reverse Bergen). Also, I know some people who play that the 2NT can include 3-card support (I prefer to use redouble followed by a single raise to show this), so the Bergen raise could guarantee 4.

 

Wow! North met his partner two minutes before game time and agreed to play "Half Bergen" over a double or Jordan showing precisely three card support, all without any discussion?

 

I don't think we can just start filling in North's convention card with unorthodox agreements just because we're trying to rule mistaken explanation instead of mistaken call. It seems clear to me that North never agreed to play Bergen over a double, and ticking Jordan 2NT suggests that his understandings over a double are different. If North really wanted to agree some form of Bergen/Jordan hybrid, it would be indicated on his card.

[barmar]

Wow! North met his partner two minutes before game time and agreed to play "Half Bergen" over a double or Jordan showing precisely three card support, all without any discussion?

 

I don't think we can just start filling in North's convention card with unorthodox agreements just because we're trying to rule mistaken explanation instead of mistaken call. It seems clear to me that North never agreed to play Bergen over a double, and ticking Jordan 2NT suggests that his understandings over a double are different. If North really wanted to agree some form of Bergen/Jordan hybrid, it would be indicated on his card.

I'm not saying that this particular pair made any of these agreements. I'm saying that you can't conclude much from the CC, because it doesn't cover all these details. Even among pairs that DO have detailed agreements, they're not likely to be mentioned on the CC because there's no place to check them off.

 

This comes up many times here: the laws on partnership agreements are really hard to apply in the case of partnerships that have had little discussion and experience. They presume the existence of agreements, and these partnerships don't always have them in many common situations. They may agree to play convention X, not realizing they have different understandings of how X is used -- do they actually have an agreement or not? They may agree on a whole system ("Let's play SAYC"), but have misunderstandings about what's included in the system.

[Zelandakh]

Surely East knew that a bidding mix-up may have just occurred, and that South may not have been bidding clubs as a weak jump shift just by looking at his own hand. In that case, he needs to make some step to clarify the situation before acting.

If East is meant to ask because of having clubs then you are asking them to protect themselves by passing UI to their partner. More, the situation is not at all clear - East has ♣AKxxx; why should it be obvious that South cannot hold ♣QJT987? OTOH the OP states East said that if hy had "known" it was Bergen he would have not have Xed 3♣ but simply passed it out. But why is East entitled to know more than North? Generally, the default agreement in undiscussed situations is natural. OTTH, the Director's decision is unfathomable. It would be bad enough in a club game but in a proper tournament? I hope the (quick, small) committee gave the TD an appropriate dressing down in their decision.

[bluejak]

Just to clarify somewhat for those who do not play in the ACBL. You will often have read here about players whose idea of having an SC in the ACBL is to sit on it, have it in their handbag, leave it in the car, or score on the other side so they will only show it by holding it in front of an opponent and not letting go. I have played in ACBL clubs and in the Nationals at all levels from National Finals to side games, and can assure you these stories are not made up. The effect of all this is that there is nowhere near the same belief in the use and necessity for SCs, nor the care in filling them in, that happens in - for example - England.

 

So if you get a pair who have been playing together for 35 years, have agreed to play Bergen raises over a double, the likelihood they will bother to put this fact on their SC is probably less than 40%. And they will be very surprised if anyone suggests to them that they have done anything wrong. In fact, at lower levels, if they play Bergen over a double, they will probably assume everyone else does as well.

 

The culture of SCs in the ACBL is different from the culture of SCs in England.

 

Mind you, the culture of SCs elsewhere is by no means more helpful. The first time I played in South Africa they gave out scoring booklets, with a SC printed near the back on inside pages! The second time I played there, my partner and I had beautifully filled in SCs. Despite a clear regulation saying everyone had to carry one, I never saw another SC in all the eight days I played there.

[barmar]

So if you get a pair who have been playing together for 35 years, have agreed to play Bergen raises over a double, the likelihood they will bother to put this fact on their SC is probably less than 40%. And they will be very surprised if anyone suggests to them that they have done anything wrong. In fact, at lower levels, if they play Bergen over a double, they will probably assume everyone else does as well.

But we're not talking about the CC of an established partnership. We're talking about a pickup partnership, where one player has handed his CC to his new partner, who agreed to play what's on it.

 

Which actually raises further issues. Not only is there no place on the CC for many details like this, but the expectation that the new partner will actually remember everything that's on the card should be taken with a grain of salt. Most of us don't have photographic memories, so after scanning it for a minute there's a good chance we won't remember every little thing on it.