Appeal from today

[aguahombre]

Chris: I am glad you can quote from an appeal at the 2011 Fall Nationals. The site containing the NABC casebooks hasn't even been updated with the 2011 Summer appeals, yet.

[aguahombre]

This site is the one I was referring to above.

[CSGibson]

Chris: I am glad you can quote from an appeal at the 2011 Fall Nationals. The site containing the NABC casebooks hasn't even been updated with the 2011 Summer appeals, yet.

 

Yeah, I remembered the case because our GNT teammates were involved as the appellants. I found it through the published Daily Bulletins, but the case is less important in its own sake than the rules/regulations/guidance that it brought forth in support.

[jh51]

Chris: I am glad you can quote from an appeal at the 2011 Fall Nationals. The site containing the NABC casebooks hasn't even been updated with the 2011 Summer appeals, yet.

 

I am in the position of be able to unofficially tell you that the 2011 Summer appeals casebook will be published very soon. Or so I have been told by my friend who is now responsible for this. Don't blame her - she started working for the ACBL last month. After reading your post I thought I would take advantage of my friendship and ask her if she knew who was responsible. She exlained that one of her tasks was to catch up on the backlog. Apparently there is a lot that has to be gone through between the appeal taking place and getting it published. It starts with hand written notes from the ACs and the TDs, and it has to go to the expert panel, an outside editor and the legal department before it appears as a published casebook.

[TimG]

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."

This isn't a proper explanation, is it? Wouldn't North instead just say "no special agreement" or "undiscussed"?

 

I really don't think this is one of those times were East is supposed to do a lot to protect himself through questioning.

[TimG]

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.

You may be right; I may be wrong. But, this seems very wrong to me. Is East really supposed to ask questions based upon what is in his hand? That's giving information to the whole table.

 

I frequently play a system where I can open a weak four-card major. Sometimes when I open 1M, next hand says something like "you play four-card majors, right?" It's a pretty good bet that they have 5 (or more) decent cards in the suit I've opened.

 

In the given case, suppose East asks about the 3C call and then passes. Hasn't he given his partner UI that he holds club length?

[goodwinsr]

More often than, "You play four-card majors, right?" I hear them say, "What's THAT supposed to mean?"

[goodwinsr]

In fact, I have heard them ask, "What's THAT supposed to mean?" and then bid two of the major suit I opened, to play of course.

[blackshoe]

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1s2s(some%20inappropriate%20question)p3s]133|100[/hv]

At this point I'm going to be looking at their card and asking the systemic meaning of 2♠ and 3♠. Or maybe West passes instead of 3♠. Either way I'm asking. When it turns out that East has spades, I'm calling the director.

[CSGibson]

This isn't a proper explanation, is it? Wouldn't North instead just say "no special agreement" or "undiscussed"?

 

I really don't think this is one of those times were East is supposed to do a lot to protect himself through questioning.

 

It is not improper to offer any related understandings that may impact the current auction; it is definitely in the spirit of full disclosure, and obviously the passer is not telling what he took it as (or he wouldn't be passing), just the relevant agreements which may impact partner's understanding of the auction.

[mycroft]

"undiscussed" is not "all relevant disclosure" about this auction. "undiscussed. Bergen without the double" is.

 

East now knows what the options probably are, and is allowed to guess. Should East ask what it would mean without the double? Possibly, but she shouldn't have to. I do, and frequently get either "but he doubled" or "that's undiscussed, too" (usually with declarer telling explainer "you know that means..." after the hand, of course).

 

With a pair that does try, but just doesn't really get it, I had to get the explanation of 1NT (10-13)-2♣; 2♥-2♠; pass yesterday. Took four sets of questions to find out all of what it meant - which was "invitational with 5+ spades, not 4 hearts". "It's natural" was the first attempt. And these people really think they're explaining properly...

[blackshoe]

Heh. I usually start with "please explain your auction". Given Mycroft's example, what I usually get is "Well, he opened 1NT, and then I bid 2♣, and then he bid…" Then I say "thank you for the review. Now would you please explain what the bids mean?" Then we get into multiple questions. :o :blink:

 

Once I asked "please explain your auction", and they called the director. Director came, they said "can he ask that?" and she looked at me and said "which bid did you want to know about?" :o Naturally I said "all of them." :lol:

 

Heh. I just remembered. After I said "all of them", one of the opponents, who would be declarer, said, of her partner's jump raise in hearts after her 1♥ response, "I don't have to explain that". The director didn't say a word. I said "I think you do". In the end, I don't think she did explain it, but the director never ruled on that question.

 

Sometimes I wonder why I bother. :huh: :(

[barmar]

Heh. I just remembered. After I said "all of them", one of the opponents, who would be declarer, said, of her partner's jump raise in hearts after her 1♥ response, "I don't have to explain that". The director didn't say a word. I said "I think you do". In the end, I don't think she did explain it, but the director never ruled on that question.

 

Sometimes I wonder why I bother. :huh: :(

40B6a says, "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Sounds like he thought that the meaning of a jump raise falls into that category.

 

While there's plenty of variation in the meaning of 1♥-3♥ (last week a man who was returning to bridge after several decades showed up at our club, and he played this as a game forcing raise), there's not much variation in 1m-1♥-3♥ -- I'm not sure I've ever run into anyone who plays this as something other than a game invitational raise, and it's not something I've ever discussed with a new partner. So I'm not so sure that he's wrong.

[blackshoe]

She. And she was just being a PITA, right or wrong*. My point was that the director never said aye, yes, or no.

 

*This is the pair who, a couple years ago, went off to a Regional, where apparently they received an adverse ruling in a UI situation, and for the next six months made a point of calling the director every single time it appeared that an opponent hesitated. And once, before that time, when I hitched briefly in the auction, her partner turned to my novice partner and said "if you bid now, I"m calling the director", which as far as I'm concerned is clearly an illegal attempt to intimidate. They're quite a pair, these two.

[bluejak]

... there's not much variation in 1m-1♥-3♥ -- I'm not sure I've ever run into anyone who plays this as something other than a game invitational raise ...

I play it as denying a singleton or void, thus it always has a fair number of points. I don't think you will find that is how most people play it.

 

And once, before that time, when I hitched briefly in the auction, her partner turned to my novice partner and said "if you bid now, I"m calling the director", which as far as I'm concerned is clearly an illegal attempt to intimidate.

I would give her a DP for that remark.

[mycroft]

...And I play it as good 14-15, probably x=4=5+=x, or maybe a good balanced 16 if we're NV.

 

Oh, you know we're not playing Precision, for some reason? And you're expected to remember that?

 

I have accepted "natural and standard" in the past, and will do so in future. I've even accepted "everything to 3♥ is natural and standard, and then..." I don't want to waste people's time, I just want a complete explanation, *and* in some cases, don't want to tip off to declarer (or create UI for partner) what I'm interested in.

[TimG]

It is not improper to offer any related understandings that may impact the current auction; it is definitely in the spirit of full disclosure, and obviously the passer is not telling what he took it as (or he wouldn't be passing), just the relevant agreements which may impact partner's understanding of the auction.

If North had said "No agreement, but we play Bergen Raises when there is no double" and it turned out responder had a weak hand with clubs, he would have been chastised for giving extraneous information, for muddying the waters. If North had alerted it and then given this explanation, he would be accused of giving UI information to partner (UI that he's not sure what the agreement is).

 

The solution, of course, is to know what your agreements are. But, I don't think it is helpful to guess as to meanings, or hedge your bets with "I'm not sure, it could be this or it could be that." Either "there is no special partnership understanding" or perhaps even "I am unaware of any special partnership understanding" or, if there is a special partnership understanding, an unequivocal description of the understanding.

[mycroft]

But you *are* aware of a special partnership understanding - you play Bergen raises, at least without the double.

 

And if I don't know that, as a defender, and you guess right as to what it means and I guess wrong, we're just as damaged - and I, at least, would feel a lot more aggrieved - as if you said "undiscussed, but Bergen without the double" and it was a WJS (who makes Alertable calls without any agreement anyway? Everybody, around here, because WJO is so standard that people don't know that there's an alternative; but yeah). Yes, people would say "I would have guessed right without the information", but *nobody* is going to guess right without the information if he thought Bergen was on over double.

 

Yes, it's a bit of a catch-22, you can't be "right"; but at least this way, at least in the ACBL, the regulations are on your side.

[TimG]

But you *are* aware of a special partnership understanding - you play Bergen raises, at least without the double.

 

And if I don't know that, as a defender, and you guess right as to what it means and I guess wrong, we're just as damaged - and I, at least, would feel a lot more aggrieved - as if you said "undiscussed, but Bergen without the double" and it was a WJS (who makes Alertable calls without any agreement anyway?

If you are going to guess Bergen, then alert it and explain that it is Bergen, you must have some reason for believing you have this agreement. If you're going to guess natural, then don't alert and don't muddy the waters with a possible agreement. If it turns out you have given misinformation, the director will sort it out.

 

Let me ask a slightly different question. Suppose North had alerted and explained when asked (by East): "3♣ is natural and weak, non-forcing, but we play Bergen if there was no double." Is North off the disclosure hook no matter what South has? I don't think he should be. It should still be MI if South believes there is an agreement to play Bergen and North has forgotten or misunderstood.

[CSGibson]

If you are going to guess Bergen, then alert it and explain that it is Bergen, you must have some reason for believing you have this agreement. If you're going to guess natural, then don't alert and don't muddy the waters with a possible agreement. If it turns out you have given misinformation, the director will sort it out.

 

Let me ask a slightly different question. Suppose North had alerted and explained when asked (by East): "3♣ is natural and weak, non-forcing, but we play Bergen if there was no double." Is North off the disclosure hook no matter what South has? I don't think he should be. It should still be MI if South believes there is an agreement to play Bergen and North has forgotten or misunderstood.

 

 

No. In your case, North is telling what their agreement is. If their agreement is something else, or if they have no agreement, he has given them MI, and E is entitled to full redress; if North has explained their agreement correctly, no redress should be given no matter what hand South actually has.

 

In the actual case, North is telling east that they have no agreement, and that therefore east should use bridge logic to figure it out. In the course of that, North is disclosing other relevant agreements that lay the foundation of the bridge logic for the partnership. To do otherwise would violate the principles of full disclosure.

 

Saying that North is muddying the waters with ancillary agreements is wrong. When North says they have no agreements, the waters are as muddy as they are going to be; any further explanations about underlying principles/relevant agreements are cleansing the water of some of that mud for an experienced east, and giving him a chance to get it right.

[gnasher]

If you are going to guess Bergen, then alert it and explain that it is Bergen, you must have some reason for believing you have this agreement. If you're going to guess natural, then don't alert and don't muddy the waters with a possible agreement. If it turns out you have given misinformation, the director will sort it out.

That's definitely wrong. If you don't have an agreement, it's misinformation to state that you do.

 

Let me ask a slightly different question. Suppose North had alerted and explained when asked (by East): "3♣ is natural and weak, non-forcing, but we play Bergen if there was no double." Is North off the disclosure hook no matter what South has? I don't think he should be. It should still be MI if South believes there is an agreement to play Bergen and North has forgotten or misunderstood.

If North's explanation is correct (ie there is no agreement about this sequence, but they do play Bergen in the uncontested sequence), there is no misinformation.

If the partnership does have an agreement to play Bergen in this sequence, North's explanation is misinformation.

If South thinks they do have an agreement, the director will assume misinformation.

[Zelandakh]

there's not much variation in 1m-1♥-3♥ -- I'm not sure I've ever run into anyone who plays this as something other than a game invitational raise

I play 1♣ - 1♥; 3♥ as 15-17 with precisely 4=0=4=5 shape and 1♦ - 1♥; 3♥ as 14-17 with precisely 4=4=5=0 shape and 6 controls. But I guess that does not count since in neither case does the 1♥ response show hearts. I imagine 1♣ - 1♥; 3♥ has a somewhat different meaning for Transfer Walshers too. Also, what is GBK for you might not be for someone else. For example, blackshoe's auction was apparently 1m - 1♥; 4♥. You might think it is GBK that this denies a small singleton but perhaps he has never heard of splinter bids; or perhaps one or both of the opponents have not. He is entitled to know what agreements are in place. I run into the same issue quite often here, with opponents telling me they play Forum D (or, worse, Forum D+) as if that is GBK, despite the fact I come from an Acol background and have no idea about many aspects of Forum D. When I try to ask them what that actually means I get blank expressions. An example from Saturday (RHO dealing)

(P) - P - (2♣) - P

(2♦) - 3♥ - 3NT

 

2♣ was alerted and explained as "semiforcing", which I now know means Benji. I asked what balanced ranges were included in the 2♣ opening. Blankness. Then an offer that bidding a suit would have been a strong two. So I tried asking what the auction 2♣ - 2♦; 2NT would have meant. The answer was naturally that that would have been impossible because of the 3♥ bid. Eventually Declarer told me they would tell me later, which I found laughable, but it was a club game so I ended up letting it go. It just was not worth spending more effort to get the answer I wanted.

 

The point is that what is obvious very much depends on the person involved. And withholding information that someone specifically asks for because you think they ought to know it already is simply illegal. If you find out later the question was only being asked to highlight something to their partner, well that is a completely different situation. Worry about that when it comes up.

[blackshoe]

If North's explanation is correct (ie there is no agreement about this sequence, but they do play Bergen in the uncontested sequence), there is no misinformation.

If the partnership does have an agreement to play Bergen in this sequence, North's explanation is misinformation.

If South thinks they do have an agreement, the director will assume misinformation.

Maybe. The law says

Law 21B1{b}: The Director is to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Here there is evidence to the contrary, so the director must consider that, and any other evidence he can gather (system cards, notes, whatever) before concluding there was MI. I'll grant you that we tend to give more weight to evidence of MI in these cases, but if the only evidence of MI is "South thinks they have an agreement", and there is more evidence than just "North thinks they don't" that they do not have one, then I think the TD must rule misbid, rather than mis-explanation. Of course, if it's just "he said, she said", then rule it a mis-explanation. But you have to consider all the available evidence.

[bluejak]

If North had said "No agreement, but we play Bergen Raises when there is no double" and it turned out responder had a weak hand with clubs, he would have been chastised for giving extraneous information, for muddying the waters.

No, he would not. He has done what is required of him.

 

If you are going to guess Bergen, then alert it and explain that it is Bergen, you must have some reason for believing you have this agreement. If you're going to guess natural, then don't alert and don't muddy the waters with a possible agreement. If it turns out you have given misinformation, the director will sort it out.

It is not a question of letting the TD sort it out: you must make every effort to avoid an infraction. When you have some evidence that affects what the call means, it is correct to tell people the evidence.

[barmar]

That's definitely wrong. If you don't have an agreement, it's misinformation to state that you do.

Saying "We haven't discussed this, but in some related auctions it means X" is not stating that you have an agreement, so it's not MI.

 

The general principle is that the opponents are entitled to the same information as you have about the meaning of partner's calls. If you have to guess, so do they. But if you have some information that may help you with that guess, such as agreements about similar auctions, the opponents are also entitled to that.