Unusual UI?

[jvage]

[hv=pc=n&s=s754hqj83daq98ca7&w=sqjt9hk94d65ct652&n=skha7652dj4ckqj84&e=sa8632htdkt732c93&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1h2h4h4s5hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Regional teams match, all 4 players are average plus clubplayers. 2♥ was alerted and explained by West as "5-5+ in spades and clubs". The ♠A was led, West following with the Q, and East switched to the ♦T. Declarer then went up with the ♦A and played a heart to the A, resulting in one down.

 

The TD was originally called because of misinformation. The TD could however establish that 2♥ was a misbid (E/W provided a CC and system files supporting the explanation). E/W say the ♠Q asked for a diamond-switch and that East just complied, hoping partner was void. Their relevant carding agreements are "standard", apart from confirming that they do sometimes use suit-preference signals there is nothing relevant in their system-files.

 

Do you see any reason to adjust?

[billw55]

It sounds like the explanation of 2♥ was correct, so I don't see any MI.

 

East has UI, namely that declarer and west both think that east has spades and clubs. The early play of the ♦T could conceivably be construed as using this UI - tempting declarer (who fears east is short in the suit) to rise with the ace. Continuing spades seems to be a logical alternative (does that term apply in the play?). I don't buy the EW argument that the ♠Q is suit preference - why would west want a diamond played?

 

I am inclined to adjust 5♥=. Interested to see opinions of actual directors though.

[blackshoe]

Nope.

[Zelandakh]

I am not sure North could have bid or played this any worse and can see no reason to give her/him back via a ruling what (s)he lost at the table.

[billw55]

I am not sure North could have bid or played this any worse and can see no reason to give her/him back via a ruling what (s)he lost at the table.

I agree that 5♥ is very bad. But the potential infraction under discussion is the diamond switch. The bidding all happened before that, so I thought that did not matter.

 

Declarer's play may be bad. For example, he could still make it as the cards lie even after rising with the ♦A - ♥Q at trick three, covered and taken, ♥J, and run the clubs pitching diamonds. But he still thinks west is short in clubs and that this line is therefore futile. With the info he has - east has the long clubs and short diamonds - what is the best line of play?

[Zelandakh]

It is hardly futile if East has 2 hearts and certainly better shot than played. Just looking at it from East's PoV, the hand pretty much shouts out for a diamond switch even if 2♥ shows spades and a minor, presumably what (s)he thought they were bidding at the time.

[billw55]

It is hardly futile if East has 2 hearts and certainly better shot than played. Just looking at it from East's PoV, the hand pretty much shouts out for a diamond switch even if 2♥ shows spades and a minor, presumably what (s)he thought they were bidding at the time.

I agree with that too.

 

I guess I don't understand the laws correctly. I was thinking:

 

1. east has UI

2. east has a LA (spade continuation)

3. the actual choice (diamond switch) could be suggested by the UI

 

Yes, the diamond switch is good anyway. But is it so clear that continuing spades is not a LA? Yes, north's play is inferior. But is it a serious error, wild, or gambling? Are these questions even relevant in this context?

[Codo]

Did north really played so bad? Lets assume that the East hand matches the explanation.

In this case he cannot finesse in diamonds, as this may end in a defensive crossruff for 4 down.

If he refuse to finesse, he can make it only if the king of heart is singleton- there is no second way to win the hand after this start.

 

 

For the carding. So West knows that declarer has a singleton spade, so I buy the argument that the queen does NOT show just the jack for East to underlead his possible King. But why should the queen be suit preference for diamonds? At least West seems not to belive in that theory. So, I would rate the East statement as self serving.

 

But how to rule is too hart for me to judge.

[RMB1]

 

3. the actual choice (diamond switch) could be suggested by the UI

 

 

... could demonstrably be suggested ...

 

I don't see why West thinking East has clubs suggests that East switches to diamonds.

[billw55]

... could demonstrably be suggested ...

 

I don't see why West thinking East has clubs suggests that East switches to diamonds.

Yeah, I might be stretching on this point. The idea is that east knows - unauthorized - that declarer thinks he is short in diamonds. Therefore, declarer is very unlikely to try the finesse right now, but he might well try it later, due to knowledge of the distribution, or just necessity. Whereas, if declarer is correctly informed (as east should assume he is?), then the immediate finesse is much more attractive.

 

I am probably wrong in all this, but I would wish for a director to give me a law-based explanation.

[mycroft]

When the SK comes down, what benefit is a spade continuation? And given that everybody knows that the second round of spades won't cash (West when he played it, East when the K comes down if partner is crazy enough to bid 4♠ on 3), why does the Q show the J and not SP? I would have taken it as suit preference, too (of course, that's "standard" around here opposite a known singleton). I can't see why a spade continuation is at all sensible here - I see no reason why 5♥ is going to go down on a passive defence - even if the active defence allows an overtrick, I'm laying 6-1 odds that we can't set this if I go passive. And that's not even counting "what if the opponents are in 4, or defending spades?". If the ♦K looked like a trick, that would be totally different.

 

Having said that, I have no idea why west played the Q, except possibly "partner, unless you're ♣KQ, it's wrong to lead a club, so I need to discourage your other suit."

 

Now, there could easily be an alternative to the ♦*ten*. I will certainly buy that that's the card that, given East's hand and the explanation, will most likely cause a rise with the Ace. But we're looking at AQxx - if I'm going to lead a diamond, after partner encourages diamonds, it just makes sense to "pass the king to partner". If you're a good enough player (and that's a reasonably high bar), I don't think there *is* an alternative diamond to the ten.

 

Heart switch? If partner really does have the diamond void he "advertised", he's not going to be very happy. If it was just a "don't lead clubs", and there isn't a crossruff going (either way), killing the trumps is no worse than anything else.

 

So, yeah, I'm not happy with East's excuses, but I don't think I'm doing anything, especially if East shows that he knows why the ♦T is the right diamond to play absent the UI.

[wyman]

... could demonstrably be suggested ...

 

I don't see why West thinking East has clubs suggests that East switches to diamonds.

 

No, east has the UI that NORTH thinks east has clubs; hence north may be likely to view the D10 as a singleton and misplay the suit.

 

Or at least I think that's the argument that was being made.

 

edit: sorry it seems like this point has already been made. I need to refresh the screen more :P

[barmar]

I suspect West was on auto-pilot when he played the ♠Q. It's normal to play the queen when holding an honor sequence like this, and he didn't consider that his holding was obvious from the bidding, so this would be redundant.

 

East, on the other hand, assumed that West knew what he was doing when he played the queen. West's holding was obvious, so the card should have some other meaning. What else could it mean (from his perspective) than suit preference?

 

It's unfortunate that the miscommunication from this resulted in East making the switch that's also consistent with the UI about North's expectations. However, I'm not sure if East has an LA other than doing what his partner's signal suggests.

 

However, West having a diamond void should raise some more question in East's mind. This would give him 4-6 in the black suits -- don't you think he'd compete further when expecting 9- and 11-card fits? Maybe he'd double 5♥, hoping this would attract an unusual lead? But these questions come from the UI, and I'm not sure if East can consider them when trying to unravel his LAs.

[Sjoerds]

Do you see any reason to adjust?

 

A few questions:

1. why didn't North made his contract. After ♦A, ♥QKA, ♥xJ he can take his ♣-winners and discard all ♦

2. how long have EW been playing this 2♥? If they are not really familiar with this convention I might rule a violation of law 40.

3. how do I judge "average plus". Missing this contract gives a hint :rolleyes: .

 

If they are not so familiar with this convention and there is a violation (Dutch jurisdiction), I don't see the benefit of finishing ♦K...it makes life easier but doesn't help in gaining more tricks in this situation. If the hearts would have been 2-2 that would make the difference. But now, you can play differently but you wouldn't score more...

...unless "average plus" means they don't see this line of play most of the time. In that case I might adjust the score. But I tend not to.

[blackshoe]

2. how long have EW been playing this 2♥? If they are not really familiar with this convention I might rule a violation of law 40.

Oh? How so?

[Sjoerds]

Oh? How so?

My mistake, actually it might be a violation against Law 75B.

The Nederlandse Bridge Bond decided that the TD should rule 75B if a partnership is younger than 1 year, or when they are playing a convention shorter that 1 year.

[blackshoe]

My mistake, actually it might be a violation against Law 75B.

The Nederlandse Bridge Bond decided that the TD should rule 75B if a partnership is younger than 1 year, or when they are playing a convention shorter that 1 year.

Interesting. I'm not at all sure that this regulation, if that's what it is, is "not in conflict with these laws" — see Law 80B2(f).

 

Without looking back in the thread to see what evidence we have in this case, I think generally the TD is to collect what evidence he can find, and to rule on the preponderance of that evidence whether there was a mistaken explanation or a mistaken bid. The law's admonition that "the director is to rule mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid in the absence of evidence to the contrary" isn't really of much use — if all the evidence says "mistaken explanation", then of course you rule that way. The only way this admonition makes sense is if there's no evidence at all, either way, and that should rarely if ever be the case.

 

If, using the 'transfer over 1NT' example in law 75, the partnership is new, or their adoption of transfers is new ("less than one year") that's certainly evidence worth considering, but if both players have on their system cards that 2♦ is a transfer, I would give that more weight than the "age" of the partnership or the agreement. IOW, if the responder intended 2♦ as a natural signoff, he misbid. His partner did not mis-explain. Whether I would make the same ruling in the instant case, I don't know. I'd have to go back and reread the thread, and I'm too tired to do that right now. B-)

[barmar]

That Netherlands rule seems really weird to me. Basically, they're saying that for the first year after a partnership adds a convention to their agreements, if one of them misbids the convention they're right, and their partner's explanation is wrong, even though the latter presumably is supported by their system notes.

 

We've occasionally had threads discussing whether players should disclose that they'd recently changed an agreement, and that it's possible that partner is forgetting and has lapsed back into the old mode (I'm not sure if we've reached a concensus any of the times it has come up, but we rarely ever reach concensus on anything in these forums). I could perhaps understand it if the Netherlands regulation required this additional disclosure, and leaving it out is what constitutes MI. But a blanket statement in favor of the misbidder seems misguided.

[gnasher]

I suspect West was on auto-pilot when he played the ♠Q. It's normal to play the queen when holding an honor sequence like this, and he didn't consider that his holding was obvious from the bidding, so this would be redundant.

I think it's normal for West to give suit-preference for diamonds in this type of situation. If partner has ♣KQ he'll switch to a club anyway; if he doesn't, you don't want him to switch away from ♣KJ. ♠Q simply says that West doesn't have a club honour.

 

On further analysis, West might work out that if everyone has their bidding the contract is unbeatable, but I don't see any reason for him to change how he signals.

[mycroft]

Re: the dutch regulation: I think it's a bit overboard (unless it means "new means look more carefully"). Take Keri, which my partner and I have been playing for 6 months.

 

If I forget and answer Stayman, and partner explains 1NT-2♣; 2♥ as "partner's forgotten the system; the only call he's allowed to make is 2♦" I would be very annoyed with any regulation that says that we have to have misexplained. This auction comes up at least once a session; in 6 months we have it down. 1NT-2♦; 2♥-2NT; 3♣-3♥; 4♦-4NT; 5♥ having the queen of hearts and the Ace of diamonds, instead of two with the ♦Q and good diamonds? Okay - how often does that auction (responder showing 3=5=4=1 GF opposite a supposed doubleton heart) come up?

[Sjoerds]

That Netherlands rule seems really weird to me. Basically, they're saying that for the first year after a partnership adds a convention to their agreements, if one of them misbids the convention they're right, and their partner's explanation is wrong, even though the latter presumably is supported by their system notes.

 

Don't shoot the messenger ;)

It started with a discussion where top players were complaining that some players just make a mistake and disturb a normal sequence without actually knowing what they are doing. How does the TD handle that situation. The board (!) of the Dutch Bridge Organisation came up with this guideline.

[blackshoe]

Don't shoot the messenger ;)

It started with a discussion where top players were complaining that some players just make a mistake and disturb a normal sequence without actually knowing what they are doing. How does the TD handle that situation. The board (!) of the Dutch Bridge Organisation came up with this guideline.

 

"A committee is a life form with six or more legs and no brain." — From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein. :P

[barmar]

On further reflection, I have some sympathy for the Dutch regulators.

 

If UI weren't an issue, I expect that disclosure would always have come from the bidder, rather than their partner. This is normal online, and in events with screens the bidder discloses to their screenmate. An opponent is hardly ever going to complain of misinformation if it accurately describes the player's hand (although knowing what the bidder's partner thinks they have is also useful). So despite what the Laws actually say about disclosure, they've decided to err in the direction of accurate information about the hands rather than the agreements.

 

However, what I think they're forgetting is that the principle of full disclosure is not that opponents are entitled to know your holding, but that they're entitled to the same information your partner has about your holding. If you misbid, and partner has no a priori way of knowing that you've done so, the opponents are not entitled to this either. But apparently they're saying with this regulation that during the initial period of a partnership or convention change, partner DOES have reason to expect such mistakes, so explaining the agreement as if it's established is MI.

 

Even if that's a reasonable philsophy, a year seems like an awfully long time for it. It should probably be expressed in terms of the number of sessions played together, rather than a strict timeframe, and adjusted for the frequency that the convention comes up (if you switch from regular Stayman to Puppet Stayman over 1NT, I'd expect it to come up at least once a session, so there's no excuse for getting it wrong after 5 or 10 sessions).

[aguahombre]

However, what I think they're forgetting is that the principle of full disclosure is not that opponents are entitled to know your holding, but that they're entitled to the same information your partner has about your holding. If you misbid, and partner has no a priori way of knowing that you've done so, the opponents are not entitled to this either.

I assume the Dutch are bright enough not to have forgotten the principle of full disclosure which exists in the rest of the world. They simply have created a new game and are still calling it Bridge.

[mycroft]

Well, the counterargument - which we've all heard, and probably used ourselves - is that in cases where there is such "correct MI", the NOS didn't get the same information partner had about the bidding - the fact that they switched recently, and it used to mean [this]. This causes two problems: first, partner could later in the hand figure out that partner misbid, and therefore almost certainly what they have (the first only is possible for the NOS), and second, the NOS may misplay in a way that they would be less likely to with the correct information (especially if they get an inkling that there has to be a misbid; again, partner and only partner can work out what the likely misbid is going to be).

 

Something has to be done, and it's probably best to have a regulation that handles it, so that the players don't get "but it happened this way when I did it a month ago with the other TD" (or at least if we do, that there are words to pin the argument back on).

 

As I said above, I don't think the regulation as reported is the right way to go, as it's highly inflexible and doesn't compare "auctions that happen all the time" with "auctions that may only have come up once, or in practise" as far as "how much experience one needs to have with a system for it to be a legitimate forget". After all, at least around here, the people who "forget" their weak NT defence against us are almost always long-term established partnerships, who have been playing this for well over a year. They get protection for their "forget", but I'm stuck with MI ruling for mine because we switched 6 months ago, even though it's an auction that comes up once a night?

 

The above is actually my last forget: The auction went [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n(12-14)2c(1)2s(Alerted, 2)3cp(Alerted, 3)pp]133|100[/hv]

1: No Alert, asked and explained as natural, very uncomfortable bidder

2: Alerted, range ask. I hope it wasn't obvious that there was a very uncomfortable bidder

3: Minimum, I assume :-)

*They* play DONT over strong NT, and natural over weak, and have for 4-5 years. Overcaller forgot, because they never play against weak NT. *We* play systems on over 2♣ interference (whatever it means), and lebensohl against higher. *I* forgot, because I play systems on over X and artificial 2♣ only with all the pairs I play a strong NT and Stayman with. But the 1NT(weak)-2♣(whatever it means) auction has come up much more for us than for them, even though we switched to Keri 6 months ago. According to the Dutch regulation, they're in the clear, but we (who used to play this as "systems on = natural, to play" before) misinformed.