Brighton 3 (EBU)

[VixTD]

This was not one of my rulings, but it occurred in the Swiss Pairs.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq9642hj6dat7cqt3&w=st853hat932dkc942&n=sajhkq5dqj8542c76&e=sk7h874d963cakj85&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1dp1h2dp2sppp]399|300[/hv]

1♦ was Precision (alerted)

1♥ was either natural, or invitational and balanced (alerted)

2♦ was alerted late, and tentatively explained on enquiry as both majors, but South obviously wasn't sure.

 

Result: 2♠(S)+1, NS +140

 

West led ♣2 to the king. East led a small club back, hoping partner had the queen. Thus EW made only one trick in each suit.

 

EW called the TD and said that they would have led a spade given a correct explanation (or a timely correction by North) and would probably have taken two club tricks. I don't know the extent of NS's agreements, but let's assume (as is highly likely) that they have an agreement that had this sequence been natural then 2♦ would have shown the majors, but they haven't discussed this particular situation, so have no agreement.

 

Would you adjust the score?

[TylerE]

On what basis is EW looking for a ruling? It doesn't sound like NS had an agreement, or if they did that it was 2♦=majors. You can hardly sue NS for not alerting an agreement they don't have. What was the actual alert on 1♦? Does it promise at least 2? 1? 0? Might effect my feeling.

[billw55]

What is the law here - does west have to offer any reason that his lead would be different, or can he just double dummy the lead and expect to be granted it?

[blackshoe]

The law does not require a player who asks for a ruling to state anything more than what happened that induced him to ask for it. The law does not give players freebies once they've seen all four hands.

[TylerE]

In any case isn't the damage solely caused by E's failure to cash the 2nd club?

[VixTD]

On what basis is EW looking for a ruling? It doesn't sound like NS had an agreement, or if they did that it was 2♦=majors. You can hardly sue NS for not alerting an agreement they don't have. What was the actual alert on 1♦? Does it promise at least 2? 1? 0? Might effect my feeling.

1♣ / 1♦ opening bids are announced in England if they could be short ( <3 cards) and are non-forcing, but alertable if they are forcing. I'm not sure how EW play their 1♦ opener, but it's quite likely they were correct to alert it.

 

The problem was not the failure of NS to alert 2♦ immediately, it was the incorrect explanation that it showed the majors.

[TylerE]

I'm not convinced it was an incorrect misexplanation. At least here in ACBL-land, it is very common, even for club expert level pairs, to treat a precision 1♦ as natural.

[Trinidad]

These cases come up time after time and I find them really annoying. The common theme: A player explains a bid as X and immediately acts as if he doesn't believe it himself. And -surprise, surprise- partner's hand doesn't look like X.

 

Is there anybody on this planet who would bid a mere 2♠ with the South hand when he thinks that North has just shown both majors?

 

If you are going to treat the 2♦ bid as "I don't have a clue" then explain it as "I don't have a clue". Do not say -not even tentatively- that North has both majors when you are not willing to believe it yourself and bid as if North has both majors (unless you are looking at 10 spades in your own hand).

 

In this case it is clear that South didn't believe his own explanation. It is also clear that North doesn't believe South's explanation (at least he didn't when he chose to bid 2♦). When there is an explanation and both players of the pair really seem to think it was incorrect (as evidenced by the hands they held and the bids they made) then that should be enough evidence that there was misinformation.

 

The next problem is the question of whether the misinformation caused the poor result for EW. I can follow that East tried to find the ♣Q with West and I can follow that East would not be tempted to do that if West had led a trump. But I can't follow why it would be more attractive to lead a trump if you would hear that North has diamonds instead of the majors (or that South didn't have a clue). So, I would ask West (or anybody here on the forum) to explain that to me before I would rule.

 

In addition, I would want to investigate whether South had any UI before his 2♠ bid. If he could see from North's reaction that North might not hold both majors, that is UI. Then the obvious LA is 4♠ and 2♠ is demonstrably suggested by the UI. That would lead to an adjusted score of x% 4♠-2 + (100-x)% 4♠X-2 (+ the normal PP for using UI).

 

Rik

[TylerE]

The south hand is only 22 Zar points, which would tend to indicate it isn't an opening hand. I wouldn't force to game with it. The long trumps are only valuable if I can in fact ruff something usefully. Partner is capped at around 14 highs if opponents both have minimums. This doesn't feel like an auto-bid 4♠ to me at all. If I had ATx of ♥ and Jx in ♦ I might feel differently, but I don't.

[mycroft]

I've been told that East has a (potentially light) opener (what's their NT range here, by the way?); West has a hand that is, if partner's "majors" claim is valid, likely to be invitational and balanced. I can count to 40, and partner knows I can count to 40. Why am I having to treat North's call as anything but competitive? I'll probably take the push to 3, but I don't have the shape for a 20-point game.

 

I don't see an issue with 2♠. I especially don't see an issue with it after the explanation of "I'm clearly not sure - majors?"

 

I'd be surprised if, after 1♦-1♥ natural, 2♦ would likely be majors, but I don't know the bridge over there. I wouldn't be surprised if, after 1♦-1♥ BAL INV, 2♦ was majors.

 

I understand that East-West wanted to hear "it's natural, we have that agreement after your weird system" from North - and that, combined with South's obvious lack of confidence, makes a trump lead more likely. I don't know the difference between "we have no agreement on this auction, but it would be majors if 1♦ were 3+ and 1♥ were guaranteed 4+", and what South said - at least in terms of finding an opening lead. I really don't see where, after knowing that West has a couple of trumps we expected North to have, East couldn't find the spade that supposedly saves them a club trick instead of trying the risky underlead.

[Cyberyeti]

How did EW avoid making 2 spades ?

[TylerE]

I assume the argument is something like magically finding the K♦ lead and then scoring multiple ♦ ruffs in the west hand.

[nige1]

These cases come up time after time and I find them really annoying. The common theme: A player explains a bid as X and immediately acts as if he doesn't believe it himself. And -surprise, surprise- partner's hand doesn't look like X.

Is there anybody on this planet who would bid a mere 2♠ with the South hand when he thinks that North has just shown both majors?

If you are going to treat the 2♦ bid as "I don't have a clue" then explain it as "I don't have a clue". Do not say -not even tentatively- that North has both majors when you are not willing to believe it yourself and bid as if North has both majors (unless you are looking at 10 spades in your own hand).

In this case it is clear that South didn't believe his own explanation. It is also clear that North doesn't believe South's explanation (at least he didn't when he chose to bid 2♦). When there is an explanation and both players of the pair really seem to think it was incorrect (as evidenced by the hands they held and the bids they made) then that should be enough evidence that there was misinformation.

The next problem is the question of whether the misinformation caused the poor result for EW. I can follow that East tried to find the ♣Q with West and I can follow that East would not be tempted to do that if West had led a trump. But I can't follow why it would be more attractive to lead a trump if you would hear that North has diamonds instead of the majors (or that South didn't have a clue). So, I would ask West (or anybody here on the forum) to explain that to me before I would rule.

In addition, I would want to investigate whether South had any UI before his 2♠ bid. If he could see from North's reaction that North might not hold both majors, that is UI. Then the obvious LA is 4♠ and 2♠ is demonstrably suggested by the UI. That would lead to an adjusted score of x% 4♠-2 + (100-x)% 4♠X-2 (+ the normal PP for using UI).

Agree with Trinidad. The director must be called after attention has been drawn to a possible infraction. It is up to the director to determine how much damage EW suffered. If the director judges deliberate misinformation or failure to correct a misexplanation of NS methods, then he may impose a PP on NS.

[iviehoff]

How did EW avoid making 2 spades ?

The only thing I can think is that EW's one diamond trick was a ruff, rather than the K.

[gnasher]

The next problem is the question of whether the misinformation caused the poor result for EW. I can follow that East tried to find the ♣Q with West and I can follow that East would not be tempted to do that if West had led a trump. But I can't follow why it would be more attractive to lead a trump if you would hear that North has diamonds instead of the majors (or that South didn't have a clue). So, I would ask West (or anybody here on the forum) to explain that to me before I would rule.

I think a corrected explanation by North would make a trump lead attractive, but not as attractive as it already was.

 

With a corrected explanation, West would suspect that the opponents were in a 3-3 fit. Against a 3-3 fit it's often right to lead trumps.

 

However, it's also often right to lead trumps against a two-suiter. With the explanation that was actually given, holding ♥A10xxx in front of dummy's five-card side-suit, a trump lead looks automatic.

[iviehoff]

EW called the TD and said that they would have led a spade given a correct explanation (or a timely correction by North) and would probably have taken two club tricks.

Who leads trumps away from 10xxx when there is no evidence the opponents have a fit? The correct explanation reduces, rather than increases, the likelihood of a trump lead.

 

No adjustment.

[Trinidad]

I think a corrected explanation by North would make a trump lead attractive, but not as attractive as it already was.

 

With a corrected explanation, West would suspect that the opponents were in a 3-3 fit. Against a 3-3 fit it's often right to lead trumps.

 

However, it's also often right to lead trumps against a two-suiter. With the explanation that was actually given, holding ♥A10xxx in front of dummy's five-card side-suit, a trump lead looks automatic.

Those were my thoughts too, but perhaps I had overlooked a powerful reason to lead or not lead a trump. So, there was no causal link between the infraction and the result and there is no reason for an AS.

 

Rik

[iviehoff]

With a corrected explanation, West would suspect that the opponents were in a 3-3 fit.

Can we make an adjustment on the basis that W will receive a later correction, and thus be able to deduce a misunderstanding; rather than on the basis that he was correctly informed throughout and thus unable to deduce a misunderstanding, given that it looks like S never believed his own explanation and there wasn't in fact a misunderstanding?

[campboy]

Can we make an adjustment on the basis that W will receive a later correction, and thus be able to deduce a misunderstanding; rather than on the basis that he was correctly informed throughout and thus unable to deduce a misunderstanding, given that it looks like S never believed his own explanation and there wasn't in fact a misunderstanding?

Where there is MI, as by a failure to correct, and this affects a decision by the NOS, and the NOS get a worse score as a result, we adjust. It doesn't matter whether the MI gives NOS a better or worse idea of the OS's hands; all that matters is whether there was MI and whether there was damage as a result.

 

Anyway, I agree that different information is not going to make a spade lead more attractive. I am also sceptical about the whole issue of MI here. When South is obviously unsure what 2♦ means, and you play a method which is as bizarre as this one, do you really need to be told that N/S haven't actually discussed a defence to it?

[Lanor Fow]

Is a potentially short diamond in a strong club system really that bizarre?

 

Even it it is quite unusual, we are talking a main even in a large congress. I can't remember last sitting down against a pair at the Brighton swiss pairs who didn't have a convention card (occasionally you see wbf cards rather than EBU, but even this is unusual). The EBU cards have a section on the front for both basic system and agreements opponants should note.

 

Are NOS really meant to assume that opponants, not having an agreement to a not particually unusual bid (which they could have easily found out about and discussed before the round had they not already discussed such situations) telling NOS they do have an agreement will not correct this at the proper time? Moreover does it become NOS's own fault that they assume OS have not broken the laws if misinformation becomes apparent later?

[campboy]

Is a potentially short diamond in a strong club system really that bizarre?

No. Playing a 1♥ response as natural or balanced, otoh, is not something I've ever heard of before, and is presumably what caused the confusion. 2♦ certainly wouldn't be majors if 1♥ was natural, after all.

[VixTD]

Is a potentially short diamond in a strong club system really that bizarre?

Two years ago at Brighton I was called to EW's table by a pair who got into a muddle after a Precision diamond opening who said "Well, it's not our fault, you don't expect us to have a defence to this funny system!" I'm sure there are some players who never come across Precision until they make their annual visit to the Brighton Congress.

 

Still, I think it's the 1♥ response that's being described as bizarre.

 

Even it it is quite unusual, we are talking a main even in a large congress. I can't remember last sitting down against a pair at the Brighton swiss pairs who didn't have a convention card (occasionally you see wbf cards rather than EBU, but even this is unusual). The EBU cards have a section on the front for both basic system and agreements opponants should note.

I'm sure EW had adequately completed convention cards, and NS are expected to make use of them, but you have to bear in mind that this is an open congress that caters for all classes of player, and many of the less experienced pairs still wouldn't have any idea what they should do if it were pointed out to them that their opponents' opening 1♦ bid was less than 16 points, essentially natural but could be as short as a singleton without a five-card major, and forcing, and that a 1♥ response is either natural, or balanced and invitational.

 

Are NOS really meant to assume that opponants, not having an agreement to a not particually unusual bid (which they could have easily found out about and discussed before the round had they not already discussed such situations) telling NOS they do have an agreement will not correct this at the proper time? Moreover does it become NOS's own fault that they assume OS have not broken the laws if misinformation becomes apparent later?

NOS are expected to protect themselves if they can do so without prejudicing their side's interests. When it was obvious that NS were inexperienced and showed considerable doubt when explaining the bid, why couldn't they have called the director at that point to make sure they were getting the explanation they were entitled to?

 

I'm not suggesting I wouldn't have adjusted the score had a failure to correct the explanation led to damage, but I'm not sure that it did.

[Lanor Fow]

Ahh I missed the 1H being odd, I retract most of my post then.

[gnasher]

Can we make an adjustment on the basis that W will receive a later correction, and thus be able to deduce a misunderstanding; rather than on the basis that he was correctly informed throughout and thus unable to deduce a misunderstanding, given that it looks like S never believed his own explanation and there wasn't in fact a misunderstanding?

Leaving aside the specifics of this case, in general:

 

(1) If the only infraction is misinformation, we restore the equity that would have existed if the NOS had been correctly informed of the partnership's methods. This applies to any adjustment we make to the auction.

 

(2) When there has been misinformation by the declaring side followed by a failure to correct the misinformation at the proper time, there are two separate infractions:

- The original misinformation.

- The failure to correct the misinformation.

Without this second infraction, the defenders would have known, at the end of the auction, that NS had had a misunderstanding. To restore equity, therefore, our adjustment should assume that the NOS knew of the misunderstanding from the end of the auction onwards.

 

This has been confirmed by the EBU L&EC:

 

5.7/5.8 failing to correct Misinformation during the auction at the correct time

FH introduced this item by giving an example. Player A gives misinformation during the auction. Player B (his partner) becomes declarer and fails to correct the misinformation before the opening lead. The contract makes, but would have gone off on a different lead. At the end of the hand all is revealed and the TD is called. The TD believes the following to be true:

- There was misinformation given during the auction. Player B knew the partnership agreement, knew there was misinformation and his failure to correct it before the opening lead is made is a breach of Law 20F5(b)(ii) (also Law 75B).

- If the opening leader knew that there had been a misunderstanding i.e. had heard both the original misinformation and the correction he might have found the winning lead.

- If all the opening leader knew was the actual agreement, he would not have found the winning lead.

 

GR commented on an example case with details of the hand via email as follows:

 

The position has always been, as far as I am aware, that players are only entitled to the correct information and not the knowledge of a misunderstanding, but if the misunderstanding comes to light in the process of disclosing the correct information, the non-offending side may use that information. In this instance, had the offending side not committed a further infraction by failing to correct the misinformation, the opening leader might well have made a different lead - maybe about 25% of the time [in the circumstances of this particular example].

 

In this case I think it is reasonable to adjust under Law 23 for the breach of Law 20F5(b)(ii). The problem seems to me that if we not able to adjust in this way (or a similar way) we put non-offending players in a worse position when their opponents commit a second infraction and appear to reward offenders for committing a second offence. Of course we can fine the offenders (and might do so in addition to adjusting), but this would be of no help to the non-offending side and, in any case, fines are not there to give redress.

 

None of this assumes that the player deliberately chose not to correct the misinformation - he didn't hear it - but as always we adjust for an inadvertent infraction in the same way as for a deliberate one in order not to have to decide (or state) whether the breach was intentional. Where a player doesn't hear partner's explanation clearly he should ask for it to be repeated at the end of the auction so that he can correct it if it is incorrect. A player who failed to take such care to protect his opponents should expect to be adjusted against when it damages them.

 

The committee agreed that Law 23 was the applicable law to enable an adjustment to be made and that could include a weighted ruling under Law 12C1(c ). A procedural penalty up to the amount of the gain by the offending side could also be made if that was thought to be appropriate.

 

It was noted that in some cases the laws give insufficient incentive to own up to ones own mistakes.

[blackshoe]

How late was the alert of 2♦? When was an explanation requested?