The tale of the missing convention cards

[nige1]

Of course if you rule that they were playing suction here then West should have alerted 2♠. The TD would need to check whether either of N/S was actually misled, though; they may well have assumed it was pass/correct anyway.

Campboy raises intriguing topics. Should NS "protect themselves", here? And are they expected to make self-serving claims? Or is it sufficient that they could have been misled?

[PhilKing]

Campboy raises intriguing topics. Should NS "protect themselves", here? And are they expected to make self-serving claims? Or is it sufficient that they could have been misled?

 

We know they were misled, because when South bid spades, North did not appreciate it was natural. So if North said he was damaged by the failure to alert 2♠, I would believe him.

 

However, the strange thing about the whole affair is that no mentioned this aspect of the case at the time or afterwards.

[campboy]

We know they were misled, because when South bid spades, North did not appreciate it was natural. So if North said he was damaged by the failure to alert 2♠, I would believe him.

Oh, I would believe him too. But I want him to actually say so, so I would ask. Knowing who the players involved are, it would surprise me if North hadn't realised that 2♠ was intended as pass or correct. mr1303's later comment about North's view of the ruling also suggests that he didn't feel misled. Perhaps North didn't think South's bid was natural because he was expecting double to show spades.

[mycroft]

I would disagree that we know they were misled. We know they had different understandings of what 3♠ meant - or at least there was no way in their system to show actual spades, rather than "looking for spade stoppers" - and South hoped. That's why, before giving a large percentage of 4♠= (which looks an awful lot like "what would happen if the opponents didn't bid 2♠, but that, with the information given, is not possible), I'd be asking what tools they had over either the "you were misinformed, they don't have that agreement, 2♥ is natural, and East bids 2♠" or the "their actual system is 'spades, or the minors, or hearts if they forget'".

 

I'm not saying they weren't misled; I'm saying that "South bid spades, and North didn't take it as natural" is not evidence of a mislead. Does your system have a way of getting to spades with either agreement after 2♣-2♥-p-2♠? Mine doesn't.

[Finch]

Does your system have a way of getting to spades with either agreement after 2♣-2♥-p-2♠? Mine doesn't.

 

Yes. We play 3 of either major as natural by opener.

But that isn't really relevant to this ruling, what matters is these NS agreements

[mycroft]

Good for you. I rarely try to get to a contract in a suit the opponents feel like playing at the 2 level. Of course, my opponents rarely try this (yet).

 

Yes, it isn't relevant what you or I play; just pointing out that it may be that with the correct agreement (whatever the TDs decide it is), this N/S may not have the tools to find their 10-card fit; just because the opponents don't know what they're doing doesn't mean the NOS get a free ride. It may be that they *do* have the tools to do it - in which case, please give high percentage of 4♠=. It's just that there's nothing in what was given to us that would lead me to that belief, when they couldn't find it opposite (what they should realize is a) P/C 2♠.

[lamford]

Yes, it isn't relevant what you or I play; just pointing out that it may be that with the correct agreement (whatever the TDs decide it is), this N/S may not have the tools to find their 10-card fit; just because the opponents don't know what they're doing doesn't mean the NOS get a free ride.

I agree it might be difficult to reach 4♠ by NS after a pass or correct 2S, as we have not all discussed our methods as well as Frances. However, it seems a choice between the Scylla and Charybdis for East-West after their failure to alert 2S. I know that one half of the NS partnership plays double of a pass or correct bid as "either penalties or takeout", as do I, a recommendation of dburn as I recall. We discussed 2M (Muiderberg or similar)-(Double)-3C (P/C)-(Double) when we last played, and one might consider therefore giving a higher percentage of 2SX-5 for EW in addition to the retention of the deposit. In ACBL land one would presumably give 100% of this score, the best result possible for NS after the infraction. Also a PP for the TD and AC for not establishing whether 2S was alerted.

 

And won't West be doubling 4♠? He has AK, A, and his partner has bid spades freely!

[helene_t]

What does it matter if 2♠ was alerted or not? 2♥ was alerted so NS could figure out that 2♠ was a p/c bid.

[PhilKing]

What does it matter if 2♠ was alerted or not? 2♥ was alerted so NS could figure out that 2♠ was a p/c bid.

 

It depends. Could is not necessarily should. On reflection I fell the score should be adjusted in favour of a rookie N/S, but not for an more experienced pair.

[mycroft]

Well, whether they can figure it out or not, according to the CoC in play (and thanks gnasher for the quote - don't know why my previous search didn't find it, because my search after being shown did!) it's Alertable. In fact, assuming that E/W knew that, that is evidence *against* them playing Suction over 2♣:

 

• I forget my system and bid 2♥ with this great hand, just to push the opponents around a little.
  
• Whether I remember or not before the Alert, the Alert does in fact wake me up to the fact that partner thinks we're playing Suction.
  Now, either:
  1. I realize he's right, and I've misbid, so I must now Alert 2♠, as systemically it is P/C (and bid as if it's whatever it would be over my natural 2♥);
     
  2. I don't believe he's right (or know I'm right). He's misexplained, and the opponents are entitled to the correct explanation. I know he thinks 2♠ is P/C, but it's not, so I'm not Alerting it;
     
  3. Of course, the most likely thing that happened is that West didn't know/forgot that P/C is Alertable, and we don't know. But I'd certainly be arguing this for any experienced E/W, especially as they don't have their cards and it's not specifically on their cards when they do find them.
     

 

As far as the double is concerned, I think I'm allowed to think that my ♥AK aren't cashing if North, South, and East bid spades and they get to 4. Especially after a SAF 2♣ and a GF from North. I also am likely allowed to say in that case that with my two, partner has a psychic heart raise (after all, if east *had had* a psychic heart raise, and we're now dealing with not a misinformation case but a fielded psychic, we'd argue that 3♠ by South and 4♠ by North makes fielding it green, neh?)

 

My main argument is that without knowing N/S agreements after the two variants of the "legal" auctions to 2♠, I don't know how much of 4S I'm going to be awarding, but 80% seems a bit high. No red suit options also sounds odd. But I don't know their agreements, I don't know what common agreements there are in RightPondia, and I'm not going to say that the TD's judgement was wrong - it just looks odd with the information we have.

[lamford]

It depends. Could is not necessarily should. On reflection I fell the score should be adjusted in favour of a rookie N/S, but not for an more experienced pair.

Is it not relevant whether they could have worked it out. 21B1(a) states: "Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation."

[PhilKing]

Is it not relevant whether they could have worked it out. 21B1(a) states: "Failure to alert promptly where an alert is required by the Regulating Authority is deemed misinformation."

 

Misinformation does not mean there was damage.

[lamford]

Misinformation does not mean there was damage.

Agreed. It is necessary to establish that they would have done better without the misinformation. But it is not necessary to decide whether they could have "worked it out".

[mycroft]

White Book 1.3.2

Misinformation and Penalties

A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a

call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if they had the

opportunity to ask without putting their side’s interests at risk. The player’s awareness of the

likely meaning will depend on their experience.

 

So, sort of it does. Not for minisnformation - but definitely for damage.

[lamford]

White Book 1.3.2

Misinformation and Penalties

A player’s claim to have been damaged because the opponents failed to alert or announce a

call will fail if it is judged that the player was aware of its likely meaning and if they had the

opportunity to ask without putting their side’s interests at risk. The player’s awareness of the

likely meaning will depend on their experience.

 

So, sort of it does. Not for minisnformation - but definitely for damage.

Indeed, but there is the contradictory

4A6 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable or announceable category, through either explicit or implicit understanding.

 

So, the opponents can assume that 2S is not pass or correct (as that would be alertable) but the claim to have been damaged will fail if it is judged that they were aware it was likely to be pass or correct. They should ask if they can do so without putting their side's interests at risk, but also do not need to ask! And these two clauses were both in the Orange Book.

[WellSpyder]

So, the opponents can assume that 2S is not pass or correct (as that would be alertable) but the claim to have been damaged will fail if it is judged that they were aware it was likely to be pass or correct. They should ask if they can do so without putting their side's interests at risk, but also do not need to ask!

I agree this is contradictory. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to me to cause too many problems in practice, and is actually quite helpful.

 

Against experienced players I will tend to assume that the lack of an alert means the bid isn't alertable, unless the lack of an alert is so surprising that no-one will assume there is any UI from just checking they really meant not to alert it. Against less experienced players I will be more cautious about deducing anything from a lack of an alert if the "normal" meaning of a bid is alertable, and the section of the White Book quoted confirms that I cannot expect to gain from "bridge lawyering" an inexperienced pair who have forgotten to alert a bid that I was pretty confident I understood anyway.

[barmar]

It says "can assume", but not "should assume" or "must assume". I'd interpret this as allowing players who don't know better to make the assumption, but experienced players are expected to protect themselves if they can do so without UI problems.

[Vampyr]

It says "can assume", but not "should assume" or "must assume". I'd interpret this as allowing players who don't know better to make the assumption, but experienced players are expected to protect themselves if they can do so without UI problems.

 

This post makes no sense. "Should assume" and "must assume" are pretty meaningless. They would seem to suggest that you might be subject to penalty if you didn't make the assumption. LOL.

 

EDIT: The above terms would also prohibit asking.

[lamford]

Against experienced players I will tend to assume that the lack of an alert means the bid isn't alertable, unless the lack of an alert is so surprising that no-one will assume there is any UI from just checking they really meant not to alert it.

I agree, and in this example, both East and West are experienced, and I think won their County Pairs Championship in 2013, so I certainly would expect them to alert if 2S is pass or correct. And I interpret "can assume" to mean "can assume without being penalised for assuming". And the OP states that 2H was "alerted as showing spades or both minors". It would just have been alerted, and we need to know when its meaning was established.

[barmar]

I think even experienced pairs can be confused regarding the requirement to alert P/C bids. When partner has shown one or two unknown suits, it's often considered obvious that bidding the cheapest of the suits he might have is P/C (except when using conventions where 2NT is the asking bid for an unknown minor). It's also an ostensively natural bid: the player is offering to play in the suit if it's partner's suit. So while the regulations may say that it's alertable, I'll bet it's a common mistake, and rarely results in damage because the meaning is clear.

[blackshoe]

…I'll bet it's a common mistake,

I was with you right up to here.

 

…and rarely results in damage because the meaning is clear.

This I'm not so sure about. I don't think the meaning is necessarily clear to all players, so I don't think you can say that it rarely results in damage.

[barmar]

This I'm not so sure about. I don't think the meaning is necessarily clear to all players, so I don't think you can say that it rarely results in damage.

You haven't made your case. I didn't say "all", although I implied "most". It's simple bridge logic: if partner has shown specific suits, you take preference by bidding one of them; if they've shown unknown suits, you bid the cheapest that you can stand.

 

I admit that there are conventions where there are more nuances than just pass/correct. E.g. when playing Multi-2♦, if responder bids 2♠ he's effectively showing better hearts than spades, because he's forcing opener to the 3 level to correct. While this is also an obvious logical conclusion, it goes beyond just P/C and deserves explanation.

[pran]

[...]

I admit that there are conventions where there are more nuances than just pass/correct. E.g. when playing Multi-2♦, if responder bids 2♠ he's effectively showing better hearts than spades, because he's forcing opener to the 3 level to correct. While this is also an obvious logical conclusion, it goes beyond just P/C and deserves explanation.

No problem: If responder bids 2♠ in response to Multi-2♦ it is essentially the bid corresponding to a 3♠ in the sequence 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♠.

 

3♠ is (obviously) an invitation to 4♠ and the response of 2♠ to a Multi-2♦ is pass/correct with an invitation to 4♥ if the opener happens to have hearts.

[Vampyr]

No problem: If responder bids 2♠ in response to Multi-2♦ it is essentially the bid corresponding to a 3♠ in the sequence 2♦ - 2♥ - 2♠ - 3♠.

 

3♠ is (obviously) an invitation to 4♠ and the response of 2♠ to a Multi-2♦ is pass/correct with an invitation to 4♥ if the opener happens to have hearts.

 

I don't think barmar meant that it was difficult to explain.