Further action over 4S?

[Trinidad]

This BBF poll is not valid as it includes votes from people who think pass is forcing. We are told that the pair at the table didn't have firm agreements about that (and certainly if West did think pass was forcing he would just say so, when double becomes crystal clear).

Yes, there may be some noise (or better: bias) in the BBF pole. But the least the BBF pole makes clear that it is not a clear cut decision to say that Pass is an LA.

 

OK, the TD ruled that Pass was an LA, and I don't have any problem with that ruling (even if I think that Pass is not an LA regardless whether it is forcing or not). But IMO it should be a pretty clear cut case before you start handing out PPs. This is not a clear cut case.

 

Rik

[campboy]

So, if the poll would have said that pass was not an LA (which is what the BBF poll says, so it isn't that hypothetical), you would have to conclude that there was no infraction, but you would still give a PP?

If West did actually double "because partner thinks I am weak" then he has certainly not carefully avoided taking advantage of UI, so there was an infraction (of 73C). I don't think there was any damage, though, since if he had stopped to consider his ethical responsibilities I expect he would have doubled for the right reasons. So I would not adjust the score, but would consider a PP.

[blackshoe]

We're presumably in a forcing pass situation…

Based on what evidence?

[MrAce]

Based on what evidence?

 

 

it was the acceptance of the invitation that did.

 

It is pretty common (but definitely not standard) to play forcing pass after a vulnerable game invitation has been accepted and opponents who are both coming from pass by the way, bid a higher contract in favorable, usually a game. But as Frances said, this still requires agreement. TD should not pay attention to this unless their forcing pass rules were documented clearly on their cc, which is not the case or we would be told about that.

[barmar]

I don't think I have ever seen forcing-pass agreements mentioned on a CC. Where would you put them? The ACBL CC has 3 lines on the bottom right for miscellaneous agreements, and a reasonably advanced partnership will usually have at least half of it filled with various well known conventions.

[hotShot]

Have you thought about the possibility that W might have been sarcastic or ironic?

 

EW bid game in red! That should be reason enough to double

[gnasher]

I don't think I have ever seen forcing-pass agreements mentioned on a CC. Where would you put them? The ACBL CC has 3 lines on the bottom right for miscellaneous agreements, and a reasonably advanced partnership will usually have at least half of it filled with various well known conventions.

This was in England, where there's rather more room on the card, but you're right that people would rarely include their forcing-pass agreements.

 

The WBF convention card does have a section for "Special forcing pass sequences". Unfortunately this sequence probably wouldn't be covered, because it's not "special".

[Trinidad]

Have you thought about the possibility that W might have been sarcastic or ironic?

The same thought had occurred to me, but I trust that VixTD is able to recognize sarcasm.

 

Rik

[MrAce]

I don't think I have ever seen forcing-pass agreements mentioned on a CC. Where would you put them? The ACBL CC has 3 lines on the bottom right for miscellaneous agreements, and a reasonably advanced partnership will usually have at least half of it filled with various well known conventions.

 

I thought there was a thing called "supplementary sheet" I know most people do not use them or even the ones who uses will not put forcing pass rules there. But then again, they will not have a proof of what they actually play, and it is hard to claim and expect a standard from the peers when the claimed forcing pass is not everyone's taste.

[billw55]

Yes. All we know is that North says that West said that.

I thought it was reasonably clear that Vix presented this as fact. I am pretty sure that if the facts were in dispute, Vix would have said so.

[VixTD]

West did not deny that he said what North claimed, but he wasn't keen to repeat it either. It's possible that it was said to wind North up. Even if it was said sincerely, I wasn't inclined to penalise West for a number of reasons. As Trinidad says, double is close to being the only reasonable call and it doesn't seem right to penalise someone unless their failure to heed the laws was clear. Also, a lot of players say things in haste that they don't actually mean when challenged by a TD or player (usually what they perceive will get them out of a sticky situation they haven't fully understood). I don't like giving North the chance to "trap" a player in this sort of situation (not that I'm suggesting he was trying to). If he'd called me, and I'd asked him why he doubled and he'd incriminated himself it would be a different matter.

[barmar]

This was in England, where there's rather more room on the card, but you're right that people would rarely include their forcing-pass agreements.

 

Oops. I glanced back at the initial post, saw "regional', and didn't read on to "green-pointed". So I thought it was an ACBL Regional.

[blackshoe]

I thought there was a thing called "supplementary sheet" I know most people do not use them or even the ones who uses will not put forcing pass rules there. But then again, they will not have a proof of what they actually play, and it is hard to claim and expect a standard from the peers when the claimed forcing pass is not everyone's taste.

Supplementary sheets are mentioned in, and required by, the WBF system card regulations (assuming I'm remembering them correctly). In the ACBL, use of such sheets is not in the regulations, afaics, and I expect that, except perhaps at high levels, using them would be questioned by other players and deprecated, if not prohibited, by (club level, at least) TDs. I did not find any mention of supplementary sheets in the EBU Blue Book or White Book, but I seem to recall the culture there is more accepting of their use (and they may have been mentioned in earlier regulations there).

 

I have seen, somewhere, guidance on how to refer to supplementary sheets (basically, by putting a numbered reference on the system card, and listing those references by number and with explanation, on the supplementary sheet), but I don't recall which card was involved (could have been ACBL, EBU, or WBF) and I have no idea where I saw it.

[blackshoe]

Given that this (BBF) poll pretty clearly states that pass is not an LA (and, hence, that there was no infraction) I would not give a PP.

The poll shows that some people selected pass. It says nothing about how many of the 27 who did not choose it seriously considered it. So I do not think you can say, based on the poll results, that pass was not an LA.

[richlp]

Yes, there may be some noise (or better: bias) in the BBF pole. But the least the BBF pole makes clear that it is not a clear cut decision to say that Pass is an LA.

 

OK, the TD ruled that Pass was an LA, and I don't have any problem with that ruling (even if I think that Pass is not an LA regardless whether it is forcing or not). But IMO it should be a pretty clear cut case before you start handing out PPs. This is not a clear cut case.

 

Rik

 

I think the question of whether to adjust or not is, in this case, different from the question of whether or not to issue a PP.

 

If, as I think it does, the poll here indicates that Pass is not a LA, then there has been no damage and there should be no adjustment.

 

If we accept that West's reasoning really was, "I doubled because partner thought I was weak" that is a clear violation of using UI and one that I think warrants a PP of some sort and (at this level of competition) more than just education/warning/etc.

[blackshoe]

I note that the laws make no mention of the form of a procedural penalty. I agree with Larry Harris' usage that a warning is a PP, and I believe it should be explained and treated as one. I would say further that if the TD issues a PP(W) he should be prepared, if there is a subsequent similar violation, to issue a PP(MPs or IMPs or VPs, as appropriate). IOW, do not issue "toothless" warnings.