misinformation?

[APG1235]

The following hand at a north of England club caused some discussion a few days ago.

1NT was alerted as 14-16, when 2♣ was passed round to north he asked if it should have been alerted, west (who is elderly and sometimes forgetful) replied that it was natural. Neither east or west had a system card.

West 'woke up' at his next turn to bid and asked south if he could bid again, south was aware that this seemed a strange question to ask but under the assumption that 2♣ was natural said yes, the auction ended in 4♥.

Neither east or west rectified any call prior to the opening lead, south asked to reserve his rights.

At the end of the hand south asked west what 2♣ was intended to be, west replied it showed hearts and clubs, the director was called at this point and North said he would have passed 2♣ if he had been given the correct information.

After some discussion the director said he would look at the hand at the end of the session.

At the end of the session the director looked at the other results on the hand and ruled that as four other tables (out of nine) had been in 4♥ making the result would stand.

North south made an appeal for a review of the ruling, the three members of the appeals committee all agreed the result should be adjusted to 2♣ by east (nobody thought to check how many tricks this would make!).

Was the correct decision made in the end? Is the decision of the appeals committee final or does anyone have any other recourse? any other relevant comments?

[hv=pc=n&s=s543h97d9876ckt52&w=sat86hq8632dj53c6&n=sqj97hatdakqt4c83&e=sk2hkj54d2caqj974&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=pp1n2cpp2d3cp3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv]

[Vampyr]

An appeal to the National Authority is possible, though I don't think much of E/W's case.

 

The director needs to be reminded that other results are not relevant to a ruling.

[ahydra]

south was aware that this seemed a strange question to ask but under the assumption that 2♣ was natural said yes

 

This statement is rather odd. Whether 2♣ is natural or not has no bearing on the fact that West is legally entitled to another bid, there having not been three passes since 3♣!

 

As for the ruling - we're missing one key piece of information: what was the actual agreement? (If we don't know, we assume Mistaken Explanation, as per law 73 or something around there)

 

If the agreement was hearts and clubs, or it's unclear what the actual agreement was, then I would adjust to 2C+1 by East. If the agreement was natural, but East thought it showed H and C, then we have to consider whether East has used UI; I don't think so, because he has a good hand well-positioned over the 1NT opener, and West "getting the system wrong" from his point of view would suggest bidding 2H, not 3C. So result would stand in that case.

 

ahydra

[barmar]

As for the ruling - we're missing one key piece of information: what was the actual agreement? (If we don't know, we assume Mistaken Explanation, as per law 73 or something around there)

I think we were given this, although somewhat obliquely. We were warned that West is forgetful before he said that it was natural, while he "woke up" between then and when he explained that it showed two suits. So I think we can interpret this as saying that the 2-suiter is the actual agreement.

[barmar]

Why would North have passed if he knew that 2♣ shows both clubs and hearts? He's short in both suits, doesn't that suggest bidding?

 

However, this raises an issue that has come up before: N/S are entitled to a correct explanation of the auction, but are they also entitled to know that West's Pass was based on forgetting the system? It's that forgetfulness that suggests passing, not the actual meaning of the 2♣ bid.

[lamford]

Why would North have passed if he knew that 2♣ shows both clubs and hearts? He's short in both suits, doesn't that suggest bidding?

 

However, this raises an issue that has come up before: N/S are entitled to a correct explanation of the auction, but are they also entitled to know that West's Pass was based on forgetting the system? It's that forgetfulness that suggests passing, not the actual meaning of the 2♣ bid.

I believe that North is entitled to use the answer to his question "is 2C natural?". Replies from an opponent to a question are AI, but I believe there is some WBFLC minute which suggests that North is only entitled to the actual agreement. If North knew that 2C was hearts and clubs, which he is entitled to do (as EW should have a system card which shows this for a basic defence to 1NT), and also knows that West has answered "natural", he would never dream of bidding. His partner could not bid over 2C, so he will let them play there. I think that the AC did a good job, but others might be aware of an interpretation to the contrary.

 

And, for completeness, I think 2C makes nine tricks, the defence taking one heart, one diamond and two clubs.

[nige1]

As usual, an appeals committee has opened the facts of a case to public debate and allowed justice to be seen to be done :)

[blackshoe]

However, this raises an issue that has come up before: N/S are entitled to a correct explanation of the auction, but are they also entitled to know that West's Pass was based on forgetting the system?

They're not entitled to be told that West forgot their system, but EW are not entitled to conceal that fact, so if it comes out during their explanation of their agreements, NS will know, and that's fine.

[paulg]

As usual, an appeals committee has opened the facts of a case to public debate and allowed justice to be seen to be done made a ruling.

[Vampyr]

They're not entitled to be told that West forgot their system, but EW are not entitled to conceal that fact, so if it comes out during their explanation of their agreements, NS will know, and that's fine.

 

How is it fine? The knowledge that West might have forgotten the system (eg by West saying he is not sure, but it could be ...) does not help NS -- they still have to bid without knowing what the agreement is. If the de facto agreement is "clubs, or (clubs and another, hearts or another, or whatever)" then that should be the explanation, and then there is a question of its legality. I do not think that this is legal in the EBU.

 

But if West forgot the "official" agreement, then he will probably forget the one above, so there is no way that NS can know what to do; in any case they are certainly entitled to assume that the explanation they were given matches the actual agreement.

[barmar]

How is it fine? The knowledge that West might have forgotten the system (eg by West saying he is not sure, but it could be ...) does not help NS -- they still have to bid without knowing what the agreement is. If the de facto agreement is "clubs, or (clubs and another, hearts or another, or whatever)" then that should be the explanation, and then there is a question of its legality. I do not think that this is legal in the EBU.

The player who made the bid in question is not the one who forgot the system, so there's no implication that their de facto agreement is different from their explicit agreement. West simply had a momentary lapse (a "senior moment") and explained the bid incorrectly. And I don't see how you expect a forgetful player to list all the possibilities -- the whole problem is that he forgot that they play it as artificial.

[blackshoe]

How is it fine? The knowledge that West might have forgotten the system (eg by West saying he is not sure, but it could be ...) does not help NS -- they still have to bid without knowing what the agreement is. If the de facto agreement is "clubs, or (clubs and another, hearts or another, or whatever)" then that should be the explanation, and then there is a question of its legality. I do not think that this is legal in the EBU.

 

But if West forgot the "official" agreement, then he will probably forget the one above, so there is no way that NS can know what to do; in any case they are certainly entitled to assume that the explanation they were given matches the actual agreement.

I was addressing the question whether NS are entitled to know that West's pass was based on forgetting the system. To me, "entitled" implies that one of EW has to tell NS it was a forget, but that is only true if West's forgets in this situation have been frequent enough that East has begun to expect them. OTOH, NS are certainly allowed to draw inferences from the actual auction, East's answers to questions, and West's (as well as East's) mannerisms, including the inference that West forgot their system.

[weejonnie]

How is it fine? The knowledge that West might have forgotten the system (eg by West saying he is not sure, but it could be ...) does not help NS -- they still have to bid without knowing what the agreement is. If the de facto agreement is "clubs, or (clubs and another, hearts or another, or whatever)" then that should be the explanation, and then there is a question of its legality. I do not think that this is legal in the EBU.

 

But if West forgot the "official" agreement, then he will probably forget the one above, so there is no way that NS can know what to do; in any case they are certainly entitled to assume that the explanation they were given matches the actual agreement.

 

Under level 4 (which is the default level) any defence to 1NT is permitted by the EBU (Blue book page 24 7E1B). At level 2 (novice/ no fear) there are specific rules.

 

This does not of course remove the requirement to explain your agreements in full.

[szgyula]

This leads to a more general issue I do not know how to handle: You start using a new convention, e.g. 1H-3C is Ghestem per agreement. You know your partner tends to forget new conventions a few times.

 

1. What is the correct explanation in general? I would say that "frequent bidding error" is something like an implicit agreement and you I must disclose it. Thus, I would say that "by agreement this is Ghestem but this is a new convention and my partner may have made an error, in which case it is a long club". It is important that the second part is always there, no matter what I think, based on my hand -- otherwise it is UI.

2. If you strongly suspect that your partner indeed made a mistake (e.g. no clubs, lots of reds in your hand), are you allowed to act on the assumption that the bid actually shows clubs? I would guess yes, since this decision is not based on any UI. Of course if you guess wrong, you can not complain. Lets assume that a bid like "long club OR Ghestem is not against the systems regulation".

3. Lets turn this around: 1H-3C-P-3S-P. At this point you realize that your 3C was a bidding error. Can you bid C again to show that you made a mistake? I would say yes, since there is no UI, either.

4. Now we are at 1H-3C-P-3S-P-4C. Can you wake up at this point and pass (or raise to 5C)? Again, there is no UI. Why not?

 

A version of this happened yesterday: 1C-2D (Ghestem, alerted, explained)-P-2H (I prefer H)-P-2S-P-2N. My partner made a mistake, he wanted to bid 1D natural, not 2D. I had 2533 with good controls in the minors. After the 2D I smelled trouble but could not be sure so I alerted and explained the agreement (55 in majors). I showed preference for H (after all I had 5). After the 2S bid I was even more confused but having good minors, I elected to bid 2N, which seemed to be a good contract against both a Ghestem and a long D suit. Was this legal? My partner truly made a bidding error. I explaned all the bids per system and I based everthing on AI. After the auction ended and I became declarer, I explicitly asked my partner to correct any mistaken explanation I gave. He stated that my explanation was correct, the 2D bid is indeed Ghestem in our system and it means what I explained. He also explained that he wanted to bid 1D only. I think that he had no obligation to explain the error but doing so was not illegal as I became declarer and the auction was over. All this without screens.

 

Yet another issue: If anything happens too often, it becomes an implicit agreement. What happens if this implicit agreement would be an forbidden agreement per systems policy in the event?

[Vampyr]

3. Lets turn this around: 1H-3C-P-3S-P. At this point you realize that your 3C was a bidding error. Can you bid C again to show that you made a mistake? I would say yes, since there is no UI, either.

 

You meant to bid 2♣ and made a mechanical error? Why did you only realise this "at their point"? Would you not have noticed when partner alerted and corrected it then?

[TylerE]

Maybe you only noticed when wondering why partner "jumped" to 3♠?

[Lanor Fow]

1. What is the correct explanation in general? I would say that "frequent bidding error" is something like an implicit agreement and you I must disclose it. Thus, I would say that "by agreement this is Ghestem but this is a new convention and my partner may have made an error, in which case it is a long club". It is important that the second part is always there, no matter what I think, based on my hand -- otherwise it is UI.

2. If you strongly suspect that your partner indeed made a mistake (e.g. no clubs, lots of reds in your hand), are you allowed to act on the assumption that the bid actually shows clubs? I would guess yes, since this decision is not based on any UI. Of course if you guess wrong, you can not complain. Lets assume that a bid like "long club OR Ghestem is not against the systems regulation".

3. Lets turn this around: 1H-3C-P-3S-P. At this point you realize that your 3C was a bidding error. Can you bid C again to show that you made a mistake? I would say yes, since there is no UI, either.

4. Now we are at 1H-3C-P-3S-P-4C. Can you wake up at this point and pass (or raise to 5C)? Again, there is no UI. Why not?

...

Yet another issue: If anything happens too often, it becomes an implicit agreement. What happens if this implicit agreement would be an forbidden agreement per systems policy in the event?

 

1. If your partner frequently forgets an agreement, then you should disclose this. let's say 3c showed the reds, but partner often forgets and has clubs. If clubs or the reds is an illegal agreement per system policy, then if yoour partner (or you) forget it enough for it to be an implicit agreement that it could be clubs instead of the reds, then this is now an illigal agreement and you can't play it until your partner (or you) remember it better (though how that's meant to happen without practicing it I'm not sure).

 

2. If you disclose the agreement as 'The reds' (it's always best to avoid convention names) and then knowing that partner sometimes forgets decide that because of your hand it's likely that partner forgot, then this is basing a bid on a CPU (concealed partnership understanding) and thus illegal (how directors will rule depends on where you are, in the EBU there is a traffic light system that directors use that suggests how much your bid is 'fielding' the misbid, and so how likely it is that there is a CPU. Other NBOs do things in a different way). Note that having the CPU is against the laws in itself, as well as acting on it, hence the answer to 1.

 

If you disclose as per one, admitting that your partner often forgets, then as there is no 'concealed' agreement, then there is no law I know of that prevents you from taking yoour partners forgetfulness into account, based on your hand (as long as there is no other UI). As per one, this assumes that it would not be an illegal agreement.

 

3. If there is no UI and you realise, you are allowed to wake up. In a lot of places though, 3c being the reds is likely to be alertable. If it is, and 3c being natural isn't, then obvoiusly there is now UI, and even if you realised before partner alerted you are bound by the laws on UI.

 

4. If none of these bids generate UI by being alertable in one case and not the other, and you have disclosed your partners forgetful nature, and the reds or clubs implicit agreement is not illegal then you are allowed to wake up. That is quite a few IFs though.

[Bbradley62]

And at some point, EW should get a warning about not having a system card, or a penalty if they've been warned before. :(

[blackshoe]

This leads to a more general issue I do not know how to handle: You start using a new convention, e.g. 1H-3C is Ghestem per agreement. You know your partner tends to forget new conventions a few times.

 

1. What is the correct explanation in general? I would say that "frequent bidding error" is something like an implicit agreement and you I must disclose it. Thus, I would say that "by agreement this is Ghestem but this is a new convention and my partner may have made an error, in which case it is a long club". It is important that the second part is always there, no matter what I think, based on my hand -- otherwise it is UI.

While I agree with the form of your explanation, I think your partner has UI willy-nilly. When he bid a natural 3♣ (as a WJO, I'm guessing) he did not expect an alert. He got one anyway. This conveys the UI that he has forgotten the agreement.

 

2. If you strongly suspect that your partner indeed made a mistake (e.g. no clubs, lots of reds in your hand), are you allowed to act on the assumption that the bid actually shows clubs? I would guess yes, since this decision is not based on any UI. Of course if you guess wrong, you can not complain. Lets assume that a bid like "long club OR Ghestem is not against the systems regulation".

As long as you have properly disclosed your agreement, and partner has not reacted in any way, you can bid what you like. But if partner frowned, grimaced, said "oh *****", or reacted in any way, you have UI, and are constrained by it.

 

3. Lets turn this around: 1H-3C-P-3S-P. At this point you realize that your 3C was a bidding error. Can you bid C again to show that you made a mistake? I would say yes, since there is no UI, either.

If there was no alert, you can bid clubs again. If there was an alert, you have UI (see my response to #1 above) and are constrained by it. You have to act as if whatever partner bid was in response to a natural (weak?) jump overcall.

 

4. Now we are at 1H-3C-P-3S-P-4C. Can you wake up at this point and pass (or raise to 5C)? Again, there is no UI. Why not?

Again, if there was an alert, there is UI.

 

A version of this happened yesterday: 1C-2D (Ghestem, alerted, explained)-P-2H (I prefer H)-P-2S-P-2N. My partner made a mistake, he wanted to bid 1D natural, not 2D. I had 2533 with good controls in the minors. After the 2D I smelled trouble but could not be sure so I alerted and explained the agreement (55 in majors). I showed preference for H (after all I had 5). After the 2S bid I was even more confused but having good minors, I elected to bid 2N, which seemed to be a good contract against both a Ghestem and a long D suit. Was this legal? My partner

truly made a bidding error. I explaned all the bids per system and I based everthing on AI. After the auction ended and I became declarer, I explicitly asked my partner to correct any mistaken explanation I gave. He stated that my explanation was correct, the 2D bid is indeed Ghestem in our system and it means what I explained. He also explained that he wanted to bid 1D only. I think that he had no obligation to explain the error but doing so was not illegal as I became declarer and the auction was over. All this without screens.

If your partner intended to bid 1♦, and 2♦ was a "mis-pull", then when you alert 2♦, he is entitled to immediately (attempt to) change his bid (Law 25A). Once you have called, he cannot. So if the alert wakes him up, he can change it. If he doesn't wake up until you bid 2♥, he can't. That's for the future, since in this case he didn't try to change 2♦. Now he has UI. The UI is that you prefer hearts to spades, but you think he's 5-5 in those suits, so you may not have much in either suit. If he really did have a Ghestem hand, what would 2♠ show? I don't know Ghestem, but I would guess "not weak, possibly longer spades". In that case I see nothing wrong with 2NT, but I think a player poll would be appropriate here.

 

There is no obligation to say that one has misbid, nor is there any prohibition against it. Note that if your side had ended up defending, it would be inappropriate (and illegal!) for your partner to offer any corrections to your alerts and explanations during the clarification period. He must wait until the play is over. So you must not, in such a case, suggest to him, during the clarification period, that he should offer such corrections. B-)

 

Yet another issue: If anything happens too often, it becomes an implicit agreement. What happens if this implicit agreement would be an forbidden agreement per systems policy in the event?

Then if there is a regulation in place dealing with such agreements, the TD follows that regulation (I believe this is the case in the EBU, for one). If there is no regulation in place, the director applies Law 40B5, which instructs him to adjust the score, and allows him to award a procedural penalty.

 

In general, when your pair are trying a new agreement, it may be worth pre-alerting that fact, including, as appropriate, any known tendency by either partner to forget. This is not a requirement in law, or in regulation so far as I know, but it seems in the spirt of "full disclosure". That does not, IMO, absolve you of the requirement to fully disclose what you know when such a situation arises during the course of a hand.

 

One last thought: when you are trying a new agreement, unless you have very strong (and authorized) evidence that partner has forgotten it, I think you should bid as if he did not forget. This should be done, IMO, in the interest of partnership harmony — consider how partner will feel if you assume he forgot, but he didn't. :)

[szgyula]

Then if there is a regulation in place dealing with such agreements, the TD follows that regulation (I believe this is the case in the EBU, for one). If there is no regulation in place, the director applies Law 40B5, which instructs him to adjust the score, and allows him to award a procedural penalty.

 

As for the UI: With screens in place, you are than free to assume your partner made a mistake as long as you dislose this possibility.

 

As for the implicit partnership agreement and 40B5: The quoted example (1H-3C, which is supposed to be Ghestem but sometimes it is a WJO due to a mistake) is a Brown Sticker convention per WBF systems policy 2.4b: "An overcall of a natural opening bid of one of a suit that does not promise at least four cards in a known suit", as it shows clubs OR spades+hearts. What would you do in the following situation:

 

1. The bid is made, alert, explanation (including the possibility of an unintentional WJO) and the TD is called ("Brown Sticker").

2. Same as 1., no TD call but in the end it turns out that it was a WJO. The NOS was damaged and the TD should correct the result. When would you asses a PP on top of it?

3. Same as 1., no TD call and it was a geuine Ghestem. The opponents call the TD, claimning that it was a Brown Sticker and they were damaged as they were afraid that it was a WJO and they did not risk bidding ♣. The damage is real. What would you rule? When would you assess a PP?

 

The moral of the story is case 3. If you "punish", the players will hide the possibility of a bidding error. Quite often you will have a hard time showing that the partner knew. They will claim that it was an error and it happened the first time. Even worse: quite often you will not be able to show that the partner even realized that it was a bidding error. This can create a problem with some players. Consequently, the TD will get into trouble with the "implicit agreement" rules that (s)he is trying to enforce. This is not optimal. On the other hand, if you do not apply very pragmatically the rules in case 3., some people will try to confuse the opponents by always explaning that "this means X but there is a very low probability of meaning Y if partner makes a mistake".

 

Just to give an example: By agreement, our 1NT can contain a very weak 5 card major. We always disclose this. On the other hand, this never happened so far. Thus, adding this extra info to the explanation does not help the opponents much but many geginner/intermediate players will be scared by this, i.e. it hurts them. Is it required to disclose the 5 card major? Yes. Does it help or hurt? Often hurts...

[barmar]

1. If your partner frequently forgets an agreement, then you should disclose this. let's say 3c showed the reds, but partner often forgets and has clubs. If clubs or the reds is an illegal agreement per system policy, then if yoour partner (or you) forget it enough for it to be an implicit agreement that it could be clubs instead of the reds, then this is now an illigal agreement and you can't play it until your partner (or you) remember it better (though how that's meant to happen without practicing it I'm not sure).

Suppose you decide to play 3♣ = reds, but partner frequently forgets; implicitly he's playing 3{CL] = clubs or reds. So you get told that you should stop playing it, and you take it off your card.

 

But now partner forgets that you made this change, and keeps bidding like that. What can you do now? There's nothing to take off your card. Must you disband the partnership? Is the forgetter just too hopeless to play duplicate bridge?

[helene_t]

Even if you decide the ethical thing to do is to disclose partner's forgetfullness, doesn't it make a difference that you refuse to cater to his forgets?

[barmar]

Even if you decide the ethical thing to do is to disclose partner's forgetfullness, doesn't it make a difference that you refuse to cater to his forgets?

It seems like doing this should usually result in a bad result for your side when he forgets. If the opponents are not damaged, I don't suppose they'll complain.

 

But if this happens too much, the confusion it creates will ruin many players' enjoyment. But there's nothing in the Laws that requires that the game be enjoyable (unless you interpret the proprieties as implying this).

[gordontd]

It seems like doing this should usually result in a bad result for your side when he forgets. If the opponents are not damaged, I don't suppose they'll complain.

 

But if this happens too much, the confusion it creates will ruin many players' enjoyment. But there's nothing in the Laws that requires that the game be enjoyable (unless you interpret the proprieties as implying this).

Law 74A2 seems pretty clear about this:

A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause

annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with

the enjoyment of the game.

[WellSpyder]

Law 74A2 seems pretty clear about this:

Perhaps when the laws are revised they will refer to non-bridge actions. I remember being pretty annoyed last time an opponent found the only lead to beat my slam by giving his partner a ruff. I saw no signs of him trying to carefully avoid annoying me in this way. Should I have called the TD to ask for an adjustment?