Drector approached at end of match

[sfi]

Does Australia have a regulation similar to the ACBL's "you're supposed to know your system"?

 

 

From the Tournament Regulations:

 

5.5.1 A partnership is expected to know its own system and to be able to give an accurate explanation of it. The

Director may impose a procedural penalty upon any pair that consistently displays ignorance of its system

and in an extreme case may require the pair to cease playing its system and revert to a more natural system

for the remainder of the session. The Director shall report such a ruling to the Tournament Sub-Committee.

The Tournament Sub-Committee may prohibit the partnership from playing its system in subsequent

sessions and events unless and until the partnership is able to demonstrate a satisfactory knowledge of the

system.

[nige1]

Playing 3D as a game interest relay is, to me at least, the bizarre part of the auction.

After 2N, a possible structure is

• 3♣ = P/C.
• 3♦ = ASK. Then 3♥ =MIN, ♥ & ♣. 3♠ = MIN ♠ & ♦. Higher bids = Stronger, more shapely.
• 3♥/♠ = NAT, long suit

[sfi]

Now with a shape like 3-4-4-2 we're going to be forced to the 4 level on a fair few hands where partner has hearts and clubs. Similarly, if I have 4-4-3-2, I can't be sure of playing in 3 of partner's major in your system.

[nige1]

Now with a shape like 3-4-4-2 we're going to be forced to the 4 level on a fair few hands where partner has hearts and clubs. Similarly, if I have 4-4-3-2, I can't be sure of playing in 3 of partner's major in your system.

I don't know this convention but I'd be interested in a recommended response structure. (Mine was just a suggestion).

[sfi]

Typically, all suit bids are pass or correct, with 2NT being a forcing enquiry over 2H or 2S. Opener then bids 3 of the lower suit with bottom of the range and the higher suit with top of the range.

 

The most common agreement over 2NT is that 3C is the strong enquiry. You give up playing in 3C, but you gain ways to show good hands (3C and then bid your own suit is forcing; setting the suit at the four level is forcing, etc.).

 

All good one-suited hands either go through the relay or bid and rebid their long suit. That means that you generally can't play a part-score in your own suit after partner opens an RCO two.

 

Here's some description of the convention.

 

Bids like this seem to have become less popular in Australia over the years, probably because players have become better at handling them. Even so, the original hand is one where the 2NT opening was going to make it rather more difficult for the opposition to bid game.

[blackshoe]

I don't think we've answered the OP's questions yet. He asked "to what extent do players jeopardize their right to an adjustment if they fail to call the director at the time?" and "Should I adjust?" Let's try to answer those.

 

Sven suggested that in this case he "would prefer" a score adjustment to 4♥X-3. I infer from that, possibly wrongly, that he doesn't see a legal justification for it. Mr1303 wants to know what EW claim they would have done differently - I think the answer to that is "they claim they would have doubled," but the implication of the question is that he believes there should be no adjustment.

 

It seems to me this is pretty clearly a case of MI - NS didn't have a clear agreement, so both players' explanations are MI. Was there damage? If you judge that EW might have doubled, then yes, there was damage. Should EW's failure to call the TD at the time jeopardize their rights in this case? My answer to that is no, particularly given that it is on NS ("must") to call the TD after the final pass. So there was an infraction that caused damage, and thus the answer to the second question is "yes, you should adjust". I would think a weighted score, some combination of 4♥X-1 (-300 for NS) and 4♥X-2 (-400 for NS), perhaps 20%/80% respectively, but maybe I'm wrong about the weightings. Would anyone like to argue for different answers? B-)

 

PS: somebody commented on the "after the match" aspect of the approach to the director, instead of immediately after the hand. While I would agree with an argument that delays can cause problems as peoples' memories get foggier (and perhaps for other reasons) the request for a ruling was within the correction period, so it's certainly legal. So as I said I don't think that the TD should decline to rule, or 'auto-rule' against EW on the grounds of "too late a call".

[RMB1]

PS: somebody commented on the "after the match" aspect of the approach to the director, instead of immediately after the hand. While I would agree with an argument that delays can cause problems as peoples' memories get foggier (and perhaps for other reasons) the request for a ruling was within the correction period, so it's certainly legal. So as I said I don't think that the TD should decline to rule, or 'auto-rule' against EW on the grounds of "too late a call".

 

A late call for a ruling may make it harder to establish the facts; and the TD may be (more) sceptical that non-offenders were damaged if they did not realise at the time.

[pran]

That's the normal meaning of 3D in this sort of an auction. I've played this convention many times and never felt the need to discuss this sort of a follow-up because that's what everyone would take it to mean. North's explanation is just odd and would suggest to me that they don't understand the convention properly.

 

The original post did explain the meaning of 2NT, although somewhat cryptically for non-Australian players. It's likely that 2D is a weak single-suited hand with one major, 2H = majors or minors, and 2S = reds or blacks (known as RCO Twos). Mostly these are played as weak with at least 5 cards in each suit, although some people will play it to show 5-4.

And do you believe when seeing South's hand that he seriously intended his 3♦ bid this way?

As I have already stated: The whole (N/S-)auction looks deliberatly "random" to me.

[pran]

I don't think we've answered the OP's questions yet. He asked "to what extent do players jeopardize their right to an adjustment if they fail to call the director at the time?" and "Should I adjust?" Let's try to answer those.

 

Sven suggested that in this case he "would prefer" a score adjustment to 4♥X-3. I infer from that, possibly wrongly, that he doesn't see a legal justification for it. Mr1303 wants to know what EW claim they would have done differently - I think the answer to that is "they claim they would have doubled," but the implication of the question is that he believes there should be no adjustment.

[...]

Honestly, I didn't bother about legality in this case (I am sure I could find one). The whole N/S-auction is so bizarre that I consider it only destructive for no bridge purpose. (I consider it irrelevant whether their activity is caused by ignorance or intention.)

 

The basis for my suggestion is that N/S is bound by their own auction, ending up in 4♥, while E/W have full knowledge of what is going on, resulting in an obvious double and successfully cashing their 6 tricks.

[sfi]

And do you believe when seeing South's hand that he seriously intended his 3♦ bid this way?

As I have already stated: The whole (N/S-)auction looks deliberatly "random" to me.

 

3D looks like a reasonable response, intending to play 3D or 3H. It's the obvious bid if South was expecting 3C to be (or potentially be) a conventional enquiry. Yes, N-S should sort out their system, but everyone has seen disagreements about follow up bids, particularly if it's not a regular partnership or if they have recently added the convention.

 

I'm not sure why you consider this deliberately random. This type of convention is fairly common in Australia, and pass or correct responses are normal. The only strange thing is North's understanding and explanation of 3D. There may be a case for adjustment due to misinformation, but throwing the rule book out the window to try and punish the pair is hardly likely to serve shevek's game well.

[pran]

3D looks like a reasonable response, intending to play 3D or 3H. It's the obvious bid if South was expecting 3C to be (or potentially be) a conventional enquiry. Yes, N-S should sort out their system, but everyone has seen disagreements about follow up bids, particularly if it's not a regular partnership or if they have recently added the convention.

 

I'm not sure why you consider this deliberately random. This type of convention is fairly common in Australia, and pass or correct responses are normal. The only strange thing is North's understanding and explanation of 3D. There may be a case for adjustment due to misinformation, but throwing the rule book out the window to try and punish the pair is hardly likely to serve shevek's game well.

 

With the explanations we have so far: What makes South trust that 2NT does not show Spades Hearts and Clubs (as he indeed had)?

 

I consider the auction deliberately random because so far no reasonable explanation has been offered* for any of the calls after the opening bid.

 

* Not by the players, and certainly not evident from seeing the actual hands.

[barmar]

From the Tournament Regulations:

Does messing up one convention count as "not knowing your system"?

 

I play Mexican 2♦ with my regular partner. I know all the common responses, but there are a number of sequences for showing extreme hands that are hard to remember because they come up so rarely. Does that mean we can't play the convention?

 

Recently my partner forgot the void-showing responses to RKCB (he has trouble remembering whether 5NT shows even or odd + void). Does that mean we can't play RKCB? Or maybe that we're not allowed to use the void-showing responses, in case he's forgotten again?

 

In all these cases, it seems like we're more likely to damage ourselves than the opponents.

[barmar]

Making calls which neither member of the partnership understands/agrees is discourteous, and will annoy and spoil everyones enjoyment.

Seems like a stretch to me. That way lies prohibiting setting contracts, because players don't enjoy going down. And they really don't like going for a number, so if you're going to set them you'd better not double.

 

Plus, I might enjoy it when the opponents screw up and get to a bad contract.

[aguahombre]

Does messing up one convention count as "not knowing your system"?

 

I play Mexican 2♦ with my regular partner. I know all the common responses, but there are a number of sequences for showing extreme hands that are hard to remember because they come up so rarely. Does that mean we can't play the convention?

 

Recently my partner forgot the void-showing responses to RKCB (he has trouble remembering whether 5NT shows even or odd + void). Does that mean we can't play RKCB? Or maybe that we're not allowed to use the void-showing responses, in case he's forgotten again?

 

In all these cases, it seems like we're more likely to damage ourselves than the opponents.

What you are describing in your examples is not, in my not so humble opinion, the intent of the regulations anywhere which touch on convention disruption.

 

RMB1's etiquette/proprieties approach, and the COC's regarding knowing one's conventions should certainly apply to the convention itself and immediate continuations. That is what the folks in the OP seem to have violated. The regs should also require that we be able to properly disclose same.

 

Extending the idea to all conventional mix-ups is just plain not in the ballpark.

[helene_t]

At my club most pairs play apstro or similar without knowing the follow ups. Maybe the td should force them to play natural overcalls but it's a slippery slope and it could easily be biased against conventions which the td happens to dislike or consider nonessential. Plenty of pairs don't understand transfers and t/o doubles either but nobody would force them not to play those since it is generally accepted that beginners have to learn those things and if they are not allowed to try they will never learn.

[Trinidad]

Same problem with DONT. Ask anybody with DONT in their profile what 1NT-2♦-Dbl-2♥ means. Most will not know or they will think they know, but they will know something different from their partner.

 

And it can be even simpler: At my club (with a decent standard, one of the stronger clubs in the Netherlands) many pairs will not know what the agreed strength for 1♠-Pass-2NT is (invitational/better, game invitational/ slam invitational, or simply GF), nor do they know whether it promises 3 or 4 card support.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

Beginners do have to learn. More advanced players adopting new conventions also have to learn. But there has to be a point (which may be hard to identify at the table) where the learning period should be considered to be over. Not saying that's the case here, mind you, just that it's a consideration.

[mwigor]

The director clearly stuffed up this ruling (he allowed table result to stand).

 

As he correctly ruled there has been an infraction of misinformation (in the absense of clear evidence to the contrary the director must assume misinformation not misbid).

 

Under 12C1c the director is empowered to award a weighted combination of scores. It is not certain that West would double the final contract given the information that 3D is pass or correct - but there is some chance that he would. The director should award some percentage of the final contract doubled and some percentage of it undoubled.

[blackshoe]

(in the absense of clear evidence to the contrary the director must assume misinformation not misbid).

The word "clear" does not appear in that part of the law. The actual wording is "the Director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." This means only that if there is evidence the call might have been mistaken, a mis-bid, then the director cannot presume MI.

[pran]

The word "clear" does not appear in that part of the law. The actual wording is "the Director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." This means only that if there is evidence the call might have been mistaken, a mis-bid, then the director cannot presume MI.

No, it implies that the evidence for misbid must be significantly stronger than the evidence for mistaken explanation.

 

(Any statement by a player to the effect "I misbid" is evidence, but without corroborating evidence it will hardly be sufficient.)

[mycroft]

Significantly is implied nowhere. I've always read it as "there has to either be physical evidence (CC, notes) or a reasonable chain of logic that the explanation given is righter than the alternative." Otherwise the alternative: "their real explanation could be <crazy system only one or two people around play> in which case that's the correct bid and we got a misexplanation, in which case the UI says... and the MI leads to..." and we get the lamford DONT case elsethreads in a situation where, frankly, it's highly likely they're playing the local standard system and the bidder hand a braino. But it's not *significantly* more likely...

 

Having said that, it is possible that this was done under screens; in which case the differing ideas become differing explanations to E/W, and it could be that it's only after the match in discussions that the differing explanations came to light.

 

The EBU has a very sound suggestion, that while the TD "should" be called when there is an irregularity, that "should" is closer to a requirement in a few cases, one of which is "correcting significant misexplanation" (another one is "correcting own misexplanation", and I *really* like that idea). I don't know when south made clear that he wasn't sure, or he thought the agreement was the "obvious" one, but this all goes away if South calls the TD, and explains the situation and explains the potential misexplanation, before the opening lead.

[pran]

Significantly is implied nowhere. I've always read it as "there has to either be physical evidence (CC, notes) or a reasonable chain of logic that the explanation given is righter than the alternative." Otherwise the alternative: "their real explanation could be <crazy system only one or two people around play> in which case that's the correct bid and we got a misexplanation, in which case the UI says... and the MI leads to..." and we get the lamford DONT case elsethreads in a situation where, frankly, it's highly likely they're playing the local standard system and the bidder hand a braino. But it's not *significantly* more likely...

So how do you handle the situation where you find evidences for both misbid and misinformation, neither of which is absolutely conclusive?

By your own logic, if you discard the requirement for "significantly" then you do have evidence for misbid and have to rule that way.

Having said that, it is possible that this was done under screens; in which case the differing ideas become differing explanations to E/W, and it could be that it's only after the match in discussions that the differing explanations came to light.

 

The EBU has a very sound suggestion, that while the TD "should" be called when there is an irregularity, that "should" is closer to a requirement in a few cases, one of which is "correcting significant misexplanation" (another one is "correcting own misexplanation", and I *really* like that idea). I don't know when south made clear that he wasn't sure, or he thought the agreement was the "obvious" one, but this all goes away if South calls the TD, and explains the situation and explains the potential misexplanation, before the opening lead.

I do not understand why you apparently limit your attention to Law 9B when Laws 20F4 and 20F5 clearly state that the Director "must" be called in cases of (possible) misinformation?

[blackshoe]

The word "clear" does not appear in that part of the law. The actual wording is "the Director is to presume mistaken explanation, rather than mistaken call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." This means only that if there is evidence the call might have been mistaken, a mis-bid, then the director cannot presume MI.

 

 

No, it implies that the evidence for misbid must be significantly stronger than the evidence for mistaken explanation.

 

(Any statement by a player to the effect "I misbiod" is evidence, but without corroborating evidence it will hardly be sufficient.)

l disagree with your first sentence. If you read what I said, you should recognize that I did not say that any evidence at all of a misbid is sufficient to rule misbid. What I said was that you cannot presume mis-explanation in the presence of evidence of misbid — you have to consider all the evidence.

 

 

Significantly is implied nowhere. I've always read it as "there has to either be physical evidence (CC, notes) or a reasonable chain of logic that the explanation given is righter than the alternative." Otherwise the alternative: "their real explanation could be <crazy system only one or two people around play> in which case that's the correct bid and we got a misexplanation, in which case the UI says... and the MI leads to..." and we get the lamford DONT case elsethreads in a situation where, frankly, it's highly likely they're playing the local standard system and the bidder hand a braino. But it's not *significantly* more likely...

 

Having said that, it is possible that this was done under screens; in which case the differing ideas become differing explanations to E/W, and it could be that it's only after the match in discussions that the differing explanations came to light.

 

The EBU has a very sound suggestion, that while the TD "should" be called when there is an irregularity, that "should" is closer to a requirement in a few cases, one of which is "correcting significant misexplanation" (another one is "correcting own misexplanation", and I *really* like that idea). I don't know when south made clear that he wasn't sure, or he thought the agreement was the "obvious" one, but this all goes away if South calls the TD, and explains the situation and explains the potential misexplanation, before the opening lead.

I wish that I had never pointed out that the use of "must" in the 1997 Law 9 implied that failure to call the director after attention was drawn to an irregularity should draw a PP. The Drafting Committee decided they didn't like that implication, so they changed "must" to "should". The problem with "should" is that, within the laws of bridge, if you fail to do something you "should" do, you have committed an infraction of law, while in common usage, failure to do something you "should" do carries a connotation of "no big deal, 'should' means it's optional". In the laws of bridge, it's not optional.

[barmar]

So how do you handle the situation where you find evidences for both misbid and misinformation, neither of which is absolutely conclusive?

By your own logic, if you discard the requirement for "significantly" then you do have evidence for misbid and have to rule that way.

If you have evidence of both misbid and MI, you weigh the evidence and decide which is more likely. The clause in the Laws is just intended to be used as a default when there's no evidence either way.

 

However, I think some common sense needs to be applied. As someone mentioned upthread, there's never NO evidence, because you always have the player's statement of what happened as evidence. What we're actually being asked to judge is whether to believe that statement -- if that's the ONLY evidence, it's circular to use it to make the ruling.

[blackshoe]

Circular? How so?