Rub of the Green?

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sjthkqt3dakt6cqt4&w=skq9865ha6d97ca32&n=sa7hj954dqj53ckj7&e=s432h872d842c9865&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(15-17)d(intended%20as%201M)rppp]399|300[/hv]

IMPs; Lead K♠ EW+400; Other room NS+620. 14 IMPs to EW in this room.

 

There was a bit of a mix-up in this hand from the Piccadilly Line Pivot Teams in which each member of the team plays 8 boards with three different partners. West intended his double to show one major, a convention he normally plays with South in the other room. East thought it was penalties, his normal method with North in the other room, so he did not alert. He had noted that his hand was a genuine Yarborough, and he was getting ready to bore the other three players yet again with the story about the Duke of Yarborough offering 1,000-1 against getting a Yarborough at whist when the auction took a decidedly sour turn. West led the king of spades, and 1NTxx drifted one off, much to East's relief. In the other room, again over a strong NT, West overcalled 2D, Multi-Landy, showing one major, and North bid 2NT, Lebensohl, and then 3S which showed four hearts and a spade stopper. South, quite naturally, bid the cold 4H, and NS were pleased that their agreements had borne fruit, especially so in a pivot teams.

 

In this room, our friend who looks and behaves like SB, was unhappy. He called the director and complained: "West had an LA to passing out 1NT Redoubled", he began, "and that would have been less successful. West had UI that his double had not been alerted, and 2S is the normal bid". "Au contraire," responded West, who had been on the EBU club director's course, "bidding 2S would be using the UI. I have to assume that East wanted to defend 1NTxx, or he would have bid either 2H - pass or correct - or two of a minor. If anything Pass was demonstrably unsuggested".

 

How do you rule?

[WellSpyder]

I do not think pass is suggested by the UI.

 

Whether 2S is suggested by the UI is slightly less clear, and I might need to ask West whether he has any agreement with his other partner about what partner's pass over the redouble would show here, but I don't actually need to decide whether or not 2S is suggested to be able to rule that the result stands. (If that rubs up SB the wrong way, so be it....)

[NickRW]

In this room, our friend who looks and behaves like SB, was unhappy....

 

... who had been on the EBU club director's course

 

Well the initials SB don't ring a bell with me, unless you mean "Son of a b...", and I don't have the benefit of any course. However, I am struggling to see a reason to do anything other say "result stands" - unless I am missing something.

 

Nick

[mgoetze]

I'm a bit confused as to what method West thinks he is playing. The way I learned DONT, double can show any single-suiter, not just in the majors. In any case, there are two potential agreements as to what pass over redouble could mean - either suggesting to play there, or just waiting for West to name a suit (in the latter case any bid by East would show a suit of his own).

 

On the other hand, it probably doesn't matter because it seems pretty clear that none of this is the actual partnership agreement.

 

I do tend to agree that the UI suggests bidding 2♠, so I shall let the table result stand.

 

A slightly stronger argument by SB might have been that there were LAs to the lead of a high spade, though I don't think they would have convinced me.

[gordontd]

Well the initials SB don't ring a bell with me

Secretary Bird

[mgoetze]

Well the initials SB don't ring a bell with me,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Mollo

[lamford]

Well the initials SB don't ring a bell with me, unless you mean "Son of a b...", and I don't have the benefit of any course. However, I am struggling to see a reason to do anything other say "result stands" - unless I am missing something.

 

Nick

I think the question is not one of UI, but one of MI, and the TD should consider all aspects. If North had been told that Double showed one major, then he might also have wheeled out the standard convention, over Multi-Landy or relatives of it, of bidding 2NT followed by 3M, showing four of the other major and a stop in the bid major, leading to a contract of 4H. The fact that neither North or South considered this should not deny them redress. It is not their job to decide what would have happened absent the infraction. And the TD is to assume MI rather than misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. And, as expected in a pivot teams, there was little evidence.

[lamford]

I'm a bit confused as to what method West thinks he is playing.

I am sure West was equally confused.

[billw55]

I notice that OP is careful not to say what EW actual agreement was, or if they had one.

[lamford]

I notice that OP is careful not to say what EW actual agreement was, or if they had one.

I would think that the actual agreement was, if anything, "undiscussed". As you might expect if you have ever played pivot teams.

[wank]

And, as expected in a pivot teams, there was little evidence.

 

that it's a pivot teams is pretty reasonable evidence that they had no agreement.

[VixTD]

I would think that the actual agreement was, if anything, "undiscussed". As you might expect if you have ever played pivot teams.

If this was played under EBU regulations then BB2D2 would apply:

 

Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert.

So unless East was sure that the double was for penalties, if there was any doubt that it could have been intended as conventional, they should have alerted and explained that it is undiscussed. This would at least have taken away from NS the implication carried by BB4A6:

 

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.

Whether that explanation would be enough to enable NS to reach their game in hearts is another matter, but it's something the TD should certainly investigate.

[billw55]

So, it is assumed there was no agreement. In that case, how can a failure to alert mean anything? There is no agreement to forget, or to disclose. Is east supposed to say "alert, no agreement"?

 

Although, I gather from discussions here that doubles are almost always alertable over there, or so it seems to me. If certain doubles of 1NT are alertable, while other types (conceivably, only one) are not, then I suppose the failure to alert could carry MI and/or UI. But then, why should NS have any expectation that EW have agreements here?

 

All in all there are good reasons I am not a director.

 

edit: it looks like Vix covered a lot this above.

[mgoetze]

I don't like it for serious play, but the German regulation of "pass, double and redouble are never alerted" certainly has its advantages for casual play like this. ;)

[barmar]

So unless East was sure that the double was for penalties, if there was any doubt that it could have been intended as conventional, they should have alerted and explained that it is undiscussed.

If you haven't discussed any conventional defense to NT, it's normal to assume everything is natural, which includes penalty doubles. So East doesn't have any reason to alert. While it's possible it could be artificial, that's true of almost anything when there's no discussion -- you'd be alerting and explaining "no agreement" all day in a pivot game.

 

If it were online, you might assume the default is Cappeletti -- in which case double is still for penalty.

[NickRW]

I think the question is not one of UI, but one of MI

 

Yeah, but who gave the MI? Surely you can't say it was East who appeared to assume it was a natural penalty X.

 

I suppose you could say that West was supposed to call the director because of East's failure to alert and the director then asks East to leave the table while West explains the "agreement". If you think that should have happened, then I suppose you can rule accordingly.

[campboy]

West is right about the implications of UI IMO; if he had pulled the redouble and gained, then I would be adjusting. I don't see why North would do anything differently if told "undiscussed", since East presumably has no idea what it might be other than penalty. If East is aware of what West usually plays with [edit: the other] South, that would be a different matter of course.

 

It was the Earl of Yarborough, but I shall try to get out more.

[weejonnie]

With regards to the UI - then I agree with West. He has to assume that East knows his hand and has decided to defend.

 

With regards to the MI - NS are entitled to know that EW have no agreement. In fact the law book states that the TD is to rule incorrect explanation instead of incorrect bid which (on the EBU Directors course) is described as TWO convention cards/ system notes agreeing with the description given.

 

Hence - since there was MI, NS would have taken a different action with the correct Information and their loss was directly attributable to the MI - I would adjust. With 27 points I cannot see NS not reaching 4 Hearts providing they have some method of getting there.

 

(I might even throw in a bit of 4 Spades X - 3 -800 for fun.)

[barmar]

With regards to the MI - NS are entitled to know that EW have no agreement. In fact the law book states that the TD is to rule incorrect explanation instead of incorrect bid which (on the EBU Directors course) is described as TWO convention cards/ system notes agreeing with the description given.

The default assumption is only used in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The fact that it's a pivot team game and the partnerships don't have system cards is evidence that there are few special agreements. If one of them assumes they do have an agreement like this, they're mistaken, so it's an incorrect bid.

[barmar]

Anyone think that if West had pulled the redouble, and it worked out OK, SB would have made the argument that West made in response to SB's director call? If reasonable arguments for what is suggested by the UI can be made for both positions, the NOS can always pick the one that implies damage.

 

But perhaps this means that neither of them is demonstrably suggested.

[lamford]

With regards to the UI - then I agree with West. He has to assume that East knows his hand and has decided to defend.

 

With regards to the MI - NS are entitled to know that EW have no agreement. In fact the law book states that the TD is to rule incorrect explanation instead of incorrect bid which (on the EBU Directors course) is described as TWO convention cards/ system notes agreeing with the description given.

 

Hence - since there was MI, NS would have taken a different action with the correct Information and their loss was directly attributable to the MI - I would adjust. With 27 points I cannot see NS not reaching 4 Hearts providing they have some method of getting there.

 

(I might even throw in a bit of 4 Spades X - 3 -800 for fun.)

I wonder what methods one should have in any event, of any strength, over an undiscussed double of 1NT. Perhaps the best method is to assume that system is on, so that 2C is now Stayman. However, I suspect few pairs have "discussed" what to do over "undiscussed". I tend to think "undiscussed" is an unacceptable explanation. Say that you play a different defence to a weak or a strong NT, and when someone opens 1NT their partner announces "undiscussed". Unless you have an agreement over an undiscussed NT, you have no idea how partner will interpret any of your bids. I would tend to give NS the benefit of the doubt and allow them to reach 4H as well.

[blackshoe]

tend to think "undiscussed" is an unacceptable explanation.

It may be incomplete, because there may be experience or knowledge of partner's tendencies or agreements with others that should be disclosed, but IMO that's the only basis for calling it 'unacceptable'.

[lamford]

It may be incomplete, because there may be experience or knowledge of partner's tendencies or agreements with others that should be disclosed, but IMO that's the only basis for calling it 'unacceptable'.

I think that "deemed misinformation" would be better than "unacceptable explanation". Imagine a game where all calls by a side were "undiscussed", and the other side had to guess at the meaning of every call, and have a whole system to cope with every "undiscussed" bid of the opponents. For example, 1S - (3C, undiscussed). Now I play with most partners that if 3C is natural, double is takeout, if 3C is Ghestem, double is looking for a penalty. If 3C is "undiscussed", I do not have a clue what to do.

[pran]

I think that "deemed misinformation" would be better than "unacceptable explanation". Imagine a game where all calls by a side were "undiscussed", and the other side had to guess at the meaning of every call, and have a whole system to cope with every "undiscussed" bid of the opponents. For example, 1S - (3C, undiscussed). Now I play with most partners that if 3C is natural, double is takeout, if 3C is Ghestem, double is looking for a penalty. If 3C is "undiscussed", I do not have a clue what to do.

 

This is one of the reasons why I favour "undiscussed" or "no agreements" etc. be treated as misinformation to the extent that NOS has been damaged (in the Director's opinion) from the uncertainty created by the lacking description of a call.

 

In the balance of interests I find it far more important to protect NOS than to protect OS in such situations.

[blackshoe]

This is one of the reasons why I favour "undiscussed" or "no agreements" etc. be treated as misinformation to the extent that NOS has been damaged (in the Director's opinion) from the uncertainty created by the lacking description of a call.

 

In the balance of interests I find it far more important to protect NOS than to protect OS in such situations.

Certainly. But the definition of damage starts "damage exists when, because of an infraction…" If "undiscussed" is found to be incomplete because there are inferences not available to the NOS, then there's been an infraction. If there are no such inferences, there's been no infraction. Put another way, if the explaining player can truly say "we haven't discussed it, you know as much as I do" then the explanation is complete. One could argue, I suppose, that this is never the case, but I don't buy it, so I don't think treating "undiscussed" as conclusive evidence of MI is kosher.