Convention cards identical, but ...

[BudH]

http://thecommongame.com/PHPPOSTCGS.php?options=LookupClioBoard&acblno=&date=2015-08-31&board=01&gamemode=

 

Board 1 from the 31 August 2015 Common Game:

 

P-P-P-1NT(15-17)

2H*-P-P-P

 

* alerted and explained to West as hearts and unknown minor

 

North calls me as Director after the auction and before the opening lead and says they play 2H as natural in this auction. Both convention cards say Cappelletti direct seat only, but dealer North (the heart overcaller) treats that as meaning "direct seat by unpassed hand".

 

I decide this is misinformation despite the convention cards being identical because clearly the partnership is treating this auction differently.

 

I take East (an average Flight B player) aside and ask if he would have called differently if he knew 2H was natural. He states he would bid 3D (natural) with A. xx. KQxxx. xxxxx. and that he nearly bid it anyway, but that North's supposed minor in front of his minors made acting more dangerous.

 

I allow West to change his final pass - he declines. 2H goes down 1 for 50 to East-West.

 

I adjusted to 4D East making 5 for 150 for both sides, deciding it likely South would raise hearts and opener West would raise partner to 4D holding four good diamonds.

 

Opinions?

[BudH]

Correction - explanation of the alerted 2H was requested by East, not West.

[Lanor Fow]

If you decide there is misinformation here (something I'd have to be at the table to decide, so I'll go by your judgement there, which seems reasonable based on the information posted) then you are better asking East if he would act if the description of the bid was 'undiscussed', or 'Cappelletti in direct seat by an unpassed hand but undiscussed if a passed hand' rather than natural.

 

Did you ask if 3d would have been forcing here? It seems quite likely that it would be, especially if they play lebensohl. If so then 4d seems an unlikely result and 5d= seems more reasonable.

[campboy]

I don't think I would ever rule that the correct explanation is "undiscussed, but ..." here. I see two possibilities, and we need to ask a couple more questions to determine which is the case.

1. They agreed to play "Capp in direct seat", but North misunderstood what "direct seat" meant.
   
2. They agreed to play Capp by an unpassed hand sitting over the 1NT opener, and North wrote "Capp in direct seat" on the CC thinking it meant the same thing.
   

In 2 there is a clear agreement that this is natural, and both the explanation and the CC gave MI.

 

In 1 there is a clear agreement that this is two-suited, and the fact that North (unbeknownst to South) misunderstood their agreements does not change this fact. The CC is an accurate description of their agreement.

[Lanor Fow]

If north believes one thing and south another, how can there be a clear agreement between them?

[helene_t]

5♦+1 maybe? North doesn't have to lead a heart.

[Zelandakh]

5♦+1 maybe? North doesn't have to lead a heart.

There is also at least 500 available in 3♥X, no? And N-S might even compete to 4♥ on some auctions given that this is probably club level bridge.

[campboy]

If north believes one thing and south another, how can there be a clear agreement between them?

It is completely normal for a pair to believe different things in situations where they do have an agreement but one of them has gotten it wrong. It does not necessarily mean they have no agreement.

[blackshoe]

If north believes one thing and south another, how can there be a clear agreement between them?

Which law says agreements have to be clear? B-)

[BudH]

Effectively, North's convention (system) card said "Cappelletti direct seat by unpassed hand only" whereas South's said "Cappelletti direct seat only". Even though both cards were marked identically.

 

(I spoke later about this with North and politely told her partner's alert was likely correct and that as a player I also would have assumed Cappelletti was used since it was in direct seat with passed hand status not being a factor.)

 

This East-West pair I am sure was not playing 3D as game forcing, especially by a passed hand - but technically, I should have asked. I was not close to awarded them a minor suit game, and hearts were always going to be led on opening lead.

[BudH]

Looking at The Common Game scores, the most common scores were, in order

 

19%, -150 (minor suit partial)

16%, 50 (probably 3NT down 1 and a few minor slams)

15%, -170 (minor suit partial with no heart lead)

11%, -120 (amazingly stopping in notrump partial)

9%, -400 (minor suit game bid and made with heart lead)

[Lanor Fow]

Which law says agreements have to be clear? B-)

 

True, remove the word clear then, If north believes one thing and south another they don't have an agreement (after all they don't agree!)

 

"It is completely normal for a pair to believe different things in situations where they do have an agreement but one of them has gotten it wrong. It does not necessarily mean they have no agreement."

If one person has forgotten the agreement, or forgotten it applies in a certain situation then yes they can have an agreement. If they believe two contradictory things about the situation, then there is no agreement about this situation.

[Vampyr]

What is the Common Game? Some sort of charity simultaneous?

[blackshoe]

No. It's a service whereby duplimate files are provided to participating clubs, so that all clubs in a given time period (say, Tuesday afternoon) play the same hands so a comparison across a larger field can be had. Masterpoints are still awarded based only on results at each club. The results are then posted on both a per-club basis and an "all participating clubs" basis.

[Vampyr]

So there are no masterpoints (but maybe there are prizes?) for overall results, and also no charity is supported? Is there a point to this exercise?

[blackshoe]

Well, a lot of people seem to like it. No prizes so far as I know, but I could be wrong.

 

http://www.thecommongame.com

[barmar]

The Laws don't really address the case of agreements that aren't actually agreed very well. They seem to assume that if a bid doesn't match the explanation, either it was a misbid or misexplanation, not the partners disagreeing about what their agreement is (the bidder bid consistently with what he thought the agreement was, the explaner was consistent with his understanding of it). And unless the pair has very detailed system notes, there may be no way to reconcile this.

 

I suppose the fact that they violently disagree is prima facia evidence that there's no actual agreement, which means that any explanation (other than "no agreement") is inherently misinformation.

[BudH]

The Laws don't really address the case of agreements that aren't actually agreed very well. They seem to assume that if a bid doesn't match the explanation, either it was a misbid or misexplanation, not the partners disagreeing about what their agreement is (the bidder bid consistently with what he thought the agreement was, the explaner was consistent with his understanding of it). And unless the pair has very detailed system notes, there may be no way to reconcile this.

 

I suppose the fact that they violently disagree is prima facia evidence that there's no actual agreement, which means that any explanation (other than "no agreement") is inherently misinformation.

 

That is essentially what led to me ruling there was misinformation, and not a misbid. Once you decide that, I think it is clear 2H North undoubled down 1 is going to be replaced with an adjusted result.

 

In my case, I chose 4D East making 5. But what if I thought 4H doubled would happen 1/3 of the time, 4D East would happen 1/3 of the time, and 5D East would happen 1/3 of the time? In ACBL, starting January 1, we will get to use weighted averages as several other parts of the world have been using for a long time.

 

(And no, the "1/3" I used above for example is not the fractions I would use for this case, if I had weighted averages available as I will in 2016.)

[lamford]

The Laws don't really address the case of agreements that aren't actually agreed very well. They seem to assume that if a bid doesn't match the explanation, either it was a misbid or misexplanation <snip>

Generally the latter. I think that 21B1b applies:

"The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary".

 

So, if someone clearly bids 2C naturally over 1NT, and his partner alerts and explains it as, say, Landy, then, unless both CCs have the same explanation of what 2C means, and not just the word "Landy", then the Director will presume Mistaken Explanation.

[pran]

Effectively, North's convention (system) card said "Cappelletti direct seat by unpassed hand only" whereas South's said "Cappelletti direct seat only". Even though both cards were marked identically.

{...}

Ever since I read this I have wondered how anybody could be satisfied that the cards were marked identically? To me they are obviously not.

[sanst]

Ever since I read this I have wondered how anybody could be satisfied that the cards were marked identically? To me they are obviously not.

The cards were probably identical, but South SAID something different.

[blackshoe]

North calls me as Director after the auction and before the opening lead and says they play 2H as natural in this auction. Both convention cards say Cappelletti direct seat only, but dealer North (the heart overcaller) treats that as meaning "direct seat by unpassed hand".

 

I decide this is misinformation despite the convention cards being identical because clearly the partnership is treating this auction differently.

 

Effectively, North's convention (system) card said "Cappelletti direct seat by unpassed hand only" whereas South's said "Cappelletti direct seat only". Even though both cards were marked identically.

 

Ever since I read this I have wondered how anybody could be satisfied that the cards were marked identically? To me they are obviously not.

The cards were marked identically, but North thought the agreed meaning included the caveat "by an unpassed hand" and South did not agree.

[pran]

The cards were marked identically, but North thought the agreed meaning included the caveat "by an unpassed hand" and South did not agree.

OK.

So what confused me was that the post said: "South's said" instead of "South said".

 

(There is a major difference here, "South" refers to the player himself while "South's" refer to his convention card.)

[blackshoe]

Very few people proofread what they write on the Internet.

[barmar]

Generally the latter. I think that 21B1b applies:

"The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary".

 

So, if someone clearly bids 2C naturally over 1NT, and his partner alerts and explains it as, say, Landy, then, unless both CCs have the same explanation of what 2C means, and not just the word "Landy", then the Director will presume Mistaken Explanation.

If there's no agreement to begin with, how can either the explanation or call be mistaken? A mistake is only when some action is inconsistent with the agreement, which doesn't even exist.