Déjà vu

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=st764h8743dk43cj9&w=sa9hajd72cak87543&n=s8532h962daj65ct6&e=skqjhkqt5dqt98cq2&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1n(15-17)p4c(not%20alerted)p4hp7nppp]399|300[/hv]

MP Pairs. Table Result 7NT=, EW+1510.

 

I had forgotten about this hand, exactly reproduced from a non-SB deal, until it reared its head again when I was asked to comment on the 2013 Appeal Hands recently. The above was the auction at the table next to me, and there was some fairly loud discussion between the players and the TD, but I must confess I did not hear what the kerfuffle was about. West intended his 4C bid as Gerber. East was unsure of their agreements and made a safety play of bidding 4♥. South was told "one ace" when asking before the opening lead. The rest is history as they say. The TD was called and she reported [inter alia]:

 

"I asked East for clarification of his 4♥ bid. He explained to all that he wasn’t too sure when he bid what the agreement was. It was probably A or B and 4♥ seemed the best bid to cater. He stated he was sure his partner was right about the agreement. I asked East why he did not say anything before the lead was made. He explained that he did not think he needed to because partner was right and he was wrong."

 

The TD allowed the score to stand but EW appealed on the basis that EW should have been given a PP for the failure to correct the wrong explanation to "no clear agreement" before the opening lead. However none of those polled led a diamond, and the eminent AC allowed the score to stand but did impose a PP on East, and returned the deposit.

 

Take Two. A few minutes later, I was South at the next table and the opponents had the uncontested auction 1NT-2S*(transfer to clubs)-3C (nothing special)-4NT (undiscussed)-5C-7NT-[Dble]-All Pass. I led a spade, and all I polled later on the auction led a major. My partner seemed to think all was not quite kosher here, and called the TD to say that the TD had been called on the second board of the previous round at the next table, and now the opponents bid a grand off a cashing ace and king. The Chief TD arrived and responded, almost verbatim:

 

“You will need more evidence than that to make such an accusation”. We shrugged and moved on, and I thought nothing much more of it until three years later, but the hand raises some interesting questions.

 

From a bridge point of view, what do you think the right lead is on each auction? There are strong arguments for a diamond when you analyse more deeply. In our case, we had no MI however, as West did answer "probably no keycards".

 

From a bridge point of view, what lead do you think double by North asks for on each auction? And if you think that this forum is for Laws only, I suggest you get out more!

 

As the TD would you have investigated what the discussion with the TD was about on the previous round and tried to establish whether there could have been UI from an external source?

 

Would you give any % of a diamond lead at the first table if you rule, as the TD and AC did, that there was MI?

 

Would you keep the score at the second table if West stated that he also had not overheard anything? Would you take into account that he thought that East had no key cards but still bid 7NT, or is that not relevant?

Edited March 28, 2016 by lamford

[wank]

i think the PP was undeserved. his partner's definition is UI for bidding but not for not answering questions. it's perfectly normal to be unsure during the bidding, but to realise later that you certainly did have an agreement which you had forgot about. many people would volunteer that they had been unsure at the time, but there's no legal obligation to do so.

[jallerton]

The TD was called and she reported:

 

"I asked East for clarification of his 4♥ bid. He explained to all that he wasn’t too sure when he bid what the agreement was. It was probably A or B and 4♥ seemed the best bid to cater. He stated he was sure his partner was right about the agreement. I asked East why he did not say anything before the lead was made. He explained that he did not think he needed to because partner was right and he was wrong."

 

If you are going to state what the TD reported, why have you only quoted part of what she said? The full statement of facts is as follows:

 

I was called to the table by North at the end of play, who asked me for a ruling “because East did not have an Ace when West said he did”. We reviewed the auction together. EW in turn, explained to the opponents that West had correctly explained their method and East had misbid.

 

I thanked the players for their explanation then went to collect relevant information about the EW pair’s method and system via the Convention Card and by asking about implicit agreements in similar situations that could help to determine whether this was a misbid or misexplanation ruling.

 

I asked East for clarification of his 4♥bid. He explained to all that he wasn’t too sure when he bid what the agreement was. It was probably A or B and 4♥seemed the best bid to cater. He stated he was sure his partner was right about the agreement. I asked East why he did not say anything before the lead was made. He explained that he did not think he needed to because partner was right and he was wrong

[blackshoe]

One might point out to North that West did not say that East had an ace. He said that East's bid showed an ace.

[lamford]

If you are going to state what the TD reported, why have you only quoted part of what she said?

I tried to pick out what I thought was the relevant part to avoid boring the readers. For completeness we could add:

 

Details of ruling:

In consultation with the CTD, I polled a number of players to learn whether the changed explanation would affect the lead decision in any way. Not one player of a poll of a dozen even considered leading a diamond when told there was no agreement.

 

I determined that there would be no change of score.

 

When I gave the ruling to NS they asked to appeal because East had not been given a procedural penalty (PP) for not correcting. I explained that while I polled about South’s lead decision, I had not determined it was necessary to correct and hence there was no clarity that a PP was appropriate. Further, I explained that it is not my practice to penalise procedurally for a first offence.

 

and also:

 

Appeals Committee’s comments:

Nobody leads a diamond on this auction even with the correct disclosure of “No agreement”. Score stands.

 

PP standard amount to EW.

 

East has no evidence to prove he has misbid. The correct thing for him to do is to correct partner’s explanation to “no agreement”. It is an irregularity not to do so. Also, West did not give East a chance to explain 4♥ (which might have highlighted the problem).

 

EW did not attend so had no way to communicate to the Appeals Committee (AC) they had an agreement.

[blackshoe]

FWIW, I agree with the TD that a "standard" PP was not appropriate in this case. I suppose one might give a warning, telling East that if he's not sure of the agreement he should alert (if there's a potentially alertable meaning) and explain that he's not sure. As for explaining his problem after the bidding, no, not if he's convinced his partner's explanation was correct.

[lamford]

I suppose one might give a warning, telling East that if he's not sure of the agreement he should alert (if there's a potentially alertable meaning) and explain that he's not sure.

At the time, I believe, bids over 3NT were not alertable even on the first round of the auction. And I presume the PP was for the failure to correct the explanation to "no agreement", not for a failure to alert.

[barmar]

What is the jurisdiction? In ACBL, Gerber is never alertable, and I don't think it ever has been.

[lamford]

What is the jurisdiction? In ACBL, Gerber is never alertable, and I don't think it ever has been.

It is the EBU. I believe that used to be the case as well, but now they have:

 

Once the auction is above the level of 3NT, no calls are to be alerted except for:

(a) Artificial suit bids above 3NT made before the opening bidder’s second turn to call (i.e. the first bid and the next three calls)

 

So, a first-round response (or opening bid for that matter!) of Gerber is now alertable (although Blackwood 4NT would not be, although Minorwood and Kickback are!) and SB has done extremely well recently out of passing an unalerted Gerber on the first round of the auction (particularly against American visitors) but then calling the TD and stating that he would have doubled if it had been alerted. He gets to pick whether or not he wants a club lead after seeing all four hands! When the TD says he could have doubled anyway, he has his response ready: "The only non-alertable meaning is an artificial one, and I didn't want to double if it was natural, as that would have been takeout."

[Zelandakh]

From a bridge point of view, what do you think the right lead is on each auction?

Presumably a double of 4♣ would ask for a club lead and a double of 7NT a spade, so there is a mild suggestion of a red suit lead with a heart being the safer option. Finding a diamond lead here would be difficult without some fancy traywork. The level of the players matters too - presumably it is not so high given the inability to locate a cashing AK.

[lamford]

Presumably a double of 4♣ would ask for a club lead and a double of 7NT a spade, so there is a mild suggestion of a red suit lead with a heart being the safer option. Finding a diamond lead here would be difficult without some fancy traywork. The level of the players matters too - presumably it is not so high given the inability to locate a cashing AK.

The more I think about it, if I knew that they might be off an ace, I think it is clear to lead a diamond and I should have found that at the time, despite the opinions of those polled. The chances of the opponents being able to make 7NT if partner has an ace which is not in diamonds are minimal, but they may well have 13 tricks in three suits other than diamonds. I think I should have led a diamond, and if the AC deemed misinformation, then I think that South in the first room should have some percentage of a diamond lead. Even knowing that they might be off an ace, which you would know if East volunteered a correction that 4C was not Gerber but was "either undiscussed or no clear partnership agreement", makes a diamond lead more attractive.

 

And I think the TD at our table should have investigated the complaint and not dismissed it out of hand.

[barmar]

Did the TD ever find out what the pair's actual agreement was? As I've said many times, just because a player has forgotten, it doesn't mean they don't have an agreement. If West's explanation woke East up, he is not required to correct the explanation. During the auction you can't use partner's explanation to correct your own bidding, but when you explain to opponents you should give your actual agreements to the best of your ability, no matter how you're reminded of them. Opponents aren't entitled to know what's in your hand or what was in your head when you made the bid, they're just entitled to your agreements.

[lamford]

Did the TD ever find out what the pair's actual agreement was? As I've said many times, just because a player has forgotten, it doesn't mean they don't have an agreement. If West's explanation woke East up, he is not required to correct the explanation. During the auction you can't use partner's explanation to correct your own bidding, but when you explain to opponents you should give your actual agreements to the best of your ability, no matter how you're reminded of them. Opponents aren't entitled to know what's in your hand or what was in your head when you made the bid, they're just entitled to your agreements.

You have seen as much as I have. "East has no evidence to prove he has misbid" is part of the AC conclusion. I presume there were not two convention cards with the meaning of 1NT-4C thereon.

[aguahombre]

You have seen as much as I have. "East has no evidence to prove he has misbid" is part of the AC conclusion. I presume there were not two convention cards with the meaning of 1NT-4C thereon.

So, you are merely reporting a bad conclusion and an unwarranted PP from this AC. Procedural penalties are for violation of procedure. At the time for the opening lead, we are told East realized 4♥ was the wrong response to Gerber and that their agreement was 4c=Gerber. There was nothing to fess up to. His stupidity when he bid 4H was not a violation of procedure. It is not proper procedure to announce that he made a wrong response. It doesn't matter whether he thought at the time 4c was South African Texas, or whether he confused 1430 thinking it applied to Gerber responses --- maybe we should get PP's for stupidity, but first it has to be in the laws. They did have an agreement, according to both East and West; East just screwed it up; that is legal and not subject to disclosure.

[Zelandakh]

It doesn't matter whether he thought at the time 4c was South African Texas, or whether he confused 1430 thinking it applied to Gerber responses

It does matter if one of the potential meanings was alertable as that would then be MI. I think this happened at a time when no meaning of 4♣ was alertable though.

[lamford]

So, you are merely reporting a bad conclusion and an unwarranted PP from this AC. Procedural penalties are for violation of procedure. At the time for the opening lead, we are told East realized 4♥ was the wrong response to Gerber and that their agreement was 4c=Gerber. There was nothing to fess up to. His stupidity when he bid 4H was not a violation of procedure. It is not proper procedure to announce that he made a wrong response. It doesn't matter whether he thought at the time 4c was South African Texas, or whether he confused 1430 thinking it applied to Gerber responses --- maybe we should get PP's for stupidity, but first it has to be in the laws. They did have an agreement, according to both East and West; East just screwed it up; that is legal and not subject to disclosure.

agreement

əˈɡriːm(ə)nt/

noun

harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling.

 

The PP was correct, in my view, for failing to correct "one ace" to "no agreement". East has concluded that his partner's view of 4♣ was the partnership agreement, when it clearly was not his view when he bid 4♥. It is not relevant to the opponents what you now think the new agreement is. At the time of the call there was clearly no agreement, in that East thought 4♣ was something else (presumably either SAT or pick a major). If a CC or system notes had shown that the "agreement" was that 4♣ was Gerber, then East would have been correct.

[Lanor Fow]

It does matter if one of the potential meanings was alertable as that would then be MI. I think this happened at a time when no meaning of 4♣ was alertable though.

 

 

I don't know about 2013. I know in September 2014 whilst the regulation was not worded in the current way, it was intended that 4c should have been alerted. I believe the regulation was most recently updated for clarity rather than changing the meaning.

 

Nb. I can date this as it came up on my county course.

[blackshoe]

"new agreement"? You're kidding, right? They had an agreement, East forgot. Then he remembered. Old, not new.

[barmar]

East has concluded that his partner's view of 4♣ was the partnership agreement, when it clearly was not his view when he bid 4♥.

What he thought at the time when he bid is irrelevant. An agreement doesn't cease to exist because someone temporarily forgot it.

[blackshoe]

Barry said it better. B-)

[lamford]

What he thought at the time when he bid is irrelevant. An agreement doesn't cease to exist because someone temporarily forgot it.

True, but, as the AC said, East could produce no evidence that they ever had an agreement. It is similar to the Reno appeal. An agreement is not an opinion by one side or an entry on one CC that this is the agreement. It is possible that East forgot that they were playing Gerber. It is also possible that there was no such agreement.

 

From: "Details of ruling:

In consultation with the CTD, I polled a number of players to learn whether the changed explanation would affect the lead decision in any way."

We can conclude that the TD has decided that there was MI, and we should accept that.

85A1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.

 

Therefore we award a PP for failure to correct "one ace" to "no agreement". And I still think South should have had some percentage of a diamond lead. But no diamond leader has come forward yet and there are no votes for a diamond in a separate poll. Where have all the experts gone?

 

Finally one person leads a diamond in the other thread. From previous posts he is one of the better players!

Edited March 30, 2016 by lamford

[barmar]

True, but, as the AC said, East could produce no evidence that they ever had an agreement. It is similar to the Reno appeal. An agreement is not an opinion by one side or an entry on one CC that this is the agreement. It is possible that East forgot that they were playing Gerber. It is also possible that there was no such agreement.

Statements by the players are evidence. Self-serving statements may not be as credible as written notes, but that doesn't mean they should be discounted entirely. The TD and AC have to judge how credible the players are.

 

I have Gerber agreements with most of my partners. But it comes up so rarely, I wouldn't be surprised if I or partner didn't recognize it when it happens.

[wank]

 

 

From: "Details of ruling:

In consultation with the CTD, I polled a number of players to learn whether the changed explanation would affect the lead decision in any way."

We can conclude that the TD has decided that there was MI, and we should accept that.

 

 

 

that doesn't follow at all. it results in much less aggro all round for the TD to consider whether there was damage or not first and when he decides there was none, to consider the issue of MI to be moot. there's no compulsion to which order one needs to consider the factors affecting such a ruling.

[jallerton]

If E/W had agreed the meaning of a 4♣ response to 1NT, then it should have been noted on the convention card. Presumably the TD and/or AC would have checked the convention card; we can probably infer from the 'no agreement' conclusion that the convention card was silent on this point. [if the convention card was not properly completed, that fact could itself be a reason for a PP.]

 

In the ordinary course of explanations, the bids are explained in order. East should have offered an explanation of the 4♣ bid and then his doubt would have come to light, allowing N/S to draw their own conclusions. Law 20F1 states:

 

Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question.

 

One commentator has the impression that West explained the entire auction. Whilst this practice does not cause a problem when both partners are on the same wavelength, it does cause a problem in situations like the present case, by depriving the opponents of information which they would have known had the explanations been given by the correct opponents.

[lamford]

that doesn't follow at all. it results in much less aggro all round for the TD to consider whether there was damage or not first and when he decides there was none, to consider the issue of MI to be moot. there's no compulsion to which order one needs to consider the factors affecting such a ruling.

The AC wrote: Nobody leads a diamond on this auction even with the correct disclosure of “No agreement”. Score stands. [My emphasis]. The word "correct" indicates that, in the opinion of the AC, there was MI.

 

It is worth mentioning here that a couple of people now lead a diamond. Possibly the strongest, Espen Erichsen, was commenting on the YC site. Of course, South at the table may not have been a peer of Espen, but I think the AC conclusion "Nobody leads a diamond" was too sweeping. I predict that far more will lead a diamond in the poll elsewhere after reading gszes's reasoning.