Difficult ruling, would be interested in opinions

[RMB1]

So how would you make an unassuming cue-bid?

With your left hand? :)

[timjand]

Doesn't it all come down to:-

 

What would South do if he knew that there was no partnership understanding of the 2♣ call? He has said he would pass if he knew that the partnership were having a misunderstanding. However he is not entitled to know that (see below). What he is allowed to know is "No partnership agreement: we play UCBs in many situations but haven't discussed whether it applies over a potentially short club".

 

Agreed S is allowed to know this; however I remain a little puzzled about why E should alert a bid that as far as E knows is natural. I guess this hinges on whether most players who play UCB also play it over a short club or other artificial bids. I have never played it like that, but perhaps I am unusual.

 

He may very well pass, suspecting a misunderstanding, so some allowance for 2♣-5 should be made.

 

Well, he had that opportunity. Further, if E didn't consider 2C natural then E would bid. So there isn't a plausible scenario in which E both alerts 2C and passes.

 

So there seem to be various possibilities (all of which score better for NS so they have been damaged.

 

What are you saying is the infraction? East's failure to alert, or West's bid of 3D? I think I understand that W should bid 2d rather than 3d because of UI. It's not clear though that this would have a different outcome.

 

GordonTD says that there could be redress for E not alerting 2C *even if he believes that it is agreed to be natural*. I would value clarification here. I had understood that a misbid was not in itself illegal, for example. Or is it because E/W seem to be playing different systems, is that the problem here?

 

Tim

[barmar]

Agreed S is allowed to know this; however I remain a little puzzled about why E should alert a bid that as far as E knows is natural.

The opponents are entitled to an alert for any bid whose meaning is alertable according to the RA. East's mistaken understanding is not relevant to this.

 

However, if East is mistaken he can't be blamed for not alerting, so it would not be appropriate to issue a PP.

I guess this hinges on whether most players who play UCB also play it over a short club or other artificial bids. I have never played it like that, but perhaps I am unusual.

Unless I explicitly agree otherwise with a partner, I generally assume that we don't vary our methods over a short minor; just because it could be short, it doesn't mean it usually is. Artificial bids (e.g. strong club) are a completely different matter.

 

I recently added natural cue bids over short minor to my agreements with my regular partner, I've not done it with anyone else.

[timjand]

The opponents are entitled to an alert for any bid whose meaning is alertable according to the RA. East's mistaken understanding is not relevant to this.

 

So I am sure I am understanding ... let us assume that E/W had chatted before the event and agreed that if an opponent's opening bid promised two or fewer cards in the suit, that overcalling with that suit is natural. But W forgot.

 

Would that change everything?

 

Tim

[lamford]

and impose a disciplinary penalty on West.

In the words of David Moyes, she needs a good slap ... I think you might have meant procedural penalty, although that is clearly not merited.

[lamford]

This looks like a simple adjustment to 2C-5 for E/W, NS +500. South is entitled to know that 2C is a UCB, and if she did, she would pass it out. This does not seem to be a difficult ruling; what am I missing? Perhaps someone else has made this point, and I have not read all the thread.

[barmar]

So I am sure I am understanding ... let us assume that E/W had chatted before the event and agreed that if an opponent's opening bid promised two or fewer cards in the suit, that overcalling with that suit is natural. But W forgot.

 

Would that change everything?

That removes the MI issue, since in EBU-land a natural overcall is not alertable (right?).

 

There's still the UI issue. Clearly West is allowed to correct back to ♦, since it's hard to imagine any hand for East where clubs plays as well or better than diamonds, especially if NS are doubling clubs. But as others have said, the jump to 3♦ seems to be taking advantage of the UI that tells you partner doesn't realize you were showing a good raise.

[m1cha]

[East] could be xxx-4-6 and 2♣ would be conventional

I don't think so. I don't believe you'd want to describe a x-x-4-6 hand by first bidding ♦ and then ♣. Partner would always assume longer diamonds than clubs. In order to bid a 6-card ♣ if 2♣ were conventional, one might bid 3♣, 1NT, or pass and bid clubs in the next round. Bidding a different suit in order to bid a 6-card ♣ takes an ability to look into the future knowing that partner will bid 2♣ which you can pass ;) .

 

Back to West, having realized from East's past that East mistook the 2♣ bid, East has a right to try to save the board. By bidding 2♣ West tried to show a strong hand with ♦ support, so West will now try to show diamonds with a strong hand, and IMO 3♦ is the best choice because

- 3♦ is more easily understood as a strong hand,

- 3♦ is more easily understood as 4-card ♦,

- 2♦ might be misunderstood as 'I have clubs but I also have diamonds'.

2♦ doesn't even come close, I'd say it's not an LA.

[m1cha]

This looks like a simple adjustment to 2C-5 for E/W, NS +500. South is entitled to know that 2C is a UCB, and if she did, she would pass it out. This does not seem to be a difficult ruling; what am I missing?

There was no agreement that 2♣ is a UCB. This situation just wasn't discussed. So South would have been entitled to know that there was no agreement - which did not make it an easy pass for South yet.

 

:

 

Two questions from my side just because I'm curious. Firstly, does it make a difference that EW were not a regular partnership? And does it make a difference if NS know that EW are not a regular partnership? I mean in a regular partnership I would expect that they know what they have discussed and they know what the have not discussed which should make it an easy alert for East. In a non-regular partnership they could not discuss much, and if they'd have to alert all bids that were not fully discussed, they'd have to alert most bids in any bidding that goes beyond the basics. I just wonder if that's what it's meant to be.

 

For my second question let me describe a scenario that might have happened at the table though I'm not suggesting it actually did. I am just raising a possibility. Gordontd noticed that South's second double seemed to be an overbid. Why might South do that? The answer may be that South wondered where the majors are. West has clubs, East has diamonds and some clubs, too, so North must have the majors which is why the second double looks like a good idea. On the other hand if that 2♣ bid was artificial and North has clubs, the double means trouble. Now South has two possibilities:

(1) South might ask East about the 2♣ bid and would perhaps have learnt (upon some thought by East) that East believed it to be natural but that it is actually undiscussed. Which would have left South correctly informed but still guessing.

(2) South might intentionally not ask; then if 2♣ is natural as suggested by the failure to alert, the double seems a good idea, while if 2♣ is artificial the double is still a good idea though it will lead to a bad contract but South can claim to be damaged by MI.

Obviously (2) is the more successful action but just as obviously it's not fair play. In order not to make this too easy, there is a law in the tournament rules in my country that gives the 'other' side some responsibility to keep themselves informed within the concept of fair play. Does such a law also exist in the EBU? Because it might also play a role here.

 

For example in one case in our local club, South opened 2♠ alerted as a weak two. West passed, North bid 3♠ unalerted, all passed. After the game, East complained that North had a weak hand. He had assumed that 3♠ as a preempt requires an alert and had inferred from the failure of an alert that North should have an invitational hand. The TD ruled that, while a preempt is the current standard in modern bridge in my country, most players in the room probably still play 3♠ invitational, so the 3♠ bid should have been alerted. But, since the situation is far from clear and might differ from tournament to tournament, East should have asked South about the meaning of the bid and should not make conclusions about the bid from the existence or failure of an alert. Since East failed to ask, there was no rectification of the score.

[Vampyr]

Agreed S is allowed to know this; however I remain a little puzzled about why E should alert a bid that as far as E knows is natural. I guess this hinges on whether most players who play UCB also play it over a short club or other artificial bids. I have never played it like that, but perhaps I am unusual.

 

 

"A short club or other artificial bid" is incorrect; the word "other" does not belong. After all, a short club is usually not short. In this post campboy provides some figures he had produced which demonstrate that a "short club" is more likely to be a seven-card suit than a doubleton. Of course, it matters what assumptions are being used. If the club suit t can be two only when 4=4=3=2 (I am assuming that this was campboy's criterion) then two-card club suits will be rare. If a diamond opening promises an unbalanced suit, so that a 1♣ opening could contain four or five diamonds and shorter clubs in a balanced hand, the number of clubs will be less. Perhaps someone has done a calculation.

 

And of course the opening NT range is a factor. Playing a weak NT, all 2-card club hands (these will all be balanced) with minimum opening bids will be taken out of the 1♣ openings. You can see this effect in campboy's numbers.

 

It is most common to treat a could-be-short 1♣ opening in a natural system just like any other 1♣ opening. One exception is pairs who use destructive methods that are not permitted against openings that promise three or more.

[Vampyr]

(1) South might ask East about the 2♣ bid and would perhaps have learnt (upon some thought by East) that East believed it to be natural but that it is actually undiscussed. Which would have left South correctly informed but still guessing.

(2) South might intentionally not ask; then if 2♣ is natural as suggested by the failure to alert, the double seems a good idea, while if 2♣ is artificial the double is still a good idea though it will lead to a bad contract but South can claim to be damaged by MI.

Obviously (2) is the more successful action but just as obviously it's not fair play. In order not to make this too easy, there is a law in the tournament rules in my country that gives the 'other' side some responsibility to keep themselves informed within the concept of fair play. Does such a law also exist in the EBU? Because it might also play a role here.

 

There is a difference between an overbid and a SEWOG. If the call is not the latter, then it is fine.

[weejonnie]

[/size]

I don't think so. I don't believe you'd want to describe a x-x-4-6 hand by first bidding ♦ and then ♣. Partner would always assume longer diamonds than clubs. In order to bid a 6-card ♣ if 2♣ were conventional, one might bid 3♣, 1NT, or pass and bid clubs in the next round. Bidding a different suit in order to bid a 6-card ♣ takes an ability to look into the future knowing that partner will bid 2♣ which you can pass ;) .

 

Back to West, having realized from East's past that East mistook the 2♣ bid, East has a right to try to save the board. By bidding 2♣ West tried to show a strong hand with ♦ support, so West will now try to show diamonds with a strong hand, and IMO 3♦ is the best choice because

- 3♦ is more easily understood as a strong hand,

- 3♦ is more easily understood as 4-card ♦,

- 2♦ might be misunderstood as 'I have clubs but I also have diamonds'.

2♦ doesn't even come close, I'd say it's not an LA.

The problem with this argument is that the reason that West knows that East hasn't got clubs is that East didn't alert the 2♣ call. Suppose East HAD alerted the call and then passed 2♣. Now if it is impossible for East to hold clubs then I might agree - however I don't think it is impossible - you may be able to persuade an AC of course since the probability is fairly small.

 

I still feel that 2♣ -5 is going to be the most likely scenario, but not a 100% one.

[m1cha]

There is a difference between an overbid and a SEWOG. If the call is not the latter, then it is fine.

Please forgive my ignorance, what does SEWOG stand for?

 

The problem with this argument is that the reason that West knows that East hasn't got clubs is that East didn't alert the 2♣ call. Suppose East HAD alerted the call and then passed 2♣.

I am aware of the problem but my point is that first alerting 2♣ and then passing it simply cannot happen, or if it did it would be a clear case of "Sorry partner, I took the wrong card from the bidding box, I never meant to play diamonds". Anyway, I may not be able to convince everybody, and that's okay.

[barmar]

There was no agreement that 2♣ is a UCB. This situation just wasn't discussed.

Do you have to discuss every possible auction? If you have an agreement that cue bids are UCB, and you haven't discussed exceptions, doesn't that mean there are no exceptions?

 

Apparently West thought so, but East didn't. Does that mean that one of them was right and the other wrong, or that they really had no agreement? Aren't there general principles that act as the ultimate defaults?

[blackshoe]

Please forgive my ignorance, what does SEWOG stand for?

Serious error, or wild or gambling. It's a reference to Law 12C1{b}: If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

[barmar]

Note that the wording of this has changed in the 2017 Laws. It's now in 12C1(e), and says:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non‐offending side has contributed to its own

damage by an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a gambling

action, which if unsuccessful it might have hoped to recover through rectification, then:

(i) The offending side is awarded the score it would have been allotted as the

consequence of rectifying its infraction.

(ii) The non‐offending side does not receive relief for such part of its damage as is self‐

inflicted.

"serious error" has been changed to "extremely serious error", they got rid of "wild", and added additional clarification that it's intended to prevent double shots.

 

For many years players have paraphrased this law by saying "you still have to play bridge".

[barmar]

So I guess the new acronym will be ESEG.

[gordontd]

So I guess the new acronym will be ESEG.

That would certainly be an improvement.

[Vampyr]

Note that the wording of this has changed in the 2017 Laws. It's now in 12C1(e), and says:

 

"serious error" has been changed to "extremely serious error", they got rid of "wild", and added additional clarification that it's intended to prevent double shots.

 

For many years players have paraphrased this law by saying "you still have to play bridge".

 

Sometimes what seems to be a "double shot" is just the player not knowing what to do so as to prevent being damaged.

[m1cha]

Do you have to discuss every possible auction? If you have an agreement that cue bids are UCB, and you haven't discussed exceptions, doesn't that mean there are no exceptions?

 

Apparently West thought so, but East didn't. Does that mean that one of them was right and the other wrong, or that they really had no agreement? Aren't there general principles that act as the ultimate defaults?

You are raising good questions. I don't have the answers. Well for the last one I'd believe if there were universally excepted defaults, there could be no misunderstandings. Consequently, rather not.

As to the expections I'm afraid there are 'exceptions' which one would like to treat as such but, not having discussed them, one is willing to include them in the rule. And there are 'obvious exceptions' which one is not willilng to include in the rule even if undiscussed. With the word 'obvious' being interpreted within the background of personal experience, in other words, unpredictable.

 

By the way (although totally off-topic) I cannot upvote your posts, the '+' button is missing. Are you aware of this? Does it mean you have already reached your maximum possible number of '+'es :) ?

[mycroft]

m1cha, He's an admin. Like all bureaucrats, it's impossible for him to be liked. Note: at least half of the previous statement is true.

 

I have never liked "failure to play bridge", because it was, at least in the ACBL, a way of defining "Serious Error" - "failure to play bridge for a player of the NOS' ability". I wouldn't mind "failure to play bridge" if we didn't qualify it that way, but we do.

 

Now the good thing is that this is where the elite players get nailed by the Laws/Regulations - the kind of thing that we'll nail Kamil for as a doubleshot/serious error/FtbB, won't necessarily disqualify Mr. and Mrs. Flight B, who aren't good enough to realize that this is a Serious Error. And, especially in the "suspicious of pros-that-push-the-envelope" ACBL, this is eminently correct and laudable. Unfortunately, it leads to being enforced as "failure to play bridge for a player of the TD's ability" - because even triggering "is this potentially SEWoG" is in the mind of the TDs, who will reasonably decide based on their skill.

 

One of the first things I had to learn as a tournament TD was "remember, not only are some players so much better than you are that you don't understand their problems, but some players are so much worse than you that you don't understand *their* problems either." And I still get tripped on that, as do we all. I do try to remind the new TDs about this, as well, in case they don't see it, before it blows up in their face.

[m1cha]

m1cha, He's an admin. Like all bureaucrats, it's impossible for him to be liked. Note: at least half of the previous statement is true.

I insist that exactly half of that statement is true. :)

Perhaps I'm just surprised that I haven't noticed the missing button earlier.

 

One of the first things I had to learn as a tournament TD was "remember, not only are some players so much better than you are that you don't understand their problems, but some players are so much worse than you that you don't understand *their* problems either."

LOL. Last weekend I took part in a regional tournament. On one board, my partner and RHO passed, I opened 3♦. LHO kept thinking for about a minute while I had kind of a premonition of what was about to happen. Finally LHO passed indeed, mumbling something like "well, since she's weak", my partner passed, LHO bid 3♥, and I called the TD.

Well, she was allowed to play 3♥ and by the time we finished the board, the TD had walked around and asked three experts if they would bid with that hand in that situation. They all said no. They said she might have opened a weak two but not bid after 3♦. The lady still kept fighting, she insisted she couldn't open 2♥ with that hand but she had a genuine call of 3♥. Finally the TD said he would rectify the score to a diamonds contract, and if she didn't accept it she could call a jury later. She didn't, by the way. This was her hand:

♠73

♥JT7654

♦T

♣AK98

Not sure why she found that hand too bad for a weak two. Missing top honors in hearts or an outside ace perhaps. But how she could think her hand was too bad for a weak two but good enough for a 3♥ overcall, will remain her secret forever to me, to my partner, and probably also to the TD.

[barmar]

♠73

♥JT7654

♦T

♣AK98

Not sure why she found that hand too bad for a weak two. Missing top honors in hearts or an outside ace perhaps. But how she could think her hand was too bad for a weak two but good enough for a 3♥ overcall, will remain her secret forever to me, to my partner, and probably also to the TD.

My regular partner, a fairly conservative bidder, probably wouldn't have opened it for those reasons. And I like to think he wouldn't balance with it, either.

[barmar]

Sometimes what seems to be a "double shot" is just the player not knowing what to do so as to prevent being damaged.

I'm not alone in advocating that you shouldn't try to work this out. Law 16 is for TDs when adjudicating, players should just think about 73, which says to avoid taking advantage of the UI.

[Vampyr]

I'm not alone in advocating that you shouldn't try to work this out. Law 16 is for TDs when adjudicating, players should just think about 73, which says to avoid taking advantage of the UI.

 

I am not sure what you are talking about. Since when does L73 apply to the NOS? What is UI with respect to them?