Mistake in bidding

[dickiegera]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj76h62dak853ct9&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d1h3d]133|200[/hv]

 

When asked by West to explain 3♦ bid North looked blank, then when asked if

it was weak North said Yes-----Probably. [dashes rep a 4 second pause].

 

North / South are a married couple who only play with one another and are life masters

around 600 pts.

 

They frequently misexplain bids.

 

Director said there is no recourse for a mistake in bidding.

Convention card showed 3♦ as weak.

 

We doubled 3♦ and they made 4 for a bottom.

 

Your thoughts/opinions welcome.

 

Thank you

[sanst]

So, this is a pair that is consistently misexplaining calls, which points to insufficient knowledge of their system. Since Law 21B1b states "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary", this TD made a - IMO - serious mistake, notwithstanding the CC. Anyone can put anything they want on a CC, but you should know your agreements and this couple obviously doesn't. Maybe a few decisions against them will put them on the right track.

[blackshoe]

Or it will convince them to stop playing club bridge.

[steve2005]

I think most would make a negative double.

If sanst is right still have to see EW hands to see if damage. yes that makes isn't evidence.

[barmar]

So, this is a pair that is consistently misexplaining calls, which points to insufficient knowledge of their system. Since Law 21B1b states "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary", this TD made a - IMO - serious mistake, notwithstanding the CC. Anyone can put anything they want on a CC, but you should know your agreements and this couple obviously doesn't. Maybe a few decisions against them will put them on the right track.

How can you say "notwithstanding the CC"? If you can't believe the CC, what form of "evidence to the contrary" would you consider persuasive? It seems like you're essentially saying to ignore the qualifier "in the absense of evidence to the contrary", since you don't believe the evidence, either.

 

It may be true that the pair frequently misexplains, but this doesn't seem to be one of those instances. Is there some reason to believe that the pair also has a general problem filling out their CC?

[weejonnie]

The South hand certainly isn't strong - it hasn't 16+ points or 12+ and 5 controls.... (See other threads re EBU changed ---- I'll get my coat).

 

With regards to the actual circumstances, all that can be done is to ask the TD to record the hand and the explanation - and do it after every 'misexplanation' by the couple. In the meantime we have no alternative but to accept the result - assuming BOTH convention cards said 'weak'. If one said intermediate or had no explanation on it then we can rule differently. (If one person does not have a completed CC identical with their partner how can you tell whether there is a partnership agreement.

[barmar]

The South hand certainly isn't strong - it hasn't 16+ points or 12+ and 5 controls.... (See other threads re EBU changed ---- I'll get my coat).

Strong and weak aren't the only possibilities. It looks to me like South thought it was invitational (I'm guessing that's how they play it absent interference).

 

Does that new EBU definition really apply to responses? I assumed the definition in the other threads was only regarding strong openings.

[weejonnie]

Strong and weak aren't the only possibilities. It looks to me like South thought it was invitational (I'm guessing that's how they play it absent interference).

 

Does that new EBU definition really apply to responses? I assumed the definition in the other threads was only regarding strong openings.

No - it only applies to openings and overcalls. (My comment was intended as a joke).

 

HOWEVER It does raise questions - Suppose the bidding goes

 

1♣ - 2♥ and the overcaller is asked to describe the call and gives the word "Intermediate"

 

Since you can restrict the use of the word 'Strong' to greater values, then you could have 14 points and AAKQJ, for instance. Similarly you could describe an overcall as 'Strong' on a hand such as:

 

KX

A76543

A43

J2

 

In fact it is far more likely that there will be confusion over the use (or lack of) of the word 'strong' on overcalls than opening bids, since overcalls are more likely to be distributional in nature.

[sanst]

How can you say "notwithstanding the CC"? If you can't believe the CC, what form of "evidence to the contrary" would you consider persuasive? It seems like you're essentially saying to ignore the qualifier "in the absense of evidence to the contrary", since you don't believe the evidence, either.

 

It may be true that the pair frequently misexplains, but this doesn't seem to be one of those instances. Is there some reason to believe that the pair also has a general problem filling out their CC?

In Dutch we have the expression "Paper is patient". I've seen CC's with a textbook collection of conventions, but many of these were hardly ever used by the pair involved. A classic is 3NT Unusual, which the average club player sees maybe once every three or four years. This summer I had a perfect one: x-Qxx-AKQJTxxx-x, but unfortunately my RHO opened with 1♠.

In this case the OP gives a clear indication that the players have an agreement on their CC, which neither of them seems to know. S bids 3♦ with a hand that is not 'weak', not in my book anyway, but intermediate, which is a deviation of the CC. And N, when asked, looks 'blank' and only when prompted, answers 'Yes' to the question 'weak?' That should be enough evidence that what is on the CC is not what they actually play; neither of them seems to know what the agreement is, so there is no agreement.

I think, that if you direct on the basis of a piece of paper handed to you by the players and not much more, you can't establish what their agreements actually are and whether they know and use these.

[blackshoe]

The system card is a summary, a report, of agreements. If both system cards say that the agreement is X, then at some point presumably they agreed to play X. But if neither of them can remember at the table that they play X, then the report on the system card is not true.

 

The other day, playing with a new partner, I had printed out two copies of our agreed system card and brought both to the game. Going over the card before the game, she asked me "what's a Smith Echo?" I said "you know, I don't remember. Let's take it off the card."

[barmar]

If you don't believe the CC, what's the point of having it? And what kind of evidence do you think the Law is talking about when it says "evidence to the contrary"? We're already in a situation where the players disagree, so we can't use their testimony (unless one of them admits that they made a mistake an agrees with their partner).

 

It's true that CCs can be out of date, or players may forget or not understand the agreements written on them. But if the players disagree, how are you supposed to break the tie? If there's nothing else to go on, you're supposed to go with the bidder rather than the explaine. But if the CC confirms what the explainer says, that's "evidence to the contrary" and you should rule misbid rather than misinformation.

[blackshoe]

If you don't believe the CC, what's the point of having it? And what kind of evidence do you think the Law is talking about when it says "evidence to the contrary"? We're already in a situation where the players disagree, so we can't use their testimony (unless one of them admits that they made a mistake an agrees with their partner).

 

It's true that CCs can be out of date, or players may forget or not understand the agreements written on them. But if the players disagree, how are you supposed to break the tie? If there's nothing else to go on, you're supposed to go with the bidder rather than the explaine. But if the CC confirms what the explainer says, that's "evidence to the contrary" and you should rule misbid rather than misinformation.

When there is evidence to the contrary, you rule on the basis of the preponderance of the evidence. A ruling of "misbid" is not automatic.

 

What constitutes an agreement? If a pair discusses something, and agrees to play some convention or treatment, and writes it on the card, and they both forget the first time it comes up, I'd say they still have an agreement. But the third time, when they've forgotten each time? If we can't rule "no agreement" now, then in effect we're saying, "if it's on the card (or at least on both cards) that's the agreement, period f'ing dot." Is that really how this is supposed to work?

[Vampyr]

Or it will convince them to stop playing club bridge.

 

Well, a ruling has to be made; would you rather rule in their favour when they misexplain a bid?

[blackshoe]

Well, a ruling has to be made; would you rather rule in their favour when they misexplain a bid?

Of course not. I merely pointed out a reality — that some players in this situation would give up the club game rather than be handed an adverse ruling every time they screw up.

[Vampyr]

What constitutes an agreement? If a pair discusses something, and agrees to play some convention or treatment, and writes it on the card, and they both forget the first time it comes up, I'd say they still have an agreement.

 

I agree. The agreement is whatever the bid was before the new agreement.

[barmar]

What constitutes an agreement? If a pair discusses something, and agrees to play some convention or treatment, and writes it on the card, and they both forget the first time it comes up, I'd say they still have an agreement. But the third time, when they've forgotten each time? If we can't rule "no agreement" now, then in effect we're saying, "if it's on the card (or at least on both cards) that's the agreement, period f'ing dot." Is that really how this is supposed to work?

If you have enough history to know that this has been happening repeatedly, that constitutes additional evidence, which can take precedence over the CC. But how often does the TD have access to such information? Maybe in a club game it will have come up enough times for him to know, but in most contexts it seems unlikely. So we need to consider the CC as strong evidence of the agreement.

 

And consider that the conventions players are likely to forget are the ones that don't come up very often (except Ghestem -- if this forum is any indication, those errors happen practically every day). That makes it more unlikely that there will be a third time soon enough that the TD still remembers the first two.

[Vampyr]

If you have enough history to know that this has been happening repeatedly, that constitutes additional evidence, which can take precedence over the CC. But how often does the TD have access to such information? Maybe in a club game it will have come up enough times for him to know, but in most contexts it seems unlikely. So we need to consider the CC as strong evidence of the agreement.

 

And consider that the conventions players are likely to forget are the ones that don't come up very often (except Ghestem -- if this forum is any indication, those errors happen practically every day). That makes it more unlikely that there will be a third time soon enough that the TD still remembers the first two.

 

All this is why you can't be lenient if they have BOTH forgotten. This is some evidence for the fact that one or both of them have forgotten before.

[blackshoe]

Is it? How so?

[barmar]

All this is why you can't be lenient if they have BOTH forgotten. This is some evidence for the fact that one or both of them have forgotten before.

One of them is presumably right. And if there's a CC, you usually presume that the one consistent with it is right, and the other has forgotten.

 

The only way you'd conclude that both have forgotten is if neither the bid nor the explanation matches what's on the CC. In that case, unless there's other evidence guide you, you follow the guideline in the Law and presume MI rather than misbid.