Pro-Am Swiss

[LH2650]

Pros sit North and East. The East Pro did not check their convention card, which is marked "Intermediate", and thought his bid was weak. An Alert is required, but was not given. South looked at the card, and it came to the attention of the table that the "agreement" was Intermediate. South then passed, but later stated that he would have bid 3 diamonds if the 2 heart bid had been weak. The table result was making 2 Spades. NS appeal.

[hv=pc=n&s=s43hj4d7532caqt73&w=sakqj65h87dqjck42&n=s872ha96dakt984c5&e=st9hkqt532d6cj986&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d2hp2sppp]399|300[/hv]

[pescetom]

Pros sit North and East. The East Pro did not check their convention card, which is marked "Intermediate", and thought his bid was weak. An Alert is required, but was not given. South looked at the card, and it came to the attention of the table that the "agreement" was Intermediate. South then passed, but later stated that he would have bid 3 diamonds if the 2 heart bid had been weak. The table result was making 2 Spades. NS appeal.

[hv=pc=n&s=s43hj4d7532caqt73&w=sakqj65h87dqjck42&n=s872ha96dakt984c5&e=st9hkqt532d6cj986&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d2hp2sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

At first sight I would reject this. South was misinformed about the strength implied by East's bid, but I see no reason why that should prevent him from bidding 3♦ (or 3♣) on the basis of partner's opening bid and his own hand. He was also aware of the infraction before his call but did not see the need to involve TD until the table result matured.

 

East cannot check his own convention card, but I would warn him about not remembering an unusual agreement, especially if he is a pro and presumably the author of the card.

[LH2650]

Did you consider whether 2 spades was forcing?

[weejonnie]

Is the alert only given if the jump overcall is weak - or is the strength of the overcall have to be given irresepctive?

 

To my mind this comes out as no rectification since South got the correct description of the partnership agreement so there is no MI but no doubt someone will say 'South should have been advised "We have no agreement, but amongst the options are a weak jump overcall and an intermediate jump overcall."'

 

The next question arises from my first. If only weak jump overcalls have to be alerted then East has UI - from the failure of West to alert. This IMHO demonstrably suggests passing as East has a much weaker hand than he expects West to think he has. It does look, however, that a heart contract may make as many or more tricks than a spade contract to NS have't been damaged by the UI either. Obvious polling would be needed to see how the final contract ends up - it could be 4H -1, 3H, 3S for instance if pass is not allowed and something such as 3H was decided to be the LA.

[LH2650]

An Alert is required if the jump overcall is intermediate.

 

To clarify, a Pro is a Life Master, and an Amateur is not.

[hrothgar]

The amateur might not have learned how to bid, but they certainly have learned how to work the appeals system...

[Vampyr]

At first sight I would reject this. South was misinformed about the strength implied by East's bid, but I see no reason why that should prevent him from bidding 3♦ (or 3♣) on the basis of partner's opening bid and his own hand. He was also aware of the infraction before his call but did not see the need to involve TD until the table result matured.

 

East cannot check his own convention card, but I would warn him about not remembering an unusual agreement, especially if he is a pro and presumably the author of the card.

 

It seems normal that the am would give a preferred card to the pro, and this is supported in this case by the fact that the pro didn’t know what it said.

[blackshoe]

What, exactly, did NS appeal?

[sanst]

What, exactly, did NS appeal?

I fully agree with you. We should at least know how NS claim to be damaged and also what the EW defense is.

[pescetom]

Is the alert only given if the jump overcall is weak - or is the strength of the overcall have to be given irresepctive?

The alert rules certainly should be clarified. It seems unlikely to me that an "intermediate" jump overcall does not require alert or announcement. If anything a weak jump overcall might not do so. But more likely both require some kind of alert or announcement.

 

... South got the correct description of the partnership agreement so there is no MI but no doubt someone will say 'South should have been advised "We have no agreement, but amongst the options are a weak jump overcall and an intermediate jump overcall."'

I think it may be an overbid that the description on the card ("intermediate") was the correct description in this case. East didn't seem to know about it, and West didn't alert it if he should (as I would imagine). The OP says: "An Alert is required, but was not given. South looked at the card, and it came to the attention of the table that the "agreement" was Intermediate.". So it also looks as if South only got the description of "intermediate" by actually reading the card when it was already clear to the table that EW had no real agreement.

[chrism]

Did East speak up before the opening lead was faced to advise the opponents that at the time the 2H call was made, there was no agreement on its meaning? If he knowingly failed to correct the misinformation, that could merit a PP.

It would also have enabled the director to give South an opportunity to change his final pass to 3D.

[chrism]

Who called the TD, when, and what ruling was made at the table that NS are appealing?

[pescetom]

It seems normal that the am would give a preferred card to the pro

I'll take your word on that, although I imagined the contrary.

 

and this is supported in this case by the fact that the pro didn’t know what it said.

That could be because it was the am's card and he had not really read it, or it could be because it was a card he wrote for ams and he forgot what it said. Either way not very ... professional, but I don't see any reason to propend for one explanation rather than the other.

[blackshoe]

What’s the jurisdiction?

[barmar]

I'll take your word on that, although I imagined the contrary.

Have you played in many pro-ams? In all the pro-ams I've played in, the expectation is that the pro is willing to play whatever the am is familiar with -- forcing unfamiliar conventions on the less experienced player will just confuse them. Sometimes the am wants to play something really eggregious and I'll reject it, or I'll try to teach the am a particular treatment to help them improve their game (most commonly that jump raises and jump shifts are weak in competition, when cue bids are available to show good hands).

 

Also, many pro-ams allow the players to refer to their convention cards. This is probably the most common situation where the exception in 20G3 is invoked.

[lamford]

If 2H is alertable if intermediate but not if weak, then it is illogical that South did not bid 3D because he thought 2H was weak, and I would reject the NS argument.

[pescetom]

Have you played in many pro-ams? In all the pro-ams I've played in, the expectation is that the pro is willing to play whatever the am is familiar with -- forcing unfamiliar conventions on the less experienced player will just confuse them. Sometimes the am wants to play something really eggregious and I'll reject it, or I'll try to teach the am a particular treatment to help them improve their game (most commonly that jump raises and jump shifts are weak in competition, when cue bids are available to show good hands).

 

Also, many pro-ams allow the players to refer to their convention cards. This is probably the most common situation where the exception in 20G3 is invoked.

 

Makes sense, thanks. Pro-ams are pretty much inexistent here, as are paying clients. If one plays with a pro it is because he's free and you want to improve - while he's not going to force unfamiliar conventions on you he likely won't want to bother with all yours either.

[lamford]

The next question arises from my first. If only weak jump overcalls have to be alerted then East has UI - from the failure of West to alert.

We are told that intermediate jump overcalls require an alert, but not weak jump overcalls, so firstly we need to establish that from someone familiar with the alerting regulations in force.

[sfi]

Makes sense, thanks. Pro-ams are pretty much inexistent here, as are paying clients. If one plays with a pro it is because he's free and you want to improve - while he's not going to force unfamiliar conventions on you he likely won't want to bother with all yours either.

 

Pro-ams are generally misnamed. As the original poster clarified, a "pro" can be any life master and an "am" is anyone who isn't - the only monetary benefit to the "pro" is typically free entry. It's often set up as a fun game where the partners are randomly assigned, and maybe even swap during the session. Simple system cards are very useful.

 

A close cousin is a "teams of three" event. Each "pro" plays on a team of three newer players, generally playing one or two matches with each one over the course of the event. It's very helpful when you get a team of three people who all play the same system together.

[LH2650]

What, exactly, did NS appeal?

 

That he would have bid 3 diamonds (which makes 4 on reasonable play), if he had been properly informed. There is also the issue of whether a new suit by advancer is commonly played as forcing.

[LH2650]

The alert rules certainly should be clarified. It seems unlikely to me that an "intermediate" jump overcall does not require alert or announcement. If anything a weak jump overcall might not do so. But more likely both require some kind of alert or announcement.

 

 

I think it may be an overbid that the description on the card ("intermediate") was the correct description in this case. East didn't seem to know about it, and West didn't alert it if he should (as I would imagine). The OP says: "An Alert is required, but was not given. South looked at the card, and it came to the attention of the table that the "agreement" was Intermediate.". So it also looks as if South only got the description of "intermediate" by actually reading the card when it was already clear to the table that EW had no real agreement.

 

A weak jump overcall does not require an Alert, so the table did not know that there was no agreement. Only East knew there was a problem.

[blackshoe]

If 2H is alertable if intermediate but not if weak, then it is illogical that South did not bid 3D because he thought 2H was weak, and I would reject the NS argument.

 

We are told that intermediate jump overcalls require an alert, but not weak jump overcalls, so firstly we need to establish that from someone familiar with the alerting regulations in force.

 

That he would have bid 3 diamonds (which makes 4 on reasonable play), if he had been properly informed. There is also the issue of whether a new suit by advancer is commonly played as forcing.

 

A weak jump overcall does not require an Alert, so the table did not know that there was no agreement. Only East knew there was a problem.

On the assumption that the jurisdiction here is the ACBL, the regulation says that weak jump overcalls do not require an alert. Intermediate or stronger jump overcalls do require an alert, as do artificial jump overcalls. The ACBL system card has a line like this for jump overcalls: "strong x intermediate x weak x" where the x's represent checkboxes and the first two words and their checkboxes are in red, indicating alertable, and the third is in black, indicating not alertable.

 

South did not say that he would have bid 3!D if he had been properly informed. What South said, according to the OP, is that if 2!H had been weak he would have bid 3!D. The auction says that 2!H is weak, but the card says it's intermediate. South chose to believe the card rather than the auction. He did not ask the opponents to clarify the situation, nor did he call the director before he passed.

 

As director, I would investigate whether the agreement is "weak" or "intermediate". If the former, then South was misinformed by the system card. If the latter, South was misinformed by the failure to alert, but this doesn't matter because if there had been an alert he was definitely not going to bid 3!D. In the former case, it seems to me Law 21B3 applies, and I would look at adjusting the score.

 

The question whether 2!S is forcing is a bit of a red herring. If a score adjustment made on the basis that South bids 3!D is under consideration then West won't get to bid 2!S, and if no score adjustment is contemplated, then there was no infraction, and East can do what he likes, including passing a forcing bid. Further, how it is "commonly played" is irrelevant. The question is "how does this pair play it?"

[pescetom]

Makes a lot of sense, just two quibbles if I may.

 

South chose to believe the card rather than the auction. He did not ask the opponents to clarify the situation, nor did he call the director before he passed.

I share your distaste for South's failure to call the director at that moment, but from OP it does look as if he read that the card said "intermediate" and this was somehow brought to attention of the table, so opponents had a golden opportunity to clarify, with or without following the precise protocol. If they realised that South was misinformed they also should have called the director after the final pass of the auction - East is a "pro" and should know this stuff.

 

As director, I would investigate whether the agreement is "weak" or "intermediate". If the former, then South was misinformed by the system card. If the latter, South was misinformed by the failure to alert, but this doesn't matter because if there had been an alert he was definitely not going to bid 3!D. In the former case, it seems to me Law 21B3 applies, and I would look at adjusting the score.

You accept without question his argument that he would have bid 3♦ if 2♥ had been weak, but not otherwise? I have doubts and would feel the need to poll his peers.

[LH2650]

Did East speak up before the opening lead was faced to advise the opponents that at the time the 2H call was made, there was no agreement on its meaning? If he knowingly failed to correct the misinformation, that could merit a PP.

It would also have enabled the director to give South an opportunity to change his final pass to 3D.

 

 

No

[LH2650]

If 2H is alertable if intermediate but not if weak, then it is illogical that South did not bid 3D because he thought 2H was weak, and I would reject the NS argument.

 

He thought that the 2 heart bid was intermediate, having checked the convention card.