Pro-Am Swiss

[LH2650]

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?"

 

 

How does the world play this sequence? I would play it as forcing over either a weak or an intermediate jump, but that might be the subject of another poll. If it is not forcing for this partnership, then 2 spades was an incorrect bid, since getting to game seems appropriate.

[LH2650]

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

 

The TD was called after the hand was over. The director felt that an adjustment was appropriate, but could not get a consensus, so he allowed the score to stand.

 

I was one of those consulted, but was not at the table, and do not know who was playing there.

[blackshoe]

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.

I didn't say anything about 'without question', but if he was going to bid 3!D if 2!H was not weak, why didn't he?

[blackshoe]

How does the world play this sequence? I would play it as forcing over either a weak or an intermediate jump, but that might be the subject of another poll. If it is not forcing for this partnership, then 2 spades was an incorrect bid, since getting to game seems appropriate.

How "the world", or you, or I, or anyone else, would play the sequence is irrelevant. They question is how do they play it?

[LH2650]

How "the world", or you, or I, or anyone else, would play the sequence is irrelevant. They question is how do they play it?

 

The chance of any pair in the event having an agreement on this is remote. Therefore, the Pro must rely on what is standard.

[barmar]

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.

The "pro" in "pro-am" is not literally a professional. The "pro" is just an advanced player, the "am" is beginner to immediate. Sometimes it will be a teacher/mentor playing with one of their students. In tournaments there's usually a masterpoint cutoff or the am has to be a non-life master; in our club pro-am we simply order the players by masterpoints, the top half are pros, the bottom are ams.

[barmar]

I didn't say anything about 'without question', but if he was going to bid 3!D if 2!H was not weak, why didn't he?

Because the opponents' convention card said it was intermediate, not weak.

 

He felt he had to choose between believing the CC and assuming that LHO simply forgot to alert (not unlikely, since LHO is the am), or believing the non-alert and assuming that the CC was filled in wrong. I suppose he could have asked when he noticed this discrepancy, but I'd expect LHO would have explained it as intermediate, since that's what he had on his CC, and apologize for failing to alert. So South would be no better off.

[blackshoe]

Barry, read what I said, please. "If he was going to bid 3!D if 2!S was not weak, why didn't he?" To which you replied, in effect "because 2!S was not weak".

 

We agree, I think, that he was not going to bid 3!D if 2!S was not weak because 1) he didn't say he would and 2) he saw "intermediate" on the card and believed that.

 

Put it another way: East has mis-bid; their agreement is that 2!S is intermediate, and he forgot. South is not entitled to know that, so his claim that he would have bid 3!D if 2!S was weak is irrelevant. He may mean "If the agreement was that it was weak" or he may mean "if I had known East had a weak hand", but both interpretations are irrelevant if the agreement is as on the card, because in the first case that caveat isn't true, and in the second he's not entitled to know that.

[barmar]

Barry, read what I said, please. "If he was going to bid 3!D if 2!S was not weak, why didn't he?" To which you replied, in effect "because 2!S was not weak".

Oops, I did misread, I didn't see "not".

 

But when did South say he would have bid 3!D if 2!S was not weak? The OP says "stated that he would have bid 3 diamonds if the 2 heart bid had been weak".

 

Post #20 says "he would have bid 3 diamonds (which makes 4 on reasonable play), if he had been properly informed"; are you interpreting this to mean what you assert above? I think you're misunderstanding him, and he considers "properly informed" to mean "informed about East's actual holding", not "informed about the EW agreement".

 

Unfortunately, too many players think they're entitled to explanations of actual holdings, not just agreements, and I believe South was suffering from this misunderstanding.

[mycroft]

So, in an alternate universe:[hv=pc=n&s=s43hj4d7532caqt73&w=sqjt765h87dqjck42&n=sa82ht96dakt984c5&e=skthakq532d6cj986&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1d2h]399|300[/hv]

I don't have much sympathy for South on the "if I had known it was weak, I would have bid 3♦."

 

I do have sympathy for "East, who found out partner thought he had a much stronger hand, passed a potentially forcing bid." I'd want to check the player's agreements when playing WJO (maybe with some of his regular partners as well as taking his word for it?) If East used UI to get out in the last making contract, we adjust.

 

Yes, we know it's almost certainly forcing opposite a IJO (and it's actually unlucky that there isn't a play for game opposite East's actual hand!), but all that's saying is "South now knows something's gone off the rails. East passed partner's forcing bid. So, if he's saying that he would have balanced over 2♠ instead of bidding directly over 2♥, well, why didn't he in the real auction?"

 

I do understand that "Am" players/NLMs think this way - if East has two fewer cards than I thought, partner *must* have them - and it's certainly possible. But it's not a lock; partners open minimums, and more minimums than mediums (just because there are more minimums than mediums).

[lamford]

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

Then he should have called the TD because of a failure to alert prior to making his call. So, no adjustment under Law 11A. SB religiously calls the TD if the 2D response to Stayman is wrongly alerted in England.

[blackshoe]

But when did South say he would have bid 3!D if 2!S was not weak?

He didn't.

 

The OP says "stated that he would have bid 3 diamonds if the 2 heart bid had been weak".

 

Post #20 says "he would have bid 3 diamonds (which makes 4 on reasonable play), if he had been properly informed"; are you interpreting this to mean what you assert above? I think you're misunderstanding him, and he considers "properly informed" to mean "informed about East's actual holding", not "informed about the EW agreement".

 

Unfortunately, too many players think they're entitled to explanations of actual holdings, not just agreements, and I believe South was suffering from this misunderstanding.

Perhaps we are in agreement. The "properly informed" bit is based on a fact not in evidence - that their agreement was that 2!S was weak. If in fact their agreement was that 2!S is intermediate, which is what the card says, then the opponents were properly informed, or at least South was, and they are not entitled to know that East misbid. So they have no beef, in law. If the agreement was that 2!S was weak, then the card gave S MI, and he may be entitled to redress. If they actually have no agreement, then again the card gave MI. If their actual agreement, including implicit and explicit parts, is "intermediate, but he frequently forgets and bids with a weak hand" then that is MI, and the agreement may be illegal (I haven't checked).

 

Whether 3!D would have made four only matters if we're adjusting the score to some number of diamonds by NS. I haven't looked that deeply into it.

[barmar]

If they actually have no agreement, then again the card gave MI. If their actual agreement, including implicit and explicit parts, is "intermediate, but he frequently forgets and bids with a weak hand" then that is MI, and the agreement may be illegal (I haven't checked).

Have you forgotten that this is a pro-am? They're presumably not a regular partnership, and I expect the pro agreed to play the am's CC. So by definition, everything on the CC is their "actual agreement"; the pro either didn't notice this detail or forgot, so it was a misbid. There's not enough partnership history to establish tendencies like "he frequently forgets".

 

I suppose you could argue that in this situation, there are really no actual agreements, everyone is just bidding by the seat of their pants like in an individual, and the CC just provides a vague idea of what their bids might mean. Is it really workable if the am explains everything as "Well, if I'd bid it, it would mean X, but we have no agreement about partner's bids"?

[blackshoe]

I was trying to cover all the bases. Apart from that all I'll say is the "partnership experience" isn't the only way to know that a player frequently forgets things.

[barmar]

I was trying to cover all the bases. Apart from that all I'll say is the "partnership experience" isn't the only way to know that a player frequently forgets things.

Sure, he might have experience playing against him, and have observed him forgetting. But unless this has happened numerous times, I can't imagine using it as a reason to qualify any explanations about their current agreements.

 

The room is full of infrequent partnerships, most of whom probably have unsure agreements. Should they all be qualifying all their explanations to reflect this? I think the nature of the event makes this fairly obvious to all involved, they shouldn't need it to be mentioned explicitly all the time.

 

This is why these types of events often allow players to consult their own CC -- we don't want the game to depend on how well players can memorize a CC in 5 minutes.