A helping hand

[pescetom]

MP

[hv=pc=n&s=sa4ha6dakqj52ca54&w=sjt9632hq8d74c872&n=sq8h97543d9ckjt93&e=sk75hkjt2dt863cq6&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp2np3d(transfer)p3hp4hp6dp6nppp&p=sjsqsksadad7d9d3dk]399|300[/hv]

 

Mid-level club tournament without screens.

EW are intermediates.

SN is a promising beginner entrusted to S, a very experienced player.

While they extract and examine their cards for this hand, S compliments N on her declarer play on the previous hand but points out the error in bidding.

Then he adds smoothly "Another thing you should remember is that 2NT is 20-22. Yes Dear, it can be 22 HCP, not 21 like they may have taught you."

Silence drops and E passes.

S opens 2NT.

N hesitates and bids 3♦, announced as transfer by S who completes to 3♥.

N debates for a minute and bids 4♥.

S bids 6♦.

N bids 6NT, passed out.

W leads ♠J covered by Q, K, A.

E reserves his rights on the auction.

S cashes the diamonds and drops the ♣Q, making +1.

E calls the Director and describes the events as above, complaining that N was preinformed about the strength of S and that S had no bridge reason not to investigate slam in hearts.

S observes: "I did remind my partner about the range of 2NT, but I think that is normal and appropriate given that she is a a beginner. I brought my diamonds into the picture at the only point possible, to give a choice of slam. NT is not what I expected to play I would probably not have made the contract had W not discarded a club on the last diamond."

 

How would you proceed and rule?

[sanst]

Even if S is the most ethical, honest an honorable player on earth, this reminder at this moment is totally inappropriate. Even ChCh wouldn’t probably do it and a penalty is in order.

But can E explain what’s wrong with the auction? If N is a beginner the 6♦ bid must have left her flabbergasted. I’ve no idea what I would have done. Pass? 6♥? 6NT? 7♣?? You might organize a poll, but it might be difficult to find enough beginners to do so.

I don’t see a connection between the remark of S and the bidding of N, so I wouldn’t change the result. Besides, given the distribution, you have 13 tricks from the start, but that’s sheer luck.

PS, it might be useful to tell N that her second bid with five hearts should have been 3NT and to S that, when opening NT, the partner is in the lead. Also, that this hand with nine tricks is too strong for 2NT which is not forcing. But that’s for a teacher to do, not the TD.

[pescetom]

Even if S is the most ethical, honest an honorable player on earth, this reminder at this moment is totally inappropriate. Even ChCh wouldn’t probably do it and a penalty is in order.

I agree: but on the basis of which law(s) (73A, a "more often than not" affair ?) and what penalty?

 

But can E explain what’s wrong with the auction? If N is a beginner the 6♦ bid must have left her flabbergasted. I’ve no idea what I would have done. Pass? 6♥? 6NT? 7♣?? You might organize a poll, but it might be difficult to find enough beginners to do so.

I don’t see a connection between the remark of S and the bidding of N, so I wouldn’t change the result. Besides, given the distribution, you have 13 tricks from the start, but that’s sheer luck.

PS, it might be useful to tell N that her second bid with five hearts should have been 3NT and to S that, when opening NT, the partner is in the lead. Also, that this hand with nine tricks is too strong for 2NT which is not forcing. But that’s for a teacher to do, not the TD.

 

E did explain that he thought there was no bridge reason not to proceed with hearts (after N shows 6 cards). Is he wrong and is there nothing else to consider here?

 

And I don't think S needs a teacher, at least on technical matters. If he decided to squeeze this hand into 2NT I imagine it was just because he didn't trust a beginner to bid effectively over 2♣ or over 1♦ opposite this hand. And it was probably precisely that painful choice that prompted (however unconsciously) his warning about the maximum of 2NT, which he was concerned might be passed.

 

I would say more, but let's see what others have to say first.

[mycroft]

S is a promising beginner entrusted to a very experienced player.

I think this one's backwards? N is the beginner? But just in case, I'll try to answer both ways.

 

I absolutely agree that the comment - provided cards were in South's hands when he made it - is way out of bounds. If you want a Law, 73A1, 73B1, or 73C4 apply (a reminder on that last, that the auction period starts "when either partner removes their cards from the board"(17A). If S is the beginner, his *partner* should be explaining why that's way out of bounds; if S is the experienced player, this is formal warning territory, never mind PP.

 

Having said that, the only Extraneous Information South has is the tank before 4♥. If N is the promising beginner, I think the pause says "I can't remember how to bid this hand", not "I'd like to do more than 4." I might be biased by N's actual hand, of course; let's ask some players without it. I guess E/W says S is catering to "Partner is not sure how to bid this hand, and after thinking she got it wrong".

 

In absence of UI, S is allowed to misbid his hand however he likes. If the limited hand decides he's seriously underbid it and wants to investigate slam, I actually like 6♦; even a newer player should be able to take that is "choice of slams, I have a really nice diamond suit". And North made a quite reasonable choice. Is there a LA that keeps hearts more in the picture? Sure. But South is eventually going to bid 6♦, and N is going to make the "right" choice.

 

Is E-W the same pair that didn't like the 2♣-2♦; 2NT-3NT; 6NT auction? </sarcasm>

 

I'm guessing the experienced player decided to "play pro" on the hand, assuming his partner wouldn't be able to make good judgements, and "this could be 20-22" became "partner has a card or two, now my hand is a 24". (reading your response now, seems I'm right).

 

I really think "No damage" - but I'd poll it, both to find what "UI" is passed by the long tank and what actions are LAs based on the UI seeming to be given. But:

• If the UI says "I don't know how to bid this hand", then the UI didn't influence the decision to look for slam, so Pass isn't an LA for this South. There might be other LAs, but I don't think "offering diamonds (or NT) as a choice of slams" is off the table in an eventual auction (i.e. I do not see 6♥ directly as being a LA);
  
• If the UI says "I have a 4 1/2♥ bid", then the UI didn't influence the decision to show diamonds as a potential different slam. Here, I can see - in fact, it's probably automatic given the choice to open 2NT - 4♥ being the adjusted score. [Edit to add, after reading axman's response: If they play Texas Transfers (highly unlikely, but if), then N's AI is "I have a 4 1/2♥ bid", and I don't think pass is a LA (but I'd be willing to check!)]

 

But yeah, if South (if South is the experienced player) is "gently assisting" partner on this hand, he's likely doing it a fair bit. And that needs to be shut down, hard, with whatever legal penalty is required to do so.

[sanst]

I agree: but on the basis of which law(s) (73A, a "more often than not" affair ?) and what penalty?

Law 73A1 and 16B1. The penalty is for the TD to decide. It could be anything from a warning - too lenient in this case IMO - to 100% at MP’s.

 

E did explain that he thought there was no bridge reason not to proceed with hearts (after N shows 6 cards). Is he wrong and is there nothing else to consider here?

I don’t see how the remark did influence N to go to 6NT. The remark certainly conveys UI, but how that influenced N at this particular moment in the auction, is beyond me. Maybe you can enlighten me.

When exactly did S made this remark? After he had seen his hand or was he still picking up his cards?

From your post I gathered that S is the experienced player an N the beginner, although you wrote that S is the beginner. But that doesn’t fit with the rest of the post.

[axman]

MP

[hv=pc=n&s=sa4ha6dakqj52ca54&w=sjt9632hq8d74c872&n=sq8h97543d9ckjt93&e=sk75hkjt2dt863cq6&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp2np3d(transfer)p3hp4hp6dp6nppp&p=sjsqsksadad7d9d3dk]399|300[/hv]

 

Mid-level club tournament without screens.

EW are intermediates.

S is a promising beginner entrusted to a very experienced player.

While they extract and examine their cards for this hand, S compliments N on her declarer play on the previous hand but points out the error in bidding.

Then he adds smoothly "Another thing you should remember is that 2NT is 20-22. Yes Dear, it can be 22 HCP, not 21 like they may have taught you."

Silence drops and E passes.

S opens 2NT.

N hesitates and bids 3♦, announced as transfer by S who completes to 3♥.

N debates for a minute and bids 4♥.

S bids 6♦.

N bids 6NT, passed out.

W leads ♠J covered by Q, K, A.

E reserves his rights on the auction.

S cashes the diamonds and drops the ♣Q, making +1.

E calls the Director and describes the events as above, complaining that N was preinformed about the strength of S and that S had no bridge reason not to investigate slam in hearts.

S observes: "I did remind my partner about the range of 2NT, but I think that is normal and appropriate given that she is a a beginner. I brought my diamonds into the picture at the only point possible, to give a choice of slam. NT is not what I expected to play I would probably not have made the contract had W not discarded a club on the last diamond."

 

How would you proceed and rule?

Two complaints were lodged.

1. S communicated to N during a hand via remarks.

2. S had no bridge reason not to investigate 6H (having not investigated 6H)

 

1. relevant agreed facts are that S made remarks ("Another thing you should remember is that 2NT is 20-22. Yes Dear, it can be 22 HCP, not 21 like they may have taught you.") after removing cards from the board. The remarks being other than by call or play are a breach of L73B1 and warrants a PP. The appropriate occasion for remarks is when a hand is not in progress.

 

The remarks were directed to the method that S then employed hence. The straight forward inference is that the motivation was for N to be clear as to the upper limit of expected strength so that S could have confidence in N's judgment. That N made the remark about 22hcp being unlike other pairs and then opened 2N infers it probable the holding was 22hcp.

 

Did NS act to gain advantage from the remarks, that is, did N act to gain advantage?

3D was clearly indicated by system.

 

Systemically, N values indicate expectation of game values, potentially a few whiskers more: NT is has reasonable expectation of 9-10 tricks even with short diamond; 4H is a trick higher with a potentially ill fated suit (the remark might be construed as motivation for taking a 1 minute pause before taking a marginally more dangerous action that as the suit exists has some likely downside); 4C suggests significantly greater values than held with the inference that the hearts are robust- which the hand does not support. If anything 4H created a slight disadvantage to NS which suggests that the remark was not material to 4H.

 

6N preference suggests dislike for diamonds and hearts and thus would suggest no connection to the remark since the indicated capacity of the hand in NT is closer to 10 tricks.

 

Whatever advantage N might have sought to create from the remark it does not appear material, also, it was conceivably disadvantageous because it encouraged bidding on [the 4H] when holding the lower end of game values making it 'more dangerous' for S to investigate slam.

Thus, even if there is damage from the remark it was immaterial and no adjusted score is warranted. L12

 

2. There are two reasons to not explore 6H . This makes the assertion that there is no reason not to explore 6H dubious so there is no litigation there.

1. S has only two hearts opposite a partner that has not promised honors in a 5+ card suit

2. there are insufficient bidding steps to safely ascertain the heart situation is sturdy enough to withstand slam

[mycroft]

One small caveat: Absent UI from the "long pause before 4♥", "S has only two hearts opposite a partner that has not promised honours in *a 6+ card suit*."

 

That actually makes a big difference; there's lots of room to ascertain the heart situation - 4NT is RKC in the known fit.

 

Having said that, S might KC and bid 6♦ anyway (and correct 6♥ to 6NT, because he knows the heart suit is insufficient).

 

But thanks for that - I have an edit to my response to do based on something your line triggered.

[mycroft]

Law 73A1 and 16B1. The penalty is for the TD to decide. It could be anything from a warning - too lenient in this case IMO - to 100% at MP’s.

I don't think Law 16 comes into it, at least for the comment, at least for penalty purposes. Because:

I don’t see how the remark did influence N to go to 6NT. The remark certainly conveys UI, but how that influenced N at this particular moment in the auction, is beyond me.

(or any other time before, which is still an issue).

[pescetom]

I think this one's backwards? N is the beginner? But just in case, I'll try to answer both ways.

 

Oops, it was backwards of course and N is the beginner.

Corrected in OP, now will catch up with the rest of replies.

[pescetom]

Thanks for all the replies which raised some interesting differences of viewpoint.

 

First let me summarise what I see as the potential infractions:

 

A) an inappropriate explanation of the 2NT agreement by S during play of the hand, with the inference that S might be at the maximum of 2NT

B) a bid of 6♦ by S when their were LAs in continuation of hearts less suggested by the UI of hesitation before 4♥ by N

C) a bid of 6NT by N when their were LAs such as Pass less suggested by the UI of a balanced 22 HCP maximum.

 

And my thoughts so far about their consistency and consequences:

A) it seems we all agree, just a question of establishing the penalty. I doubt that S was consciously trying to steal the hand, but it certainly is a serious error for an experienced player and merits at least a penalty of a top and a severe reprimand IMO.

B) I am slightly puzzled that 6♦ is being taken lightly given the UI, or as good bridge either. Perhaps there is some difference in national style about responder's 4♥ after 3♦ transfer: here it unambiguously shows 6 cards and in a decent pair would also denote mild slam interest. My hope is that S was trying to give a beginner a chance to play and make a slam (in which case he has my sympathy).

C) It would be perverse to hit a beginner with Law 16 in such a WTF situation, although technically the infraction may exist: in any case it certainly wasn't conscious and luckily it is unlikely to have consequences as after a Pass of 6♦ the result would still hang on S getting clubs right, which I think should not happen in a decent field (although I would ask expert players about that, and W did get things wrong here - raising the interesting issue of serious error for an intermediate pair).

[pescetom]

Some additional comments here and there:

 

 

When exactly did S made this remark? After he had seen his hand or was he still picking up his cards?

Good question. The hands had certainly been extracted from the board, nobody knows more. My grandmother did tell me something about coincidences that also predicts 22 HCP, but it would be wrong to use it as a rule.

 

 

I don’t see a connection between the remark of S and the bidding of N, so I wouldn’t change the result. Besides, given the distribution, you have 13 tricks from the start, but that’s sheer luck.

See above about the 6N bid, although I would hate to change the result based on that.

Would you really have made 13 tricks if W discards correctly? I would not, but maybe that's why I am a Director :)

 

 

If N is the promising beginner, I think the pause says "I can't remember how to bid this hand", not "I'd like to do more than 4." I might be biased by N's actual hand, of course; let's ask some players without it. I guess E/W says S is catering to "Partner is not sure how to bid this hand, and after thinking she got it wrong".

I agree that the pause says "I can't remember how to bid this hand" (more important, a small poll of S peers agrees too: see later).

Also you know from experience how likely it is that a beginner managed to hide this doubt, although E mentioned only the BIT.

 

 

I actually like 6♦; even a newer player should be able to take that is "choice of slams, I have a really nice diamond suit". And North made a quite reasonable choice. Is there a LA that keeps hearts more in the picture? Sure. But South is eventually going to bid 6♦, and N is going to make the "right" choice.

This is where we really diverge (more important, a small poll of N peers sees it like Sanst and I too: see later).

I think 6♦ is a bizarre bid knowing that partner who is a beginner has bid and raised hearts to six cards and expects you as a strong balanced hand to investigate slam in hearts or place the contract. Assuming your only information is her bidding, that is.

 

 

Systemically, N values indicate expectation of game values, potentially a few whiskers more: NT is has reasonable expectation of 9-10 tricks even with short diamond; 4H is a trick higher with a potentially ill fated suit (the remark might be construed as motivation for taking a 1 minute pause before taking a marginally more dangerous action that as the suit exists has some likely downside); 4C suggests significantly greater values than held with the inference that the hearts are robust- which the hand does not support. If anything 4H created a slight disadvantage to NS which suggests that the remark was not material to 4H.

 

6N preference suggests dislike for diamonds and hearts and thus would suggest no connection to the remark since the indicated capacity of the hand in NT is closer to 10 tricks.

 

Whatever advantage N might have sought to create from the remark it does not appear material, also, it was conceivably disadvantageous because it encouraged bidding on [the 4H] when holding the lower end of game values making it 'more dangerous' for S to investigate slam.

Thus, even if there is damage from the remark it was immaterial and no adjusted score is warranted. L12

 

2. There are two reasons to not explore 6H . This makes the assertion that there is no reason not to explore 6H dubious so there is no litigation there.

1. S has only two hearts opposite a partner that has not promised honors in a 5+ card suit

2. there are insufficient bidding steps to safely ascertain the heart situation is sturdy enough to withstand slam

NT has certainly of 9 tricks even opposite a Yarborough in N.

Now that N has shown 6 cards in hearts and some values, then surely it would be unreasonable to pass 4♥ (see also mini-poll later).

It is trivial to ascertain that the heart situation is sturdy enough to withstand slam within (what should be) the relatively safe level of 5H.

 

It's late, poll info tomorrow.

[mycroft]

I think that if there is anything actionable here about *how* South investigated slam, we have to believe that "long tank-4♥" means "I don't actually have 6 hearts, but I can't remember how to game try with only 5." As opposed to "how do I make a 4 1/2 heart call?" or whatever.

 

I would absolutely be on the page of "there's nothing in a 2NT-3♦; 3♥-4♥ auction that makes you think slam, well, except for partner not wanting to bid *only* 4♥", if they don't play 2NT-4♦ transfer. If they do, of course, partner's shown a mild slam try, and with a solid source of tricks and a (super?) max, you go on.

 

But if we're not going to consider 4♥ a LA, and we're going to say "the only reason you're thinking hearts may not be the right suit is the long hesitation", then:

2NT-3♦

3♥-4♥

4NT-5♣ (zero)

5♦-5♥ (no Q either)

 

and now if we can't lose a heart, ruff a heart and get back to set up the 12th trick in 6♦, we're probably not making 5♥ opposite Jxxxxx either.

 

I just think that if you asked players what 6♦ meant, given the auction at the table (without all the extras) - I'd say they'd paint pretty much South's hand. As I said, given that South was going to go for slam, to me 6♦ is a brilliant call, giving North all the information needed to pick the right slam.

 

I guess if E-W are arguing that South was listening to the tank before 3♦ and catering to North having ♥KTx ♦8xxxx, well then. But I don't believe it.

 

But this is just my opinion, and I am happy to be shown polling that disagrees with me. It won't be the first time.

[mycroft]

I also hate "reserves their rights on the auction." I agree it's legal (provided the opponents understand the quote. I'm assuming the experienced South knows *exactly* what was meant). But I'd rather have the director there at the time to ensure that the story related matches what actually happened - and if there is a disagreement, it's pointed out well before 13 cards have "fogged the memory".

 

And would we have heard anything about "failing to look for slam in hearts" if South had run the diamonds and finessed the club?

[sanst]

.

Would you really have made 13 tricks if W discards correctly? I would not, but maybe that's why I am a Director :)

No, probably not. It was a remark based on the hands as published. But this has nothing to do with the ruling.

[sanst]

North is a beginner. I don’t know about you, but do you remember what it was to be a beginner? I’ve been teaching bridge and that reminded me how hard it was to remember all those things like when to use stayman or transfers. How often do you get a 2NT hand and how did things go then?

I don’t think it’s useful to elaborate about what N should have done after the 6♦ bid. From the OP I got the impression that just remembering what to do after 2NT and how to handle a transfer was already a real problem. I actually find it praiseworthy that this beginner didn’t pass, but bid 6NT. Most beginners just pass when they don’t know what to do.

[pescetom]

North is a beginner. I don’t know about you, but do you remember what it was to be a beginner? I’ve been teaching bridge and that reminded me how hard it was to remember all those things like when to use stayman or transfers. How often do you get a 2NT hand and how did things go then?

I don’t think it’s useful to elaborate about what N should have done after the 6♦ bid. From the OP I got the impression that just remembering what to do after 2NT and how to handle a transfer was already a real problem. I actually find it praiseworthy that this beginner didn’t pass, but bid 6NT. Most beginners just pass when they don’t know what to do.

 

I certainly do remember, all too well. I have also taught and if I direct it is mainly to protect beginners too.

I agree 99% with what you just said, with the reservation that 6NT might just be "you bid this mess, you play it!" :)

But I have some sympathy with that too.

 

As I wrote, the last thing we want to do is hit a beginner with an infraction of law 16 in a WTF situation like this.

[pescetom]

I also hate "reserves their rights on the auction." I agree it's legal (provided the opponents understand the quote. I'm assuming the experienced South knows *exactly* what was meant). But I'd rather have the director there at the time to ensure that the story related matches what actually happened - and if there is a disagreement, it's pointed out well before 13 cards have "fogged the memory".

 

I hate the wording "reserves their rights" too, but it is the language of the laws and I guess that anything else might be contested by a SB. In any case if a player as experienced as S accepted it without calling the Director, I imagine it was because he knows well what it meant. If he had not taken the UI as possible lack of hearts, then presumably he was as surprised as E to see just 5 hearts in the dummy and could see that the auction looked strange.

 

As for calling the Director at the time, I think E should have done so as soon as he saw the 2NT bidding card hit the table. But maybe he was too surprised, or too engrossed in the hand to reflect that the remark was illegal, or was praying that the hand actually had 20 HCP.

He certainly has the right to call Director without reserving rights. Whether it's better, dunno. There is a better chance of getting the facts straight and as Director I would be happier, but as opponent maybe no: S is probably more likely to declarer play poorly than if it was agreed to wait until after play.

 

And would we have heard anything about "failing to look for slam in hearts" if South had run the diamonds and finessed the club?

My limited experience as Director says no.

But there are plenty of possible reasons for that, not all as self-serving as fear of losing a good score.

[mycroft]

I absolutely agree with sanst about "what North should have done..."

 

Having said that, I'm not sure what the criticism is. I think North showed judgement beyond "beginner" level, even if in panic. But I have a different view of 6♦, it seems, than others in this thread. Okay, maybe "North panicked and found a contract he didn't have to play", I don't know, but he's looking at ♥9xxxx ♦9...

 

From a legal perspective, North did "nothing" wrong. She took more time than "you would expect" to bid 3♦ and 4♥, and that passed UI to partner - but frankly, what it passed was "I'm a beginner, I'm not sure how to show my hand". Unfortunately, in this auction it looks like her partner heard it loud and clear, and took a guess as to what to do. Partly he was right, partly he guessed right, and partly the argument is going to be "I know partner doesn't know how to suggest slam, so with a hand that would have play with one more card than promised, I took a view".

 

Witness several threads in the last year or so about "pro bidding". Especially when for some reason South's results matter (even when playing with a beginner), they are tempted to mastermind and "take views". Now the issue is...you don't get to play those games with UI, and beginners provide UI all the time. And "of course", the UI is "partner isn't sure about system, it doesn't say anything about their hand"; and "of course", a lot of the UI does in fact "help take views" - usually very subtly.

 

I am willing to be told otherwise by the poll, but *assuming they don't play Texas transfers* (so South's *AI* is "I have a mild slam try with 6 hearts", and I believe that not looking for some slam in that case is "using the UI" that North probably didn't remember that when he bid 3♦), *especially combined with the pre-auction "assistance"*, I would be *happy* giving the poll-determined ruling of "4♥=, pass is a LA based on <this poll>; and you will stop with the 'system reviews' with cards in your hands, or you'll be getting another <standard> MP penalty to go with the one I'm giving you for this flagrant illegal communication. North, you did nothing wrong - thinking is allowed in Bridge, but it puts your partner under some restrictions, which he failed to follow - but unfortunately, we can only penalize the pair, not the individual player. Next hand please". I might even let some of my joy show, especially if I had experience with this player that backs my hunches above.

 

I'll reiterate that unless you can show a path from "hey partner, I have 22 HCP for my call" to "the correct response to 6♦ is 6NT, not 6♥ or pass", there's nothing to talk about about N's bidding - her two previous calls (wrong though one might be) were definitely not affected by UI. Unless there's more UI from South we don't know about?

[pescetom]

Yesterday I did a quick poll of some of the issues, using players from my club.

 

 

S Poll

 

I found 4 players of experience similar to S and roughly similar ability (1 better, 3 not as good).

I told them they had opened this hand as 2NT 20-22 opposite a beginner (some were easier to convince than others).

Then I asked about calls over 3♦: all chose 3♥.

Then I asked about calls over 4♥: 1 chose 4♠, 2 chose 4NT, 1 chose 5NT.

Calls that were seriously considered: Pass 1, 4♠ 2, 4NT 3, 5NT 1, 6♦ 1, 6♥ 1.

Then I asked which of these calls were more suggested by a BIT before 4♥: Pass 2, 4♠ 0, 4NT 1, 5NT 0, 6♦ 3, 6♥ 0.

 

N Poll

 

I found 3 beginners of level and ability similar to N (more would be better, but as a club we are lucky to have these).

First I asked about calls over 2NT undiscussed: all 3 chose 3♦, nobody seriously considered other calls (including Pass).

Then I asked about calls over 3♥: all chose 3NT, one seriously considered 4♣, nobody seriously considered 4♥.

Then I explained that they had mistakenly bid 4♥ (this threw them, maybe I should have asked about a hypothetical 6♦ over 3NT first).

Then I asked about calls over 6♦: one passed, one bid 6♥, one bid 6NT. Both Pass and 6NT were seriously considered by 2 of 3.

 

 

Quick and statistically not very significant, but bridge polls probably rarely are.

Sure I could have done better, suggestions are welcome.

I forgot to ask the beginners if they know about Texas over 2NT, will do so tonight.

I deliberately avoided to ask them about UI.

[axman]

Yesterday I did a quick poll of some of the issues, using players from my club.

 

 

S Poll

 

I found 4 players of experience similar to S and roughly similar ability (1 better, 3 not as good).

 

 

 

I don't know what you were after but I suspect that it more likely would be achieved by the questions:

 

I told them they had opened a hand as 2NT 20-22 opposite a beginner and the auction proceeded 2N-3D-3H-4H

 

What types of responder holdings would be expected after N rebids 4H after a one minute pause, given that after removing cards from the board south told N that unlike most pairs 2N was 20-22? And a next likely holding? etc

 

And to different pollees

 

What types of responder holdings would be expected after N rebids 4H given that after removing cards from the board south told N that unlike most pairs 2N was 20-22? And a next likely holding? etc

[blackshoe]

I hate the wording "reserves their rights" too

Just out of curiosity, how would you change the wording?

[mycroft]

When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result this player may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director be called), their intention to reserve the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).

 

I'm not pescetom, but he was responding to my comment, so: my preference would be to go back to the old Regulation that required the Director to be called. It's still an option, but I know it's another "despite the Law, this is what they'll do anyway", so it's not going to happen.

 

If that is not the case (and it won't be), I would like to change the law so that it is clear that players have those rights, and need not say anything to keep them. Which is in fact the case in practise (viz my the "1400 MP" appeal from Washington). Frankly, since the Law is a "may announce", it is already clear that failure to do so does not impact the NOS rights (except by making it potentially harder to show evidence of UI and use thereof, given "passage of time").

 

If not, at the table, replace with "I believe there was use of <information>." Frankly, by preference, I would like "Do we agree there was <action causing information>?" and, if disagreement, "Director", before there is a possibility to use it. Yes, the ability to do this is called "reserving one's rights" in the Law, but my answer to "what was the Alert on 2♦" should not be the phrase "full disclosure", despite what the Law says.

 

The problem is that the phrase "I reserve my rights" is:

• legalistic and makes zero sense to the 90+% of players who don't know the Law;
  
• Therefore unhelpful for its intended purpose, because if the opponents do not understand, they won't know to dispute it and trigger the parenthetical;
  
• It implies but does not state what action they believe passed UI. The opponents could be seeing something else they agree with, but not the actual problem;
  
• And gives the Legal Person the argument when the TD is called that "I pointed it out at the time, and they didn't dispute it then" (sometimes, even in all innocence because *they* knew what they meant. But I bet sometimes it isn't innocent).
  
• Also, frequently when I hear the "reserve my rights" comment, it has the same edge and connotation as "DIE-REK-TOR!" That is: "you know what you did, and you should feel bad. I'm going to get you punished." with a side order of "how dare you do that against *me*?" Which works even better when the opponents do not realize "what they did", never mind what they're being accused of.

Just stop being Bridge Lawyers and make it clear, at the table, what the problem might be; if the opponents disagree, call the TD (even though 16B2 says the opponents should; 9B1b takes preference. Again "if they had enough of a disagreement, they should have called you" is a great post facto Bridge Lawyer argument. Like "they didn't dispute it", it should be given the weight it deserves by the Director). Don't use Lawyerese, whether it's because you want to show your superiority, or bamboozle the opponents, or whether you think this sequence is 'General Bridge Knowledge' (inference very definitely intended). Just get agreement as to what happened; if agreement isn't there, call the director.

[pescetom]

I don't know what you were after but I suspect that it more likely would be achieved by the questions:

 

I told them they had opened a hand as 2NT 20-22 opposite a beginner and the auction proceeded 2N-3D-3H-4H

 

What types of responder holdings would be expected after N rebids 4H after a one minute pause, given that after removing cards from the board south told N that unlike most pairs 2N was 20-22? And a next likely holding? etc

 

And to different pollees

 

What types of responder holdings would be expected after N rebids 4H given that after removing cards from the board south told N that unlike most pairs 2N was 20-22? And a next likely holding? etc

Thanks for the input.

 

What I was after is to identify which calls were LAs and which were actually chosen, first without then with the UI. In this case, it looks (from this small sample) that after 4♥ by N, both 4♠ and 4NT are LAs and are less suggested by the UI than 6♦.

 

It would be nice to have enough close peers to poll two different groups with and without UI, but unfortunately I had barely enough to form even one group. I can see that there is some pontential bias induced by asking the same group twice, although I suspect that might be less important than reducing variance by maximising the sample in the first place.

 

Your alternative approach of asking about expected holdings is interesting, although it sounds difficult to me in practice: there will be nuances by each player that are difficult to aggregate objectively and after the UI they will be listing multiple conflicting possibilities (or at least I would) rather than a single expected type. And the collective verdict still has to be mapped to a Law 16 decision somehow.

 

Curious to know what others think about either approach.

[mycroft]

I'm surprised at the polling that you didn't have anyone pass 4♥. When you say "some took more convincing than others", does that mean "I would have opened 2♣, this is much too strong to open 2NT" or "Suppressing that diamond suit is wrong, I'd open 1♦"? One of the issues with polling is that if you have to shoehorn people into a call they don't like, they're going to be biased with their original thought. If you had to convince most of them to downgrade this into 2NT, then I'm less surprised that they all want to go on opposite "a king and 6 hearts, hopefully in the same suit".

 

Possibly a better question (or an additional question) about the UI is "it takes [how long] for partner to bid 4♥. What do you think that means?" rather than just "what does the UI suggest?" Frankly, you can frequently work out yourself what calls are suggested by the UI to the pollee if they tell you what they think the UI is.

 

I absolutely agree that asking "what might this tell you" to the novices is likely to be unhelpful. And anyway, we all know what it means: "hey partner, I have 22". Here, asking "you have reason to believe partner is an absolute max for their opening. Does that suggest anything over 6♦?"

 

But based on the result of the polling, I rule "pass of 4♥ is not a LA. [if I know it, explain what the pollees told me about what they thought the UI showed] [if the pollees say that the pause implies 'partner may not have 6 hearts, but couldn't remember 3NT', then do the spiel here about cue-bid or keycard, and after 5♥, whatever you decide] Score stands. PP for the blatant deliberate illegal communication to partner, you haven't been doing this all day, I'm sure? You're not going to say anything about your system to partner with cards in your hands any more, yes?" And, at a tournament, expect an appeal (but I likely will only get grumbles).\

 

One more "we need to know their system" thing (besides "does this pair play Texas?"); what is 4NT? If it's straight-Ace, well, South is looking at 150 honours, so how should South "investigate" slam in hearts (i.e. what alternative do E-W suggest to 6♦)? If it's keycard/Turbo/whatever, does South find out it's Ax opposite Jxxxxx by 5♥? And what do the experienced players do when that happens? Maybe score doesn't stand - if the UI suggests 5 hearts not 6, and if they're playing 1430 so South doesn't get a queen ask, and if the experienced players either settle for 5♥ or don't offer "choice of slams" with 6♦ (if they just blast 6NT and hope, well then "score stands").

[mycroft]

Argh, monopolising the conversation again. Sorry about this. Just remembered, re: my last statement:

 

It doesn't matter if "the novices" know what Texas is, or how that changes the Jacoby-and-game auction (except, if it matters, you have to let them know this is an option. None of them are going to take it).

 

It does matter if it's on N-S's card, because if it is, then South's argument - legitimately so - is "Partner showed slam interest. The UI implies that he doesn't have it, and maybe forgot at 3♦ time that 4♦ was an option. I have a supermax, passing would be using the UI." Whether or not North understands what she's playing. Whether or not "pro carrying client" South would assume in most cases that North forgot. With UI, he has to follow the agreed system, not "assuming partner didn't get it right".