Puttimg a trainee director in at the shallow end

[pescetom]

MP

[hv=pc=n&s=skjt96hj4da6cajt7&w=saq2hk5dkqjt3ck92&n=s873hq976d9852c43&e=s54hat832d74cq865&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1s1np2dp3dp3hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

West is an improver, all other players experienced.

EW have played together quite regularly for the last two years but may not have discussed this situation.

RA regulations are that after a 1NT opening a 2♦ transfer is announced, after a 1NT intervention with Systems On it is alerted: here West does neither and raises diamonds.

East bids 3♥ in tempo and all pass.

The contract makes and all see in the scoring app that it was a top, with other tables going down in spades NS or 3NT EW.

South calls the Director arguing that if West was really convinced that the agreement was Systems Off with diamonds natural he would not have passed 3♥.

 

How do you proceed and rule?

[mycroft]

So, assuming this is a test, here are my questions for the trainee:

• What is (are) the potential infraction(s)? Walk it in order.
  
• What information provided by the players is relevant? What is not relevant? Why?
  
• What other information do you need? What questions do you want answered? What might have happened that you should look for?
  
• Now that you have the information, what potential issues are there, and how do you resolve each?
  
• What education could be provided, no matter what the ruling? What is worth giving and what isn't?

I certainly have opinions for the first three. OTOH, I remember a thread a while back that was basically equivalent, so I don't think I need to repeat that.

 

The answers to the first three will of course influence the answers for the last two.

 

Nothing like the easy ones off the top, eh?

[jillybean]

I'm neither qualified or in training to be but I'd like to give this a try

 

 

The only potential infraction is East's use of the UI in that the 2♦ bid was not alerted.

There is no infraction if West forgot "systems on" and subsequently woke up after East bid 3H, which appears is what happened.

 

There is not much information available from the players, where is the CC? They "may not have discussed this situation" = were they asked?

Having played together regularly for the last 2 years the odds have to be favour that this isn't the first 1NT overcall they have made.

 

I want to ask East what a break of a 2♦ transfer means in their system but I likely won't get a useful reply other than "it doesn't exist"

 

I think the issue here is if pass of 3D was a LA , I don't think 3NT is ever an option.

 

Education? haha. You can go hard ball and give them a PP for not having a Convention Card and another PP for East's use of UI

In reality, nothing will happen.

[pescetom]

OP did not say they have no card, it just asks TD how to proceed. They will show you a card which confirms that they play transfers over their 15-17 1NT opening and says that their intervention of 1NT is natural 15-18 (without any indication of developments).

 

I think it's quite possible that they never needed to advance an NT overcall in a major in two years, or even forget what happened when they did (both play regularly in other partnerships too). It is not mainstream in the club to play transfers here.

 

Yes, your question to East about the break of transfer will get the reply that it does not exist, which again is mainstream.

 

Don't you have any questions for West?

[mycroft]

Good start. Absolutely, the first thing to know is what their agreement is - and we start (but do not finish) by looking at their card. Absolutely, the "unexpected failure to Alert" 2♦ is UI to East. Assuming that the card is right, other potential infractions (West's misinformation, and East's failure to correct before the opening lead) does not exist.

 

Is 2♦ with that agreement and that hand an infraction?

 

So, as far as we know so far, there was no reaction to the "failure" to Alert 2♦, nor any "expressive iteration" (sorry, been watching too much Legacy M:tG) used in the 3♥ call. I wonder if that is the case, or if just nobody mentioned anything, and the director didn't check.

 

What would it mean if there was? If there wasn't?

 

Remember, if we do ask West why they passed 3♥, the answer is almost certainly going to be "I guessed that my partner forgot that advances are natural, because NT overcalls don't come up very often. If I was wrong, we'd probably be -200 into +600. I wasn't wrong this time." Is guessing right legal? When might it be, when might it not be?

 

How much weight do we put on the card, given "quite possible [this auction hasn't come up in 2 years]"? viz. 75D2 and 3. Does that open up other potential things to investigate?

 

Again, leading questions. Again, not all of them are "leading", or at least the expected and desired answer isn't the "led" one.

[mycroft]

But a very important question I asked first hasn't been answered: "what information presented in the OP is not relevant to the ruling?" Or perhaps, "what information presented in the OP doesn't mean what the player thinks it means?"

 

I also wonder why the director was not called when dummy came down - or even when West passed. Now, question - does that matter? If so, how? If not, why would I care? Does that matter?

[mycroft]

Specifically to Jillybean's response about "is pass a LA to 3♥" - yes, it's worth asking. As a (potentially irrelevant) side note, though, +110 is just as top as +140.

 

And, from a "that's why you ask" POV: Mainstream here is "even those who don't know what not bidding 2♥ (or in some advanced cases, 3♥) means, know it's a max with fit." Here, the answer to "is pass a LA to 3♥" is "No. In fact, pass would be clearly using the UI from partner to wake up to the system actually being played". In fact, any call except 3♥ shutdown is probably tainted by UI (borderline, I guess - poll it for 4♥? But still, 23 and bad spots...) Clearly that's not the case in OP's game, and OP's director would know that.

[jillybean]

This feels like a Whodunit

 

I'd ask West if they play systems on over 1NT overcall and if not, why did you pass 3H?

 

I'm not clear if the card says they play transfers after a 1NT overcall

If they do, 2♦ is not an infraction. If they don't, 2♦ is a misbid, not an infraction.

 

I have never seen a Director ask the opponents if E reacted to W failure to alert. I would hope that they would offer that but if they don't, can you really ask without tainting the information?

Easts non reaction could be a well disciplined, ethical player or oops I forgot system are not on.

If there was a reaction, West now also has UI and a pass of 3H should be investigated further.

 

Unless I've misunderstood the information provided, I don't put any weight on the card at all, it doesn't have the detail needed.

 

The opponents did not call the Director until after the hand when they saw their opps got a top board, is this an instance of using the laws to overturn a result? Were they damaged or did E/W simply get to the best spot after a misbid/misunderstanding?

 

N/S are experienced and therefore should, could have asked about the auction before the opening lead and called the Director if there was any doubt. Was West really convinced systems were off? It doesn't appear that they had any UI and simply realised their mistake, or their partners and hoped 3H was now to play.

 

PP for N/S for unethical behaviour.

[axman]

Good start. Absolutely, the first thing to know is what their agreement is -

Isn't the first thing "How may I help/What is the problem?"

[mycroft]

Certainly, at the table. The question I was asking was "what other information do you need?" after the trainee director comes to me with the information in the OP.

 

Now, part of the education after may be a "how did you handle the table?", and we may discuss that. Part of the education will be "you realize now that you have to find this stuff out at the time, right?" (Note: this is VERY HARD. 20 years in, and I'm still asked for information I should have got, even before we go to the Tier 1 players and they ask questions I wouldn't even have thought about if I had been perfect. However, it's VERY IMPORTANT, and I always take it as a demerit when it happens.)

[mycroft]

Jillybean, I wonder why it feels like a Whodunit...there's a reason 85A is in the books. Even when the facts given are agreed, but the facts not given...

 

I think that we've been told that the card says "transfers over 1NT openers, natural (cuebid stayman?) over 1NT overcalls" and that that would be "pretty standard". I think we can argue that the actual agreement is "natural, but this hasn't happened in a couple of years, and partner might have forgot."

 

And then, barring UI from East, it's only a case of misinformation - West is allowed to guess right. Use of the "failure to Alert" UI by East - is interesting, and worth working on. My bias is "no use", but I showed why my biases may be too strong for this case earlier. Having said that, I don't expect South to be pleased with "use of UI, 3♦=, N/S -110" either...

 

Yes, it's hard to find out that information (did East hitch, why did West guess "forget" rather than "slam try"?). Maybe asking West will give it, but I doubt it. Frequently you can come at it from the side - "okay, that was the auction. Anything odd happen - surprise, questions, or such?" with no particular emphasis. Almost always you either get an immediate, strong "oh yeah, East said 'oops' after 3♦"(/tried to remind West to Alert/...) or you get "no, nothing", or you get vague "not sure..." (which means "nothing, but we're pretty certain that will lead to no ruling"). Frequently you get it from the OS, in fact, or at least you can judge the quality of the denial as well. Who knows - it could be that something was mentioned at the table, and the TD-in-training didn't connect "East bid 2♦, and then tapped the bid" with "UI given to West that made the 'guess' easier".

 

So, MI. Does that matter, in the auction, or in the play? I'm assuming that most that went down in spades went down in 2♠, probably after either 1♠-(1NT)-2♠ weak raise or a 1NT-2red auction (whichever suit means hearts). I think that after 3♦ which is absolutely untainted, nobody is going to bid 3♠ even with the right information - and if they do, it'll score worse than -140 (surely it's doubled, given no 2♠ raise directly over 1NT?) Would it play better? Not sure.

 

So, back to my question about relevance. Is the fact that this is a top relevant? What do we think about South's question? (note, the question is not Wrong. But do I hear "rule of coincidence?") What if the answer to "if West was confident..." was "so, West wasn't confident. You weren't made aware of that, and you were entitled to that information. Does it affect your bidding or play in any way?"

 

You're allowed to wake up (provided you don't use UI to do so). You're allowed to guess that partner forgot system (provided you don't use UI to do so, and provided partner doesn't use UI to make calls that will help you guess right in face of LAs that don't). So, was there?

 

It would be fun to poll it, in the bar, as "not-a-director", to see how many read this auction as West as "partner must have forgot and thought we were playing Systems On". I bet in my games, provided I wasn't the one asking (or I was known to have played and only "director support"), I'd get more than a couple biters. But then again, "cuebid stayman, others natural" or the like after 1NT overcalls is almost unheard of here, except with old, flight A pairs.

 

I don't think we penalize anyone. I do think that the timing of the call is somewhat suspicious - they were fine with the auction until not only it made, but it made exactly 3, and 3NT went down. But that's not a problem - they are entitled to call when they choose to call. It might make it harder to establish the facts, and it might mean that we're less likely to believe "oh, there was an obvious tell" from N-S. But no attention was drawn to any irregularity until end of hand, so nothing wrong with the director call timing. I think that E-W should know their system, and should be more careful (however, if the card said "systems on", and West forgot, and East didn't correct the MI (or used the UI, in a different auction), then maybe penalties are in scope).

 

My guess - unless we can inveigle a tell from East, or a confession from West - is "misinformation, no damage, score stands". I have pointed others of our esteemed host's club to that chapter in Simon before - and I might do so again.

 

If we can establish UI from East, then sure, -100 in whatever (surely after bid-4♥, west is allowed to Get It - or 3NT or 4♦-p by East). But if there was an obvious tell by East, South's question wouldn't have been just vague RoC nonsense. Or would it?

 

I would also prepare the director for the "best part" of directing - somebody's going to think you can't direct, or maybe just can't play, or maybe are as gullible as a newborn babe, and will make that opinion very clear, even if not actually stated. Maybe when the ruling is given, maybe later. If you're not able to roll with it, this may not be the job for you. Ha Ha Only Serious: "Must have been the right ruling. All four players don't like it."

 

So, pescetom - how close did I get?

[barmar]

OP did not say they have no card, it just asks TD how to proceed. They will show you a card which confirms that they play transfers over their 15-17 1NT opening and says that their intervention of 1NT is natural 15-18 (without any indication of developments).

If it's an ACBL convention card, "without any indication" is not possible. It's a checkbox, so it's either checked, meaning systems are on, or not checked, meaning systems are off. There's no way to indicate "we haven't discussed it, so it's anybody's guess".

[mycroft]

Oh, it's possible. The whole section is totally blank, as is most of the rest except for 1NT openings and 5cM.

 

But we've been around the room with "card's in my pocket/that's yesterday's partner/we just play normal, why do you want to see the card/..." way too many times before.

 

But I bet if the checkbox isn't checked, that doesn't mean they don't play transfers.

 

(taking my "1NT overcall doesn't even show a balanced hand, what do you mean 'system on?'" card and putting it very carefully away now)

[jillybean]

For situations like this it may be useful to make a rule that says players must have a fully completed convention card?

[blackshoe]

Sure. And then everyone can ignore it.

[pilowsky]

It's a great idea - no card no play.

This would also help keep the ballooning numbers of new Bridge players down to a more manageable number.

[axman]

It's a great idea - no card no play.

This would also help keep the ballooning numbers of new Bridge players down to a more manageable number.

Some decades ago there was a very prosperous club in French Canada that had dwindled to the point that it was tenuous whether a game would materialize. It was prevailed upon one of the players to undertake the TD duties. The player knew that the reason that the club was dying was because everybody cheated due to the fact that the TD did not see to it that the rules were enforced fairly. On the basis that he would have carte blanche to enforce the rules consistently he acceded. In two years the club was the go to destination.

 

It takes a threshold investment of effort for the preoccupation of bridge to be worthwhile. Part of that investment is to know one's methods and do what it takes to make them readily available to the opponents which means exchanging CC at the beginning of the round. I vigorously endorse complete CCs as part of the price of admission. If nothing else the players' skill will increase.

[pescetom]

If it's an ACBL convention card, "without any indication" is not possible. It's a checkbox, so it's either checked, meaning systems are on, or not checked, meaning systems are off. There's no way to indicate "we haven't discussed it, so it's anybody's guess".

It's not an ACBL card, the format is more like WBF and makes limited use of checkboxes. In this case it's a free text field, not huge but big enough to add 'same developments as over a 1NT opening' (which is what I wrote on mine).

[blackshoe]

Seems to me that a player who hasn't discussed with his partner whether systems are on or off after a 1NT overcall is taking a big chance if he bids anything other than some number of NT in response to his partner's overcall. Either that, or he knows more than he's telling.

[pescetom]

Seems to me that a player who hasn't discussed with his partner whether systems are on or off after a 1NT overcall is taking a big chance if he bids anything other than some number of NT in response to his partner's overcall. Either that, or he knows more than he's telling.

Particularly if it's not common to play systems on in the first place. Although I'm pretty sure East does play systems on with his main partner and he is the first to admit his memory is not what it was.

 

I think that an important part of the problem is that we are all too indulgent towards people who play 50 or even a 100 boards a week but can't find time to discuss and document agreements.

[jillybean]

Particularly if it's not common to play systems on in the first place. Although I'm pretty sure East does play systems on with his main partner and he is the first to admit his memory is not what it was.

 

I think that an important part of the problem is that we are all too indulgent towards people who play 50 or even a 100 boards a week but can't find time to discuss agreements.

I think the crux of the matter is that the rules are not taught, followed and in many instances, not applied.

How can you hope to resolve a call like this without a completed CC? We just do the best we can, and play in the better games.

[pescetom]

I think the crux of the matter is that the rules are not taught, followed and in many instances, not applied.

How can you hope to resolve a call like this without a completed CC? We just do the best we can, and play in the better games.

I think it's an overbid to say they don't have a completed CC, they just omitted to detail developments in a field where they are not explicitly required.

If you go to most nearby clubs you won't see any cards at all, and then I agree with you more.

 

I'm 100% in agreement about teaching the rules, but unfortunately to do that effectively in a classroom setting requires recognition of the problem by the management committee, which I am still fighting to obtain in my club. In the meantime I do the best I can to teach while directing and by example when playing, but obviously there are multiple limits on how far that can or should go.

[mycroft]

How can you hope to resolve a call like this without a completed CC? I've already cited the relevant Laws - 75 (especially D) and 84/85. It's actually the same as doing it *with* a completed CC, except instead of listening to the evidence and deciding what their actual agreement is, you look at the CC and then listen to the evidence and decide what their actual agreement is.

 

How many completed CCs are:

• 20 years old, and haven't been changed in all that time - whether or not the agreements have;
  
• written down 5 minutes before game time and either sketchy, incomplete, or illegible;
  
• for another partner, but "we agreed to play my card with J with Brozel instead of DONT" - and what's the chance partner glossed over this bit;
  
• made by me with my new cool toy, and partner didn't notice something I slipped in there because it was "obviously" what we played;
  
• made by the system wonk (not me?) and foisted on partner, who can remember about 3 of the 5 new things that they were told they were playing this week;
  
• mentoring and "we play it, it's on the card, but it hasn't come up yet...";

or all the other things?

 

How do you judge "I lost my mind" from "I play X with my other partners, and forgot" from "I had a spade in with my clubs" from "it might be on the card, but I've never played that in my life" from..., with or without a card?

 

In these cases, the card can protect the offenders by being evidence, frequently good evidence, supporting their statements about their agreements. But it's not ineffable and undisputable Word Of God. (Yes, primarily the card is to protect the opponents from a bunch of games, and for those opponents who learn by eye better than by ear, or "in context" better than individually. But it does protect your side as well.)

 

Having said all of that: since the mode (and likely median) number of times per session my card is looked at by the opponents is zero, even at a tournament - and I play K/S with Keri, South African Texas, Power Doubles, 0314, Namyats, UDSP and a few other oddities - how do you make this a priority?

[pescetom]

Having said all of that: since the mode (and likely median) number of times per session my card is looked at by the opponents is zero, even at a tournament - and I play K/S with Keri, South African Texas, Power Doubles, 0314, Namyats, UDSP and a few other oddities - how do you make this a priority?

Exactly.

And don't get me wrong on the rest, I am a firm believer in forcing partnerships to document their agreements.

I just don't beat my chest about a two page CC, which is at best a useful "half a cake is better than none" compromise and at worst a useless smoke screen.

I give a lot of importance to supplementary documents, in particular written partnership agreements and system notes.

The latter are vital in almost any serious problem about agreements: in this case for instance only system notes about transfers could reveal what if anything 3♦ over 2♦ is defined to mean, it's not something there is room for on a CC or indeed that should be on a CC IMO (otherwise you justify those who don't read or cannot find the necessary information in so much detail).

Have more to say, but a Tournament to play :)

[pescetom]

I would also prepare the director for the "best part" of directing - somebody's going to think you can't direct, or maybe just can't play, or maybe are as gullible as a newborn babe, and will make that opinion very clear, even if not actually stated. Maybe when the ruling is given, maybe later. If you're not able to roll with it, this may not be the job for you. Ha Ha Only Serious: "Must have been the right ruling. All four players don't like it."

 

So, pescetom - how close did I get?

 

Very close: the ruling was MI, no damage, score stands, EW got a scolding to discuss and document what happens after interventions.

 

What I did think was a twist here compared to similar problems posted is that East genuinely has no meaning for the 3♦ call, either in the systems off or systems on flavours of agreement or in any other transfer development he can realistically expect West to follow (I suspect I am the only one in the club who has an agreement about it, currently a super-accept with 5-card support and a maximum). Whether pass is an LA at this point is an interesting question - I am a staunch believer in passing when the auction is off the rails, but I don't think such a meta-agreement is on the radar of East or most of his peers. I did consider polling both East's choices and whether any AI available could wake East up, but decided both were too confusing and smelled of witch-hunt. A lack of sympathy for the late call by South who wanted a better score but wasn't ready to point out the (very likely) UI from East did the rest.

 

As you suggest, it's not a call that where the TD can easily come out smelling of roses even to his colleagues, let alone to the players, and that's why I suggested wryly it would be an excellent starting point for the trainee TD :)

 

I think a huge step forward in such cases could come from audio-video recording each table - maybe South genuinely missed what West picked up, but now we could spot it too. Unfortunately that has yet to come over here due to draconian privacy laws and nobody in a hurry to face the problem.