I would have doubled!

[jillybean]

[hv=pc=n&w=sk95432hqt72dcq53&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(12-14)p2s(**)p2np3dppp]133|200[/hv]

 

(Open game)

 

1NT 12-14, 2♠ alerted and when asked, explained as inquiring about openers strength

North paused after 3♦ and made the comment, I'm not sure if I should alert 3♦

 

At the end of the Auction West places card face down on table, any questions?, no, card is led

South now says 2♠ was inquiry or long suit.

 

West calls the Director and tells you that they would have doubled 2♠ with the full explanation.

 

How do you rule?

[axman]

[hv=pc=n&w=sk95432hqt72dcq53&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(12-14)p2s(**)p2np3dppp]133|200[/hv]

 

(Open game)

 

1NT 12-14, 2♠ alerted and when asked, explained as inquiring about openers strength

North paused after 3♦ and made the comment, I'm not sure if I should alert 3♦

 

At the end of the Auction West places card face down on table, any questions?, no, card is led

South now says 2♠ was inquiry or long suit.

 

West calls the Director and tells you that they would have doubled 2♠ with the full explanation.

 

How do you rule?

a. Systemically, what is 2SX?

b. What makes the difference between the explanations call for X?

[jillybean]

a. Spades

b. West considers the hand is not good enough to X over an invitational hand but would act if 2♠ could also be relay to long suit.

[mycroft]

Not sure I believe him, but he did say it *before* seeing dummy. Do we know what East's double of 1NT would have been?

 

(side note: apart from 3♠x, 200 into no game, the problem is:[hv=d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(12-14)p2s(range%20ask%20or%20to%20play%203m)d3c(max)p3nppp]133|100[/hv]. (or the equivalent auction to 2NT). Do we really want partner leading spades instead of doing what her 8ish (10ish) count tells her to do?)

 

N/S has made two infractions:

• misexplanation of the 2♠ call;
  
• failure to correct misinformation during the Clarification Period;

and potentially a third (audibly wondering about the Alert of 3♦. Off-topic, but 3♦ is Natural, so it's not Alertable (unless it shows another suit as well); again, however, something that can freely be (and is encouraged to be) mentioned in the Clarification Period.)

 

If this is their bailout-inna-minor as well as a range-ask, that is a pretty big miss. How often do they want to bail out rather than invite? My guess from my system (where we don't do this, but we have equivalent bailouts into either minor) would be about 60% invite-40% want to play a minor.

 

Now, I'd believe West more if South had done what she should have done (and corrected *before* the opening lead), but even then, the damage is done.

 

But they're the NOS, and it's not unbelievable. Allow West to change her opening lead (South might complain that now that he's seen dummy...Well, that's your fault completely innit?), "play the hand, call me back," meanwhile I go look at it and see if there's damage. *Strong* warning to N-S that they have to explain their actual system (I'm reminded of all the 1NT-2♠ "transfer" back in the day (that could be either minor) and all the other constructions that manage to hide "there could be a weak hand here" on puppets); frankly, in combination with waiting for the lead to be faced - frankly, waiting for the "no questions" to be asked - to correct, unless south is really new, it's actual matchpoint penalty time(*). But, as I said, even in the clarification period it's too late to correct, so I'm not sure how much additional damage it caused this time.

 

There's some UI to East - more if West actually says he'd double at the table, rather than just call the TD and discuss it for a while away from the table - but again, I'm not that concerned. If somehow east gets in with the ♦A at trick 2 and finds a spade switch from Qx... But that's not a big deal, and anyway, we'd consider the spade switch as "obvious" in the "I'd double 2♠" auction.

 

If we end up adjusting, and North/South make the "but he'd never actually *do it* at the table" argument, shrug and say "well, if you'd explained properly at the time, we'd know for sure, neh?" If we don't end up adjusting, be prepared to explain why. If it involves any part of "no, you actually wouldn't have doubled at the table", be really prepared to support that argument.

 

(*) The number of times I have had dummy come down while telling *partner* what their bid meant, or declarer telling *partner* after dummy comes down (or after the hand! even better! "you know it means...") is legion. Truly, there is a disconnect in "the opponents are entitled to know your actual agreements" in many players. At my table it has been known to be answered with "and when were you going to let us know?" Peak passive-aggression, but sometimes it happens.)

[jillybean]

 

There's some UI to East - more if West actually says he'd double at the table, rather than just call the TD and discuss it for a while away from the table - but again, I'm not that concerned. If somehow east gets in with the ♦A at trick 2 and finds a spade switch from Qx... But that's not a big deal, and anyway, we'd consider the spade switch as "obvious" in the "I'd double 2♠" auction.

Other than calling for the Director, West did not say anything at the table. Does East have any UI and is the UI created by the MI?

[mycroft]

In the traditional case where immediately after the correction (at the wrong time), the hand goes up and "DIRECTOR!" (and yeah, I've done this a couple of times too), it is screamingly obvious that "I would have done something else if..."

 

Now is that actually a problem, given that it was induced by the MI and by the failure to correct at the proper time? I don't think so. I've been known to be less than sympathetic to claims of "UI" when the response is "if you'd done things correctly, there wouldn't have been UI".

Would the adjustment be based on "if West doubles 2♠, and East gets in, West having not led spades, isn't finding the switch auto?" Probably. So does it matter? Probably not.

 

This is yet another argument, however, in favour of the EBU's advice:

 

However, it is very important to call the TD immediately when: ...

(b) a player corrects any information they or their partner has given; ...

Note In (b), the player making the correction should call the TD: Law 20F4 (a) and Law 20F5 (b)...

 

so, in this case, the person calling the TD should be South, and he should do it before correcting the explanation. Since the TD is already there, they can go through the motions without necessarily leaking information between defenders (or from defender to declarer). But of course, given the other "convenient" mistakes in procedure South has done, and given the consensus in the ACBL that "calling the director is the opponents' responsibility, if they (falsely) think there's a problem", failure to do this can reasonably be assumed.

[blackshoe]

My first reaction to this is that the alert procedure tells us that if we're not sure we should alert something, we should alert it. So North should have simply alerted. One could argue that North's comment is basically equivalent to an alert, but I don't think that matters as far as the law is concerned.

 

If I had been West I would have asked for an explanation of the auction before passing 3!D. But then I'm not West, am I? B-)

[pescetom]

My first reaction to this is that the alert procedure tells us that if we're not sure we should alert something, we should alert it. So North should have simply alerted.

 

Not sure I follow you here. North already alerted and explained 2♠ as a simple range ask, now he should alert 3♦ as being a weak signoff with no interest in range, up to opponents if they spot the contradiction?

 

I think that Laws and Regulations imply he should keep quiet at this point, as mycroft said. If he was genuinely troubled I would have sympathy with calling the TD and explaining the situation away from the table.

[mycroft]

I agree with both. It's not Alertable. If North does not know that, then Alert, rather than this "oh, maybe this is Alertable?" nonsense. Won't be the first or last time someone Alerts something that isn't Alertable.

 

But it's too late at 3♦ (or, at least, legally nothing more we can do than during the Clarification Period). And what if the response is "on a minimum, she wants to play 3♦ rather than 2NT. Still invitational, though"?

 

Also, we're playing the "Psychic Ogust" game again. What part of "range ask" implies "invitational"? I mean, we all know it *does*, but what if it doesn't for them, and they're hoping to preempt to 3♦ in a way that "could be" dangerous to come in on? And what if they say "it asks whether I'm maximum or minimum, but she may not care about the answer"?

[pescetom]

Also, we're playing the "Psychic Ogust" game again. What part of "range ask" implies "invitational"? I mean, we all know it *does*, but what if it doesn't for them, and they're hoping to preempt to 3♦ in a way that "could be" dangerous to come in on? And what if they say "it asks whether I'm maximum or minimum, but she may not care about the answer"?

If a weak signoff is camouflaged as just "Range Ask", maybe it is even wose than this: "Range Ask" could be a hand looking for 6N, if the agreements are that 1N 4N is something completely different or another type of hand looking for 6N.

[sfi]

Allow West to change her opening lead (South might complain that now that he's seen dummy...Well, that's your fault completely innit?), "play the hand, call me back," meanwhile I go look at it and see if there's damage. *Strong* warning to N-S that they have to explain their actual system (I'm reminded of all the 1NT-2♠ "transfer" back in the day (that could be either minor) and all the other constructions that manage to hide "there could be a weak hand here" on puppets); frankly, in combination with waiting for the lead to be faced - frankly, waiting for the "no questions" to be asked - to correct, unless south is really new, it's actual matchpoint penalty time(*). But, as I said, even in the clarification period it's too late to correct, so I'm not sure how much additional damage it caused this time.

You can only allow West to change her lead before dummy has been exposed (47E2a), and therein lies the problem with South's explanation after the opening lead. I would be very likely to issue a procedural penalty, and it would not take much experience from the player before it is more than a warning.

 

If South corrected the explanation before the opening lead, East would have the option to change their last pass. I suspect there is no reason for them to do so, which means we play the hand out and assess potential damage, both from the information before the opening lead and when West was talked out of a double.

[mycroft]

Thanks for catching that - I lost track of that exception. But yes, that makes it worse.

[jillybean]

My first reaction to this is that the alert procedure tells us that if we're not sure we should alert something, we should alert it. So North should have simply alerted. One could argue that North's comment is basically equivalent to an alert, but I don't think that matters as far as the law is concerned.

 

If I had been West I would have asked for an explanation of the auction before passing 3!D. But then I'm not West, am I? B-)

 

I don't fully understand this. You have been told that 2♠ was a rangefinder, 2NT we assume, is the signoff. Now South bids 3♦ and North fumbles with a quasi alert.

Is North unsure if 3♦ is alertable, doesn't know what it is, was 2♠ rangefinder or slam interest, or relay to a long suit? Do you really want to ask and give the opponents the chance to clarify their auction? The previous round of bidding was the time for you to bid, if the explanation of 2♠ was incorrect, the damage has already been done.

[blackshoe]

It is because North "fumbled with a quasi alert" that I want an explanation of the auction. It has nothing to do whether I intend(ed) to bid anything. As for giving them an opportunity to clarify their auction, if they're deliberately using UI to do that, sooner or later they'll get what's coming to them.

[jillybean]

I think you may be overestimating their understanding of the laws and UI. It is apparent that they do not understand the laws concerning disclosure and through no fault of their own, I doubt that they have any understanding of UI and the use thereof.

I am not sure what you mean by they will get what is coming to them, unless I beat them up after the game.

 

Here's the full hand

 

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=st7h5dat8432ckt86&w=sk95432hqt72dcq53&n=sqjhkj93dkj97cj74&e=sa86ha864dq65ca92&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(12-14)p2s(range%20find)p2np3dpp(%3F)p]399|300[/hv]

[blackshoe]

I don't agree with "no fault of their own". At least, not if they've been playing long enough to have seen UI problems at the table, whether theirs or their opponents'.

 

What I meant by "they'll get what's coming to them" is that if they're deliberately using UI, sooner or later the director will figure that out, at which point they get a bunch of procedural or disciplinary penalties and/or get referred to an ethics committee.

[mycroft]

It looks like their 2♠ is initially a range ask, but also is their way of getting out in 3m. Fine.

 

Explain that next time, and let West put her neck out if she wants.

 

Or don't (because "we didn't say anything about our strength", or "but they get to say 'wants me to bid clubs' after Lebensohl 2NT or DONT double even though they frequently don't have clubs, what's the difference?" Note, at least one of those arguments I have sympathy for, but not the way they want), and get the TD called, and have her decide how likely and how effective the double would have been.

 

In other words, as I said before, "if you explained properly the first time, we would know if West would actually have doubled, wouldn't we?"

[jillybean]

I don't agree with "no fault of their own". At least, not if they've been playing long enough to have seen UI problems at the table, whether theirs or their opponents'.

 

What I meant by "they'll get what's coming to them" is that if they're deliberately using UI, sooner or later the director will figure that out, at which point they get a bunch of procedural or disciplinary penalties and/or get referred to an ethics committee.

What I mean by "no fault of their own" is that Laws are voluntary reading, there is no requirement to understand the Laws other than the rudimentary mechanics, following suit and making sufficient bids. I'm beginning to believe that what players learn about UI problems is that it is minor distraction, the NOS are considered guilty and the OS receive a "stern warning".

 

Penalties won't happen at any club game or sectional tournament and by the time you get to the tournament level where procedural or disciplinary penalties may be used the players have no history, the Director encounters this for the first time, no PP, DP

 

I asked a long time bridge player here, have you ever seen any DP or PP? Yes, for mouthing off at the Director.

Nothing for UI/MI? No, but boards do get adjusted.

Another player told me today of the warning of a penalty when playing in the Blue Ribbon Pairs and they had failed to alert, twice.

The player admitted they had 78 pages of agreements and neither of them knew their system.

[jillybean]

It looks like their 2♠ is initially a range ask, but also is their way of getting out in 3m. Fine.

 

Explain that next time, and let West put her neck out if she wants.

 

Or don't (because "we didn't say anything about our strength", or "but they get to say 'wants me to bid clubs' after Lebensohl 2NT or DONT double even though they frequently don't have clubs, what's the difference?" Note, at least one of those arguments I have sympathy for, but not the way they want), and get the TD called, and have her decide how likely and how effective the double would have been.

 

In other words, as I said before, "if you explained properly the first time, we would know if West would actually have doubled, wouldn't we?"

So how do you rule?

[mycroft]

Well, it's your game, not mine, therefore your ruling; but I bet it looks an awful lot like this:

 

I believe that this is, if not direct misinformation, definitely not full disclosure; and I'd poll to see whether peers of west would double with that hand. As I said, I have my doubts, but I'd accept anything other than "pass, no other options" and "what about double?" "Well, that's a possibility, but do I really want a spade lead?" They are the NOS, and she wanted to do it before seeing how anything worked.

 

I assume reasonable play led to -1, -100 for N/S. If it made, fine, I can see that too (but if it made because of the non-spade OL and inability to correct it after the explanation, we'll start there with the adjustments). Don't think that's egregious/double shot territory, even if we should be asking about this auction when North passes. Who knows, maybe they do bid this way with ♦AQTxxx and a card or two, willing to play 3NT if the diamonds run, but 3♦ over 2NT if they don't?

 

Would East raise, either after the pass or after 3♦ was passed out? Actually I think so (but again, peers of East, treating the results from a NOS perspective). If it's invitational, he wants to let partner know he has enough spades to set up KJxxxx (what else could west be doubling on, with 12 and 11 and 12?); if it's weak, preempt them showing their suit in the auction. If after 3♦, well, the cards look to be about equal, and partner rates to have lots of spades and very few diamonds.

 

And it does. Pretty much loses a club and two hearts. I'm not giving them game, but -170 seems straightforward.

 

I expect I will be high in "if you'd explained all of your agreement, we'd have found out at the table, wouldn't we?" territory with this ruling. I'm not upset with that, frankly. This is part of blackshoe's "will get what's coming to them". Do it right, and the table decide; do it wrong, and you don't get the benefit of any doubt. It's not the good old 12C1e (not the current one), but still.

 

As far as penalties are concerned, I assume in a club game I know the players. If their attitude to disclosure, or their attitude to having correct procedure explained to them warrants, "you give a poor explanation of your call that 'just happens' to help the inhibiting competition nature of it; you don't actually know what to Alert; and you waited until dummy came down to fix your explanation, thus stopping re-opening the auction or allowing a full knowledge opening lead. We're ruling 3♠+1 because it's reasonable to have happened; (even if we didn't, we're awarding 3♦-1 on the spade lead); we're penalizing you 1/4 board because all the mistakes you keep making in disclosure are, just coincidentally I'm sure, ones that benefit your side."(*) If it doesn't warrant yet, a similar discussion, ending in "learn your responsibilities or the next 'convenient' incorrect disclosure will get a 1/4 board penalty." And then discuss this with the other directors so they're aware. In fact, maybe discuss this with the other directors before deciding; it may turn out the immediate response is "yeah, I saw that in a call last week, and warned them that this is neither correct or fair."

 

I may be too lenient with PPs that actually affect score(**); but especially at the club, I am balancing this against people not coming back if I'm too much of a hard***. Of course, what I'm balancing against is people not coming back if I let the Usual Suspects get away with their hoodwinking with just warnings. I have found that (especially as a player in the club I direct at, on the days I'm not directing) most people do well (or at least better enough) with warnings and me pointing out other examples where they may not have quite stepped up to the mark.

 

Yeah, I think there's an onus on (at least experienced) players to not put up with half-***ed disclosure (witness my three questions against the Precision pair yesterday in three boards that I bet nobody else asks, conveniently for them); but they will do it against inexperienced players, too, and they won't even know that they've been played after the hand. When someone pulls them up on it, it's time to lean.

 

(*) Why yes, I have been known to use sarcasm for emphasis, in addition to passive-aggressiveness. Why do you ask? (Note: it does seem to work well, when it's right to use it).

 

(**) I have said here more than once that yeah, I also give out more score-based PPs for movement-damaging issues (especially as I tend to run webs with big games and alternating-direction stationary Howells for smaller ones) than I do for poor disclosure. I certainly don't feel like I should be handing out PPs for misinformation primarily caused by the Alert Procedure being non-trivial with no intent to deceive. It is only when the poor disclosure is deliberate, either because "I don't care to learn", "I don't care about these stupid rules", "Everybody is bad, why do you only care about me?" or worst, it's an advantage to give careful explanations and hope the opponents don't notice or know.

[jillybean]

Well, it's your game, not mine, therefore your ruling; but I bet it looks an awful lot like this:

 

I believe that this is, if not direct misinformation, definitely not full disclosure; and I'd poll to see whether peers of west would double with that hand. As I said, I have my doubts, but I'd accept anything other than "pass, no other options" and "what about double?" "Well, that's a possibility, but do I really want a spade lead?" They are the NOS, and she wanted to do it before seeing how anything worked.

And herein, I believe lies the problem.

West's action after being given MI or a failure to disclose an agreement should not be in question. West should not be restricted to the mainstream approach after his opponents have committed an infraction.

 

A poll is totally appropriate when a player is in possession of UI but I think we have lost sight of the infraction when we apply Director beliefs/logic or the results of a poll to the NOS.

[sfi]

A poll is totally appropriate when a player is in possession of UI but I think we have lost sight of the infraction when we apply Director beliefs/logic or the results of a poll to the NOS.

The problem is that it's really hard for players to be unbiased once they know more about the hand. When West gets the additional information and calls the director, they already know that South has a weak hand with a long suit, and can easily convince themselves (subconsciously even) that they always would have doubled to show spades. The director takes that into account, but has to consider whether they actually would have done that. Hence further investigation, often including a poll.

 

Remember, the laws say that "the Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred." If the director thinks West may have only doubled half the time, they are perfectly entitled to give a weighted score based on this assessment.