TD gave 60/40

[42]

Hi all!

 

RHO opens 1♣ and with

♠KQxxx

♥xx

♦AJxxxx

♣-

 

I bid 2♣, alerted and explained as 2-suiter with both majors, which is what we discussed 1 week before but I forgot and bid as usually: 2-suiter with ♠s and any.

 

The full bidding:

1♣ 2♣! dbl 3♠

dbl pass 4♥ pass

5♣

Opps had a slam in hearts and TD was called who adjusted the score to 60/40 for the ladies. Is that decision right?

 

Caren

[whereagles]

An adjustment is correct (the misinformation caused damage), but I think 60/40 was wrong. An adjustment to 6H just made was probably the correct ruling, but I'd have to check law 12 to be sure.

[Blofeld]

Why is an adjustment correct? There has been no misinformation.

 

There was a misbid (2♣), but there's no reason to think that this was fielded by partner. Nor has being reminded of what your bid actually means (as opposed to what you wanted it to mean) affected your later bidding: you were always going to pass.

 

So I think no adjustment.

[LH2650]

What is your real agreement? If you have a convention card, or other evidence that you have agreed that your bid shows the majors, then no adjustment. If there is doubt about your agreement, then the Director should assume misexplanation rather than misbid, and adjust the score.

[whereagles]

Oh.. sorry, I misunderstood it. There was, in fact, no misinformation, so result should stand.

[jillybean]

Please can you post all the hands?

[helene_t]

What is your real agreement? If you have a convention card, or other evidence that you have agreed that your bid shows the majors, then no adjustment. If there is doubt about your agreement, then the Director should assume misexplanation rather than misbid, and adjust the score.

This is true in general, but since mistakes related to two-suiter showing calls happen very often, the director may assume wrong explanation anyway.

 

At least, that's the answer you often get in such cases in the ask-the-director pages in the Dutch BF magazine.

[Guest Jlall]

The burden of proof is on you to prove that it was a misbid and not a misexplanation. If you could not do this, the director was correct.

[pigpenz]

if you did indeed say it shows majors there should be no adjustment as your partner bid accordingly to your agreement.

[candybar]

Please can you post all the hands?

The actual hands are totally irrelevant. Was there misexplanation of the agreement (then adjust), or a misbid by someone who forgot the actual agreement (then no adjustment).

[Chamaco]

I was playing with Caren:

 

I alerted the cuebid as "Michaels cuebid", 55+ in majors, either weak or reverse.

 

The original agreement, that we had used in a previous tournament, was that the cuebid would be Michaels.

 

However, Caren had forgot that agreement (she has so many partners who all play different systems ! Easy to forget agreement then! That's the fate of nice people who are very requested as partner on the market :D ).

 

I have to say, though, that we had filled the simplified convention card provided by the local club, BUT there was no space available to fill for defensive bidding, so the agreement was not explicitly written down on the convention card :)

[jillybean]

Please can you post all the hands?

The actual hands are totally irrelevant. Was there misexplanation of the agreement (then adjust), or a misbid by someone who forgot the actual agreement (then no adjustment).

sigh

 

I'd like to see them. Not because I necessarily disagree with what people have said about the ruling, just out of general interest.

[Guest Jlall]

The actual hands are totally irrelevant. Was there misexplanation of the agreement (then adjust), or a misbid by someone who forgot the actual agreement (then no adjustment).

It's true that is the question. Getting the answer is hard. No disrespect to 42 or Chamaco, but the statement that "we had just changed our agreement and I forgot" is self serving. I know that they are honest, but the director does not. This statement alone is not enough to make a ruling on. If they have some kind of system documentation, that would be good enough. We do not have enough information to know if the ruling was correct, did you give any evidence to support your claim of a misbid?

[Chamaco]

did you give any evidence to support your claim of a misbid?

We did not even try.

The director told us that the italian rules TOTALLY forbid psyching a conventional overcall, and he considered this as if it was a psyche.

 

from my perspective, I did not know whether we were wrong or right, but I thought after all it was not unfair to receive a penalty.

 

Caren knows the bridge rules better than me, but nevertheless she did not try to argue with an italiann director, given the language barrier.

 

We just accepted it and moved on.

[mycroft]

Forgetting agreements on 2-suited overcalls are a major problem worldwide, especially in Europe where Ghestem (where cuebid, 2NT and 3C show the three two-suiters; unfortunately, there is inconsistency on which bid shows which 2-suiter) holds sway.

 

An excellent overview of the fun that 2-suited overcalls get the mixup side into is from one David Burn - note especially the postscript.

 

However, in this case, the mixup frequently helps as much as it hurts - by effectively turning both the cuebid into "two suits, not both minors" and 3C into "two suits, not both minors, possibly weak with clubs" - especially when it is not explained that way - it makes future bidding by the opponents...difficult, at least. That is why in many places, including the WBF, that agreement - as an agreement, not as "forget Ghestem" - is legal only rarely.

 

Some federations (IIRC, the Dutch are one) have such trouble with mixups in 2-suiters that they have regulations that effectively say that in these situations, it's *always* misexplanation - i.e. the level of evidence required to tilt in favour of misbid is much higher than in "normal" cases. Possibly illegal - or at least possibly illegal phrased as it is - but effective, nonetheless.

 

If the FIGB has such a rule, then they can properly apply it absent sufficient (for their regulation) evidence.

 

Definately, it is legal for SOs to regulate conventions any way they like - and that specifically means they can state that you can use certain conventions provided you agree not to psych them. This may not be how a naive reader of the Laws would read Law 40, but at least two SOs have specifically asked the WBF for interpretation on this issue, and were told that they can regulate *anything* associated with conventional understandings.

 

However, the bid was *not* a psychic, and nothing anybody tries to do will make it one. From the definitions: " A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length." This was not deliberate, it was not a psychic.

 

Do I like the "assume misexplanation" rule? Not really, but mixups in two-suited overcall situations are always messy to one side or the other (or for the TD who has to try to explain why auctions like (1D)3C-3S; 4C "sorry partner, I forgot, I just have clubs" aren't legal with the UI from partner's explanation) - making this situation singularly unprofitable for the forgetters in an attempt to have it go away is a laudable goal. Whether it is currently legal, or if so, what Kaplanesque readings of the current Laws are required to make it legal, is another story altogether.

 

Michael.

 

P.S. Here is the WBF note on this aspect (from the EBU White Book):

A regulating authority has unrestricted powers to regulate conventions under this Law. For example, some authorities ban psyching particular conventional calls: this is legal.

 

However, applying penalties automatically to players who make mistakes in their use of Ghestem, while apparently legal under this Law, is not a good approach. Penalties should be applied in aggravated circumstances only, such as repeated misuse.

[pigpenz]

Please can you post all the hands?

The actual hands are totally irrelevant. Was there misexplanation of the agreement (then adjust), or a misbid by someone who forgot the actual agreement (then no adjustment).

yes the hands are irrelevant! If the info was given as to what the partnership understanding is that is all that is necessary. The other hand bid accordingly. If there is constant misuse of this convention by this pair then a procedural penalty could be applied or the banning of them using this convention may be appropriate.

[luke warm]

jilly kat already agreed that the hands were irrelevant to the ruling, she just wanted to see them out of curiousity... geez

[Chamaco]

I had a flat 5 count, something like that

 

JTxx-xxx- Jxx- Kxx

 

but I do not really remember the hand, I just removed it from my mind :-)

[Brandal]

I bid 2♣, alerted and explained as 2-suiter with both majors, which is what we discussed 1 week before but I forgot and bid as usually: 2-suiter with ♠s and any.

 

Caren

I'm probably missing something here....as usual :)

 

Was this a selfalert?

 

You forgot it shows majors when you bid but remember

to explain it as majors? ;)

 

If there was no selfalert/explanation forget I asked :)

[mila85]

What tournament did you play? I read 'local club' but also 'language barrier'.

 

1. Online - this shouldn't happen because you selfalert.

2. Friendly tournament - accept the ruling because

- I want enjoy the game not argue with TD.

- Opps were damaged by misinformation. Maybe it was a misbid but when partner jumps to 3♥ (3♠ was lucky) you can always correct to 3♠ and he will understand (Even if the explanation was right it wasn't 'full' because you know your partner and you can recognize 'old agreement')

3. Normal tournament with normal cc. This should be in your cc and it can help you if you explain it correctly. (But when you correct 3♥ to 3♠ your partner must bid as it was strong)

4. Big big tournament - change the result to 6♥=. You MUST know this basic bidding situation.

 

I'm not TD and I do not know the rules very well. This is only my view.

[Chamaco]

What tournament did you play? I read 'local club' but also 'language barrier'.

we were playing live at a local club tourney, in Italy.

 

Caren (42) is German, and knows some italian, but not that much to be able to discuss these details with an italian TD.

[42]

Just to answer some of the questions:

Sorry, jillybean, I also forgot the other hands, just remember that my LHO had 6 ♥s, just missing the A. The play did not take much time ;)

Justin, I agree with you that WE had no "rights" since we did not write down our agreement and could just clame anything. True was that I really FORGOT the system, so the explanation was right, my bid was wrong. Imo, if we COULD have been justifying that I erred -> no adjustment. But if the FIGB says that "psyches" are not allowed (though I think it was not a psyche because I did not willingly bid against the agreements to mislead opps), the score does not stand, ok.

I overcalled, Mauro alerted and explained according to the agreement we had. 3♠ was lucky because I did not come into trouble, the ♠s were KNOWN.

I live in Germany and are in Italy for some holidays :) .

We built up a system in a few minutes to play a weekly tourney in the bridge club of Bologna (nice place btw, also very good food!).

I hate argueing, especially when I am a guest in a foreign country; I will accept any decision made by TD. We do not need having a good result by some fishy action. And it was not a worldchampionship :)

To be honest: I found that the lady who opened had NO idea what was going on, just saw the bad result and... I found the 60/40 solution kind for our side, perhaps an adjustment to 6♥= would have been the same in the end, the slam was not so hard to reach. That was a point why I posted: the decision seemed to me "salomonic", like being a little bit pregnant...

Caren