Who is at fault?
Interesting ruling to make in this afternoon's event on BBO:
On the hand at the link below East refused to bid without an explanation of North's 3D bid. I wasn't called until this situation had been going for 4 minutes. South's explanation of their bid seems a bit lacking also, but I'm not sure either explanation affects East's bidding so they probably shouldn't have been waiting.
The auction hadn't technically finished but it seems very likely that the contract would be 6D. This is makeable on any lead if you play for the QC to drop, and straightforward to make on any lead other than a heart. On the KH lead, which looks like a good lead from the West hand, playing for one of the finesses and going 1 off seems the more logical play. Making will give NS 100%, 1 off will give EW 100% so it makes a big difference (not that that should affect the ruling really).
With the lack of opportunity for weighted rulings on BBO I decided to let the average stand as it seemed fairest to both sides as I felt they were both at fault - NS for poor and slow explanations and EW for unnecessary stubbornness/time-wasting.
Intrigued to know how others would have ruled.
Comments
Sounds like they should both get AV- since they are both directly at fault for the board not being able to be played.
Two more points: West would not be on lead to 6D; and it's not completely certain that North will pass 6D.
And another point: since when has A75432 counted as a good suit for a vulnerable weak-two?
All very good points and I thought the same thing about North's explanation at the time. No Convention Card of course so difficult to say whether incorrect explanation or incorrect call - probably all immaterial as as you say the fact that the auction hasn't finished means I probably can't be certain enough even in what the contract will be to make a proper score ruling
Perhaps you should have been called earlier and maybe East is partially at fault for that but I can't see why he or she is not entitled to an explanation at this turn to call and the failure of the other side to comply with their obligations is IMO the more heinous offence.
I suppose East is entitled to the information and to ask if it is not forthcoming.
If we are only allowed to ask at times when the answer might impact our bidding, then asking/not asking gives UI to partner. I feel that either always asking or asking randomly is the best way to go?
Once you ask the question, you should probably wait for the answer?
It does depend on when the explanations already attached to the bids were added, as these do seem (just about) sufficient. Certainly having clicked on the bid to ask for an explanation, East doesn't need to wait for it. It's also not known to North that it is East rather than West that has asked, apart from seeing East waiting for the response.
I think Gordon has it spot on with his Av- Av-.
I think that once you have asked the question, that you should wait for the answer? If nothing else, it seems to be the socially polite thing to do, is listen to the answer?
Would asking and then bidding without an answer, giving UI. What if the declarer now makes incorrect assumption based on this information that East asked a question, then bid on without an answer? Would this be grounds for a director to adjust?
It is also not clear to me of the question was asked by clicking on the bid, or if a chat to the bidder, or to the ops or the table was done. Perhaps a click on the bid was done and when there was not response a chat was sent?
To me, East has absolutely no need to ask for an explanation at this point with his hand. The reply can have no bearing or value to him here, so I would be asking the EW pair to explain the reason for their request..
And if the answer is, 'I always ask so as to not give away UI when I ask because there is a reason to ask', or similarly, 'I ask randomly, so that partner cannot know when I am asking because there is a reason to ask, or if I am asking randomly - to avoid UI when I ask and later pass'?
If we are not allowed to ask when there is no 'interest' in knowing the answer, then we are causing a UI problem when we do ask, whether we go on to bid or not. Partner then knows that if we bid, we would not have done so (or made a different call); if we don't bid, then partner knows that we would have made a bid with a different answer.
All of this is resolved if people correctly alert/announce their bids and in a timely fashion.
As it is Easts right to ask the question, I think it is harsh to then penalise E for asking. There has (as far as I know) been no infraction by East in asking that question at that time (it was their turn to bid).
If we do penalise E for asking the question, then there is likely to be a reluctance to wait for answers from the ops when they don't alert and describe their bids in future. This then gives an increasing advantage as time goes by, to those players that play many conventional bids and don't alert them or respond quickly when asked.
As a player I go to great pains to alert/announce my bids correctly and to give full disclosure, so it annoys me immensely when people don't.
I had this hand as West on Wednesday:
J1082
1083
54
A853
At the start of the round, the ops described their system as weak NT and the bidding, uncontested and with no alerts at all, started with South as dealer:
1NT - 2S
3D - 3NT
I asked the question, so what was 2S? 12+ points was the answer
Okay so what was 3D? the answer: "what shall I say, natural?"
Me, well if that is what it is, then yes.
What would a 2NT bid have meant after 2S? asks I
11 or 12 points, says South.
Oh, what is your NT range?
11-(poor)15 and may contain a singleton club!
okay, says I, so 3D may be 'natural', but is also means 13-(poor)15? Yes agrees South
Had I asked all of these questions prior to the last pass (which was mine), even though I only had 5 HCP. Had there been no response and I had been left hanging, would I have deserved an Ave- on the board had we ran out of time?
So, the NT range was not correctly announced when the bid was made, including that by agreement it can contain a singleton C. The 2S bid was not alerted (so partner lost the opportunity to double S for a lead, had he wanted to). The 3D was not alerted and even when asked it was not described properly.
What can you do when you come across this all the time online? Other than perhaps to adopt a policy of asking every time for the meaning of bids that may be conventional? It seems to that the player sat in Easts seat from the original post may well have come across such examples of poor alerting themselves, so started to ask about every bid that looks like it may be conventional?
This is a problem in face-to-face bridge also. I often think that there should be lessons given on how to explain your bidding when asked, rehearsing what should and should not be said, and with reminders on what needs to be added when relevant. We have a list of "standard" words for announcements - maybe preparing a list as guidance for explanations would not be a bad thing.
Whilst I can agree with the comment made by Patricks and think that we need to "present" infractions etc. to the players so that they can understand them, I say that Gordon's first comment is spot on and that JeffreyS has also made a good point to back this up. Note that they basically say this as a director not as a player.
We seem to be missing the point of a Director. In Martin's case there were no alerts so he makes his lead based on the information at hand and after play says that he feels he has suffered from misinformation and believes he and his partner have been damaged and asks the director to review the situation. They then carry on with the next board and the director makes a ruling during or after play. Laws 21 and 75 cover most of this
It isn't up to the players to act as prosecutor, judge and jury. Law 74 A seems to be appropriate in questioning bids.
CMOT_Dibbler
74 A: LAW 74 - CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE
A. Proper Attitude
1. A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all
times.
2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or
extraneous action that might cause annoyance or
embarrassment to another player or might interfere
with the enjoyment of the game.
3. Every player should follow uniform and correct
procedure in calling and playing.
#
For 1: Which player was discourteous? The one asking about a bid or the player not alerting and not replying to a question for 4 minutes and waiting for the director before answering?
2: Taking the action of ignoring a question is likely to cause annoyance and will certainly impact their enjoyment of the game.
3: If they don't alert and don't describe their bids then they are in breach of 74A
So the bidder that was not correctly alerting and not responding to questions in a timely fashion seems to have fallen foul of all 3 sections in 74A.
The person asking the question seems to me to not have broken any of these rules? Unless it is suggested that calling a director might cause embarrassment/annoyance - I would strongly suggest not ruling such.
Lets say that the question was asked and nothing was forthcoming, so the player passed and later lead blind. Their partner now knows that they were not interested in bidding and the answer meant nothing to the lead. Lets suppose that the final contract is 5D. Lets say that partner wins a trick and cashes another, knowing that partner has nothing, enabling declarer to make 11 tricks.. At other tables, partner leads back the originally lead suit and then never gets to cash their winning trick, declarer makes 12.
Under those circumstances, would declarer have cause to complain that UI was given by asking the question and then bidding/leading without a reply?
I think CMOT_Dibbler is exactly right and that Martin is overcomplicating the situation. If a player feels damaged after a hand due to MI, then you call the TD to adjudicate the hand. Asking questions when you really dont need to know is poor form and potentially misleading.
On Martins hand, as 2S can hardly be natural here, I would have asked about the 2s bid (accepting as 12+) and then led 3C or 8H. If during the play and after the hand, in the unlikely case that I was unhappy with 1N, 2S or 3D or associated implications not being fully explained, then I hand over to the TD for any rectification.
I had a hand recently when I asked about one of declarer's bids during the play of the hand. Silence... I asked again... Silence. Partner asked her to respond and after a few seconds we got a reply of "Thinking". About 30s later she proposes that we're not allowed to ask once the bidding is over.
I did eventually get a reply and, fortunately, this was on BCL Dido, so no time issues on the hand. I can imagine this happening on BBO and we wouldn't call the TD until we're finally told that we have no right to ask.
Admittedly, in the case presented, the TD could have been called sooner but it seems harsh to fault someone for asking a question they might find it useful to know the answer to. Even in JeffreyS's post he says he would have asked about their 2S bid and we're back to square one.
I don't think that it is complicated at all - I think that it is really simple.
Alert and describe your bids correctly and with the ethos of full disclosure.
I also think that we should be looking to reduce the amount of adjustments and rectifications that go on, not actively promote for more. I thought the whole idea and ethos being the new comparable bids rules were to enable and facilitate more 'sensible bridge results'?
Now we seem to be advocating for a more, just get on with the play and if you don't like the result and feel you have been mislead, call the director for a ruling and potential adjustment. If this is the case, why should anyone alert correctly, what is the point?
I like to have a sensible and thoughtful game of bridge. Much of my pleasure is derived from working out what each hand has and working out the best way to play/defend. Not alerting and describing bids is a breach of 74A.
Not alerting and describing bids is an infraction and yet we seem to be happy to penalise the NOS in this instance - it makes no sense to me.
Should there not be a penalty for the offending side that is over and above any penalty to the NOS. For both sides to get 40% on the board seems incongruous to the rest of the rules to me.
In the example of a conventional bid not being alerted, partner (or I) have lost out on the option of doubling for a lead, or not doubling to show that we don't have a hand that wants that lead. We then need to analyse the hand to work out what (if anything) we would have done differently should it be correctly alerted. Then make that appeal to a director who can rule against us, for us, or some balance of probabilities amalgamation of possible results. This is not real or sensible bridge, this is bridge after the fact arguing double dummy with a director making a judgement call.
You are nearly there Martin. Just one more step to go.
When you asked about the 2S bid (Law 20 C1) you were told that it was 12+ and indicated nothing about Spades. Yes I agree your partner might have had the opportunity to double that bid, had it been alerted properly, to ask for a lead. So there had been misinformation and probable damage. However, it is too late to wind the auction back to that point for your partner to double. So at this point an irregularity had been discovered. Now we go to Law 9 B 1(a) and the director should be called immediately. Law 9 B 2 says no action to be taken until the director has reviewed the situation. The director would/might allow play to continue. After play they might consider that a spade lead keeps the declarer to 9 tricks and adjust accordingly. But who knows now as we don't have the cards and It is up to the director at the time.
So in your case you discovered an irregularity and instead of calling the director you continued to question the opponents about their bids. It would be up to the director as to what to do to both partnerships see Law 11. However much in the wrong to opponents are they might see your questioning as uncalled for and claim Law 74. The director will also have to consider Law 11 for your actions as well!
In the opening post one player was slow to give information and another refused to continue until they received an explaination. The director should have been called immediately as an "irregularity" appears to have occurred and both parties have, in different ways, caused the board to be "unplayable" [out of time]. Had the person who asked for an explaination called the director "immediately" then the cause, or "fault" for not playing the hand would have been down to the 3D bidder and AV- and Av+ would have been appropriate. Waiting four minutes isn't laudable, allowing say 30 seconds for a response would be laudable. Some would just give about 15! "DIRECTOR!"
So in effect we have to look at all that happens. Just because one side is "disadvantaged" it does not give them the right to "stand" outside the laws and cause embarrassment to either of their opponents. The "disadvantaged" might not think it embarassing but it might be their opponents preception that the "disadvantaged" actions have gone too far. Yes they could have called the director once you continued with your questioning but was that because they felt cornered?
Now calling the director should have two effects. One is that those people that don't alert will be in the "limelight" and will be known to directors for not alerting and they will/should start to alert more accurately. If they don't then they are "known" offenders and might be subject to stronger action. Probably even come to the attention of the director that they don't have a system card! Now that is much more positive than everyone getting frustrated and nothing happening to solve the problem. We seem to be continuing to solve the symptoms and not tackling the problems. Use the laws properly and we can solve the problem.
CMOT_Dibbler
I think we have different ideas of what 'immediately' means. At the table, face-to-face if you ask a question and was met with a blank face and a refusal to acknowledge your question, then you call the director within moments.
Online, however, you ask a question (perhaps by clicking on the bid) and wait to give time for a slow typers to reply. When no response comes, you may send them a message and again give them time to reply - only then might you call the director.
"Use the laws properly and we can solve the problem"
I agree wholeheartedly - look to the root cause - the failure to alert and later reply to questioning, which is against the rules.
Regarding my specific questioning of a player that failed to provide information regarding their 1NT open, failed to alert a conventional 2S bid, failed to alert a conventional/unexpected 3D bid.
The information regarding their system came to light in dribs and drabs as each question was answered - 2S means 12+ points... okay and 3D please? what shall I say, natural? (which means what?) Okay, so what would 2NT response to 2S mean? 11/12 points? oh, so what is your 1NT open then please? 11-(poor)15 and may include a singleton C. So 3D shows diamonds and 13-(poor)15 count?
Had the bidding and alerting been completed correctly, there would have been little need for any questioning and it would have been much faster. My enjoyment would have been greater.
You seem to be saying that in my questioning that I am in someway in contravention of law 11 and/or 74A? How so, are players not expected to protect themselves as far as they can? If so, how are they do do so without questioning?