Comments on this ruling, please
From the Cornwall Pachabo qualifer event.
I wasn't convinced I got it totally right. It was going to go to appeal (which would have given me the check I wanted), but they decided against in the end.
Cornwall Teams March 20th 2022, Board 21
Teams competition, 8 board matches, IMPs to VPs (0-20 discrete).
The hands and bidding are as shown:
The facts:
3C was described at the time as the top and bottom of the other 3 suits, and also as showing clubs and hearts (which is inconsistent).
At some point later, after the 5C bid and possibly after the 5D bid, this was corrected to clubs and spades (which is the correct explanation of their system). E has clearly forgotten the system.
S complained that she would have doubled (showing 4 hearts) had she known that the bid showed clubs and spades.
Analysis:
S has been given misinformation (MI), so we look at what would happen had she been correctly informed, and doubles. We assume that W still believes that the bid shows clubs and hearts (White book 8.21.2 states that when adjusting because of misinformation, “the TD will not normally assume the opponents also know that there is a misunderstanding”). On that basis, West’s possible calls are 4H (she believes her partner has 5+ hearts and therefore that the double shows spades) and Pass (with 4 spades).
If she passes, N will bid 4H which E (with no support from his partner) will pass, and so will S. I think this unlikely as in the original sequence S has shown spades and W still bid 4H.
If she bids 4H. North will pass (knowing his partner has shown hearts), and we are left looking at what E will do. I will look at this in a moment.
I am also concerned about E’s bid of 5C. E has forgotten the system, and believes he is making a weak jump overcall. He has UI from both his partner’s original explanation and the subsequent correction.
Complications:
The situation is complicated by a couple of factors.
Firstly Ws’ explanation, whilst containing the true meaning (“top and bottom of the other 3 suits”), is confusing as she also mentions “clubs and hearts”. It is the responsibility of the player giving the explanation to make sure that it is complete and clear. In this case, the explanation is not clear and S’s reading of it as “clubs and hearts” is perfectly reasonable, and there is no expectation that she should question this. I am therefore ruling that it has been explained as “clubs and hearts”, and thus that misinformation has been given. (See later, however, for the consequences of it not being MI).
Secondly, S did not complain about the 5C bid, but as director I was aware that it had been made with UI available. Law 81C3 is clear on this, stating that the director has a responsibility to “rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner”
The 5C bid.
Let us for a moment assume there has been no MI.
By his partner’s explanation, E has probably been made aware that he has forgotten the system, and in any case knows that his partner is not taking his bid as he intended it. Thus E has Unauthorised Information (UI).
Law 16B1(a) states that “A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative.”
In this case, W (not a passed hand) has freely bid 4H in the auction after E’s 3C. If E did not have the UI, how would he have bid? It seems clear to me that he would pass, expecting W to have long hearts, but not necessarily a strong hand.
A poll on Bridgewinners (https://bridgewinners.com/article/view/bidding-problem-2-mbhv8sga4p/) shows (at the time of writing) 22 out of 22 votes for Pass, with one abstention, and it is deemed to be a logical alternative bid.
Also, the bid of 5C is demonstrably suggested by the UI (that W thinks E has 5 hearts).
Thus under Law 16B1(a), the 5C is disallowed and replaced with Pass.
What will S do? With 4 hearts and no knowledge of the power of his partner’s hand, I think pass is obvious.
But there is MI
Now let us return to the case where MI has been given, and W bids 4H, N passing.
What E will do? I see the situation as essentially the same as before. E might want to bid 5C, but that is a call suggested by the UI (that his partner thinks he has hearts) and Pass is a logical alternative. I would again disallow the 5C and adjust the contract to 4H by W, making 3 tricks.
Thanks in advance
Jeremy
Comments
It looks a fair and pretty thorough analysis with no obvious errors, the call on the UI is backed up by the poll. The MI is murkier, as it's not clear what might happen.
I was prompted to check the white book, section 8.10.2 on "Damage in various ways" may be relevant here, and says you should take the most advantagous to the non offending side.
So you have the adjustment for UI to 4H-7, and a slightly murky MI ruling that seems unlikely to improve on this score, so on that basis you'd rule 4H-7.
I think the MI is a bit of red herring. NS have been damaged by the UI (more than by the MI), so I would rule as you did. Perhaps West might make 4 tricks in hearts some of the time, but unless that is the reason to appeal, your ruling is so right that I would hope an appeal committee/referee would keep the deposit.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
In general you should redact names when giving hands about rulings, or indeed most hands about bidding or play, so I have removed them from this diagram.
I assume there were not self-alerts. When did West say "top and bottom", when "clubs and hearts" and when "spades and hearts" - was the TD called during the auction? When did East explain 3C.
It looks like a more accurate statement of EW's understanding is "two suited clubs and a specific major - but we are not sure which; and like all 3C bids which purportedly show a two-suiter, it might just be a natural jump overcall"
With this 'explanation', it is delicate decision for South whether to double 4H when we adjust to East passing (instead of bidding 5C).
Correct
The first explanation was along the lines of : ""top and bottom, so clubs and hearts", and was after the 3C was aleretd and before S bid 3S.
The correction to "spades and hearts" was after E had bid 5C, but no-one is sure exactly when.
The TD was called at the end of the play.
I see what you're saying, but their agreement is definitely clubs and spades.
Agreed. I asked S what she would do in that situation and she said she would pass, hence no double.
Is this to avoid unconscious prejudice, rather than any data protection concern?
> Is this to avoid unconscious prejudice, rather than any data protection concern?
I would think both? Though there might also be conscious bias involved at times too...
Also, comments on the relative merit of bids and disparaging remarks about lack of alerts or poorcity of explanations are likely... which might just cause embarrassment.
It is often because it may be suggested that a player did something that could be regarded as unethical e.g. bidding after a hesitation or here using UI to bid 5C. The player concerned doesn't get the chance to defend themselves and nothing is gained by naming and shaming on this occasion.
Thanks for the clarifications
I assume this is a typo, but does add weight to my belief there is no agreement.
What is written on the system card is 'clubs and spades' but West was not able to articulate it and East was not able to remember it when it came to actually bidding 3C, so it I suggest that their understanding is 'limited' and is not the agreement on the card. A statement of their understanding would have to start with 'we don't know what we're doing, but ...' (c) David Burn.
PS Its a good thing I did not see the unredacted version, so I don't know who EW are.
Thanks Jeremy69 and Martin - both seem good reasons.
I do note though that the actual hand results are publically available online and could be found (along with the player names) with a minor amount of investigation.
Does this mean we should be careful what we say? Just wondering.
Sorry yes it was: the correction was to spades and clubs (which are the top and bottom of the other 3 suits).
I'm intrigued by this.
It seems to be suggesting that the agreement is affected by how much the players can remember and indeed utilise their agreement.
Suppose my partner and I agree to play a convention, and put it on our system card, then we both forget. Surely that convention is still our agreement?
There is (to my mind) a difference between agreeing how a convention works in detail and then forgetting (or misunderstanding), and agreeing a convention without laying out the details.
I am reminded of a thread on this forum some years back which suggested that if partner often forgets a convention, then that is knowledge that should be disclosed to the opponents. I cannot find the thread, and I cannot remember if partner's tendency to forget is UI to me.
I've definitely been in the situation of me and my partner both forgetting the same convention on the same board! (The mistakes cancelled out and left us with a reasonable result.) Presumably, that convention wasn't part of our agreement, even though we'd agreed it (and there would have been misinformation if an opponent had read it off our system card and assumed we were playing it, but fortunately for us that didn't happen).
Knowledge of partner's tendency to forget a convention is AI (Law 16A1d). Law 40A1a may imply that this is treated as part of the partnership agreement (as something arising implicitly through mutual experience); however, Law 40A4 argues the opposite (if one player forgets a convention more frequently than the other, then the agreement is asymmetrical between the two players, something that Law 40A4 disallows). The "obvious" conclusion from this is that if one player forgets an agreement more frequently than the other, the players are playing an illegal system!
It may have been your agreement when you made it; it no longer seems to be your understanding.
This was agrred to infront of experienced ops who now both know our agreed system.
Very first hand... 1H from RHO, 3C from me, as soon as that happens I realise I just did an intermediate jump overcall and not CRO at all.
LHO asks my p what the 3C bid means, he says about an opening hand and long clubs. It got passed out.
Here was had just agreed CRO, but both forgot on the same hand...
Would that be ruled as a misbid and incorrect explanation from partner, or, as my hand and his explanation match perfectly, is 3C an intermediate jump by implicit understanding despite our explicit agreement that it is CRO?
It is notable that all this occurred because of a jump to 3C showing a two suiter. I've long suspected that there must be an underground wing at Aylesbury to store all the reports of Ghestem and similar two suiter misbids that occur. I was lucky enough to be the referee when a player who had represented England several times bid 3C systemically showing a two suiter. His partner alerted and jumped in one of the supposed suits. The next hand bid on and the 3C bidder doubled. When he was later asked why he said (in bare faced fashion) to avoid his partner bidding on and thinking -590 or so would be the cheapest option. The TD wasn't impressed and ruled the contract to be 5Hx-6. There was an appeal and it was adjusted to 5Hx-7 (to give the non-offenders the balance of the doubt) and the deposit forfeit and a disciplinary penalty imposed.
A partner once suggested, before a minor tournament that we considered semi-important to us, using 3C to show a two-suiter. I declined, on the basis that the convention had a reputation for being forgotten and the gain from being able to show all three combinations seemed smaller than the potential losses for forgetting it.
Once the tournament started, we ended up getting a top board when one of the opponents bid 3C, intended as a pre-empt, despite having agreed it as a two-suiter! (At least they were ethical and obeyed the UI rules, bidding too high rather than trying to use UI to escape from the misunderstanding. It's possible that there was MI, but if there was, we weren't damaged by it.) Since then, we haven't considered playing 3C as artificial.
Suffice to say that we agreed to never play it again :)
Slightly tangential, but shouldn't this have been a procedural penalty? (You could double the value if you wanted to make it the same size.)
This definitely falls into the category of "offence that […] requires the award of an adjusted score" (Law 90A), but doesn't seem to have the purpose of "to maintain order and discipline" (Law 91A). WB 2.8.2o lists the appropriate penalty for this as "PP – DQ"; I'd consider a double or larger PP here to be a reasonable use of Director discretion (as it is intermediate in value between a PP and disqualification), but changing the penalty type from procedural to disciplinary doesn't really make sense unless the player had intentionally disobeyed instructions from the Director, which doesn't seem to have happened here.
(As far as I know, the only Laws difference between a PP and DP is that an Appeals Committee can overrule a Director on the matter of PPs, but need the Director's permission to change a DP. In the EBU, DPs are by default larger penalties than PPs, but this can be varied if required – it isn't a requirement of the Laws.)
I also wonder whether it's even possible for an Appeals Committee to apply a DP, given that they can't override Directors in the matter of DPs (Law 93B3). (They could try to persuade the Director to apply one, I suppose.)
93B 3. In adjudicating appeals, the committee (or the
authorized alternative) may exercise all powers
assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that
it may not overrule the Director in charge on a point
of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91
disciplinary powers.
So they can issue a DP even if they can't over-rule one issued by a TD.