Illegal agreement or misinformation ?
This cropped up at a recent duplicate (imps-scored, RealBridge) Teams League at a high standard club and led to a difference of views from qualified directors on what the "offence" actually was.
Facts:
The offending pair, sitting EW, posted a short system summary in chat with a link to their system card.
Their text referred to strong 2’s.
Their system card describes an opening 2D as “Strong-two, forcing for one round. Negative response is 2NT“
When East opened 2D, West announced “strong”
East's hand, it turned out, had neither 16 points nor 13 points concentrated in two suits which also contained 10 cards.
The bidding became competitive and the "strong" description was an influence on North-South's choices.
East-West told the director of the evening that the hand which East opened was within their system. The director ruled that EW’s true agreement was “strong or intermediate with four or fewer losers” notwithstanding the system card and text description. Therefore, said the director, the card and the announcement of "strong" were simply Misinformation. The director then went on to determine the outcome based on a ruling of misinformation.
Other directors to whose attention this was later drawn had differing views. One agreed with the Misinformation analysis. The other thought quite differently that the 2D opening was an illegal agreement. And being a Teams evening, this should lead to a 3 imp penalty.
The director arguing for "illegal agreement" stated that
The Blue Book at 7C sets out the permitted meanings for a 2D opening. One such permitted meaning is “strong”
The Blue Book Glossary explains that “strong" requires either 16 points or 13 points concentrated in two suits which also contain 10 cards.
The White Book deals with an infringement involving an illegal agreement at 2.8.3.2 “If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted…..”
It goes on to state that the correction is to Ave+/Ave- or, as this was imps teams, to +3 imps
It is not permitted for the EW' system to consist of “strong 2” opening bids which do not meet the definition in the Blue Book glossary.
It is not open to the director to rule in effect that the EW card was not their system and this is just “misinformation”. The pair were playing strong 2’s. Their card said so and they said so. They simply had a method which is not permitted, i.e. “an illegal agreement”.
The White Book at 8.40.1.7 reads “However, if the hand is not ‘strong’ by the definitions of permitted agreements in the Blue Book but is understood by the player to be a 2C opening then the player may have used an illegal agreement.” and the example which immediately follows "However, if 2C is a strong opening bid (EBU Blue Book 7C1 ‘any number of strong meanings’) then the partnership understanding is illegal, and the pair will receive AVE− (unless they do worse than that on the board – see §2.8.3.2).”
Probably not relevant but for interest: at every other table, East opened a legal 1D leading to a variety of final contracts.
Comments
Assuming EBU Level 4, this is a mis-information case. It would be completely different if the opening was alerted and described as Benji, but it was actually announced as strong (and natural). BB 7C1 needs to be checked by your TD, but if there are 5 + diamonds or 4+ diamonds and Ro19, then the 2D opening comes within permitted agreements.
When the hand is intermediate but not strong, and has been announced as "strong" (rather than "Strong to intermediate"), then, yes, there is MI, but my experience is that it is far from being certain that opponents would have bid differently with correct information. However, we do have to give benefit of doubt to he NOS (non-offending side) and it is normal for me to give weighted adjustments in these situations.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Based on your description, it sounds like 2D was announced as natural (given that the announcement was "strong" rather than "alert"). If it is indeed natural, then there can't possibly be an illegal agreement here – 2D showing diamonds is legal at level 4 regardless of what strength it shows. So this would be a misinformation case, in that the announcement isn't a good description of the agreed system.
I agree, but perhaps we can have an explicit confirmation that it was a natural bid?
The pair were playing "Acol" per their card, not "Benj"
2D, 2H and 2S all had the same text
"Strong-two, forcing for one round. Negative response is 2NT"
As you say, having a single suit and opening it 2D is fine as a non-strong opening. But not, perhaps, if it is called "strong" - because the pair clearly meant it when they said strong. They told the director that this is what they played as strong, within their described system. Does that not perhaps take it beyond misinformation to something quite deliberate ?
Misinformation applies, for example, when a jump overcall is described on request by overcaller's partner as weak when that partner has forgotten the partnership had switched to playing intermediate. Whereas quite deliberately giving the bid the wrong label feels like it should be something more than misinformation.
After all, if a pair say that they play "weak NT 12-14" but in fact typically open balanced 10 and 11 counts 1NT too, that is more than misinformation.
This was the 2D opener's hand
spade A
heart K Q 8 6
diamond A 9 7 6 5 4 2
club 4
Well that isn't "strong": I think you would have to find out whether both players would have opened that hand with 2D - if they would then there is MI (The agreement is "Intermediate to Strong, forcing") - if not then I assume it is simply a mis-bid or deviation. (I thought there was something in the Blue Book about assuming in such situations that it was always MI - but I cannot find it and it must be for something else)
I'm not sure what the original poster means by "deliberate" or "more than misinformation" in this context.
For weejonnie, Law 21B1 says
(b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation
rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of
evidence to the contrary.
Thank you for the opportunity to explain more fully what is troubling me.
MI, Law 21, really picks up and deals well with innocent misinformation, i.e. a misexplanation without ill intent. The example above: one player remembers that the partnership switched to intermediate jump overcalls and makes such a bid, the other player forgets about the system change and misexplains the bid as weak. It is an innocent mistake: if the non-offending side has been damaged, the director will adjust as appropriate and the situation is (hopefully) fairly dealt with.
Another type of misinformation is very different and needs to be dealt with differently. This is quite deliberate. So the other example above. A pair's card shows 1NT = weak, 12-14. But in practice, say at green, they actually open 10 and 11 counts 1NT as a matter of course: they are really playing 10-14 at green. Describing this as giving misinformation is inadequate. Yes, an opponent who misses a winning defence because of it may get compensated by an adjusted score. But that, or a director's judgement about how the auction was influenced by the misdescription, are uncertain remedies for the opposition which may well not compensate them properly. And law 21 entirely misses out on some appropriate "punishment" for the deliberate offenders. Maybe Law 40.C.1 with its threat of a procedural penalty covers this to an extent although I think that at club level, directors are loathe to consider procedural penalties.
Four experienced directors have looked at this hand with 2v2 having quite different views. For me, and another, the offending pair have decided that they play "strong" 2D and that the hand in question satisfies their definition of "strong". But they have no right to define "strong" their own way, differently from the Blue Book. For me, their decision to open hands like that 2D and announce to the opposing pair "strong" is analogous to the 1NT range example above. It is more than innocent misexplanation, more than MI. We think that the two ways this could be addressed within the laws are 40.C.1 procedural penalty plus righting any damage or, better in our view, treating it as an illegal agreement. The Blue Book tells us that a 2D bid announced and described on the card as "strong" has to have 16 points or 13 points in a certain distribution. So deciding to make your own definition of "strong" is simply an illegal agreement. The fact that one could play a system which included a 2D opening on that hand, properly described, is irrelevant, just as the fact that Level 4 allows a 10-14 point 1NT opener is irrelevant to the 1NT example above.
I think you are making this too complicated. It is legal in England to play a natural 2Diamond bid with almost any range and similarly a natural 1NT with a balanced hand lthough there are limits to how weak the latter can be. What matters is that these bids are described correctly.
In the 1NT case most players when told that at green they should announce their range as 10-14 rather than 12-14 do so. Similarly if the 2 Diamond bidders are told they should announce the bid as "Intermediate to strong" they will normally do so. Although better might be "Normally strong but we do open some 14 and 15 counts where the suit is good" . There will be no problem in future and you just have adjust the present hand for misinformation.
> I think you are making this too complicated. It is legal in England to play a natural 2Diamond bid with almost any range and similarly a natural 1NT with a balanced hand lthough there are limits to how weak the latter can be. What matters is that these bids are described correctly.
>
> In the 1NT case most players when told that at green they should announce their range as 10-14 rather than 12-14 do so. Similarly if the 2 Diamond bidders are told they should announce the bid as "Intermediate to strong" they will normally do so. Although better might be "Normally strong but we do open some 14 and 15 counts where the suit is good" . There will be no problem in future and you just have adjust the present hand for misinformation.
Thank you. I think that may be the best approach when the offenders are beginners or inexperienced but we are talking here about a level 4 evening where most participants are County team players (not the offenders in this case but they are happy to play in this standard of event).
The other issue with that type of educational response to the offence is that perpetrators will often “get away with it” as the offence may go unnoticed.
What does Gordon make of my analysis in my December 26 post above ?
I'm not persuaded by it. Of course if a TD thinks a pair is deliberately misinforming their opponents then a penalty can be given in addition to any adjustment, but I think this would be very rare.