[ICEmachine]

---

EW are playing 5-card majors where a 2♣ response to 1♥/♠ is made on all GF hands. So 2♦ shows at least 5+♥ and at most an invitational hand. Usually it would contain 6♥ if weak.

South lead ♠2 and declarer took it with ♠K and lead a heart to the ♥K and ♥A. Now South reguired further information about the bidding and was told that 3♥ was at least 3-card support and invitational to game. Now South took the ♦A and gave his partner a ♠ ruff and declarer took the rest of the tricks.

When East after the hand said that he had no bid for this hand in his system, South called the TD and asked to change his defense as he was never informed that East could have this hand.

TD said that South got the correct explanation and the score stands.

This was appealed and the Appeals Committee made the following ruling:


EW play a system that is uncommon and that most would be unfamiliar with. Its in their responsibility to inform NS of all possibilities and make sure they understand the mechanism. EW never tried to explain what possibilities East had, so South had no chance to play East for the hand he had. East on the other hand picked 3♥ out of possible bids, knowing he would promise 3+ hearts at the time he bid, so this was not a case of misexplanation of the EW agreement of the bid, but more of too little explanation of possibilities East had.

South was allowed to change defense 1/5 of the time and 4/5 of the time Declarer makes 10 tricks.

What is your view of the rulings of the TD and the AC?

Sveinn Runar Eiriksson

[hrothgar]

I'd be interested in understanding what the partnership's precise agreement is regarding the 3♥ bid...
In particular, does the partnership have a written system description?
If so, what does this say?

From the sounds of things, the 3♥ systemically promises 3+ Hearts.
If so, East / West provided an accurate explanation of their agreement.
Disclosure is based on describing the agreement.
East/West behaved appropriately.
The TD ruled correctly

With this said and done...
This hand demonstrates that East / West's system agreements aren't particularly accurate.
There is at least one hole in the system.
Going forward, East / West need to modify their agreement to prevent a repeat of this type of incident.

[ICEmachine]

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-12, 21:54, said:

I'd be interested in understanding what the partnership's precise agreement is regarding the 3♥ bid...
In particular, does the partnership have a written system description?
If so, what does this say?

From the sounds of things, the 3♥ systemically promises 3+ Hearts.
If so, East / West provided an accurate explanation of their agreement.
Disclosure is based on describing the agreement.
East/West behaved appropriately.

With this said and done...
This hand demonstrates that East / West's system agreements aren't particularly accurate.
There is at least one hole in the system.
Going forward, East / West need to modify their agreement to prevent a repeat of this type of incident.

The precise methods was that 3♥ shows at least 3-card fit and invitational hand. The reason East didnt bid 2N was that he didnt want to bid it as it was NF.
He didnt fancy to bid 3♣ with only 4 and Hx in hearts.
Yes, there was a hole in their system and I also hope that hole has been filled by now.

[gordontd]

What did West say he would have bid with the East hand?
Was he surprised at East's choice of bid?

East said he didn't want to bid 2NT as it was non-forcing.
Wasn't 3♥ non-forcing?

[blackshoe]

It appears that the AC believes, contrary to Edgar Kaplan (or Terence Reese, or whoever actually said it originally) that a partnership agreement does constitute a promise to opponents.

If every pair has an obligation to plug every hole they find in their system, we're all going to be very busy reinventing our systems.

[ggwhiz]

This seems similar to the way I play two-way super accepts over say, 1nt - 2♦ in that 2nt shows a max with 3♥ and a jump to 3♥ shows 4 trumps. That's how most people play and alert it but we are allowed to jump in ♥ with 3 pieces and say, a weak doubleton and disclose this.

I'm no expert but is the "hole" in this system not an incomplete/insufficient disclosure? It feels like plugging a hole like this when using unusual methods should come at a price.

[nigel_k]

 blackshoe, on 2011-March-13, 10:33, said:

It appears that the AC believes, contrary to Edgar Kaplan (or Terence Reese, or whoever actually said it originally) that a partnership agreement does constitute a promise to opponents.

If every pair has an obligation to plug every hole they find in their system, we're all going to be very busy reinventing our systems.

I agree with this, but here they appear to have agreements that use up all the bids without covering all the hands. So there is an implicit agreement that 3♥ is either the hand type they discussed, or possibly one of the other hand types that doesn't fit anywhere.

[hrothgar]

 nigel_k, on 2011-March-13, 12:54, said:

I agree with this, but here they appear to have agreements that use up all the bids without covering all the hands. So there is an implicit agreement that 3♥ is either the hand type they discussed, or possibly one of the other hand types that doesn't fit anywhere.

Incompetence is not equivalent to an implicit agreement...
Nor do you get to invent agreements for a given partnership.

[blackshoe]

There is a requirement, iirc, to disclose relevant information from calls not made (for example, in the case of a "full set" of super-accepts) so I suppose that full disclosure in answer to "what's 3♥?" should include the meaning of 2NT and any other super-accept. OTOH, I would be very surprised if more than a very few players actually did that. I would expect a lot of resistance to "all that wasting time". Maybe, as suggested in another thread, we should rule MI when this is not done, and let the cards fall where they may, but I'm not so sure that would have the desired effect.

[bluejak]

I am sure that all pairs have holes in their system. Just because the system is complicated is no reason to treat it differently.

But I believe that what matters is whether E/W know they have a hole in their system. If they did know it before this hand came up, then they have an implicit agreement that 3♥ shows three hearts, but because of a known hole in the system it might not be, and that is disclosable. If they do not realise the hole or the specific hands not covered they have no agreement so nothing to disclose.

[blackshoe]

I did get the impression somewhere upthread that they had not run across this problem before.

[bluejak]

Ok, no MI then.

[nige1]

 ICEmachine, on 2011-March-12, 21:42, said:

EW are playing 5-card majors where a 2♣ response to 1♥/♠ is made on all GF hands. So 2♦ shows at least 5+♥ and at most an invitational hand. Usually it would contain 6♥ if weak. South lead ♠2 and declarer took it with ♠K and lead a heart to the ♥K and ♥A. Now South reguired further information about the bidding and was told that 3♥ was at least 3-card support and invitational to game. Now South took the ♦A and gave his partner a ♠ ruff and declarer took the rest of the tricks.
When East after the hand said that he had no bid for this hand in his system. South called the TD and asked to change his defense as he was never informed that East could have this hand.
TD said that South got the correct explanation and the score stands.
This was appealed and the Appeals Committee made the following ruling: EW play a system that is uncommon and that most would be unfamiliar with. Its in their responsibility to inform NS of all possibilities and make sure they understand the mechanism. EW never tried to explain what possibilities East had, so South had no chance to play East for the hand he had. East on the other hand picked 3♥ out of possible bids, knowing he would promise 3+ hearts at the time he bid, so this was not a case of misexplanation of the EW agreement of the bid, but more of too little explanation of possibilities East had. South was allowed to change defense 1/5 of the time and 4/5 of the time Declarer makes 10 tricks.What is your view of the rulings of the TD and the AC?

---

IMO the committee did a better job than the director but it, too, was kind to the offenders. East said that he had "no bid for this hand in his system". That statement may have theoretical merit, but, In practice, was untrue because East did not pass and 3♥ is not a psyche. West also failed to think through the implicit practical imperatives, inherent in his agreements. He misinformed North-South when he said "3♥ promises three hearts". West's misexplanation is stupid or careless or lazy, rather than deliberate prevarication. Nevertheless, I feel that the misexplanation damaged North-South. Hence they are entitled to redress.

[nige1]

Another example. Due to carelessness, your system-card declares that:

• Suit-bids promise five-cards and
• Notrump-bids deny a five-card suit and promise at least a doubleton in each suit.

That declaration is fine, provided that you don't bid when you hold a 4441 shape. But if you improvise a suit-bid with that shape and partner tells opponents that the bid guarantees at least five, then there is some reason to believe that opponents are misiformed about your implicit systemic-agreement.

[hrothgar]

 nige1, on 2011-March-14, 22:14, said:

IMO the committee did a better job than the director but it, too, was kind to the offenders. East said that he had "no bid for this hand in his system". That statement may have theoretical merit, but, In practice, was untrue because East did not pass and 3♥ is not a psyche.

What, pray tell, should East have done rather than bidding 3♥?

• Throw his cards into the air and run screaming into the night?
  
• Hem and haw, go into a deep tank, pull out 2NT then put it back, and finally/tentatively place a 3♥ bid onto the table?

In actuality, we instruct players that they should always attempt to maintain tempo and bid in such a way that doesn't impart UI.

You don't get to penalize E/W because East chose to make a bid.
For all practical purposes, East had not other option than to bid something...

[Poky]

It seems to me that the AC did everything just to avoid the forfeiture of the deposit, which is pretty much automatic if NS aren't inexperienced.

East invited naturally (having one trump less and some hcp more), feeling that this bid is better than 3NT (or 2NT). This is his right, not a systemic thing. Therefore, there is nothing to alert: 3♥ was a natural and invitational bid.

[hrothgar]

 Poky, on 2011-March-15, 07:16, said:

It seems to me that the AC did everything just to avoid the forfeiture of the deposit, which is pretty much automatic if NS aren't inexperienced.

East invited naturally (having one trump less and some hcp more), feeling that this bid is better than 3NT (or 2NT). This is his right, not a systemic thing. Therefore, there is nothing to alert: 3♥ was a natural and invitational bid.

As I understand matters, the issue isn't the lack of the alert, but rather the fact that N/S were never informed that East could hold two trump for the bid.

South's decision to cash the Ace of Diamond before leading a Spade was predicated on the fact that North couldn't get two spade ruffs.

[bluejak]

 Poky, on 2011-March-15, 07:16, said:

It seems to me that the AC did everything just to avoid the forfeiture of the deposit, which is pretty much automatic if NS aren't inexperienced.

In view of the fact that there is no agreement here whether there was MI or not, retaining the deposit is not close and would be a terrible decision.

[blackshoe]

1. Never use the word "promises" when describing a bidding agreement.
2. An agreement with partner is not a promise to opponents.

Unless there was already partnership experience to establish that 3♥ might be on Hx, there was no MI.

[nige1]

 hrothgar, on 2011-March-15, 03:35, said:

What, pray tell, should East have done rather than bidding 3♥?

• Throw his cards into the air and run screaming into the night?
• Hem and haw, go into a deep tank, pull out 2NT then put it back, and finally/tentatively place a 3♥ bid onto the table?

In actuality, we instruct players that they should always attempt to maintain tempo and bid in such a way that doesn't impart UI. You don't get to penalize E/W because East chose to make a bid. For all practical purposes, East had not other option than to bid something...

If it's really true that there is no bid for your hand under your system then, I suppose, you just pass. As Brothgar points out, however: in practice, East had a plausible bid available, implicit in EW methods (undiscussed but mandated by logic) and undisclosed to opponents.