[campboy]

If South had bid 3NT intending it as showing club support, why would he not pull it himself once it gets doubled?

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2011-May-26, 08:02, said:

(We actually adjusted to mixtures of 4♣, 4♣X and 3NTX by NS down one or two tricks.)

The ruling advised to us did not have any of 3NTx by NS, but did have 4♣-2, 4♣x-2 and 4♦-1. I don't recall the weightings. The net total was -2 IMPs, and we would have needed quite a big swing in the weighting to have changed the VPs, so accepted the ruling. The TD stated that North would always bid 4C. The opponents were given -8 IMPs, based on the table result, and had they thought of it, they should have appealed, but they originally wanted to let the table result stand, and it was we who called the TD after the hand, not they. So, they should get the 2 IMPs for the weighted adjustment, less the difference in IMPs between 4H-3 and 4D-1. The other room score was 3NT-1 by EW, so the SeWoG cost 5 IMPs. So they should have lost 3 IMPs not 8. I agree that pran's opinion is hopelessly wrong, and I am surprised that two senior EBU directors thought that 4C by South was legal. I know that is the view of some, but I am sure it is wrong. But I think you too are mistaken about whether North should, or is allowed to, pass 3NTx (after South's pull has been disallowed). Playing the methods of the partnership, which is a weak NT, and a pre-emptive 3C, Pass is not a logical alternative, as 3NT cannot exist as a natural bid, but I agree that a poll of people playing those methods is correct.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-26, 10:15, said:

If South had bid 3NT intending it as showing club support, why would he not pull it himself once it gets doubled?

She did. But I understand your point. However, you are trying to distinguish between Pass, Redouble and 4C here, in the authorised auction. Who knows? Partner is still there, and you have shown your hand. I would suggest 4C would be the weakest option. Do you think 3NT is natural showing an extra ace?

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-May-26, 10:41, said:

She did. But I understand your point. However, you are trying to distinguish between Pass, Redouble and 4C here, in the authorised auction. Who knows? Partner is still there, and you have shown your hand. I would suggest 4C would be the weakest option. Do you think 3NT is natural showing an extra ace?

I think making an undiscussed 3NT intending it to be conventional and subsequently making an undiscussed pass of 3NTx expecting partner to interpret it as forcing is asking for trouble. No-one I play with would do that, so I would be confident that it wasn't a club raise (if it had even occurred to me that it might be).

There is a possibility that South's 3NT bid was made under a misapprehension about the auction; there is a possibility that her 1NT bid was made under a misapprehension about her hand. Absent UI we might draw either conclusion. I certainly don't buy the idea that North is permitted to cater for 3NT having been a misbid but is not permitted to cater for 1NT having been a misbid.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-26, 11:10, said:

I certainly don't buy the idea that North is permitted to cater for 3NT having been a misbid but is not permitted to cater for 1NT having been a misbid.

I don't think North is particularly allowed or prevented from doing either. He knows from the UI that partner has interpreted 3C wrongly, as she explained it wrongly. All North is allowed to do is to select from logical alternatives one not demonstrably suggested by the UI. With the UI, partner can have any hand. Without the UI, partner might have missed the double, might have been trying to fool the opponents with 3NT, might have been doing anything including a club raise which is about the only explanation that I can think of. However, you are allowed to look at the authorised auction and your hand and to decide on logical alternatives. Indeed you must do so. If the auction had gone 1NT-(X)-3C and partner had alerted and explained it as weak, you would bid 4C every day of the week. That your hand might provide some play for 3NT is irrelevant; you might well have passed 1NTx on this hand, and you could have nothing. So, you are not catering for either 1NT or 3NT being a misbid, you are just selecting the only LA for a player with these methods, and 3NT is undiscussed, as you might expect!

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2011-May-25, 06:56, said:

3♣ was explained as natural and game-forcing, but was actually natural and weak

Was 3♣ alerted? At what point did East or West ask about the 3♣ bid and receive the original explanation?

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-May-26, 14:43, said:

Was 3♣ alerted? At what point did East or West ask about the 3♣ bid and receive the original explanation?

No, 3♣ was not alerted, but East asked the meaning anyway. South responded "natural and game-forcing," as stated by the TD. North corrected the misexplanation prior to the opening lead, and suggested East-West call the TD, as North was aware that East could have her last bid back. The TD allowed East to do so and she substituted double. At the end of the hand, South suggested that East called the TD back, but East did not want to do so. But South insisted, and the TD was called again.

It appears from the ruling that the TD did not accept that "East would have bid 3D if she had known that 3C was weak, but was not prepared to bid a forcing 3D when she heard it was strong, as their methods were that it would then have been forcing". Aquahombre, I see, commented on this point.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-26, 11:10, said:

I think making an undiscussed 3NT intending it to be conventional and subsequently making an undiscussed pass of 3NTx expecting partner to interpret it as forcing is asking for trouble. No-one I play with would do that, so I would be confident that it wasn't a club raise (if it had even occurred to me that it might be).

I think opening 1NT and then bidding a natural 3NT intending it to be natural when partner has shown no values is asking for trouble. No-one I play with would do that, so I would be confident that it wasn't to play, although I would indeed be guessing the likely meaning.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-May-26, 11:21, said:

If the auction had gone 1NT-(X)-3C and partner had alerted and explained it as weak, you would bid 4C every day of the week.

If I bid 4C in that situation, it would be because I felt the UI suggested passing and that pass was therefore illegal. I would pass with no UI, which is why I wondered whether pass was an LA.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-27, 04:31, said:

If I bid 4C in that situation, it would be because I felt the UI suggested passing and that pass was therefore illegal. I would pass with no UI, which is why I wondered whether pass was an LA.

What would you think partner intended her 3NT to mean without UI? Say that you were playing with screens? It is no different from something like (Pass) - Pass - (1C) - 2C (systemically Michaels but explained as any game-forcing hand) - (Pass) - 3NT. Now the UI tells you why partner bid that, but the AI tells you that this is not natural by a passed hand. If you were to pass this out, doubled, I would expect it to be the last hand that you would play with the partner trying it. And again the bid is undiscussed and Pass is not an LA for the pair playing the stated methods.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-May-27, 04:57, said:

What would you think partner intended her 3NT to mean without UI? Say that you were playing with screens? It is no different from something like (Pass) - Pass - (1C) - 2C (systemically Michaels but explained as any game-forcing hand) - (Pass) - 3NT. Now the UI tells you why partner bid that, but the AI tells you that this is not natural by a passed hand. If you were to pass this out, doubled, I would expect it to be the last hand that you would play with the partner trying it. And again the bid is undiscussed and Pass is not an LA for the pair playing the stated methods.

Looking at it from the other side, if we had the auction you mentioned with me bidding 3NT and partner leaving it in doubled in a (perhaps misjudged) attempt to be ethical, I would apologise to partner for forgetting the system and we would get on with the next hand. I think that is an appropriate response.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2011-May-26, 10:24, said:

I agree that pran's opinion is hopelessly wrong, and I am surprised that two senior EBU directors thought that 4C by South was legal.

I was referring to Pran's opinion that East is not permitted an adjusted score on the basis that she would have bid 3♦ because she had already exercised the option to change another call later in the auction. We all agreed that 4♣ by South was not permitted.

[pran]

VixTD, on 2011-May-27, 06:48, said:

I was referring to Pran's opinion that East is not permitted an adjusted score on the basis that she would have bid 3♦ because she had already exercised the option to change another call later in the auction. We all agreed that 4♣ by South was not permitted.

There is obviously need for a clarification of laws here:

Law 21 B 1 {a} said:

Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent [...]

East is not offered the option to change her PASS following the 3♣ bid, she is offered the option to change her (closing) PASS following the 3NT bid. In any case the reason for changing a call must be that the particular call to be changed was made under influence of an incorrect information.

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

[WellSpyder]

pran, on 2011-May-27, 07:31, said:

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

Are you envisaging East talking to the TD away from the table? I don't think this is routine in such cases. If not, why should East cause UI problems for her own side when she will not be allowed to change this bid anyway?

[iviehoff]

pran, on 2011-May-27, 07:31, said:

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

As you may have noticed, people have not called you "disputably wrong", or agreed it is an arguable point. They have called you "utterly wrong" in relation to this. Because your position is not even arguable.

"Instead...". This are not alternative remedies. That would be a clearly incorrect statement of law. The right in law 21B3 to obtain rectification is absolute and is nowhere limited by the exercise of any other remedy. Of course if the misinformation had been corrected in time for the player (under 21B1a) to call 3D over 3C, there would be no damage and now 21B3 does not apply. But this has not happened. The player has obtained an absolute right under 21B1a to change their final pass, which does not limit their right to damage under 21B3 to claim for damage for the failure to correct the misinformation earlier, because nowhere in law does it say so.

Under your interpretation, the TD would have to say "If you exercise this right, then you lose all rights to claim for damage because of your inability to call correctly informed earlier in the auction". Then the player would have to think, at that moment, about what they would ahve done earlier in the auciton if correctly informed, and then decide whether this inferior remedy adequately compensates them. But fortunately the TD would be quite wrong to say this. Fortunately, I have never heard a TD say it. Nor can I find advice that they should.

[pran]

iviehoff, on 2011-May-27, 08:28, said:

As you may have noticed, people have not called you "disputably wrong", or agreed it is an arguable point. They have called you "utterly wrong" in relation to this. Because your position is not even arguable.

"Instead...". This are not alternative remedies. That would be a clearly incorrect statement of law. The right in law 21B3 to obtain rectification is absolute and is nowhere limited by the exercise of any other remedy. Of course if the misinformation had been corrected in time for the player (under 21B1a) to call 3D over 3C, there would be no damage and now 21B3 does not apply. But this has not happened. The player has obtained an absolute right under 21B1a to change their final pass, which does not limit their right to damage under 21B3 to claim for damage for the failure to correct the misinformation earlier, because nowhere in law does it say so.

Under your interpretation, the TD would have to say "If you exercise this right, then you lose all rights to claim for damage because of your inability to call correctly informed earlier in the auction". Then the player would have to think, at that moment, about what they would ahve done earlier in the auciton if correctly informed, and then decide whether this inferior remedy adequately compensates them. But fortunately the TD would be quite wrong to say this. Fortunately, I have never heard a TD say it. Nor can I find advice that they should.

My enhancement in this quote. No, the player has no absolute right under Law 21B1a to change the final pass. This right is dependant on a fact that the final pass was chosen under the influence of the incorrect information! But the Director will very seldom deny a request for a Law 21B1{a} change of a call, simply because such a request (in time) is apparently based on the player's honest opinion and not some knowledge on what will be the eventual consequence of the replacing call.

A player claiming damage from misinformation on the ground that (s)he would have made a different call with correct information is supposed to know this at the proper time during the auction, not to discover after the play that "call X instead of call Y" would have been very fortunate.

It is quite OK for a player to claim damage from MI at any time such damage becomes apparent. The Director will scrutinize such claims and rule under Law 21B3 according to what he finds probable.

In cases when a player is given choices (s)he must select one choice (Law 10C) and stick to that.

The Director can of course give a Law 21B3 ruling even when the player has first selected a Law 21B1{a} rectification. He should do so when he finds that the selected change of call was a justified but futile attempt to rescue the board for the non-offending side after misinformation but that the real damage was caused earlier in the auction. I have not been convinced that that is the case in this thread.

[jallerton]

VixTD, on 2011-May-26, 08:02, said:

(We actually adjusted to mixtures of 4♣, 4♣X and 3NTX by NS down one or two tricks.)

Assuming that you recognise that North and South both have UI demonstrably suggesting pulling over passing, this weighting does not seem legal to me.

1. If pass is judged not to be a logical alternative for South then the table result should stand.

2. If pass is judged to be a logical alternative for South then South is assumed to pass over the double of 3NT and West will pass also. Now either:

(i) If pass is judged not to be a logical alternative for North, he will be presumed to pull to 4♣. If the TD cannot be sure what would happen next he can award weightings of 4♣, 4♣x, 4♦(E), 4♥(W) making the appropriate numbers of tricks. However, he should not include a proportion of 3NTx as he has judged that pass of 3NTx would not be seriously considered, let alone actually selected, by as many as 20% of North's peers; or

(ii) If pass is judged to be a logical alternative for North then that is North's only legal call, so the ruling for the offending side is based on 100% of 3NTx by South, the only opportunity for weighting coming from the potential for 3NT to make a different number of tricks.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-May-27, 11:16, said:

However, he should not include a proportion of 3NTx as he has judged that pass of 3NTx would not be seriously considered, let alone actually selected, by as many as 20% of North's peers; or

As I stated earlier, I think VixTD might be mistaken. I was told that there were three contracts in the weighting, and they did not include 3NTx. And I am pretty sure it did not include any of 4H-3 either, which is probably wrong.

[jallerton]

dburn, on 2011-May-25, 15:57, said:

Or, of course, has opened 1NT with four aces having noticed only three when he first sorted his hand. The extent to which he will thank you for pulling to a no-play 4♣ instead of a laydown 3NT is a matter of conjecture, but...

It is not for you, who have described your hand in detail, to overrule partner when there is any question of UI. If partner (having given some wrong explanation of your actions) appears to have made an "impossible" bid, you are in duty bound to assume that he has some "impossible" reason for it, not to go around concluding that he "must have" misconstrued some bid that you have made. I thought we had abolished this particular cheats' charter long ago, but from the nonsense posted here I am forced to conclude that we have not.

There is a recurring theme in auctions where there has been a misunderstanding, but one or both partners is in possession of UI! If the possible explanations are (i) partner has psyched or made a gross misbid earlier in the auction and (ii) partner did not intend the bidding to mean what we originally thought, but the player has UI, is the player ever permitted to come to the correct conclusion, even when the AI suggests one possibility is orders of magnitude more likely than the other? There is no consensus view. Indeed, some people seem to vary their opinion depending on whether it is they or an opponent who is in possession of the UI. For example, consider to words of the North player on this deal:

lamford, on 2011-May-26, 03:53, said:

However, when the auction gets round to North, he is allowed to use the authorised information to decide what is happening. If he passes and his partner has xx AKx xxx Axxxx, then his partner will be quite entitled to say, "How on earth can 3NT be natural, you are not promising any values at all; we were making 4C and you have gone for 1100 in 3NT doubled? I wanted you to sac in 5C if they bid 4H you idiot." And would you bid 3NT after 1NT - (X) - 3C (weak) - Pass with four aces. No, of course you wouldn't. So, far from following a cheats' charter, North should, indeed is obliged, not to bid lemming-like but to try to assign a systemic meaning to partner's unusual action. There is no obligation whatsoever to guess that partner has miscounted aces, or has psyched 1NT. Indeed it is illegal to assume that partner has opened 1NT with four aces and to pass 3NT, and if that were the case, it would be a routine adjustment for fielding a systemic misbid, not to mention suspicion of a CPU. That would be the infraction, not the proposed 4C bid. I agree completely with the decision of the TD that 4C by South was disallowed and there would then be no logical alternative to 4C by North, and your pass is actually illegal. I thought we had abolished this particular lemming's charter long ago, but from the nonsense you have written I am forced to conclude that we have not. Now it may be that North should bid 4C on the previous round ... but 3NT - 3 might well be a good result against a possible 4H for example. Not the 4H that West eventually chose mind you.

When this same North player asked for a ruling a couple of years ago when one of his opponents had UI in the auction, he argued as follows:

lamford on 21st January 2009 said:

Sorry to go on, but as can be seen I feel very strongly about this. I disagree completely that the player in receipt of UI is entitled to conclude that his partner has forgotten the system when he fails to alert and makes an undiscussed bid, particularly if there is a completely normal explanation for both the AI and UI auction

In the present case, there is a perfectly normal explanation for partner's bidding in the authorised auction: partner thinks that she might be able to make 3NT! Suppose that she held ♠AJ10 ♥AJ6 ♦KJ10 ♣9764. Would she not open a weak NT? When North shows a weakish hand with a long club suit, might she not deduce that her hand has improved significantly and that 3NT could easily be making? Even opposite the actual North hand 3NT has an excellent chance of making; and if North has the ace of clubs and/or a seventh card in the suit 3NT will be an even better contract. Moreover, when 3NT does go off, it is not clear that 4♣ will make one more trick than 3NT, let alone the two required to make pulling worthwhile.

So as North I would just trust my partner and assume she knew what she was doing when she bid 3NT. Pass looks like the correct call absent UI. With the actual UI, pass is the only legal call as far as I am concerned.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-May-27, 15:08, said:

When North shows a weakish hand with a long club suit, might she not deduce that her hand has improved significantly and that 3NT could easily be making? Even opposite the actual North hand 3NT has an excellent chance of making; and if North has the ace of clubs and/or a seventh card in the suit 3NT will be an even better contract. Moreover, when 3NT does go off, it is not clear that 4♣ will make one more trick than 3NT, let alone the two required to make pulling worthwhile.

You would be right if 3C had any invitational element, but it is likely to be weaker than you suggest, not stronger; I might well have passed 1NTx on the actual hand. 3C will normally be terminal (for our side), but it does say "it is not our hand". In my opinion your suggestion that partner is bidding 3NT to play (in the authorised auction) is about as far-fetched as your suggestion that partner has 5-6 in spades and diamonds in another thread; constructed to try to support your point. I was not called upon to decide whether Pass was an LA at the table, but I would have agreed with the TD that it was not. You are entitled to think otherwise. And my stance two years ago is exactly the same as now. I am not allowed to conclude partner has forgotten the system (when I have UI), and must attach a logical meaning to her action, so your quoting is not reinforcing your argument. Now if you were to argue that I had to bid 5C over 4H, as partner's 3NT must be a club raise, and 4C suggests saving over 4M, I could buy that. Indeed with ♣QJ10xxxx, I think I must do so. Now that I think about this some more, on the actual hand, 5C over 4H must be an LA, and should be imposed. This would be -500, and -9 IMPs. So, it could be argued that the weighted score was 12 IMPs out, in total, from the correct decision!

Indeed the whole area of impossible 3NT bids is an interesting one. I have seem some theorists recommend that they should invite saving. For example, a passed hand bidding 3NT when partner makes a weak jump overcall. But I have never seen bids of this type treated as natural; maybe they are in Surrey.