[Ant590]

Hi all,

Had a complicated (for me at least) director call this evening, and in hindsight I'm not sure my ruling was best.

---

Neither 2♦ nor 2♥ were alerted. Before East's second bid, he asks North what 2♦ was. He was told "I don't know, but I'm treating it as natural".

East then looks at NS convention card, and sees that 2♦ is systemically showing the majors. He then bids 3♦.

I was called mid-way through the play, and told there has been misinformation. I ascertained the facts above, play continued and declarer goes 1-off, and a ruling is asked for. I checked what South thought his 2♦ showed, and was told "natural constructive."

--------

I ruled that although there has been MI from North to East, East protected himself by looking at the convention card (and so his random 3♦ bid stays). The fact that NS both have forgotten their system is unfortunate but rub of the green because South has no UI from North (only that North doesn't know what the bid is, and is treating it as natural, which suggests bidding on rather than passing).

In hindsight, I'm not so sure if I should allow south to pass 3♦. South's initial bid of 2D is weird, and when partner bids a presumably-natural 2H, how can you not raise with undisclosed 5-card support. Does south have UI that because north doesn't know the system, he might think it's majors, and so passing 2H is an unauthorised tactical decision that should be adjusted? Is it just ironic that the "UI" that partner doesn't know the system has woken South up to that his bid shows Majors and he has made an "unauthorised panic"? But the UI that partner is "treating it as natural" suggest natural hearts, and so bidding on might suggested by this UI!

My judgement of the situation might have been swayed by East inferring that "rub of the green" rulings when *both* players forget their system allows cheating to prosper. I interpreted the tone of this comment to be an accusation of improper conduct (basically calling NS cheats without saying so explicitly), so I gave East a disciplinary penalty.

[RMB1]

I think it is a clear case of misinformation. If neither player in a partnership says that a call means what is on the convention card then the convention cards does not accurately reflect partnership understanding. I would rule that "2D=majors" on the convention card is misinformation. I would investigate as to where the 2D=majors came from and probably rule on the basis that East is entitled to 2D=nat or on the basis that East is entitled to "The convention card says 2D=majors but sometimes we have an understanding that it might also be natural".

If South had both majors then the UI from "I'm taking 2D as natural" would suggest Pass over raising hearts. The evidence from South's hand is that he thought 2♦ was natural, so the UI from "I'm taking 2D as natural" does not suggest anything.

[mink]

I fully agree with Robin, with a little exception: "2♦ is sometimes natural and sometimes majors" is not the N/S agreement for sure.

The OP referred to the 3♦ bid and said it was random. I rather think that, if East believed what the CC said, the bid makes sense: if opps can make 2♥, 3♦ is maybe a good defense. Actually, it was a good defense even though South had 5 diamonds. Therefore, there should be no adjustment if the contract without the misinformation had been 2♥, as there was simply no damage. However, it is possible that West finds a takeout double of 2♥ if East passes, and this may lead to 2/3♠ or 3♣ by West (which maybe makes) or 3♥ by North (which can be defeated).

About the disciplinary penalty for East: If he said what the said the way you cited it, I cannot find that this was an accusation of his opponents. There must be a way to state this without accusing anybody. However, I did not hear what he really said, and maybe the accusation resulted from tone and mannerism.

Karl

[Vampyr]

mink, on 2013-March-13, 03:31, said:

About the disciplinary penalty for East: If he said what the said the way you cited it, I cannot find that this was an accusation of his opponents. There must be a way to state this without accusing anybody. However, I did not hear what he really said, and maybe the accusation resulted from tone and mannerism.

Yes, it is clear there is a bit more to the story than was stated.

[billw55]

I get where east is coming from. One can imagine that this ruling allows players to gain from giving out MI, as long as they give out the same MI. He shouldn't use the c-word, and should probably keep his comment private with the director, but yeah I get it.

Somewhat off topic, is this a common agreement to open the east hand 1NT?

[barmar]

mink, on 2013-March-13, 03:31, said:

About the disciplinary penalty for East: If he said what the said the way you cited it, I cannot find that this was an accusation of his opponents. There must be a way to state this without accusing anybody. However, I did not hear what he really said, and maybe the accusation resulted from tone and mannerism.

Saying that a particular interpretation of the Laws "allows cheating" is not necessarily an accusation that this particular pair is cheating, although I can see how someone might take it that way.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2013-March-13, 06:57, said:

Saying that a particular interpretation of the Laws "allows cheating" is not necessarily an accusation that this particular pair is cheating, although I can see how someone might take it that way.

Absolutely not. I have used such arguments myself on BBF, that for certain rulings the difference between an honest mistake and cheating is essentially indistinguishable, so that it could be seen as an open invitation. Or, put another way, which do you think is more likely, that both partners managed to forget their agreement in precisely the same way, or that the convention card is incorrectly filled out? An honest mistake? or deliberate to sow confusion? Most likely the former for sure, but how can you tell? The DP seems to me to be way out of line. Otoh, a PP for the incorrectly filled out CC might be in order if they do not have it corrected for the next session.

[blackshoe]

Without knowing precisely what was said, and in what tone, and with what mannerisms, I would hesitate to tell the table TD he was wrong to issue a DP. I will say that IMO, without knowing the players concerned, and with no background information, I would expect the likelihood that NS were cheating to be very small. If the comment was really along the lines of "the laws are flawed because they allow rulings that encourage cheating", with no implication that NS were in fact doing so, then I would suggest to East that he take his complaint to his NBO.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2013-March-13, 15:42, said:

then I would suggest to East that he take his complaint to his NBO.

He should copy in the club management.

[bluejak]

billw55, on 2013-March-13, 06:14, said:

Somewhat off topic, is this a common agreement to open the east hand 1NT?

No. For many years now it has been completely legal to open 1NT with a singleton, and when announcing came in it was made part of the announcement.

But the pairs who take advantage of this are few and far between. I play 1NT may have a singleton honour in a minor with my regular partner, and over the weekend I ran into a pair that have solved some rebid problems by allowing a 4=4=4=1 hand [that's specific] into a 1NT opening. I have a friend who I believe plays that it may include a singleton with his former regular partner but I have no idea whether there are any constraints.

But these are few and far between. It would be quite normal to play a whole tournament in England and not meet anyone who allows a singleton in 1NT.

[nige1]

Ant590, on 2013-March-12, 18:50, said:

Ant590 writes "Hi all, Had a complicated (for me at least) director call this evening, and in hindsight I'm not sure my ruling was best. Neither 2♦ nor 2♥ were alerted. Before East's second bid, he asks North what 2♦ was. He was told "I don't know, but I'm treating it as natural". East then looks at NS convention card, and sees that 2♦ is systemically showing the majors. He then bids 3♦. I was called mid-way through the play, and told there has been misinformation. I ascertained the facts above, play continued and declarer goes 1-off, and a ruling is asked for. I checked what South thought his 2♦ showed, and was told "natural constructive." I ruled that although there has been MI from North to East, East protected himself by looking at the convention card (and so his random 3♦ bid stays). The fact that NS both have forgotten their system is unfortunate but rub of the green because South has no UI from North (only that North doesn't know what the bid is, and is treating it as natural, which suggests bidding on rather than passing). In hindsight, I'm not so sure if I should allow south to pass 3♦. South's initial bid of 2D is weird, and when partner bids a presumably-natural 2H, how can you not raise with undisclosed 5-card support. Does south have UI that because north doesn't know the system, he might think it's majors, and so passing 2H is an unauthorised tactical decision that should be adjusted? Is it just ironic that the "UI" that partner doesn't know the system has woken South up to that his bid shows Majors and he has made an "unauthorised panic"? But the UI that partner is "treating it as natural" suggest natural hearts, and so bidding on might suggested by this UI! My judgement of the situation might have been swayed by East inferring that "rub of the green" rulings when *both* players forget their system allows cheating to prosper. I interpreted the tone of this comment to be an accusation of improper conduct (basically calling NS cheats without saying so explicitly), so I gave East a disciplinary penalty."

---

IMO: It's against the rules to answer "I don't know but I'm treating it as natural". After perusal of the North-South system-card and South's hand, it's hard to believe South's claim that his 2♦ bid is "Natural and constructive". Hence it's reasonable for East to query North-South behaviour. Nevertheless, the director is right to severely penalize veiled accusations of cheating.