[campboy]

Lanor Fow, on 2013-September-05, 06:47, said:

Is a potentially short diamond in a strong club system really that bizarre?

No. Playing a 1♥ response as natural or balanced, otoh, is not something I've ever heard of before, and is presumably what caused the confusion. 2♦ certainly wouldn't be majors if 1♥ was natural, after all.

[VixTD]

Lanor Fow, on 2013-September-05, 06:47, said:

Is a potentially short diamond in a strong club system really that bizarre?

Two years ago at Brighton I was called to EW's table by a pair who got into a muddle after a Precision diamond opening who said "Well, it's not our fault, you don't expect us to have a defence to this funny system!" I'm sure there are some players who never come across Precision until they make their annual visit to the Brighton Congress.

Still, I think it's the 1♥ response that's being described as bizarre.

Lanor Fow, on 2013-September-05, 06:47, said:

Even it it is quite unusual, we are talking a main even in a large congress. I can't remember last sitting down against a pair at the Brighton swiss pairs who didn't have a convention card (occasionally you see wbf cards rather than EBU, but even this is unusual). The EBU cards have a section on the front for both basic system and agreements opponants should note.

I'm sure EW had adequately completed convention cards, and NS are expected to make use of them, but you have to bear in mind that this is an open congress that caters for all classes of player, and many of the less experienced pairs still wouldn't have any idea what they should do if it were pointed out to them that their opponents' opening 1♦ bid was less than 16 points, essentially natural but could be as short as a singleton without a five-card major, and forcing, and that a 1♥ response is either natural, or balanced and invitational.

Lanor Fow, on 2013-September-05, 06:47, said:

Are NOS really meant to assume that opponants, not having an agreement to a not particually unusual bid (which they could have easily found out about and discussed before the round had they not already discussed such situations) telling NOS they do have an agreement will not correct this at the proper time? Moreover does it become NOS's own fault that they assume OS have not broken the laws if misinformation becomes apparent later?

NOS are expected to protect themselves if they can do so without prejudicing their side's interests. When it was obvious that NS were inexperienced and showed considerable doubt when explaining the bid, why couldn't they have called the director at that point to make sure they were getting the explanation they were entitled to?

I'm not suggesting I wouldn't have adjusted the score had a failure to correct the explanation led to damage, but I'm not sure that it did.

[Lanor Fow]

Ahh I missed the 1H being odd, I retract most of my post then.

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-05, 04:47, said:

Can we make an adjustment on the basis that W will receive a later correction, and thus be able to deduce a misunderstanding; rather than on the basis that he was correctly informed throughout and thus unable to deduce a misunderstanding, given that it looks like S never believed his own explanation and there wasn't in fact a misunderstanding?

Leaving aside the specifics of this case, in general:

(1) If the only infraction is misinformation, we restore the equity that would have existed if the NOS had been correctly informed of the partnership's methods. This applies to any adjustment we make to the auction.

(2) When there has been misinformation by the declaring side followed by a failure to correct the misinformation at the proper time, there are two separate infractions:
- The original misinformation.
- The failure to correct the misinformation.
Without this second infraction, the defenders would have known, at the end of the auction, that NS had had a misunderstanding. To restore equity, therefore, our adjustment should assume that the NOS knew of the misunderstanding from the end of the auction onwards.

This has been confirmed by the EBU L&EC:

EBU L&EC Minutes 11/1/2012 said:

5.7/5.8 failing to correct Misinformation during the auction at the correct time
FH introduced this item by giving an example. Player A gives misinformation during the auction. Player B (his partner) becomes declarer and fails to correct the misinformation before the opening lead. The contract makes, but would have gone off on a different lead. At the end of the hand all is revealed and the TD is called. The TD believes the following to be true:
- There was misinformation given during the auction. Player B knew the partnership agreement, knew there was misinformation and his failure to correct it before the opening lead is made is a breach of Law 20F5(b)(ii) (also Law 75B).
- If the opening leader knew that there had been a misunderstanding i.e. had heard both the original misinformation and the correction he might have found the winning lead.
- If all the opening leader knew was the actual agreement, he would not have found the winning lead.

GR commented on an example case with details of the hand via email as follows:

The position has always been, as far as I am aware, that players are only entitled to the correct information and not the knowledge of a misunderstanding, but if the misunderstanding comes to light in the process of disclosing the correct information, the non-offending side may use that information. In this instance, had the offending side not committed a further infraction by failing to correct the misinformation, the opening leader might well have made a different lead - maybe about 25% of the time [in the circumstances of this particular example].

In this case I think it is reasonable to adjust under Law 23 for the breach of Law 20F5(b)(ii). The problem seems to me that if we not able to adjust in this way (or a similar way) we put non-offending players in a worse position when their opponents commit a second infraction and appear to reward offenders for committing a second offence. Of course we can fine the offenders (and might do so in addition to adjusting), but this would be of no help to the non-offending side and, in any case, fines are not there to give redress.

None of this assumes that the player deliberately chose not to correct the misinformation - he didn't hear it - but as always we adjust for an inadvertent infraction in the same way as for a deliberate one in order not to have to decide (or state) whether the breach was intentional. Where a player doesn't hear partner's explanation clearly he should ask for it to be repeated at the end of the auction so that he can correct it if it is incorrect. A player who failed to take such care to protect his opponents should expect to be adjusted against when it damages them.

The committee agreed that Law 23 was the applicable law to enable an adjustment to be made and that could include a weighted ruling under Law 12C1(c ). A procedural penalty up to the amount of the gain by the offending side could also be made if that was thought to be appropriate.

It was noted that in some cases the laws give insufficient incentive to own up to ones own mistakes.

[blackshoe]

How late was the alert of 2♦? When was an explanation requested?

[VixTD]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-04, 16:30, said:

How did EW avoid making 2 spades ?

Sorry, I don't know the answer to this. The TD who answered the call told me they'd made a trick in each suit, but perhaps it was two spades and no diamonds. I do know they got a poor score for -140.

blackshoe, on 2013-September-05, 10:48, said:

How late was the alert of 2♦? When was an explanation requested?

Not very late, probably after East's pass. I think the explanation was requested immediately after the alert, if it matters.

[blackshoe]

What happened:

1. The auction, East dealing, went 1♦!-(P)-1♥-2♦!-(P)-2♠-all pass.
2. 1♦ "was Precision". It's not clear whether this was explained after the alert, or indeed whether anyone asked.
3. 2♦ was alerted after East's pass, questioned (I would guess by East, even though technically it's not his turn) and described as "both majors". However, "South clearly wasn't sure".
4. EW misdefended, and 2♠ made an overtrick.
5. EW called the TD, claiming West would have led a spade "with a correct explanation".
6. OP says "let's assume (as is highly likely) that they have an agreement that had this sequence been natural then 2♦ would have shown the majors, but they haven't discussed this particular situation, so have no agreement." I infer from this and reading the BB that the sequence is not natural because the 1♦ bidder might have as few as two diamonds.

The correct explanation in this case would appear to be "if 1♦ were natural, 2♦ would show the majors, but we have not discussed this particular sequence".

IME, 1♦ "Precision" means the hand will have some 11-15 HCP and two or more diamonds, and not be suitable for some other limited opening bid (1M, 1NT or 2♣). Note: per the BB, this bid should be announced "may be two" rather than alerted, but I don't think that makes any difference to the ruling.

Technically, when 2♦ was alerted "late" the TD should have been called immediately, but this is rarely done, and again I don't think it makes any difference to the ruling, since it doesn't seem that East was inclined to change his pass after it.

North had an obligation (see Law 20F5{b}) to call the TD and correct his partner's explanation of 2♦ before the opening lead was faced. This, BTW, is a "must" law, so a PP is usually in order.

South's bid of only 2♠, with a weak hand "expecting" a ten card fit, is suspicious, but I suspect that he bid only two because he was unsure of their agreement. If he had explained the bid properly, I wouldn't have a problem with this, but he didn't, so it looks like he's catering for the possibility his explanation was wrong. I don't like this, but I'm not sure it's illegal. Comments?

I don't see why EW would have done anything differently in the defense with the correct explanation. IOW, MI didn't cause the damage. Therefore, no adjustment, but a "standard" PP to NS.

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-06, 09:54, said:

1. The auction, East dealing, went 1♦!-(P)-1♥-2♦!-(P)-2♠-all pass.
2. 1♦ "was Precision". It's not clear whether this was explained after the alert, or indeed whether anyone asked.
3. 2♦ was alerted after East's pass, ...

According to the OP, 1♥ was alerted: 1♥ showed hearts or balanced-and-invitational. It is not clear if anyone asked about 1♥.

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2013-September-06, 10:12, said:

According to the OP, 1♥ was alerted: 1♥ showed hearts or balanced-and-invitational. It is not clear if anyone asked about 1♥.

So it was. Sorry, I missed it. I don't think it should make any difference to the ruling, though.

[VixTD]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-05, 02:59, said:

Who leads trumps away from 10xxx when there is no evidence the opponents have a fit? The correct explanation reduces, rather than increases, the likelihood of a trump lead.

No adjustment.

This was essentially my view, which I gave to the TD and (doubtless after further consultation) became the final ruling. EW were not happy, but didn't appeal. I would have liked to have heard their reasons for preferring a trump lead with the correct explanation, but I never got to hear them.

[mycroft]

I think the question is really "if the auction was Natural" means "if "1♦ promised (3)4" or "if 1♥ promised hearts", or both.

I've been reading it all as if it was the worry that hearts may not be a real suit (therefore it's likely majors) (which is likely because, have you ever seen this agreement before? Me neither), rather than a worry that diamonds could be natural (which I would assume everyone has a decent idea about - there's lots of short clubs and diamonds around).

Also, North only has to correct the misexplanation if it truly was a misexplanation. If the agreement really is as the OP said it should be, then a late, tentative, unsure "majors" is pretty close to the correct explanation - certainly more so than "it's diamonds" would have been. But again, that depends on what part of "if it were natural" we're talking about.

[gordontd]

VixTD, on 2013-September-06, 10:26, said:

EW were not happy, but didn't appeal.

If EW are who I think they are, that's about as close as you're likely to get to an admission that the ruling was correct.

[VixTD]

gordontd, on 2013-September-06, 10:38, said:

If EW are who I think they are, that's about as close as you're likely to get to an admission that the ruling was correct.

It was who you think.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2013-September-06, 10:36, said:

I think the question is really "if the auction was Natural" means "if "1♦ promised (3)4" or "if 1♥ promised hearts", or both.

I've been reading it all as if it was the worry that hearts may not be a real suit (therefore it's likely majors) (which is likely because, have you ever seen this agreement before? Me neither), rather than a worry that diamonds could be natural (which I would assume everyone has a decent idea about - there's lots of short clubs and diamonds around).

Also, North only has to correct the misexplanation if it truly was a misexplanation. If the agreement really is as the OP said it should be, then a late, tentative, unsure "majors" is pretty close to the correct explanation - certainly more so than "it's diamonds" would have been. But again, that depends on what part of "if it were natural" we're talking about.

If the explanation was correct, then why doesn't North have both majors?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-06, 11:40, said:

If the explanation was correct, then why doesn't North have both majors?

Because North misbid.

But it sounds like they don't actually have an explicit agreement. They each assumed a different default way to treat a Precision 1♦ -- South assumed it should be treated as natural (so the cue bid is Michaels), North assumed artificial (so his bid is natural). NS were both essentially guessing what 2♦ means, but they didn't disclose this properly.

[blackshoe]

Precisely!

[c_corgi]

barmar, on 2013-September-07, 09:10, said:

... NS were both essentially guessing what 2♦ means, but they didn't disclose this properly.

South's explanation seemed to me to disclose this reasonably well, just not in secretary-bird proof terms.

[iviehoff]

gnasher, on 2013-September-05, 08:31, said:

Leaving aside the specifics of this case, in general:
...
(2) When there has been misinformation by the declaring side followed by a failure to correct the misinformation at the proper time, there are two separate infractions:
- The original misinformation.
- The failure to correct the misinformation.
Without this second infraction, the defenders would have known, at the end of the auction, that NS had had a misunderstanding. To restore equity, therefore, our adjustment should assume that the NOS knew of the misunderstanding from the end of the auction onwards.

This has been confirmed by the EBU L&EC:...

Indeed and I have never been in any doubt of it. But there was an additional condition in my original query you haven't addressed.

In the present case there wasn't actually a misunderstanding. It seems to me to be taking things a step further to allow the NOS the (chance) benefit of a lead they would have made if they had falsely deduced that there had been a misunderstanding, a false deduction they might have fallen to from thinking that a corrected explanation implied a misunderstanding, whereas in fact it arose from incompetence.

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-06, 11:40, said:

If the explanation was correct, then why doesn't North have both majors?

Okay, I'm bad at reading body language and tone, and I'm a computer programmer and so am more literal than most people who have spent their life working with people, and even I get 'a late, tentative, unsure "majors"' as being closer to "I have no clue, we've never seen this crazy agreement before" than to either "it's majors" or "it's diamonds".

And I would expect this E/W would be used to situations where their system knocks their opponents into "no-agreement" land, and from implications I'm getting above, likely are quite comfortable the advantages they get from that. I have a particular thing for players like that (who, I will grant, I somewhat resemble, at least occasionally) who (unlike me, I hope) *also* try to take legal advantage when they succeed in confusing and get a bad result anyway.

As a result, I try to train players into being definite about what they are definite about, while also not hiding behind "no agreement". My answer to an enquiry of 2♦, with the system I play would be "we have no agreement about this auction. Were both your calls natural, it would show diamonds; were West to have shown NAT INV, it would be majors." Factual, not making a guess, explaining what I have to use to make a guess, and after that, you're on your own, buddy.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2013-September-09, 10:44, said:

As a result, I try to train players into being definite about what they are definite about, while also not hiding behind "no agreement". My answer to an enquiry of 2♦, with the system I play would be "we have no agreement about this auction. Were both your calls natural, it would show diamonds; were West to have shown NAT INV, it would be majors." Factual, not making a guess, explaining what I have to use to make a guess, and after that, you're on your own, buddy.

That is the way to go, sure. At expert level, it may actually happen. At club level, it's a crap shoot.

Teaching players to do this kind of thing is worse than herding cats.