[mr1303]

---

The vulnerability should be E/W only vulnerable, matchpointed open pairs.

Table result 4NT N -4, NS -200

The facts. 2S was alerted as showing spades or both minor, (as part of the Suction convention) which West had forgotten. At the end of the play, the director is called and asks to see E/W convention card, which they say they have misplaced (this is the second session . They say they will be able to get hold of an electronic copy if necessary. They say there is nothing on it to say that they play suction over a strong 2C, but it does say that they play this defense over a strong 1C opening, and they say that they use the same over all strong artificial openings.

The ruling: As a TD is required to rule mistaken explanation rather than misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary [I forget which rule this is - no doubt someone can enlighten me], the score is adjusted to 80% of 4S S making 10 tricks and 20% of 2S E X -5, NS +1400. (My note: the percentages may not be exact, it may be something like 75% 25%. I don't have the paperwork to hand).

EW decide to appeal. At the end of the session, EW are able to find their convention cards and the defense to a strong 1C is shown as "Suction (X = diamonds or both majors etc)". There is nothing specific about a defense to a strong 2C opening.

They also explain a detail of a hand played the previous day when they went for -1700 after the auction (2C) 2NT (P) 3S (X) when 2NT was intended as showing both minors whereas the agreement was it showed spades and diamonds or hearts and clubs.

South says that he felt that East and West were both being honest about their agreements.

The AC's ruling was to agree with the TD's ruling. Their comments were (roughly) as follows:

"We agree with the TD's ruling. E/W should point out that they sometimes forget this part of their convention."

Thoughts? I hope I have included all relevant information here. If I have missed something I will endeavour to correct it.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2013-December-30, 09:51
Reason for edit: fix vulnerability in diagram

[pran]

You would have found the correct diagram with Board # 6.
The rule you quote is found in Law 75C.

But it appears to me that the alert and explanation at the table was correct. (As subsequently corroborated by East's calls and by the convention card when eventually produced.)

The only question that in my opinion needs consideration is if East/West have a tendency to misbid to the extent that they should regularly inform opponents of this tendency. Such information is extremely seldom offered as far as I know.

There is no redress to North/South for damaged caused by opponents' misbid (unless there is misinformation as well) so I have a problem with the ruling made by TD and AC here.

[PhilKing]

NS were damaged by West's failure to alert 2♠, which made relatively hard for a pair without firm agreements over interference to deal with the situation.

Oh, and keep the money - groundless appeal.

[sasioc]

Imo Phil is completely right. West, having been woken up to the problem, should have alerted 2S to give opponents correct information (and, secondarily, to avoid giving partner UI). Had this occurred it seems likely that NS would have played in their spade fit. Whether or not they would have ever taken a penalty out of 2S is another consideration - if W believes 2H (and thus 2S) to be natural, it feels like a possibility.

There is also a separate issue that W may have inadvertently taken advantage of UI by playing more than one round of H vs 4NT.

[Vampyr]

mr1303, on 2013-December-29, 16:07, said:

They also explain a detail of a hand played the previous day when they went for -1700 after the auction (2C) 2NT (P) 3S (X) when 2NT was intended as showing both minors whereas the agreement was it showed spades and diamonds or hearts and clubs.

...

"We agree with the TD's ruling. E/W should point out that they sometimes forget this part of their convention."

I don't think that such an explanation is helpful; opponents cannot sensibly use the information that a bid may mean X but then again maybe not. Do they bid on the basis that it is X, or not?

The real problem, strongly suggested by the first sentence quoted above, is that there is a real question as to whether E/W are really playing Suction in these auctions, and I think that they are not; therefore the explanation was incorrect.

[barmar]

mr1303, on 2013-December-29, 16:07, said:

EW decide to appeal. At the end of the session, EW are able to find their convention cards and the defense to a strong 1C is shown as "Suction (X = diamonds or both majors etc)". There is nothing specific about a defense to a strong 2C opening.

They also explain a detail of a hand played the previous day when they went for -1700 after the auction (2C) 2NT (P) 3S (X) when 2NT was intended as showing both minors whereas the agreement was it showed spades and diamonds or hearts and clubs.

How does pointing out another case where they misbid support their case that they have this agreement? What both auctions indicate is that one of them bids according to one convention (suits = natural, NT = minors), the other plays Suction. So the two auctions imply that they have a DISagreement.

[barmar]

mr1303, on 2013-December-29, 16:07, said:

The ruling: As a TD is required to rule mistaken explanation rather than misbid in the absence of evidence to the contrary [I forget which rule this is - no doubt someone can enlighten me], the score is adjusted to 80% of 4S S making 10 tricks and 20% of 2S E X -5, NS +1400. (My note: the percentages may not be exact, it may be something like 75% 25%. I don't have the paperwork to hand).

"evidence" doesn't have to be written. If West admits to having forgotten, and confirms that their actual agreement is Suction, that would also be evidence to the contrary. The TD needs to decide how credible it is, but now he has discretion rather than having to blindly follow that law's recommendation.

[mycroft]

2♣-2♦; 2NT-4♦; 4♠... Our card says we play SA Texas over 1NT and 2NT openings, but it doesn't say anything after 2♣...2NT. I forgot and have diamonds. Misinformation or misbid? I forgot and have hearts. Misinformation or misbid?

As barmar says, "evidence to the contrary" is just that. It does not necessarily mean "this auction is on the card/in the system notes/..."

I have sympathy for N/S. It's very difficult to bid against psycho-Suction, even more so when it's "Forget Suction". I agree that, *if West believes that East is right and he forgot* (which he's claiming in the post-mortem), he must Alert 2♠ "pass-or-correct". OTOH, N/S have been told that West has one of two hands, one of which is "single-suiter spades"; and East, forced, bid 2♠. How new do you have to be [Edit: especially in England, home of the Multi] to know this is "pass-or-correct", and what kind of hands would bid a P/C 2♠?

But, assume misinformation. The auction goes:

---

South, it's your call. Have fun! If South bids 3♠, North, it's your call. Have fun!

Again, what N/S want is to know E/W's system, *and* to know that West misbid. No can do, folks.

Finally, with the "no agreement really" folks (of which there are several, especially in the ACBL - repeated instances of "we play this but we forget" lead to that conclusion - You have the same hand, and the same auction, and West's hand is Alerted as "Hearts, or Spades, or the minors" (let's assume this is legal defence to 2♣). Your call, South. Good luck.

So I have sympathy for N/S, as I said. I hate this kind of "bidding germ" (though not as much as Mr. Wolff) - mostly because it comes up a lot more often against me when I open a (12-14, unthinkable where I play) 1NT. But the Laws are the Laws, you're allowed to misbid, you're allowed to misbid on purpose, even, and you're allowed to play pretty "destructive" conventions over opponents' artificial openers. Just because it never happens, doesn't mean you automatically get saved from your bad score when it does.

Finally, I think no matter what, if we grant there has been misinformation that mattered (either "absence of evidence", or "we play Suction 'when we remember'", or "missed P/C Alert actually caused misinformation"), I'm not necessarily giving them 4♠, but there's a better score somewhere than 4NT-4. They'd have to be able to show me that they can find 4♠ on whichever "correct" auction we're going to rule (where East has 6 of the 3 remaining spades, or where they're playing modified psycho-Suction) (Note: not that "they'll always get there", that's blaming the NOS; but "is it feasible to get to 4 of the opponents' suit after this auction holding 5 cards in it?"). What's a double by South? What's a double by North? What is the chance that East, knowing there's no safe place to land, but hoping for rescue, redoubles 2♠X passed to him? Note that any auction to 4♠ that allows E/W to find either of their fits will be -500 (okay, that's a good score for N/S, it's better than 4♠, even, but it's not -1400) in 5 of that suit.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-December-30, 10:00, said:

"evidence" doesn't have to be written. If West admits to having forgotten, and confirms that their actual agreement is Suction, that would also be evidence to the contrary. The TD needs to decide how credible it is, but now he has discretion rather than having to blindly follow that law's recommendation.

While I agree with you on the discretion, Barry, the provision about "absent evidence to the contrary" is not a recommendation, it's a requirement.

[FrancesHinden]

mycroft, on 2013-December-30, 11:10, said:

Finally, with the "no agreement really" folks (of which there are several, especially in the ACBL - repeated instances of "we play this but we forget" lead to that conclusion - You have the same hand, and the same auction, and West's hand is Alerted as "Hearts, or Spades, or the minors" (let's assume this is legal defence to 2♣). Your call, South. Good luck.

The point the ac were making (which may not have been clear) is that if NS were given that explanation - which the ac believed was closer to the truth - then indeed ns have full disclosure and have no recourse if they screw up

[nige1]

mr1303, on 2013-December-29, 16:07, said:

The facts. 2S was alerted as showing spades or both minors, (as part of the Suction convention) which West had forgotten.

Did West really forget? Or did they have no agreement here?

mr1303, on 2013-December-29, 16:07, said:

At the end of the session, EW are able to find their convention cards and the defense to a strong 1C is shown as "Suction (X = diamonds or both majors etc)". There is nothing specific about a defence to a strong 2C opening.

Independent evidence is lacking that EW have agreed Suction over 2C except that ...

mr1303, on 2013-December-29, 16:07, said:

South says that he felt that East and West were both being honest about their agreements.

Assuming that EW are telling the truth, however, why didn't West alert East's 2♠? As PhilKing says, the failure to alert and explain that bid caused damage.

[mr1303]

Neither the director nor the AC asked whether or not 2S was alerted. This was not brought up at any point in the entire discussion.

As I was East, I would've staked my mortgage on partner having got this one right by having either spades or both minors, given how annoyed he got when I got the convention wrong the previous day.

Since we've been playing together, this has come up about 8 times. The first 6 times we had it right. I have since moved away causing us to be a less frequent partnership, hence causing the two forgets.

I was surprised that the AC made no comment at all about producing the convention card with the strong club defense being on there. Since the TD's ruling was based on a lack of evidence to the contrary, us producing some evidence would be key to this appeal.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2013-December-31, 01:53, said:

Assuming that EW are telling the truth, however, why didn't West alert East's 2♠? As PhilKing says, the failure to alert and explain that bid caused damage.

I think there's lots of confusion about whether "pass or correct" bids require an alert. I don't think the ACBL Alert Procedures mentions them. They're ostensibly natural, since it's an offer to play in the suit if it's one of partner's suits. I think we've had discussions here, and I'm not sure a conclusion was ever reached.

[mycroft]

mycroft, on 2013-December-30, 11:10, said:

Finally, with the "no agreement really" folks (of which there are several, especially in the ACBL - repeated instances of "we play this but we forget" lead to that conclusion - You have the same hand, and the same auction, and West's hand is Alerted as "Hearts, or Spades, or the minors" (let's assume this is legal defence to 2♣). Your call, South. Good luck.

FrancesHinden, on 2013-December-30, 22:03, said:

The point the ac were making (which may not have been clear) is that if NS were given that explanation - which the ac believed was closer to the truth - then indeed ns have full disclosure and have no recourse if they screw up

Well, we didn't see the writeup, just what the OP said. Having said that, I agree that "second 'forget' in a weekend" is definitely evidence that they may claim to play Suction, but they actually play Forget Suction. There's *two* issues with that:

• If they show any evidence of catering to a forget, and don't explain their experience to their opponents, we're clearly in fielded misbid due to CPU territory (whatever light gets set). Note that that didn't happen here, but it's always worth thinking about.
  
• With the explanation that they play Forget Suction, N/S have a better chance of getting it right (as Frances/AC says). Having said that, I think this is a difficult convention to defend, whether it's accidental or not; if it's legal, that's a N/S problem, not a TD problem (even though the TD will have to decide the likelihood of N/S solving it in this case).

I still think that the weighting should be reviewed. Even with sympathetic weighting, I don't find it reasonable that 4♠ is going to be found *with the correct explanation of a legal convention* anywhere near 80% of the time, and I don't feel that the only other alternative is 2♠x. Maybe any "run" auction by E/W of 2♠x will lead to 4♠, maybe they won't take the 5-roundsuit phantom, maybe... but that should be made clear in the weighting judgement. Long discussion in my previous.

[mycroft]

Having done a (quick) docdive, I find:
- any defence to any call at the 2 level is legal, so "Forget Suction" is legal
- No statement about P/C calls is made in either the Blue or White books (closest I could see was "preference bids, even if short, are natural", but P/C is almost an anti-preference bid. It certainly is a different case to 1♦-1♥; 2♣-2♦). Given, as I said, we are in the land of the Multi, I find that odd.

[gnasher]

mycroft, on 2013-December-31, 11:02, said:

Having done a (quick) docdive, I find:
- any defence to any call at the 2 level is legal, so "Forget Suction" is legal
- No statement about P/C calls is made in either the Blue or White books (closest I could see was "preference bids, even if short, are natural", but P/C is almost an anti-preference bid. It certainly is a different case to 1♦-1♥; 2♣-2♦). Given, as I said, we are in the land of the Multi, I find that odd.

It's in the Blue Book:

4 H 1 Because they are not natural, players must alert (unless excepted by 4B4 above):
...
c) Any 'pass or correct' bids

[FrancesHinden]

mr1303, on 2013-December-31, 03:22, said:

Neither the director nor the AC asked whether or not 2S was alerted. This was not brought up at any point in the entire discussion.

As I was East, I would've staked my mortgage on partner having got this one right by having either spades or both minors, given how annoyed he got when I got the convention wrong the previous day.

Since we've been playing together, this has come up about 8 times. The first 6 times we had it right. I have since moved away causing us to be a less frequent partnership, hence causing the two forgets.

I was surprised that the AC made no comment at all about producing the convention card with the strong club defense being on there. Since the TD's ruling was based on a lack of evidence to the contrary, us producing some evidence would be key to this appeal.

Speaking personally, I do not see that the agreed defence to a strong club is evidence for what is played against a strong 2C opening. The vast majority of pairs (IMO) in England do not play the same defence against these two different opening bids. (And in my rather biased experience - biased from having seen so many rulings - for a fair proportion of the remaining pairs only half of each pair plays it against a 2C opening)

[mr1303]

In the bar afterwards, North (who is a friend of mine) said he was very surprised at the AC's ruling as well. He regretted even calling the director in hindsight.

Given that there's no section for a defense to a strong 2C on the EBU convention card, I fail to see what other evidence could be provided.

[nige1]

mr1303, on 2013-December-31, 03:22, said:

Neither the director nor the AC asked whether or not 2S was alerted. This was not brought up at any point in the entire discussion.

Presumably, had 2♠ been alerted, that would have been noted in the auction on the appeal-form.

Anyway, now the year has ended, Happy 2014, everybody!

[blackshoe]

two hours ten minutes yet to go here, but who's counting? :-)

Happy New Year!