[gordontd]

m1cha, on 2017-April-08, 19:49, said:

I doubt that there is UI at this point. Obviously when East bid 3♦ he knew that his partner had mistaken the 2♣ bid. But since he could derive this clearly from the fact that partner passed the bid, it was AI. That he could have come to the same conclusion from the fact that partner had failed to alert the bid, doesn't make it UI.

It's still UI, even though the AI may mean there is no LA to rebidding diamonds. I do however think that re-bidding 3D rather than 2D is suggested by the UI since it clarifies that you have real diamonds and extra strength, rather than just showing preference.

[nige1]

I agree with GordonTD that West has LAs to 3♦. e.g. 2♦, 2♠ but I could well be wrong that Pass is an LA. You might need a poll.

When the director can't work out the ramifications of infractions, I suppose he can award Av+ Av-.

[Trinidad]

timjand, on 2017-April-09, 00:16, said:

Not available in this sequence. Similar to after weak NT open from N, say.

Tim

After a weak 1NT opening you always have 2NT available as a "cuebid".

Rik

[weejonnie]

Doesn't it all come down to:-

What would South do if he knew that there was no partnership understanding of the 2♣ call? He has said he would pass if he knew that the partnership were having a misunderstanding. However he is not entitled to know that (see below). What he is allowed to know is "No partnership agreement: we play UCBs in many situations but haven't discussed whether it applies over a potentially short club".

He may very well pass, suspecting a misunderstanding, so some allowance for 2♣-5 should be made. If he doubles then surely West should pass - after all partner has said he doesn't mind playing in 2♣, even with Diamond support (he could be xxx-4-6 and 2♣ would be conventional) and now we have to decide what East will do. We assume he knows that North has converted a take-out double into a penalty double, so there is a reasonable chance that he will 'guess correctly' (East has no UI/MI) (when he will call the director and give the 'correct' explanation - although of course under the new rules he won't have to do that until the end of the auction). If he does then there is actually a chance he will bid 2♠ (a cost nothing bid, as he is prepared to play in 3♦), but we will assume that in most cases he will just bid 2♦ to show a minimum hand, South and West will pass and North will bid 2♥. West may bid 3♦ and North have nothing to say. If East does bid 2♠ then EW may end up on a spade partial.

So there seem to be various possibilities (all of which score better for NS so they have been damaged.
2♣ by West - NS +500 - most likely result.
2♥ by North (probably generally making - N would play 2♥ differently from 4♥)
3♦ by East
3♠ by East

Looking at the new laws (which have only been implemented in a certain North London Bridge Club), we would find that they will actually give guidance in these circumstances. 75D

D. Director’s Determination 

1. Players are expected to disclose their partnership agreements accurately (see Law 20F1);  failure to do so constitutes Misinformation. 

2. It is a condition of any partnership agreement that both players possess the same mutual  understanding, and it is an infraction to describe an agreement where the same mutual  understanding does not exist.  If the Director determines that the misleading explanation  was not based upon a partnership agreement, he applies Law 21B. 

3. When there is an infraction (as per B1 or D2) and sufficient evidence exists as to the agreed  meaning of the call, the Director awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome  had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner.  If the Director  determines that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based upon  the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed. 

(Which IMHO is a better explanation than the previous one)

Obiter - the new laws say "likely outcome", they do not say "likely outcomes", probably a bit slovenly in writing as I assume law 12C still allows weighted scores in this case.
Obiter - presumably a PP for EW 'flagrant use of UI'

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2017-April-09, 02:46, said:

When the director can't work out the ramifications of infractions, I suppose he can award Av+ Av-.

Depends what you mean by "ramifications of infractions". Generally the director can award an artificial adjusted score (ArtAS) in three cases: 1) when no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (Law 12A2), 2) when the possibilities for a weighted assigned adjusted score (AAS) are numerous or not obvious (Law 12C1{d}), or 3) when owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (Law 12C2). Note that Law 12A2 (option 1) refers directly to Law 12C2 (option 3). The director cannot, in a UI case, award any adjusted score if he cannot demonstrate how Law 16B3 (or Law 73C) was violated.

An ArtAS may be awarded in these other specific cases: 4) when a pocket of the board contains an incorrect number of cards, and a player has seen one or more cards of an opponent's hand (Law 13D2{b}), 5) when a player has UI from a source other than his partner, the director judges the information may interfere with normal play, and no call has yet been made (Law 16C2{d}) (note that an ArtAS here is a last resort), 6) when a player has made a call based on a hand he took from a wrong board, that call is cancelled, and he makes a different call after he sees his correct hand, or if his partner has made a subsequent call over the cancelled call (Laws 17D2 and 17D3).

Side note: IMO it is unfortunate that the laws do not define "normal play of the board" or "no result can be obtained", but maybe that's just my OCD talking.

[RMB1]

gordontd, on 2017-April-08, 16:12, said:

So how would you make an unassuming cue-bid?

With your left hand?

[timjand]

weejonnie, on 2017-April-09, 06:09, said:

Doesn't it all come down to:-

What would South do if he knew that there was no partnership understanding of the 2♣ call? He has said he would pass if he knew that the partnership were having a misunderstanding. However he is not entitled to know that (see below). What he is allowed to know is "No partnership agreement: we play UCBs in many situations but haven't discussed whether it applies over a potentially short club".

Agreed S is allowed to know this; however I remain a little puzzled about why E should alert a bid that as far as E knows is natural. I guess this hinges on whether most players who play UCB also play it over a short club or other artificial bids. I have never played it like that, but perhaps I am unusual.

weejonnie, on 2017-April-09, 06:09, said:

He may very well pass, suspecting a misunderstanding, so some allowance for 2♣-5 should be made.

Well, he had that opportunity. Further, if E didn't consider 2C natural then E would bid. So there isn't a plausible scenario in which E both alerts 2C and passes.

weejonnie, on 2017-April-09, 06:09, said:

So there seem to be various possibilities (all of which score better for NS so they have been damaged.

What are you saying is the infraction? East's failure to alert, or West's bid of 3D? I think I understand that W should bid 2d rather than 3d because of UI. It's not clear though that this would have a different outcome.

GordonTD says that there could be redress for E not alerting 2C *even if he believes that it is agreed to be natural*. I would value clarification here. I had understood that a misbid was not in itself illegal, for example. Or is it because E/W seem to be playing different systems, is that the problem here?

Tim

[barmar]

timjand, on 2017-April-10, 04:41, said:

Agreed S is allowed to know this; however I remain a little puzzled about why E should alert a bid that as far as E knows is natural.

The opponents are entitled to an alert for any bid whose meaning is alertable according to the RA. East's mistaken understanding is not relevant to this.

However, if East is mistaken he can't be blamed for not alerting, so it would not be appropriate to issue a PP.

Quote

I guess this hinges on whether most players who play UCB also play it over a short club or other artificial bids. I have never played it like that, but perhaps I am unusual.

Unless I explicitly agree otherwise with a partner, I generally assume that we don't vary our methods over a short minor; just because it could be short, it doesn't mean it usually is. Artificial bids (e.g. strong club) are a completely different matter.

I recently added natural cue bids over short minor to my agreements with my regular partner, I've not done it with anyone else.

[timjand]

barmar, on 2017-April-10, 09:00, said:

The opponents are entitled to an alert for any bid whose meaning is alertable according to the RA. East's mistaken understanding is not relevant to this.

So I am sure I am understanding ... let us assume that E/W had chatted before the event and agreed that if an opponent's opening bid promised two or fewer cards in the suit, that overcalling with that suit is natural. But W forgot.

Would that change everything?

Tim

[lamford]

nige1, on 2017-April-08, 13:20, said:

and impose a disciplinary penalty on West.

In the words of David Moyes, she needs a good slap ... I think you might have meant procedural penalty, although that is clearly not merited.

[lamford]

This looks like a simple adjustment to 2C-5 for E/W, NS +500. South is entitled to know that 2C is a UCB, and if she did, she would pass it out. This does not seem to be a difficult ruling; what am I missing? Perhaps someone else has made this point, and I have not read all the thread.

[barmar]

timjand, on 2017-April-10, 09:55, said:

So I am sure I am understanding ... let us assume that E/W had chatted before the event and agreed that if an opponent's opening bid promised two or fewer cards in the suit, that overcalling with that suit is natural. But W forgot.

Would that change everything?

That removes the MI issue, since in EBU-land a natural overcall is not alertable (right?).

There's still the UI issue. Clearly West is allowed to correct back to ♦, since it's hard to imagine any hand for East where clubs plays as well or better than diamonds, especially if NS are doubling clubs. But as others have said, the jump to 3♦ seems to be taking advantage of the UI that tells you partner doesn't realize you were showing a good raise.

[m1cha]

weejonnie, on 2017-April-09, 06:09, said:

[East] could be xxx-4-6 and 2♣ would be conventional

I don't think so. I don't believe you'd want to describe a x-x-4-6 hand by first bidding ♦ and then ♣. Partner would always assume longer diamonds than clubs. In order to bid a 6-card ♣ if 2♣ were conventional, one might bid 3♣, 1NT, or pass and bid clubs in the next round. Bidding a different suit in order to bid a 6-card ♣ takes an ability to look into the future knowing that partner will bid 2♣ which you can pass .

Back to West, having realized from East's past that East mistook the 2♣ bid, East has a right to try to save the board. By bidding 2♣ West tried to show a strong hand with ♦ support, so West will now try to show diamonds with a strong hand, and IMO 3♦ is the best choice because
- 3♦ is more easily understood as a strong hand,
- 3♦ is more easily understood as 4-card ♦,
- 2♦ might be misunderstood as 'I have clubs but I also have diamonds'.
2♦ doesn't even come close, I'd say it's not an LA.

[m1cha]

lamford, on 2017-April-10, 10:57, said:

This looks like a simple adjustment to 2C-5 for E/W, NS +500. South is entitled to know that 2C is a UCB, and if she did, she would pass it out. This does not seem to be a difficult ruling; what am I missing?

There was no agreement that 2♣ is a UCB. This situation just wasn't discussed. So South would have been entitled to know that there was no agreement - which did not make it an easy pass for South yet.

:

Two questions from my side just because I'm curious. Firstly, does it make a difference that EW were not a regular partnership? And does it make a difference if NS know that EW are not a regular partnership? I mean in a regular partnership I would expect that they know what they have discussed and they know what the have not discussed which should make it an easy alert for East. In a non-regular partnership they could not discuss much, and if they'd have to alert all bids that were not fully discussed, they'd have to alert most bids in any bidding that goes beyond the basics. I just wonder if that's what it's meant to be.

For my second question let me describe a scenario that might have happened at the table though I'm not suggesting it actually did. I am just raising a possibility. Gordontd noticed that South's second double seemed to be an overbid. Why might South do that? The answer may be that South wondered where the majors are. West has clubs, East has diamonds and some clubs, too, so North must have the majors which is why the second double looks like a good idea. On the other hand if that 2♣ bid was artificial and North has clubs, the double means trouble. Now South has two possibilities:
(1) South might ask East about the 2♣ bid and would perhaps have learnt (upon some thought by East) that East believed it to be natural but that it is actually undiscussed. Which would have left South correctly informed but still guessing.
(2) South might intentionally not ask; then if 2♣ is natural as suggested by the failure to alert, the double seems a good idea, while if 2♣ is artificial the double is still a good idea though it will lead to a bad contract but South can claim to be damaged by MI.
Obviously (2) is the more successful action but just as obviously it's not fair play. In order not to make this too easy, there is a law in the tournament rules in my country that gives the 'other' side some responsibility to keep themselves informed within the concept of fair play. Does such a law also exist in the EBU? Because it might also play a role here.

For example in one case in our local club, South opened 2♠ alerted as a weak two. West passed, North bid 3♠ unalerted, all passed. After the game, East complained that North had a weak hand. He had assumed that 3♠ as a preempt requires an alert and had inferred from the failure of an alert that North should have an invitational hand. The TD ruled that, while a preempt is the current standard in modern bridge in my country, most players in the room probably still play 3♠ invitational, so the 3♠ bid should have been alerted. But, since the situation is far from clear and might differ from tournament to tournament, East should have asked South about the meaning of the bid and should not make conclusions about the bid from the existence or failure of an alert. Since East failed to ask, there was no rectification of the score.

[Vampyr]

timjand, on 2017-April-10, 04:41, said:

Agreed S is allowed to know this; however I remain a little puzzled about why E should alert a bid that as far as E knows is natural. I guess this hinges on whether most players who play UCB also play it over a short club or other artificial bids. I have never played it like that, but perhaps I am unusual.

"A short club or other artificial bid" is incorrect; the word "other" does not belong. After all, a short club is usually not short. In this post campboy provides some figures he had produced which demonstrate that a "short club" is more likely to be a seven-card suit than a doubleton. Of course, it matters what assumptions are being used. If the club suit t can be two only when 4=4=3=2 (I am assuming that this was campboy's criterion) then two-card club suits will be rare. If a diamond opening promises an unbalanced suit, so that a 1♣ opening could contain four or five diamonds and shorter clubs in a balanced hand, the number of clubs will be less. Perhaps someone has done a calculation.

And of course the opening NT range is a factor. Playing a weak NT, all 2-card club hands (these will all be balanced) with minimum opening bids will be taken out of the 1♣ openings. You can see this effect in campboy's numbers.

It is most common to treat a could-be-short 1♣ opening in a natural system just like any other 1♣ opening. One exception is pairs who use destructive methods that are not permitted against openings that promise three or more.

[Vampyr]

m1cha, on 2017-April-10, 20:50, said:

(1) South might ask East about the 2♣ bid and would perhaps have learnt (upon some thought by East) that East believed it to be natural but that it is actually undiscussed. Which would have left South correctly informed but still guessing.
(2) South might intentionally not ask; then if 2♣ is natural as suggested by the failure to alert, the double seems a good idea, while if 2♣ is artificial the double is still a good idea though it will lead to a bad contract but South can claim to be damaged by MI.
Obviously (2) is the more successful action but just as obviously it's not fair play. In order not to make this too easy, there is a law in the tournament rules in my country that gives the 'other' side some responsibility to keep themselves informed within the concept of fair play. Does such a law also exist in the EBU? Because it might also play a role here.

There is a difference between an overbid and a SEWOG. If the call is not the latter, then it is fine.

[weejonnie]

m1cha, on 2017-April-10, 19:13, said:

[/size]
I don't think so. I don't believe you'd want to describe a x-x-4-6 hand by first bidding ♦ and then ♣. Partner would always assume longer diamonds than clubs. In order to bid a 6-card ♣ if 2♣ were conventional, one might bid 3♣, 1NT, or pass and bid clubs in the next round. Bidding a different suit in order to bid a 6-card ♣ takes an ability to look into the future knowing that partner will bid 2♣ which you can pass .

Back to West, having realized from East's past that East mistook the 2♣ bid, East has a right to try to save the board. By bidding 2♣ West tried to show a strong hand with ♦ support, so West will now try to show diamonds with a strong hand, and IMO 3♦ is the best choice because
- 3♦ is more easily understood as a strong hand,
- 3♦ is more easily understood as 4-card ♦,
- 2♦ might be misunderstood as 'I have clubs but I also have diamonds'.
2♦ doesn't even come close, I'd say it's not an LA.

The problem with this argument is that the reason that West knows that East hasn't got clubs is that East didn't alert the 2♣ call. Suppose East HAD alerted the call and then passed 2♣. Now if it is impossible for East to hold clubs then I might agree - however I don't think it is impossible - you may be able to persuade an AC of course since the probability is fairly small.

I still feel that 2♣ -5 is going to be the most likely scenario, but not a 100% one.

[m1cha]

Vampyr, on 2017-April-10, 22:25, said:

There is a difference between an overbid and a SEWOG. If the call is not the latter, then it is fine.

Please forgive my ignorance, what does SEWOG stand for?

weejonnie, on 2017-April-11, 02:21, said:

The problem with this argument is that the reason that West knows that East hasn't got clubs is that East didn't alert the 2♣ call. Suppose East HAD alerted the call and then passed 2♣.

I am aware of the problem but my point is that first alerting 2♣ and then passing it simply cannot happen, or if it did it would be a clear case of "Sorry partner, I took the wrong card from the bidding box, I never meant to play diamonds". Anyway, I may not be able to convince everybody, and that's okay.

[barmar]

m1cha, on 2017-April-10, 20:50, said:

There was no agreement that 2♣ is a UCB. This situation just wasn't discussed.

Do you have to discuss every possible auction? If you have an agreement that cue bids are UCB, and you haven't discussed exceptions, doesn't that mean there are no exceptions?

Apparently West thought so, but East didn't. Does that mean that one of them was right and the other wrong, or that they really had no agreement? Aren't there general principles that act as the ultimate defaults?

[blackshoe]

m1cha, on 2017-April-11, 08:13, said:

Please forgive my ignorance, what does SEWOG stand for?

Serious error, or wild or gambling. It's a reference to Law 12C1{b}: If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.