BBO Discussion Forums: Icelandic Pairs 2011 - BBO Discussion Forums

hrothgar, on 2011-March-17, 05:07, said:

That's not at all the same. When you psyche, you are making a non-systemic call even though you had a systemic call available. Vampyr and others are discussing the situation where you discover that there is no systemic call for a particular hand.

Vampyr, on 2011-March-16, 21:13, said:

I do not think this is right. If you make a call, knowing it shows a different hand from the one you hold, it is a principle oft repeated that you are under no obligation to tell your opponents. Compare a psyche where you do it deliberately or a misbid where you do it accidentally.

East, looking at a fairly balanced hand, had for some unknown reason problem with his first rebid. I think we should listen more carefully to what East said at the table, namely he had no other bid and 3♥ was the only bid available for him, playing this system. That is exactly what he said.
Do we need any further confirmation to go on?
Implicid or systematic agreement? I think so, hence MI or at least lack of information, but very unfortunate one.
Experienced or inexperienced par? Wery experinced par indeed!

bluejak, on 2011-March-17, 06:56, said:

Why should we compare this situation with a psyche or a misbid? The argument is about pre-existing agreements: if your agreements mean that a particular hand-type is unbiddable, that is arguably "special information conveyed to [you] through partnership agreement", and therefore information that must be passed on to the opponents under Law 40B6(a).

I can't see any parallel with auctions involving a psyche or a misbid.

Math609, on 2011-March-17, 08:48, said:

I have reread ICEMachine's posts, and I can't find anything to suggest that 3♥ was the only bid available. Where did you get that from?

There seem to be three relevant statements:
"East after the hand said that he had no bid for this hand in his system."
"The reason East didnt bid 2N was that he didnt want to bid it as it was NF"
"He didnt fancy to bid 3♣ with only 4 and Hx in hearts."

The last two seem to imply that he had two systemic alternatives, but chose a third non-systemic action. However, that's not really consistent with the first one.

gnasher, on 2011-March-17, 08:59, said:

You are arguing that a player with no agreement to bid this way on this hand should invent an agreement he does not have. That is unnecessary for this hand, as for a psyche, as for a misbid: they are identical.

gnasher, on 2011-March-17, 09:11, said:

No, it suggests he was choosing between alternatives none of which suited this particular hand. This is reasonably common.

Math609, on 2011-March-17, 08:48, said:

He said that without stoppers in diamonds there was no bid for him. With Kx in diamonds instead of QJ, I think he would have chosen 2NT which was NF.
East also said that EW agreements was that 3♥ was to be bid on hands with at least 3 card support.

East had to choose from available bids, and he chose 3♥. After choosing 3♥, why would East say that he could have chosen any other bid, when he chose this one?

This is similar to K - AJxx - AJxx - KJxx

Playing 5-card majors would you open 1♣/♦ and then .......
or would you open 1N?

The hand above is not balanced, but many would treat it as such. Choosing to show balanced hand when the hand is unbalanced by normal definitions.
If you decide to define 1444 distribution with a honour singleton as a balanced hand if it falls in your 1NT range, you should tell opponents and you should have it on your CC,
but of those that do.... do they ?

bluejak, on 2011-March-17, 06:56, said:

I remember consulting with you about a hand a couple of years ago in the Brighton Teams finals when the auction had gone:

1♥-1NT
2♣*-2♥
4♥

They had agreed to play transfer rebids, so that the 2♣ rebid showed diamonds; they had also agreed to play that a 3♣ rebid was natural and game-forcing. They had no agreement as to what to do with weaker hands with clubs and the player (a professional playing his partner's system) chose to rebid 2♣ with a 2524 17-count.

We ruled that the defending side had been mis-informed because they were entitled to know of the gap in the system for hands with clubs that were not strong enough for a 3♣ rebid.

However, we also ruled that the misinformation had not damaged them because the opening bidder had effectively changed his mind and continued the auction as though he had a game-forcing hand (even though he had not), and so the information that we thought the defenders were entitled to would not have led them to conclude on this auction that he might have a hand with clubs rather than diamonds.

bluejak, on 2011-March-17, 09:32, said:

No I'm not. The argument I stated was:

Quote

I'm not saying East should claim to have an agreement to bid 3♥ on this hand. I'm saying that agreements about the meanings of other bids may convey special information to East, and if so this special information should be given to the opponents.

I'm not entirely convinced by this argument, but I'm confident that it wouldn't apply in a situation where East had pschyed or misbid.

ICEmachine, on 2011-March-17, 09:51, said:

Where does it say that in ICEMachine's post?

gnasher, on 2011-March-17, 10:37, said:

This is what East said when asked why he bid 3♥. So from that you can say that 3♥ was the only bid on this hand from East's point of view.

Still, when I asked him what his alternatives were, he told me his options that I wrote in the first post, so when he bid 3♥ he was choosing 1 bid from among 3 that all had flaws.

2NT would show a balanced hand without 3-card support, but when I asked him why he didnt chose that one, he said it was because he didnt have a diamond stopper.

Let’s get all the facts. EW is a very experinced par and wery honest par indeed. I have already pointed out what East said at the table: I had no other bid on this hand (no other than 3♥). And he did repeat this again a few moments later. This was an honest explaination from an honest player, no doubt about that. But still...something was wrong here. EW was playing a very rare and highly unusal system and they did obviously not have more normal bid available on this pretty normal hand. So, if they didn’t, 3♥ must be the systematic bidding in this case. If not, we better talk about non-system. And as I said before: Do we need any further confirmation to carry on?

How do I know all this for sure? I was at the table, I was talking to East! Our conversation is firmly confirmed.

It sounds like a paradox if East had picked 3♥ out of ,,possible,, bids because no such possibillities was explained, neither at the table nor in front of the tournament director. On the contrary 3♥ was the only bid available for the East hand and that was confirmed by East. So, all explainations about so called ,,possible,, bids are indeed afterwards-explainations and was brought in to the daylight 2-3 days after the ruling of AC. Also this so called hole in EW-system.

As I have said before this was a rather unfortunate incident, but who is going to pay the bill? The offensive par or the defenders?

Now you have all the facts!

Math609, on 2011-March-17, 16:12, said:

Like Math609, I think there was a misexplanation; but like everyone else, I agree that the law is often equivocal when a player seems stupid, ignorant, lazy, or careless.

In this case and in other contexts, the law seems to specify no duty of care.

An extreme example: an opponent leads ♥A against your 7♠ contract. On casual inspection, you seem to have a heart void. If so, you have an easy thirteen tricks. There is no practical incentive for you to check further. If you ruff and claim, then the worst that is likely to happen is the director rules against you when it is discovered that, unbeknownst to you, a heart is lurking somewhere. On a lucky day, however, opponents will be out of contention and may not even check themselves. The deliberate omission of deterrence means that, for some kinds of infraction, "Equity" Law positively rewards such carelessness.

Math609, on 2011-March-17, 16:12, said:

Do we? We seem to have at least two different versions of the facts.

Can I suggest that you and ICEMachine agree between you what the facts actually are, then tell us your agreed version of the facts, and then don't change it again?

gnasher, on 2011-March-18, 02:34, said:

Well, that must be a reasonable question, I assume.
I have been very accurate regarding the facts at the table, but for further information lets collect all the facts together:

1) I know all the facts at the table and I hava already described them in details.

2) ICEMachine knows the facts outside the table and he had stated (in discussion in Iceland) that he had conversation with East few days after the ruling of AC. Hence, we have information about ,,hole,, in the system and some ,,possible,, bids. These so called ,,possible,, bids was never explained at the table, neither to NS nor the tournament director, simply because that is in contradiction to the satement of East at the table (No other bid available).

3) No one of the players went before the AC, hence no further questions asked by the AC. Just the statement from tournament director was available to the AC.

Math609, on 2011-March-17, 16:12, said:

If this is the case then even bluejak will agree that there was MI.

Quote

Indeed.

If you ask EW about their system you will know from which alternatives East could choose from.
The TD ruled that there was no MI as East bid 3♥ knowing at the time that it showed/promised 3-card support given EW agreements.

When East was asked why he bid 3♥ he said that he choose it from the available options.

To say that 3♥ was the only bid, is like removing all the bids between 2♥ and 3♦ and all the bids from 3♠ and above.

There will always be bids available and bridgeplayers more or less try to choose the bid that describes their hands best possible given the system/agreements they use.

To say that just because East said at the table that 3♥ was the only bid availble, we should believe him. Common sense gives us a different answer.

In the firs post I gave the possible alternatives as East clearly had to choose among them. He chose 3♥ because he didnt want to bid 2N because of 2 reasons.
It was NF and he didnt have a stopper in ♦. As strange as those 2 facts may seem, those were his reasons. So given that, then he had no bid except 3♥, as he had too many points for 2♥.

ICEmachine, on 2011-March-18, 12:32, said:

This post raises an interesting point that hasn't been discussed as of yet:

So far, the majority of the discussion of this hand has assumed that that

♠ AQJ98
♥ K2
♦ QJ
♣ AJ83

fell into a systemic "hole". More simply, we (I ????) assumed that East had no bid available to describe this hand type.

This latest post suggests something a subtle difference:

In fact, E/W may have a systemic bid to show the hand in question.
2NT is the systemic agreement with this hand.
In this case, East chose to violate system and decided to bid 3♥ rather than 3N.

The ACBL has (used to have?) a concept known as a "deviation". The ACBL felt that disclosure structures required some flexibily.
The regulatory structure explained that a disclosed agreement does not constitute a promise and that players had the right to (occasionally) deviate from their agreements:

Opening a 1♠ with a strong 4 card suit
Opening a 15-17 HCP NT with an exceptional 14 count (or downgrading a shitty 18 count)

Its been a long time since I played in Iceland and I have no clue whether the Icelandic bridge system includes anything formal that is equivalent to the notion of a deviation.
However, even if they don't, it's not an infraction to break system...

Unless you can prove that the opponent's have a concealed partnership agreement, I don't think that you deserve recourse...

As I mentioned in my first post, not one has yet produced the single most compelling piece of evidence (written documentation describing the system in question)

"Deviation" is not just an ACBL thing, it's in the laws worldwide.

Quote