[RMB1]

gordontd, on May 9 2010, 10:49 AM, said:

2♠ was intended as natural, but was alerted and it was explained that EW (who enjoy system!) had recently changed their overcall structure and a 1♠ overcall of 1♥ would have shown ♣ or ♠+♦. East thought that this also applied here, though he did mention the possibility that his partner might just have spades.

FrancesHinden, on May 9 2010, 05:15 AM, said:

If this full explanation was given at the table, I would probably rule that the result stands.  It seems to be a full description of their agreements.

nige1, on May 13 2010, 03:19 AM, said:

I agree with Frances. My impression is that when you're unsure of your agreement but you think partner's call could be alertable, then you must: alert it; inform opponents of your uncertainty; and offer to divulge what inferences are available. I would prefer it if the law were as David Burn states and Gordon ruled but I'm not yet persuaded that it is.

As I see it, the argument here is about what the laws say about what the opponents are entitled to in the presence of uncertainty about agreements. If West thought 2♠ was natural and was unaware that other agreements might make the meaning ambiguous then there is a case for ruling that "2♠ = natural" is the agreement to which NS are entitled. In other cases, I have been content to rule that the partnership understanding is that a call is ambiguous when there is a difference of opinion as to what the agreement is.

Should the law e.g. Law 21B1b be extended to say "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary; and the director is to presume a simpler explanation rather than a more ambiguous explanation in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

[iviehoff]

Suppose the following ambiguous explanation is given "We have agreed it to mean X, as you can see on both our cards. But my partner is inclined to forget and those cases my experience is he thinks it means Y". (We will suppose that "X or Y" is a permitted agreement.)

Now in fact it is illegal under EBU regulations to include in explanation the possibility that someone might forget it (Orange Book 3 B 10). This was a new regulation in the 2006 OB, and survived the 2008 edit. But actually I think many other ambiguous situations are just like the "might forget" ambiguous situation, and the same analysis that led the EBU to this (in my view, very good) regulation applies equally. In effect, in the EBU, the knowledge that your partner is likely to forget has become UI you must scrupulously avoid using.

Why has the EBU banned that particular explanation? Precisely because if something is included in an explanation, then the player doing the explaining has an equal right to rely on it as the opposition. One could say that if you mention the possibility of a misbid, then now it is no longer an offence to field the misbid, because under the explanation you have given, X or Y, Y is not actually a misbid any more. (Though of course misbid fielding is a specific offence in EBU, but not in other places.)

Consider it in a regime where misbid fielding is not an offence. If you give the explanation "X or Y", then when it is the opponent who has the hand that can tell it is most likely Y, then they can take advantage. But more often it is the partner who is in the best position to judge whether it is X or Y.

Of course it is perfectly legal to have explicit agreements such as Multi 2D or Polish Club with alternative meanings. And it is perfectly legal for there to be inferences and to disclose inferences. And of course a partnership that plays these conventions is in a better position to handle them than someone who infrequently encounters such methods. But the situations we are talking about is is not really that.

So my view is that the law should be rewritten to require that a player, in giving an explanation of a bid, must do one of the following:

(1) there is a clear (implicitly) agreed meaning for it, state it, behave as though that is the meaning, and if your partner's bid turns out to be inconsistent with it the authorities will judge whether it is MI or misbid on the usual criteria

or

(2) state there is no agreed meaning, and scrupulously act as if this was the case (much as in the EBU you are not allowed to use the information that your partner is forgetful). Any undisclosed, and indeed illegal-to-disclose, tendencies that might help you to judge what it means are UI.

Intermediate explanations ("well it's not clear, it might be this or it might be that") should be illegal.

[RMB1]

iviehoff, on May 13 2010, 11:13 AM, said:

Now in fact it is illegal under EBU regulations to include in explanation the possibility that someone might forget it (Orange Book 3 B 10). This was a new regulation in the 2006 OB, and survived the 2008 edit.

But not the 2009 edit. OB 3 B 10 was removed from the latest edition.
It was considered illegal following adoption of the 2007 Laws.

[iviehoff]

RMB1, on May 13 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

iviehoff, on May 13 2010, 11:13 AM, said:

Now in fact it is illegal under EBU regulations to include in explanation the possibility that someone might forget it (Orange Book 3 B 10).  This was a new regulation in the 2006 OB, and survived the 2008 edit.

But not the 2009 edit. OB 3 B 10 was removed from the latest edition.
It was considered illegal following adoption of the 2007 Laws.

OK, thanks, hadn't spotted the 2009 edits. That doesn't affect my basic argument. In fact it sounds like the EBU would still like to have 3 B 10, and would need a change in underlying law to sustain it, which seems to strengthen the case for a change of law.

[dburn]

Suppose that the auction had begun (4♥) 4♠. Would it have occurred to East that the 4♠ bid showed "either clubs, or spades and diamonds"? Would it have occurred belatedly to West that this is what the bid "should" show?

It really is not open to East-West to say that because a 1♠ overcall of a 1♥ opening shows clubs or the pointed suits, "therefore" the agreement "might" be that for all (or some) n>1, a n♠ overcall of a n♥ opening also shows clubs or the pointed suits. In my view, it is something of a dereliction of duty for a partnership to enter even a semi-serious tournament without knowing what it means when one of them bids 2♠ over an opening 2♥, but as yet there appears no actual legal requirement to do so.

I say once more, as Gordon said: if East-West had not explicitly agreed that a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening showed either clubs or the pointed suits, any statement to the effect that it might is misinformation.

I believe also that the Director should have given more consideration than he did to the extent to which East-West's shenanigans had fixed North. It is true that I would not have bid North's cards as she did, but it is not necessarily a "serious error" not to do what I would do (indeed, as has been amply demonstrated over the thirty years and more that I have been playing bridge, the converse is more likely to be true).

[mjj29]

dburn, on May 13 2010, 09:35 PM, said:

I say once more, as Gordon said: if East-West had not explicitly agreed that a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening showed either clubs or the pointed suits, any statement to the effect that it might is misinformation.

If I had bid 2♠ showing club or diamonds and spades, it was not alerted and then my partner bid consistently with that explanation and we reached a good contract as a result, what would you do then? Given the rest of our system and what we do in other systems, this was at least as likely to happen.

[gordontd]

dburn, on May 14 2010, 03:35 AM, said:

I believe also that the Director should have given more consideration than he did to the extent to which East-West's shenanigans had fixed North.

North made this point to me, extremely politely after I had given the ruling, and I do see what she was getting at. In particular, she wasn't sure that a natural 3D bid was available to her in the pass-out seat.

However I do think that to pass out a two-level redoubled contract when the opponents have a big fit falls within the scope of L12C1b, and I said to her then that I thought she should bid 3D and trust that the Laws would protect her if she had been fixed by misinformation.

[dburn]

mjj29, on May 14 2010, 02:45 AM, said:

dburn, on May 13 2010, 09:35 PM, said:

I say once more, as Gordon said: if East-West had not explicitly agreed that a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening showed either clubs or the pointed suits, any statement to the effect that it might is misinformation.

If I had bid 2♠ showing club or diamonds and spades, it was not alerted and then my partner bid consistently with that explanation and we reached a good contract as a result, what would you do then? Given the rest of our system and what we do in other systems, this was at least as likely to happen.

This dismays me somewhat; are you and your partner in the habit of entering events without having a clue what the methods you have devised to make life miserable for your opponents and the organisers actually are?

But the answer to your question is straightforward enough: if you had no agreement to the effect that a 2♠ overcall showed other than spades, then your partner should [a] not alert a 2♠ overcall and [b] not act as if it showed other than spades.

If he did [a] but not [b] - that is, if he failed to alert 2♠ and then acted as if he were not necessarily facing spades - you would be considered to have a concealed partnership understanding and dealt with according to the relevant Laws, which regrettably seem not to impose a twenty-year prison sentence and a fine of several million pounds for the offence.

If he did [b] but not [a] - that is, if he thought it helpful to inform the opponents that you had agreed a deranged method over one-level openings and that "therefore" a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening might not be based on spades, but then acted according to the actual partnership agreement and bid as if he were facing spades - you would be considered to have given misinformation and dealt with according to the relevant Laws, which regrettably...

If he did neither [a] nor [b] - that is, if he alerted 2♠ and then acted as if he were not necessarily facing spades - you would also be considered to have given misinformation. Strictly speaking, you would be guilty of misinformation even if the overcaller turned out not to have spades; if each partner happens to "guess correctly" that the other believes a method to apply that has not in fact been agreed, it is technically misinformation to say that an agreement exists. But since this would do no harm, there would (regrettably) be no penalty for the offence.

[bluejak]

The reason for 3B10 was that it was designed be helpful. If the bidding goes (1NT) dbl (2♥) and before you bid you ask about 2♥, and are told it might be a transfer or natural [because the player forgets] it is not helpful. You probably do not know what 2♠ means, nor perhaps dbl.

But since it was decided that it was illegal, being helpful was not good enough!



It may dismay posters that people enter tournaments without knowing their agreements perfectly. Sadly, it is pretty certainly the norm, though for the higher class of player it is probably in more subtle situations. But unless there is a Regulation stating that you must know your system we shall have to deal with situations where people do not.

Actually, before someone points it out, that is a silly statement. Even if there is such a Regulation, we shall have to deal with situations where people do not know their system. But we would deal with it differently.

[mjj29]

dburn, on May 14 2010, 08:41 AM, said:

This dismays me somewhat; are you and your partner in the habit of entering events without having a clue what the methods you have devised to make life miserable for your opponents and the organisers actually are?

No, we are not in the habit of entering tournaments without having agreed the system and knowing it quite well, despite the complexity. In this particular case, however, we were playing a new system, since the event did not have the normal EBU system restrictions. Having failed to get an artificial overcall structure of natural bids allowed at the recent Laws and Ethics committee meeting, we decided to play them here so that instead of natural overcalls we played a varient of suction (which we play everywhere else, including over 2-level artificial openings). Hence, since we play suction over a strong 1C and a strong 2C and had agreed to play it over a natural 1x, it seems not unreasonable to assume that it would also apply over a natural 2x. Indeed, had we discussed it we would have agreed that and had I given it any thought at the table I would have made the artificial overcall. I would also have assumed my partner had thought this through as well and alerted his bid.

dburn said:

But the answer to your question is straightforward enough: if you had no agreement to the effect that a 2♠ overcall showed other than spades, then your partner should [a] not alert a 2♠ overcall and [b] not act as if it showed other than spades.

If he did [a] but not [b] - that is, if he failed to alert 2♠ and then acted as if he were not necessarily facing spades - you would be considered to have a concealed partnership understanding and dealt with according to the relevant Laws, which regrettably seem not to impose a twenty-year prison sentence and a fine of several million pounds for the offence.

If he did [b] but not [a] - that is, if he thought it helpful to inform the opponents that you had agreed a deranged method over one-level openings and that "therefore" a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening might not be based on spades, but then acted according to the actual partnership agreement and bid as if he were facing spades - you would be considered to have given misinformation and dealt with according to the relevant Laws, which regrettably...

If he did neither [a] nor [b] - that is, if he alerted 2♠ and then acted as if he were not necessarily facing spades - you would also be considered to have given misinformation. Strictly speaking, you would be guilty of misinformation even if the overcaller turned out not to have spades; if each partner happens to "guess correctly" that the other believes a method to apply that has not in fact been agreed, it is technically misinformation to say that an agreement exists. But since this would do no harm, there would (regrettably) be no penalty for the offence.

You seem to leave no option here but we lose, whether we both make the bid to mean the same thing or whether we disagree. You may think that we deserve to lose for not having discussed such a simple situation, but that is not supported by law. I bet the director would also have been called if I had made an artificial overcall, they competed in one of my suits and we got to double them for a large penalty and when it turned out we had such agreements undisclosed (rightly) given short shrift.

[dburn]

mjj29, on May 14 2010, 05:56 PM, said:

Hence, since we play suction over a strong 1C and a strong 2C and had agreed to play it  over a natural 1x, it seems not unreasonable to assume that it would also apply over a natural 2x. Indeed, had we discussed it we would have agreed that and had I given it any thought at the table I would have made the artificial overcall. I would also have assumed my partner had thought this through as well and alerted his bid.

Not that I wish to discourage experimentation, for I am in the minority who firmly believe that within reason, anyone should be allowed to play whatever they like. But I am curious: suppose I have

♠KJxx ♥xx ♦Axxxxx ♣x

and the bidding proceeds 2♥-2♠-4♥ to me (where 2♠ shows either clubs, or spades and diamonds). What call should I make?

Similarly, suppose I had

♠AKQ10xxx ♥xx ♦Kxx ♣x

and the bidding followed an identical course. Would 4♠ be "pass or correct", or would it show spades?

Of course, these problems would be the same if the opening bid were 1♥ and the overcall 1♠, but I confess that the possibility of their arising at all would be sufficient to convince me that these methods might not actually be very much use. Double game swings due to judgement are one thing; double game swings due to stupid methods are another.

But your assumption that "you lose" if you do not know your system is, in essence, correct: you will fall foul of the requirements for disclosure mandated by Law 40, and you will be (as you were in the actual case) ruled against under Laws 21, 23 and 75. Whether or not you "deserve to lose" is something of a subjective issue on which I make no observation, but your assertion that your loss is "not supported by law" is simply false.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on May 14 2010, 08:10 PM, said:

The reason for 3B10 was that it was designed be helpful. 

Yes. I had thought, when 3B10 was introduced, that it was the wrong idea; and maybe it is, in theory.

But then I realised that as a practical matter, my partner and I can defend against (a) or (b ), and hope to get a good result; and there will be times, when we have in fact been given misinformation, that we will get a favourable ruling.

But I cannot hope, with any partner, successfully defend against (a_or_. I do not know what I would do if I were given this explanation. I might be forced to ask the opponent to choose one. Am I permitted to do that?

[dburn]

Vampyr, on May 15 2010, 12:25 AM, said:

bluejak, on May 14 2010, 08:10 PM, said:

The reason for 3B10 was that it was designed be helpful. 

Yes. I had thought, when 3B10 was introduced, that it was the wrong idea; and maybe it is, in theory.

But then I realised that as a practical matter, my partner and I can defend against (a) or (b ), and hope to get a good result; and there will be times, when we have in fact been given misinformation, that we will get a favourable ruling.

But I cannot hope, with any partner, successfully defend against (a_or_. I do not know what I would do if I were given this explanation. I might be forced to ask the opponent to choose one. Am I permitted to do that?

No, of course not.

What you need to understand is that because bridge is increasingly being played by people who do not know their own methods either because they are too old, so that they forget, or because they are too young, so that they think it is a lark to play Suction over 1♥ without bothering to discuss what happens over 2♥, Laws and regulations tend to operate in favour of the demented, since this is the category to which most players belong.

OB 3B10 was put in place in order, as Bluejak rightly says, to "be helpful" to those who preferred to play their bridge as if they could expect that when an opponent bid something, it had one and only one meaning. It was a sensible regulation, even though it was illegal.

But that was then, and this is now. If your opponent burbles that a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening, or a 2♥ response to 1NT doubled, "might be this, or it might be that", you may draw some comfort from the words of Hilaire Belloc:

So grin and bear it, Stupid, do not bleat.
You hungered after Progress years ago;
You wanted Science, and you’ve got it - neat;
You certainly desired Hygiene, and lo!
You have it now, and mutter in your woe
Of bitter knowledge dearer bought than gold.
These are the things that people do not know -
They do not know, because they are not told.

but that is all you can do. The lunatics have taken over the asylum, and they have done so with (apparently) the full consent of the medical staff.

[mjj29]

Vampyr, on May 15 2010, 12:25 AM, said:

But I cannot hope, with any partner, successfully defend against (a_or_. I do not know what I would do if I were given this explanation. I might be forced to ask the opponent to choose one. Am I permitted to do that?

If (a_or_ is a legal agreement and you are playing against us, then you'll probably have to defend against it as that's what we actually play

[gordontd]

mjj29, on May 15 2010, 07:52 AM, said:

If (a_or_ is a legal agreement and you are playing against us, then you'll probably have to defend against it as that's what we actually play 

The trouble is that your opponents are having to defend against (a_or_ or c) when one of you is playing (a_or_ and the other is playing c).

[jeremy69]

I think this thread is turning into a masterclass in why there should be some regulation as to what can be played especially in shortish rounds. It might be jolly fun to frighten the horses under the guise of expanding the boundaries of knowledge in the known universe and it may also be correct that the event referred to had no systemic restrictions, not that this was advertised as such in any way to this participant. However it was great fun to be presented with 29 additional bids to agree a defence to for a 3 board stanza. Our opponents helpfully produced some defensive notes to assist us but the shortness of the round militated against reading War & Peace written on margarine paper.

[campboy]

jeremy69, on May 15 2010, 10:31 AM, said:

It might be jolly fun to frighten the horses under the guise of expanding the boundaries of knowledge in the known universe and it may also be correct that the event referred to had no systemic restrictions, not that this was advertised as such in any way to this participant.

The invitation I got said inter alia the following.

Quote

The teams event, to be held in Selwyn College and starting at midday, will
be multiple teams of four with hybrid scoring. Any systems are permitted,
although advance notice, with suggested defences if felt necessary, is
requested for particularly unusual systems. Gordon Rainsford has kindly
agreed to direct.

This year was admittedly unusual in having two pairs (on different teams) playing very unusual methods; the second such pair was playing some sort of intermediate-pass system with a fert and either-or majors!

[jeremy69]

Quote

The teams event, to be held in Selwyn College and starting at midday, will
be multiple teams of four with hybrid scoring. Any systems are permitted,
although advance notice, with suggested defences if felt necessary, is
requested for particularly unusual systems. Gordon Rainsford has kindly
agreed to direct.

I expect my invitation said the same and I took no notice! The advanced notice of the intermediate pass was non existent but then I wouldn't really have expected or particularly wanted it. The problem with these systems is that
1. the perpetrators don't know them particularly well and thus have systemic cock ups which further reduce their opponents enjoyment of the game.
2. one should be able to play without being presented with a ream or two of paper to examine in a short event.
3. Forcing and intermediate pass systems have the effect of stopping opponents playing their own system for some of the time i.e. when they aren't first in hand.
4. disclosure is rarely adequate

[bluejak]

jeremy69, on May 15 2010, 03:11 PM, said:

Quote

The teams event, to be held in Selwyn College and starting at midday, will
be multiple teams of four with hybrid scoring. Any systems are permitted,
although advance notice, with suggested defences if felt necessary, is
requested for particularly unusual systems. Gordon Rainsford has kindly
agreed to direct.

I expect my invitation said the same and I took no notice! The advanced notice of the intermediate pass was non existent but then I wouldn't really have expected or particularly wanted it. The problem with these systems is that
1. the perpetrators don't know them particularly well and thus have systemic cock ups which further reduce their opponents enjoyment of the game.
2. one should be able to play without being presented with a ream or two of paper to examine in a short event.
3. Forcing and intermediate pass systems have the effect of stopping opponents playing their own system for some of the time i.e. when they aren't first in hand.
4. disclosure is rarely adequate

There are a lot of events, the vast majority, in fact, where there is control to make sure none of this happens. It is not unreasonable to have an event where anything goes, especially if warning is given. If you do not like such events, surely you just do not play in them? It does not necessarily decrease opponents' enjoyment when people have cock-ups. If you play a different game you expect a different ambience.

It is nice to be able to play in such an event for one, such as myself, who likes to tussle with strange systems, and I accept there will be problems. It is also nice for the people who do not wish to play in such an event that they can play in a myriad of other events where this does not happen.

[jeremy69]

Quote

If you do not like such events, surely you just do not play in them?

I agree that one solution is to take my bat home and not play again but a. I don't feel that strongly about a couple of pairs playing what they did b. I should be capable of taking care of myself anyway but I don't think systems such as these suit short rounds and if they contrive to spoil what is otherwise a good event then now is the time to say it before the next one is planned. The organisers, of course, are free to ignore me and probably will.