[sailoranch]

 barmar, on 2012-October-17, 17:52, said:

Jordan/Hamilton would replace the 3♦ response, but not 3♣, which only shows constructive values (swap these if you play Reverse Bergen). Also, I know some people who play that the 2NT can include 3-card support (I prefer to use redouble followed by a single raise to show this), so the Bergen raise could guarantee 4.

Wow! North met his partner two minutes before game time and agreed to play "Half Bergen" over a double or Jordan showing precisely three card support, all without any discussion?

I don't think we can just start filling in North's convention card with unorthodox agreements just because we're trying to rule mistaken explanation instead of mistaken call. It seems clear to me that North never agreed to play Bergen over a double, and ticking Jordan 2NT suggests that his understandings over a double are different. If North really wanted to agree some form of Bergen/Jordan hybrid, it would be indicated on his card.

[barmar]

 sailoranch, on 2012-October-17, 18:48, said:

Wow! North met his partner two minutes before game time and agreed to play "Half Bergen" over a double or Jordan showing precisely three card support, all without any discussion?

I don't think we can just start filling in North's convention card with unorthodox agreements just because we're trying to rule mistaken explanation instead of mistaken call. It seems clear to me that North never agreed to play Bergen over a double, and ticking Jordan 2NT suggests that his understandings over a double are different. If North really wanted to agree some form of Bergen/Jordan hybrid, it would be indicated on his card.

I'm not saying that this particular pair made any of these agreements. I'm saying that you can't conclude much from the CC, because it doesn't cover all these details. Even among pairs that DO have detailed agreements, they're not likely to be mentioned on the CC because there's no place to check them off.

This comes up many times here: the laws on partnership agreements are really hard to apply in the case of partnerships that have had little discussion and experience. They presume the existence of agreements, and these partnerships don't always have them in many common situations. They may agree to play convention X, not realizing they have different understandings of how X is used -- do they actually have an agreement or not? They may agree on a whole system ("Let's play SAYC"), but have misunderstandings about what's included in the system.

[Zelandakh]

 CSGibson, on 2012-October-17, 14:45, said:

Surely East knew that a bidding mix-up may have just occurred, and that South may not have been bidding clubs as a weak jump shift just by looking at his own hand. In that case, he needs to make some step to clarify the situation before acting.

If East is meant to ask because of having clubs then you are asking them to protect themselves by passing UI to their partner. More, the situation is not at all clear - East has ♣AKxxx; why should it be obvious that South cannot hold ♣QJT987? OTOH the OP states East said that if hy had "known" it was Bergen he would have not have Xed 3♣ but simply passed it out. But why is East entitled to know more than North? Generally, the default agreement in undiscussed situations is natural. OTTH, the Director's decision is unfathomable. It would be bad enough in a club game but in a proper tournament? I hope the (quick, small) committee gave the TD an appropriate dressing down in their decision.

[bluejak]

Just to clarify somewhat for those who do not play in the ACBL. You will often have read here about players whose idea of having an SC in the ACBL is to sit on it, have it in their handbag, leave it in the car, or score on the other side so they will only show it by holding it in front of an opponent and not letting go. I have played in ACBL clubs and in the Nationals at all levels from National Finals to side games, and can assure you these stories are not made up. The effect of all this is that there is nowhere near the same belief in the use and necessity for SCs, nor the care in filling them in, that happens in - for example - England.

So if you get a pair who have been playing together for 35 years, have agreed to play Bergen raises over a double, the likelihood they will bother to put this fact on their SC is probably less than 40%. And they will be very surprised if anyone suggests to them that they have done anything wrong. In fact, at lower levels, if they play Bergen over a double, they will probably assume everyone else does as well.

The culture of SCs in the ACBL is different from the culture of SCs in England.

Mind you, the culture of SCs elsewhere is by no means more helpful. The first time I played in South Africa they gave out scoring booklets, with a SC printed near the back on inside pages! The second time I played there, my partner and I had beautifully filled in SCs. Despite a clear regulation saying everyone had to carry one, I never saw another SC in all the eight days I played there.

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-October-18, 05:33, said:

So if you get a pair who have been playing together for 35 years, have agreed to play Bergen raises over a double, the likelihood they will bother to put this fact on their SC is probably less than 40%. And they will be very surprised if anyone suggests to them that they have done anything wrong. In fact, at lower levels, if they play Bergen over a double, they will probably assume everyone else does as well.

But we're not talking about the CC of an established partnership. We're talking about a pickup partnership, where one player has handed his CC to his new partner, who agreed to play what's on it.

Which actually raises further issues. Not only is there no place on the CC for many details like this, but the expectation that the new partner will actually remember everything that's on the card should be taken with a grain of salt. Most of us don't have photographic memories, so after scanning it for a minute there's a good chance we won't remember every little thing on it.

[aguahombre]

Chris: I am glad you can quote from an appeal at the 2011 Fall Nationals. The site containing the NABC casebooks hasn't even been updated with the 2011 Summer appeals, yet.

[aguahombre]

This site is the one I was referring to above.

[CSGibson]

 aguahombre, on 2012-October-19, 09:55, said:

Chris: I am glad you can quote from an appeal at the 2011 Fall Nationals. The site containing the NABC casebooks hasn't even been updated with the 2011 Summer appeals, yet.

Yeah, I remembered the case because our GNT teammates were involved as the appellants. I found it through the published Daily Bulletins, but the case is less important in its own sake than the rules/regulations/guidance that it brought forth in support.

[jh51]

 aguahombre, on 2012-October-19, 09:55, said:

Chris: I am glad you can quote from an appeal at the 2011 Fall Nationals. The site containing the NABC casebooks hasn't even been updated with the 2011 Summer appeals, yet.

I am in the position of be able to unofficially tell you that the 2011 Summer appeals casebook will be published very soon. Or so I have been told by my friend who is now responsible for this. Don't blame her - she started working for the ACBL last month. After reading your post I thought I would take advantage of my friendship and ask her if she knew who was responsible. She exlained that one of her tasks was to catch up on the backlog. Apparently there is a lot that has to be gone through between the appeal taking place and getting it published. It starts with hand written notes from the ACs and the TDs, and it has to go to the expert panel, an outside editor and the legal department before it appears as a published casebook.

[TimG]

 CSGibson, on 2012-October-16, 16:07, said:

Surely North would instead say "We are a first time partnership and have not discussed this situation. In an uncontested auction it would be a Bergen raise."

This isn't a proper explanation, is it? Wouldn't North instead just say "no special agreement" or "undiscussed"?

I really don't think this is one of those times were East is supposed to do a lot to protect himself through questioning.

[TimG]

 CSGibson, on 2012-October-17, 14:45, said:

Surely East knew that a bidding mix-up may have just occurred, and that South may not have been bidding clubs as a weak jump shift just by looking at his own hand. In that case, he needs to make some step to clarify the situation before acting.

You may be right; I may be wrong. But, this seems very wrong to me. Is East really supposed to ask questions based upon what is in his hand? That's giving information to the whole table.

I frequently play a system where I can open a weak four-card major. Sometimes when I open 1M, next hand says something like "you play four-card majors, right?" It's a pretty good bet that they have 5 (or more) decent cards in the suit I've opened.

In the given case, suppose East asks about the 3C call and then passes. Hasn't he given his partner UI that he holds club length?

[goodwinsr]

More often than, "You play four-card majors, right?" I hear them say, "What's THAT supposed to mean?"

[goodwinsr]

In fact, I have heard them ask, "What's THAT supposed to mean?" and then bid two of the major suit I opened, to play of course.

[blackshoe]

---

At this point I'm going to be looking at their card and asking the systemic meaning of 2♠ and 3♠. Or maybe West passes instead of 3♠. Either way I'm asking. When it turns out that East has spades, I'm calling the director.

[CSGibson]

 TimG, on 2012-October-27, 07:29, said:

This isn't a proper explanation, is it? Wouldn't North instead just say "no special agreement" or "undiscussed"?

I really don't think this is one of those times were East is supposed to do a lot to protect himself through questioning.

It is not improper to offer any related understandings that may impact the current auction; it is definitely in the spirit of full disclosure, and obviously the passer is not telling what he took it as (or he wouldn't be passing), just the relevant agreements which may impact partner's understanding of the auction.

[mycroft]

"undiscussed" is not "all relevant disclosure" about this auction. "undiscussed. Bergen without the double" is.

East now knows what the options probably are, and is allowed to guess. Should East ask what it would mean without the double? Possibly, but she shouldn't have to. I do, and frequently get either "but he doubled" or "that's undiscussed, too" (usually with declarer telling explainer "you know that means..." after the hand, of course).

With a pair that does try, but just doesn't really get it, I had to get the explanation of 1NT (10-13)-2♣; 2♥-2♠; pass yesterday. Took four sets of questions to find out all of what it meant - which was "invitational with 5+ spades, not 4 hearts". "It's natural" was the first attempt. And these people really think they're explaining properly...

[blackshoe]

Heh. I usually start with "please explain your auction". Given Mycroft's example, what I usually get is "Well, he opened 1NT, and then I bid 2♣, and then he bid…" Then I say "thank you for the review. Now would you please explain what the bids mean?" Then we get into multiple questions.

Once I asked "please explain your auction", and they called the director. Director came, they said "can he ask that?" and she looked at me and said "which bid did you want to know about?" Naturally I said "all of them."

Heh. I just remembered. After I said "all of them", one of the opponents, who would be declarer, said, of her partner's jump raise in hearts after her 1♥ response, "I don't have to explain that". The director didn't say a word. I said "I think you do". In the end, I don't think she did explain it, but the director never ruled on that question.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-29, 12:50, said:

Heh. I just remembered. After I said "all of them", one of the opponents, who would be declarer, said, of her partner's jump raise in hearts after her 1♥ response, "I don't have to explain that". The director didn't say a word. I said "I think you do". In the end, I don't think she did explain it, but the director never ruled on that question.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

40B6a says, "he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." Sounds like he thought that the meaning of a jump raise falls into that category.

While there's plenty of variation in the meaning of 1♥-3♥ (last week a man who was returning to bridge after several decades showed up at our club, and he played this as a game forcing raise), there's not much variation in 1m-1♥-3♥ -- I'm not sure I've ever run into anyone who plays this as something other than a game invitational raise, and it's not something I've ever discussed with a new partner. So I'm not so sure that he's wrong.

[blackshoe]

She. And she was just being a PITA, right or wrong*. My point was that the director never said aye, yes, or no.

*This is the pair who, a couple years ago, went off to a Regional, where apparently they received an adverse ruling in a UI situation, and for the next six months made a point of calling the director every single time it appeared that an opponent hesitated. And once, before that time, when I hitched briefly in the auction, her partner turned to my novice partner and said "if you bid now, I"m calling the director", which as far as I'm concerned is clearly an illegal attempt to intimidate. They're quite a pair, these two.

[bluejak]

 barmar, on 2012-October-29, 23:15, said:

... there's not much variation in 1m-1♥-3♥ -- I'm not sure I've ever run into anyone who plays this as something other than a game invitational raise ...

I play it as denying a singleton or void, thus it always has a fair number of points. I don't think you will find that is how most people play it.

 blackshoe, on 2012-October-30, 02:19, said:

And once, before that time, when I hitched briefly in the auction, her partner turned to my novice partner and said "if you bid now, I"m calling the director", which as far as I'm concerned is clearly an illegal attempt to intimidate.

I would give her a DP for that remark.