[Hobartian]

My partner and I were playing in a Swiss Pairs event and the following auction took place.

My left hand opponent South opened one club which was alerted. My partner bid one no trump (15-18 hcp) and north bid two diamonds which was alerted. I then asked south the meaning of the bid and after a period of time trying to work it out she was unable to tell me. She then suggested she could leave the table so her partner could explain and I agreed. She then left and her partner left too and went and had a long discussion with the director out of our hearing. North then returned and I was told that the bid meant both majors. South returned to the table and I then passed and south bid two heart, west passed and north bid two spades. As I had seven high card points, a singleton club, four hearts and three spades including the queen I doubled for penalty which was passed out.

I led my club and my partner won with the Ace and then switched to the Ace of Diamonds. I played a low diamond to discourage and my partner now switched to a heart despite the Ace of Hearts being in dummy. The declarer did not follow suit and pitched a diamond and finished up making eight tricks doubled and vulnerable which effectively gave them the match in one board.

I told my opponents that I thought we had been severely disadvantaged and I went to speak to the Director. He ordered me back to the table and then ruled everything was OK. He told me that north had no obligation to tell me that he had made a wrong bid and that his only obligation was to tell me what his bid meant. I would not have doubled if I had known he had five spades, a void in hearts, four diamonds and two clubs. Then when we were defending we did so on the basis that his hand contained both majors and my partner holding three clubs had no way of knowing that my lead was a singleton.

I thought in this situation the defenders were entitled to know about the mistake made in the bidding so they could defend properly. As it was the declarer had a distinct advantage during play.

I would appreciate the readers comments.

[RMB1]

I suggest this should be in "Laws and Rulings".

Without properly answering your question, I would make some observations.

The TD does not appear to have taken a very balanced approach: one side asks to speak to him away from the table and is listened to, the other side ask to speak to him away from the table and are ordered back.

I think both sides should learn to call the TD to the table and explain the problem. It is up to the TD to ask one player to leave the table, so that his partner can explain a call; the players should not do this on their own.

The TD can not know that everything is OK, without knowing the auction/play and explanations given. North has unauthorised information from South not knowing the meaning of 2♦. As well as considering misinformation, the TD should also consider use of unauthorised information.

It appears that North forgot "the system" when bidding 2♦ and only remembered their agreement when called on to explain his call. I suggest that if South could not remember the agreement when explaining, and North forgot the agreement when bidding, that there was no actual partnership understanding of 2♦. I think the TD should have instructed North to say as much when North explained to the TD what had happened.

It is true that North should explain their agreements, not what is in his hand; but if there is no evidence that they actually have the greement North would say they have, then to say they have that agreement is misleading.

[billw55]

RMB1, on 2013-April-09, 13:28, said:

I suggest that if South could not remember the agreement when explaining, and North forgot the agreement when bidding, that there was no actual partnership understanding of 2♦.

Agree and in fact, I do not understand how the explanation of both majors was decided on. It almost sounds like north knew the agreement when he bid 2♦, which would make it a psyche and explicitly illegal in the ACBL (psyching a conventional bid).

[mikeh]

Hobartian, on 2013-April-09, 13:01, said:

My partner and I were playing in a Swiss Pairs event and the following auction took place.

I would not have doubled if I had known he had five spades, a void in hearts, four diamonds and two clubs. Then when we were defending we did so on the basis that his hand contained both majors and my partner holding three clubs had no way of knowing that my lead was a singleton.

I thought in this situation the defenders were entitled to know about the mistake made in the bidding so they could defend properly. As it was the declarer had a distinct advantage during play.

I would appreciate the readers comments.

I think you made an error here: a 5=0=4=2 hand is a couple of cards light.

But I think the director gave you the right ruling. This is often a situation in which the innocent victims feel aggrieved, but you are only entitled to the actual agreement.

The situation where the opponents have to correct the announcement is when the agreement is misdescribed: so let's say N alerts and gives, when asked, an explanation that is incorrect. NS buy the contract: now, before the opening lead S has an obligation to provide the correct explanation, and the usual result is the director is called, and then has options available to him or her.

I agree, btw, this is in the wrong forum, but nobody's going to be annoyed about that: we point it out as a courtesy

The foregoing is just my understanding and players more informed about the Laws may explain where I am worng, if indeed I am:)

All of this is based on assuming that they had an actual agreement and that the explanation was properly obtained by the Director with no improper discussion between the opps while away from the table. At a major event, the opps would likely be asked to produce their system notes, but that isn't realistic in a club or small tournament setting.

[mycroft]

Well, no, it would not - or maybe would not. Certainly "psyching a conventional bid" is highly overbroad.

GCC DISALLOWED, 2:
Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less than 2NT, to natural openings.

1♣!-1NT-2♦! is arguably both (depending on what 1♣ was, that was never explained in the post), but it is primarily a conventional defence to a natural notrump overcall (Allowed, COMPETITIVE, 7b). And that can be psyched. Or misbid.

I do agree that the TD should find out what was going on, including the auction and potential use of UI, both in waking up North from his misbid and throughout the explanation issues. If, as it sounds like, the TD was talking to both North and South in each other's presence, that's also an issue. Furthermore, the player at the table needs to call the TD at the time the explanation was unavailable, and let the TD work out how to get the information to the NOS (along with knowledge of the other issues potentially at the table).

One thing the NOS is *not* entitled to is the contents of North's hand. Whether it be a deliberate psychic, or an accidental misbid, or actually their agreement is "we agreed to play Cappelletti vs NT overcalls, 2 years ago and it's only come up once in the last 6 months and we got it wrong".

Having said all of that, I would also have requested East to go back to the table; but I would go with her and have whatever discussion was needed there, with all four players.

[Hobartian]

Thanks for your responses.

I did make a mistake when I described North's hand. His hand was: Spades AT965 Void in hearts, JT64 in diamonds and
Q832 in clubs.

When south's one club opening was alerted we were told that it may be short in clubs.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2013-April-09, 14:42, said:

If, as it sounds like, the TD was talking to both North and South in each other's presence, that's also an issue.

No TD would ever do this. I think that one opponent was talking to the director and the other was somewhere else.

In any case this TD clearly had his favourites and was not going to even admit the possibility of ruling against them.

[Stephen Tu]

North is allowed to misbid, you are only entitled to their actual agreements. The director should question the opponents separately to see if they actually really have an agreement, or if it's really "no agreement". If they don't actually have an agreement he shouldn't have allowed South to explain to you "both majors", he should have instructed South to say "no agreement". If they have an agreement documented by convention card or whatever, then OK North misbid and your are a little bit screwed but the laws allow misbidding.

That said, when an opponent supposedly shows both majors, his partner picks one, then he corrects to the other anyway, especially given the uncertainty demonstrated, I think you can infer that he doesn't actually have both majors and protect yourself.

[aguahombre]

I can't construct any layout consistent with the information given.

[Hobartian]

Thanks again for your responses.

South opened one club holding K3 in spades, A654 in hearts and 53 in diamonds and KJT94 in clubs.

West bid 1NT holding J84 in spades, KQJ2 in hearts, A87 in diamonds and A76 in clubs.

North bid 2 D holding AT965 in spades, void in hearts and JT64 in diamonds and Q832 in clubs.

My hand at East was Q72 in spades, T9873 in hearts, KQ92 in diamonds and the 5 of clubs.

[Zelandakh]

Sorry but this really stinks. It looks very much like North made the bid with a particular meaning in mind and was woken up by partner's alert. South leaving the table is a (unofficial) means for North to give the explanation they were thinking of. If North left the table after South did then I would ask them where the f*** they think they are going. To get the wrong explanation from North after they have been woken up by South is just ridiculous. For the TD to just say everything is OK without some kind of explanation is also pretty bad imho - were your opponents regulars? Did you ask after the hand whether North had psyched or whether they had misbid? Did you ask why South alerted when they apparently had no reason to think that the bid was artificial? Or why they subsequently bid 2♥ and passed 2♠? It is all fishy and the TD has done an unbelievably bad job of sorting it out. As Robin points out, there are issues of UI, MI and (perceived) fairness here. It is not impossible that you got the correct ruling though - we need to know a little more about what was really going on to be able to say. That you appear not to have been told the basis for the ruling is perhaps part of the problem.

[ahydra]

Hobartian, on 2013-April-09, 23:56, said:

Thanks again for your responses.

South opened one club holding K3 in spades, A654 in hearts and 53 in diamonds and KJT94 in clubs.

West bid 1NT holding J84 in spades, KQJ2 in hearts, A87 in diamonds and A76 in clubs.

North bid 2 D holding AT965 in spades, void in hearts and JT64 in diamonds and Q832 in clubs.

My hand at East was Q72 in spades, T9873 in hearts, KQ92 in diamonds and the 5 of clubs.

You can make hand diagrams. Click the button that looks like a Canadian flag except with a spade symbol instead of the maple leaf.

---

I suggest next time you call the director over before making private agreements to send players from the table; only the TD should ask another player to leave the table. But apart from that it sounds like the TD is taking sides. He certainly isn't doing his job properly and I'd feel this is worth a complaint to some higher being.

ahydra

[billw55]

Agree with Zel, north obviously had some particular meaning in mind, which was not both majors.

So, the upshot of this is that neither op thought 2♦ meant both majors, and yet this is the explanation you got. This seems wrong.

[WellSpyder]

RMB1, on 2013-April-09, 13:28, said:

I suggest that if South could not remember the agreement when explaining, and North forgot the agreement when bidding, that there was no actual partnership understanding of 2♦.

I'm interested in how clear a guideline you think this is.

Some background. About a year ago, for reasons which now escape me, my regular partner and I agreed to play a form of 2-way drury, and this is duly confirmed in our system notes. However, it NEVER seems to come up. Then, last week, in a knock-out match, my partner passed as dealer and then responded 2♦ to my opening bid of 1♠. With a modicum of a ♦ fit and nothing else to say, I passed. Then, before the opening lead, I suddenly realised that I had forgotten the system and belatedly alerted, explaining when asked that partner was showing a limit raise with 4-card support. The match was being played privately, so there was no TD on hand, but we knew enough to give the final passer the opportunity to have his bid back. Not surprisingly, having been happy to pass out 2♦ when he thought it was natural, he was at least as happy to pass it out thinking that it didn't show ♦ at all but did show a ♠ fit.

Unfortunately, it transpired that partner had also forgotten the agreement, and in fact had 5♦ and only 2♠. Of course he remembered once I explained the bid to the opponents, so didn't feel the need to correct my explanation. There is no doubt that the defence was affected by thinking declarer had 4♠, since each defender, with 3♠, aimed to give his partner a ruff in the suit....

I felt extremely guilty about this, for exactly the reason quoted above - if both partners forget the agreement on the same hand, then can they really be said to have that agreement at all? So I was very careful to ask the oppo if they wanted a TD called, pointing out to them that our both getting it wrong did provided prima facie evidence that they had been misinformed. However, they preferred to let things stand.

If you had been called as a TD, though, would the ruling have been clear? The system notes were available, and I did remember the agreement eventually, without additional information. But on the other hand I did forget it originally, as did my partner, so what on earth was our actual agreement??

[Note to ACBL readers: Drury is a much less common agreement in the UK than I understand it is on the other side of the pond, so it is probably easier to envisage this interpretation simply not occurring to players than it would be over there. In other words, it wasn't so much a question of not remembering whether or not we had agreed to play drury, as simply forgetting to consider that it might not be a natural bid.]

[Zelandakh]

I think this is a somewhat different situation Spyder. This is the situation which I think Mike was envisaging in his post and is the one that causes the NOS to feel aggrieved so often. Of course, if you really feel bad about it then there is nothing to stop you or your partner (whichever made the misbid) from volunteering the information to the opponents, although there is no need for you to do so under the laws. One thing you probably should have done is told them that the agreement was made a year earlier and this was the first time it had come up. Then the opponents at least have the same information as you and your partner (which they are entitled to).

[WellSpyder]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-10, 08:56, said:

Of course, if you really feel bad about it then there is nothing to stop you or your partner (whichever made the misbid) from volunteering the information to the opponents

Yes, I suspect I would indeed have done that if the situation had arisen the other way round. ("Partner's explanation is correct, but I had forgotten it at the time and it's not what I've actually got....")

Quote

although there is no need for you to do so under the laws.

Understood. So I certainly didn't worry that partner had not done this.

Quote

One thing you probably should have done is told them that the agreement was made a year earlier and this was the first time it had come up. Then the opponents at least have the same information as you and your partner (which they are entitled to).

That's a good point. At the time, it didn't occur to me that this might be an issue, and my feeling of guilt was caused by forgetting the system and landing us in a silly contract, rather than by the possibility of having given MI. It was only halfway through the play that I realised it might be oppo who would be unhappy with me rather than partner....

[RMB1]

WellSpyder, on 2013-April-10, 07:59, said:

I'm interested in how clear a guideline you think this is.

This was not an "official" guideline - just how I would rule with a given set of facts.

In your case, there is conflicting evidence as to the correct explanation - your parnter bid 2♦ thinking it was natural, you (initially) did not alert because you thought it was natural; but your notes say it was artificial. It do not think your notes are sufficient evidence (given the other contradictory evidence) to rule misbid rather than misexplanation. So I think I would rule that the corrected alert/explanation was a misexplanation.

Given that, I would expect your partner to correct your corrected explanation, along the lines of "although our notes say 2♦ is artificial, it appears we have both forgotten this agreement, and so it appears our implicit agreement is that 2♦ is natural and that is what you should assume".

[aguahombre]

RMB1, on 2013-April-10, 09:26, said:

This was not an "official" guideline - just how I would rule with a given set of facts.

In your case, there is conflicting evidence as to the correct explanation - your parnter bid 2♦ thinking it was natural, you (initially) did not alert because you thought it was natural; but your notes say it was artificial. It do not think your notes are sufficient evidence (given the other contradictory evidence) to rule misbid rather than misexplanation. So I think I would rule that the corrected alert/explanation was a misexplanation.

Given that, I would expect your partner to correct your corrected explanation, along the lines of "although our notes say 2♦ is artificial, it appears we have both forgotten this agreement, and so it appears our implicit agreement is that 2♦ is natural and that is what you should assume".

So, you are suggesting that partner, in effect, should tell the opponents what he has in his hand? You might be right in this instance. I don't know.

I have taken WellSpyder's situation into a new thread of this same forum.

[blackshoe]

I would never tell opponents what they should or should not assume.

Forgets are part of the game. When one of a pair forgets, the damage is frequently done to their own side. When both forget, the opps are "damaged" rather more often than in the one forgets case. I put that word in quotes because a forget, even by both members of a pair, does not cause damage in the legal sense, because legally damage requires an infraction, and forgetting is not an infraction. It might perhaps become an infraction, if it's persistent, but that's because the partner of a player who persistently forgets an agreement eventually comes to understand that he does so, and now (but not before) the forgets are part of their partnership understandings.

In the case at hand, the agreement as to the meaning of 2♦ is as written on the system card. The fact that both players forgot this time does not change that fact.

[WellSpyder]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-10, 09:44, said:

the partner of a player who persistently forgets an agreement eventually comes to understand that he does so, and now (but not before) the forgets are part of their partnership understandings.

In this particular case I'm reasonably confident that our experience of this "forget" will help prevent it happening persisently. But I've been wrong before.....