[jvage]

---

I don't direct much these days, but yesterday I was called because the playing director was busy. Matchpoints, my table was the only one to reach the par contract of 4♠EX-1, which gave us (N/S) around 40%.

2♦ was not alerted, upon inquiery from North it was explained as "Natural". Both pairs are regular partners, N/S is a relatively weak married couple, E/W are very good clubplayers. 3♦ made the normal 10 tricks and I was called after the play. I tried to ask North what he would do if 2♦ was explained as both majors and it seemed like he really didn't know. After thinking for a while he said he would bid 2NT which his partner would raise (he had seen all the cards and knew 3NT was making). E/W didn't mention this, but I strongly suspect that N/S exchanged some UI leading to Souths final pass of 3♦. I also didn't quite understand why South bid 2♥, but West was very clear that he would bid 2♥ if she had passed, and to me pass doesn't seem to be a logical alternative (partner got maximum 4 diamonds).

When I consulted with the playing director after the round I was surprised to hear that he believed this should be ruled as mistaken explanation, but with "No agreement" as the correct explanation. He said this was the general advice given in a European TD-seminar recently. I would have ruled "both majors" as correct explanation, both because my impression was that it was the agreement and because otherwise the nonoffenders are placed in an impossible situation. All 4 reasonable calls by North, Pass, X, 2NT (I don't think they play Lebensohl) and 3♦ has a meaning depending partly or very much on the meaning of the "undiscussed" 2♦. This will often lead to the sort of UI-problems for the originally non-offending side that I expect actually happened.

The TD suggested an adjustment to 2♦W-5 which I accepted (this gave N/S about 75%, 3NTS= would give them 90%). How would you rule and what do you think should generally be ruled as "correct explanation" in cases like this (including when you really belive "No agreement" is correct)?

Edit: When I asked West said he believed 2 Diamonds showed the majors, East said he didn't remember that they had talked about it. They had, like most other pairs in this clublevel tournament, no CC or other documentation.

[gordontd]

I think "no agreement" is often the correct understanding on which to base a ruling, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

[blackshoe]

IMO, if the club doesn't care whether players have CCs, they should formalize that — write a regulation superseding EBU BB 3A1. Otherwise, 3A1 is in force and should be enforced. Which brings up the question whether "are required to have" in that regulation is synonymous with "must have" or with "should have" or something in between. If it's "should have" a PP would be rare; if it's "must have" the TD should rarely not issue a PP. Even in a club.

That said, on to the actual case. Were you called after the play was over? If you were called before that, when? The timing would affect application of Law 21.

Some questions for the TD to ask:

1. What are EW's methods over weak and strong 1NT openings?
2. Have they discussed whether those methods apply over a 1NT overcall?
3. Has a similar auction (1NT overcall) come up in recent memory? If so, did they discuss methods in the post-mortem? (Trying to establish partnership experience here).
4. On what did West base his assumption that 2♦ shows the majors?
5. Do NS have any agreement as to the meaning of double of a natural 2♦ bid here? Partnership experience?
6. How did South interpret the double? (I'm guessing "stolen bid" - i.e., a transfer to hearts).
7. When did North ask about the 2♦ bid? Before he doubled?

Some points:

"Natural" is MI on its face, because it doesn't say anything other than "he has at least four diamonds". Strength? Distribution? Affected by other possible calls? If so, how?
Absent a determination that 2♦ is in fact natural for this NS, Law 75 requires that the TD rule MI rather than mistaken bid.
Was there UI? A suspicion that somebody acted on UI isn't enough. What happened (fact, not speculation) to generate the UI? How did somebody act on it?
There may be two infractions here: MI by EW and UI by NS. The laws don't handle these situations well, to say the least. In this case, if there was illegal use of UI, and EW were damaged thereby, I think you have to adjust the score on that basis. Having done so, I would not let EW off the hook for their MI. I think a PP would be appropriate in this case.

[barmar]

With these players it's hard to guess, but for most players any bid other than double when RHO makes a 1NT overcall shows a weak hand, and therefore a long suit (or as in the OP, a weak 2-suiter).

North should therefore know that West can't have a real 2♦ -- NS have at least 9 of them, so West has at most 4. On the other hand, he doesn't know what it really shows.

I wonder what kind of UI could have been passed between NS to cause South to pass 3♦. I can certainly imagine North getting UI if South alerts the double and explains it as stolen bid. But unless North then squirms or makes a facial expression that suggests that this is incorrect, South doesn't have UI, so he can do what he likes.

Can North legitimately pull 2♥ to 3♦? If he hears partner's explanation of stolen bid, he's not allowed to act on the knowledge that South doesn't necessarily have hearts. On the other hand, he knows that West doesn't have diamonds, so should he be able to figure out on his own that he must actually be showing majors? Is he only put into this horrible situation because of the MI, so should he get a pass on possibly acting on UI?

[wank]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-31, 08:36, said:

IMO, if the club doesn't care whether players have CCs, they should formalize that — write a regulation superseding EBU BB 3A1. Otherwise, 3A1 is in force and should be enforced. Which brings up the question whether "are required to have" in that regulation is synonymous with "must have" or with "should have" or something in between. If it's "should have" a PP would be rare; if it's "must have" the TD should rarely not issue a PP. Even in a club.

i doubt many norwegians are au fait with the EBU's blue book. fining them for not being English is a good idea though. we should bring back the empire too.

you would be wrong anyway. the relationship between clubs and the EBU is, unsurprisingly, different to that between clubs and the ACBL. clubs are under no obligation to follow ebu rules, even if they award master points and so on.

[barmar]

This is why we always ask posters to state the jurisdiction when they start threads like this. Otherwise we're just guessing which regulations apply.

In ACBL, convention cards would be of little help in a situation like this. There's no standard place to record continuations when a NT overcall is doubled. There isn't even a specific place to write what you do if a NT opening is doubled; but since most pairs play that their regular followups apply, the blank for "Systems on over ____" suffices (99% of the time it says "Double and 2♣"). There's a checkbox for playing your normal NT responses over a NT overcall, but I'm not sure most players have discussed whether this continues to apply when third hand interferes, and as a TD I wouldn't just assume that this checkbox is conclusive evidence one way or the other.

[pran]

wank, on 2016-August-31, 12:40, said:

i doubt many norwegians are au fait with the EBU's blue book. fining them for not being English is a good idea though. we should bring back the empire too.

you would be wrong anyway. the relationship between clubs and the EBU is, unsurprisingly, different to that between clubs and the ACBL. clubs are under no obligation to follow ebu rules, even if they award master points and so on.

I don't think you can expect any Norwegian bridge player to know about EBU regulations or recommendations unless they have regularly played bridge under EBU jurisdiction. What we are supposed to know is the Norwegian Bridge Federation's regulations and recommendations, many of which are derived from the corresponding WBF ands/or EBL issues. EBU rules as such have no legal status in Norway.

[blackshoe]

Fair enough, and while barmar is right, I should have verified the jurisdiction. IAC, my point was, and is, that if the club does not produce written regulations, the only way players are going to know what rules they're playing under is by word of mouth and (probably unhappy) experience.

[jvage]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-31, 08:36, said:

IMO, if the club doesn't care whether players have CCs, they should formalize that — write a regulation superseding EBU BB 3A1. Otherwise, 3A1 is in force and should be enforced. Which brings up the question whether "are required to have" in that regulation is synonymous with "must have" or with "should have" or something in between. If it's "should have" a PP would be rare; if it's "must have" the TD should rarely not issue a PP. Even in a club.

That said, on to the actual case. Were you called after the play was over? If you were called before that, when? The timing would affect application of Law 21.

Some questions for the TD to ask:

1. What are EW's methods over weak and strong 1NT openings?
2. Have they discussed whether those methods apply over a 1NT overcall?
3. Has a similar auction (1NT overcall) come up in recent memory? If so, did they discuss methods in the post-mortem? (Trying to establish partnership experience here).
4. On what did West base his assumption that 2♦ shows the majors?
5. Do NS have any agreement as to the meaning of double of a natural 2♦ bid here? Partnership experience?
6. How did South interpret the double? (I'm guessing "stolen bid" - i.e., a transfer to hearts).
7. When did North ask about the 2♦ bid? Before he doubled?

Some points:

"Natural" is MI on its face, because it doesn't say anything other than "he has at least four diamonds". Strength? Distribution? Affected by other possible calls? If so, how?
Absent a determination that 2♦ is in fact natural for this NS, Law 75 requires that the TD rule MI rather than mistaken bid.
Was there UI? A suspicion that somebody acted on UI isn't enough. What happened (fact, not speculation) to generate the UI? How did somebody act on it?
There may be two infractions here: MI by EW and UI by NS. The laws don't handle these situations well, to say the least. In this case, if there was illegal use of UI, and EW were damaged thereby, I think you have to adjust the score on that basis. Having done so, I would not let EW off the hook for their MI. I think a PP would be appropriate in this case.

Lots of questions and I can't answer all of them.

In Norway Convention Cards are required by regulation in more serious tournaments (regional/national), but normally not in local tournaments. Most people play relatively similar methods and seem not very interested in CC, neither their own nor their opponents.

As I said I was called after play had finished, they had actually laid all hands open on the table.

I didn't ask about methods over an opening NT. Around here I don't know anyone who uses the same methods in both positions. Most use something artificial against a 1NT opening, against 1NT overcall many of the best players use something similar to the 2♦ here for majors (some use 2♣ as the artificial call even after 1♣) and the rest natural, while the rest play everything natural.

North asked before he doubled (for penalty), South was not very clear on how she interpreted the double, it seemed sort of like she took it out as a "safety play". I didn't ask about your other questions, but "stolen bid doubles" are practically unheard of here. People either play penalty or takeout, and while both are popular it is not always discussed, even among relatively regular partners...

[helene_t]

2♦-5 or -6 sounds reasonable.

[wank]

pran, on 2016-August-31, 16:21, said:

I don't think you can expect any Norwegian bridge player to know about EBU regulations or recommendations unless they have regularly played bridge under EBU jurisdiction. What we are supposed to know is the Norwegian Bridge Federation's regulations and recommendations, many of which are derived from the corresponding WBF ands/or EBL issues. EBU rules as such have no legal status in Norway.

oh dear. irony, meet pran. pran, meet irony.