[minimonkey]

This hand occurred in the Scottish international trials last weekend.

---

6D made on the play shown.

The event was played with screens. On the W/S side of the table the 3C bid was described as natural (not alerted and not asked about, 4C was asked about and described as natural). On the N/E side of the screen the 3C bid was asked about and described as Checkback (written response confirming this).

On the play a spade was led. W won the ace and, thinking declarer/N held something like Kxx - AKQJx Axxxx, returned a diamond. As such the slam made rather than going off - as it would have if W had given E a spade ruff.

At the end of the play the difference in explanations came to light. S stated that 'Natural' was the correct explanation for 3C and that describing 3C as Checkback to E was the error - so W had had been given correct information throughout and the result should stand.

The NS pair had a well filled in, detailed, convention card which does not mention Checkback being played over 2NT (but does mention, for example, 2-way Checkback over 1NT). The card is linked below:
NS Detailed Convention Card

The Tournament Director ruled that the result should stand (6D making) - as West had been given correct information throughout the hand.

Do you agree?

[jallerton]

Either West has given a mistaken explanation to South, or East has given a mistaken explanation to North. The TD should investigate which. I would not expect this sequence to be recorded on a pair's convention card, so the TD should start by asking the pair if can provide its system file. I would expect most pairs in international trials to have a system file, but if the pair cannot produce one, the TD should have regard to Law 21b(1)(b):

Quote

The Director should presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me that system card is evidence that they do not have an agreement that 3♣ in this auction is artificial.

Was the 3♣ described by South to West as natural, or was the 4♣ bid described as natural and nothing said about 3♣? Was there a question about the 3♣ bid at any time? When?

One wonders why North, who bid 3♣, described it as "checkback" when if he wanted to find a 4-4 spade fit he could have bid 3♠. Or would that mean something different in their system? North is clearly not interested in hearing South say anything more about his heart suit.

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-01, 17:58, said:

Seems to me that system card is evidence that they do not have an agreement that 3♣ in this auction is artificial.

Why? Seems quite normal to put common stuff about 1NT rebids into your system card, and to omit less common situations.

[blackshoe]

That card is very thoroughly filled out. I doubt they would omit an artificial call — unless they couldn't find room for it, in which case I think they would have said something during the TD's investigation. BTW, did the TD ask N why, if 3♣ is checkback, it's not on the card?

[minimonkey]

I was West.

On my side of the screen the 3C bid was not alerted and I did not ask about it explicitly - as I assumed it showed clubs.

The 4C bid looked more like it might be a cue for diamonds - so, even though it wasn't alerted, I asked the question about 4C then to make sure I understood the auction.

3C as Checkback by North is a debatable choice - but, given North's written description, there is no doubt about what it's intended meaning was.

I have things I would like to say - but won't say them quite yet to avoid any biasing of future commentators.

[cherdano]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-01, 18:10, said:

That card is very thoroughly filled out. I doubt they would omit an artificial call

Umm. They don't even explain their opening bids. Why can they open 18-19 balanced both with 2C and at the one-level? They also write some stuff about 5/5s that is contradictory.

[christyw]

As a TD at the event ( National League Division 1) I agreed with the table TD who accepted Souths statement "I do not play checkback over 2N" and the card as evidence and Norths statement "I made a mistake"

One may not like the methods stated but one should not verbally accuse a fellow player of lying.

I also happen to know of another W who failed to return his partners spade.

[jallerton]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-01, 18:10, said:

That card is very thoroughly filled out. I doubt they would omit an artificial call — unless they couldn't find room for it, in which case I think they would have said something during the TD's investigation. BTW, did the TD ask N why, if 3♣ is checkback, it's not on the card?

The trouble is that there is simply not enough room on a convention card for a regular prospective international partnership to describe all its agreements. The Scottish Bridge Union convention card (based on the EBU 20A) allows more room for supplementary details than the one now recommended for use in England (EBU20B) or the ACBL card, but when you consider that system files run to scores, sometimes hundreds, of pages (and that implicit agreements may not even be in the system file), you have to appreciate that the omission of a bidding sequence or carding agreement from a convention card does not imply that the partnership had no agreement.

[jallerton]

christyw, on 2016-November-02, 00:33, said:

As a TD at the event ( National League Division 1) I agreed with the table TD who accepted Souths statement "I do not play checkback over 2N" and the card as evidence and Norths statement "I made a mistake"

One may not like the methods stated but one should not verbally accuse a fellow player of lying.

The problem for TDs is that players have a tendency to make self-serving statements. We see this in UI and unintended/intended call situations; MI cases are no different. If two partners give different explanations I would expect one of them to have got the system wrong; in the absence of other knowledge I would assign a 50% probability to each player having got the system right. However, experience shows that when there is a disagreement of this nature, the offending side seem to tell the TD in about 75% of cases than the explanation was correct and than the bidder had got the system wrong. This implies to me that there are regular instances of players bending the truth in order to get a ruling in their favour. Yes, you do not want to accuse players of lying and any statements made to the TD are evidence, but they are not conclusive evidence.

Quote

I also happen to know of another W who failed to return his partners spade.

Only relevant if both
(a) the TD concludes there was MI; and
(b) the correct explanation would have given this West exactly the same information as the West had at the other table you mention.

[paulg]

christyw, on 2016-November-02, 00:33, said:

As a TD at the event ( National League Division 1) I agreed with the table TD who accepted Souths statement "I do not play checkback over 2N" and the card as evidence and Norths statement "I made a mistake"

I was not at the event but I do know this team. If you were to look at the system card of their other pair, you would see that it is almost identical, including the awful colours, and clearly prepared by the same person. That card says "Checkback over Nt rebids" in the same place as "2 way Checkback over 1Nt rebids", so it is clear that the offending pair is playing a different method. I can understand how this would be supporting evidence for the directors to rule as they did.

Personally this would not be sufficient for me, but it is a judgement situation and I wouldn't ask for a review of the TD's decision.

[christyw]

There was a review which upheld the TDs decision.

The accusation of lying was made by a player at the table.

[nige1]

christyw, on 2016-November-02, 04:33, said:

The accusation of lying was made by a player at the table.

What was the penalty?

[Zelandakh]

paulg, on 2016-November-02, 02:48, said:

I was not at the event but I do know this team. If you were to look at the system card of their other pair, you would see that it is almost identical, including the awful colours, and clearly prepared by the same person. That card says "Checkback over Nt rebids" in the same place as "2 way Checkback over 1Nt rebids", so it is clear that the offending pair is playing a different method. I can understand how this would be supporting evidence for the directors to rule as they did.

Interesting. One might just as easily take this as evidence that the offending pair started out playing Checkback over all NT rebids and switched to 2-way in the 1NT case.

Could you perhaps tell us something about the pair in question? Their CC reads to me like a high-level version of pairs that announce "kitchen bridge" as their system to get around disclosure issues at club level. That might be unfair, especially not knowing them at all, so perhaps a character reference from someone that knows them would be appropriate.

[paulg]

paulg, on 2016-November-02, 02:48, said:

I was not at the event but I do know this team. If you were to look at the system card of their other pair, you would see that it is almost identical, including the awful colours, and clearly prepared by the same person. That card says "Checkback over Nt rebids" in the same place as "2 way Checkback over 1Nt rebids", so it is clear that the offending pair is playing a different method. I can understand how this would be supporting evidence for the directors to rule as they did.

Zelandakh, on 2016-November-02, 06:27, said:

Interesting. One might just as easily take this as evidence that the offending pair started out playing Checkback over all NT rebids and switched to 2-way in the 1NT case.

I agree, but this is why I'd be happy to accept the TDs' ruling given the greater investigations that they had done. This is why I think that whether there is sufficient evidence to rule ME or MI is a judgement call and being there carries a lot of weight.

Zelandakh, on 2016-November-02, 06:27, said:

Could you perhaps tell us something about the pair in question? Their CC reads to me like a high-level version of pairs that announce "kitchen bridge" as their system to get around disclosure issues at club level. That might be unfair, especially not knowing them at all, so perhaps a character reference from someone that knows them would be appropriate.

Rather than talk too specifically about the pair in question, it may be helpful to explain the context of the event. Although the National League is used to select the national Open team, most of the teams are playing because they enjoy a stronger event that is well run and they have no serious expectation of winning: however getting promotion to the top division is a big achievement. The league mandates the use of the WBF system card and I'm guessing that it becomes the system file for many of the competitors, especially those who've never considered systems so deeply before.

The league has more teams (23) than the English Premier League (18) despite the huge disparity in player numbers, but it does mean that the standard varies greatly, even in the top division, between experienced internationalists and strong club players.

Like many Scottish pairs, I think this pair's system card reflects their natural bidding style with a number of modern gadgets added and they've tried hard to capture everything on two pages - a few years ago, when I was a selector, I did help them correct some inconsistencies in it. Partnerships in Scotland are rarely exclusive, or long-term, at any level and I suspect they play bridge with a number of different people with minor changes to this card. For example, I could easily believe that one of them had an aberration and forgot who was on the other side of the screen, especially as they are a team of five.

Looking at all the players in the top division, my tendency would be to believe them all if asked whether there was a misbid or system forget. There are some where I may fear they were given the system and hadn't read it all, which may lead a TD to question whether they actually have an agreement, but this pair would not be on that list.

[minimonkey]

Thank you for your replies - as I said above, I was sat West on the hand. My thoughts are these:

Firstly; it is important for me to say - I don't believe for a moment that my opponents were even the slightest bit unethical on this board or otherwise. They were complete gentlemen, joking and being pleasant even when I was getting frustrated with the ruling. I don't want anyone to leave this thread with the impression that I feel I was 'done' through some sharp-practice. I am being told I accused my opponent of cheating - I don't believe I did, and if I did I am truly sorry. What I did do, which was a mistake in retrospect, was use the word 'cheat' twice (clearly a bad idea). The circumstances were 1) I said 'I know it might feel like I was accusing you of cheating...' when my opponent (in a friendly manner) interrupted 'Well don't. Let's enjoy the rest of the hands.' I wanted to express that it was the ruling I had an issue with rather than the player. 2) I think I also asked the TD a question along the lines of 'What if my opponents were cheating?' - a far better phrasing of which would have been 'I believe my opponents are acting ethically - but under the rules are you meant to give them the benefit of the doubt in this situation?'. Again I will empathise - I believe my opponents were acting using best ethics throughout and were a pleasure to play against.

Secondly; I believe that the process set out by Jeffery Allerton (with the outcome that 6S= would not stand without a system file showing 3C to be natural) is what would happen at an international event. It is worth asking - Why do I, someone fairly unfamiliar with the rules, feel this way? The reason is this; I have played two European Championships. At the start of the championships you are given the option to lodge a system file with the tournament directors. The reason given for why you want to do this is the exact situation that has come up on this hand - unless you can fully demonstrate the 'true' agreed meaning of the bid you will not be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether you or your partner were correctly describing the bid.

Thirdly; I believe the well completed convention card is definitely circumstantial evidence that NS do not play checkback in this auction (with the case made stronger given the new information, to me, in PaulG's post above). That said - it would be wrong to assume that any convention card is a complete, continually updated and perfect reflection of players' methods. Relatedly - I don't know what NS discussed and agreed about this auction, and I cannot know that it is South who remembered their discussion correctly rather than North.

The questions left in my mind I might ask to the organisers are:

1) Do you agree with my view as to what the process and likely outcome would be at an international competition?
2) If so - is it reasonable that the Scottish trials for these international competitions place a lower burden of proof on the infringing party when it comes to this type of situation?
3) If so, and with reference to this particular hand, is the evidence that NS do not play checkback here so strong as to flip the ruling from the 'international' outcome to 100% the other way?

Thanks again
Frazer

[cherdano]

christyw, on 2016-November-02, 00:33, said:

As a TD at the event ( National League Division 1) I agreed with the table TD who accepted Souths statement "I do not play checkback over 2N" and the card as evidence and Norths statement "I made a mistake"

I think the TD should ask about all their agreements over this 2NT rebid. Is 3D forcing? Is 3H forcing? I would presume the answer is "no" to both. Then, by necessity, one has to make up an 3♣ bid at times.

Basically, playing 3♣ here as 100% natural (assuming 2NT and 3D/H non-forcing) would be a very bad agreement, and I'd be reluctant to believe it without evidence. (But it may well be possible that the pair has never discussed this, and would just guess to bid 3N or 4D or 4H or 4NT with hands that should make a forcing rebid in a red suit.)

[lamford]

I agree with jallerton that one just falls back on 21B1(b), and generally assumes MI. If the CC stated "we do not play checkback after a 2NT rebid, whether a jump or not" then that would indeed be evidence to the contrary. If the players could show a system file that states that they "do not play checkback after a 2NT rebid", then that is evidence to the contrary, if and only if they obtained the system file in a short period insufficient to doctor it. If 3C was checkback, then the spade return is automatic, as North must then have 4 spades. One can, I believe, give a weighted score based on the probability of MI, and I think (but gordontd will correct me if I am wrong) that 75% of one off and 25% of making would be a legal ruling. If so, then it might be the most equitable. The actual ruling seems very poor to me, as the principle is that when there is a different explanation on both sides of the screen, the TD will tend to assume that the one that is correct is the one most beneficial to the non-offenders, roughly in accordance with 21B1(b).

[paulg]

minimonkey, on 2016-November-02, 08:27, said:

The questions left in my mind I might ask to the organisers are:

1) Do you agree with my view as to what the process and likely outcome would be at an international competition?
2) If so - is it reasonable that the Scottish trials for these international competitions place a lower burden of proof on the infringing party when it comes to this type of situation?
3) If so, and with reference to this particular hand, is the evidence that NS do not play checkback here so strong as to flip the ruling from the 'international' outcome to 100% the other way?

• I don't think the process used by the TDs here was different to one employed in an international event. But at an international event they may place more emphasis on available system notes which could change the ruling, but it would remain a judgement call of the TDs. I don't think it is a slam-dunk that it would have been different, even if I thought it was more likely.
• The SBU Council has consistently made it clear that trials have to open to all members of the SBU, regardless of gender, race, religion, and bridge ability. The corollary of this policy is that you will get participants who are less prepared for international competition and struggle to provide comprehensive system notes, or any system notes at all. I suspect that the success of the league means that this is a compromise that the SBU is happy with. However it would be reasonable to ask the organisers to state that those who cannot provide comprehensive system notes may be damaged when it comes to rulings if they cannot provide proof of their agreements. I thought this used to be in the regulations, but I may be mistaken.
• There are only two options so your phrasing is a little dramatic Personally I would have ruled in your favour but, unlike the TD, I've not spoken to North or South and perhaps they were sufficiently compelling along with the other evidence. Perhaps they'd also have been compelling at a Camrose weekend too.

[mycroft]

JAllerton: I think that the "50-50 chance is 75% 'system is right, I misbid" is strongly biased by "I write up the system and give it to partner, who thinks he knows it, and partner 'forgot'" cases (maybe as much as 10%?).

I know that in the extant case I am biased by my environment, where I've never seen word one about checkback over 2NT on a CC, but when I sit down tonight with a player I've never played with before (but qualified for our district's Flight A NAP), I'm going to assume that 1♦-1M; 2NT-3♣ is "GF, may not be natural, I should describe my hand more, emphasizing info on the majors" - because that's what it always is. Because that's clearly not the case here, as all the UK people have no "come on, we're not born yesterday, of course it means X" reaction; I'm going to avoid commenting on the ruling itself, as it's clear that I am not a peer of the players or the TD.