[schulken]

---

ACBL. Matchpoints. Club game. NS is a C pair (both NLM) of decent skill who play together occasionally. (In fact, they finished first overall this day.) W is an accomplished A player (4000+ MPs) and E is B. Not a regular partnership.

The auction went P-P-1♥-2NT. At that point, E asked S what N's bid meant and (surprisingly to everyone but S) was told it was ♠ and a minor. E continued with 3♦, which she (on my inquiry) thought showed a limit raise in ♥. The hand was passed out and EW was down 5. That’s when I was called as N correctly alerted EW to the misinformation at that time. My later discussion with W indicated that he did not understand the 3♦. He was perplexed by the explanation his side had received and was in a quandary since he considered his rebid to be 3♠ which was taken away from him. While I didn’t specifically ask this, I presume that he must have concluded that E had a ♦ suit - they were told that N had ♠ and a minor, so the minor must be ♣ since E bid ♦. Since he could tolerate ♦, he passed. E said that even given the correct explanation, she still would have bid 3♦ as she believed it showed a good ♥ raise. (Not sure why she asked, then.)

If W had been given the correct information all along, as an accomplished A player, I’d like to think he would have figured out that E’s ♦ bid must have shown ♥ support or something other than a minor that the other side had bid. If he did, he would have bid 3♥, ending the auction. However, even during my inquiry, he was not aware that 3♦ showed a good ♥ raise. He was considering a ♠ rebid but didn’t feel he could believing N had 5 ♠ behind him. If he had accurate information about the 2NT overcall, thinks E has ♦ (or ♠ but not ♥) and then bids 3♠, E has to bid again. W knows E is a passed hand but E now thinks W has a stronger hand. I think 4♥ would be the right bid for E but 4♠ would be a good bid as well - a 5-3 trump fit generally isn’t considered as good as 4-4. Now we have the possibility of 4♥ off 2, or 4♠ off 3. I think most S players would double 4♥ which probably gets pulled to 4♠, so maybe 4♠ off 3 is a possible adjusted score. Also, some with whom I have discussed this hand believe that EW get no relief - passing 3♦ is SEWoG and the table result stands. I disagree since his decision to pass was influenced by the misinformation. The other consideration is whether Law 12C.1.© applies here. While we didn’t poll any other players, I suspect there would be a variety of answers and possible adjusted scores. 3♥ off 1 isn't that easy to accomplish and maybe off 2 is a more likely result.

While I keep coming back to 3♥ off 1 or 2, (off 1 is what the club manager and I decided) although I am concerned about what happens if he doesn’t figure it out. I still feel that the misinformation led to his poor decision and that an adjustment is warranted based on that fact alone. The fact that the adjusted score we assigned evenly splits the matchpoints between the pairs seems to fit exactly what the law was designed to do. Factoring in some likelihood of 3♥ off 2 and 4♠ off 3 may get us to the right answer.

Thoughts appreciated.

[barmar]

Have EW discussed whether they're playing Unusual over Unusual. And if they have, what meanings are they using for the two cue bids (there are a variety of possibilities -- in most of my partnerships, 2♦ would show ♠, not ♥)? The point of this is to know whether they have a firm agreement about what 3♦ would have meant with a correct explanation.

There's a bit of self-inflicted damage, as East apparently decided to ignore the explanation, and assumed that 2NT was the usual Unusual 2NT. It would hardly be the first time a C player got confused between Unu2NT and Michaels, and even more experienced players sometimes have a brain fart. But why bother asking about an unalerted bid if you're just going to assume the standard meaning. And he also seemed to assume his more advanced partner would come to the same realization; but West can hardly be faulted for taking the explanation at face value.

But the ultimate cause of all this is South's incorrect explanation, so we should adjust to the results likely with a correct explanation. And that brings us back to my first question.

[Vampyr]

 schulken, on 2017-March-01, 16:33, said:

E said that even given the correct explanation, she still would have bid 3♦ as she believed it showed a good ♥ raise. (Not sure why she asked, then.)

Because she might not have bid 3♦ if the actual agreement were neither the mistaken explanation nor what turned out to be the correct agreement. I cannot imagine making an artificial bid here without finding out, verbally or via the CC, what the bid showed.

Crossed barmar's post. The decision to make U2NT unalertable is a curious one for sure, but if you think it's artificial you should ask (but then you should believe them).

Quote

If W had been given the correct information all along, as an accomplished A player, I’d like to think he would have figured out that E’s ♦ bid must have shown ♥ support or something other than a minor that the other side had bid. If he did, he would have bid 3♥, ending the auction. However, even during my inquiry, he was not aware that 3♦ showed a good ♥ raise. He was considering a ♠ rebid but didn’t feel he could believing N had 5 ♠ behind him. If he had accurate information about the 2NT overcall, thinks E has ♦ (or ♠ but not ♥) and then bids 3♠, E has to bid again. W knows E is a passed hand but E now thinks W has a stronger hand. I think 4♥ would be the right bid for E but 4♠ would be a good bid as well - a 5-3 trump fit generally isn’t considered as good as 4-4. Now we have the possibility of 4♥ off 2, or 4♠ off 3. I think most S players would double 4♥ which probably gets pulled to 4♠, so maybe 4♠ off 3 is a possible adjusted score. Also, some with whom I have discussed this hand believe that EW get no relief - passing 3♦ is SEWoG and the table result stands. I disagree since his decision to pass was influenced by the misinformation. The other consideration is whether Law 12C.1.© applies here. While we didn’t poll any other players, I suspect there would be a variety of answers and possible adjusted scores. 3♥ off 1 isn't that easy to accomplish and maybe off 2 is a more likely result.

While I keep coming back to 3♥ off 1 or 2, (off 1 is what the club manager and I decided) although I am concerned about what happens if he doesn’t figure it out. I still feel that the misinformation led to his poor decision and that an adjustment is warranted based on that fact alone. The fact that the adjusted score we assigned evenly splits the matchpoints between the pairs seems to fit exactly what the law was designed to do. Factoring in some likelihood of 3♥ off 2 and 4♠ off 3 may get us to the right answer.

Thoughts appreciated.

Your decision seems fine.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2017-March-01, 19:38, said:

Because she might not have bid 3♦ if the actual agreement were neither the mistaken explanation nor what turned out to be the correct agreement.

Interesting idea. If South explains it as Michaels, you assume they had the typical Michaels-vs-Unusual brain fart. But if they say something else (such as natural and strong, which I've heard from some life novices), it's likely to be legitimate.

But East is also then assuming that they forgot to alert this (in ACBL, Unusual 2NT is not alertable, any other meaning of the jump to 2NT would be). But since they're C players, this is also very possible. When dealing with players who don't really know what they're doing, all bets are off.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2017-March-01, 19:43, said:

Interesting idea. If South explains it as Michaels, you assume they had the typical Michaels-vs-Unusual brain fart.

When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me. But because of this I think I was wrong to be so sympathetic to the non-offending side in my earlier post. Eat's bid was very silly, given the explanation she received.

[blackshoe]

 schulken, on 2017-March-01, 16:33, said:

Also, some with whom I have discussed this hand believe that EW get no relief - passing 3♦ is SEWoG and the table result stands. I disagree…

So do I. That the NOS might get no relief does not mean the table result stands - it means the director awards a split score, the OS getting whatever the rectification should be for their infraction, and the NOS getting their redress reduced by that part of the damage they caused themselves. I also agree, in this case, that "SEWoG" does not apply.

[weejonnie]

I don't think it is a Serious error - system malfunctions are not serious errors within the meaning of the laws: it is accepted that people make mistakes. (And even less so when it becomes an 'extremely serious error' in the new laws) - the EBU white book says that bidding misunderstandings following misinformation should be treated very leniently.

However - can anyone really imagine a 'C' player not doubling 3 Hearts holding that hand?

" The fact that the adjusted score we assigned evenly splits the matchpoints between the pairs seems to fit exactly what the law was designed to do" is a load of baloney. Yes EW are entitled to Equity, which will normally improve their score, but that Equity could vary between 1% and 100% depending on the auction.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2017-March-02, 04:17, said:

I don't think it is a Serious error

Nor do I. So we adjust to what would have happened without the MI. I agree with 3H-1. And I think 100% of that.

[mycroft]

4000+ Experts have seen this before. And every time but one that it's happened, the C player giving the explanation had a brain fart (there were also cases, I am sure, where the *bidder* had a brain fart, actually *has* spades and a minor, but bid 2NT anyway. I blame the client calls at 2100 the rest of the week. But that's not relevant here). That one time, the known C pair was one of those off-the-wall university weirdos that play stupid systems because they can - but they clearly have their card marked correctly.

In the ACBL, "An opponent who actually knows or suspects what is happening, even though not properly informed, may not be entitled to redress if he or she chooses to proceed without clarifying the situation." Yes, that means "do I have to wake up the opponents to their mistake?" "You can do that, yes, and get protection. Or, you can leave them in the dark, but we won't protect you from 'misinformation' that you could have cleaned up. It's your choice which one you think will be better for you."

If West clarified at his turn, East (if she wasn't experienced enough to have to protect herself) would get a chance to change her 3♦ call per L21B1a. *Both* auctions would be AI to West. Since he didn't do that, E/W get no redress.

Do we adjust for N/S? Possibly. Definitely, if the UI influenced anything.

[WellSpyder]

 mycroft, on 2017-March-02, 12:06, said:

If West clarified at his turn...

I thought the idea of protecting yourself by clarifying applied if you didn't get an alert. Saying "I don't believe you" to a player who has given you a clear explanation seems rather different, to me.

[weejonnie]

 WellSpyder, on 2017-March-03, 03:24, said:

I thought the idea of protecting yourself by clarifying applied if you didn't get an alert. Saying "I don't believe you" to a player who has given you a clear explanation seems rather different, to me.

It is only experienced players who are expected to protect themselves. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

EBU White Book

Thus if an experienced pair didn't ask (obviously in this case they did), you have to find out why they did not. If a player gets an alert then it is up to them to find out the meaning of the auction so far when it is their turn to call. (Lots of times I find the partner of the person who asks starts asking their own questions immediately). If they don't get an alert when one is expected then they can remain silent, hoping the opponents are having a bidding misunderstanding, but they won't get much sympathy if they haven't asked when they could have done without detriment to themselves or partner, or during the clarification period.

There is a sting in the tail here. Under the new laws a player will not be able to ask a question if the sole intent is to get an inaccurate answer.

[Vampyr]

 weejonnie, on 2017-March-03, 05:32, said:

It is only experienced players who are expected to protect themselves. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side’s interests at risk (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled.

Here the explanation was not implausible, so E/W cannot be expected to "protect themselves".,

[mycroft]

(1♥)-2NT, an agreement that is marked (with a checkbox, no less) at the top of the (ACBL) card, that is *universally* minors - as I said, I've met exactly one pair that played at as something else (Okay, I've had several who played it as Natural. Not counting them) - explained as a different convention (that again, everybody plays, as 2♥)? That's not implausible? At least not enough to *check the card*?

The other G-word - Ghestem - is almost unknown here; those that do play it may have opinions on what cue and 3♣ show, but even they play 2NT as "2 lowest". In the ACBL, at least.

Pull the other one, as they say. Either the 4000 MP player has been playing for 50 years, or three times as often as me, or in much stronger fields than me, or some combination of the three. "Oh, that's reasonable, they can't possibly be playing it as minors and South has had a temporary braino."

Also, note the quote in the EBU White Book (which explicitly allows players to not ask to keep opponents from remembering their system without losing redress) versus the one I gave from the ACBL Alert procedures (which does not - and the interpretation of that rule specifically states that you can ask to clarify, potentially waking them up, or you can bid on your best judgment and keep them in the dark. But if you do the latter when you could have done the former and you get burned by it, you get to keep it.) I don't mind either regulation, but they are different.

As a side note, the ACBL has always had more of an assumption that experienced players will play games to win, and we should regulate against it. Witness their definition of Logical Alternative (which is now everyone's, by Law) as opposed to the EBU's old "70% rule", and this one, and the interpretation of SEWoG as "failing to play bridge for a player at your level". We have frequently seen players who are brilliant until their opponents make some small technical mistake, at which point all their bridge judgment goes out the window (when explaining the problem to the TD, at least). So, this rule (and the others).

[WellSpyder]

 mycroft, on 2017-March-03, 09:43, said:

(1♥)-2NT, an agreement that is marked (with a checkbox, no less) at the top of the (ACBL) card, that is *universally* minors - as I said, I've met exactly one pair that played at as something else (Okay, I've had several who played it as Natural. Not counting them) - explained as a different convention (that again, everybody plays, as 2♥)? That's not implausible? At least not enough to *check the card*?

If the meaning is "universal" then I probably wouldn't bother to ask. But if I did ask and got a clear explanation that was different from the norm then it might not occur to me that they were answering a different question that I hadn't asked.

(Perhaps this difference in perspective is partly because it is just more common to come across different agreements on the eastern side of the Atlantic than on the western side?)

[mycroft]

From what I can tell, we have a more frequent question of "normal" auctions culture than elsewhere. And yes, I gripe about it - especially when it's an enquiry about an unAlerted call where there is exactly one unAlertable meaning (and WeaSeL applies, to boot).

I would bet, that it's not "more common", but that different agreements are more commonly "different" than others on this side of the pond. As I said, Unu2NT and Michaels is almost universal; some fraction of a percent will play top+bottom cuebids, some fraction of those will play it in full Ghestem - note that T&B is explicitly not Alertable despite the fact that you might run into one such pair playing for a week at a Regional, and the people *playing it* know that following the rules is damaging their opponents.

Similarly, the number of people playing 2♦ Benji here would be counted on the fingers of one hand in a normal year's play - but 15-20% play Flannery.

But really, here, this is the kind of answer that would get a involuntary "Really?" from their opponents hundreds of times more often than it would actually be correct. Someone with 4000 MPs who accepts it at face value - well, this one might not have been, but most would be thinking "ah, they're heading for a bidding misunderstanding. Let's just be quiet and take our good score, shall we?" with a side dose of "I don't know what 3♦ means, but if I guess wrong, I know I can claim misinformation and get everything rolled back."

And that's why the Alert Procedure is written the way it is. Because There's A Lot Of That Around Here.

Oh, and they weren't answering a question you hadn't asked. They gave the wrong answer to a question you *did* ask. That's not the same thing.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2017-March-03, 12:23, said:

and the people *playing it* know that following the rules is damaging their opponents.

Please explain the logic behind this assertion.

[mycroft]

The auction goes

---

.

Your call?

Spoiler

So, N/S are playing Top and Bottom cuebids, so 2♦ showed the blacks. They, *properly as exampled in the Alert Procedures*, did not Alert, nor give any reason for you to believe that this wasn't the majors. Would that knowledge change your call? Would your hand even question anything?

Same auction, different hand:

---

. You play Unusual v Unusual, Low shows Limit. Your call? Oh dear, partner knows from the game on Tuesday with another partner that 2♦ is, again, spades and clubs. He bids 4♥ because you've shown a natural heart call - or he treats it as a limit raise in diamonds because he knows *you* don't know what 2♦ means, but you happened to play them Wednesday with another partner and had 6=0 in the reds...

But remember, this agreement (as would cue=lowest two!) is explicitly not Alertable as an example in the Procedure. Alerting it is *wrong*.

Wouldn't you feel like you're taking advantage of your poor opponents when this comes up and they are inevitably bamboozled?

[blackshoe]

When the people who decide on our regulations give us one that is not helpful, I ask opponents to explain their auction anytime I'm not absolutely certain what's going on. Either that or I look at their system card at the beginning of the round, and point out things like this to partner at the time. Or both.

Putting the shoe on the other foot, I suppose I have to decide whether I think I should lead opponents who don't do that by the hand. If I do decide to do that, where should it end?

The real solution to this problem is to change the freaking regulation.

[Vampyr]

In the case under discussion, there is one unalertable meaning, there was no alert, so LHO should not have asked, and would then be entitled to redress if damaged.

In the matter of Michaels/Top and Bottom Cuebids, the ACBL have made the mistake of allowing two unalertable meanings for a call. They should correct this.

[blackshoe]

More than two: any meaning that shows two suits does not require an alert.