[ducky_rh]

Player opens 2NT. Player's profile indicates that a 2NT opening shows 20-22 points. Player then realizes that the hand was miscounted, and player has in fact only 19 points.

Opponent asks the meaning of 2NT opening. Player responds "20-22 points".

Now at this point, is player obligated to reveal also that the hand was miscounted?

In another hand, player opens 1♠. Then player realizes that a misclick has occured, and player actually intended to open 1♥. Player in fact has only a couple of small spades. What is the player's obligation to the opponents when this misclick is discovered?

Thank you.

[inquiry]

ducky_rh, on Apr 18 2006, 06:06 AM, said:

Player opens 2NT. Player's profile indicates that a 2NT opening shows 20-22 points. Player then realizes that the hand was miscounted, and player has in fact only 19 points.

Opponent asks the meaning of 2NT opening. Player responds "20-22 points".

Now at this point, is player obligated to reveal also that the hand was miscounted?



Thank you.

ABSOLUTELY NOT... you alert your AGREEMENT, not what you actually hold.

Quote

In another hand, player opens 1♠.  Then player realizes that a misclick has occured, and player actually intended to open 1♥.  Player in fact has only a couple of small spades.  What is the player's obligation to the opponents when this misclick is discovered?

If undo's are not allowed, say nothing. If undo are allowed, it is quite acceptible to ask for an undo due to the misclick. If the misclick is discovered much later in the auction, say nothing or ask for a redeal. IF nothing else it will give you good practice with a "pscyhe" unintentional it might be.

[ducky_rh]

Now suppose a tournament player opens 1NT, and his profile indicates a range of 15-17, and there is, of course, no alert, but the player actually holds only 12 points. The opponents call a TD, and lodge a complaint about "misinformation".

Then suppose the TD imposes a one-trick penalty, for failure to abide by the information given in the player's profile, or failure to alert the deviation from the partnership agreement. Is this a proper action by the TD?

If not, what is to prevent players from consistently deviating from their published partnership agreements in a effort to deceive opponents?

[inquiry]

Richard these are two entirely different situations of sorts.

If a player will "frequently" open 1NT with 12 hcp, and his announced agreement is 15-17, then they have an "Agreement" that the bid shows 15-17 except when it shows 12. They must either alert their range as 12-17, or 15-17 with "frequent 12 hcp semi-psyches" or they must not do it.

To open 1NT and alert (your correct range) as 15-17 when holding 12 is perfectly allowable. There is no "Mis-information" to alert (prealert) it as 15-17 if that is your range. However, if you CC says 15-17 and you and your partner understand 1NT to be 12-14, then that is misinformation.

As for this statement:

Quote

If not, what is to prevent players from consistently deviating from their published partnership agreements in a effort to deceive opponents?

The answer is NOTHING, as long as their is an EQUAL chance to deceive ones partner. If you do it "consistently" then the chance of deceiving your partner (who has seen this and experienced when this "deviation" constantly occurs) is GREATLY reduced compared with the chance of deceiving ones opponents. Then this becomes a violation. This is why, for instance, frequent "favorite" psyches frequently run afowl of the rules and are frowned upon.

[paulg]

ducky_rh, on Apr 18 2006, 12:53 PM, said:

Now suppose a tournament player opens 1NT, and his profile indicates a range of 15-17, and there is, of course, no alert, but the player actually holds only 12 points.  The opponents call a TD, and lodge a complaint about "misinformation".

Then suppose the TD imposes a one-trick penalty, for failure to abide by the information given in the player's profile, or failure to alert the deviation from the partnership agreement.  Is this a proper action by the TD?

No.

As Ben has covered, deviations from the profile are fine as there is not a concealed partnership understanding. In this case there is no infraction and hence no basis for any change to the score.

If the TD believes that there is a concealed partnership understanding then he may rule that the opponents are effectively playing a 12-17 NT and rule misinformation. This *may* lead to an adjusted score if the opponents have been damaged.

If the TD believes it is a serious infraction, typically a pair continuing the behaviour after a warning, then he may issue the pair with a procedural penalty. In real life the procedural penalty would not apply to the board but to the pair (say, a fine of 25% of a top or 3 IMPs depending on scoring) and the non-offending pair would not benefit from this (although they may have received an adjusted score). However BBO does not have the ability to issues PPs so the TD will have to find a mechanism to adjust the score appropriately. A 'one trick' penalty does not seem the best way for this to me (in fact I think it is pretty poor).

Paul

[DrTodd13]

In a local club, a director may come to know certain pairs' proclivities. On BBO, this is impossible. It would be nice if a director (or opps for that matter) could easily do a search for all hands played by this pair that matches the auction in question. If the number of resulting hands is very small then it is likely this is a new partnership that don't have solid agreements. If the number of hands is relatively large then you can see whether they frequently deviated from the stated agreement. This isn't perfect because a pair's methods may change over time and the meaning or range of a bid may change but it is better than what we have now where directors are assuming there is an implicit agreement whenever a bid deviates. Guilty unless you can prove otherwise and it is impossible to prove it in the short amount of time a director takes to make a ruling.

[barmar]

If responder doesn't act with a hand that virtually everyone would bid over a strong NT, the TD can probably figure out that he's bid like this several times before. In that case, it seems pretty clear that it's a partnership understanding, and it needs to be disclosed.

You have to be careful about this, though. ACBL used to have a policy called "rule of coincidences" -- if both partners deviate from their system on the same hand, and they happen to compensate for each other (e.g. opener overbids and responder underbids, both claiming to have miscounted), it can be assumed to be a concealed partnership understanding and may be penalized. They've done away with this automatic assumption, but it should still be recorded so that if a similar auction comes up again the matter can be revisited.

[pigpenz]

barmar, on Apr 19 2006, 10:29 AM, said:

If responder doesn't act with a hand that virtually everyone would bid over a strong NT, the TD can probably figure out that he's bid like this several times before. In that case, it seems pretty clear that it's a partnership understanding, and it needs to be disclosed.

You have to be careful about this, though. ACBL used to have a policy called "rule of coincidences" -- if both partners deviate from their system on the same hand, and they happen to compensate for each other (e.g. opener overbids and responder underbids, both claiming to have miscounted), it can be assumed to be a concealed partnership understanding and may be penalized. They've done away with this automatic assumption, but it should still be recorded so that if a similar auction comes up again the matter can be revisited.

And this is where Recorders help

[1eyedjack]

ducky_rh, on Apr 18 2006, 01:53 PM, said:

Then suppose the TD imposes a one-trick penalty, [...] for failure to alert the deviation from the partnership agreement.  Is this a proper action by the TD?

A deviation from the partnership agreement should NOT be alerted, should NOT be divulged on request (in absence of alert) (the agreement itself of course should be) and should NOT be penalised by the TD (unless it is a particular deviation that is specifically barred in the regulations applicable to that event as authorised at the discretion of the sponsoring organisation - example might be to psych an artificial system strong bid, in which case it should NOT be made in the first place, but in that event a 1-trick penalty is arbitrary and not supported by the laws)

[zenko]

I had interesting case where I got ave- for failure to alert, here is the hand: http://online.bridgebase.com/myhands/hands...&username=zenko

Our only agreement was basic sayc, so I had a problem what to respond on my partner's 1 spade opener with 762, Q832, K103, AK6. I choose 2 clubs as least of evils and we ended up in 4 spades. Opponent called director claiming that if I alerted 2 cl he would lead club and get one more trick, and the verdict was that I deserve ave- for not alerting. My initial opinion was that the ruling was wrong since we have no special agreement regarding 2 cl bid (4 more pairs bid the same way, nobody called director on them). i.e. that if I choose to "psyche" 2 clubs response I have every right to do it. But the problem is that in sayc 2 club IS systemic bid with this hand, (for 2 h I need 5th h, for 2 nt 4th sp, for 3 nt I have one spade too many), therefore maybe you can make case that it should be alerted as possibly 3 cards with hand unsuitable for any other action. On the other hand, counter-argument can be that bidding 2 clubs on 3-card suit in this situation is "natural" action, not specific just for sayc. I checked ACBL rules and there is no mention about this... any opinions?

Zenko

[inquiry]

zenko, on Apr 26 2006, 09:59 AM, said:

On the other hand, counter-argument can be that bidding 2 clubs on 3-card suit in this situation is "natural" action, not specific just for sayc. I checked ACBL rules and there is no mention about this... any opinions?

This is a bad ruling. Results at the table should stand.

[1eyedjack]

I don't quite understand Zenko's movie: according to the movie you ended up in 4H not 4S (I assume that was just a typo in your post?) But stranger still, the movie shows that you did get a Club lead. Now, a Diamond lead would have secured an extra trick (perhaps 2), but it is difficult to see how the 2C bid, if interpreted as natural and length, encourages a Club lead over a Diamond.

That aside I agree with Inquiry.

[jillybean]

Result stands EW get a warning for frivolous TD call

Even more interesting are the other 2 boards on the link that were adjusted, deal #55 was completed but adjusted A+- hmm?

jb