[TimG]

Case 14 from the Houston NABC involves a pair "not knowing its agreement in a common situation" during the Jacoby Open Swiss Teams (NABC event). For this, they were assessed a procedural penalty by the director (upheld by the committee).

In the commentary, there are three seemingly conflicting comments about the PP:

Goldsmith: "The procedural penalty is illegal and inappropriate."

Polisner: "Lastly, the issuance of a PP is ridiculous as such penalties should only be issued in egregious cases and a habit or pattern of such problems and not for what must be assumed is an isolated instance. We can’t expect our players to be full time bridge players and have discussed every aspect of their system as well as tangential auctions in order to be able to avoid penalties."

Smith: "I do like that the director assessed a penalty for N/S not knowing their methods in a common situation (as required by our conditions of contest)."

One says the PP is illegal, one says the PP should only be assessed in the case of repeat offenders, and a third says the PP is required by the conditions of contest.

I haven't found the CoC. I will continue to look. But, thought someone here might know which of these commentators is correct and be able to provide the answer even if my search comes up empty.

I have found this in the Swiss Teams General Conditions of Contest:

Quote

14.
A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

which addresses redress, but not a procedural penalty.

[bluejak]

There is no doubt that a PP is legal. If the regulation says they should know their agreements, not knowing could easily get a PP.

Of course, the WBF do not like this, and most other authorities do not like it except possibly at the very top level. But the TD must follow the regulations.

[Elianna]

TimG, on Jul 21 2009, 01:13 PM, said:

Smith: "I do like that the director assessed a penalty for N/S not knowing their methods in a common situation (as required by our conditions of contest)."
<snip>
and a third says the PP is required by the conditions of contest.

I have found this in the Swiss Teams General Conditions of Contest:

Quote

14.
A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed.

which addresses redress, but not a procedural penalty.

I think that he's saying that knowing their methods in a common auction is required by the CoC. And then he's saying that not meeting the CoC in that regard is punishable by a PP.

[Cascade]

Its a great rule for encouraging players to come to your game.

Come along and play and if you are a bad player we will penalize you.

[awm]

Cascade, on Jul 21 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

Its a great rule for encouraging players to come to your game.

Come along and play and if you are a bad player we will penalize you.

This is a national championship event.

If the CoC discourages bad players or inexperienced partnerships from participating, this is not necessarily a bad thing. There are several concurrent events that are much more welcoming to folks who can't remember their methods.

[TimG]

bluejak, on Jul 21 2009, 05:37 PM, said:

There is no doubt that a PP is legal. If the regulation says they should know their agreements, not knowing could easily get a PP.

You're saying that the quoted section of the Conditions of Contest provide for the assessment of Procedural Penalties in the case of a pair "not knowing its agreement in a common situation"?

[bluejak]

Yes. I do not like it, but if

Quote

A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions.

appears in a regulation, then it is certainly legal to issue a PP for breach of it.

That does not mean that the TD should or would: but he can.

[Echognome]

You forgot to add Wolff's comment:

Quote

However, I would give a 2 victory point penalty to N/S to encourage them to learn the meaning of their bids, particularly when they are basically home brews.

Note that the emphasis is my own, not Wolff's.

[Cascade]

awm, on Jul 22 2009, 12:49 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 21 2009, 07:47 PM, said:

Its a great rule for encouraging players to come to your game.

Come along and play and if you are a bad player we will penalize you.

This is a national championship event.

If the CoC discourages bad players or inexperienced partnerships from participating, this is not necessarily a bad thing. There are several concurrent events that are much more welcoming to folks who can't remember their methods.

The rule quoted was in a general condition of contest for Swiss Team events. Unless I misunderstood.

[Trinidad]

Echognome, on Jul 21 2009, 08:27 PM, said:

You forgot to add Wolff's comment:

Quote

However, I would give a 2 victory point penalty to N/S to encourage them to learn the meaning of their bids, particularly when they are basically home brews.

Note that the emphasis is my own, not Wolff's.

I don't know what Wolff was told, but when I read the case, it was clear that NS rarely played together. They did have an agreement about 1NT-(Pass)-2NT. (This agreement didn't seem to be odd, uncommon or homebrew.) But they didn't have an agreement about 1NT-(2♣ (majors))-2NT.

Opener thought that without agreement 2NT was natural. Responder thought that without agreement 2NT would have the same conventional meaning as the uncontested 1NT-(Pass)-2NT. This is probably the most frequent source of misunderstandings (as well as one of the reasons why the opponents, generally speaking, want to contest the auction).

I genuinely don't understand what was "homebrew" about the NS system in this context or what Wolff's comments had to do with this. I must have missed something.

Rik

[greenender]

Trinidad, on Jul 22 2009, 04:23 AM, said:

[snip]

They did have an agreement about 1NT-(Pass)-2NT. (This agreement didn't seem to be odd, uncommon or homebrew.) But they didn't have an agreement about 1NT-(2♣ (majors))-2NT.

Opener thought that without agreement 2NT was natural. Responder thought that without agreement 2NT would have the same conventional meaning as the uncontested 1NT-(Pass)-2NT.

[snip]

Remind me not to have a game with responder. Opener's view is much more logical.

[helene_t]

greenender, on Jul 22 2009, 01:54 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Jul 22 2009, 04:23 AM, said:

[snip]
Opener thought that without agreement 2NT was natural. Responder thought that without agreement 2NT would have the same conventional meaning as the uncontested 1NT-(Pass)-2NT.

[snip]

Remind me not to have a game with responder. Opener's view is much more logical.

Maybe responder thought they played system on after a conventional 2♣ overcall. That makes perfect sense against e.g. Capp or Suction. Maybe less against Landy.

[McBruce]

I think I'm on the same side as TimG here. If we make a list of common auctions and agreements about the bids in them, I am sure that we can find at least a thousand more common situations than this one. The key question here has nothing to do with the ruling; it is: exactly how many agreements must a player keep in his head to be allowed to play in a national event?

On the ruling side, there are several strange items in the write-up:

1) (quoting) The correct information would have been “no agreement”, not “shows clubs.” (end quote) It doesn't really say that this was what transpired. What appears to have happened was that North decided they had no agreement about the bid and since that was the case, chose not to alert. Knowing, though, that they DID have an agreement in an uncontested auction, North probably should have alerted and (if asked) explained that he was unaware of an agreement about this auction, but uncontested it would show clubs. However, the very next sentence is:

2) (quoting) Such information would not make a substantial difference [to East] as to whether to bid again. (end quote) So N-S are being ruled against even though doing the right thing wouldn't have made a substantial difference?