[jdonn]

I see nothing wrong with the initial explanation of 2♠, in fact it seems to be very ethical and more than is required. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an adjustment, but based on what he knew and believed at the time I think east absolutely did the best he could.

[MFA]

gordontd, on May 10 2010, 01:53 PM, said:

mjj29, on May 10 2010, 11:16 AM, said:

How else do you disclose as required when you have two similar situations with different systems?

Matt

Well you must do as you did if you think the one agreement applies in the other situation (though I must say that it wouldn't occur to me that when I agreed to play Leaping Michaels over a two-opener, it might also apply over a one-opener). But when it turns out that your partner hasn't made the same assumption it seems inevitable that you will be deemed to have given misinformation, and expressing uncertainty at the time of the explanation doesn't really help your opponents at all. It's actually harder for them to defend against a bid that shows C or S+D or S than against one that shows C or S+D.
For those reading who don't already know it, my ruling was that EW had misinformed NS and so their score was adjusted to 50% of 4S= & 50% of 5Dx-1.

Your ruling is not unproblematic, as I see it, but I'm not sure what I would have done.

1)
Sure it's harder to defend against C or S+D or S than C or S+D. But hopefully it would have been equally harder for EW to handle if they happened to have the problems.
Ill-defined systems give less information to both partners and opponents, in principle nothing wrong with that.

2)
There always exist a correct explanation, no matter what uncertainties there might be in somebody's system. If we had access to all prior partnership communication we would be able to suggest exactly what east should say, and that might well be something along the lines of what he actually said.

Quote

... But when it turns out that your partner hasn't made the same assumption it seems inevitable that you will be deemed to have given misinformation, and expressing uncertainty at the time of the explanation doesn't really help your opponents at all.

We can't demand the impossible. If no firm agreement exists there can be no firm explanation either. The laws don't require that one takes a guess (and suffer MI if he guesses wrongly). The word "inevitable" sounds wrong. If we rule MI we should at least be able to suggest how the explanation could reasonably have been better. We can't rule MI regardsless of what east happen to say just because he makes a reservation. That would be punishing EW for not knowing their system - not for giving MI.

I'm not sure what I would have done, though.

[CamHenry]

mjj29, on May 10 2010, 04:36 AM, said:

(I was West)

<snip>

If I had thought about it at all I would have come to the conclusion that the overcall was artificial as described, is was perfectly reasonable for my partner to assume that his explanation was correct, we normally do reach the same conclusion at the table about the bids, given the rest of the system it was clearly the correct thing to be playing.

I was East.

It was only after Matt made his 2♠ overcall that I realised we hadn't discussed whether our artificial overcalls applied over higher-level openings; these overcalls are not generally permitted so we were playing them for the first time. That goes some way to explaining why we hadn't discussed their applicability here!

I don't recall the detail of Matt (West's) explanation of my redouble. He definitely said that I was happy playing in 2SXX if he had spades; I believe he didn't say anything either way about his diamond suit/shortage/unspecified. Would it have helped matters if he'd said "As Henry says, we haven't discussed whether artificial overcalls apply here. If it's an artificial overcall, he's happy playing in 2S opposite the option with spades and diamonds; if it's a natural overcall, he's showing an undefined strong hand"? That would have been the most complete disclosure available, yet would probably be even more confusing.

The alternative position we could take as EW is simply to say "no agreement" and clam up, but given we have agreements in similar situations that could apply here, it seems unfair to do so.

On the actual ruling, I agree that we didn't provide as much information as we could have done, and if I'd been directing and uninvolved in the case I don't know that I'd have ruled any differently.

[campboy]

I think either "undiscussed" or the "depending on the meaning of 2♠ it could be..." as an explanation of the redouble would have helped. North asked about the redouble, then thought for some time before passing; I imagine she got the impression, as I did, that the answer given was incompatible with 2♠ being natural.

[RMB1]

I think the original explanation of XX was misleading and adjustment was required. I think someone should have called the TD before the explanation of XX was given. "The explanation of two spades was ambiguous and this makes it difficult to properly explain the redouble". The TD could then extablish that 2♠ was ambiguous, and XX was strong and to play opposite S+D or a natural S overcall. This would prevent West from giving the impression that he necessarily had shown S+D when he passed the redouble. The adjustment should be on the basis that West could have S+D or just S.

[MFA]

RMB1, on May 11 2010, 06:03 PM, said:

I think the original explanation of XX was misleading and adjustment was required.  I think someone should have called the TD before the explanation of XX was given.  "The explanation of two spades was ambiguous and this makes it difficult to properly explain the redouble".  The TD could then extablish that 2♠ was ambiguous, and XX was strong and to play opposite S+D or a natural S overcall.  This would prevent West from giving the impression that he necessarily had shown S+D when he passed the redouble.  The adjustment should be on the basis that West could have S+D or just S.

I'm not sure I follow this.

North can only be misled, if north insists on trying to find out what west actually has - through the exact wording of west's explanation of the XX. In a sense north hopes (or expects, rather) that west disagrees with his partner's uncertain explanation and now reveals what he has.
But north can not expect to be able to do this - such cunning interpretations are really at his own risk as long as west's explanation of the XX is correct. West can't do more than explain correctly.

If west agrees fully with his partner's explanation of 2♠, then west's explanation of XX is fine. That east wants to play 2♠XX opposite spades - nothing complicated there.

So adjusting only on the basis of the explanation of the XX seems wrong to me. Unfortunately the TD didn't tell us which explanation(s) he felt was insufficient, only that NS were misinformed.

[RMB1]

There were three possible disclosable explanations of 2♠: (1) natural, (2) the same as (1♥)-1♠, or (3) undiscussed, but presumably either (1) or (2).

It is possible that (1) is correct and East had forgotten; it is possible that (2) is correct and West had forgotten (but unlikely given East's uncertain explanation and West's bid); but the players and TD were happy that (3) was correct.

So how is West to explain XX? If 2♠ is (1) then apparently XX means the same as 1♠-(X)-XX. If 2♠ is (2) then XX is to play opposite D+S and not opposite clubs. If 2♠ is (3) then either East has decided which of (1) or (2) West has and has chosen his call appropriately; or has made a call which he thinks is best opposite either (1) or (2): a strong hand to play opposite D+S or just S.

West's explanation of XX should have been along the lines of (3) but sounded (to North) like (2). North concluded from the explanation of XX that (2) was the correct explanation of 2♠. The TD found the explanation by West was misleading and North was misinformed and North would have chosen differently with different (more ambiguous) understand of 2♠.

I hope I am not putting words in the mouths of the players or the TD. I appears that if the explanation of XX had been "To play if I have got spades (having shown S+D or clubs) or to play when I have spades (having shown spades)" then North would not have been misled/misinformed.

[gordontd]

MFA, on May 12 2010, 01:32 PM, said:

So adjusting only on the basis of the explanation of the XX seems wrong to me. Unfortunately the TD didn't tell us which explanation(s) he felt was insufficient, only that NS were misinformed.

I ruled on the basis that the original alert and explanation constituted misinformation, supported by L21B1b which I mentioned above:

Quote

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

I think it's clear that the pair had not discussed and agreed the application of their new overcall structure to this situation, and appending a caveat to the explanation to the effect that the two players might have differing views of the auction, does not in my opinion remove the misinformation.

[dburn]

gordontd, on May 12 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

I think it's clear that the pair had not discussed and agreed the application of their new overcall structure to this situation, and appending a caveat to the explanation to the effect that the two players might have differing views of the auction, does not in my opinion remove the misinformation.

Nor in mine. East-West had not agreed that a 2♠ overcall of 2♥ showed anything other than spades, and any statement to the effect that it did (or even that it might) is misinformation. Contrary to jdonn's view above, East was not doing anything remotely helpful - instead, he was creating confusion where none would have existed had he just acted as the law requires.

This confusion completely fixed North, who wanted to double clubs if that was what West actually had; by the time it became clear that clubs was not what West had, North could not clearly bid diamonds naturally because that might have sounded to South like a cue bid in West's "known second suit". You may say that North could have anticipated these complexities and bid diamonds over 2♠ anyway, but why in tarnation should she be required to perform any such convoluted thinking simply because her opponents were a pair of nutters apparently playing a method that neither she nor they actually knew?

The position is to be contrasted with, for example: (2♥) 3♥, undiscussed. East knows that he does not know what West intends by 3♥, but he knows that it is not intended as natural. Here, it may be helpful for East to say "we play (1♥) 2♥ as Michaels and we play (1♥) 3♥ as asking for a stopper, but we have not discussed (2♥) 3♥." (Chances are that this won't actually help anyone except West, but at least East can retire to his attic with the gratifying feeling that his duty has been done.) In the actual case, East misspoke to a non-agreement, an offence that one hopes in the new political climate will soon be punishable by death at the very least.

As to what West should have done: he should have explained redouble as whatever meaning it would have had after (2♥) natural 2♠ (penalty double). But perhaps East-West had "forgotten" to attach a meaning to this sequence also. Some people, you see, play it as SOS...

[nige1]

gordontd, on May 9 2010, 10:49 AM, said:

2♠ was intended as natural, but was alerted and it was explained that EW (who enjoy system!) had recently changed their overcall structure and a 1♠ overcall of 1♥ would have shown ♣ or ♠+♦. East thought that this also applied here, though he did mention the possibility that his partner might just have spades.

FrancesHinden, on May 9 2010, 05:15 AM, said:

If this full explanation was given at the table, I would probably rule that the result stands.  It seems to be a full description of their agreements.

I agree with Frances. My impression is that when you're unsure of your agreement but you think partner's call could be alertable, then you must: alert it; inform opponents of your uncertainty; and offer to divulge what inferences are available. I would prefer it if the law were as David Burn states and Gordon ruled but I'm not yet persuaded that it is.

campboy, on May 9 2010, 05:26 AM, said:

(I was South) I felt that the explanation of 2♠ was fine, but the problem was the explanation of rdbl ("to play if I have spades"), which made it sound like West did intend it as S+D or C.

I agree with campboy: that's a different kettle of fish and could justify Gordon's ruling.

[mjj29]

dburn, on May 12 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

The position is to be contrasted with, for example: (2♥) 3♥, undiscussed. East knows that he does not know what West intends by 3♥, but he knows that it is not intended as natural. Here, it may be helpful for East to say "we play (1♥) 2♥ as Michaels and we play (1♥) 3♥ as asking for a stopper, but we have not discussed (2♥) 3♥." (Chances are that this won't actually help anyone except West, but at least East can retire to his attic with the gratifying feeling that his duty has been done.) In the actual case, East misspoke to a non-agreement, an offence that one hopes in the new political climate will soon be punishable by death at the very least.

I do not see how this is any different. In both cases it is an undiscussed bid where there were two likely options for the meaning, at least one of which is alertable.

In particular I'd like to stress that if I had thought about it at all I would have also assumed the artificial overcall structure.

I'd also like to remind you of OB5B10, which would seem to require an alert and some explanation:

OB5B10 said:

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is goi7ng to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player's partner's actions are also consistent with that agreement.

[gordontd]

mjj29, on May 13 2010, 08:59 AM, said:

I'd also like to remind you of OB5B10, which would seem to require an alert and some explanation:

OB5B10 said:

A player who is not sure whether a call made is alertable, but who is goi7ng to act as though it is, should alert the call, as the partnership is likely to be considered to have an agreement, especially if the player's partner's actions are also consistent with that agreement.

I agree that tells your partner to alert. It also implies that, since your actions were not consistent with having such an agreement, your partnership might not be considered to have an agreement. And that is what I think L21B1b tells us.

[bluejak]

helene_t, on May 10 2010, 09:34 AM, said:

Players need to learn that if they don't have an agreement, they should say just that.

I do not think it is as simple as that. Players are encouraged to give details of agreements that may be relevant. So an explanation that says "We do not have an agreement in this situation" but goes on "but in these possibly related positions our agreement is ...." is generally doing what is expected.

gordontd, on May 10 2010, 10:51 AM, said:

I don't think that's really satisfactory. Introducing the idea that it might be one thing (without having any really firm basis for that idea), but then adding that it might be natural, simply introduces uncertainty and creates a situation that is very difficult for opponents to deal with.

This difficulty is why 3B10 was introduced into the Orange book. But it was deleted when it was decided it was illegal. Difficult or not, helpful or not, I think Full Disclosure includes doubtful possibilities.

gordontd, on May 10 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

Finally, may I say what a pleasant day it was, and in what a friendly and enjoyable spririt it was played?

I think this was the event to which I was invited, and was very sad I had to turn it down for the trivial reason that I would be in South Africa.

dburn, on May 13 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

gordontd, on May 12 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

I think it's clear that the pair had not discussed and agreed the application of their new overcall structure to this situation, and appending a caveat to the explanation to the effect that the two players might have differing views of the auction, does not in my opinion remove the misinformation.

Nor in mine. East-West had not agreed that a 2♠ overcall of 2♥ showed anything other than spades, and any statement to the effect that it did (or even that it might) is misinformation. Contrary to jdonn's view above, East was not doing anything remotely helpful - instead, he was creating confusion where none would have existed had he just acted as the law requires.

Sadly wrong: the confusion is caused by following the Law.

Law 20F1 {part} said:

During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

The players were telling him about "relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding" as they should.

[dburn]

bluejak, on May 14 2010, 04:51 PM, said:

dburn, on May 13 2010, 02:54 AM, said:

gordontd, on May 12 2010, 10:56 AM, said:

I think it's clear that the pair had not discussed and agreed the application of their new overcall structure to this situation, and appending a caveat to the explanation to the effect that the two players might have differing views of the auction, does not in my opinion remove the misinformation.

Nor in mine. East-West had not agreed that a 2♠ overcall of 2♥ showed anything other than spades, and any statement to the effect that it did (or even that it might) is misinformation. Contrary to jdonn's view above, East was not doing anything remotely helpful - instead, he was creating confusion where none would have existed had he just acted as the law requires.

Sadly wrong: the confusion is caused by following the Law.

Law 20F1 {part} said:

During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding.

The players were telling him about "relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding" as they should.

No, they should not. The partnership had an understanding that 1♠ over 1♥ was artificial. The partnership had no understanding that 2♠ over 2♥ was artificial (if it had such an understanding, West would not have bid 2♠), so East should not have done what he did.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on May 14 2010, 10:51 PM, said:

The players were telling him about "relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding" as they should.

I'd have thought it was more a matter of partnership misunderstanding

[CamHenry]

dburn, on May 12 2010, 08:54 PM, said:

As to what West should have done: he should have explained redouble as whatever meaning it would have had after (2♥) natural 2♠ (penalty double). But perhaps East-West had "forgotten" to attach a meaning to this sequence also. Some people, you see, play it as SOS...

I find the implication that the omission to discuss our system was faked rather insulting.

We have not agreed a meaning for the redouble in 2H - 2S - X - XX, but we do have a general agreement that redoubles show values except of 1NT doubled. In that case, West's explanation would likely have been along the lines of "undiscussed, but it shows values or spade support".

In a later post, David, you say: "so East should not have done what he did." The "what he did", I assume, refers to my explanation "this is what 1H-1S means; we haven't discussed whether or not it applies here". If my understanding of your meaning is incorrect, please let me know!