[bd71]

My ACBL district held it's finals for B-level North American Pairs event last Saturday. (***See below if not familiar with this event.)

We played a pair that used transfer responses to one-level suit openings (e.g. 1S-2C = diamonds) against us on one board. It was alerted when made, but there were no pre-alerts or anything of that sort. Our lack of preparation for this did help them against us because my partner held a perfect two-suit takeout but we obviously had not discussed defensive methods against this. I suspect other pairs at this event would have had difficulty in defending these methods as well. During the event, I did not even consider asking whether this was GCC compliant, so didn't draw attention to it. It's only after reviewing the hands that I started to wonder.

In another BBOF thread, multiple people have suggested that this treatment is not GCC compliant.

Things get really interesting when you consider that this pair finished 3rd, and thus qualified for the national finals. 4th place team was not far behind (and it was not me and my partner...we finished 9th so we're too far out for this to matter).

So...several questions for this group:

1. If this issue were raised with the director or organizers, is there anything that they could and/or should do about it at this point in time?

2. I would appreciate folks thoughts about whether I am under any type of ethical obligation to bring the information to the directors/organizers?

3. Do people have a recommended way to handling this at the table...should I just confirm with the opposing pair whether they have checked if something is GCC compliant? Should I call the director any time I have a question about something like that immediately when it comes up? Should I just ask the director after the hand?




***For those who aren't familiar with this event, it's an annual "grass roots" event where you originally qualify over the summer in local clubs for the "finals" in your local district, then 20-odd District finals are held in the fall and the top 3 pairs in each District qualify for the national finals held during the Spring Nationals.

[RMB1]

• The usual correction period applies to requests for a ruling (e.g. 30 minutes after the end of the session); so it is out of time to get the scores changed. But the director or organiser could investigate and inform the pair that such methods were not permitted and should not be played in future.
  
• If you think the pair should know the methods are not permitted or should know to check, then you are under some obligation to inform the organisers.
  
• I would ask the TD at the end of the auction or at the end of the hand.

[blackshoe]

The General CoC for the NAP say that at district level, the GCC applies, but the district can allow Flight A to use the Mid-Chart. I don't know in what district this occurred, so I don't know if this exception applies.

If the transfers are game forcing, they are allowed under the GCC provided they are not part of a relay system (Item 3 under "responses and rebids"). If they're not game forcing, they are allowed on the Mid-Chart per item 3 under "allowed", provided they are not part of a relay system that shows less than GF values. If they are so allowed, pre-alerting and a written description of the method are required.

If these are flight A players, they ought to know the rules regarding use of conventions and disclosure.

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-31, 10:05, said:

The General CoC for the NAP say that at district level, the GCC applies, but the district can allow Flight A to use the Mid-Chart. I don't know in what district this occurred, so I don't know if this exception applies.

OP states Flight B

[barmar]

He said it's Flight B, not Flight A (I assume that's what he meant by "B-level"). So only GCC applies.

[blackshoe]

Yeah, I didn't recognize "B level".

[bd71]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-31, 10:05, said:

The General CoC for the NAP say that at district level, the GCC applies, but the district can allow Flight A to use the Mid-Chart. I don't know in what district this occurred, so I don't know if this exception applies.

If the transfers are game forcing, they are allowed under the GCC provided they are not part of a relay system (Item 3 under "responses and rebids"). If they're not game forcing, they are allowed on the Mid-Chart per item 3 under "allowed", provided they are not part of a relay system that shows less than GF values. If they are so allowed, pre-alerting and a written description of the method are required.

If these are flight A players, they ought to know the rules regarding use of conventions and disclosure.

1. Apologies for lack of clarity. This was NAP Flight B. GCC was in effect.

2. The transfer was NOT game-forcing: (1) it was not alerted as game-forcing, (2) their auction ended in 2♠, (3) transfer bidders hand was probably worth only an invite opposite a 1♠ opener, especially in a pairs event (Q9x Tx AQJTxx xx).

[mycroft]

Note that any responses are allowed after a takeout double, as that is a "convention" (or special partnership understanding). So, if it was 1S-p-2C (which I'm assuming, because the OP didn't say otherwise), then yes, unless it's GF, it's not GCC-legal. If it was 1S-X-2C (which it might have been, because people forget), then it is perfectly legal.

Just offering on the off chance that someone didn't think it could make a difference (yes, I know, but I know I've had these discussions in real life and found out later that someone "didn't think [opposing bidding] mattered", so didn't mention it).

And yes, if you aren't sure if it's legal, go ahead and ask the TD at the time, or after the hand (says the guy who played EHAA for a while, and had one of these calls every event for a year). *definitely* if they're going to play this, you know, at the local clubs, or in the NAP Flight B national finals, they should know beforehand...

[blackshoe]

I don't see how I could be expected to know the information in your #2, since it wasn't in the OP. But never mind.

They were using an illegal convention. If attention was drawn to this possibility during the auction (anyone could have done so), then the director should have been called right away (Law 9B1(a)). If I were an opponent of this pair, I would draw attention to the possible irregularity when I became aware of it, and call the TD immediately thereafter. I'm not sure there's a law or regulation which would allow the TD to cancel the transfer bid, particularly if the auction had proceeded much further. Law 40B5 would allow adjusting the score after the hand (an assigned adjusted score, since there will have been a result obtained).

If you think an irregularity has occurred, you should call the TD immediately, unless a law or regulation specifies otherwise. The only such specification I can think of right now is when you believe partner has misexplained your agreement, when you call the TD either after the final pass but before the opening lead is chosen (if your side declares) or at the end of play (if your side defends). Note that if you come to believe that you have misexplained your agreement, you should call the TD immediately, unless you are dummy (note: you're not dummy until the opening lead is faced, and possibly not then, if it was out of turn).

[Elianna]

bd71, on 2011-October-31, 08:01, said:

1. If this issue were raised with the director or organizers, is there anything that they could and/or should do about it at this point in time?

2. I would appreciate folks thoughts about whether I am under any type of ethical obligation to bring the information to the directors/organizers?

3. Do people have a recommended way to handling this at the table...should I just confirm with the opposing pair whether they have checked if something is GCC compliant? Should I call the director any time I have a question about something like that immediately when it comes up? Should I just ask the director after the hand?

1. I don't know. But I think that you should tell them, because they can at least make sure that opps don't unknowingly use this in future GCC events. At least the organizers/directors could contact headquarters and ask them what to do.

2. See above, because you don't know who you would help (could be the pair representing you, could be the fourth place pair).

3. If you have doubt about a convention's legality, you should call a director. Adam used to look at opp's convention card, and call the director before the round started, but has stopped doing that for several reasons. I call the director when the bid occurs, because that's when I think that the irregularity (if there was one) occurred.

[bd71]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-31, 11:54, said:

I don't see how I could be expected to know the information in your #2, since it wasn't in the OP. But never mind.

Understood...I went into that detail not to suggest you missed anything, but to pre-empt any possible questions about how did I KNOW it wasn't game-forcing (and thus legal).

blackshoe, on 2011-October-31, 11:54, said:

They were using an illegal convention. If attention was drawn to this possibility during the auction (anyone could have done so), then the director should have been called right away (Law 9B1(a)). If I were an opponent of this pair, I would draw attention to the possible irregularity when I became aware of it, and call the TD immediately thereafter. I'm not sure there's a law or regulation which would allow the TD to cancel the transfer bid, particularly if the auction had proceeded much further. Law 40B5 would allow adjusting the score after the hand (an assigned adjusted score, since there will have been a result obtained).

Here is the hand:

---

To score well, N/S needed to get at least +170 in 3♥. Other high scores were +620 in 4♥ or +800 in a doubled ♠ contract for E/W. Our +50 in 2♠ down 1 got 2.5/15.


So let's play through some scenarios here.


Scenario 1: Suppose we had called the director immediately after the 2♣ bid, and the director identified their treatment as illegal per the GCC. What would happen? Would we be allowed to actively discuss a possible defense, including what we might use for a two-suited takeout? Or do we just play on and talk to the director at the end of the hand?


Scenario 2: Suppose we had called the director after the hand, either immediately or later in the session. Other than compel the pair to use different methods, what would all of the directors out there have done at that point?

I do recognize that there are a number of things we could have done differently on this hand that would have helped us:
1. Partner could have overcalled in hearts instead of doubling 2♣, helping us find our 5-3 ♥ fit.
2. I could have raised clubs, which may have pushed them to 3♠ which I can then double for at least +300.
3. Partner could have balanced with a double, which wouldn't find the hearts but would get us to 3♣ and they again may bid to 3♠.
to 3♣, but failed to and it was passed out. Partner could also have balanced with a double and 0535 distribution, but did not.
4. Hold them to 6 tricks in ♠ as other N/S pairs did. This still would not have been a good board, although obviously better than what we did.

[BunnyGo]

I played a pair in a GCC event (GNT flight B) this past summer that played a similar system. It was GCC legal (had a ruling on it) because their opening 1C bid was 15+ points and so any response was acceptable. Perhaps this was the situation?

[blackshoe]

BunnyGo, on 2011-October-31, 15:09, said:

I played a pair in a GCC event (GNT flight B) this past summer that played a similar system. It was GCC legal (had a ruling on it) because their opening 1C bid was 15+ points and so any response was acceptable. Perhaps this was the situation?

Only if the 1♠ opening showed 15+, which is unlikely.

[Bbradley62]

Out of curiosity... What is the strength range of the 2♣ bid? Why did East rebid his bad 5-card major instead of telling partner about their diamond fit?

[bd71]

Bbradley62, on 2011-October-31, 15:22, said:

Out of curiosity... What is the strength range of the 2♣ bid? Why did East rebid his bad 5-card major instead of telling partner about their diamond fit?

Re: the strength of the bid, it wasn't specified and we didn't specifically ask.

Re: East's bidding, it's a good question, and I'm not sure of the answer. I didn't analyze that or other questions here immediately after the hand, but rather only in the day-after post-mortem.

This was an early board played in the first session of a long two-session day. I remember the auction as shown, but it's possible my memory is faulty and that the auction was really 1♠-2♣-(X); 2♦-2♠. That perhaps makes more sense, but it is not what I recall.

[bluejak]

bd71, on 2011-October-31, 15:08, said:

Scenario 1: Suppose we had called the director immediately after the 2♣ bid, and the director identified their treatment as illegal per the GCC. What would happen? Would we be allowed to actively discuss a possible defense, including what we might use for a two-suited takeout? Or do we just play on and talk to the director at the end of the hand?

No, you cannot discuss anything. The TD will make you play the hand out them adjust if he feels you have been damaged.

bd71, on 2011-October-31, 15:08, said:

Scenario 2: Suppose we had called the director after the hand, either immediately or later in the session. Other than compel the pair to use different methods, what would all of the directors out there have done at that point?

The TD would adjust if he felt you had been damaged by their use of an illegal agreement.

[bd71]

bluejak, on 2011-November-01, 08:30, said:

No, you cannot discuss anything. The TD will make you play the hand out them adjust if he feels you have been damaged.


The TD would adjust if he felt you had been damaged by their use of an illegal agreement.

I appreciate the generic answer, but I provided the specifics on the hand to try to get a specific answer. I have very little experience with adjustments...is this a situation when there should be one? Also, to what extent to our "unforced errors" on the hand limit the likelihood there would be an adjustment?

[bluejak]

Unless they are pretty serious, unforced errors are irrelevant.

Being in England, it was decided here a long time ago here that it was not practical to work out adjustments after illegal methods so we cancel the board and Award A+/A-, unless the non-offenders have done better. But this does not apply elsewhere.

Still, I suppose you could always say that you might have reached 4♥ if they were playing normal methods so give you 4♥ +1.

[ggwhiz]

I hope you did inform the Director even though it's too late for redress.

This pair may well gain an advantage at the Finals if the methods are unchallenged or even if challenged 1/2 way through.

I see no penalty or adjustment available if this was the 10th good result generated by the methods and the integrity of the Championship is affected. A Director of my level would definitely be looking for guidance from the ACBL.

You might even be doing this pair a favor with a heads up (delivered by the organizers) should there be a sanction stronger than avg- on one board in their future.

[bd71]

To close the loop on this, I have quietly informed our local NAP organizers, and they are going to inquire with the pair and ensure that going forward they are playing a GCC-compliant card.

Thanks to all for their thoughts.