[hotShot]

deleted, was double transmitted

[epeeist]

hotShot, on Apr 10 2005, 03:08 AM, said:

....
Can anyone explain to me how 2 player can agree on 1♣ 10-11 in an indi?
You get a new partner, every few boards and opps are there.
....
But i don't feel good about this, because i don't believe in agreement, in an indy at BBO.
....

In an indy, if both I and my p for a round has "sayc" in our profiles, even if neither of us types anything, we still have a de facto systemic agreement. Then, if I explain a bid I explain it according to sayc.

Even if you disagree with that form of implicit agreement, some indys, I've typed "sayc w/your profile fine p" or "2/1 fine p" or "my cc already open p, looks like it matches your profile" or something which explicitly sets an agreement on the bidding system with a few words.

Similarly, two players could easily agree to use Polish club, either by both having it in their profiles or with a few words at the start of the round.

Given that situation, if the explanation of a 1♣ opening as 10-11 HCP doesn't fall in the range for what the TD knows is the "normal" Polish club description, but a 13-point hand would, then there seems to have probably been a misdescription -- accidental or not -- contrary to the de facto partnership agreement.

So if 10-11 HCP is default for Polish club (I don't think it is) or one of the players had it in his or her profile or cc, then they might have agreed. However, I'm skeptical, as I think you are, that they could or would have agreed on "10-11 HCP" as the range for an opening 1♣ in the Polish club system, and thus think it was a misdescription.

[kgr]

I agree 100% with hotshot.
Additionally I ask West what he understood of East's 1C opening. Probably the misdescription will be clear then.
I think it is very good possibly that South does not DBL if 1C is described as (10-11)+.
So I rule 3NT. (Should look deeper in the hand. If there is a good possibility that 3NT goes down when opps know that 1C can be stronger then 10-11 then that will be the result).

[david_c]

"10-11" is a very poor attempt at an explanation. I would probably decide this was misinformation - I doubt that East would ever be able to persuade me that they really had agreed a maximum of 11 for the 1♣ bid. Most likely, the explanation was intended to mean "a minimum of 10-11", but that's not what was said. So even if I decided not to adjust on this hand, I would warn West that his explanation was unclear.

I think there are two things that might have happened:

1. South thinks, "10-11? That doesn't sound right. I bet he's messed up his explanation, but I won't ask him to clarify it because I have a cunning plan. I'm going to double. If they really do have at most 11, opposite a passed hand, then this contract is unlikely to make. If they have more than 11 I'm going to call the TD."

2. South thinks, "10-11? That's unusual, I never did understand these Polish systems. Oh well, if he's got at most eleven, and his partner didn't open, that's not enough for game, so I'll double."

Very difficult to decide which of these actually happened. If it's 2, then I see no reason not to adjust (to 3NT undoubled). Most likely I'll be unable to find out what was really going on, so I will adjust anyway, because 2 is reasonable. E/W can have no complaints because West's explanation was clearly deficient.

The main thing which would cause me not to adjust is if it becomes obvious that South is a good player. In that case, I will tell him he should realise that "10-11" was unlikely to be an accurate explanation, and he should have protected himself by asking for clarification before making a double.

[hrothgar]

From my perspective, there are three separate issues here:

Issue 1: (Probably) the most important. This incident occured during a informal "Indy" on BBO. The results in the event don't matter. The Director really doesn't have the ability to conduct a complete inquiry. Split scores can't be allocated. No one with any sense should care about the results.

Issue 2: Did West's explanation of their methods match the actual partnership agreement? There is no way to establish this wouthout asking East-West. My personal suspicion is that when West alerted 1♣ as 10-11, he was trying to explain the minimum strength for an opening bid. Regretfully, he didn't do a very good job. As always, there are issues related to language and alerting expectations in an online Indy...

Issue 3: Did West's explanation cause damage. Personally, I believe that South's double classifies as "irrational, wild or gambling". The perpetrator is taking a wold action and hoping to use the appeals system for redress if the double backfires. The double breaks the link between subsequent and consequent.

Ruling: No adjustment for N/S

[hotShot]

Dear hrothgar,

in polish club 1♣ is a 3-way bid:
balanced 12-14
12+ with 5+ ♣
18+ HCP with any distribution

in SAYC 1♣ promises:
3+ ♣'s (11)12+ HCP

So if West had an agreement with East to play something like polish club, the explanation was not even close to compleat. South will never even think of a dbl if west can hold 18+ HCP. If EW played polish club west forgot to alert, that 1♠ could show a 3 cards.
The given point range of 10-11 is very unusual. I don't know any system with such a 1♣ opening, but than, i don't know all systems. So if you know one please enlighten me.
If EW played some sort of "forcing pass" system, such an opening would make sence. I would call the TD for zero tolerance, if an opponent told me that it's not possible that my explanation is true. So I think south has every right in the book to belive that he got a valid explanation.
Is this dbl good bridge, no definitly not, but is it irrational to dbl a close contract? I don't think so. Look at my other posts to ruling and you know that i'm usually the first who rules for IWoG, but here it is not the case.

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on Apr 10 2005, 04:30 PM, said:

 

Dear Hotshot

Thanks for the explanation of Polish Club. I didn't appreciate the intracies of the various systems... With this said and done, could you clarify one minor point:

While E/W are "Polish Club" players, has it ever been established that E/W are actually playing Polish Club?

I have very little experience with all the weird ***** those foreigners drag onto our server, however, based on your description of Polish Club, it almost sounds like a Polish Club 1♠ rebid should show 16-18 with either (4 Spades and 5+ Clubs) or 5+ Spades...

[hotShot]

Well I don't know if they played polish club, because the explanation of the bid, does not sound like polish club.
My point is, that south is allowed to think he got a full disclosure of the agreement on the 1♣ bid.
With no CC posted, in doubt a TD has to decide on wrong explanation, which leads to a score correction here.

[hrothgar]

hotShot, on Apr 10 2005, 05:27 PM, said:

 

>My point is, that south is allowed to think he got a full disclosure of the
>agreement on the 1♣ bid.

Players have a responsibility to protect themselves. From my perspective, its a HELL of a lot more likely that the alert and the words (10-11) was intended to describe the possibility of a light opening in 3rd seat rather than a mythical agreement that a 3rd seat 1♣ opening denies anything other than 10-11 HCP.

In this case, South decided to make a risky double. It didn't pay off. So be it.
South doesn't get to

1). Fail to protect himself by inquiring about about the 1♣ opening prior to doubling 3N
2) Make a risky double
3) Go crying to the director asking for redress

>With no CC posted, in doubt a TD has to decide on wrong explanation, which
>leads to a score correction here.

There is most certainly NOT any requirement to provide redress for N/S.

Quoting the WBF (http://www.worldbrid...eofpractice.asp)

The award of an assigned adjusted score (see Law 12C2) is appropriate when a violation of law causes damage to an innocent side (although the extent of redress to this side may be affected, see below, if it has contributed to its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling, action subsequent to the infraction). Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction.

If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side, however, should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the normal consequence of its infraction. A revoke by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke.

[Dragan]

Things are very simply. After silly X: result stay, deposit forfeit.

In polish club 1c had 3 basic variant : 12-14 balance, 15+ with clubs or any 18+

In this sequence opener show at least 15+HCP's with spades and clubs or more probably 18+ with spades. So if opps say that they play WJ, they should be warned.

[epeeist]

I actually find this topic interesting, and -- if my view is wrong -- want to know about it, so...

I am wondering why, since the original question relates to a BBO online tournament, everyone is talking about deposits not being refunded etc. which is immaterial. It's not a face-to-face situation involving an appeal committee.

Law 75C (of the generally applicable WBF Laws of Bridge) states that a partner (in the system where one's partner explains the bid) in reply to an opponent's inquiry "shall disclose all special information conveyed to him..."

It doesn't say "shall disclose all special information conveyed to him, but only if the opponents really push for information, and the opponents have to be suspicious of so-called explanations and know to ask for more...".

It says "shall disclose". Especially when read with Law 20F which allows asking for a "full explanation" of the opponents' bidding (including calls which could have been, but weren't, made!) the explanation was clearly not a sufficient explanation.

I note also, footnote 25 on page 58-59 of the WBF Laws relating to online bridge -- which gives examples both of mistaken explanation (infraction) and mistaken bid (no infraction) clearly states on page 59 that "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Bid, in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

http://www.worldbrid.../onlinelaws.pdf

It also notes, in the example used to more fully explain the difference, that opponents are entitled to an "accurate description". Not that opponents have to be on their guard, be suspicious that the explanation given for a bid is inaccurate, etc. When they ask for an explanation, they are entitled to a full and accurate one.

Clicking on an alerted bid in BBO requests an explanation. If a bidder volunteers information about an alerted bid, to save time, it seems obvious that the information must be accurate notwithstanding the lack of a question. Otherwise, a bidder could deliberately misdescribe alerted bids, only answering honestly if and only if opponents follow up by asking...

As for "damage" decisions about whether to e.g. bid a game, or small slam, or grand slam, are sometimes made (especially in NT) based on matters of a point or two. E.g. p opens 1NT (15-17), with 8 HCP I bid 2NT, inviting p to bid 3NT with 17, pass with 15, use judgment based on 16. Is it so unbelievable that in deciding whether to double 3NT, a difference of a couple of points in what you think the opponents have would affect the decision?! Whether or not the double was bad, the misdescription arguably contributed to it. And not being an appeal committee situation where a hypothetical situation can be given to experts to determine whether or not there was damage, that seems to suggest damage.

[Walddk]

epeeist, on Apr 11 2005, 05:02 AM, said:

I am wondering why, since the original question relates to a BBO online tournament, everyone is talking about deposits not being refunded etc. which is immaterial. It's not a face-to-face situation involving an appeal committee.

My point was that if I am on an appeals committee in real life and get the facts jyllybean presents, confirmed by NS as well as EW, I will likely deem the appeal without merit and forfeit the deposit.

Then I can afford to buy a few of the cokes I lost to co-commentators during our vugraph presentations

Roland

[jw_nl]

At the moment South had called TD I joined the table. I saw the complaint of South and I wondered why he was so angry. The case seemed simple to me. The 1♣ bid was grey and I interpreted the 10-11 as "third position, might be a little bit weaker". After the board I asked South if he had thought about that possiblity and that it seemed quite normal to me. He answered me 1♣ was NOT alerted and the alert/explanation was written after his request. Based on that 10-11 he decided to double. I think that's gambling but OK, that's his decision. Result would stand.

Yesterday I saw West on BBO and I asked him why he explained his 1♣ as 10-11. Pity, but he didn't answer me.
I was curious if he often opens with 10-11 in third position. I have reviewed a lot of his boards of last week.
On his profile is Polish club.
Some conclusions:
With polish partners I saw a few polish 2 openings. He has alerted these openings.
Almost without exception he opens the rest 1♣. Openings and rebids are NEVER alerted. The HCP range I saw was 13-24. A pass with 13HCP is possible (NOTVUL against VUL). NEVER an opening of 1♣ with 10-11 HCP.

I think the explanation "10-11" isn't according to his system and his habits. Maybe a yellow or abuse can tell West that he has to change his attitude.

[helene_t]

I think it was justified to call the director. Not only because of the misinformation, but also because it's funny that East doesn't bid 3NT immediately, and that West kept it open allthough 1♠ should show a much stronger hand.

Anyway, South should have realized that the explanation given doesn't make sense. Maybe he speculated that EW had a misunderstanding and 12+8 HCPs or something. Or he relied on his partner's overcall. No adjustment, but a warning to West.

[badderzboy]

I'm quite amazed how everyone has jumped on South here as he was misled by West - who didn't alert a non-natural bid (how unusual lol) then when asked provides a misleading description - it is clear that East did not read it as that!

South double is sort of reasonable if he assumes West has 10-11 and East <12 for his pass.

Big difference in the odds making 3NT with 22/23 pts and 25pts is there not

If I was suspicious I might think West thought - partner has a max pass so what do I need to say to induce a double and if I get burned I can blame my poor command of English...

The counter argument is South has doubled as he assumes that East has misunderstood the bid when he hasn't...

I guess South called the director as soon as he led...

Surely the misalert and misinformation should mean the contract is rolled back to 3NT?

Steve

[guggie]

Again, this was a BBO indy tournament without any importance

But as a matter of principle, it would be very unjust if someone can make a "speculative" double (to use a kind adjective for this double), and if it doesnt work out, can run to the TD for an adjust. That is riskfree doubling, and as such in contrast with the spirit of the game.

Also as a matter of principle, west should be warned about his alerting behaviour, but one must realise that for polish players wj2000 (~polish precision) is as normal and standard as is acol in the UK and SAYC in the USA, and furthermore that a lot of polish players have a serious language handicap.

[hotShot]

If it happend to me, i'd make a note in the players profile that he gives very inaccurate descriptions of his bids and forget about it.
But South decided to call the TD. A foreign driver will get his ticket when passing a stop sign, even if he does not know what "stop" means.
West gave an incomplete description of his agreeement.
Incomplete => false => damage => score correction.
Even if you assume that south was taking the "double shot" route here, EW have to get an adjusted score, because the offending side may not profit.

[Walddk]

guggie, on Apr 11 2005, 07:07 AM, said:

Also as a matter of principle, west should be warned about his alerting behaviour, but one must realise that for polish players wj2000 (~polish precision) is as normal and standard as is acol in the UK and SAYC in the USA, and furthermore that a lot of polish players have a serious language handicap.

Good points, and they are no doubt the reasons for no or inadequate explanations. Many players on BBO simply do not know how to express themselves in English.

However, it must be possible to teach them:

1♣: 12-14 balanced, 15+ with clubs or 18+ any shape.

Furthermore teach them that 1♣ in Polish Club is alertable on BBO (where the ACBL alert procedure is in force) although it is not in other parts of the world (mainly Poland of course where it's standard).

I have a feeling that this has already been tried by notes on bridgebase.pl, but maybe it's time to do it again. wojela, libido, martpl and juror are very capable Polish yellows who are happy to help those who are not familiar with English.

People from other countries, Italy and Turkey for instance, have similar problems with English. Fair enough, but again we have local yellows available if they need help.

Roland

[hrothgar]

badderzboy, on Apr 11 2005, 02:45 PM, said:

I'm quite amazed how everyone has jumped on South here as he was misled by West - who didn't alert a non-natural bid (how unusual lol) then when asked provides a misleading description - it is clear that East did not read it as that!

Actually, its pretty clear that you didn't bother to read jw_nl's posting which pretty clearly establishes that West's unalerted 1♣ was was "standard" (how appropriate... lol)

The explanation that 1♣ could be based on (10) - 11 HCP was provided after South made an inquiry regarding the definition of a 1♣ opening. At this point in time, its even more clear that that the (10-11) explanation referred to the minimum strength required for an opening.

We are now clearly in Appeal without Merit territory

Two key points:

1. I think clear that East has done nothing wrong. He/She can be potentially faulted for having poor command of English. Then again, when I need to make explanations in Polish, these are often incomplete.

2. I find it highly suggestive that so many posters in this thread were fixating on the assumption that the E/W players where being unethical in disclosing all the details of their nefarious Polish Club agreements, when, in fact, the pair was playing Standard.

[hrothgar]

helene_t, on Apr 11 2005, 02:29 PM, said:

I think it was justified to call the director. Not only because of the misinformation, but also because it's funny that East doesn't bid 3NT immediately, and that West kept it open allthough 1♠ should show a much stronger hand.

N/S are vulnerable... I suspect that West passed hoping for a reopening double by partner. Personally, I don't think that the trumps are quite good enough and would have probably bid 2NT. For that matter's I'd probably have opened with the East hand. However, that's neither here nor there...

With Heart shortage, East is almost required to reopen to cater for the trap pass.