[dburn]

Well, partner could have five clubs to the ace and another couple of aces - that would make 3NT facing queen-seventh of clubs and out, assuming the opponents could not both lead and run the unstopped suit for five tricks. And even if they could, 3NT might be cheaper than 4♣, depending on partner's exact distribution. One can almost hear partner's anguished wail with ♠Axx ♥Ax ♦xxx ♣Axxxx: "you idiot, why didn't you let me go down one in 3NT doubled instead of making you go down two in 5♣ doubled, when they were cold for 4♥ all the time?"

Sure, 3NT shows club support - no one doubts that. What everyone except you seems to doubt is that partner "must have" some ulterior motive for bidding 3NT other than the pious hope that it might make. When I last played "for Surrey" (that is: in a team including Frances and Jeffrey), sequences were being discussed such as 3♣-double-3NT (by an unpassed hand) in which the last bid was either to play if the opponents didn't double, or suggested that partner save in 5♣ if the opponents did double and thereafter reached a major-suit game, whereas 3♣-double-4♣ barred partner from saving. Or it may have been the other way round; I pleaded that I was too old to remember the method then, and I am even older now, but I expect it had some merit - most of what they suggested did, apart from some barmy doubles. But this was the first time I had heard of such a thing, and I have heard of almost everything.

The principle remains the same: you can't, in the presence of UI, make it up as you go along. That's why, for example, with some 0=5=6=2 shape you can't pull after pass -1♣ - 2NT (explained by partner as spades and diamonds when the systemic meaning is hearts and diamonds) - double - 4♠ - double. Maybe partner forgot, but maybe partner was "doing a Collings" with nine or ten spades. Unless the alternatives are categorically impossible, they are logical, which is why in the original deal no one can pull to 4♣.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-28, 21:56, said:

Sure, 3NT shows club support - no one doubts that. What everyone except you seems to doubt is that partner "must have" some ulterior motive for bidding 3NT other than the pious hope that it might make.

We are making progress. We have established that 3NT shows club support; and you say that no one doubts it - yet campboy seemed to do so. What nobody surveyed here at Bournemouth thinks is that in the authorised auction it is to play. And partner will not be bidding 3NT with these hands with three aces. It looks a bit silly to suggest sacrificing when, as you suggest in another thread, partner has some stray value that allows us to beat four of a major.

I don't have any problem with being in the minority on here, and that does not mean I am wrong. Even Wilberforce was in a minority at one time. Your Collings example, and your last sentence says it all. The 16B test uses "the methods and style of the partnership". In Collings' case an opening pass did not stop him having an opening Four Spade bid, and his frequent creative efforts made this an implicit part of his system, which nowadays might be regarded as a CPU. However, the duties on the partner of a modern-day Collings are stringent, to select an LA not suggested by the UI, and partner's previous variation from system should not allow you to pass 4S in the Collings example, if there is a logical alternative meaning such as "diamonds, but lead a spade against 5 or 6C" - after all he does not know you are void. And when you do pass, and he does have eight or nine spades, it is a routine adjustment. If, systemically, one can show an opening Four Spades by "Pass", then you would indeed be able to pass here, but I suspect that the "Pass" would need to be alerted.

So, yes, all possible systemic meanings must be considered. Here the only plausible meaning, even without discussion, is a club raise suggesting sacrificing, and I am surprised that the first time you had heard that it should suggest sacrificing is from Frances and Jeffrey, as I have seen several such examples on BBO Vugraph over the last few years, in different auctions of course. Sometimes the suggestion came from one of the excellent commentators ... but I cannot recall seeing it while you were commenting, I must admit. But "good-bad" style 3NT was standard in methods I played with Fegarty over 10 years ago, and certainly I have met it many times from others.

In conclusion, those on here who try to disallow pass of 3NTx in the auction after South passes are missing the point. There is no LA to 4C - partner did not bid 3NT to play in the authorised auction as those I have surveyed here agree. But nobody has focused on the pass of 4H, which I think is the infraction and the correct adjustment is to 5C x -3. Had I thought of it at the time, I would have appealed against the TD decision somewhat in our favour.

Now the fascinating thing is that if 4H causes North to bid 5C in the authorised auction, does it loses its SeWoG status? I must confess I have no idea.

[VixTD]

lamford, on 2011-May-27, 12:37, said:

As I stated earlier, I think VixTD might be mistaken. I was told that there were three contracts in the weighting, and they did not include 3NTx. And I am pretty sure it did not include any of 4H-3 either, which is probably wrong.

I recall the TD who gave the ruling going through the proposed weightings with me and saying something like: "How often do you think North is going to bid 4♣? You don't think he will, so let's say less than half the time...."

What I wrote down was 20% of 4♣-1, 20% of 4♣X-1, 30% of 3NTX-2, 30% of 3NTX-1. I also overheard him giving you the ruling, and I'm pretty sure it included all of these contracts, but I can't be completely sure I heard it correctly, and I'm not going to argue.

[VixTD]

jallerton, on 2011-May-27, 11:16, said:

Assuming that you recognise that North and South both have UI demonstrably suggesting pulling over passing, this weighting does not seem legal to me.

As I said, I didn't like including any part of an adjustment that included 4♣ bid by North, so had it been down to me I would have been more likely to go for your option (ii). I see what you mean about the final ruling being inconsistent, though.

[dburn]

lamford, on 2011-May-29, 02:45, said:

So, yes, all possible systemic meanings must be considered.

I am not sure I follow this. 3NT has no "systemic meaning" - partner is not allowed to bid it according to "the system", unless "the system" says that it shows, more or less strongly than 4♣ would, a desire for the 3♣ bidder to bid 5♣ if there is further competition.

It seems to me that you are arguing that "the system" does in fact say this, because "the system" says otherwise that 3NT does not exist, yet partner must have had some "possible systemic" reason for bidding it. But I don't think you can argue that way in the presence of UI; you cannot make up "the system" as you go along. 100% of four pretty good players surveyed this afternoon at TGRs shrugged and passed in the given circumstances: one said explicitly "if partner hadn't alerted 3♣ as strong I would pull, because to me this auction suggests a save, but once partner's done that I can't pull."

Your argument appears to me to be begging the question: "partner wouldn't suggest a save with three aces, so she can't have three aces, so she can't be bidding 3NT to play." But partner isn't "suggesting a save with three aces" - you are making up that bit; partner is bidding 3NT to play with three aces because she thinks it might make.

In short: where a call has no "possible systemic meaning", all possible anti-systemic meanings must be considered, because all possible meanings are by definition anti-systemic. By the way, was 3NT alerted? If not, why not?

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-May-29, 02:45, said:

So, yes, all possible systemic meanings must be considered. Here the only plausible meaning, even without discussion, is a club raise suggesting sacrificing, and I am surprised that the first time you had heard that it should suggest sacrificing is from Frances and Jeffrey, as I have seen several such examples on BBO Vugraph over the last few years, in different auctions of course. Sometimes the suggestion came from one of the excellent commentators ... but I cannot recall seeing it while you were commenting, I must admit. But "good-bad" style 3NT was standard in methods I played with Fegarty over 10 years ago, and certainly I have met it many times from others.

In conclusion, those on here who try to disallow pass of 3NTx in the auction after South passes are missing the point. There is no LA to 4C - partner did not bid 3NT to play in the authorised auction as those I have surveyed here agree. But nobody has focused on the pass of 4H, which I think is the infraction and the correct adjustment is to 5C x -3. Had I thought of it at the time, I would have appealed against the TD decision somewhat in our favour.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you were playing with your regular partner on this deal.

In that case, it's not relevant how David or some other excellent vugraph commentator might interpret this sequence; all that is relevant is how this particular South might interrpret this sequence. As Campboy has already pointed out, in the hypothetical authorised auction where 3NTx is passed round to North, there is some strong evidence that South has intended 3NT as a suggestion to play in that contract: otherwise she would have pulled the double; the fact that South's options were constrained by UI is itself not authorised information to North.

With this partner, do you have any agreements or partnership experience of 3NT being save suggesting in any analogous sequences?

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-May-29, 02:45, said:

We are making progress. We have established that 3NT shows club support; and you say that no one doubts it - yet campboy seemed to do so.

I'm a simple soul. In my world, 3NT is to play unless there is an agreement otherwise.

Now even if you think that there is no hand which will both open 1NT and bid 3NT to play on this auction then all you can conclude is that either partner doesn't have a 1NT opening or she doesn't want to play in 3NT opposite your hand. You can't tell which from the authorised information available. The unauthorised information, of course, tells you exactly what is going on.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2011-May-31, 16:32, said:

With this partner, do you have any agreements or partnership experience of 3NT being save suggesting in any analogous sequences?

For example, Pass-(Pass)-3C-(double)-3NT. We thought of playing that to show that we had forgotten to open, but decided that playing it as inviting a save was better. Of course 3NT was intended to play in the unauthorised auction; nobody is disputing that. What is relevant is what is a logical alternative to 4C for somebody playing the methods of this partnership, which, of course, is that 1NT - (Double) - 3C - (Pass) - 3NT is undiscussed. If any of your partners alerted 3C, described it as pre-emptive, and then bid 3NT, would you regard it as being to play?

I keep on submitting the same arguments and keep getting the same nonsense in reply, so this is the last time I will post on this thread; I have given my opinion and have nothing more to say. The decision by the TD was completely wrong, but in our favour - and the weighted scores stated by VixTD do not produce the score we were advised which was -2 IMPs. It should have been a routine adjustment to 5Cx-3 or -11 IMPs for us. Some people at Bournemouth were in fits of laughter at the suggestion of you and Burn that 3NT could be to play, in the authorised auction.

[dburn]

lamford, on 2011-May-31, 17:58, said:

If any of your partners alerted 3C, described it as pre-emptive, and then bid 3NT, would you regard it as being to play?

Yes, of course. How else should I describe it?

campboy and I are equally simple souls. jallerton might be a more complex soul when he plays with his soulmate, but should he and I ever play together, I hereby serve notice that 3NT is to play despite previous waffle. With Callaghan, it was always to play - he always had the "three aces" type and so did I. Maybe we should have alerted, just to let unsuspecting opponents in Bournemouth know that when we bid 3NT, it was because we hoped to make it.

lamford, on 2011-May-31, 17:58, said:

Some people at Bournemouth were in fits of laughter at the suggestion of you and Burn that 3NT could be to play, in the authorised auction.

Must have been the way you tell 'em.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2011-May-31, 17:58, said:

If any of your partners alerted 3C, described it as pre-emptive, and then bid 3NT, would you regard it as being to play?

I would regard it as natural, i.e. a suggestion that 3NT might be the right contract. I have already constructed a hand that makes 3NT good opposite the North hand. David's 3 ace hand (and variants therof)is another categoty of hand where Opener can envisage 3NT could make opposite a lot of hands which might make a "pre-emptive" 3♣ bid.

I hope that your partner is not reading this thread; she should be disappointed to read that you don't even consider the possibility that she might have made an intelligent call.

lamford, on 2011-May-31, 17:58, said:

I keep on submitting the same arguments and keep getting the same nonsense in reply, so this is the last time I will post on this thread;

There seem to have been a few surplus words in your last paragraph. I have put a line through the words you need to delete for it to be accurate.

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-May-27, 07:31, said:

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

This is clearly incorrect. The Law is clear: if you make a call which is judged to lead to damage when it is too late to correct it then you deal with it by an adjustment - see Law 21B3. This has nothing to do with any other call later [unless SEWoG applies].

You cannot deny redress when the Laws give it because th player did not say so at the time. Nowhere does this appear in the Laws.

[pran]

May I remind you that I wrote:

pran, on 2011-May-27, 07:31, said:

There is obviously need for a clarification of laws here:

East is not offered the option to change her PASS following the 3♣ bid, she is offered the option to change her (closing) PASS following the 3NT bid. In any case the reason for changing a call must be that the particular call to be changed was made under influence of an incorrect information.

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

bluejak, on 2011-June-07, 17:17, said:

pran, on 2011-May-27, 07:31, said:

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

This is clearly incorrect. The Law is clear: if you make a call which is judged to lead to damage when it is too late to correct it then you deal with it by an adjustment - see Law 21B3. This has nothing to do with any other call later [unless SEWoG applies].

You cannot deny redress when the Laws give it because th player did not say so at the time. Nowhere does this appear in the Laws.

Do you say the same when you (strongly) suspect that East became aware of the advantage of a 3♦ bid at the time, only after the auction had progressed beyond the next call from West?

The director must judge and rule, often based on probabilities, whether a call for which a Law 21B3 ruling is requested was really made under the influence of MI or if the player simply later discovered that the call had been unfortunate.

East here will have a much better case if she informs the Director that where she really would have made a different call with correct information was when she called PASS after the 3♣ bid but that she now at least tries to save her interest the best she can by changing her closing PASS.

Law 21B1 rulings should be almost automatic from a request by NOS, Law 21B3 rulings must be subject to judgement.

[bluejak]

When a player is damaged by MI your job as a TD is to adjust, not to find some excuse to give an offending side an undeserved good result.

Furthermore, the Laws say so: inventing your own Laws about what happens when someone does not say something in the middle of an auction is not good directing practice.

[campboy]

Many players will not say anything at the time about calls which they may no longer change, for fear of giving UI to partner and/or helping opponents. I believe it is good practice for the TD to actively prevent the player from giving UI in this manner. Certainly you should not consider that a player would not have acted differently on the basis that she failed to mention it at an inappropriate time. Of course it is a judgement ruling, and you might have valid reasons for judging that the player would not have acted differently, but this ain't one.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-June-08, 06:31, said:

When a player is damaged by MI your job as a TD is to adjust, not to find some excuse to give an offending side an undeserved good result.

Furthermore, the Laws say so: inventing your own Laws about what happens when someone does not say something in the middle of an auction is not good directing practice.

If the player is damaged, sure, that is not the question.

There has been MI - no question about that.
A player has made a call at the time of the MI - no question about that.

The player claims that a different call would have been made with correct information, and as a consequence a better result would have been obtained, so the player has been damaged by the MI.

Do I understand you correct that the Director in this case shall adjust without in any way trying the validity of the player's claim?

I resent any allegation that I am inventing my own laws.

Law 21B1{a} states: Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent (My enhancement)

Law 21B3 (When it is too late to change a call and the Director judges that the offending side gained an advantage from the irregularity he awards an adjusted score) opens for adjustment when the conditions in Law 21B1{a} (other than the time limit) are satisfied and as a consequence NOS is damaged.

The way I read Law 21B3 the condition in Law 21B1{a} that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation is still a prerequisitre for adjusting the score under Law 21B3.

Do you disagree?

[campboy]

pran, on 2011-June-08, 12:08, said:

Do I understand you correct that the Director in this case shall adjust without in any way trying the validity of the player's claim?

No one is saying that. The issue is that your stated reasoning for rejecting the player's claim (that she did not mention it during the auction) is not sound; why should she mention it then?

Of course we should assess whether it is likely that the player would have bid 3♦ with correct information. I think it is resonably plausible. I might have bid 3♦ if told 3♣ was weak but I definitely wouldn't if told 3♣ was forcing.

[pran]

campboy, on 2011-June-08, 16:39, said:

No one is saying that. The issue is that your stated reasoning for rejecting the player's claim (that she did not mention it during the auction) is not sound; why should she mention it then?

Of course we should assess whether it is likely that the player would have bid 3♦ with correct information. I think it is resonably plausible. I might have bid 3♦ if told 3♣ was weak but I definitely wouldn't if told 3♣ was forcing.

"No one is saying that"??? That is exactly how I understand Bluejak's persistent statements that the existence of MI (alone) requires the director to adjust the score.

I have never required East (in order to secure a possible Law 21B3 adjustment) to having stated (early) that she would have bid 3♦ right away over the 3♣ bid with correct information, but I have pointed out the fact that she would have avoided any doubt about her eligibility to such adjustment if she did not delay the relevant indication until end of play. That would have strengthened her case significantly.

[gordontd]

pran, on 2011-June-08, 17:18, said:

I have never required East (in order to secure a possible Law 21B3 adjustment) to having stated (early) that she would have bid 3♦ right away over the 3♣ bid with correct information,

Yes, you did.

pran, on 2011-May-27, 07:31, said:

So if East would assert that she would have bid 3♦ directly over the 3♣ bid with correct information she had better said so to the Director the first time. Instead she decided to execute her option to change her closing PASS on the ground that this call had been made under influence of the misinformation. Of course that too may be true, but it is too late to claim that she would have bid 3♦ after the play is completed when she said nothing to that effect when the Director was called (first time).

[bluejak]

pran, on 2011-June-08, 17:18, said:

"No one is saying that"??? That is exactly how I understand Bluejak's persistent statements that the existence of MI (alone) requires the director to adjust the score.

I have never required East (in order to secure a possible Law 21B3 adjustment) to having stated (early) that she would have bid 3♦ right away over the 3♣ bid with correct information, but I have pointed out the fact that she would have avoided any doubt about her eligibility to such adjustment if she did not delay the relevant indication until end of play. That would have strengthened her case significantly.

You said that if a player does not tell you during the hand what she is going to do you are going to rule against her. You made this an absolute with no reference to the strength of her case or whether she had been damaged or anything else. This is illegal and very bad TD practice.

[pran]

bluejak, on 2011-June-08, 19:00, said:

You said that if a player does not tell you during the hand what she is going to do you are going to rule against her. You made this an absolute with no reference to the strength of her case or whether she had been damaged or anything else. This is illegal and very bad TD practice.

My own practice is to ask (when MI is first revealed) if any of the NOS players would have done anything different with correct information. And I make sure they are fully aware of the provisions in both Laws 21B1 and 21B3.