[lamford]

---

head to head match; IMPs; Lead Q♠; Table Result +120. Push.
East-West thought that South had forgotten his NT range here, and the announcement was UI to him. Both system cards had strong NT. The TD was called. How would you rule if:

a) South stated he had upgraded the hand because of the two aces, but could not accept an invite?
b) South stated he did forget, but remembered that he was playing a strong NT just after he made the bid?
c) South pleaded the 5th amendment and said "no comment"?

[Trinidad]

For this, I will assume that this occurred somewhere where weak no trumps are relatively common. (The identity of the OP is a strong indication that this is the case.)
a) "I really don't believe that you are that bad of a bridge player that you would upgrade a 4333 without intermediates."
b) "That may well be true, but I obviously can't verify that, so tough luck."
c) "You know, some people come up with all kinds of excuses. I am glad you didn't."

In all cases there would be an AS of 3NT-1.

If this would happen somewhere where people have barely heard of weak no trumps, I will assume that opener was telling the truth and in c) just miscounted his points.

Rik

[aguahombre]

In all three scenarios, we have one of those fortunate coincidences which I rant against.

It seems the opponents were not damaged, unless there was use of some external UI. I would want to know what prompted responder to merely invite with a ten count opposite what he stated was a 15-17 NT; and I would tend not to believe his answer.

Looks like a good recorder item, or some other way of noting for future reference on this pair.

[ahydra]

"!

aguahombre raises a good point here (why invite opposite 15-17 NT). Some sort of CPU?

ahydra

[barmar]

Has South made this mistake before (where the "mistake" could be either forgetting their range or poorly judged upgrades)? That could be a source of a CPU.

[mikestar13]

barmar, on 2012-February-23, 15:48, said:

Has South made this mistake before (where the "mistake" could be either forgetting their range or poorly judged upgrades)? That could be a source of a CPU.

I second this-- I adjust N/S to 3NT-1 because of North pulling in a notch and only raising to 2NT and a hand that virtually everybody would bid game opposite 15-17. Sounds like a CPU to me. North bid as if he knows that South either 1) often forgets, or 2) often upgrades, either of which the opponents are entitled to know. Might instead give N/S a PP if that is more appropriate in the EBU, I'm guessing here. Redress for E/W I'm less sure about--how would they have bid or defended differently if given proper disclosure?

[campboy]

mikestar13, on 2012-February-23, 17:12, said:

I second this-- I adjust N/S to 3NT-1 because of North pulling in a notch and only raising to 2NT and a hand that virtually everybody would bid game opposite 15-17. Sounds like a CPU to me. North bid as if he knows that South either 1) often forgets, or 2) often upgrades, either of which the opponents are entitled to know. Might instead give N/S a PP if that is more appropriate in the EBU, I'm guessing here. Redress for E/W I'm less sure about--how would they have bid or defended differently if given proper disclosure?

If you are adjusting at all here then you certainly adjust for both sides; E/W have done nothing which is wild, gambling or a serious error.

It seems clear that North has either fielded a misbid or fielded a deviation (depending on why South bid 1NT); the correct adjustment in either case (in the EBU) is ave+/ave- (WB90.4.2). An adjustment to 3NT-1 is also possible if South misbid (but not if it was a deviation), on the grounds that South has used UI to pass. If the TD judges that it was a misbid then he has two possible routes to an adjusted score and should choose whichever is better for the NOS.

[aguahombre]

mikestar13, on 2012-February-23, 17:12, said:

Redress for E/W I'm less sure about--how would they have bid or defended differently if given proper disclosure?

Exactly the problem, given what seems like the current laws and thinking. I can't think of any cite to use which says "Every other pair will reach 3NT-1 with a 15-17 NT opening, so this E/W should get +50 because this N/S probably used an illegal CPU or used UI to stay out of 3NT."

It is hard enough to prove it and adjust the score just for N/S. These conveniently compensating action situations, at the very least, leave suspicion and doubt about the "perpetrators".

[lamford]

campboy, on 2012-February-23, 18:16, said:

It seems clear that North has either fielded a misbid or fielded a deviation

Rubbish. North is the category of weak player that misjudges all the time. If North was a strong player, he would bid 3NT anyway, regardless of whether his partner was in the habit of upgrading. This particular North would not have known what a fielded misbid was if it jumped up and punched him on the nose.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2012-February-24, 07:50, said:

This particular North would not have known what a fielded misbid was if it jumped up and punched him on the nose.

How are readers supposed to know that North is a weak player? You haven't mentioned it until now.

Anyway, this should not make much difference to the ruling.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2012-February-23, 18:21, said:

It is hard enough to prove it and adjust the score just for N/S. These conveniently compensating action situations, at the very least, leave suspicion and doubt about the "perpetrators".

I would agree that there is suspicion of the North-South actions, but this is the prevalent view when poor players land on their feet. In fact, under the current (misworded) laws, there is no adjustment against South. For a player of any ability playing a strong NT, there is no LA to Pass.

"A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it."

If you poll any number of players and tell them "You elect to open 1NT on the South hand, and partner bids 2NT, invitational. It is love all. What do you bid now?", you will get the pollees thinking you are off your trolley, and a unanimous vote for Pass.

I also think there is no adjustment against North. "Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system." The key word here is "repeated" and there is no evidence in the OP that this had occurred before.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2012-February-24, 07:55, said:

How are readers supposed to know that North is a weak player? You haven't mentioned it until now.

By looking at the North hand, with its 11 Binkie points and good intermediates, which ony raised a strong NT (upgraded or not) to 2NT.

[gnasher]

a) You decide whether you believe him or not and rule accordingly.
b) Rightly or wrongly, it's normal practice never to accept this argument.
c) The US constitution doesn't apply to EBU events. If the director asks a player a reasonable question and the player refuses to answer, he should receive a procedural penalty. Followed, in this case, by an adjusted score.


Regarding the question of a fielded misbid, if the director determines that South has misbid, he will then decide whether North's actions "provide evidence of an unauthorised, and therefore illegal, understanding". He does this by judging North's actions "objectively by the standards of [his] peers ... intent will not be taken into account".

So, it is relevant that "North is the category of weak player that misjudges all the time". It's not relevant that "This particular North would not have known what a fielded misbid was if it jumped up and punched him on the nose."

[aguahombre]

A poll about whether South would accept an invite, playing 15-17 NT ---and having opened 1NT with this spotless 14, would not be my concern.

The world would show a balanced 12-14 as opener and languish in 1NT. That is the equity of concern, and what the field of E/W's would expect to occur. THIS E/W would have been the only one defending 3NT after South opened 1NT, if North had not made the compensating decision to invite rather than bid game.

The evidence is strong that N/S, regardless of their skill level, "did something". We can probably find an appropriate adjustment or penalty for N/S. I think, as the current rules are, E/W just have to eat their average and suffer the bad aftertaste.

[olegru]

I am confused here.
On what basis are you going to adjust result other than you don’t like the NS bidding?
I see no deviations in this board. You cannot prohibit players bid as bad as they wish. Director should not punish them for unreasonable upgrading or downgrading of their cards. It could be case of MI, but even NS actual agreement is not 15-17, there is no damage in this particular board.
It is a good idea to record this for future cases and lecture NS to correct their announcement.
I can change my opinion if there is additional evidence that South have a habit to forget his agreements but it was not mentioned.

[campboy]

One possible basis for adjusting is the following regulation (OB 3D8).

Quote

If as a result of partner’s explanation a player realises he has forgotten the partnership agreement and has therefore misbid, he must continue to call as if in ignorance of the correct meaning of the call, until it is obvious from the auction that something is amiss. (Law 73C)

If South thought when he opened 1NT that it was 12-14, not 15-17, then he is required to bid 3NT, as he would have done if he not become aware of his mistake.

[olegru]

Yes, but what make you think that South thought he played 12-14 NT if he said he had upgraded the hand and both CC confirm 15-17 NT range?

[campboy]

olegru, on 2012-February-24, 12:55, said:

Yes, but what make you think that South thought he played 12-14 NT if he said he had upgraded the hand and both CC confirm 15-17 NT range?

I would not think that if he said he had upgraded the hand, but that is only one of the three scenarios we were asked to consider. I was careful say "if South misbid" or similar whenever I mentioned adjusting to 3NT, in other words that is what I would do in scenarios b) and c).

[jallerton]

Trinidad, on 2012-February-23, 11:51, said:

For this, I will assume that this occurred somewhere where weak no trumps are relatively common. (The identity of the OP is a strong indication that this is the case.)

Actually, the identity of the OP is a strong indication that the hand was constructed. Note the purity of the deal (North/South have 8 simple tricks in NT with no realistic chance of a 9th) and the natural 2NT response to 1NT which is extremely rarely played these days.

[bluejak]

Apart from the double PP for refusing to answer, the thing about this case is that it is a good example of how impossible it is to answer cases like this on paper [ok, on a screen]. But if I had to rule I would base my ruling on who North and South are, what North said when I asked him why he bid 2NT not 3NT, an so forth. One of the theories that has been propounded here and elsewhere by certain people with great regularity is that you cannot read minds thus certain rulings are impossible to be given fairly. This is a good example of why they are wrong: I would feel very confident after asking questions that I knew what had happened and rule accordingly.