[lamford]

---

Teams: lead 7♥; Table Result 7NT=

SB was quick to call the director on this hand when ChCh stumbled into a makable grand. West led the seven of hearts, but ChCh won with the ace, ran the queen of spades, covered by the king and ace, ran the nine of spades and cashed two more spades, triple-squeezing East with any discard costing two tricks in that suit. So 7NT came in.

"DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR" typed SB, West. "There was a breach of 40A4", which he quoted from memory:

"4. The agreed meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (this requirement does not restrict style and judgement, only method)."

"RR was playing standard methods and South was playing Precision". "The fact that North would have made a 2D relay in Precision is neither here nor there. He clearly played his partner for 23-24 and bid 7NT on that basis. So North was playing Acol or similar, South Precision. That is an illegal method and we get 3 IMPs I think."

OO was unsure. "Let me consult," he said, "it may just be rub of the rabbit".

How do you rule?

[Cyberyeti]

They may be playing different systems, but presumably they've agreed to play one of them (was there a convention card ?), so we assume one of them has got it wrong. There are no MI or UI considerations in the way you've described it so seems like the rabbit's foot was indeed lucky.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-March-23, 09:40, said:

They may be playing different systems, but presumably they've agreed to play one of them (was there a convention card ?), so we assume one of them has got it wrong. There are no MI or UI considerations in the way you've described it so seems like the rabbit's foot was indeed lucky.

RR might also have forgotten an illegal agreement that 2♣ is Precision only if bid by ChCh... but it doesn't seem likely I agree.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-March-23, 09:40, said:

They may be playing different systems, but presumably they've agreed to play one of them (was there a convention card ?), so we assume one of them has got it wrong. There are no MI or UI considerations in the way you've described it so seems like the rabbit's foot was indeed lucky.

As you might expect, RR had it wrong and he was playing Acol and they had agreed to play Precision (a dangerous ploy with the Rabbit). It was online and the card loaded was the BBO standard Precision card.

I think there is MI in that the Rabbit explained 2D as waiting, which it is not in Precision; it is a forcing enquiry. But it is hard to see damage, unless you decide that they agreed that South would play Precision and North was bidding as though they were playing Acol, which would be illegal.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2021-March-23, 10:29, said:

As you might expect, RR had it wrong and he was playing Acol and they had agreed to play Precision (a dangerous ploy with the Rabbit). It was online and the card loaded was the BBO standard Precision card.

I think there is MI in that the Rabbit explained 2D as waiting, which it is not in Precision; it is a forcing enquiry. But it is hard to see damage, unless you decide that they agreed that South would play Precision and North was bidding as though they were playing Acol, which would be illegal.

If you don't accept that the loaded card was what they were playing (unless they both bid as if they were playing something else) I think that opens a massive can of worms.

Also not clear who explained what to whom, but I don't see damage or UI.

[blackshoe]

Result stands.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-March-23, 11:43, said:

Also not clear who explained what to whom, but I don't see damage or UI.

The explanations were given by the bidder as is normal on BBO. So it was clear when 2D was explained as "waiting", which is what RR normally uses, that a wheel had come off.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2021-March-23, 17:55, said:

The explanations were given by the bidder as is normal on BBO. So it was clear when 2D was explained as "waiting", which is what RR normally uses, that a wheel had come off.

And seen only by opps ? (sorry the only online bridge I've played recently is elsewhere where it's different) in which case I can't see any way there's MI/UI.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2021-March-23, 10:29, said:

As you might expect, RR had it wrong and he was playing Acol and they had agreed to play Precision (a dangerous ploy with the Rabbit). It was online and the card loaded was the BBO standard Precision card.

I think there is MI in that the Rabbit explained 2D as waiting, which it is not in Precision; it is a forcing enquiry. But it is hard to see damage, unless you decide that they agreed that South would play Precision and North was bidding as though they were playing Acol, which would be illegal.

Even if there was MI, I don’t see how EW were damaged by it. Even SB didn’t mention that. So, result stands.

[smerriman]

sanst, on 2021-March-24, 02:33, said:

Even if there was MI, I don’t see how EW were damaged by it. Even SB didn’t mention that. So, result stands.

If the system being played was illegal, as SB claimed, then surely they were damaged by the fact their opponents reached and made a grand slam that they wouldn't if playing a legal system.

But it seems pretty ludicrous to rule that the system was an agreement and not just a result of cluelessness, based on the fact it would have led to a disaster in the other 99% of cases.

[lamford]

smerriman, on 2021-March-24, 04:12, said:

If the system being played was illegal, as SB claimed, then surely they were damaged by the fact their opponents reached and made a grand slam that they wouldn't if playing a legal system.

But it seems pretty ludicrous to rule that the system was an agreement and not just a result of cluelessness, based on the fact it would have led to a disaster in the other 99% of cases.

It is nowhere near a 1% grand. In fact I think it is about 1/(COMBIN(26,13) or 0.00000961%. People have been convicted of self-kibitzing on a lot less than that!

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-March-23, 18:12, said:

And seen only by opps ? (sorry the only online bridge I've played recently is elsewhere where it's different) in which case I can't see any way there's MI/UI.

Yes, it is only seen by the opponents. After the hand is over both sides can see all explanations in the hand record. So there is clearly no UI. And the MI did not cause damage. It would be illegal to play a Precision/Acol mix. SB's claim to damage was solely that they were playing an illegal system.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2021-March-24, 08:26, said:

Yes, it is only seen by the opponents. After the hand is over both sides can see all explanations in the hand record. So there is clearly no UI. And the MI did not cause damage. It would be illegal to play a Precision/Acol mix. SB's claim to damage was solely that they were playing an illegal system.

Unfortunately there is no redress for the opponents merely being incompetent, there is evidence that while at the table they are playing different systems that's because RR is an idiot not by design, so nothing is illegal.

[barmar]

40A4 specifically says "the agreed meaning of a call". They didn't agree that ChCh would play Precision and RR would play ACOL. One of them simply made a mistake and forgot what their agreement actually was.

Furthermore, if they did have a true 40A4 violation, RR would know that ChCh's bid had the Precision meaning. 40A4 refers to the player who makes the bid, not the one who is interpreting its meaning.

[weejonnie]

When you come down to it, this is only a slightly more severe case of someone bidding 2♥ opposite 1NT doubled because he thought they were playing weak take outs rather than transfers. If the agreement was : You will make transfers, I will make weak take outs - then that is illegal, as would "Your doubles will be for takeout, mine will be for penalty" as HH agreed with The Toucon in one story. This does not affect the idea that with game going hands one person will transfer, the other will make a jump response, so that the stronger player actually plays the contract - since that is a difference in style.