[blackshoe]

pran, on Jan 11 2010, 06:47 AM, said:

…Had they known that 2♦ was transfer (information to which they were entitled)…

No. Opponents are entitled to know what the agreement is. Here there isn't one. That's what they're entitled to know, not responder's intent or hope.

Okay, if both players know they have no agreement should opener think along the lines "we both know we have no agreement. If I don't alert, opps will think our agreement is 'natural', and if I alert, they'll think it's artificial and probably a transfer. However, they're more likely to ask if I alert, so that's what I should do"? Maybe he should, but it seems like the kind of process that's unlikely to occur to anybody below top level.

[blackshoe]

Nigel said he'd "simplified" the original Norwegian case. I would take that to mean that he changed something. Whether that change might affect the ruling, I have no idea, since I don't know what change he made. Well, I do know one: he specified EBU rules. Since Norwegian rules and practice seem to be different from the EBU's in this area, I don't see how the Norwegian case is relevant to what we're supposed to be discussing here - an EBU case.

[paulg]

My sympathies are with pran's assessment.

If I had seen my partner alert 2♦ and then pass, then I'd be passing the double. Even though I am aware that we may not have an agreement, presumably bidding 2♦ shows my best guess and it is the lack of an alert that mainly confirms this, not the auction.

Also 2♦ is not doubled when partner passes it. I'm sure my expert partner is permitted to take a view with a 6-card diamond suit in these circumstances and it is not my job to bid my hand again. I am happy to play in a 5-3 or 6-3 diamond fit rather than a 5-2 heart fit.

BTW, has anyone asked if the double of 2♦ was for penalty or takeout?

Paul

[iviehoff]

pran, on Jan 10 2010, 11:38 PM, said:

From now on I beg acceptance of the following principle which is enforced rather strictly in Norway, and that further comments are made in recognition of this principle:

When a player has UI in the form of a missing alert (or other misinformation) from his partner he is required to continue his auction just as he would have done had the alert (or correct information) been given, i.e. he must assume that partner just forgot to alert and did not really misunderstand his call. He is specifically forbidden to base any of his further calls on the possibility, however high, that partner misunderstood his call except when the auction itself makes it clear that there are no other possibility.

If you are going to beg acceptance of a principle not written in the laws, then I suggest you need to cite an authority, such as WBF minutes or local regulation.

What exactly do you mean "is enforced rather strictly in Norway"?

[helene_t]

cardsharp, on Jan 11 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

If I had seen my partner alert 2♦ and then pass, then I'd be passing the double.

Hey that's unethical, you are taking advantage of the fact that you know that p did understand your transfer.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Jan 11 2010, 10:16 AM, said:

Nigel said he'd "simplified" the original Norwegian case. I would take that to mean that he changed something. Whether that change might affect the ruling, I have no idea, since I don't know what change he made. Well, I do know one: he specified EBU rules. Since Norwegian rules and practice seem to be different from the EBU's in this area, I don't see how the Norwegian case is relevant to what we're supposed to be discussing here - an EBU case.

I specified EBU regulations, an expert partnership, and definite alleged damage in an attempt to create a simple alert/UI case with agreed facts in a context familiar to many of us. Thus, directors could concentrate on interpreting basic regulations that all understand, to consistently arrive at the same simple ruling. A similar case, presented by Sven Pran, produced an interesting debate in BLML.

[paulg]

helene_t, on Jan 11 2010, 03:52 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Jan 11 2010, 04:29 PM, said:

If I had seen my partner alert 2♦ and then pass, then I'd be passing the double.

Hey that's unethical, you are taking advantage of the fact that you know that p did understand your transfer.

I presume you are smiling here?

To my mind, if you make an artificial call that you have an expectation that partner will understand, then you have to work on the principle that partner will alert it.

If I make a natural call that I have an expectation that partner will understand, then I should work on the principle it will not be alerted.

So, in this case, whether partner alerts or not, I should treat it as if he had alerted.

Paul

[peachy]

pran, on Jan 11 2010, 06:47 AM, said:

Had they known that 2♦ was transfer (information to which they were entitled)

They are entitled to know the partnership agreements. They are _not_ entitled to know what is in responder's hand when there is no partnership agrteement. This is a basic level principle in the laws about disclosure, at least I think so.

[peachy]

pran, on Jan 11 2010, 06:17 AM, said:

Be aware that opener could not pass with the intention of leaving the choice to responder.

Why could opener not pass? What logic would persuade him not to pass or what law or regulation would force him to bid? As far as I see, opener is free to do as he chooses.

[pran]

iviehoff, on Jan 11 2010, 04:44 PM, said:

pran, on Jan 10 2010, 11:38 PM, said:

From now on I beg acceptance of the following principle which is enforced rather strictly in Norway, and that further comments are made in recognition of this principle:

When a player has UI in the form of a missing alert (or other misinformation) from his partner he is required to continue his auction just as he would have done had the alert (or correct information) been given, i.e. he must assume that partner just forgot to alert and did not really misunderstand his call. He is specifically forbidden to base any of his further calls on the possibility, however high, that partner misunderstood his call except when the auction itself makes it clear that there are no other possibility.

If you are going to beg acceptance of a principle not written in the laws, then I suggest you need to cite an authority, such as WBF minutes or local regulation.

What exactly do you mean "is enforced rather strictly in Norway"?

First: We are very suspicious when somebody makes a call that apparently is artificial and then the partnership tries to convince opponents and/or directors that they have no agreement on this call.

If they can show convincing evidence of no partnership understanding, not even by partnership experience, fine. However, in that case they will need a convincing explanation on why they used the artificial call in the first place.

Otherwise we tend to rule that they indeed have the agreement (or understanding) that is consistent with their use of the artificial call and that they have provided opponents with misinformation.

Second: If there is an apparent misunderstanding within a partnership we do not allow a player to become aware of his mistake from anything other than the legal calls and plays. Alerts, missing alerts, questions, explanations whatever (you name it) are extraneous information, and once a player receives any such information and this information could be what helped him realize his mistake we do not allow him to act accordingly, but require him to continue his auction and play subject to his original mistake.

If subsequently we rule that he may have been awakened by such UI and consequently saved his side from a bad result we do adjust the result back to what should be expected had he not been awakened.

We consider being in full compliance with the laws on duplicate bridge.


In the case under discussion this means that North/South is considered to have the agreement that 2♦ is a transfer bid, that North is mistaken and has given MI to opponents and UI to partner by not alerting and that South is not allowed to correct 2♦X to 2♥ unless he always would have done so if for instance North had alerted the 2♦ transfer bid and then passed.

[pran]

peachy, on Jan 11 2010, 11:10 PM, said:

pran, on Jan 11 2010, 06:17 AM, said:

Be aware that opener could not pass with the intention of leaving the choice to responder.

Why could opener not pass? What logic would persuade him not to pass or what law or regulation would force him to bid? As far as I see, opener is free to do as he chooses.

Of course he could.

But he could not pass with the intention of leaving the choice to responder because a pass by opener's LHO would then be the closing pass of the auction and responder would not have another call.

[pran]

nige1, on Jan 11 2010, 09:49 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 11 2010, 10:16 AM, said:

Nigel said he'd "simplified" the original Norwegian case. I would take that to mean that he changed something. Whether that change might affect the ruling, I have no idea, since I don't know what change he made. Well, I do know one: he specified EBU rules. Since Norwegian rules and practice seem to be different from the EBU's in this area, I don't see how the Norwegian case is relevant to what we're supposed to be discussing here - an EBU case.

I specified EBU regulations, an expert partnership, and definite alleged damage in an attempt to create a simple alert/UI case with agreed facts in a context familiar to many of us. Thus, directors could concentrate on interpreting basic regulations that all understand, to consistently arrive at the same simple ruling. A similar case, presented by Sven Pran, produced an interesting debate in BLML.

I appreciate that.

The discussion on BLML seems to have gone completely off rails, and I understand from the growing discussion here that outside Norway (Scandivanavia?) the attitude on misinformation and extraneous information seems very much more lenient that how we want it in Norway.

We consider "undiscussed" and "no agreement" to be poor excuses when opponents have been damaged from insufficient description of in particular an artificial call.

Apparently I just have to accept this protection of what we designate offenders?

[bluejak]

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 12:02 AM, said:

First: We are very suspicious when somebody makes a call that apparently is artificial and then the partnership tries to convince opponents and/or directors that they have no agreement on this call.

While this is often a good principle, it should not be overdone. There are positions where a player knows because of general bridge knowledge that this partner is likely to take a call in one of two ways, and he has to make such a call, nothing else suits. Then it is perfectly reasonable he should have no agreement but makes an artificial call, guessing how his partner will take it.

Suppose you are playing in a club where after 1NT (Dbl) there are only two common approaches: natural, and system on. You hold a very weak hand with hearts. Your general bridge knowledge means you know that this partner will probably take 2♥ as showing hearts or 2♦ as showing hearts, but not both, and you have no agreement. What do you do?

In this specific case, I do not think a TD should be suspicious of a player who guesses to bid 2♦: he has to guess to do something. And, despite what some people seem to think, if you arrange a game in a club with a new partner, responses to 1NT after it is doubled is not the first thing players agree on.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps Norway agrees with Bobby Wolfe that "convention disruption" is or should be an infraction of law.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jan 12 2010, 12:21 AM, said:

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 12:02 AM, said:

First: We are very suspicious when somebody makes a call that apparently is artificial and then the partnership tries to convince opponents and/or directors that they have no agreement on this call.

While this is often a good principle, it should not be overdone. There are positions where a player knows because of general bridge knowledge that this partner is likely to take a call in one of two ways, and he has to make such a call, nothing else suits. Then it is perfectly reasonable he should have no agreement but makes an artificial call, guessing how his partner will take it.

Suppose you are playing in a club where after 1NT (Dbl) there are only two common approaches: natural, and system on. You hold a very weak hand with hearts. Your general bridge knowledge means you know that this partner will probably take 2♥ as showing hearts or 2♦ as showing hearts, but not both, and you have no agreement. What do you do?

In this specific case, I do not think a TD should be suspicious of a player who guesses to bid 2♦: he has to guess to do something. And, despite what some people seem to think, if you arrange a game in a club with a new partner, responses to 1NT after it is doubled is not the first thing players agree on.

A direct question deserves a direct answer:

The player has taken a chance. If opponents are consequently damaged in any way then I adjust.

I rule misinformation rather than misbid if the partnership claims "no agreement" or "undiscussed" and as a consequence opponents do not get the correct picture.

I rule illegal use of UI if the player apparently changes his line of calls in the auction as the consequence of for instance an alert, a missing alert or an unexpected explanation given by partner to opponents.

Summary: I protect the player's opponents before the player who has taken a chance on how his partner will understand his call. I do not consider it fair to let the opponents of a player taking a chance to bear the risk.

[pran]

blackshoe, on Jan 12 2010, 12:28 AM, said:

Perhaps Norway agrees with Bobby Wolfe that "convention disruption" is or should be an infraction of law.

To the extent that it results in misinformation to opponents or extraneous information to partner it is already an infraction of the applicable laws.

[MFA]

The problem boils down to a simple LA evaluation.

There is clearly UI that points towards bidding 2♥ - so is passing 2♦X a logical alternative? Law 16.

Under these conditions:

Quote

EW are top experts in an occasional partnership. They have not discussed this situation.

... I would say no. Nobody would actually pass 2♦ here without discussion.
(Assume screens so we don't know about partner's alerting or not. That's the proper reference for evaluating the LAs.)

[campboy]

cardsharp, on Jan 11 2010, 10:08 PM, said:

To my mind, if you make an artificial call that you have an expectation that partner will understand, then you have to work on the principle that partner will alert it.

Fair enough, but that is not the situation here. Here responder does not have an expectation that partner will understand, because he knows they haven't agreed it.

[bluejak]

pran, on Jan 12 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

The player has taken a chance. If opponents are consequently damaged in any way then I adjust.

I rule misinformation rather than misbid if the partnership claims "no agreement" or "undiscussed" and as a consequence opponents do not get the correct picture.

Are you telling us that you will rule misinformation when it is not with some misguided idea of protecting th opponents? If a player has no agreement with partner and you rule he has you are not protecting opponents: you are just not following the Laws.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Jan 11 2010, 06:40 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Jan 12 2010, 12:28 AM, said:

Perhaps Norway agrees with Bobby Wolfe that "convention disruption" is or should be an infraction of law.  

To the extent that it results in misinformation to opponents or extraneous information to partner it is already an infraction of the applicable laws.

I'll take that as a "yes".

IMO, such an approach may be okay at high levels, but not in a club game (unless the club consists entirely of experts).