[nige1]

EBU Eastbourne Mixed Pairs Championship (MPs). Players of reasonable standard. No alerts. Before leading, defenders asked for an explanation of the auction and were told "Acol, Natural". When asked to explain the auction, bid by bid, the 1N rebid was explained as "15-17", all other bids "Natural". South led a diamond. North called the director. North claimed E-W should disclose that diamonds can be longer than spades. West told the director that his responses were natural and obvious. The director ruled "no adjustment". North appealed the ruling. The director explained that there was no infraction, therefore there could be no appeal. North said "Please would you consult on your decisions. The director did so and returned to confirm both. Later, another director pointed that such methods are "general bridge knowledge" (GBK). And that had North been allowed to appeal, he'd just lose his deposit.

---

I was North Our opponents made 10 tricks (the Deep Finesse result). At other tables, results ranged from 7 t0 12 tricks. I talked with several directors. All agreed with the table-director. I'm still unconvinced. FWIW. my comments are:

• When I play Precision, partner sometimes opens 1♦ and rebids 2♣. I alert both bids. I explain the 2♣ bid as natural, at least 5-4, but clubs can be longer than diamonds. Careless talk costs lives! Am I divulging too much?
• In the auction on the board above, I would expect the first suit to be longer than the second. However, the director agreed with our opponents that, in Acol, either suit could be longer. I'm told that this is GBK. I've played Acol a long time but, as so often in the past, this GBK is a revelation to me. (unless playing transfers or 2-way check-back or other alertable convention)
• I feel that the current concept of GBK handicaps naive players like me. For us, this auction shows spades longer than or as long as diamonds. For us this is standard. Nevertheless, if asked about our auction, we would divulge our understanding. Failure to disclose understandings, even when opponents try to protect themselves, means that one side profits from agreements unknown to the other. This seems against the spirit and letter of the law.
• Finally, if directors won't allow appeals, then the trend in such rulings, right or wrong, can't be publicised or tested

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2016-August-29, 19:09, said:

The director explained that there was no infraction, therefore there could be no appeal.

Send the director back to school; he's wrong.

[PrecisionL]

This seems minor. I'm surprised W bid again, I would pass.

[The_Badger]

hi Nige1,

It's players playing Acol, but not Acol as we (both) know it!

I will give West benefit of the doubt though as 2♦ isn't a great bid [ 2 over 1 bids in Acol denote 8+ HCPs the last time I played it - when the old king died, methinks ] after 1♥ especially with that stringy suit, and with 4 card major suit bids there's more chance of finding partner with 4♠s alongside his 4 card (+) ♥ suit. West hasn't got enough to make a responder's reverse, and the chance of finding a 4-4 ♠ fit will be lost.

It's a moot point as Acol is all about length as opposed to strength, but perhaps West with his not-so-good hand, didn't want to encourage his partner too much, preferring to respond at the one level as opposed to the two level, fearing a misfit.

Nothing wrong in taking a view, I feel, and the directors did likewise it seems.

[gordontd]

I was the director in charge of this event and this the first knowledge I have of this case, which is probably an indication of how straightforward it seemed to the floor directors.

Even if you thought this hand was strong enough to respond 2D, which I don't think many Acol players of the last two decades would, it surely isn't strong enough to follow up with a 2S rebid so if you don't respond 1S you risk losing the spade fit altogether.

I would be surprised if the director actually told you that you "couldn't" appeal but he would be correct to advise you that you would be likely to lose your deposit if you did.

Furthermore, under new regulations, if the appeal had been deemed without merit you would also have had your score reduced by 20% of a top.

[pran]

nige1, on 2016-August-29, 19:09, said:

EBU Eastbourne Mixed Pairs Championship (MPs). Players of reasonable standard. No alerts. Before leading, defenders asked for an explanation of the auction and were told "Acol, Natural". When asked to explain the auction, bid by bid, the 1N rebid was explained as "15-17", all other bids "Natural". South led a diamond. North called the director. North claimed E-W should disclose that diamonds can be longer than spades. West told the director that his responses were natural and obvious. The director ruled "no adjustment". North appealed the ruling. The director explained that there was no infraction, therefore there could be no appeal. North said "Please would you consult on your decisions. The director did so and returned to confirm both. Later, another director pointed that such methods are "general bridge knowledge" (GBK). And that had North been allowed to appeal, he'd just lose his deposit.

---

I was North Our opponents made 10 tricks (the Deep Finesse result). At other tables, results ranged from 7 t0 12 tricks. I talked with several directors. All agreed with the table-director. I'm still unconvinced. FWIW. my comments are:

• When I play Precision, partner sometimes opens 1♦ and rebids 2♣. I alert both bids. I explain the 2♣ bid as natural, at least 5-4, but clubs can be longer than diamonds. Careless talk costs lives! Am I divulging too much?
• In the auction on the board above, I would expect the first suit to be longer than the second. However, the director agreed with our opponents that, in Acol, either suit could be longer. I'm told that this is GBK. I've played Acol a long time but, as so often in the past, this GBK is a revelation to me. (unless playing transfers or 2-way check-back or other alertable convention)
• I feel that the current concept of GBK handicaps naive players like me. For us, this auction shows spades longer than or as long as diamonds. For us this is standard. Nevertheless, if asked about our auction, we would divulge our understanding. Failure to disclose understandings, even when opponents try to protect themselves, means that one side profits from agreements unknown to the other. This seems against the spirit and letter of the law.
• Finally, if directors won't allow appeals, then the trend in such rulings, right or wrong, can't be publicised or tested

In my "natural" world the response 2♦ over a 1♥ opening bid shows 10+ HCP and denies 4 cards in any suit that could have been shown at the one-level (in this case spades), unless the responder's next call is a bid in such suit. The responder's second bid would then be a "reverse bid". This is indeed GBK.

So a sequence like
(1♥) - 2♦
(2♥) - 2♠
is game forcing with 4 spades and longer diamonds.

The Director did in fact make a ruling and this ruling may be subject to an appeal. TD should warn the appellant that the appeal is likely to be found without any merit and the fee forfeited, but he may not refuse to process the appeal unless the appellant withdraws it.

(Whether the 2♦ bid in the actual auction was wise is a separate question. Personally I consider it unwise unless opener first shows a side suit in diamonds, which of course he did not.)

[gordontd]

pran, on 2016-August-30, 01:33, said:

The Director did in fact make a ruling and this ruling may be subject to an appeal. TD should warn the appellant that the appeal is likely to be found without any merit and the fee forfeited, but he may not refuse to process the appeal unless the appellant withdraws it.

(Whether the 2♦ bid in the actual auction was wise is a separate question. Personally I consider it unwise unless opener first shows a side suit in diamonds, which of course he did not.)

+1

[lamford]

nige1, on 2016-August-29, 19:09, said:

In the auction on the board above, I would expect the first suit to be longer than the second. However, the director agreed with our opponents that, in Acol, either suit could be longer. I'm told that this is GBK. I've played Acol a long time but, as so often in the past, this GBK is a revelation to me.

No it isn't; or at least it shouldn't be. I think you were a subscriber to Bridge magazine when I edited it for a short time in 1990 and Eric Crowhurst discussed these sequences in Acol, such as 1H-1S-1NT-2D as non-forcing, possibly canapé. And other sequences such as 1H-1S-2H-3C, usually played as a NF canapé. I think the auction was excellent, and East's 2NT with such enormous rounded-suit stops well-judged at match-points. South's diamond lead was particularly brain-dead.

The TD should, however, give you the right to appeal, but it is practical to advise you that you are likely to lose your deposit.

[jvage]

Even if one assumes a mistaken explanation (I am leaning towards no, but will leave that to those who know more about Acol than me), there is also the question about damage. If declarer plays on diamonds, notice the fall of the Queen and shows a minimum of care about entries, 10 tricks are easy on any lead. The defence is actually more difficult, South needs to switch to a high ♥ and jump in with the ♠A to cash his hearttrick on any lead. While it seems someone played "safe"(?) for 7 by playing on spades it is not obvious that this is a LA even on a neutral club-lead.

[helene_t]

The auction is strange - when E bids 2NT it looks like "I know you signed off but I see a chance of game anyway". Or maybe "I take your bid as invitational OR sign-off and cater to both while showing my maximum". But when W passed it sounded more like "I think the wheels have fallen off".

When NS ask for clarification of the auction, they could say something like:

- 1♥ may or may not deny 4♥+4m in a balanced hand, we haven't discussed this.
- 1NT is 15-17, it may or may not promise a strictly balanced hand (we haven't discussed this), it may or may not deny a fifth heart. It may or may not deny a 4-card minor.
- 2♦ may or may not suggest a fifth spade, it may be meant as sign-off, invitational or forcing.
- 2nt may be intended as showing a minimim or a maximum or maybe it still covers the 15-17 range. It may or may not deny three spades and it may or may not deny three diamonds.

If the director has a moody day he could give EW a PP for poor disclosure but NS could have protected themselves by calling the director earlier when the murkiness of the explanations began, and anyway it is not GBK that W has five spades so I don't think NS can get any help.

If NS were to appeal I would return their deposit.

Rulings like this gives me the feeling that one can get away with poor disclosure by just claiming to play "natural" methods, "GBK", "standard" or "Acol". IMO, pairs who play Acol should have the same disclosure obligations as pair who play T-Rex or Moscito.

[lamford]

helene_t, on 2016-August-30, 04:42, said:

When NS ask for clarification of the auction, they could say something like:

- 1♥ may or may not deny 4♥+4m in a balanced hand, we haven't discussed this.
- 1NT is 15-17, it may or may not promise a strictly balanced hand (we haven't discussed this), it may or may not deny a fifth heart. It may or may not deny a 4-card minor.
- 2♦ may or may not suggest a fifth spade, it may be meant as sign-off, invitational or forcing.
- 2nt may be intended as showing a minimim or a maximum or maybe it still covers the 15-17 range. It may or may not deny three spades and it may or may not deny three diamonds.

If they did, then they would soon be fined for slow play, and likely to get the response long before the end, "I entered this event to play bridge, not to listen to a seminar".

[nige1]

gordontd, on 2016-August-30, 01:31, said:

I would be surprised if the director actually told you that you "couldn't" appeal but he would be correct to advise you that you would be likely to lose your deposit if you did.

Gordon casts doubt on my veracity. Instead, why not just ask the table-director and the director(s) consulted who confirmed I could not appeal.

This is the 4th time an EBU director has denied me leave to appeal. (Previously because it was a "matter of law". Unfortunately, directors got the law wrong. But even had they been right in law, a player still has a right of appeal. It is just that, on a matter of law, the committee can only ask the director to reconsider).

I accept that the 1♠ is natural and that the Canapé 2♦ is natural and non-alertable under EBU regulations. I'm also happy to accept the word of the TD and Paul Lambert that this treatment is standard in EBU Acol (although news to me).

What worries me is that players aren't obliged to disclose their understandings. Even when opponents are told the auction is natural but still ask for an explanation. Patently opponents are ignorant of what is "Natural and standard" in the current jurisdiction. In this auction opponents asked for an explanation of each call in turn. A waste of time but you aren't meant to cross-examine players about specific calls. Anyway we were none the wiser.

This is not a one-off. A common problem is that different pairs use different treatments. In other auctions and other jurisdictions, we have been a victim of our ignorance of methods that local players (and often the TD) regard as general bridge knowledge. The TD rules there is no obligation to disclose such understandings even when asked about a (purportedly) Natural auction.There seems to be no legitimate way for a player to protect himself..

Surely this clashes with the principle of Bridge law that opponents are entitled to know what you know about your methods, especially when they ask.

gordontd, on 2016-August-30, 01:31, said:

Furthermore, under new regulations, if the appeal had been deemed without merit you would also have had your score reduced by 20% of a top.

I would consult an adviser but probably go through with our appeal if we were in contention because I think I'm morally and legally right. Given the apparent director consensus, I'd lose

[nige1]

helene_t, on 2016-August-30, 04:42, said:

When NS ask for clarification of the auction, they could say something like:

- 1♥ may or may not deny 4♥+4m in a balanced hand, we haven't discussed this.
- 1NT is 15-17, it may or may not promise a strictly balanced hand (we haven't discussed this), it may or may not deny a fifth heart. It may or may not deny a 4-card minor.
- 2♦ may or may not suggest a fifth spade, it may be meant as sign-off, invitational or forcing.
- 2nt may be intended as showing a minimi m or a maximum or maybe it still covers the 15-17 range. It may or may not deny three spades and it may or may not deny three diamonds.

lamford, on 2016-August-30, 09:01, said:

If they did, then they would soon e fined for slow play, and likely to get the response long before the end, "I entered this event to play bridge, not to listen to a seminar".

I agree with Paul, to some extent. I think auctions should be announced to improve disclosure and to speed up the game. However I also agree with Helene that explanations can be short and helpful. I might say:

• NAT 4+ cards, majors before minors.
• NAT 4+ cards, might have longer minor.
• BAL 15-17.
• NF either suit may be longer.
• NAT. Anti-systemic, invitational

helene_t, on 2016-August-30, 04:42, said:

NS could have protected themselves by calling the director earlier when the murkiness of the explanations began, and anyway it is not GBK that W has five spades so I don't think NS can get any help.

No bid was alerted. We asked out the auction. Opponents said "Natural". We asked opponents to explain each bid. Opponents explained them as natural. I was interested in 2♦. e.g. whether it shows 4 or more cards? whether it's forcing? But I didn't because we're not meant to badger opponents about individual calls. What more would you do, Helene?

helene_t, on 2016-August-30, 04:42, said:

Rulings like this gives me the feeling that one can get away with poor disclosure by just claiming to play "natural" methods, "GBK", "standard" or "Acol". IMO, pairs who play Acol should have the same disclosure obligations as pair who play T-Rex or Moscito.

That's what I feel!

[helene_t]

In tournaments I generally ask opps if they play majors before minors.

As for the 2d bid I might have asked if they have any agreements about its strength and length. Apparently your lead depends on the answer to that question.

Depends a bit on my impression of opps. If a have the feeling that they don't know their system then obv I won't ask. And I am not sure if getting an answer would influence my lead here.

[Zelandakh]

Helene, the point is that one should not need to ask. Full disclosure means getting a full explanation on a general request and not having to hit upon the specific question to trigger the release of information. Far too many pairs do not provide such information and I personally do not find this a positive aspect of the game.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2016-August-30, 03:35, said:

The TD should, however, give you the right to appeal, but it is practical to advise you that you are likely to lose your deposit.

That is the job of the cuddly though, and I think that he or she should have the power to promise the return of the deposit.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2016-August-30, 10:28, said:

That is the job of the cuddly though, and I think that he or she should have the power to promise the return of the deposit.

The reason they don't is that they only hear one side of the story.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2016-August-30, 03:35, said:

No it isn't; or at least it shouldn't be. I think you were a subscriber to Bridge magazine when I edited it for a short time in 1990 and Eric Crowhurst discussed these sequences in Acol, such as 1H-1S-1NT-2D as non-forcing, possibly canapé. And other sequences such as 1H-1S-2H-3C, usually played as a NF canapé. I think the auction was excellent, and East's 2NT with such enormous rounded-suit stops well-judged at match-points.

Among many other great conventions, still popular today, Eric invented 2♣ check-back. I suppose that, in a Crowhurst 2♣ context, 2♦ could show longer diamonds than spades, by agreement. Although IMO, that would be non-standard. I've skmmed Eric's books but don't remember his articles (I didn't subscribe continuously to Bridge Magazine).

lamford, on 2016-August-30, 03:35, said:

South's diamond lead was particularly brain-dead.

South is an excellent player. On the sparse information vouchsafed to defenders, leading through dummy's second suit seems logical and sensible.

lamford, on 2016-August-30, 03:35, said:

The TD should, however, give you the right to appeal, but it is practical to advise you that you are likely to lose your deposit.

Paul, do you agree with the other directors, that this would have been an appeal without merit?

[paulg]

I feel that Nigel is really railing against the lack of precision in Acol and the fact that his opponents have not souped it up with gadgets that most tournament players use to improve it. This auction is typical of a club auction, where the players just bid what is in front of them. They don't have specific agreements and probably bid the same way with 5-5, 5-4, 4-5, 4-6 but have just never discussed it.

In such an imprecise world, everything is natural and general bridge knowledge.

It's not an offence to have fewer agreements than you would have in this situation and, overall, this looks to be just the rub of the green.

[wank]

i suspect the opps had no idea what you're talking about and would have no idea which suit was supposed to be longer if you asked.

your bad result was down to your partner's awful lead. that's all.