[VixTD]

This is from the Seniors Swiss Teams. (In case anyone's getting bored, I should warn you this happened on the Thursday, so we're just over half-way through the congress. I hope this one provides a little light relief from the weightier rulings.)

---

Result: 2♥(E)=, NS -110.

I was called at the end of play by North, who was not happy with West's sign-off in 2♥. I looked at West's cards and couldn't see what the problem was, but North wanted to know why he hadn't made a game try. I asked West, and he said that he has invitational values but that the hand looked like a misfit, and partner can always bid again with a strong hand.

I said I'd get back to them and wondered off to study the hand record. Now I found the problem. North thought that after a fourth-hand opener, West shouldn't be so quick to give up on game. I went back to EW and asked East why she had opened this hand, and looked at what their convention card said about one-of-a-suit openers.

There was nothing on the convention card to indicate light openers in any position, they were playing a fairly standard form of Acol. East explained that in the protective position they "transfer a king" and open lighter than usual. Both East and West were surprised to be asked, and thought that what they were doing was completely normal.

What, if anything, should the director do?

[Cyberyeti]

Warn them about disclosure but otherwise take no action. Tell them that what they're doing is not normal and that many people actually need more (points+spades) than they do in other seats to open in 4th hence their opponents' surprise.

[paulg]

NS have not been damaged so I just suggest that EW should google 'transferring a king' and they will see the first part of the lesson that they were late for. And if they wish to continue opening light in fourth seat then it just needs to be noted on the system card.

[gordontd]

I think they have misinterpreted "the pass-out seat" to mean P - P - P - ? rather than 1♣ - P - P - ?

[Cyberyeti]

paulg, on 2013-September-30, 08:53, said:

NS have not been damaged so I just suggest that EW should google 'transferring a king' and they will see the first part of the lesson that they were late for. And if they wish to continue opening light in fourth seat then it just needs to be noted on the system card.

And also point out they can't agree to open lighter than the jurisdiction allows you to if there's any such restriction.

[barmar]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-September-30, 09:26, said:

And also point out they can't agree to open lighter than the jurisdiction allows you to if there's any such restriction.

East's hand looks like a pretty typical 3rd seat opener -- I would be surprised if any jurisdiction prohibits it (unless the regulations are specific about the position).

[ahydra]

There's an EBU rule that states all opening bids must be 8+ HCP and, if 1st or 2nd seat, meet the Rule of 18. So while this East hand just about qualifies, if they would open a good 10 HCP hand in 1st or 2nd does this mean they would open the same shape hand but with only 7 HCP in 4th? If so, there might be a case for an illegal agreement - but I wouldn't rule on that until we have proof of them actually opening 7-counts.

For this hand, no damage, but EW need to add something to their CC.

ahydra

[nige1]

barmar, on 2013-September-30, 10:57, said:

East's hand looks like a pretty typical 3rd seat opener -- I would be surprised if any jurisdiction prohibits it (unless the regulations are specific about the position).

East opened 1♥ in 4th seat with 9 HCP count and 2 ♠.
By agreement, EW treat 4th seat openers as protective, so during the bidding, West correctly allowed for a hand with a king less than opening strength.
The agreement is a beginner's mistake but it's an unusual agreement, wasn't disclosed, and it damaged NS, so IMO, the director might consider adjusting
On reflection, however, the problem is that NS are likely to lose at least 200 if they compete

[c_corgi]

nige1, on 2013-September-30, 14:30, said:

...
The agreement is a beginner's mistake but it's an unusual agreement, wasn't disclosed, and it damaged NS, so IMO, the director might consider adjusting
On reflection, however, the problem is that NS are likely to lose at least 200 if they compete

I find bridge is more enjoyable with reversed emoticons and a change of emphasis, thus:

The poor beginners committed an infraction by inadvertently failing to disclose their methods properly, so they may incur an adjusted score
It turns out there was no damage due to the infraction, so no adjustment is necessary

[ggwhiz]

No hesitations or grimaces claimed? West can do whatever he wants. And you called the Director because? OK, you have my sympathy, take 5 masterpoints out of petty cash and play on.

[Cyberyeti]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-30, 15:29, said:

No hesitations or grimaces claimed? West can do whatever he wants. And you called the Director because? OK, you have my sympathy, take 5 masterpoints out of petty cash and play on.

True, but NS are seeing this as a "fielded psyche or inadequate disclosure" situation. E has opened a hand NS didn't expect, and W has bid as if he did expect it, so it's fair enough to ask the question. Even with correct disclosure, it's difficult to see anything different happening so no problem.

[Trinidad]

ggwhiz, on 2013-September-30, 15:29, said:

No hesitations or grimaces claimed? West can do whatever he wants. And you called the Director because? OK, you have my sympathy, take 5 masterpoints out of petty cash and play on.

You can (and in some situations must) call the TD, even if you don't seek an adjustment.

This seems to be the case here: NS don't claim damage. They claim there has been an infraction (or perhaps they only wonder whether there was an infraction). That is an excellent reason to call the TD.

Perhaps they even realised that the infraction was due to EW's inexperience. That is an even better reason to make sure that they are educated -without penalty-... by the TD.

So many players (including me, mea culpa) will start educating their opponents themselves. Calling the TD is a lot better.

Rik

[VixTD]

I agree there was no damage and I didn't adjust the score. When I explained what EW were doing to North he found it highly amusing. When I attempted to explain to EW that what they were doing was unusual they didn't really understand. They no more think they need to alert their opponents to this than you or I would if we competed light after an opening bid and two passes.

[blackshoe]

Regardless of what EW think, if the TD tells them to alert in this situation, that's what they must do — at least until they can get a different opinion from another, equally qualified, TD.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-01, 08:19, said:

Regardless of what EW think, if the TD tells them to alert in this situation, that's what they must do — at least until they can get a different opinion from another, equally qualified, TD.

What if they already did? Which TD wins?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2013-October-01, 09:44, said:

What if they already did? Which TD wins?

If I had conflicting rulings from different TDs I would pick whichever one I thought was closest to right - but then I know a little bit about the laws myself. If I were laws-ignorant, I would go with the last ruling I was given, and inform that TD that (an)other TD(s) gave a different ruling, and ask him to resolve the question with HQ and to let me know what that resolution is. Actually, that's probably a better way to go in any case.

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2013-October-01, 08:19, said:

Regardless of what EW think, if the TD tells them to alert in this situation, that's what they must do — at least until they can get a different opinion from another, equally qualified, TD.

I don't think there was ever a question of asking them to alert their opening bids, just to state prominently on the convention card that they open unusually light in fourth seat.

I don't know what prompted the remark about conflicting instructions from different TDs.

[barmar]

VixTD, on 2013-October-02, 07:21, said:

I don't know what prompted the remark about conflicting instructions from different TDs.

If regulations are not crystal clear, different TDs may interpret them differently. If they players thought they didn't need to do anything special to disclose their style, it could be because a TD told them so. But then in this incident, another TD told them they do. Why should they believe the second TD if the first TD's answer is more favorable to them?

[VixTD]

barmar, on 2013-October-02, 09:28, said:

If regulations are not crystal clear, different TDs may interpret them differently. If they players thought they didn't need to do anything special to disclose their style, it could be because a TD told them so. But then in this incident, another TD told them they do. Why should they believe the second TD if the first TD's answer is more favorable to them?

So it's pure conjecture? I don't believe this pair has ever been told by a TD they don't need to disclose their "protective" opening bids. They certainly would not have asked a TD, because to them what they are doing is as natural as breathing. They would only ask if they were in doubt.

I suppose it does happen that TDs occasionally give players conflicting advice. If the TDs in question can discuss the matter they might be able to resolve it. At Brighton it wouldn't be a problem because it would be fairly easy to get the Chief TD and a few members of the Laws and Ethics Committee together to give a definitive answer, if there is one.

The only time this has happened to me was at a county league match about five years ago. At the time the regulations stated that bids that were unusually forcing or not forcing required an alert. This sequence came up:

1♦ - 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♦(A)
3♠

I think the question was whether 3♠ required an alert if it was forcing. I said it did, and one of the two pairs swore that another panel TD had told them it didn't. It's quite possible that the auction they asked about was different in some way and not really equivalent to this one, or that the other TD was wrong, but anyway to resolve the matter I e-mailed the Laws and Ethics Committee for an official answer I could convey to them.

The reply I got (from someone who is no longer on the committee) read "It is difficult to believe it matters, and I am surprised any EBU TD is prepared to give a definitive ruling", which I didn't think was very helpful, but my correspondent went on to say that they would expect an alert if 3♠ was forcing, which I suppose was an answer of sorts. I forwarded it to the pair concerned.

[barmar]

VixTD, on 2013-October-02, 10:10, said:

So it's pure conjecture? I don't believe this pair has ever been told by a TD they don't need to disclose their "protective" opening bids. They certainly would not have asked a TD, because to them what they are doing is as natural as breathing. They would only ask if they were in doubt.

Of course, it was a hypothetical. But maybe the reason they think it's natural is because it has come up in the past, and other TDs opined that what they were doing was OK.

Quote

I suppose it does happen that TDs occasionally give players conflicting advice. If the TDs in question can discuss the matter they might be able to resolve it. At Brighton it wouldn't be a problem because it would be fairly easy to get the Chief TD and a few members of the Laws and Ethics Committee together to give a definitive answer, if there is one.

My conjecture was that the previous advice was months or years earlier, not at the same congress where you could ask the TDs to come to a concensus.

This type of thing is far more likely to come up where I play, since ACBL's alert regulations are less detailed (putting it mildly) than EBU's.