blackshoe, on 2017-April-26, 17:56, said:
Yes, even then.
That's a good question about the screens thing. I confess I have no idea.
I fully agree that in general it is a bad and outdated idea. On the other hand, in this case, the argument is the following:
There should not be much doubt that the 3
♥ bid was intended as forcing over an inverted minor raise, i.e. week. There is at least 9
♠ known, why would you use a negative free bid, especially in a 4 card suit (could be 4-0). There is not much doubt, either, that on the other side (me) the 3
♥ over a limit raise was taken as non forcing. It was passed, after all. I do not think you can argue much with these two statements.
Now you have three alternatives:
1. The NOS players are lying and they see an opportunity to cover up a mistake THEY made
2. The NOS players did not actually have an agreement like this, they both subconsciously "invented" an agreement after the fact without actually explicitly discussing it
3. They are telling the truth
I do not see an easy way to choose one. The real danger is choosing between 2 and 3. Using this convention (positive free bid after weak answer, negative free bid after strong reply from opponent) certainly fits our style. We have lots of agreements along this line. Can you be sure that this particular case was discussed and agreed on? No. Can you establish that there are elements like this in the system? Sure. Is it enough to call it an implicit agreement? I don't know.
I truly do not know how to decide in a situation like this. The players state something but there is no proof. Sure, you can make a completely subjective decision but it is not a good idea. You can still express your doubt in a weighted adjustment.
There is a practical aspect. The NOS knows what really happened. Neither the OS, nor the TD knows it. Thus, no matter what you decide, only the NOS will know if it was correct. Of the 4 possible combinations, there is only one that causes prompt permanent damage: the NOS is telling the truth and you do not accept it. Sure, the NOS lying and ruling in favour of them causes damage in the long run but a) in the long rune we are dead, b) eventually you will get suspicious. This also works in the other direction: you decide not to believe the NOS. Next time a different TD encounters the same players, (s)he will have a preconception: theses SBs already tried to pull one dirty trick. Lets make sure thay will not succeed this time, either...
Help
