[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-March-07, 03:11, said:

As I understand it, you think NS failed to alert a bid that requires an alert. Just to be clear, are you saying that NS's bid is alertable because:
(1) Their agremeent is that 2♥ could be followed by two passes
(2) Their agreement is that 2♥ is less than "about the expected strength"
(3) An agreement that North can pass out 2♠ makes 2♥ alertable.
(4) Something else

(1)

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-March-07, 13:07, said:

(1)

What is the evidence that they play 2♥ as non-forcing (rather than as a one-round force, potentially this strength, and not setting up a force over an opposing 2♠)?

[bluejak]

The evidence in the OP.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on 2011-March-07, 18:25, said:

The evidence in the OP.

I understand gnasher's doubts about this since I don't see any clear evidence in the OP that NS play 2♥ as NF. Sure, West claimed they must be playing negative free bids, but there is no sign that NS agreed that 2♥ was NF.

[shyams]

bluejak, on 2011-March-07, 13:07, said:

gnasher, on 2011-March-07, 03:11, said:

As I understand it, you think NS failed to alert a bid that requires an alert. Just to be clear, are you saying that NS's bid is alertable because:(1) Their agremeent is that 2♥ could be followed by two passes(2) Their agreement is that 2♥ is less than "about the expected strength"(3) An agreement that North can pass out 2♠ makes 2♥ alertable.(4) Something else

(1)

Disagree

[bluejak]

WellSpyder, on 2011-March-08, 00:50, said:

I understand gnasher's doubts about this since I don't see any clear evidence in the OP that NS play 2♥ as NF. Sure, West claimed they must be playing negative free bids, but there is no sign that NS agreed that 2♥ was NF.

They do not have to agree. Judgement decisions are made by taking evidence, assessing evidence, and then making a decision.

Do you only ever rule there was a BIT when the players agree?

[McBruce]

gnasher, on 2011-March-05, 15:15, said:

I don't understand this paragraph at all. From what you've said, both North and South told you that the South hand was in range for a 2♥ bid in their methods. Which aspect of their methods do you think they tried to conceal from you?

It's not what they concealed from me, it is what they concealed from the opponents by not alerting 2♥. If you hold a 15 count with stoppers in three suits, partner has overcalled the fourth suit, and RHO has made a non-forcing or weak free bid, don't you think you would at least consider 3NT?

The 2♥ call was either a psyche, a mistaken bid, or a reasonable bid by N-S standards. At the table I formed the impression, mostly from the comments by N-S, that it was a normal bid for them. Since this requires an alert, there has been misinformation. Even when N-S later claim that they misspoke or I misunderstood or whatever and South simply made a mistake, we have to consider Law 75C: a Director assumes misinformation unless there is other evidence to indicate mistaken bid. Perhaps I am a bit harsh in not immediately accepting what is on the system card or a claim that 'we have no agreement,' but the auction is at least a bit strange and that too is evidence. I don't think the intent of Law 75C is for the TD to blindly accept self-serving statements from the side that has gained from a mistake: I think the TD needs to be fairly confident that there is no implicit agreement to meet the standard set in Law 75C. Here I was not confident at all.

[gnasher]

McBruce, on 2011-March-08, 16:22, said:

It's not what they concealed from me, it is what they concealed from the opponents by not alerting 2♥. If you hold a 15 count with stoppers in three suits, partner has overcalled the fourth suit, and RHO has made a non-forcing or weak free bid, don't you think you would at least consider 3NT?

I think you should go back and read the paragraph that I quoted. You said, "But the normal approach-- do you play this? is it on your system card? why did you do this then? --seems to me to allow players to conceal conventions by claiming there is no agreement, which many have learned to do quite skilfully."

When did this North-South claim that there was no agreement, and where is the evidence of skillful deceit?

It seems to me that the only offence that may have been committed by North-South was to fail to alert a bid which was less than "about the expected strength". That may have been deliberate, but it seems rather more likely that they were unaware that this agreement was alertable. They may not even have realised that there was anything unusual about bidding 2♥ on the South hand.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable to rule that there was misinformation because of a failure to alert. But on the face of it there is no reason to suspect this North-South pair of any intentional impropriety, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

[dburn]

I don't know what a "Grand National Teams club game" is; the term "Grand National Teams" suggests that players are expected to be of a decent standard both technically and ethically, while the term "club game" does not.

But here is some poor fellow who bid hearts because he had hearts; judging by the comments of his partnership afterwards, they might or might not have any idea of the meaning of the term "negative free bid". And here is some nitwit who, with 15 Miltons facing a vulnerable overcall, parked his side in 2♠ and then squealed like a stuck pig when that turned out to be the wrong thing to do.

Still, you asked some questions, so:

1) Is there enough evidence here to make the ruling that N-S have the implicit agreement that free bids can be quite weak?

No. What they said was that "the call was OK, though a bit light" and that "if West had passed, North would have bid". These statements are not mutually inconsistent, nor is there any evidence on which to base the supposition that they were not true.

2) How much evidence does a TD need to assume an implicit agreement?

More than existed in this case - quite a lot more.

3) If I had decided that the 2♥ call was a mistaken bid and let the score stand, what should happen to the pair the next time this (or something similar) happens?

You should inform them that such "mistakes" will not be permitted in future, because this case establishes an implicit partnership agreement. If they wish to add this agreement to their repertoire, they have an obligation to improve their disclosure by, for example, alerting 2♥ as "forcing, but not to game and potentially based only on a long heart suit without many points". If they fail to fulfil those obligations in future, something bad might happen to them, but you have done your duty.

4) What can a TD do when a player makes a non-system action that works, such as an underbid or a strange choice of lead, and the opponents claim that the player or the partnership does this sort of thing quite often?

Record the hand and trust to the Keepers of the Records to enforce such subsequent discipline as may be necessary. What he cannot do is make any ruling based on "history" unless it really is history, and the records exist to support it. Claims at the table by the opponents should, per se, be completely disregarded.

[blackshoe]

The Grand National Teams qualifying process is tiered. First you play in a club level qualifier, and if you qualify there, you go on to a Unit level, and then a Regional level qualifier. Those who qualify at Regional level are eligible to play in the actual GNT at the NABCs.

Essentially this was a club game, and the GNT qualifier business is probably irrelevant.

[McBruce]

dburn, on 2011-March-08, 18:59, said:

But here is some poor fellow who bid hearts because he had hearts; judging by the comments of his partnership afterwards, they might or might not have any idea of the meaning of the term "negative free bid". And here is some nitwit who, with 15 Miltons facing a vulnerable overcall, parked his side in 2♠ and then squealed like a stuck pig when that turned out to be the wrong thing to do.

Not quite. He began by doubling 2♥, then was forced to pass when his partner made an insufficient bid that was not accepted. After the hand was played and it was clear from the play which of the players was responsible for the deck appearing to contain about 50 'Miltons' instead of the usual 40, he asked for a ruling on the basis that he or partner might well have chosen some other action, knowing that the free bid could be a six count.

[McBruce]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-08, 19:19, said:

The Grand National Teams qualifying process is tiered. First you play in a club level qualifier, and if you qualify there, you go on to a Unit level, and then a Regional level qualifier. Those who qualify at Regional level are eligible to play in the actual GNT at the NABCs.

Essentially this was a club game, and the GNT qualifier business is probably irrelevant.

You still have Unit finals where you are? I thought by now most Districts qualified directly to the District Final.

[McBruce]

gnasher, on 2011-March-08, 18:52, said:

I think you should go back and read the paragraph that I quoted. You said, "But the normal approach-- do you play this? is it on your system card? why did you do this then? --seems to me to allow players to conceal conventions by claiming there is no agreement, which many have learned to do quite skilfully."

When did this North-South claim that there was no agreement, and where is the evidence of skillful deceit?

It seems to me that the only offence that may have been committed by North-South was to fail to alert a bid which was less than "about the expected strength". That may have been deliberate, but it seems rather more likely that they were unaware that this agreement was alertable. They may not even have realised that there was anything unusual about bidding 2♥ on the South hand.

It seems to me perfectly reasonable to rule that there was misinformation because of a failure to alert. But on the face of it there is no reason to suspect this North-South pair of any intentional impropriety, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

If the N-S pair have an implicit agreement that there is a possibility that 2♥ can be made on a weak hand, then they need to disclose that. But an implicit agreement is one that has not actually been agreed on and discussed by a pair, thus one that develops based on tendencies and styles may well be something that they are unaware requires an alert. If you play that the 2♥ bid shows, say, 10 or more, and over the course of several dozen sessions the requirements dip to 9, then 8, then even weaker, both members of the partnership may not realize that what was initially a forcing call has become a non-forcing call, or at least one that doesn't promise another call later. That was my initial (and quite strong) impression at the table from the comments that were made. I never thought anyone had concealed anything deliberately.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that when a player says "we have no agreement" that does not necessarily preclude the possibility that they have an implicit agreement, and a TD should ask some questions and try to find out.

[blackshoe]

McBruce, on 2011-March-08, 23:40, said:

You still have Unit finals where you are? I thought by now most Districts qualified directly to the District Final.

I suppose you're right, as I don't see a Unit qualifier in the schedule, now that I look.

[hrothgar]

I am really surprised at the way that this thread has developed:

Back in the day, I seem to recall lots of threads that focused on the distinction between "consequent" and "subsequent".
On occasion, folks would even drag in expressions like "post hoc ergo propter hoc"...

I find the suggestion that E/W would have landed in 3NT, if only they had received "appropriate" disclosure laughable...

Let's assume that N/S are actually playing Negative Free Bids (an alertable convention) so there was an actual infraction.

Step 1:

West chose to make a penalty double of what he thought was a strong, forcing 2♥ advance of North's 1♦ opening.
Does anyone think that the penalty double is less attractive versus a negative free bid?
(I certainly don't, especially at IMPS)

Step 2:

Assuming that West once again chose to double, the auction has now proceeded

(1♦) - 1♠ - (2♥) - X
(P) - ???

We're in the same world as before

Here one of two things might happen:

Case 1: East decides to pass 2HX

It's not unreasonable to assume that East might decide to pass 2HX rather than pulling his partner's penalty double.
In this case, N/W are playing 2HX

Case 2: East decides to pull his partner's double and introduce his club suit...
East once again makes his insufficient 2♣ bid...

Is there any reason to believe that East's choice of actions over his insufficient 2♣ bid would be different if he knew that 2H was a negative free bid? If so, what is the most attractive option?

* Making the bid sufficient and introducing an anemic club suit at the three level?
* Bidding 2S and barring partner?
* Passing 2H?

Given that list of choices, I'm passing 2H

Personally, I think that most roads are leading to 2HX - 2

[hrothgar]

McBruce, on 2011-March-08, 23:54, said:

now an ACBL TD--got my start directing games at BBO!

So, now that you're an ACBL tournament director - and presumably better educated about the Laws - do you still run tournaments than ban psyches?

[Bbradley62]

hrothgar, on 2011-March-09, 08:39, said:

So, now that you're an ACBL tournament director - and presumably better educated about the Laws - do you still run tournaments tha[t] ban psyches?

Presumably not ACBL-sanctioned ones.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2011-March-09, 00:48, said:

I suppose you're right, as I don't see a Unit qualifier in the schedule, now that I look.

Our district (25) also got rid of the club qualifiers for GNT (we still have them for NAP). We just have a single tournament to select the district qualifiers to the national level.

Note also that the GNT is flighted, and the OP didn't say what flight this is. If it's flight C, technical expertise varies quite widely.

[mycroft]

More information for those in RightPondia:

The GNTs are supposed to be a "grass-roots" event, like the "county inter-club competitions" qualifying to a national inter-county competition (the difference being that everyone has to *qualify* in a club, but doesn't have to play in the later events with players from that club, as long as they're in the same district). However, because everyone knows there are "good teams" at the club and "less good" ones, and the "less good" ones have no interest in playing something they can't win, the GNTs are flighted - 0-500/NLM; 0-2000; 0-5000; open.

So, yes, it's a tournament. Yes, it eventually leads to National Championships (in Toronto this year). Yes, the winners (of the open Superflight) are frequently names like Meckstroth and Sontag, and a GNT-open win counts for Grand LM. But this table could have been Mr. and Mrs. One-Year being told that "they should make a run at the GNTs, especially while you're in Flight C. It's a totally different experience from anything you've been involved in, and it's fun; and it's *really hard* to get out of Flight B" (at least in McBruce's district and mine) - or, even, Mr. and Mrs. Plays-on-Monday who hadn't planned on contesting the GNTs, but just showed up on the Monday that was designated a GNT qualifier, and paid their extra buck for the extra points.

[McBruce]

hrothgar, on 2011-March-09, 08:39, said:

So, now that you're an ACBL tournament director - and presumably better educated about the Laws - do you still run tournaments than ban psyches?

At one time I ran SAYC-only individual tournaments on BBO. I announced to everyone at the start that only SAYC bids were allowed and I adjusted against pairs who used and fielded a non-SAYC convention. So you are either confusing me with someone else or perhaps we had a disagreement about whether a fielded non-SAYC call should be allowed because of the 'psyches must never be disallowed' mantra. But this was half a decade ago, and is irrelevant. Disagree if you wish, but it's unfair to make the false allegation you've made.