[lamford]

---

IMPs. Lead ♠A Table Result 7Hx=

Charlie the Chimp had some misgivings about agreeing to play Precision with the Rabbit at last week's North London Club, and the auction needs some explanation. 1C was 17+ and 2H was 4-6 with 6 hearts, non-forcing. 2NT asked and 3H showed good trumps. 4NT was RKCB and North's 5C was 1/4. RR, South, asked for the queen of trumps and ChCh reluctantly owned up to possessing it, wondering what rock-crusher the Rabbit had been dealt. He was surprised by the raise to 7. The Rabbit thought that 1C was natural, 2H was game-forcing, and 2NT was Lebensohl, which he had been reading up on over the previous week. Now he thought 3H showed a solid suit and he decided to use a hopelessly unsuitable Keycard Blackwood. He thought that 5C presumably showed 4, as he did not think a solid suit could have only one key card, and he asked for the queen of trumps Over 6H, he could place his partner with something like Axx AKQJxx Ax xx as a minimum. There were 12 almost certain tricks, he reasoned, and plenty of chances for a 13th such as the clubs ruffing out or the jack of spades coming down, so he added a seventh.

SB doubled and before he could lead, Charlie the Chimp was quickly there to indicate that South had failed to explain 2H and 3H correctly. SB led the ace of spades, but ChCh soon notched up 13 tricks with the favourable lie of the rounded suits. "An unusual 3 or 7 hand", he pointed out. On a diamond lead, I could not even make 4. But SB was not amused and thought his lead was normal with such a bad club holding.

"Director," bellowed SB. "There was a breach of Law 40B2(a) which requires that both members of a partnership play the same system. It states: "[The RA] may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made; it has not done so". "It is therefore illegal for the Rabbit to play Acol and ChCh to play Precision, as effectively happened here." "I think we just get 3 IMPs for RR playing an illegal method, director?"

[Neither player had a completed CC]. How do you rule?

This post has been edited by lamford: 2016-November-22, 05:19

[helene_t]

It is not their agreement to play two different systems. Result stands.

[weejonnie]

1) I can't see any problem in allowing the result only on law 40B2(a)(it is RR after all) - and if you start disallowing 4 bids then do you disallow 3, 2, 1?
2) Why didn't West double 5♦ for a diamond lead? (OK I won't be ruling is as SeWOG)
3) Surecly ChCh should have alerted the 1♣ call as precision then RR could at least have given the correct replies to Charlie's calls (even if he is bound to bid as he did)

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2016-November-21, 08:59, said:

3) Surecly ChCh should have alerted the 1♣ call as precision then RR could at least have given the correct replies to Charlie's calls (even if he is bound to bid as he did)

North did alert South's calls correctly from his standpoint that they were playing Precision. EW did not ask until SB asked before he led. Does RR then have to correct the explanations before the opening lead, as from his point of view they were playing Acol? RR would probably not know he might be supposed to do this, but the system that NS is playing is not Precision if South did not think it was at the time. West should have doubled 5D but he did not know at that point that his partner would be on lead, or that it would not cause South to bid 6NT.

Is SB entitled to know that South was playing Acol, that is the key question. If he knew that, he would work out not to lead the AS.

[barmar]

If the alert wakes RR up, he's not supposed to let that influence his bidding. He should continue bidding as if they're playing Acol, but if he needs to alert or explain he should do so in the Precision context.

But RR is perennially asleep, it's not clear what he would think ChCh's alert was for.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-November-21, 09:58, said:

If the alert wakes RR up, he's not supposed to let that influence his bidding. He should continue bidding as if they're playing Acol, but if he needs to alert or explain he should do so in the Precision context.

But RR is perennially asleep, it's not clear what he would think ChCh's alert was for.

RR didn't think 2H or 3H needed an alert, although if 3H (in his mind) showed a solid suit, it probably did. He clearly carried on bidding on the basis they were playing Acol. At the end of the auction, when ChCh stated that 2H and 3H should have been alerted, and when 1C was explained as 17+, RR did indeed realise that he had forgotten that he had agreed to play Precision. Should he volunteer at that point that he thought he was playing Acol, or did he have no obligation to do so?

[weejonnie]

Well RR still has UI from North's alert (I am assuming that this is not behind screens). He is, however, an ethical player and has obviously not taken advantage of it.

If there are completed CCs for NS then I don't think SB is entitled to know anything other than NS have an agreement to play Precision (after all that is the agreement on the CC) and result stands (other than a PP for NS - see below). If not then I suspect we can start ruling "no partnership agreement" on all of the bids.

Based on that, West is more likely to double 5♦, which would suggest a diamond lead. If he doesn't then I can't see why SB is going to lead from his KJ♦. (NB ChCh MUST call the director if there has been a misexplanation, not just correct them. The TD can do the usual (offer West his last pass back) and, in this case find out whether West would have doubled 5♦ - away from the table before the hand is played.) If I found this out then I am probably going to be ruling a significant %ge of 7♥ (maybe doubled some of the time - a double is much more likely after a no partnership agreement) -4 and a PP for NS (failure to call director to correct misexplanation 20F5) - I suspect that this ruling would be better than +3 IMPS to EW.

SB of course gets a DPX20 for his uncouth manner in calling the TD.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-November-21, 10:06, said:

…RR did indeed realise that he had forgotten that he had agreed to play Precision. Should he volunteer at that point that he thought he was playing Acol, or did he have no obligation to do so?

The latter.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-21, 10:16, said:

The latter.

Well. Law 20F5(b) states: "The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous". So, RR should have called the director before the opening lead and stated, "In my opinion, we are not playing Precision, as evidenced by my calls". He is not allowed to use his partner's explanation to jog his memory that he agreed to play Precision, and this applies equally to his obligations under 20F5(b).

Howeever Law 75 states:
The partnership agreement is as explained – 1♣ is strong and artificial; the mistake was in South’s call. Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands. (Regardless of damage, the Director shall allow the result to stand; but the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.) South must not correct North’s explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently.

The emphasis is mine. Neither player had a completed CC (or it would have stated so in the OP). It is assumed therefore that ALL the explanations are mistaken, and there is no real partnership agreement. The director therefore assumes the correct explanation is "NPA" for all the calls up to 3♥. Alternatively, the correct explanation might have been: 1C - Acol; 2H - weak and NF; 2NT bad hand: 3H good suit. (Each explanation is assumed to be a mistaken explanation). West would surely have now doubled 5D, and the correct adjustment, as suggested by WeeJonnie, is most if not all of 7Hx-4 by North, EW +1100.

For completeness, I would not give a PP for failing to call the director, as "nobody ever does" when, say, fourth-suit forcing is not alerted, or 1NT is wrongly announced as 12-14 when it should be 11-14. No doubt they should, but practice has Trumped law over the years.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-November-22, 04:28, said:

For completeness, I would not give a PP for failing to call the director, as "nobody ever does" when, say, fourth-suit forcing is not alerted, or 1NT is wrongly announced as 12-14 when it should be 11-14. No doubt they should, but practice has Trumped law over the years.

I disagree. Mildly, but I disagree. Directors should enforce the rules. The fact that directors have not done so over the years should make only one small difference: before the director issues PPs in matchpoints, he should warn the players that he may do so. So perhaps a warning for a first, and even a second, offense, but after that a PP. Or a general warning to the crowd at the beginning of the event and then one more warning at the table. IMO a director who does not issue PPs when the laws call for them does the game a disservice, in spite of the precedent.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-November-22, 15:52, said:

So perhaps a warning for a first, and even a second, offense, but after that a PP.

The problem with this is that I don't think anyone actually keeps track. If someone commits the same offense 6 months later, are you going to remember that you gave them a warning previously and now it's time to throw the book at them? Their next offense might even be with a different director.

It's not like when police give you a warning, they still enter it into the computer so the next time someone pulls you over they'll see that you've been warned.

[mycroft]

I've given my opinion (and it's *only* my opinion, standard disclaimers apply) about this - I consider a warning to *be* a Procedural Penalty, and I am quite comfortable awarding [Edit: PP-Warnings] if I believe that it will be sufficient and the infraction isn't blatant enough or "reasonable bridge player would expect that this would harm the opponents" level.

Yes, the (lack of) database is a thing; but the directors' informal communication network (gossip, to the uninitiated) is also a thing.

[blackshoe]

Agree with Mycroft, although I'd like to see such a database initiated. With input from directors at all levels, including clubs.