[szgyula]

---

Screens are used. North alerts and explains that 3D is an inverted minors raise, showing a long diamonds and it is weak. No alert, no question on the other side. TD is called after and EW explains that after inverted minor raises (weak) they play positive free bids. After normal raises (strong, invitational) they play negative free bids. Thus, the 3H was forcing on one side, non forcing on the other. The actual MI was established by the TD. Apparently NS had no agreement on this (inverted minors after interference -- they play inverted minors normally).

TD ruling is "result stands" as the pass by West is not a direct consequence of the MI. As the ruling happens after the appeals deadline, there is no appeal, but the TD (who was a TD on the European Championship) explains that the appeal would have been rejected and would have been ruled frivolous.

To me, this does not make sense. What am I missing?

There was an independent opinion from someone, who said that the 3♥ licit was a mistake (not illegal, but pointless) so there should be no correction and the appeal is indeed frivolous. He also criticized the 1♠ bid. These could all be valid statements (both bids are questionable) but I do not see the relevance. Why does it matter? All happened BEFORE the MI.

[nige1]

 szgyula, on 2017-April-23, 01:13, said:

To me, this does not make sense. What am I missing?

The ruling seems wrong although 3♥ seems pointless,

[szgyula]

 nige1, on 2017-April-23, 01:40, said:

The ruling seems wrong although 3♥ seems pointless,

Not that it matters but a forcing bid and than 4♠ shows strength. Direct 4♠ shows distribution. This may matter after a 5♦. Since it is "free", you can as well inform west which is the case. East also saw a very slight chance of 6♠ and wanted to know more about the hand. His choice. May be wrong.

[Cyberyeti]

This sort of case I see as a hole in the rules. So it's correctly announced as "no agreement", now the lack of knowledge of their own system benefits the side that has the doubt as it's unclear which meaning the other side takes to use for the meaning of the bids. It's most common in the "might be conventional" type scenario when this changes the meaning of a double.

I don't understand the ruling, if W is expecting ♥AQJxxxx, a singleton/void spade and out of course he passes, how is this not a consequence of the MI.

I also don't understand the final comment, 3♥ is not frivolous, it's a slam try, any reason partner doesn't have Kxxxxx, Kxx, void, Kxxx ?

[szgyula]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-23, 02:01, said:

This sort of case I see as a hole in the rules. So it's correctly announced as "no agreement", now the lack of knowledge of their own system benefits the side that has the doubt as it's unclear which meaning the other side takes to use for the meaning of the bids. It's most common in the "might be conventional" type scenario when this changes the meaning of a double.

This is only an issue with screens. One possible solution: TD goes over, gets the information (what was the explanation) and informs the non offending player WITHOUT informing the offending side.

Just to confuse it further: In the case (I was west) South askes me about the 3♥. I explain that it is a non forcing bid, showing a good ♥ and very little in ♠. Now THEY cry foul as this is MI. What do you do in this case? Was it MI? Yes. Did it cause damage? Lets say it did. Can you say that an infraction is the consequence of an infraction and thus, it is not an infraction? What rules is this based on? For example I decide to show my clubs, they double, we make 5...

[Cyberyeti]

 szgyula, on 2017-April-23, 02:27, said:

This is only an issue with screens. One possible solution: TD goes over, gets the information (what was the explanation) and informs the non offending player WITHOUT informing the offending side.

No it isn't, example:

P-P-1♥-(1♠)-P-(2♣) 2♣ is alerted and I'm told "not sure if we play drury over this", this radically alters the meaning of X for opener.

[lamford]

What was the East-West agreement for 3H over a "no-agreement" 3D? This seems similar to a situation where a pair plays penalty doubles of weak jump overcalls and take-out doubles of intermediate jump overcalls. They need to have an agreement as to what they play over "no agreement" jump overcalls, as it is perfectly legal to have "no agreement" about anything that does not need to be announced. Partnerships need to discuss what they do in such situations. We solve part of the problem by playing doubles of alerted bids as penalties and non-alerted bids as take-out.

On the actual case, I think there was MI and it was a direct cause of the bad result. So I adjust.

[weejonnie]

if the ruling is "no agreement", shouldn't the TD consider that in some cases (60%) West would regard the 3 Heart call as a positive free bid?

Alternatively I would have thought that East would not have chosen a bid that could be misconstrued (it might not be optimal in theory but is in practice) had he known of NS "No agreement"

[sanst]

 szgyula, on 2017-April-23, 01:13, said:

Screens are used. North alerts and explains that 3D is an inverted minors raise, showing a long diamonds and it is weak. No alert, no question on the other side. TD is called after and EW explains that after inverted minor raises (weak) they play positive free bids. After normal raises (strong, invitational) they play negative free bids. Thus, the 3H was forcing on one side, non forcing on the other. The actual MI was established by the TD. Apparently NS had no agreement on this (inverted minors after interference -- they play inverted minors normally).

It seems that inverted minors are alertable in this jurisdiction. If that is the case, then there are two different explanations on both sides of the screen and thus there is MI. The 'no agreement' argument looks rather strange to me. If inverted minors are part of your agreements and you haven't discussed what to do after interference, you should assume that it's 'system on'. South's pass also points to that.
So, there is MI and the meaning of the 3♥ bid is different for E and W, which leads to a bad result. There is an infraction and there is damage caused by the infraction, so the TD should adjust.

Quote

TD ruling is "result stands" as the pass by West is not a direct consequence of the MI.

Nonsense, it's a direct consequence of the MI.

Quote

As the ruling happens after the appeals deadline, there is no appeal, but the TD (who was a TD on the European Championship) explains that the appeal would have been rejected and would have been ruled frivolous.

I can't believe that a TD worth his salt says that. It's totally disgusting. First of all, the TD should have ruled in time or made it possible to appeal, since this is a right that can't be denied. Secondly, a TD should never tell what a AC will decide and most certainly never call a possible appeal frivolous. That's up to the AC.
This looks like a TD who has two rules:
1 - I'm always right.
2 - In case I'm wrong, rule 1 takes precedence.
That might work for a landlord dealing with a drunken customer, but is such a wrong attitude for a TD that his ability to direct a bridge contest, let alone a European championship, is questionable.

Quote

To me, this does not make sense. What am I missing?

I'm completely with you.

Quote

There was an independent opinion from someone, who said that the 3♥ licit was a mistake (not illegal, but pointless) so there should be no correction and the appeal is indeed frivolous. He also criticized the 1♠ bid. These could all be valid statements (both bids are questionable) but I do not see the relevance. Why does it matter? All happened BEFORE the MI.

As a TD you don't comment on the quality of the bids or play, unless that plays a role. Here, that's not the case.

[blackshoe]

 szgyula, on 2017-April-23, 02:27, said:

Just to confuse it further: In the case (I was west) South askes me about the 3♥. I explain that it is a non forcing bid, showing a good ♥ and very little in ♠. Now THEY cry foul as this is MI. What do you do in this case? Was it MI? Yes. Did it cause damage? Lets say it did. Can you say that an infraction is the consequence of an infraction and thus, it is not an infraction? What rules is this based on? For example I decide to show my clubs, they double, we make 5...

It's not MI. You were told, by the lack of alert, that 3♦ was a limit raise. You gave an accurate explanation of your agreement in that case.

[barmar]

What is the jurisdiction? In ACBL, weak jump raises are only alertable if there's no interference. Almost everyone who plays inverted minors only plays them without competition -- a single raise is normal (6-9 HCP, only 4 cards) and a jump raise is weak with 5+ cards.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2017-April-23, 02:35, said:

No it isn't, example:

P-P-1♥-(1♠)-P-(2♣) 2♣ is alerted and I'm told "not sure if we play drury over this", this radically alters the meaning of X for opener.

This is why I had a lot of sympathy with the original DeWael School, where you gave a definitive explanation even if you are not sure, so that the opponents have something to work with. If it turns out later that you have given MI, you will suffer the consequences and the opponents won't be damaged.

Of course in the case cited here, you can call the director to send opener away from the table and ask the bidder the reL agreement. If he says " no agreement", which he has now learnt is the case, I do not think that is good enough. He made a bid which he expected partner to interpret, and she'd say what he thought the agreement was.

I don't expect anyone to agree with this, but I don't see a better way to prevent damage to the NOS. Besides the director looking at the hand and telling what the bid was intending to show!

Is this a hypothetical case? In which event do such inexperienced players play with screens?

[nige1]

Agree with Vampyr.
Suppose that you're rarely certain of anything -- especially the meaning of partner's calls.
In theory, should you always say "No agreement"? (As many players seem to do).

In practice, if you make your best guess, risking an MI ruling, are you breaking the law?
If so, the law should be changed, urgently.
In any case, the rules need clarification.

[szgyula]

There are a few things to clarify:

 sanst, on 2017-April-23, 06:23, said:

I can't believe that a TD worth his salt says that. It's totally disgusting. First of all, the TD should have ruled in time or made it possible to appeal, since this is a right that can't be denied. Secondly, a TD should never tell what a AC will decide and most certainly never call a possible appeal frivolous. That's up to the AC.
This looks like a TD who has two rules:
1 - I'm always right.
2 - In case I'm wrong, rule 1 takes precedence.
That might work for a landlord dealing with a drunken customer, but is such a wrong attitude for a TD that his ability to direct a bridge contest, let alone a European championship, is questionable.

I'm completely with you.

As a TD you don't comment on the quality of the bids or play, unless that plays a role. Here, that's not the case.

I have a long history with this particular TD. I always claim that rules are sacred, no matter what. In this particular case the event specific CoC very clearly says that appeal intent must be announced and appeal fee must be paid by midnight (event ends at 22:15). The actual appeal has 24 hours extra, i.e. until midnight the next day. The ruling was sent at 10AM. In my interpretation intent was not announced and fee was not paid, i.e. it would be illegal to accept an appeal. The TD thinks differently.

As for the being always right, here is a previous case, where the argument went:

It is not only the strict wording of the laws but the intent of the law maker that we have to consider. Since I am the person who wrote the law (CoC), we do not have to interpret the law to figure out what the law maker intended. You just have to simply ask me what the intention was. Accordingly, any argument with me is stupid by definition.


The question was simple: can you modify the official result of an event two weeks after the event.

As for the TD comment on the appeal: This was made after the event and not as an official communication but as a personal opinion. Basically he claimed that in the case I submitted an appeal, the AC would send my appeals fee to Satan before returning it to me and I obviously know this.

As for the comment on the 3♥ bid: This was made by a good player that is completely unrelated to the story. He was saying that 3♥ was stupid and we should take it as a man and should not expect the TD to protect us from our stupidity.

 Vampyr, on 2017-April-23, 10:20, said:

Is this a hypothetical case? In which event do such inexperienced players play with screens?

This is the de facto national pairs championship. Since there is just one venue for this event, all divisions get identical conditions, i.e. screens and bridgemate. There was some argument that in lower divisions the screen should be removed but this never actually happened. It was not even agreed on, as far as I know.

As for inexperienced, I have to admit that I would be in trouble in some cases, too. We do not have all bases covered and I could easily end up in a situation where I do not know what the agreement is. This is sad but part of life. I have no issue with someone not having an agreement or not remembering it. I have a problem with this messing up our system. To be honest our current system can not handle a weak 6-5 in majors properly. I always announce this if asked. I would fully accept a correction if this caused a problem for them.

[gordontd]

 sanst, on 2017-April-23, 06:23, said:

If inverted minors are part of your agreements and you haven't discussed what to do after interference, you should assume that it's 'system on'.

I wouldn't assume that at all. I've never played inverted minors in competition for the simple reason that you have a UCB available for the strong hands. In fact, the only time I've encountered inverted minors in competition has been in the context of rulings arising from disagreements over whether it applies.

[barmar]

 gordontd, on 2017-April-24, 06:35, said:

I wouldn't assume that at all. I've never played inverted minors in competition for the simple reason that you have a UCB available for the strong hands. In fact, the only time I've encountered inverted minors in competition has been in the context of rulings arising from disagreements over whether it applies.

And in this case, we're not even dealing with an inverted minor raise, which is a single raise showing a good raise. This auction is a jump raise in competition. Regardless of whether you play inverted minors or normal minors, this is a weak, preemptive raise.

The only players I've ever encountered who play jump raises in competition as strong have been beginners, when I've had to play with them in pro-ams. One of the first things I teach them (as I remember receiving this same advice when I was in their position) is that when there's a cue bid available to show good hands, jumps are weak.

[blackshoe]

Heh. The question of inverted minors came up twice today. The first time, partner opened a club, RHO doubled, and I bid 2♣ with five clubs and six points. She bid again, twice, with a minimum opener. A few rounds later, she opened 1♣ again, RHO passed, I bid 2♣ with a balanced 17 count, and LHO and partner passed. So now I've been tasked to "write up the whole system" for her. What can you do?

BTW, IIRC, playing inverted minors was her idea.

[szgyula]

There is a new argument from the other side: In the example above, the TD agreed that 3♥ was forcing on that side. How does the TD establish that I am telling the truth when I claim that 3♥ was not forcing on my side? I can try to argue that after a normal opening (13 points), overcall (lets say 10 points) and limit raise (11 points) there is not much need for a bid from the 4th player that forces me to the 4th level. It is much better to play it as a negative free bid in that case. The fact that I in fact passed also supports the claim that it is a passable bid. Thus, you have two options open, how do you decide which one is true:

1. After a limit raise 3♦ the 3♥ bid is negative free bid, i.e. passable, i.e. consequent damage.
2. After a limit raise AND an inverted minor raise 3♦ the 3♥ bid is always a positive free bid, West did not know the system and made an unrelated error by passing the 3♥. Thus, no consequent damage.

There is no CC that helps to decide this issue. You only have statements from both players, common sense (see above -- with ~8 points you do not want to force the partner to the 4th level) and the fact that west passed. Somebody argued that when in doubt, rule in favor of the NOS.

[blackshoe]

 szgyula, on 2017-April-25, 01:10, said:

Somebody argued that when in doubt, rule in favor of the NOS.

Somebody is relying on past practice. Bad, outdated, now deprecated past practice.

[Cyberyeti]

 gordontd, on 2017-April-24, 06:35, said:

I wouldn't assume that at all. I've never played inverted minors in competition for the simple reason that you have a UCB available for the strong hands. In fact, the only time I've encountered inverted minors in competition has been in the context of rulings arising from disagreements over whether it applies.

We play our inverted minors (F1 not FG) on in competition, but very few other people do.