[Phil]

Here's a heated ruling I had on Sunday (why is it all of my controversial rulings are in the 1st round? Is it because the players aren't 'settled in' yet?):

EW have about 3,000 and 4,000 points respectively. NS have about 1,200 points each.

The auction was (South dealt):

1♣ - 1♦ - dbl* - redouble
1♠ - double - AP

I can't remember the exact hands, but I don't know that they are relevant here.

The double was alerted and East (redoubler) asked what it was. The answer was "stolen bid". East didn't inquire further.

The 1♦ overcaller then asked, "what does stolen bid mean in this context". South said, "oh, we play Montreal Relay". West didn't inquire.

West (edit) doubled 1♠ with a 14 count and 4 spades. Dummy hit with a 4=3=2=4 11 count with ♠KJTx. The redoubler thought he was making a rosenkranz xx showing a diamond honor.

The play was gruesome, but declarer emerged with +160.

In case you are wondering, Montreal Relay means 1♣ - pass - 1M promises 5. 1♣ - pass - 1♦ denies a 5 card major, but I don't know (and I'm pretty sure a lot of the pairs that play this don't know) if 1♣ - pass - 1♦ promises a 4 card major or not. Obviously over a 1♦ overcall, double becomes their work-around.

I'll tell you my ruling later.

TY

[mycroft]

1) 1C is special, usually, as well, and almost certainly should have been Announced as "could be short" (as 2, or 1, depending on what they do with 4=4=4=1s). I will assume that that is what happened, or that it doesn't apply (Montreal Relay players almost always play 1D as min 5, (or potentially 4=4=4=1).

2) The way I have seen MR played, 1C-1D doesn't promise a 4-card major, but invites opener to show one. (1C-1NT, for instance, in the version played here, is strong - 9-12 or so, balanced, usually no 4cM. I don't know what 2C or 2D show - for some reason the people who play this here want to give the minimum explanation of their calls they can get away with).

3) The auction says West doubled 1S, but the text says East did. Typo?

4) When was the TD called, and why? I see things that could be ruled on, but I don't know what was the problem.

• The 1D double was properly Alerted (I know doubles are only Alertable if U&U, but I think this counts, at least if you're being Actively Ethical. "Most hands worth responding that do not have a 5-card Major bid 1D or double a 1D overcall")
  
• "Stolen bid" is a horrible explanation (even to its usual use, defending overcalls after NT openers)
  
• When West asks for more explanation, and is told "Montreal Relay" (well, again, that's a crappy explanation), if East had a problem, the TD could have been called at that point, and East's XX could have been changed. If they called later, well, then, they can't change it, but they should be somewhat protected.
  
• I don't expect 4K MP players to know all systems (in particular Montreal Relay in not-Montreal); but I do expect them to know that the explanations they have been given are not "full and complete", that they don't "make sense" in the normal way, and that they are entitled and should get more. Either more explanation should have been pushed for, or the TD should have been called, at least after South's second non-explanation.
  
• The system is legal, and if E-W have no, or an ambiguous agreement, for the XX in this context, that's their problem. If their agreement is different vs a penalty (usual meaning of 1C-1D-Alerted X), or "I have diamonds too" (stolen bid?) double than over a negative (or effectively negative - "stuff, nothing I can explicitly show") double, then that's definitely time to call the TD and see what would happen.
  
• South needs a good, 150 MP-level lesson in full disclosure; I'm amazed that he's got to 1200 without it. Assuming he has had the lecture before, I would suggest it's now time to teach the lesson in increments of 1/4 board. That was egregiously bad.

Without the answer to when the TD was called and about what, I have no way of knowing what the ruling should be. I'd like to say a pox on both your partnerships...

[Phil]

Thanks Mycroft.

- I don't know if they play a short club along with MR. I kind of doubt it since it was not alerted.

- Sorry, West doubled, not East

- TD was called when dummy came down.

FWIW, EW are experienced tournament players and have a lot of exposure to unusual systems. They both have many regional wins, and one I know has a high finish in a national.

NS are club players, and hardly play in tournaments except the local regional once a year. While they have 1,200 points apiece or so, it is purely through attendance. I do not consider them seasoned at all.

I have no idea why they play MR. MR and Mexi 2♦ have seeped into our club, but people do not discuss follow-ups.

[mycroft]

---

(I'm getting confused who is what, so. Please let me know if I got anything wrong)

Again, I wonder what the issue E/W thought they had after dummy came down that they didn't have after the "we play Montreal Relay" (, and partner would have bid 1D if you had passed) explanation.

They didn't seem to have a problem with the (less-than-clear) explanation, and East didn't have a problem after West found out more information. While "we play Montreal Relay" is nowhere near Full Disclosure (and the ACBL regs state specifically that the name of the convention is not sufficient), this kind of thing frequently happens, and usually, unless the opponents don't understand the convention (in which case they ask, if they're experienced or know they shouldn't feel too intimidated to), it's accepted and understood. So from North's perspective, the second explanation seemed sufficient for E/W, so he has no need to "correct" the explanation before the opening lead.

Players of the experience of E/W know they have to protect themselves, know they can't just accept "we play Klatchian Majors" as an explanation if they don't understand it, and expect to be protected when they guess wrong; basically they should know they're entitled to a full description of the call, in a way they can understand it. If they don't get it, they have three choices: ask supplementary questions, call the TD, or play on in ignorance at their own risk. They *should* be experienced enough to know that if a re-explanation could change their call, they *have to* call the TD, and the TD might be able to help.

If they're calling because North doesn't have diamonds and they felt misinformed, I would tell them they had the right to query the explanations, and had they called me at the point when the "different explanation" came to light, I would have allowed West to change his XX, as it would have then been in time. Since they didn't, it's a different Law, and they're going to have to show me how they were damaged. Especially if they were playing "don't ask, maybe they're having a misunderstanding and we don't want to clear it up for them", they get to Live With Their Choice. In a way, it's a pity that South does have something that looks like a (semi-)typical negative double, because he could have been 3=3=5=2 or even 3=2=5=3 (at which point, if South hadn't Alerted the double, E/W would have probably been equally disturbed).


So, yes, I think *this* E/W need to protect themselves, and do the right thing at the right time. East, you redoubled, thinking that North had diamonds. When your partner's question changed your explanation into "you don't understand what North has", and that may have changed your call, it's time to find out. If they were weaker or less experienced, I may have more sympathy for them. Having said that, everything I said about South's "full disclosure" habits stands - and a note that by and large, fixing MI (of any sort) should be prefaced with a TD call, as it frequently leads to a need for said TD.

[bluejak]

There is a sort of habit I have noticed over the years.

• Opponents have a complicated auction, which is standard and fairly natural. You do something completely stupid, and they usually make a doubled overtrick. You try not to let anyone know and pass on to the next hand as quickly as possible.
  
  
• Opponents have a complicated auction, which contains some non-standard artificial bids. You do something completely stupid, and they usually make a doubled overtrick. You yell for the TD, because "IT IS NOT FAIR". If the TD rules against you - as he usually does [or should] - you go and tell your mother about the horrid opponents and TD.

This all sounds to me like this sort of hand. Whatever N/S may or may not have done, E/W have produced bidding from the planet Zarg and got the score they deserved.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2011-February-01, 14:26, said:

---

While "we play Montreal Relay" is nowhere near Full Disclosure (and the ACBL regs state specifically that the name of the convention is not sufficient), this kind of thing frequently happens, and usually, unless the opponents don't understand the convention (in which case they ask, if they're experienced or know they shouldn't feel too intimidated to), it's accepted and understood.

You seem to be dismissing the possibility of players feeling intimidated. When a convention name is used, people often feel that they will look stupid if they don't know what "Montreal Relay" (or, for that matter, "stolen bid") means. In addition, even if the askers know what the name means, the bidders might not, or they might play a different variation.

[Phil]

I ruled against EW, but I wouldn't have ruled against someone with 1/20th or even 1/10th their masterpoints. There was some ego here, and I don't think either wanted to admit to his partner they didn't knew what this was.

Result stands boys. Next time ask about the meaning of a conventional bid that you are unsure about. They weren't happy at all, but they really need to protect themselves. One is a friend and both are occasional teammates but they need to accept rulings that do not go in their favor.

I gave NS a minor lecture about describing what a call means instead of just telling their opponents the name of a convention.

[bluejak]

Why would you not have ruled against someone with 1/20th of the masterpoints? I am not talking in general - rulings are often tailored to ability - but in this specific case.

Let me see if I have misunderstood something. South shows an opening bid, West makes an overcall, North shows something or other, East says he has some sort of diamond fit, South shows spades, and West doubles. Ok so far?

Now, anyone who tries to take penalties at the one level needs three basic requirements:

• Good trumps, at least four, sitting over declarer, or exceptionally good trumps, usually five, sittign under declarer, and
  
• no fit for partner, and
  
• the majority of the points

West doubled "with four spades". Dummy had KJTx so the best he can have is AQ9x. He also had a fourteen count. He knows partner has a partial fit for diamonds so I do not think he is strong enough or his spades are really good enough. But let us be kind and say perhaps they were.

East stood the double with how many points? Opening bid +14 +11 +East. Four points maybe? Rosenkranz? Let us say the East hand is something like:

---

With both opponents showing values, and partner with a known diamond suit, does anyone think this hand should be defending 1♠ doubled? No, of course not.

Look, whether there is MI or not, there is no damage: the reason for E/W's bad board is their unbelievably bad bidding.



Despite the bad explanations, was there MI? Ok, "stolen bid" was confusing, but since that was corrected, no problem.

We are not told when the correction to Montreal Relay came. I assumed it was immediate - the OP reads that way - but if not then I suppose East called his "Rosenkranz" redouble over a "stolen bid" double. Is he claiming that when double shows diamonds redouble is Rosenkranz but when it shows points it is not? Of course not. So what is he claiming? That the opponents are playing a convention and he wants his mother?

Phil, on 2011-February-01, 10:37, said:

I can't remember the exact hands, but I don't know that they are relevant here.

Sorry, I do not think that is right. One look at the full hand shows no damage whether there is MI or not. Yes?

[mycroft]

With the Montreal Relay 1D "bid", and pass of 1Sx, South could have a 6-count with 3=4=3=3 or 3=4=4=2. He didn't, but he could have. We "know" North has 4 spades (he could be 5-6, I guess). Yes, west knows that he's got a singleton, but East could easily be 6-5, and almost certainly 5-4, and with opening bid +14 +(5 or 6), West could have a 1=5=2=5 10-count with DKx and "expected misfit". I don't think passing 1Sx is *that bad*. I think it's bad, but anything could be wrong.

Vampyr: I'm not dismissing intimidation. It's a very strong and ugly (and *usually* not deliberate) tactic, and it's used against the newer players. "Oh you don't know what Klatchian Majors is?" (with a side helping tone of "what do they teach the novices" or "how do you expect to play against *us* if you're so ill-informed" or ...) One of the things I try to do if I hear about this (or anything that sounds like it) is to explain that *you are entitled* to this information *in a way you can understand* - if they don't or won't, or imply that you don't need to know it, just keep asking until they do explain it, or call the TD if they can't.

What I meant to say there was "if they haven't figured this out yet, I'll explain and give them the benefit of the doubt - this time. These guys have 4K MPs and regional wins, they've figured it out."

[blackshoe]

If N and S each have 1200 monsterpoints, I think they deserve a bit more than a "minor lecture" about full disclosure. I'd have given them a standard PP.