[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2015-February-17, 10:43, said:

Not sure I agree with this. Partner's consistent deviation from the explicit agreement ("majors") creates an implicit agreement ("majors or clubs").

I am sure your statement of their actual agreement is probably more accurate for when the bid is made by South.

Mine was more pissy, though. I guess as an opponent, we just have to protect ourselves against the scenario and agree in advance to use Double as Stayman if informed about the likelihood of majors or "forgot".

[lamford]

It does seem that -200 is about the best EW can do, as 4S is cold for NS, and South would lead a spade against 3NT when partner has bid them! Also it appears that EW had the correct explanation of the NS methods so they get no redress.

[aguahombre]

I do wish that, for at least Sectional and higher events, the following part of the General Conditions of Contest:

"2. A partnership is responsible for knowing its methods."

were enforceable and applied to ALL routine first-round action. Yeh, yeh...never will happen and inappropriate for a post in "simple rulings".

[Bbradley62]

aguahombre, on 2015-February-17, 11:52, said:

2. A partnership is responsible for knowing its methods.

I don't think OP mentioned the skill level of the players, but that's probably relevant. The first time I ever played transfers in a duplicate session was in a 0-20 game at a sectional in NYC. When the auction got to the 6 level, 3 or 4 tables could hear me say "Oh, S**T, transfers!" My opponents were certainly not damaged, but sometimes when rookies forget things their opps are fixed, and that's just life.

[Pig Trader]

Quote

It occurs to me that this implicit agreement may be illegal for another reason: if the player who does not forget their implicit agreement always has the majors when he bids 2♣, then the pair are playing different meanings for the same bid, depending which one of them bids it. Pretty sure that's illegal, though I can't right now point from memory to a law or regulation that says so. Might be in the General CoC.

Law 40B2a, though it also says that RAs can vary this, though I don't know of any that do.

[aguahombre]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-17, 12:18, said:

I don't think OP mentioned the skill level of the players, but that's probably relevant. The first time I ever played transfers in a duplicate session was in a 0-20 game at a sectional in NYC. When the auction got to the 6 level, 3 or 4 tables could hear me say "Oh, S**T, transfers!" My opponents were certainly not damaged, but sometimes when rookies forget things their opps are fixed, and that's just life.

When I referred to Sectional and higher events, I didn't mean novice events. I meant open contests.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2015-February-17, 21:50, said:

When I referred to Sectional and higher events, I didn't mean novice events. I meant open contests.

But Bill is suggesting that we need to know whether the players in question are novices or not. I agree with him.

[aguahombre]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-17, 22:02, said:

But Bill is suggesting that we need to know whether the players in question are novices or not. I agree with him.

My comment was that I wished a condition of contest would be enforceable upon non-novices in open tournaments. I still wish that, regardless of whether it would apply to the players here.

[helene_t]

There used to be (maybe still are?) some Dutch TDs that enforce an obligation to know one's system with respect to certain conventions (most infamously Ghestem and Muiderberg). The way this was done was that a bidding mistake was always taken as MI even if the CC confirmed that the explanation was correct.

I have some sympathy since all those Ghestem distasters are not much fun. But obviously it requires some thought. For example, I remember once that my p got out of it by claiming that his ghestem mixup was a psyche. While a compentent TD might not have bought that, it does make things simpler if deviations are deviations and it doesn't matter if they are deliberate or not.

Fred once posted a hand where some mad scientist pair, playing in a serious tourney, giving multiple pre-alerts, didn't know what 1♦-(1♥)-2NT meant. Somehow this seems unacceptable but what to do about it? Presumably novices shouldn't be punished for not knowing whether they play negative doubles or not, so maybe the rule should only apply at a certain level. It sounds like Aquahombre and Vampyr want seperate rules for novices in an open event but I thought that in principle everybody play by the same rules - novices can enlist in the novice section if they can't comply with the requirements for the open section?

Maybe some would say that you are allowed to play Jacoby transfers even if you have troubles remembering them, while non-essential conventions like Ghestem should not be on the CC if you don't really play them. But this is scary as it would mean that we favour the regulators' (or the TD's) pet conventions.

Nobody would say that you have an obligation to know your defense against Ken Rexford's Xango system or that you must know what to do after they double your Josephine GSF in the 7th round of a contested auction. So where does the line go?

There is also the issue of how detailed you need to know your agreements. Is it ok if I don't know if we play Walsh or not as long as I can tell that we play "natural" responses to our 1♣ opening?

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2015-February-18, 04:15, said:

There is also the issue of how detailed you need to know your agreements. Is it ok if I don't know if we play Walsh or not as long as I can tell that we play "natural" responses to our 1♣ opening?

And don't forget the issue that you do not have to have agreements.

Walsh is a typical case that I will not bring up in a partnership discussion with an occasional partner... because I want to be flexible in my choice between 1M and 1♦. If we don't have an explicit agreement about it and we don't have developed an implicit agreement yet, the opponents don't have any right to know my criteria for picking 1♦ or 1M. The drawback, of course, is that I don't know what my partner plays (and I can't try to find out, so I won't). But, in my opinion, the discussion to Walsh or not to Walsh is overrated. (And with my pet partner I play T-Walsh.)

Rik

[billw55]

lamford, on 2015-February-17, 11:52, said:

It does seem that -200 is about the best EW can do, as 4S is cold for NS, and South would lead a spade against 3NT when partner has bid them!

Except that EW can take 8 tricks in NT: the opening spade, five diamonds, and two hearts. So -100.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2015-February-18, 04:15, said:

It sounds like Aquahombre and Vampyr want separate rules for novices in an open event but I thought that in principle everybody play by the same rules - novices can enlist in the novice section if they can't comply with the requirements for the open section?

Not really, just maybe a focus on education rather than penalising if a pair are novices.

In this case one aspect of the education required is to make sure the CC represents their actual agreements (and that these agreements must be ones that both opponents can remember). Not that I wouldn't necessarily penalise though. South's actions are bad enough, but North was bidding according to a CPU, so I feel that this is worse.

[antonylee]

I was North and thought I did my best to not behave unethically while not throwing away the board, but obviously failed in that regard (well, I guess the opponents wouldn't have been very happy either had I bid 4S and played there :-)). I had played with South perhaps 4 times in the past year, and his bidding is certainly awkward sometimes (earlier in the session, he forgot I had explicitly refused to play Bergen raises, and he also bid 1C-1N-3C with a nondescript, strong-ish 1435).

[aguahombre]

antonylee, on 2015-February-18, 11:58, said:

I was North and thought I did my best to not behave unethically while not throwing away the board, but obviously failed in that regard (well, I guess the opponents wouldn't have been very happy either had I bid 4S and played there :-)). I had played with South perhaps 4 times in the past year, and his bidding is certainly awkward sometimes (earlier in the session, he forgot I had explicitly refused to play Bergen raises, and he also bid 1C-1N-3C with a nondescript, strong-ish 1435).

The opponents might not have been happy if you bid 4S; but bidding according to your agreements is not subject to adjustment, here..regardless of whether partner misbid. We all have lumped it when the opponents have a lucky accident. Hopefully your partner would not have then used the UI and done something stupid.

[antonylee]

Given that his hand seems to be a pretty normal pass (or raise?) of 2S assuming a normal forget (behind screens), I'm pretty sure he'll have ended up in 5C anyways...

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-February-16, 05:45, said:

Therefore the problem is with S. Did he think 2♣ was natural or clubs and a major or clubs and spades ?

Assuming South thought 2♣ was clubs and a major, or clubs and spades, then 3♣ would be a game try in spades, showing a sixth club, and actually a bit aggressive, and certainly not using the UI. When I tried a few strong players telling them that 2♣ was clubs and a major, they chose 3♣ or Pass. We cannot really answer this problem until we know what South thought he was showing.

[antonylee]

I believe he thought it was just clubs, but honestly didn't bother asking.

[Cyberyeti]

antonylee, on 2015-February-18, 17:52, said:

I believe he thought it was just clubs, but honestly didn't bother asking.

In which case when N showed a proper spade suit (in his mind) he really should be raising and 100% will lead a spade if he does defend 3N.