[lamford]

---

This was another board from the North London Christmas Party. Ironically it was the revenge round, but SB did not get revenge on ChCh. MM opened 1NT as South and SB, North, picked up the EW CC, fearing a double of Stayman. Not finding what he was looking for, he asked RR, East, how this partnership played a double of Stayman. RR replied: "I think we play that it shows the balance of points, and 2NT would be Lebensohl, of course". "I think you should pre-alert such avant garde methods", responded SB sarcastically, "and certainly put them on the CC, as they may be HUM." He then bid 3NT and all passed.

ChCh, West, quickly worked out SB's reason for the question and fished out the nine of clubs. This was a dagger to the heart of the contract, although RR expressed surprise when his six of clubs took the setting trick, and SB found himself with a complete zero. He exploded again. "DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR."

OO arrived and SB began: "RR and ChCh could have been aware that leaving off from the CC their methods over the opponents' Stayman could well damage the non-offending side". "Well I am not so sure, SB", OO replied. "I note that you and MM do not have anything about the sequence on your card either." "That is irrelevant," responded SB, "MM and I only play Stayman, red suit transfers and Blackwood; she won't play anything else. And 4NT is always Blackwood despite many years of trying to get her to change." "RR and ChCh clearly play an exotic defence to Stayman where 2NT is a puppet to 3C and Double is 21+, so that should have been on the card, and I would not have needed to ask."

ChCh was quick to reply. "Rubbish", he said, "RR's response was ridiculous and gave me no UI. And the question by North was clearly AI, although RR's response was not." "No adjustment", he opined.

How do you rule?

[pescetom]

This one baffles me, I'm afraid.

It seems that once SB spotted an omission on the CC he took a doubleshot, reasoning that either RR would reply that the double was lead directing (in which case he could bid Stayman confident that MM would now realise he had no clubs stop) or RR would explain some unusual meaning (in which case he could bid 3NT and claim later that he was damaged by the omission on CC). But neither line of reasoning stands up to scrutiny. If ChCh could infer that SB's question suggested concern about clubs, then so could MM but to whom this is UI; and the Director might also retain that SB asked the question solely to benefit his partner, which is a "may not" situation. And while the omission on the CC is an infraction, an explanation was provided before SB decided his call, so it's hard to see how the omission could have damaged the non-offending side. It is certainly suspicious that ChCh says "RR's response was ridiculous", but even if the explanation given by RR turns out to be mistaken then it is hard to see how SB could have been damaged, as he did not bid Stayman. If SB wanted to bid Stayman but did not trust the explanation then surely he should have called the Director.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-November-20, 10:53, said:

It seems that once SB spotted an omission on the CC he took a doubleshot, reasoning that either RR would reply that the double was lead directing (in which case he could bid Stayman confident that MM would now realise he had no clubs stop) or RR would explain some unusual meaning (in which case he could bid 3NT and claim later that he was damaged by the omission on CC). But neither line of reasoning stands up to scrutiny.

Their actual methods were that double showed clubs, OO established, to the best of his ability. Not that RR would ever recall that. Had that been on the convention card, SB would not have needed to ask. If their method was that double showed a double of 1NT, SB would have bid Stayman, and would still have played in 3NT. MM would not have realised anything from the question, nor would it be relevant (what is she supposed to do differently?) and it was the intention of SB to bid 3NT if the answer had been "lead-directing". So the concept of double shot is about as ludicrous as RR's answer.

A survey of all 36 convention cards at the North London club last week showed none of them defining a double of stayman, nor is there any "box" on the EBU or WBF cards for it. A scrupulous player who adds this in the notes is at a disadvantage, unless a TD always decides that failure to include it is an infraction.

And there is no provision for calling the TD if you "do not trust the answer to a question."

[The_Badger]

North just shot himself in the foot, pure and simple. No sympathy whatsoever. Pre-empting an explanation of a possible (interpretation of an opponent's) bid is a new one on me.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-November-20, 11:36, said:

Their actual methods were that double showed clubs, OO established, to the best of his ability. Not that RR would ever recall that. Had that been on the convention card, SB would not have needed to ask. If their method was that double showed a double of 1NT, SB would have bid Stayman, and would still have played in 3NT.

Thanks, but I still don't see why SB did not bid Stayman after the explanation he received.

lamford, on 2018-November-20, 11:36, said:

And there is no provision for calling the TD if you "do not trust the answer to a question."

A less experienced player can always call the TD and ask him if it is normal that the opponents have such an agreement and it is not written on the CC.

[axman]

lamford, on 2018-November-20, 11:36, said:

Their actual methods were that double showed clubs, OO established, to the best of his ability. Not that RR would ever recall that. Had that been on the convention card, SB would not have needed to ask. If their method was that double showed a double of 1NT, SB would have bid Stayman, and would still have played in 3NT. MM would not have realised anything from the question, nor would it be relevant (what is she supposed to do differently) and it was the intention of SB to bid 3NT if the answer had been "lead-directing". So the concept of double shot is about as ludicrous as RR's answer.

A survey of all 36 convention cards at the North London club showed none of them discussing a double of stayman, nor is there any "box" on the EBU or WBF cards for it. A scrupulous player who adds this in the notes is at a disadvantage, unless a TD always decides that failure to include it is an infraction.

And there is no provision for calling the TD if you "do not trust the answer to a question."

There was a time when the expectation that methods were made available prior to the combat. Notably being considerably easier and quicker to do so by a useful CC. It also being a matter of acumen to assimilate such methods, thus avoiding forfeiture of advantage that accompanies asking questions.

[weejonnie]

LAw 40B2(a)... The Regulating Authority

(ii) may prescribe a System Card, with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior
listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use.

Definitions

Infraction: a player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation.

Law 12B

Damage exists
when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than
would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

Conclusion : SB is entitled to an adjusted score if the RA requires that the system card or required supplemetary sheets show what a double of Stayman would show.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-November-20, 16:03, said:

LAw 40B2(a)... The Regulating Authority

(ii) may prescribe a System Card, with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior
listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use.

To give another data point, here in Italy the System Card has a specific section on the front page for 'Competitive bids and doubles that may require a particular defence", although I confess that my card in this section lists only our interventions and conventions after opponents' interventions, no doubles. But in other specific sections my card does explain double over 1NT, over strong 1♣, over preempts, in balancing seat, redouble after opponents' takeout, double/redouble in relay bids. I think that is a pretty typical level of detail, but if I did have an unusual agreement about double of Stayman (in particular if it showed significant strength) I would feel obliged to list it.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2018-November-20, 11:36, said:

Their actual methods were that double showed clubs, OO established, to the best of his ability. Not that RR would ever recall that. Had that been on the convention card, SB would not have needed to ask. If their method was that double showed a double of 1NT, SB would have bid Stayman, and would still have played in 3NT. MM would not have realised anything from the question, nor would it be relevant (what is she supposed to do differently) and it was the intention of SB to bid 3NT if the answer had been "lead-directing". So the concept of double shot is about as ludicrous as RR's answer.

A survey of all 36 convention cards at the North London club showed none of them discussing a double of stayman, nor is there any "box" on the EBU or WBF cards for it. A scrupulous player who adds this in the notes is at a disadvantage, unless a TD always decides that failure to include it is an infraction.

And there is no provision for calling the TD if you "do not trust the answer to a question."

Is the fact that SB had to ask this question AI to ChCh? I rather doubt it. But I also don’t see in the Laws a legal ground for the question. Law 20 states “He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made[snip]”. But this is a question about a possible call that might or might not be made in the future. OTOH, Law 40 says that you should make your partnership understandings available to your opponents. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this is done. The EBU has done that in the Blue Book “Pairs are required to have two fully completed system cards“.
I would decide that due to the fact that EW didn’t have two fully completed system cards N was forced to ask a question which might be illegal, but he didn’t have a choice. EW, who are responsible, shouldn’t take advantage from this.
I find this a difficult situation, since you might also argue that he, had the SC been complete, had bid 3NT anyway. With the hand of W I would have led the ♣9; the spade lead is not good because there is only a very remote chance that you would set up a trick. But the peers of ChCh might think otherwise.

[barmar]

weejonnie, on 2018-November-20, 16:03, said:

Conclusion : SB is entitled to an adjusted score if the RA requires that the system card or required supplemetary sheets show what a double of Stayman would show.

Is there any RA that requires this? If EBU doesn't, then is SB really entitled to any adjustment?

Many, if not most, partnerships have many details of their agreements only in their heads. Most don't have any system notes other than what fits on their RA's standard CC. So it's simply not practical to expect that the answer to any question you might have would be available without asking, and I don't think any RA requires that this be possible.

[weejonnie]

barmar, on 2018-November-21, 10:22, said:

Is there any RA that requires this? If EBU doesn't, then is SB really entitled to any adjustment?

Many, if not most, partnerships have many details of their agreements only in their heads. Most don't have any system notes other than what fits on their RA's standard CC. So it's simply not practical to expect that the answer to any question you might have would be available without asking, and I don't think any RA requires that this be possible.

White book - 2.8.3.4

d. Incomplete system card11 – inexperienced or irregular partnership
1st offence :W
2nd offence :PP
3rd offence :DP
e. Incomplete system card – regular partnership
1st offence: W/PP12
2nd offence :PP
3rd offence :DP

11 A system card is ‘incomplete’ for this purpose if it does not have the opening NT range and 2-level responses, 1- and 2-level openings, any artificial defensive bids or responses, or opening leads, signals and discards filled in correctly.
12 If an incorrect or incomplete card causes damage at the table, the TD should usually give a PP as well as an adjustment on the board if the pair concerned are known to be a regular partnership. If the TD announced at the start of the event that two system cards were compulsory, this may be considered to be the warning.

This probably means SB has no redress- since the double is not an 'artificial defensive bid' - it is an artificial defensive call.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-November-21, 12:01, said:

11 A system card is ‘incomplete’ for this purpose if it does not have the opening NT range and 2-level responses, 1- and 2-level openings, any artificial defensive bids or responses, or opening leads, signals and discards filled in correctly.
12 If an incorrect or incomplete card causes damage at the table, the TD should usually give a PP as well as an adjustment on the board if the pair concerned are known to be a regular partnership. If the TD announced at the start of the event that two system cards were compulsory, this may be considered to be the warning.

This probably means SB has no redress- since the double is not an 'artificial defensive bid' - it is an artificial defensive call.

I would certainly regards a double of 1NT, say showing a single-suited hand, to be on the CC. Yes there is a blunder in that "artifical defensive bids" does not include double, but that would not wash with me. The White Book is not that careful, and there are plenty of grey areas; also it does not say that it is filled in correctly if an artifical defensive call is left off. I think that SB gets his redress here, and the backroom lawyer triumphs again. Members of the North London club were seen busily adding doubles of Stayman to their convention cards before the weekly duplicate last night.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-November-21, 10:08, said:

With the hand of W I would have led the ♣9

As Dburn would say: "I would not have led the nine of clubs if I saw all four hands as if I did people would know that I had seen all four hands."

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-November-20, 13:45, said:

Thanks, but I still don't see why SB did not bid Stayman after the explanation he received.

Because he knew that RR had answered a different and irrelevant question as to how his side played a double of a 2C artificial overcall of 1NT, and he did not want to press the point as that would pinpoint a club lead. As he found out, he had already pinpointed the club lead to the cunning chimp anyway.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2018-November-21, 15:10, said:

As Dburn would say: "I would not have led the nine of clubs if I saw all four hands as if I did people would know that I had seen all four hands."

I was more thinking along the lines of Bird & Anthias.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-November-21, 10:22, said:

So it's simply not practical to expect that the answer to any question you might have would be available without asking, and I don't think any RA requires that this be possible.

I agree. But the corollary should be that any question regarding omissions from the card is a) permitted even though it pertains to bids that have not yet been made and b) must be UI to those who did not include the agreement on the CC.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2018-November-22, 02:30, said:

I was more thinking along the lines of Bird & Anthias.

RR would have led the nine of clubs against what he thought was a contract of 4H ...

[HardVector]

sanst, on 2018-November-22, 02:30, said:

I was more thinking along the lines of Bird & Anthias.

Against the auction 1n-3n, Bird says LEAD A MAJOR, very loudly.

[lamford]

HardVector, on 2018-November-23, 11:32, said:

Against the auction 1n-3n, Bird says LEAD A MAJOR, very loudly.

Not if you are playing for a ruff ...