[olegru]

Scoring: MP

west...north....east...south
1♣!.....pass......1♥.....pass
1NT ... all pass

---

Real matchpoints tournament.
EW – beginners
NS – good players
EW vul
Dealer West

West opened 1 ♣ which was alerted.
North – pass. (No questions asked)
East bid 1 ♥.
South asked opponents about their system and was told they are using precision club.
As all of us know 1 ♣ opening in Precision promises 16+ points and 1 ♥ answer promises 7+ points.
South – pass. With his heavy 22 points hand and 3334 distribution he can see something strange is going on(16 points from West + 7 points from East + his 22 points is bigger than 40) but what to bid?

West – 1NT.
North pass.
East pass.
South pass. In the favorite vulnerability 1NT from opponents looks like a good contract for him.

Prior to make lead North asked East to tell how many points declarer promised and was told 11-14!
As it happened EW played some kind of Polish club system, but they thought their system called Precision.
No calls for director were made in that moment.
North made unlucky lead and after non unreasonable (but not perfect) defence declarer made 9 tricks – not a good score for NS.

Now South invited director. South’s complain – he would double on the first round of bidding after the correct explanation.

Director decided to hold 1NW+2 for NS and assign 2♦= for EW.

Any comments?

[G_R__E_G]

I'd let the result stand. South "knew" something was up and had ample opportunity to ask further questions but neglected to. I would however warn E/W that when describing a bid it is not acceptable to just name a system or convention.

[barmar]

What jurisdiction was this in? ACBL alert regulations, for instance, say that simply giving the name of a convention is not considered adequate explanation of an alert, you're supposed to describe what the call actually shows. (There's frequent debate over whether it's a good or bad idea to also mention the name of the convention along with the description.) While the usual justification for this rule is that less experience players might not know the convention and may be embarassed to ask for more information, the above situation is an even better reason -- different people might use the same convention name in vastly different ways. As these are beginners, this would be an excellent time to help them get into good habits.

I have to admit, though, that I'm having a hard time believing "they thought their system called Precision." I'm under the impression that practically every duplicate bridge player in the world would have heard of the real Precision -- they might not all play it, but they know what it is and should know whether they're playing something at all like it. But you said they're beginners, so that could explain the misunderstanding.

[DJNeill]

Hi gru,
You should be posting instead to http://forums.bridgetalk.com/ because David Stevenson posts there.

But my stab would be, in the ABCL: When was the director called? South has a chance to remove the final pass if, say, director was called after the auction but before the play begins. But if the director is not called, South has no way to recover here, since his partner would never be able to deduce so strong a hand on any sequence, I think.

The director has to award to the offending side the worst result at all probable, and, as long as they "played bridge" (which I think they did), to the non-offending side the best result at all likely. The actual results awarded are a judgement call.

Thanks,
Dan

[olegru]

It is not ACBL land.
To make it clear.
South asked before he bid on the first round not immediately after alert and he specificaly asked opponents what system are they playing. No questions about 1 ♣ oppening was asked at that time, no requests to explain the alert were made.

Director was called after game finished. South didn't want to change his final pass to any other bid - he was OK this 1NT even after correct explanation. Point is - he might not pass on the first round after 1♥ bid in the case of correct explanation. He could double or bid 1NT by himself and final contract would be changed.

[barmar]

Since South is an experienced player and EW are beginners, he should know how to ask the right questions. He could have asked "What does 1♣ show?", but instead he asked the poor question "What system are you playing?". While players should try to deduce what someone is really asking and give as complete an answer as is reasonable, beginners cannot be expected to do this well.

So although there was misinformation, the good players had ample opportunity to protect their side and didn't. I'm surprised the TD changed the NS result at all -- what was the link between the misinformation and the misdefense that allowed an extra trick?

[PeterE]

I would award a split score, NS table score, EW 2♥ down 1.

Reasoning for NS: South surely knows PC. 16+7+22 = 45 which is more than possible; compensating values are highly unlikely, due to the 1 NT rebid. 1♣ - 1♥ - 1 NT - pass is impossible in PC, you are forced at least to 2 NT.
All this together South should do more to protect himself. Therefore I judge self-inflicted damage, score stands.

Reasoning for EW: EW surely gave MI, whether intentionally or not is not important. Therefore they shall not gain thru their infraction.
With the correct information South would (probably) double 1♥, West will pass, North bids 2♦ (or 1♠), pass pass, but West will bid 2♥ - final contract.
In 2♥ East makes 7 tricks (at least).

[olegru]

barmar, on May 18 2006, 12:33 PM, said:

I'm surprised the TD changed the NS result at all

He didn't change for NS, left 1NT made 9 tricks. Changed only for EW.

[sfbp]

This is exactly why telling opps the NAME of a convention is useless. South should know better than to ask the name of the system they are playing.

Also if South has any brains at all he will realise that the auction stinks to high heaven of Polish Club, where 1C is either strong, clubs, or balanced Weak NT. No other possible auction makes sense unless the 1H bidder explains his bid as "GF 5+hearts" or something similar. The fact that South doesnt have to put up with this in the ACBL is no excuse. That's there, and here's here. There is an obligation to use one's brain when playing bridge,

In that case South *knows* that the points don't add up, and should ask West the meaning of 1NT. BEFORE the auction ended.

Of course, it's always possible that West psyched, but the failure to ask EAST or receive a self-alert from EAST about the 1H bid (not to mention the fact that EAST now passed 1NT after making a game forcing bid in precision, which according to OP "everyone knows") is South's own fault.

The explanation of 11-14 points was correct.

Were the players by any chance showing Polish Flag, with Polish names, and perhaps some std Polish conventions?

No adjustment.

[olegru]

sfbp, on May 18 2006, 01:49 PM, said:

Were the players by any chance showing Polish Flag, with Polish names, and perhaps some std Polish conventions?

This case came from f2f game, not from BBO.
In place where it was played Polish club and Precision are two most popular systems.

Quote

Also if South has any brains at all he will realise that the auction stinks to high heaven of Polish Club, where 1C is either strong, clubs, or balanced Weak NT. ...
In that case South *knows* that the points don't add up, and should ask West the meaning of 1NT. BEFORE the auction ended.

Answer Precision at that moment meant strong club for everybody who hear it, nobody will ask for additional clarification until he has reason to expect explanation to be wrong. If South started ask for detail of 1 club opening he would unavoidable give his partner unauthorized information and probably give some additional information to opponents if West actually choose opening 1 club with week hand but good distribution.

[sfbp]

well i didn't catch that on the first time, that was offline bridge

but I stand by my comment, South is not relieved of an obligation to play bridge

If precision opener and positive response then he cannot possibly have the hand he is holding.

[barmar]

olegru, on May 18 2006, 12:59 PM, said:

barmar, on May 18 2006, 12:33 PM, said:

I'm surprised the TD changed the NS result at all

He didn't change for NS, left 1NT made 9 tricks. Changed only for EW.

I misunderstood 1NT+2 as 1NT making 2 (this is how we tend to report results in the US), not 1NT making with 2 overtricks (how much of the rest of the world, and BBO, describes results).

[pigpenz]

sfbp, on May 18 2006, 08:08 PM, said:

well i didn't catch that on the first time, that was offline bridge

but I stand by my comment, South is not relieved of an obligation to play bridge

If precision opener and positive response then he cannot possibly have the hand he is holding.

I can remember about 25 yrs ago a hand I had against MHems mom....in third seat with 9 broken ♣'s i opened 2NT(20-21)...auction then went all pass. At end of auction my RHO opps asked his partner why she didnt bid, she said "partner I had 23 hcp and didnt know what to do"