[aguahombre]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-July-07, 14:31, said:

The only time I've played them (WJR) it was 5-8 ish, so different definitions do exist.

Maybe someday when it isn't a hijack, we might discuss CPU's when responder's simple rebid of his same suit at the two-level denies a minimum responding single suiter.

[Cyberyeti]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-07, 15:55, said:

Maybe someday when it isn't a hijack, we might discuss CPU's when responder's simple rebid of his same suit at the two-level denies a minimum responding single suiter.

That was our SJS equivalent or close, 1♦ then rebidding them was GF.

[barmar]

What does "nullify the effect of the existence of the agreement" mean?

Suppose you have an agreement that opening 2NT shows minors, and this allows you to reach a good 3♣ contract that most others would have difficulty finding.

Case 1, you disclose it properly. No problem.

Case 2, you don't disclose it.
A. The disclosure problem causes the opponents to misbid, so we can adjust based on disclosure laws.
B. The opponents wouldn't have done anything different even with disclosure.

2B seems to be the one you're talking about. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't let them reach their 3♣ contract in this case?

[RMB1]

Law 40A3 can be read to say that you can not make a call if there is a concealed partnership understanding about the call. So it is possible to argue that if the ruling is that a call was based on a CPU then the adjustment should be as if the call had not been made. This is the sort of argument that leads to Law 12C1(d).

[barmar]

If the adjustment were that we treat it as if the illegal call hadn't been made, I think Law 40B4 would be moot. I think that law's existence implies that the call stands, and we only adjust if the concealment caused damage (assuming the agreement would be legal if properly disclosed).

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-July-07, 16:11, said:

What does "nullify the effect of the existence of the agreement" mean?

Suppose you have an agreement that opening 2NT shows minors, and this allows you to reach a good 3♣ contract that most others would have difficulty finding.

Case 1, you disclose it properly. No problem.

Case 2, you don't disclose it.
A. The disclosure problem causes the opponents to misbid, so we can adjust based on disclosure laws.
B. The opponents wouldn't have done anything different even with disclosure.

2B seems to be the one you're talking about. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't let them reach their 3♣ contract in this case?

Yes, 2B is the case we're talking about. I was answering the question that c_corgi asked in posts 40 and 47, about how one could use Law 40C1 to justify adjusting for a fielded misbid, when there is no damage from the lack of disclosure. But I wasn't suggesting that we should do this.

[pran]

barmar, on 2012-July-07, 16:11, said:

What does "nullify the effect of the existence of the agreement" mean?

Suppose you have an agreement that opening 2NT shows minors, and this allows you to reach a good 3♣ contract that most others would have difficulty finding.

Case 1, you disclose it properly. No problem.

Case 2, you don't disclose it.
A. The disclosure problem causes the opponents to misbid, so we can adjust based on disclosure laws.
B. The opponents wouldn't have done anything different even with disclosure.

2B seems to be the one you're talking about. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't let them reach their 3♣ contract in this case?

gnasher, on 2012-July-08, 03:11, said:

Yes, 2B is the case we're talking about. I was answering the question that c_corgi asked in posts 40 and 47, about how one could use Law 40C1 to justify adjusting for a fielded misbid, when there is no damage from the lack of disclosure. But I wasn't suggesting that we should do this.

If opponents with correct information could have chosen a different action than what they actually did with the misinformation then (and only then) can the misinformation have damaged opponents.

In that case the Director is justified in assessing the possible alternative results with their respective probabilities and then assigning a corresponding adjusted score.

Consequently no adjustment is justified in case 2B above. (However, a PP - e.g. a warning - could still be in order.)

[blackshoe]

Where does this "would the opponents do something different?" bit come from? I don't see it in the laws anywhere.

Edit: Never mind, I see it now: the expectation, had the infraction (failure to disclose) not occurred, is the same if the opponents would have done nothing different, so there is no damage (Law 12B1).

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2012-July-08, 08:38
Reason for edit: I woke up. B-)

[blackshoe]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-07, 04:35, said:

An understanding is never disclosed and at the end of the hand the director rules that it was a CPU. The effect of the CPU was (e.g.) that the offenders reached a cold 5C contract that no other pair could find. The non-offenders were not damaged by the absence of disclosure: they could not have done any better with complete disclosure, or even double dummy. Since the understanding that was concealed (apparently in violation of L40C1 sentence 1) was the reason the offenders achieved a good score, I am asking: can the director adjust for this under 40C1?

blackshoe, on 2012-July-07, 07:03, said:

Here, the infraction is use of a CPU. The innocent side would not have received the score they did had the CPU not been used (this offending pair, like all the other pairs, would not have found the 5♣ contract) had the CPU not been used. Therefore yes, the director can adjust for this under 40C1.

My statement here was incorrect. If there is no damage because the outcome would have been the same if the methods had been properly disclosed, the opponent doing nothing different, then there can be no score adjustment. As was pointed out upthread, though, a PP could be issued. Keep in mind though that in considering "doing something different", the TD must consider the play as well as the bidding. If the OS would have reached the same contract with proper disclosure, the job is not over yet; would the defense have been different had they known? (Of course, if the failure to disclose was corrected before the opening lead, this does not apply).

[Cascade]

Fluffy, on 2012-July-03, 08:55, said:

south has 14 HCP and you think playing a part score after partner opens is a LA? LOL

However it maybe that 3♦ is a logical alternative to 3NT and north thinking south is weak may pass.

We would need to see the hands to make this judgement

[mikl_plkcc]

schulken, on 2012-July-03, 08:44, said:

---

S's 2♦ bid was alerted as a weak jump shift. N hesitated before bidding 2NT. S, holding 14 HCP and a long ♦ suit, raised to game. Director summoned by defenders.

S says he did not hear his partner's alert and explanation. (I'm reporting this as it was explained to me, so down with the cat calls.) Director ruled at the table that weak jump shifts were marked on the card and was the partnership agreement. N had properly alerted his partner's call and defenders had received an accurate description of their agreement. He further rolled back the contract to 2NT (making 5), stating that S had no LA to pass given the auction and their agreement. The howls of protest began and everyone went home unhappy.

When this scenario was presented to me, I was inclined to agree with the director. I was not impressed that S "had not heard" his partner's alert, when both defenders had. It strikes me that this is a L16B.1.(a) "unexpected alert" that awakened him to his mistaken call and he should pass 2NT. With a typical 6-8 HCP hand with long ♦ that would be expected by his bid, I can't support his bidding again. On the other hand, had his bid not been alertable and he had realized his error before the auction had been completed (without any verbal cues from his partner), I would allow him to continue bidding as his partner and the opponents would be equally confused by his torpor (not exactly L75C., but more like L40C).

As always, I look forward to your learned counsel.

I don't believe that there was irregularity involved, assuming that 2♦ was actually a psych.
Opener bid 1♣, which was wide-ranging;
Responder bid 2♦, which was alerted as a WJS, exactly the agreement. Opener now expects a hand with long diamonds with about 6-8 HCPs;
Opener than invited a game, knowing that responder had 6-8 HCPs. Responder than inferred that the opening was about 16 HCPs, which could make a game if the ♦ could run;
Responder, actually holding 14 HCPs, happily accepted the game invitation.

The auction was completely normal, if 2♦ was actually a psych.

[blackshoe]

mikl_plkcc, on 2012-July-09, 03:46, said:

I don't believe that there was irregularity involved, assuming that 2♦ was actually a psych.
Opener bid 1♣, which was wide-ranging;
Responder bid 2♦, which was alerted as a WJS, exactly the agreement. Opener now expects a hand with long diamonds with about 6-8 HCPs;
Opener than invited a game, knowing that responder had 6-8 HCPs. Responder than inferred that the opening was about 16 HCPs, which could make a game if the ♦ could run;
Responder, actually holding 14 HCPs, happily accepted the game invitation.

The auction was completely normal, if 2♦ was actually a psych.

Why would you assume there was a psych? Surely if South had psyched, he'd have said so. He apparently didn't. Also, a psych of this nature seems rather unlikely, to me.

[bluejak]

c_corgi, on 2012-July-06, 19:03, said:

So can damage caused by the use of the CPU, but not by the absence of disclosure, be rectified under L40C1 in the form of an adjusted score?

Sure. Well, not necessarily through Law 40C1, but 40A3.

Quote

LAW 40: PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS
A. Players’ Systemic Agreements

3. A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

So if a player makes a call which is based on a CPU, that call is illegal, and any adjustment applies as though that call was not made.

It is because of the impossibility of calculating what would happen in most cases if that call were not made that the EBU uses a Regulation based on Law 12C1D to adjust.

[c_corgi]

bluejak, on 2012-July-11, 10:00, said:

Sure. Well, not necessarily through Law 40C1, but 40A3.


So if a player makes a call which is based on a CPU, that call is illegal, and any adjustment applies as though that call was not made.

It is because of the impossibility of calculating what would happen in most cases if that call were not made that the EBU uses a Regulation based on Law 12C1D to adjust.

Doesn't 40A3 simply refer to 40C1 for what to do in such circumstances? Whether that is the case or not, using that as the basis for the EBU reglation seems to rely on the same literal and draconian interpretation that Blackshoe says is not applicable for 40C1. It would mean that failure to disclose Stayman would lead to an artificial adjusted score when the convention had successfully located an 8 card major fit.