Join Bridge Winners
Something seems wrong with the rules, no rectification needed

ACBLand, should it matter.

Other table of a swiss teams match. Opponents are of the highest caliber in both skill and in integrety. I am absolutely positive both would actively do whatever they're supposed to do regardless of it's potential to negatively affect them. Sometimes it's hard to know what to do. I think they both acted correctly -- this query is about the correctness of the existing rules, not questioning the players' actions.

They play that after a 1 opening their 2 call is natural, and they play instead that a 2 overcall (of 1) is michaels for both majors. I'm my opinion it's a pretty easy agreement to forget. It's unquestionably their agreement. 

A teammate opens 1 and second seat overcalls 2, alerted, and when asked explained as Michaels for the majors. In reality overcaller holds KQ  JT87653  2  Q63. 3 by responder, 3 by advancer (his hand is AI to him, certainly), 4 by opener, pass by overcaller, 5 by responder, all pass. Advancers's hand is T986542  AQ  K4  T7. That's rather more spades than most of us hold when partner has Michaels'd. 

We're not harmed, again assuming advancer's hand is AI, as it must be. At the other table opener's side reached 6, and neither contract makes. Win 2. It was the last match of the day, and we won the event, so even if they might have had a bigger accident there was no harm to us. But something seems wrong -- not because I want a side punished for a misunderstanding, but because the rules seem to make calls with a high risk of forgetting a lower risk than other calls.

They've described their agreements correctly, and advancers' hand is AI to him, so he doesn't have to believe his partner. But when declarer plays the hand missing 8 spades or 9 spades, for example, he's never ever going to get the shapes right. And there's nothing the offending side should do to alleviate the problem. In this situation, both members of the forgetful side get much more distributional information than declarer. Advancer isn't supposed to tell declarer he's playing partner to have forgotten. 

To take them further out of the mix, I play with most partners that (1m) - 2m is natural (and we just don't play Michaels here), but if partner is prone to forget, I'd be more likely to have an inordinate number of the minor and fewer than usual in the M's, so there is more built in protection than with other agreements, it seems to me. And my own hand must be AI, to me, but not to declarer if we're the defending side.

I don't know what the fix potentially could be. Maybe if you play something very forgetful-oriented (like 2nt - 3nt as conventional?), you're not allowed to assume partner forgot at your first call? But how to define that, even if it was a good idea (which it probably isn't a good idea at all). Having no solution to propose, this still goes against my basic sense of fairness. If Mike's wasn't their agreement, of course, we could ask for an adjustment if we relied on normal distributional information in the play, but that doesn't apply when it is their agreement but partner's at least somewhat likely to have a weak 2 instead of Mike's. 

I'm interested in if in general folks think this is a defect in the rules, or if the rules in this area are fine, just occasionally with unintended side effects. Cheers.

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top