kaustabh

I am not sure but according to me it is not the responsibilty of the appeallant/appeal committe to prove that UI was used rather accused side should have the responsibilty to prove that they did not use the UI.

I was again reviewing the actions taken by west and some more points came to my mind : 1) Does the inability of alerting the 3C bid ( which is good club according to their methods ) by his P is an UI for him. 2) Whether he has the UI or not, is the 3NT bid logical over 3S after knowing P has 6C and 4S or he selected that since he guessed ( HOW ? ) that P does not have C and they were undergoing a misunderstanding. 3) Even if I assume that he did not do anything irrational till his P bids 4S, how can he pass 4S double, it is very difficult to construct hands where 4S will make (especially after the double ) and 5C will go down.I do not know that if someone is allowed to say that he guessed that something was going wrong and took a gamble, because then the next question will be how he guessed and he has to provide some reasoning that can be logically derived from the auction to support the guess work ( I do not think there was any because he alerted 4S as 6C + 5S ).If someone can not state anything then he must not be allowed to pass 4S as we should assume then that the decision was influenced by some out of bridge indications like mannerism from the partner, facial expressions or quickness of the S bids.

That was perhaps my fault, I did not explained that in detail, NS appealed to have +500 in 5D doubled or in 6D doubled whcih is the likely sopt where EW would have ended if E would not use the UI.

I posted this ruling problem in bridgewinners.com as well, I liked how Steve Bloom analyzed the problem there, sharing that : 1) There is no evidence that West had any UI, so no bid by West can be challenged. You may not agree with a bid by West, but that doesn't matter. West is free to bid as he sees fit, including working out that partner really meant 2S to show spades. (2) East has clear-cut UI, and all of East's bids should come under a microscope. (3) Even if 3C showed a spade fit with club values, that doesn't mean four spades is a poor game. Couldn't West have, say, KQxx xxx Ax AKxx? Five spades is very good opposite that. Since West might also hold a hand like KQxx Jxx Jx AKQx, where game is very poor, you can't force West to bid either three spades or four spades. Bidding 3D over 3C looks normal, and is dangerous only when you know there has been a misunderstanding. I would force a 3D call by East. (4) A 3D call would almost certainly lead to five clubs doubled, pulled to five diamonds. That is down three, so, on a committee, I would rule 5DX, -500. So, the committee made a bad ruling. What went wrong? I think both the director, and the appellants, focused on West's bidding, which could never be blamed. It is also possible that they didn't see the entry problems in 5D, and considered +300 adequate compensation for the damage.

Two points : 1) 4S is not cold it always goes two down. 2) 3D ( C and D ) or 4S ( C suit and short S ) bids over 3C would not keep any aveneue open for W ro play in a contract below 5C

And if we assume that that 3C should be C value and S raise is the E hand not worth for a 3D trial if not for a 4S bid ( for an example against KQxx Jxx Kx AKxx or AQxx Kxx Jx AQxx or Qxxx Qxx Ax AKQx ) No evidence of UI, but NS felt that E almost took no time to make 3S and 4S bids.

According to the actual agreement 3C is good clubs, 2NT is bad clucbs.Yes the 3C bid is alertable in Indian National Championship.

down 2 i.e. +300 for NS

Please assume that the Indian alerting rule is same as what is used in WBF tournaments

Screen was not present and all the bids made by E were alerted by W and provided the explanation shown below.NS called the director as they could not understand how W can pass 4S doubled( and also how he elected 3NT over 3S ) with doubleton S and 4C knowing E has longer C than S.Director allowed the table result to stand.NS appealed against the ruling provided by the director but appeal committee also agreed to the directors ruling and NS money was forfeited as appeal committee did not find any relevance of the appeal. Want to hear some opinions on this, and please let me know if the ruling u r thinking of, would change in presence of a screen. Another point I should mention, E did not alert W 3C bid and he was not asked about that neither by the director nor by the appeal committee.[hv=pc=n&s=sa7652h5dq4cjt953&w=skqhj42dkj65cak74&n=s3hkqt873da2cq862&e=sjt984ha96dt9873c&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1n(15-17)d(One%20Suit)2s(Transfer%20To%20Club)p3cp3s(6C%20+%204S)p3np4s(6C%20+%205S)dppp]399|300[/hv]

In the recently held Singhania Invitational pairs tournament in India following deal came up in Round 17 on the third day. Board No. 4 [hv=d=w&v=b&n=sj85hdqt987543c53&w=s963hkqjt8432dcj9&e=st72ha965dckq7642&s=sakq4h7dakj62cat8]399|300|Scoring: IMP North and East were screen mates & South and West were screen mates[/hv] West opened the bidding with 3H. Tray came to N-E side. North having no bid passed. Here East looking at his hand knew what is happening and decided to bid 4C. Tray was then pushed to S-W side. West informed S that 4C is natural. S then doubled (in his opinion to show a very good hand with other two suits), West bids 4H and tray was then given to N-E. Seeing the double and sensing something N asked East the meaning of 4C bid. He asked specifically to East what your partner has taken 4C as. Because meaning of South’s double is only clear depending on what was explained to him as 4C. East mentioned 4C is cue bid. Ofcourse N clarified that double is club suit as per their partnership understanding. However E bids 4N and tray was given to S-W. S saw North has not taken any action and decided to pass. West bids 5C and finally bidding ended at 5H with no action from S and East accomplished his mission of keeping NS away from their biddable little slam (grand slam not biddable). After North led the club and S cashed his 4 tricks with 5H going two down, North asked South, what was 4C explained to him (N knew some thing was wrong as his partner didn’t had Club suit. S informed he was told 4C as natural and N informed he was told cue bid. Different explanations on both sides. North said if he had the same explanation as South, they would have reached 6D. Ofcourse EW didn’t agree, tempers got raised, resulting in heated arguments and director was called. Facts were established and director after some time came back – ruling table result stands. Not satisfied with director’s ruling NS decided to appeal. Appeal committee also ruled table result stands as South failed to double 4NT. Nothing was mentioned at all in the appeal ruling about different explanations on both sides of the screen altogether. They didn’t even check the convention card of EW, as to what treatment it mentions after 3H opening. The onus was on S to double 4NT. Therefore the whole culprit in their opinion was S and that is why table result stands. Different explanations on both sides of the screen didn’t matter to them at all. Where as I am sure if any one of that player was in North’s seat, only then it would have mattered to them also. Dear friends, I request all of you to give your comments.