Chris L

Messrs Burn & Lamford have convinced themselves that the idea that NS play 2S as NF in this sequence and don't play splinters in competition except in the opponents' suit is a lot of fantastical self-serving nonsense invented to justify 3NT. They may be right; no one (apart from the pair in question) knows. At least some contributors to this thread apparently play (or know others who play) similar methods. What disturbs me about Messrs Burn & Lamford's utter certainty is that they are not prepared to concede for a moment that, self-serving though it may be, what was said might in fact be true and are quite happy to fill the roles of kangaroo court and lynch mob not only for North but also for the TD. I much prefer the more balanced approach of Gordon Rainsford (who made the point, very early on in this thread, that we need to know the NS methods - a point which has yet to be answered). Given his recent "promotion" no doubt Messrs Burn & Lamford regard him as an apologist for the EBU and its TDs.

In my experience (limited for the most part to one particular player at my club who also played the "French Defence to 1NT" before announcements were introduced, but there have been a few others) whenever anyone asks about an unannounced or unalerted 2♣ response to 1NT, they always have ♣. Most of the time they hear "Sorry, Stayman" or whatever and can double to show ♣ legally - but on the rare occasion they hear "It wasn't alerted; it shows ♣" they have probably compromised partner.

The TD told me he had consulted before deciding on the question of the 3NT bid. I think, but cannot be certain, that he said "a couple" (which, in colloquial English, and before people start jumping up and down about that, rarely means exactly two) or he may have said "a few". Given the timings, he wouldn't have had time to do much more - there was an interval of ten minutes between matches 6 and 7 and this table was the last to finish in our match v Surrey; I don't know when in that match this board arose nor when, precisely, our pair asked for a ruling. Part of that interval would have been taken up by the need to check all the scores were in and to post the results on the board. Once the last match started, the number of players available to consult (not all of whom would have been "peers" of North) would have been a maximum of four. The TD called me away from the table at which I was watching in our last match about half way through the match and gave me his ruling then.

As the person who started this ball rolling, I hope I may be permitted a few observations. Readers of bridge articles who don't actually play the game might be forgiven for thinking that the game was all about brilliancies by declarer or the defence whereas those of us who actually play know that, most of the time, at whatever level, it is more about making fewer errors than the oppo. I sometimes wonder whether some of the members of this forum don't lose sight of the fact that rulings, particularly "judgement rulings" are a very small, though not unimportant, part of the tournament bridge scene. I act as NPC only in the Tollemache Competition; in 19 qualifiers and 13 finals (just over 3,000 boards each played at 4 tables so something over 12,000 opportunties for problems to arise) you could probably count the number of times we have been involved in "judgement rulings" on the toes of Fred Titmus's left (or is it right?) foot. In this particular case, my side asked for a "judgement ruling" and got one from the TD. Not having attended Ricky Ponting's lessons on how to deal with decisions of arbiters which don't happen to suit my side, I start from the basis that a TD appointed by the EBU to oversee the final of a national event is not only highly likely to be more than competent to do so but also to be right a lot more often than not. TD's, like bridge players, sometimes make mistakes - and then we have appeal committees to overrule them if appropriate. Had I thought for one minute that we had a "cast iron" case, I would happily have sanctioned an appeal if that's what the team wanted to do (assuming someone could have found the £30 deposit as I had run out of cash by then). I didn't think we did, the pair directly affected didn't want to appeal and the effect of a successful appeal wasn't that important. Had it been the case, for example, that Surrey would have won the event in the absence of an appeal but we (or another team) would have won it with a successful appeal, then it would have been right to appeal, to protect the integrity of the event, even if we thought our chances weren't that great. Having read all the contributions to this thread (which I started out of curiosity, as, no doubt, did Frances with her poll) there are still a number of grey areas which might well have a bearing on the outcome of a hypothetical appeal. We know that the NS pair play a lot of "stuff" and, according to Gnasher, that they don't always spend enough time on it to remember it all. We also know, from Jeffrey via Frances, that they change what they play quite often. When N bid 1♥, he obviously thought that he was showing ♥; according to Robin, when 1♥ was alerted, North continued to think that he had bid in accordance with the latest version of their system (and was of course obliged to carry on bidding as if he had, whether or not that turned out to be right). It is still not clear whether 2♠ by S would have been natural but NF; the fact that N didn't alert 3♠ is some evidence that he thought it was natural and not a splinter. Some seem more ready than I would be to assume that it was evidence that N was "ethically challenged". If 3♠ was natural and forcing, then a natural 3NT, if part of their armoury, seems fairly obvious to me. When all is said and done, "nobody died". My team, if they have spent any time since Sunday thinking about the event, won't have spent much of it thinking about this board.

I'm sure they aren't bothered about the putative loss of a couple of greenies - or even by the loss of a gold jobbie to which the additional greenies would have entitled them. We went there for the gold medal and are still wondering how we managed to blow it after being in a very good position overnight :)

In the OP I said I wasn't sure who doubled 3NT but Frances confirms it was E not W

I don't know whether 3♠ was alerted; Frances may. If N did alert it, even he might be struggling to justify 3NT!

I thought Frances said that XX is how this pair shows ♥ after 1m-(X), so in that sequence surely 3♠ is capable of being either a splinter agreeing ♥ or natural - and Frances said in a previous post that she thought they played 3♠ as natural in that sequence. If all that is right, then maybe that's what the TD established?

Of course I accept what Frances says and apologise to her and Jeffery; the post quoted by her (unlike the OP quoted by Lamford) goes too far in attributing a stated belief that the appeal would fail to them. What they did say, as Frances describes, reinforced my own view of the outcome of an appeal and no doubt I have confused what they actually said with the effect it had on my thinking. We seem to have reached the position where no one actually knows how the pair in question would play the nearest analogous auction referred to by Frances in another post ( 1♦ -(X)- XX-(2♣)-3♠ - except possibly the TD who may have asked all the right questions before coming to his decision).

I am sure we are all grateful for that small mercy. :)

Nigel_k has not limited himself to addressing the literal question in the title; he expresses the view that, against the background of the clear majority on this thread in favour of disallowing the 3NT bid (and assuming a like-minded committee), an appeal "could" have been successful and, in that sense, expresses his opinion that my decision not to proceed with it was "probably" wrong. I find nothing "defensive" or "convoluted" in my subsequent posts. I may well have made the wrong decision but I had at the time what seemed to me to be more than sufficient reasons for making it; there's quite a gap between that and "screwed up".

As I thought a previous post had made clear, I didn't seek Frances & Jeffery out for their opinion; it was volunteered in the course of a perfectly friendly discussion. I know them both pretty well and respect their views in such matters and their integrity. Not the least remarkable thing about this, given the vehemence of some of the views expressed (and allowing for the tendency of some people to exaggerate in order to make a point) is that no one on my team felt that this was a hanging offence, not least the pair directly affected. Maybe we were all just tired and disappointed with our performance on the Sunday. I wasn't asking for a lecture on my role as match captain (I have been doing the job now for 20 years with some success) or even a (temporary) allegation that I might not have been able to work out the scoring sufficiently accurately to establish exactly what was at stake. I would have thought that one of the functions of a non-playing captain was to take a more dispassionate view on such matters as appeals. And, given what I believed at the time, that is exactly what I did.

Let's be clear - I am not making any allegations against Frances or Jeffery, each of whom I have known for, I would think, the best part of 20 years; they have both represented Cambs & Hunts in the past and the two teams are on very good terms. They volunteered their views in the course of a friendly discussion when we were all milling about at the end of the event and we were considering whether to appeal. Given that their experience of how appeal committees work is far greater than mine, I thought that their views were entitled to considerable weight, notwithstanding that they were members of the offending side. Their views also happened to coincide with mine on the question of the extreme improbability that the 3♠ bid was a splinter agreeing ♥. It also seemed to me that, if N was entitled to know (from a combination of his own hand and their systemic agreements about splinters) that 3♠ couldn't be a splinter then (i) it could only be a natural bid and (ii) given that W had (by implication) shown at least ♣ tolerance with his T/O double and that E had bid ♣, 3NT seemed a fairly obvious bid for N to make - and the TD, after consultation, had evidently come to the same conclusion.

I'm pretty sure there are no material facts missing; no doubt Frances and/or Jeffery can expand on the precise sequences in which NS use splinters and can confirm their stated belief that an appeal had no chance (because whatever 3♠ was it was manifestly not a splinter). North "knows" (either because the alert reminded North that he had misbid or was accompanied by an explanation which had the same effect) but is not allowed to "know" that 3♠ in fact showed ♠ support. Is it the case (as one of my team contended) that he is also not allowed to "know" what is actually in his own hand when considering his legal options over 3♠? In other words, whether he held ♠ xx or (say) ♠ Hxxx, he must treat 3♠ in exactly the same way? That seems to me to be wholly illogical in what is already an artificial situation.

Thank you. I see Frances beat me to it by several hours. Watching my Sky + recording of Ireland v France was higher on my list of priorities when I got back from Hinckley. :)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something but what "other thread" - has this hand been the subject of another post?

[hv=pc=n&s=sj984hqj2dak754ck&w=skq65hat54djc5432&n=s72hk9863dt3caq97&e=sat3h7dq9862cjt86&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1dd1h2c3sp3nppdppp]399|300[/hv] This hand cropped up yesterday in the final of the Tollemache Cup (EBU Inter-County teams of 8) in the match between Cambs & Hunts (of which I was the N-PC) and Surrey (for whom regular BBOL Laws Forum contributors Jeffrey & Frances were playing, though they were not directly involved on this hand). The final double in the hand diagram might have been East's rather than West's but nothing turns on that. NS are a fairly regular partnership and play quite a lot of "stuff". 1♥ by N was alerted by S and explained (I'm not sure whether at the time or before the opening lead) as showing ♠, hence S's 3♠ bid. N had UI from the alert; whether he realised at the time that his bid, systemically, showed ♠ or merely that NS were not on the same wavelength I am not sure, but nothing turns on that, either. EW reserved their rights and, at the end of the hand (when they had allowed 3NT to make though it can be beaten) asked for a ruling first on whether the 1♥ bid had been correctly alerted and described and secondly on N's 3NT bid. This was the penultimate match of the final (an eight team all play all over 14 boards affair with each NS pair IMPing with each EW pair) and matters were slightly complicated by the fact that one of NS had to leave immediately after this penultimate match to catch a plane to Hong Kong and the other one was driving him to the airport. However, before leaving, they gave a copy of their convention card to the TD and explained that they don't play splinters in many sequences and that this was not one of them. The TD came to see me during the final match, explained the facts and that his decision (after consultation on the second point) was that the table result would stand - first because the convention card clearly showed that the 1♥ bid showed ♠ and secondly because he didn't think N had a logical alternative to 3NT. Looking at the NS bidding in isolation, without reference to N's actual hand, at least a substantial number would think that 3♠ by S could only be a splinter bid agreeing ♥. However, if N is also entitled to have regard to his own ♠ holding and to the opponents' bidding (or lack of it) 3♠ is very unlikely to be a splinter because in that case EW (not shy in the bidding, as NS knew) had at least ten ♠ between them and yet had not overcalled the suit over 1♦ or bid it in response to the T/O double. I think N said that 2♠ by S over 2♣ by E would have been NF so that, a natural, forcing, 3♠ bid (putting the UI to one side) was a logical alternative. At the end of the event, the medal positions were such that an adjustment of the result to 4♥ - 1 (whether or not doubled) would have been sufficient for my team to finish in the bronze medal position in place of Surrey. Some of my team (though not the pair directly affected - whose view was "we've asked the TD, he's given his judgement and that should be that") thought we should appeal; I discussed it with Frances & Jeffery amongst others (even though they weren't strictly impartial, but I thought I could trust them) and I was persuaded that an appeal would fail and that I wouldn't waste everyone's time.

Presumably North knew 3♣ was a Bergen raise and doubled to show ♣ whereas South didn't and thought the double showed ♠ and ♦, in which case NS appear to have a big double fit - if that is right then I'm not sure I'd be quite so quick to classify 4♠ by South as "wild or gambling". If North has ♠ AQxx and ♦ Axxx, 4♠ will make a lot of the time and even if he doesn't, EW may be cold for 4♥

The "doubt" referred to in the White Book is surely a reference to whether or not the TD thinks it "likely". Whatever "likely" means (does it mean, for example, "more likely than not"), he may think it is clear cut one way or another - or he may be in doubt, in which case the claimer gets the benefit of that doubt, no doubt in part reflecting the fact that the claim was originally agreed when it could have been challenged.

I don't think this is right. Either there is doubt or there isn't; how can you get less than the full benefit of any doubt? If the claim is immediately objected to, the non-claimer gets the benefit of any doubt. If it is agreed and withdrawn later, the claimer gets it. In the latter case the T D has to decide whether it is "likely" that (here) declarer would have won the trick had play continued; if he does, declarer gets the trick. If he doesn't, or if he's not sure, declarer doesn't.

East's claim was made quite confidently and no one really looked at it before returning their cards to the board; almost immediately dummy pointed out (as was the case) that the contract could have been made trivially had declarer set up the two ♠ winners in her hand before exhausting her entries, which rather took the players' thought processes away from the claim.

According to the White Book, the benefit of any doubt is given to the claimer.

Nothing Machiavellian about East's claim; similar blind spot to South's in accepting it. :rolleyes:

S is in 3NT. After eight tricks, when declarer is in dummy, declarer has five of them. Dummy (North) holds ♦ AKQTx and East holds ♦ J9876, having discarded one earlier. Declarer started with ♦ xx. At this point declarer calls for a top ♦; East then faces his hand and claims the last two tricks. The claim is accepted for +50 to EW. This is the fifth board in a set of 12 making up the first half of a county teams KO match ("Pachabo Qualifying" in EBU land). After another four boards or so, dummy (an experienced EBU TD) realises that the contract could have been made if after cashing one or two top ♦'s, declarer endplays East with a low one - and reserves their rights in relation to the claim. Despite the best efforts of both teams to give the match to their opponents, the end result is a win by declarer's team by 5 IMPs (scoring the board in question as 3NT-1) so the question is of academic interest only, but can/should the TD adjust? The effect of Law 69A is that agreement on the claim is "established". Under Law 69 B 2, that agreement may be withdrawn "if a player has agreed to a loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued". Law 71 deals with the circumstances in which a "concession" may be cancelled and refers to the concession of a trick that could not be lost by any "normal" play of the remaining cards. In a footnote "normal" is defined as including play that would be "careless or inferior" for the class of player involved. I seem to remember that in an earlier version of the Laws the definition of "normal" included the additional words "but not irrational". Assuming we are concerned exclusively with Law 69, is "likely" the same as "normal" - or does it require a higher (or lower) degree of skill from declarer? Declarer is of county "C" team standard, capable (on a good day) of getting this right but at least equally capable of resigning herself to her apparent fate. Had not East (a better player than declarer) made his claim, I think it is more likely than not that declarer would have gone wrong (evidenced not least by her acceptance of the claim). (I was West).