mjk43

Many thanks for all of the helpful comments which came quickly in response to my query. I understand that East doubled when North "had shown" a minor two suiter but would not have done on a correct explanation because East's club suit was a positive factor in the former situation and would have been neutral or negative in the latter. What I take from the comments overall is that although not 100% clear cut, most of the experienced people who commented would, like me, have awarded an adjustment.

I'm looking at Law 12 and the White Book guidance and should be grateful for opinions on a ruling which I saw given at the weekend. The hands were as shown. N/S are red; E/W are green. Dealer South. The bidding goes P - 1♠ - 2♦ - 3♠ P - 4♠ - 4NT - P 5♦ - P - P - ? At this point, East asks South what the 4NT meant and is told "A minor 2 suiter" After thought, East doubles, which is passed out. Before East leads, North corrects the explanation of the 4NT bid - he explains that it is not a minor 2 suiter but simply a bid requiring his partner to bid again. (Yes, it sounds strange - but then so was the 2♦ overcall) The play is straightforward, N/S making 12 tricks for a large score. E/W reserve their rights. The Director is playing (this is teams of eight) so a ruling is given at the end of the match. East contends that with a correct explanation he would not have doubled and the score should be adjusted to 5♦ + 1 The ruling given was "no adjustment. East's double of 5♦ if the explanation given of the 4NT had been correct was a bad bid and East got what he deserved". I have to say, I'd have ruled differently. East's bid made not be the best judgement but it seems to fall well short of serious error or wild action. I'd be grateful for the views of more experienced directors. [hv=pc=n&s=s73hj8753da62caq8&w=saq8654hqdq7ck742&n=s2hak942dkt9843c5&e=skjt9ht6dj5cjt963&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1s2d3sp4s4np5dppdppp]399|300[/hv]

This hand occurred at our local club duplicate a couple of weeks ago. The director ruled one way and the pair who did not like the director's decision appealed to the club's appeals committee who ruled the other way. We should all like to learn from expert views on what the ruling should have been, please. [hv=pc=n&s=shat762dkqt5cjt93&w=saq93hqj43dj62cq5&n=skjt74h98da983ck2&e=s8652hk5d74ca8764&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=pp1n2sp2nppd3cp3ddppp]399|300|North’s 2S was alerted by South as “spades and a minor”<br>South’s 2NT was not alerted<br>[/hv] The strength of players in the club varies considerably; North South were not regular visitors to the club. North South had no convention card. On putting down dummy, South announced "You know what 2NT means, partner, we discussed it last time". North said he did not remember. The director was called and asked to have the hand presented at the end of the evening as he was a playing director and had not yet played the board - he later gave a ruling. East's view at the time was that South's unalerted 2NT was to play (with the variety of standards at the club, many pairs do not have a system of continuation after aspro). Seeking a good pairs score, East doubled. In the auction, he then assumed that South panicked on hearing the double and sought to settle in North's minor or possibly a long club suit. The double of 3D was again based on the points being evenly split and North South having got themselves into a pickle. From the auction, East can deduce that South is likely to hold between 0 and 2 spades, between 5 and 7 hearts and hence about 6 cards in the minors but with no certainty about how they are split between clubs and diamonds. 3 diamonds doubled made plus one. Given that there is potentially both UI and misinformation, what is the approrpiate ruling ? Many thanks from all concerned both at the table and dealing with the ruling and the appeal.

Had ruling which I paste below (exactly as received). If I'm right in thinking that all rulings where deposit is kept go to Law & Ethics people at EBU for review, then I wish they'd kept the deposit. At least then the director's astonishing outburst would have been considered by those who should see it ! "Misbids are ot treated differently because of the cause. It is presumed that, without overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that an alert or non-alert causes a realisation of the misbid. There is therefore UI. 4H may not be well judged, but everyone polled made it or considered it. It is therefore a logical alternative. (but this argument saved the deposit) A double by East would be extremely likely by all players of div standard. There is no reason to adjust the play. Sometimes declarers play doubled contracts better, sometimes worse, so we wouldn’t make an adjustment for that reason. As an aside DF plays double dummy not best line, so please ask players not to cite it as evidence."

Thank you all for your very helpful responses, with the aid of which I have now submitted my submission to accompany the appeal. I shall reply again to let you know the outcome. Many thanks !

Thank you - how can I access a copy of the form please ? (I don't think that is a reasonable assumption but that's up to the committee to decide)

I’d be grateful for some advice as I frame my submission for an Appeals Committee – in particular around Law 93B3. The background is a match played in the first division of a County league. No director present. A hand on which the following happened: I pick up my cards and see a very standard 3rd in hand, green, 3C opening. Partner passes, RHO bids 1S but I don’t initially register that and pull out both Stop and 3C cards. Our system (as I play in all three of my regular partnerships is Ghestem). Almost as soon as I have put the 3C card on the table, I realise that RHO has opened and I know that my bid is Ghestem and that partner knows that this is Ghestem. Partner is a very measured player and it is still another couple of seconds before her Alert card hits the table. I don’t think that I have any UI from the alert or the explanation – neither is unexpected in the least. Partner bids 3H and all pass and, distracted by events, she misplays to go 3 off (it should be 2 off). Opponents claim at the end of the match that the score should be adjusted to 4Hx-4 (the minimum needed for an extra VP). The hand was sent to the League who gave it to a TD to rule. The TD ruled “The alert of the 3C bid (by S) does give UI to North. As such Laws 16 and 73C apply” and after stating that 4H is an LA, adjusted the score to 4Hx-4 as requested by the opponents. I am writing our appeal which will be heard by a committee of 3 very experienced players. The TD has emailed the county official organising the committee stating in very strong terms that the committee may not overturn the decision on whether there is UI, insisting that this is a point of law and protected by 93B3. In both a covering note to the ruling and his email to the County official, the TD refers to my having “remembered the system” and broadly states that everyone would claim to do that and in any case doing so does not avoid UI. In saying this, I would contend that the TD is misunderstanding and ruling incorrectly on a point of fact, not law. I did not “remember” the system – I never forgot it. It is inconceivable that I would as I play competitive bridge once or twice a week always and only with Ghestem. I just didn’t register the 1S bid and pulled out my card to “open” 3C. This explanation was accepted as honest at the table at the time by the opponents (but they still reserved their rights, as is their entitlement, believing nonetheless that I should have raised 3H). Surely, I would argue, in those circumstances, there can be no Extraneous Information and that too must be a matter of fact. I had not previously realised how important it was to classify the TD’s decision making process in reaching a ruling. As I would analyse it, in this situation it goes • What happened ? – fact • Did what happened convey extraneous information ? – fact • Was that extraneous information UI ? – law • What are the consequences in principle of UI ? – law • What adjusted score should be awarded ? – judgement So, the advice I’m seeking is primarily on the application of Law 93B3 in these circumstances. Do you agree with the above analysis and what is the remit of the committee as to ruling on whether there is UI ? Secondarily, if there were UI, given the stringent test in the new White Book, I accept that 4H is an LA. But it is not clear that opponents would double what appears to be a freely bid game based on a distributional hand and 4H should really go 3 off so should the TD not have given a weighted score based on 4H-4, 4H-3, 4Hx-4 and 4Hx-3 ? With many thanks

In the local club's pairs tournament, (which also happened to be a heat of the world sims), we had a ruling from the director of 60% to us (our session average was in the 50's) and 30% to our opponents. Without an adjusted score, had the director insisted the hand be quickly finished, we'd have scored 100%. The director said he is allowed to award a maximum of 60%; at home later, I wonder whether 12.10 in the White Book gives him discretion to award more. Advice greatly appreciated please. Here is the background (it is board 9 of the world sims on 4 June if you still have the booklet). Playing against a pair known to be troublesome. My LHO opens 1H, partner overcalls 3S, RHO bids 4H and that ends the auction. Partner puts a card face down, I confirm "no questions", partner turns it over to reveal KS. At this point, dummy says "I have the Ace of those" and proceeds to lay down a hand with a void in Spades, AK10x of Hearts and two minor suits each headed by the King. Declarer studies dummy for a few seconds and says "play the Ace". Dummy contributes the smallest trump, not the Ace. We call the director and seek a ruling and director requires dummy to play the Ace of Hearts. Declarer proceeds to play as slowly as he humanly can whilst dummy berates us constantly about our appalling behaviour in not accepting the small Heart at trick 1. It turns out that trick 1 has made no difference to the score as it becomes apparent after about 6 tricks that partner's pre-emptive overcall was effective - they have 13 tricks on top. Declarer nevertheless continues to play at a snail's pace while dummy continues to berate us. The move has been called some minutes ago, we reach trick 11, declarer is still going in slow motion and I made what now seems to be a tactical error: I called the director. Presumably, we could instead have conceded the rest of the tricks and written up 4H+3 to them for a top for us. The director is annoyed with our opponents, rules that the board is out of time and awards 60% and 30%. We pointed out to him the unjustness at the time and asked him again at the end of the session whether he had discretion to award a fairer score. He was convinced that his hands are tied at 60% (or session average if higher). Are they? Or where that is blatantly unfair to the non-offending side, can director award more?