What is your approach?

[Finch]

There are a number of different issues brought up here.

 

i) The first bidding problem. 2♠ is an interesting psychic manoeuvre, designed to try and slow the auction down. I don't think it's a silly as other people make out, although i agree that 4S (or even just 5C) are the 'honest' calls.

 

ii) The second bidding problem. It's obvious to pull the double of 3NT, and I personally think 5C is right.

 

iii) The third bidding problem. IMO partner has been warned about your hand when you pulled 3NTx, and should now be doubling of her own accord, so I pass the redouble in tempo.

 

iv) The TD's ruling. I agree with the TD. I find it difficult to construct a hand where we can double for penalties and then claim passing a redouble is then not a LA (unless it was a deliberate stripe-tailed ape). The very slow pass of the redouble clearly suggests pulling is more likely to be successful.

 

v) The AC's ruling. This type of (incorrect) ruling is known in the UK as a 'Reveley' ruling: you decide to adjust, but then you include in your weighted scores a percentage of a call that you've already decided should not be allowed. You simply cannot say North is allowed to pull 75% of the time: either North's allowed to bid 6C or she isn't. You only get weighted scores when you have to decide how the auction or play might have progressed afterwards. For example, it might be right to award a split result between 5Sxx and 5Sxx+1 depending on how likely you think the overtrick is.

 

By the way, in England at least, the AC are kept unaware of the state of the match for any ruling, so they cannot be influenced by what impact they are having. Of course that's not always possible.

 

vi) Appealing the AC's ruling. I don't know the Scottish regulations, but in England at least you can only appeal an AC's ruling on a point of principle, and even then they will not change the result - they will just address the point of principle. The AC gave an illegal ruling, but sadly you just have to live with it.

[mycroft]

6♣X-1 (-200) 75% of the time, 5♠XX+1 (-1600) 25% of the time, hence -550 (and 14 imps against -1660 in the other room). EW have appealed to the national body, the Laws and Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union, on grounds of incompetence of the AC and are waiting for them to reopen the appeal.

 

Not fully used to 12C3 rulings as they are not accepted yet in the ACBL, but if I remember correctly (and DWS's page agrees with me), this is not the way to score it. Each score given weight should be resulted separately, and the final score determined by the weightings of the results.

 

So -550 is a nonexistent score, but:

75% of +1460 (-200 +1660) = 75% of 16 IMPs = 12 IMPs

+ 25% of +60 (-1600 +1660) = 25% of 2 IMPs = .5 IMPs

= 12.5 IMPs to N/S.

 

Frances' comment about a Reveley ruling seems also correct; however, the SBU may have a different regulation about Reveley rulings than the EBU (and about 12C3 scores, for that matter).

 

Michael.

[Walddk]

vi) Appealing the AC's ruling. I don't know the Scottish regulations, but in England at least you can only appeal an AC's ruling on a point of principle, and even then they will not change the result - they will just address the point of principle. The AC gave an illegal ruling, but sadly you just have to live with it.

If the AC's ruling is illegal, and I agree that it is, then it seems wrong that no one is in a position to rectify the breach of the law. If the NCBO has a Law and Ethics Committee (and Scotland has), wouldn't it be natural for the committee members, when the ruling is put before them, to tell the AC:

 

"Sorry guys, your ruling is illegal. You will have to come up with something that is legal according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Try again".

 

Roland

[Walddk]

Here is the final result of the English! "jury":

 

The Laws & Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union declared themselves disqualified to deal with the case and asked another jurisdiction, the English Bridge Union, to deliver a ruling:

 

The AC of the EBU concluded that pass was a logical alternative for North, they therefore overruled the on site AC and upheld the TDs ruling. The result was adjusted to 5♠XX+1 = 1600. Hence the non offending side only lost 2 IMPs (against 1660 at the other table) and consequently finished first in the women's trials.

 

The winning team will now represent Scotland in the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships next year. This has, quite predictably one must say, caused some animosity between the two teams, and it is expected that the 3rd pair will be selected among pairs from other teams.

 

Oh well, the drama occasionally occurs away from the table and not just at the table. This is also bridge ladies and gentlemen, whether one likes it or not.

 

Roland

[Finch]

Here is the final result of the English! "jury":

 

The Laws & Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union declared themselves disqualified to deal with the case and asked another jurisdiction, the English Bridge Union, to deliver a ruling

That's a little surprising. I assume the L&E committe has a member or members who shouldn't rule (because they are on one of the teams involved or married to a member of one of the teams) but it's odd that the committee as a whole disqualifies itself. I don't know how many people it is in total - perhaps by the time interested parties and the original AC were excluded there wasn't anybody left.

 

This has, quite predictably one must say, caused some animosity between the two teams, and it is expected that the 3rd pair will be selected among pairs from other teams.

 

I don't agree that it is "predictable" that there is such animosity that the 3rd pair can't come from the losing team. Appeals are a part of bridge, and real animosity between two teams when a match was decided by a ruling is not necessary nor indeed that common in my experience.

[Walddk]

This has, quite predictably one must say, caused some animosity between the two teams, and it is expected that the 3rd pair will be selected among pairs from other teams.

 

I don't agree that it is "predictable" that there is such animosity that the 3rd pair can't come from the losing team. Appeals are a part of bridge, and real animosity between two teams when a match was decided by a ruling is not necessary nor indeed that common in my experience.

Well, if you knew (of) some of the pairs that were involved, you would not be a bit surprised to see that this animosity arose. That's what I meant by "predictable". I agree with you en general terms: rulings are part of the game and should be accepted.

 

Everyone is entitled to be disappointed with the rulings of course, but a little later you must get on with things without holding a grudge against anybody.

 

Roland

[mike777]

Here is the final result of the English! "jury":

 

The Laws & Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union declared themselves disqualified to deal with the case and asked another jurisdiction, the English Bridge Union, to deliver a ruling:

 

The AC of the EBU concluded that pass was a logical alternative for North, they therefore overruled the on site AC and upheld the TDs ruling. The result was adjusted to 5♠XX+1 = 1600. Hence the non offending side only lost 2 IMPs (against 1660 at the other table) and consequently finished first in the women's trials.

 

The winning team will now represent Scotland in the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships next year. This has, quite predictably one must say, caused some animosity between the two teams, and it is expected that the 3rd pair will be selected among pairs from other teams.

 

Oh well, the drama occasionally occurs away from the table and not just at the table. This is also bridge ladies and gentlemen, whether one likes it or not.

 

Roland

Roland if I understood your post, the governing body of bridge in Scotland basically said we surrender and cannot reach a decision for some reason? So the "buck" was passed? The decision then took days/weeks to decide and was decided by another bridge organization, England, against which Scotland will compete?

 

If so, this is a complete travesty for Scottish bridge and my ancestors are rolling over in their graves! These authorities should all resign in shame, shame, shame.

[Finch]

Mike, I had the same initial reaction as you, but then I thought

- the SBU is not a very big organisation

- I don't know who is on the SBU L&E (their website doesn't seem to say), but it's quite possible that by the time you remove

 

i) the TD who made the original ruling (if he's on the L&E)

ii) The AC

iii) Any members of the two teams involved, or the frequent bridge partners/team-mates or their husbands

 

there may not be anyone left to give a disinterested ruling

 

(although I can also see that if there was a lot of animosity around, they might have wanted to pass the buck anyway...)

[Fluffy]

I find this kinda common, everyinternational champs that a ladies spanish team goes to play, they come back and after the poor result blame the others. In Portugal they have a few very good players also, but are in hate in between, not sure why but seems to me the ladies top world is full of envies and hatreds.

[Guest Jlall]

I find this kinda common, everyinternational champs that a ladies spanish team goes to play, they come back and after the poor result blame the others. In Portugal they have a few very good players also, but are in hate in between, not sure why but seems to me the ladies top world is full of envies and hatreds.

lol, not the most politically correct post :)

[Walddk]

Here is the final result of the English! "jury":

 

The Laws & Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union declared themselves disqualified to deal with the case and asked another jurisdiction, the English Bridge Union, to deliver a ruling:

 

The AC of the EBU concluded that pass was a logical alternative for North, they therefore overruled the on site AC and upheld the TDs ruling. The result was adjusted to 5♠XX+1 = 1600. Hence the non offending side only lost 2 IMPs (against 1660 at the other table) and consequently finished first in the women's trials.

 

The winning team will now represent Scotland in the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships next year. This has, quite predictably one must say, caused some animosity between the two teams, and it is expected that the 3rd pair will be selected among pairs from other teams.

 

Oh well, the drama occasionally occurs away from the table and not just at the table. This is also bridge ladies and gentlemen, whether one likes it or not.

 

Roland

Roland if I understood your post, the governing body of bridge in Scotland basically said we surrender and cannot reach a decision for some reason? So the "buck" was passed? The decision then took days/weeks to decide and was decided by another bridge organization, England, against which Scotland will compete?

 

If so, this is a complete travesty for Scottish bridge and my ancestors are rolling over in their graves! These authorities should all resign in shame, shame, shame.

You are right in the sense that the buck was passed to another jurisdiction, because the SBU L&E (for reasons we may never know) was not in a position to reach a decision. I suspect, as Frances has pointed out, that too many members on the L&E Committee were disqualified to take part because they were involved one way or the other.

 

With this said, I fully trust the integrity of the English Bridge Union, and that they would never reach a verdict that could benefit England and harm Scotland. I understand if some may see it differently, and for that particularly reason, and to avoid any kind of speculation in this context, it might have been a good idea to approach an NCBO outside the UK.

 

Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden, etc., etc.

 

The EBU did definitely not rule in favour of England, considering that the (on paper) better team won the Scottish trials after the TDs ruling was upheld.

 

Roland

[mike777]

Here is the final result of the English! "jury":

 

The Laws & Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union declared themselves disqualified to deal with the case and asked another jurisdiction, the English Bridge Union, to deliver a ruling:

 

The AC of the EBU concluded that pass was a logical alternative for North, they therefore overruled the on site AC and upheld the TDs ruling. The result was adjusted to 5♠XX+1 = 1600. Hence the non offending side only lost 2 IMPs (against 1660 at the other table) and consequently finished first in the women's trials.

 

The winning team will now represent Scotland in the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships next year. This has, quite predictably one must say, caused some animosity between the two teams, and it is expected that the 3rd pair will be selected among pairs from other teams.

 

Oh well, the drama occasionally occurs away from the table and not just at the table. This is also bridge ladies and gentlemen, whether one likes it or not.

 

Roland

Roland if I understood your post, the governing body of bridge in Scotland basically said we surrender and cannot reach a decision for some reason? So the "buck" was passed? The decision then took days/weeks to decide and was decided by another bridge organization, England, against which Scotland will compete?

 

If so, this is a complete travesty for Scottish bridge and my ancestors are rolling over in their graves! These authorities should all resign in shame, shame, shame.

You are right in the sense that the buck was passed to another jurisdiction, because the SBU L&E (for reasons we may never know) was not in a position to reach a decision. I suspect, as Frances has pointed out, that too many members on the L&E Committee were disqualified to take part because they were involved one way or the other.

 

With this said, I fully trust the integrity of the English Bridge Union, and that they would never reach a verdict that could benefit England and harm Scotland. I understand if some may see it differently, and for that particularly reason, and to avoid any kind of speculation in this context, it might have been a good idea to approach an NCBO outside the UK.

 

Netherlands, France, Denmark, Sweden, etc., etc.

 

The EBU did definitely not rule in favour of England, considering that the (on paper) better team won the Scottish trials after the TDs ruling was upheld.

 

Roland

Having any European body help pick the Scottish team that will play in the European championships is terrible. In fact having anyone outside of Scotland pick the team is horrible. As I said resign if you cannot make a decision and put some competent people in charge who can! I assume you can find 3-6 competent people in Scotland bridge who are not dating or offspring of the teams! Good grief ask Mike Rosenberg to make the final ruling if you must.

 

What are they going to do next time this happens, ask the Welsh if they could pick the Scottish team please?

[Walddk]

I beg to disagree, Mike. A competent AC in any country will just look at the facts and make a ruling according to those facts. They would never even consider the aspect that their decision might favour A rather than B.

 

I agree, however, that it is always best if the national governing bodies can handle those cases themselves. But if they for some reason can't, I don't see anything wrong with seeking advice elsewhere.

 

Roland

[mike777]

I beg to disagree, Mike. A competent AC in any country will just look at the facts and make a ruling according to those facts. They would never even consider the aspect that their decision might favour A rather than B.

 

I agree, however, that it is always best if the national governing bodies can handle those cases themselves. But if they for some reason can't, I don't see anything wrong with seeking advice elsewhere.

 

Roland

Roland you seem to be saying that the Scotland appeals commitee was incompetent? If the Scottish AC was competent and they made a decision what the heck are the English or Danish or Americans needed for?

 

What the heck are the Scots doing? Scotland AC makes a decision and they go to another country's AC to make another ruling, why not a third or fourth country to get some more advice? This is a Travesty!

 

 

You keep talking about favoring one team over another, that is not the issue at all.

 

I think the issue is if the governing body cannot make the final decision, then resign and put some people in there who can. Do not pass the buck.

[Walddk]

Roland you seem to be saying that the Scotland appeals commitee was incompetent?

I did not say that, Mike, and I didn't even imply it. What I said was that the L&E Committee was not in a position to make a decision, presumably because too many members were involved in this case.

 

The president of the SBU was on one of the teams in question. You can't possibly have that person on the committee.

 

I don't think it's disgraceful at all if the SBU decides to approach another jurisdiction for advice. The AC of the EBU is very competent, and everyone, even in Scotland, should accept their ruling now that the SBU has asked them to make one.

 

If the members of the SBU are unhappy about this, they will surely let the council know, if not before then at the AGM in May.

 

Roland

[mike777]

What I said was that the L&E Committee was not in a position to make a decision, presumably because too many members were involved in this case.

 

The president of the SBU was on one of the teams in question. You can't possibly have that person on the committee.

 

I don't think it's disgraceful at all if the SBU decides to approach another jurisdiction for advice. The AC of the EBU is very competent, and everyone, even in Scotland, should accept their ruling now that the SBU has asked them to make one.

 

If the members of the SBU are unhappy about this, they will surely let the council know, if not before then at the AGM in May.

 

Roland

The title of this post was "What is your approach"? Great title.

 

I said they should resign, I see they choose not to resign, shame on them.

If they are not in a position to do their job fully then they are useless.

 

Your last sentence says it best, the members of the SBU will get the governing body they vote for and deserve.

[mikeh]

I find this kinda common, everyinternational champs that a ladies spanish team goes to play, they come back and after the poor result blame the others. In Portugal they have a few very good players also, but are in hate in between, not sure why but seems to me the ladies top world is full of envies and hatreds.

Prolonged and truly nasty animosity from an AC ruling is not confined to any one gender... I can attest to this from bitter personal experience :P

[Fluffy]

I was talking about animosity between the 2 teams