seek experts' judgement

[arrows]

I am a member of the EBU panel of referees, which means I frequently chair ACs. I can promise you that the ACs I sit on are never biased in favour of sponsors or experts. In fact, experts are usually held to higher standards with regard to disclosure and UI because they are generally expected to understand the rules and apply them (as a minimum, they are far more likely to be given a procedural penalty).

 

since you must be knowledgeable in this area, Could you please explain for us

 

1. How the "agreement" of East-West said they have but cannot prove such agreement do exist, should be used in the appeal process?

 

2. Usually, what does the committee should do, when one side of the appealing doesn't show up for the final decision?

 

Thanks in advance

[inquiry]

I agree with the DIRECTOR and the COMMITTEE.

 

4♥ seems clear bid based upon briidge logic as described.

 

The logic is 3NT,

A) Denies five hearts

:) Promises "values" in clubs, and since slam try this must be the ACE

C) Denies the spade KING

 

Clearly, partner must have four hearts to the ACE and the club ACE (without club ace he would bid 4♣ or 4♥, without heart ace, he wouldn't have a slam try.

 

We have at least a 50% spade loser (we might have two spade losers if partner has xxx of spades). We have a potential diamond loser, and if trumps are not 3-2 (16% of the time) we are likely to have a trump loser as well. Based upon the information available, WEST can evaulate fairly accuartely that slam is likely to have less than 50% at this very moment.

 

On top of that, there are plenty of explaination for the hesisition beyond "oh my god, I am very mininum for my slam try". In fact, I would suggest that the hand instead of being minimum is darn near maxium. I would have also considered the appeal without merit.

[Fluffy]

From the decision on the other board changing 5♥ to 6♥ I wouldn't be surprised if the director was slightly biased to agree on anything E-W said.

 

I've seen that before, a director has to rule against a great player, ,the great player explains loads of reasons of why that affectd him, the director has no clue about what he is talkign about, but he is famous so he should be right.....

 

Of course these case could be completelly different.

[han]

I agree with everything that Frances said.

 

I also agree with the committee in suggesting that you should be more careful in the future before making an appeal.

[mikeh]

Well, I cannot speak for the ACBL at all and I understand that their ACs are actually paid.

Maybe they are at the National level, but I doubt it. As someone who is often on AC's at Regionals and at my country's team championship, I can assure you that we don't get paid! And I would be strongly opposed to any suggestion that we ought to be.

 

I share Frances' view of the rest of the issues, and reject any suggestion that experts get preferential treatment. This idea has existed for as long as my memory serves, and no doubt for decades before then. Part of the problem is that most members of ACs are experts and thus know and may be friendly with the expert parties while having no interaction with the less experienced. Thus we get unfortunate comments such as 'we know who you are' addressed (often in friendly or respectful tones) to the experts while the less experienced players, who often have little experience at AC's, are nervous and are treated relatively coldly.

 

All ACs should try to be completely neutral in the manner in which they address all parties, and should definitely NOT convey to less well known players that the experts are more welcome. This takes a very determined approach, since it is alien to common social niceties.

 

The perception of bias is even more damaging than the (invariably absent in my experience) presence of bias.

[000002]

00002 you seem to be saying the same thing: I disagree with the bidding, therefore I deserve an adjusted score.

oh NO

 

The fact is clear,the hesitation cause 4♥ rebid,and it's underbid with her hand. 90% of experts agree a 4♦ /4nt/6♥ rebid, the few recommends 4♥.

[Kalvan14]

In every kind of sport event big teams or players are rumored to get a preferential treatment, and I suppose that this is often true. Most of the time, the preferential treatment is just what happened to you: some deference, first-name greetings, you know what.

Obviously this does not much to bolster the self-confidence of the other guy (who - to tell the truth - often makes things worse by adopting an aggressive stance against the committee).

 

This said, and remembering that hesitations are often tricky to judge, i can understand rejecting the appeal. IMHO, adding insult to injury is bit too much...

[arrows]

We already had a pretty thorough debate in the bridge side. Of course, you

can signoff with primary cards after partner showing slam interest. that's your

judgement. For me, It's just appalling to see someone, holding these cards,

sign off immediately over a break-in-tempo slam invitation without a qualm

 

Also, those who support the ruling, never want to address the problem how

the "agreement" without evidence should be used in appeal cases.

I don't expect to see it in the case book either. Actually, they probably won't

even mention it.

[mike777]

We already had a pretty thorough debate in the bridge side. Of course, you

can signoff with primary cards after partner showing slam interest. that's your

judgement.   For me, It's just appalling to see someone, holding these cards,

sign off immediately over a break-in-tempo slam invitation without a qualm

 

Also, those who support the ruling, never want to address the problem how

the "agreement" without evidence should be used in appeal cases.

I don't expect to see it in the case book either. Actually, they probably won't

even mention it.

I do not understand, what "evidence of agreement" do you want? The appeal is usually heard at 1 am in the morning. My notes are 5 miles away in hotel or 2000 miles away at home, assuming I have any notes.

 

Why does anyone need to show up for the final decision, I gave my testimony, why show up for verdict rather than go to bed?

 

I do not understand what is appalling? If the hesitation suggests bidding on as the AC suggested and partner passed what is the issue?

 

I understand you are upset but I do not see what the heck your points/evidence are? I reread what you have typed several times but I see no case here.

[000002]

Obviously this does not much to bolster the self-confidence of the other guy (who - to tell the truth - often makes things worse by adopting an aggressive stance against the committee).

 

This said, and remembering that hesitations are often tricky to judge, i can understand rejecting the appeal. IMHO, adding insult to injury is  bit too much...

Justicer should be equity,and a gentleman,real gentleman should be too.

 

OFCZ, i'm not now ,but i think i can say what i think.

 

 

She is underbid after partner's hesitation,why?

why she did NOT bid normally?

the reason is possible with these: she is not an expert player,but the another possibility is that she read this illegal information and use it.

[arrows]

I do not understand, what "evidence of agreement" do you want? The appeal is usually heard at 1 am in the morning. My notes are 5 miles away in hotel or 2000 miles away at home, assuming I have any notes.

 

According to you, any one can forge zillions of "agreements" without giving any

proof and argue that the hesitition doesn't matter because we play such and such,

you can't find your note, it's your problem.

 

FYI, Once upon a time, in an ruling/appeal case, a world class pair claims they

play some special convention, and Mr. Nickell refuse to buy it. because they had

no documentation, they had to ask Mr. Rodwell to testify against his own team

to prove that such convention do exist, and Mr. Rodwell did it.

 

Without proof, the so-called "agreements" are just self-serving arguments.

 

 

 

Why does anyone need to show up for the final decision, I gave my testimony, why show up for verdict rather than go to bed?

 

Great, I suppose this is good news for everyone. I didn't know that.

BTW, just to verify, Are you the guy who make the rules?

[Kalvan14]

Obviously this does not much to bolster the self-confidence of the other guy (who - to tell the truth - often makes things worse by adopting an aggressive stance against the committee).

 

This said, and remembering that hesitations are often tricky to judge, i can understand rejecting the appeal. IMHO, adding insult to injury is  bit too much...

Justicer should be equity,and a gentleman,real gentleman should be too.

 

OFCZ, i'm not now ,but i think i can say what i think.

 

 

She is underbid after partner's hesitation,why?

why she did NOT bid normally?

the reason is possible with these: she is not an expert player,but the another possibility is that she read this illegal information and use it.

I thought that both opponents (i.e. the 1♣ opener and the 3N advancer) were well known and expert players. If one of them is not (=sponsor), so much the worse.

 

 

The question for the committee is: given the playing level of the guy or the lady who hears a serious 3N by partner, and given the hand she/he holds, is refusing the slam try a reasonable option? Alternatively, can the alleged hesitation before the infamous 3N be the reason for refusing the slam try?

 

As an aside, I doubt very much that a serious partnership of experts does not have a written agreement for a situation like this.

 

All this should make it quite clear that if I had been on the committee - and assuming that no other information were available beyond what has been described in this thread, I might have taken a different stance.

Certainly, I would not have considered the appeal to be without merits.

[dogsbreath]

Hi

I must disagree with Arrows on this one.. why must the strong hand advance to a slam when already knows BEFORE the 3nt bid that slam is less than 50% .. we have only 4-4 trump fit and no K♠ and any length p has may be in Clubs.

The only way i'm in slam here is if p bids it after i sign-off in 4H. I dont think matters of tempo are particularly important here as not a competitive auction.

I regard this appeal as close to frivilous ..are these defenders to appeal EVERY hand where we bid or decline a slam?

Rgds Dog

[Winstonm]

An interesting problem considering the system. My big question is why didn't N bid 4C, showing no wasted values outside clubs. It seems serious 3N must indicate some further information is needed. What does partner know about my hand?

 

He knows I have 16+, heart support, and a singleton club. He seems to hold some kind of club value.

 

xxx, Axxxx, xx, Axx. This would be a problem hand.

Jx, Axxxx, xxx, Axx. This would be a problem hand.

 

I am going to bid 4S. I wouldn't be moving past 4H with no diamond control, so I must have one. I must hold good hearts for this bid. The only logical interpretation of this call is "source of tricks" but not enough to bid 6H directly or try for 7.

 

I would think with hands like: Kx, J10xxxx, x, Axxx and the ones shown partner would know what to do. And with xxx in spades, he should know to stop.

 

However, not knowing what the inferences are between 3S, 3N, 4C, etc., makes this almost inpossible to answer. And does the heart suit have to be 4 only?

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

I feel this was a poor way to approach your question - looking at the post I thought it was a bidding problem - so I answered as best I could my thought processes for the hand without knowledge of the intricacies of agreements or the continuations

 

I chose 4S as a meaningful bid in this auction if responder could hold long hearts or if 3N did not necessarily deny the spade king.

 

Then I was blindsided by a ruling question.

 

It seems obvious that the opponents were using complex methods and it appears the slow passer was simply thinking about the best way to define his hand - that is neither illegal nor immoral. Again, without knowing the agreements, it appears that opener simply bid what his agreements said he believed his hand worth. Notice in my creations the weak hand always had at least 5 hearts - without this possibility slam is remote at best and my answers change.

 

I suggest next time you want comments concerning a ruling, say so from the beginning without trying to justify your side first.

 

Players are allowed time to think - it is a thinking game. But unless I understand the complete ramifications of the bids and the continuations, it is impossible to say whether or not the 4H bid was influenced by the break in tempo.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I find the game more pleasant and my blood pressure lower when I assume my opponents are ethical until proven otherwise - and here nothing suggests otherwise, IMO.

 

Winston

[han]

We already had a pretty thorough debate in the bridge side. Of course, you

can signoff with primary cards after partner showing slam interest. that's your

judgement. For me, It's just appalling to see someone, holding these cards,

sign off immediately over a break-in-tempo slam invitation without a qualm

 

Also, those who support the ruling, never want to address the problem how

the "agreement" without evidence should be used in appeal cases.

I don't expect to see it in the case book either. Actually, they probably won't

even mention it.

I also chose to sign off after the 3NT bid. I judged that it is very unlikely that we have slam after partner denies the spade king and a fifth heart. It is your choice whether you want to be appalled by this or not, but I don't think that you should bother an appeals committee with his nonsense (in my opinion).

 

 

As for their agreement... of course 3NT denies a spade control. This is very common, and only those few who require a first round control for a cuebid play this differently. I'm not surprised that this pair also has an agreement about what 3H would show, and that bypassing 3H would deny that. These are fairly standard agreements so it seems safe to assume that they were honest about them.

 

 

To summarize my view, it was never clear that there was any UI, and their bidding did not suggest that they made use of UI. It is you that created this problem, and, after wasting the time of the director and the appeals committee, you are now trying to find your right in this forum. You are not going to get it.

[han]

I remember a similar hand that I had recently when playing with Ben. I had a flat hand with two aces and not much else. Ben opened 1C, I bid 1H (I had 4 hearts), and Ben bid 2NT, showing 17+ support points and 4+ support. My choices were:

 

3C = minimal hand.

4H = GF, no slam interest.

3D = GF, no slam interest, but better than 4H.

3H = slam interest, no shortness.

 

Clearly 3C was off, and with 2 aces 4H was also clearly wrong. After thinking about this for longer than 10 seconds, I bid 3D. Ben said he might have bid 3H instead, but also considered it close. There was clearly no UI, I might have been thinking about 4H instead, no way for Ben to know. In this case Ben's hand was fairly minimal and his 4H bid was easy, but if it had been close (or even bad but right in practice) then there would have been no use of UI. It is normal for me to think a bit in this situation.

[awm]

There is a slight difference between the situation in this thread and the one Han describes though. In many auctions (including Han's) there are several possible choices. A slow invite can be the result of a difficult decision whether to invite or sign off or a difficult decision whether to invite or force. In Han's situation, he could have been considering 4♥ (which would show a weaker hand) or 3♥ (a stronger hand). Because of this, partner's not under any real pressure from the UI, since no action is particularly suggested.

 

On the other hand, a break in tempo before making the strongest possible slam try does put partner under some obligations, since it is clear that the only possibility is that partner was considering showing a weaker hand. Similarly a break in tempo before showing the weakest possible hand puts partner under some pressure.

 

In Han's auction, a slow 3♣ (clearly indicating a hand which is better than the minimum junk he'd respond 1♥ on) puts partner under some pressure, as does a slow 3♥ (clearly indicating a hand which is quite minimal for the strong slam try). But a slow 3♦ or 4♥ doesn't create a problem.

[keylime]

I do not AT ALL like 3NT as a serious slam try by a passed hand. I think it's a lot better to use it as a suggestion to play showing a pancake hand.

 

I think 4 diamonds is a good starter. No need to bid 4C when pard by implication has club control.

[awm]

I'm surprised by the result of this thread. It seems like the vast majority of people polled will make some sort of slam try opposite this 3NT call. However, several people who have served on committees wrote in to agree with the committee ruling.

 

Isn't this procedure pretty simple? It seems to me that there is cause for an adjustment if:

 

(1) There is a logical alternative to the 4♥ bid selected. This seems obvious, since in fact the great majority of people polled would not sign off in 4♥. It's also not difficult to construct hands consistent with the bidding where 6♥ would make, for example the hands arrows gave:

 

x AJxx QJxxx xxx

xxxx AJxx xx Axx

 

(2) The UI suggested that the alternative chosen (4♥ signoff) was more likely to be correct than it would otherwise be. What does the break in tempo indicate? Obviously, partner was considering making some other bid besides 3NT. Most of the other bids partner could choose show something specific (five hearts or a top spade for example) so there's not a lot for partner to think about. The only real problem is one of hand evaluation -- "Is my hand worth looking for slam, or should I give up." After the break in tempo, partner chose the strongest possible slam invitation by a passed hand. Obviously whatever other bid partner was considering must be less interested in slam, meaning that partner's hand is only "barely worth 3NT." I think it's pretty clear that the UI did suggest that the signoff was more likely to be correct.

 

(3) There was damage as a direct result of the action chosen. It seems like once 4♥ was the contract, the defense could do little. Now it's possible that 4♥ would be the contract anyway, even if opener makes a 4♦ cuebid.

 

It seems to me that this case is pretty clearcut in favor of the appealing side, except for item (3). I can certainly understand the committee ruling that the offending side would not have bid past 4♥ in any case, and allowing the table result to stand. However, I think that the choice of bidding 4♥ directly is a fairly blatant use of UI, especially given the poll results. The committee would probably be right to assess a procedural penalty against the offending side, and certainly should not assess an appeal without merit.

[Winstonm]

I'm surprised by the result of this thread. It seems like the vast majority of people polled will make some sort of slam try opposite this 3NT call. However, several people who have served on committees wrote in to agree with the committee ruling.

 

Isn't this procedure pretty simple? It seems to me that there is cause for an adjustment if:

 

(1) There is a logical alternative to the 4♥ bid selected. This seems obvious, since in fact the great majority of people polled would not sign off in 4♥. It's also not difficult to construct hands consistent with the bidding where 6♥ would make, for example the hands arrows gave:

 

x AJxx QJxxx xxx

xxxx AJxx xx Axx

 

(2) The UI suggested that the alternative chosen (4♥ signoff) was more likely to be correct than it would otherwise be. What does the break in tempo indicate? Obviously, partner was considering making some other bid besides 3NT. Most of the other bids partner could choose show something specific (five hearts or a top spade for example) so there's not a lot for partner to think about. The only real problem is one of hand evaluation -- "Is my hand worth looking for slam, or should I give up." After the break in tempo, partner chose the strongest possible slam invitation by a passed hand. Obviously whatever other bid partner was considering must be less interested in slam, meaning that partner's hand is only "barely worth 3NT." I think it's pretty clear that the UI did suggest that the signoff was more likely to be correct.

 

(3) There was damage as a direct result of the action chosen. It seems like once 4♥ was the contract, the defense could do little. Now it's possible that 4♥ would be the contract anyway, even if opener makes a 4♦ cuebid.

 

It seems to me that this case is pretty clearcut in favor of the appealing side, except for item (3). I can certainly understand the committee ruling that the offending side would not have bid past 4♥ in any case, and allowing the table result to stand. However, I think that the choice of bidding 4♥ directly is a fairly blatant use of UI, especially given the poll results. The committee would probably be right to assess a procedural penalty against the offending side, and certainly should not assess an appeal without merit.

The problem, IMO, of this post is we were not given sufficient information to know the ramifications of the pause and subsequent bids. The author says these were responder's options:

 

3S showing the spade K. Does 3N deny this card 100%?

3H showing 5+ hearts. Any 5+ or good ones or what?

3N: serious. Does this deny 5 hearts and the spade K?

4D: all card are outside clubs. How many hearts?

 

In other words, without knowledge of opponent's methods and whether or not we agree with the system or bid , is there any way to know that responder might not have held:

 

xxx, 10xxxx, QJx, AJx?

Or

xxx, J10xx, QJx, Axx?

 

To me, it appears only that opener decided that 3N denied the spade King and without this card slam was a poor bet. Maybe he'd seem some of his partner's "serious" 3N trumps before.

 

Winston

[mikeh]

As one of the sometime committee members who had no issue with the outcome in this case, let me point out that many of those who felt that a further slam try was in order appear not to have considered the implications of the auction: I stress 'appear' since no doubt some did and still felt a further move was in order.

 

As I understand the stated agreements: responder denied 5 trump. That is an immediate warning sign.

 

Responder denied the ♠K.

 

We already know enough to be certain that slam will probably be less than 50% even if responder has a better hand than she did!

 

Now for some inferences that are not 100% because the poster did not comment (and may not have known the answers). Note that these inferences merely strengthen the argument that signoff was clear: in my view that argument was already rock-solid.

 

Bear in mind that responder, having announced a 4 card ♥ suit, probably denied a 5 card suit elsewhere, altho the poster did not state as much. If that inference is correct, then either responder is 4441 or balanced, and, if balanced, lacks 10 hcp.

 

If responder is 4441, she could probably have shown that: most big clubbers have a tool for that holding, but the poster did not comment.

 

Even if responder could be 4441, either the ♠ issue is still there, or we are in an even worse situation with stiff ♠ opposite our hoped-for source of tricks and a 4=4 trump fit.

 

I do not mean to be rude, nor to insult the bridge knowledge of those who felt a move was warranted, but one of the distinguishing facets of a good expert is the ability to forecast the play during the auction. I gather that opener was a true WC player who would no doubt consider all of the matters I have referred to and possibly others beyond my ability or based on other (legal) aspects of the auction and their method/style.

 

And for those who say that opener should play responder for more than she had, because of the use of serious notrump: that would be asserting that you are a better judge not only of how serious 3N should be played in this sequence but of how THIS PARTNERSHIP has agreed to play it. No doubt that feeling prompted the comment our poster has complained of, in which one of the opps asked if he knew their method better than they did.

[arrows]

they play canape style in preference of majors.

they didn't address 4441, but I guess when one can response 4 card major, there's

no need for special treatment

[Winstonm]

It seems obvious to me from others who know this type of system well (I obvioulsy do not) that the 3N bid showed only 4 hearts - opener needs most to know about the two major suit Jacks and there is no way to find out. It is standard expert treatment when you no longer have the tools you stop looking for a speculative slam and settle on game. Although it is possible that 6H might make if responder shows up with J10, A10xx, xxx, Axxx, it is equally likely that 6 hearts won't make opposite xxx, Axxx, Jxx, Axxx and there is no way to find this out.

 

Three bids would have made slam more attractive: 3H, 3S, and 4D. Three nt leaves the major jacks in the dark and that is where they should stay.

 

Winston

[awm]

I do not mean to be rude, nor to insult the bridge knowledge of those who felt a move was warranted, but one of the distinguishing facets of a good expert is the ability to forecast the play during the auction. I gather that opener was a true WC player who would no doubt consider all of the matters I have referred to and possibly others beyond my ability or based on other (legal) aspects of the auction and their method/style.

 

And for those who say that opener should play responder for more than she had, because of the use of serious notrump: that would be asserting that you are a better judge not only of how serious 3N should be played in this sequence but of how THIS PARTNERSHIP has agreed to play it. No doubt that feeling prompted the comment our poster has complained of, in which one of the opps asked if he knew their method better than they did.

This sort of thing is the problem with committee rulings, especially in ACBL-land.

 

You're assuming that responder can't have a better hand for the serious 3NT. This is without any information to indicate that such is the case. In fact, if responder really couldn't have a better hand for the serious 3NT, then what was responder thinking about?

 

You're assuming that opener is a world class player, and giving credit for "considering matters beyond my ability." This is an implicit assumption that opener is ethical.

 

When you assume that the offending sides bids are 100% clearcut, and that they are 100% ethical, it's hard to rule against them isn't it? Especially when you don't really know the specifics of their system, since they haven't bothered to document them...

 

I submit that if the offending side were "no-name" players rather than a pair of known experts, the committee ruling would have been quite different. The committee would have ruled that:

 

(1) Any statements about negative inferences from other possible bids (3♥, 3♠) would have been ruled to be made in their own self-interest, and ignored unless they could provide written evidence of such agreements.

 

(2) It would be assumed that the signoff after a serious slam try was due to the hesitation, unless such a signoff was 100% clear.

 

(3) Any ambiguity in the offending side's agreements or system would be resolved by using the committee's judgement. In other words, the committee would judge whether they think bidding on was in order, and if so, they would assess a penalty. Note how different this is from your dependence on the offending side's bridge judgement in a concession that it is probably better than your own.