You be the Judge

[nickf]

Here's a particularly contentious ruling and Appeal that occurred in our Nationals last week.

 

Sitting East, you hold:

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=s6432hqdq97c98543]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Your partner deals and opens 1♠, RHO overcalls 3♥, you pass (OK I wouldnt and maybe neither would you, but these are the facts), LHO bids 4♥, partner thinks for a while (was agreed by all 4 players to have been slow) then passes.

 

East bid 4♠ and NS called the director. He established the facts and directed the auction to continue. North bid 5♥, doubled by West and this contract went two light.

 

The director ruled that the slow pass indicated that West was considering bidding and that Law 16A requires East not to choose ‘from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information’. The director, therefore, excluded the 4♠ bid and adjusted the result to 4♥ down 1 in accordance with Law 12C2.

 

East-West took the ruling to appeal. The Appeals Committee upheld the director’s ruling and determined that the appeal was ‘without merit’. A 1 VP penalty was applied to the EW team.

 

Do you agree that this appeal was frivolous?

 

nickf

sydney

[rogerclee]

As a side note, I agree completely with passing over 3H.

 

I agree with upholding the ruling but don't find the appeal frivolous. I would bet that a substantial number of good players would bid 4S here without the UI (even a majority), but not enough to make pass not an LA.

 

That said, I am admittedly not terribly knowledgable about the laws, especially in countries other than my own (ACBL-land).

[gwnn]

pass is definitely a LA, but I'd bid 4♠ all the time here (and passed first round)

[P_Marlowe]

#1 Pass is LA.

#2 The apeal was without a chance, i.e. 'without merit'.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Finch]

This appeal has already been discussed at great length at forums.bridgetalk.com so I'm not going to repeat myself here.

[helene_t]

Not sure if pass is a LA. It would not be to me but maybe it would to these players.

[Codo]

The given facts for your descission to bid 4 Spade or pass without the UI:

 

1.You play a system where you cannot bid 3 or 4 Spade at the first opportunity, maybe because these bids are stronger.

2. Now the opponents bid freely to a vulnerable game and you have a four card suit to pds 5 card major. You have no tricks for defence. You have a singelton in their suit.

You are nonvul. What is your bid? Pass? Not in my wildest dreams.

 

As a TD I still may have ruled for 4 HEart -1, because in doubt I would decide for the non offending side.

 

But I do not like the descission of the AC at all. I could be convinced to rule for 4 Heart -1, when at least some peers of the offenders think that pass is a LA.

But without this vote for pass, I would let it be 5 HEart X -2.

[MFA]

I'm tending to accepting this appeal.

 

If pass to 4♥ should be a LA, we need a significant percentage of players who would actually take that action. This will be close, VERY few would pass here nv vs vul. This is somewhat dependent of skill level, of course.

 

Deeming the appeal frivolous does IMO and with all respect deserve a ;).

[gwnn]

Oh no, North bid 5♥ over 4♠? This is horrible! Terrible case of "double shot".

[MFA]

Oh no, North bid 5♥ over 4♠? This is horrible! Terrible case of "double shot".

No, I don't think so. If anything, double would be a double shot.

 

If 5♥ is right, then +650 is what he might get from the TD anyway. So it's the same horse, he's betting on.

[Finch]

Oh no, North bid 5♥ over 4♠? This is horrible! Terrible case of "double shot".

It might have been a double shot, but there is no reason to suspect it is.

 

5H might have been the correct bid on the hand. The 5H bidder had no idea what the 4S bidder had when he bid 4S; while they acknowledged the hesitation that doesn't mean the final result would have been adjusted (perhaps the 4S bidder had mis-sorted his hand the first round and turned up with 6 spades).

 

The 5H bid was hardly a disaster, 4S was making and 5H might not have been doubled, and might have been one off.

[gwnn]

N has no business to bid his hand twice. none. except the double shot.

[mcphee]

Not clear to me what this double shot stuff is about at all. What was the 4S bid after partners hesitation if not a shot? While the player may not have taken advantage of the hesitation, his partner hitched, and then he bid in a situation that was NOT CLEAR. Lucky for him we are not allowed to cane players.

 

Appeal without merit deserved, lets not waste peoples time.

[jtfanclub]

N has no business to bid his hand twice. none. except the double shot.

It is NOT a double shot.

 

A double shot is where you take an action which might do better than if you called the director. If you do better, you take the score. If you do worse, you call the director.

 

In this case, you can call the director and get the contract adjusted to 4♥. Bidding 5♥ isn't going to get you a better score than the adjustment.

 

If he had passed, he could call the director if 4♥ made and take the small plus if 4♥ went down. If he had doubled, then he could take the big plus if the result was better than 4♥.

 

That's what double shot means...one shot without an adjustment, and one shot with.

[jtfanclub]

As a TD I still may have ruled for 4 HEart -1, because in doubt I would decide for the non offending side.

It seems to me that if an appeal is rejected and the guys making the appeal got a good result, it tends to be an AWM. I suspect that if 4 hearts had made exactly, it would not have been called an AWM.

 

I can't quote any rule for why this is the case, and I don't understand it myself, but I've seen other cases posted here that fit. Maybe AC's are trying to get the point across that if the director ruled against you and you still got a good result, then don't appeal.

[grrigg]

4♥ -1 is a pretty bad result. Although its not apparent from the original post, 4♠ happens to make on this board.

[helene_t]

It seems to me that if an appeal is rejected and the guys making the appeal got a good result, it tends to be an AWM. I suspect that if 4 hearts had made exactly, it would not have been called an AWM.

Do you mean that you are not supposed to appeal if you got 80% while you think you were entitled to 100%? That sounds incredible.

 

Or do you mean that you are not supposed to appeal for some other reason than adjustment, say in order to have a procedural penalty on opps, or because you thought that the TDs decision was badly motivated?

[Guest Jlall]

Yes, this appeal has no merit. I would be ashamed if I bid 4S.

[kfay]

If there's an agreement that pass was slow then I don't see how this ruling could even be considered a hot topic. The appeal 100% has ZERO merit.

 

Even if you think that 4♠ is a LA (debatable) partner's tank makes this case entirely moot. East is unethical here, no debate.

 

I would have laughed at this pair if they filed an appeal with me.

 

Edit: laughing is probably a bit harsh but cases like this always make me feel that way.

[pclayton]

http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3478

[pclayton]

This is a weird one. Does the slow pass make 4♠ more or less attractive?

 

I wouldn't have bid 3♠ the 1st time, but 4♠ the 2nd time looks kind of obvious to me.

 

Pard might have been hitching with a very offensive hand, but judging from my drek, I think its more likely he was looking at a bunch of pictures and felt a little fixed over 4♥. If thats the case, we might be beating 4♥.

[jdonn]

I don't think this appeal is meritless although I could certainly see them losing. It seems like the kind of situation where it would be useful to find out what a committee thinks, since it's not clear either what a hesitation suggests or how popular bidding 4♠ would be.

[Cascade]

I pass over 3♥.

 

I think there is a significant problem in establishing that partner's slow pass suggests bidding. The slow pass indicates values. Partner may have been thinking of doubling. I would be worried that both 4♠ and 4♥ were failing if I knew that my partner had significant extra values for his 1-level opening bid. Of course it is far from certain that we can beat 4♥. I would however be much happier bidding 4♥ if partner passed in tempo as it would be much more likely that 4♥ would be making then and therefore that 4♠ was a good paying sacrifice at these colours.

 

Lets say I passed and the opponents on noticing my four spades and singleton and favourable vulnerability claimed "you didn't bid 4♠ based on the slow pass over 4♥" and lets further assume that both 4♥ and 4♠ were failing. Would they have a case that my pass was based on the information from partner's slow pass?

 

I think they would have a case. They might not win but they would have a reasonable argument.

 

I can't see how 4♠ is demonstrably suggested over pass but partner's huddle. I would be interested in what arguments were given in the appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if there were no arguements given on this point.

 

Not only do I think the appeal without merit ruling is wrong I think the ruling is wrong.

[nickf]

Yes, this appeal has no merit. I would be ashamed if I bid 4S.

What if I told you the match was played with screens?

 

Would you still be ashamed to bid 4S?

 

nickf

sydney

[MFA]

@ those who thinks this appeal has no merit.

 

Would any of you actually pass over 4♥ in this situation if there were no pause?

 

(Don't answer that it's not inconceivable. What is your actual choice?)