Walddk Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 maybe i'm too dumb to figure it out, but what actually happened? what did the player bid? The player (as did the one at the other table) bid 3NT. Indeed, but the auction was different. North opened a Multi 2♦, East passed, and South bid 2♠ (to play opposite a weak two in spades). Versace entered with a natural 2NT and was raised to 3NT. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted November 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 The famous Dr. Wladow bid an inspired 3 NT which made, because partner had Kx in spades besides some other cards.This board was a push at the table. Without an appeal, Germany had won the semifinal by 7 VPs after a nice comeback. The AC decided that this bid was suspicious and that 5 Diamond was normal. In 5 Diamond, there are some lines which will lose and some which will win, but the AC decided to rule that the score was 5 ♦ -1, not weighted at all. I think this is a little far fetched, but at least a possible result. This ruling is not the problem. The problem was the handling of this and some other rulings, because the story was: As the board was played, there was no TD call, no "stating of the facts" or reserving the rights. After the session, the Italians complaint about this board and the bid. The TD made no ruling about this case. The AC decided to make a ruling but -to put it midly- they had not tried hard to get to know the German view. There are some different stories about this part, so I tried to express this as neutral as possible. So from our teams perspective it looks like the Italians complaint after they got to know that they were losing (They had two more losing complaints) and that latter the AC made a mess out of a case which decided the semifinal of an european championship. They never explained- maybe they never thought about it- why it was still in time to make a complaint. They never explained why the TD did not make a ruling. They refused to hear the players besides a: Did you hesitate: Yes, thank you, bye bye.... To make things worse: In another earlier case of hesitation, from the same match, the TD turned a protest from the Germans down, because it was made from the wrong side of the screen. So it looks like that a protest in time, but from the wrong side of the screen is worse then a protest after the session without reservation of the rights, without stating the facts and without an inquiry from the TD about the facts. I understand their frustration.Besides: 2006 same toruney: Semifinal Germany beats Italy.2007 same tourney: Semifinal: ITaly beats Germany by 5, including a quite hard (but acceptable and accepted ruling against Germany).2008: Same tourney: Semifinal.... to put it midly: The Germans are outrageous and protest at the EBU AC against this ruling. When you follow the discussion at "http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml(go to november 2008 sorted by date)"you will be surprised, how harst the tone between the dutch defenders of their descission and the rest of the world is. I don't know, if this is common for them, or if this is politics, but it is harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 And the Germans have lodged an official complaint to the Standing Appeals Committee of the European Bridge League. The letter to be found at ... http://www.bridge.nl/documenten/appaeldbv.pdf Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 2008: Same tourney: Semifinal ... to put it midly: The Germans are outrageous and protest at the EBU AC against this ruling. Just to be clear, this should be EBL="European Bridge League". Robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted November 14, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 2008: Same tourney: Semifinal ... to put it midly: The Germans are outrageous and protest at the EBU AC against this ruling. Just to be clear, this should be EBL="European Bridge League". Robin To be even clearer:They are outraged not outrageuos. :rolleyes: And yes it was not the English bridge union. Sorry..and thanks for all the helpful advices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walddk Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Many questions to be asked and answered: - 1. Was the TD summoned in time? If "no", the case must be dismissed. If "yes", then ... - 2. Did the TD make a ruling? If "yes", both parties have the right to appeal. If "no", then ... - 3. Can the AC take a case without a TD-ruling? If "yes", no further problem. If "no", then ... - 4. Is the AC's decision legal? If "no", there is no longer a case. If "yes", then ... - 5. Was the procedure legal? As I understand it, this is one of the Germans' main concerns. They don't feel that they got a fair "trial", because they did not get the chance to explain in detail. If the procedure is indeed legal, then ... - 6. Is the AC's decision final or can it be appealed to EBL's Appeals Committee? ... So, here we are at the moment. I have just raised the relevant questions. I have no comment at this point. Roland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 My only comment at this point would be that if no TD ruling was made, I don't see how any appeal can be heard. Appeals are of rulings, not of table results. See laws 92A and 92C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Moral of the story: In bridge, you end up paying for having a bad reputation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 My only comment at this point would be that if no TD ruling was made, I don't see how any appeal can be heard. Appeals are of rulings, not of table results. See laws 92A and 92C. There is enormous and lengthy debate of this point on blml.... the two points of view appear to be a) As blackshoe implies, the appeal was illegal as there was no TD ruling. :rolleyes: There is no real difference between what happened (the TD referred the ruling directly to the AC) and the TD giving some instantanious insane ruling such as "I rule 7NTxx-12, now I assume you want to appeal, the AC are just through that door there..." 5. Was the procedure legal? As I understand it, this is one of the Germans' main concerns. They don't feel that they got a fair "trial", because they did not get the chance to explain in detail. If the procedure is indeed legal, then ... As I understand it, the two points of view are a) The German team got to present their case to the AC; if they didn't say everything they might have wanted to, that's their problem, and nothing wrong with the procedure. B) The German team thought this was an initial fact finding/TD ruling, and that whatever happened they would still have the chance to appeal and give their considered case in more detail later. Hence they didn't bother/want to waste time/wish to spend ages explaning all their thoughts on the case, because it might be about to be ruled out of time/from the wrong side of the screen/no hesitation/no demonstrably suggested LA etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 The moral of the story is that the Italians started to preempt more aggressively than their opponents? wow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Depending on the opponents and our own partnership bidding style i think there is something to jtfanclub's argument that given there was no raise to 4♠ there is some case for being pessimistic with this hand (or perhaps an optimistic punt on 3NT) - ♠ Qx is very poor holding when a pre-empt has not been raised. Even many clear-cut takeout doubles will have two spades (and many marginal doubles will have a stiff spade). In general I think a slow takeout double conveys much less UI than a slow pass in second seat. Slow actions, particularly at high levels, will often not demonstably suggest one action over another. In this case a slow double could be: 1. Marginal Minimum Values 2. Marginal Distribution 3. A marginal decision between a simple overcall and a double and bid hand 4. Some combination of 1 and 2 Marginal minimum values with a singleton in spades is an unlikely case, it would mean that opponents have a 10-card spade fit with the majority of the points, but didn't go to 4♠. Everything else makes bidding 3NT more attractive compared to 5♦. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.