Appeals Ruling

[rogerclee]

IMPs, All White, Fourth Seat

 

♠Kxx ♥Ax ♦AKJxx ♣Axx

 

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - 1NT

(2♣) - 2♥* - (P) - 2♠

(P) - 3♥ - (P) - ?

 

2♥ was by agreement, a transfer. What would you bid?

 

The story:

 

2♥ was alerted as a transfer by agreement, and 3♥ was very slow (indicating that the hand had hearts, not spades). This hand decided to bid 3NT, and a director was called.

 

At the table, this player argued that because of the diamond trick source and sharp values, 3NT was indicated instead of 4♠. The opponents argued that maybe 3NT could be right, but 4♠ is certainly a logical alternative, and so must be bid. The director sided with the 1N overcaller and said result stands. The opponents decided to appeal.

 

Later, the 1NT overcaller says that he had enough information to field that partner could not have 5 spades, since there was no 5-5 or 5-4 majors hand consistent with this auction. However, this was not his argument for 3NT at the table.

 

Is it relevant that the player probably did not think of this until after the hand was played? How would you rule anyway?

[jdonn]

Is it relevant that the player probably did not think of this until after the hand was played? How would you rule anyway?

Yes it's relevant, and the committee can certainly consider it. To me, the fact he didn't think of the obvious argument until later and the fact his argument at the table was utterly stupid convince me to rule he must bid 4♠, and they probably end in 4♠X or 5♥X depending on the other hands.

 

I should add I would probably agree with the ruling if the good (partner can't have that hand) argument had been made to the director at the table.

[Mbodell]

Assuming no UI I'm not thrilled by either 3nt or 4♠. 4♠ leaves us likely playing in a 5-3 and getting a 4-1 split. And the 3 card spade suit doesn't have great ruffing values, although can probably ruff a heart. Playing in 3nt I'm worried about clubs. Maybe they split well enough, but I fear 5 or 6 clubs by LHO on lead who also has good values and can likely get in before I can run 9 tricks.

 

I certainly think both 3nt and 4♠ are LA and 3nt is the LA suggested by the hesitation.

 

And there are possible distributions for partner to be 54 in majors. Opener is 1426. Partner is 5413. RHO is minimum with 4351. Sure the points don't quite work for partner to be able to, presumably, game force, but maybe opener fell in love with a 10 point hand with KQJTxx of clubs and/or RHO advanced to the major with a hand that just has an A and a club stiff.

[paulg]

I disagree quite strongly with Josh here in that I feel that this is a very poor ruling. The 'partner cannot have that hand' argument assumes that (1) partner has forgotten our methods (2) RHO has not psyched and (3) RHO never bids spades holding only ♠xxxx. You have no reason to assume this aside from the very slow 3♥ bid.

 

The 'source of tricks' argument seems very convenient but is just not true opposite a hand with both majors.

 

So I would definitely expect the 1NT to bid game in spades and the question is whether he will make a slam try en route. I might be convinced that he needs the ♠J for the slam try.

 

If the 3NT bidder was an experienced player, I would also issue a PP.

 

Essentially I believe that the 3NT bidder is either unaware of his obligations in respect of unauthorised information (which is the vast majority of players) or he is cheating.

 

Paul

[jdonn]

I disagree quite strongly with Josh here in that I feel that this is a very poor ruling. The 'partner cannot have that hand' argument assumes that (1) partner has forgotten our methods (2) RHO has not psyched and (3) RHO never bids spades holding only ♠xxxx. You have no reason to assume this aside from the very slow 3♥ bid.

I thought it was obvious but I guess I should have stated it. The reason partner can not have that hand is that he passed over 1♣. Personally I will never (ever!) pass over 1♣ with a hand that bids this way opposite a 1NT overcall. This has nothing to do with our methods (except to the extent my methods are to overcall or bid michaels on hands where it is completely normal to do so), and has nothing to do with what rho may have since partner had already passed over 1♣ by then. And for that matter it has nothing to do with the speed of the 3♥ bid. All it has to do with is partner's pass over 1♣ combined with his later bidding.

 

So the 'partner cannot have the hand' argument assumes none of the (1) (2) or (3) that you said it assumes.

 

Even if you came up with some example of a hand that is 5-5 in the majors with this strength and passes over 1♣, which I wouldn't believe, the only conceivable explanation would be horribly bad suits and short honors in the minors. That argues for the 3NT bid anyway, especially in the face of the 1♠ response.

[skjaeran]

I agree that partner can't have a hand with 5♠ 4+♥ that will invite or force to game now and have passed 1♣. No such hand exist.

 

Being aware of this, 4♠ can't be a LA at all.

It should be obvious that partner have hearts only, and tried to play 2♥ and later 3♥. Thus there's no UI from the hestitation, and you're free to bid what you want.

 

As was the case, however, the actual player didn't think along the above line at all at the table. He wasn't aware that partner systemically had showed a hand he couldn't have. For him, 4♠ was a LA. And the TD should adjust to 4♠ (or 5♥, depending on partners hand), probably doubled.

[paulg]

I disagree quite strongly with Josh here in that I feel that this is a very poor ruling. The 'partner cannot have that hand' argument assumes that (1) partner has forgotten our methods (2) RHO has not psyched and (3) RHO never bids spades holding only ♠xxxx. You have no reason to assume this aside from the very slow 3♥ bid.

I thought it was obvious but I guess I should have stated it. The reason partner can not have that hand is that he passed over 1♣.

I should have a coffee in the morning before responding to posts. I disagree less strongly now.

 

p

[Fluffy]

IMO 3♥ makes it obvious that there was a missunderstanding. the 1NT overcaller already punushed himself by bidding 3NT instead of the obvious pass wich I doubt he must follow.

 

The only player that can be punished in this autction is the 2♥+3♥ bidder who sould pass 2♠ since it is obviously natural. This is the only possible ruling you can make on the deal IMO.

[kgr]

IMO 3♥ makes it obvious that there was a missunderstanding. the 1NT overcaller already punushed himself by bidding 3NT instead of the obvious pass wich I doubt he must follow.

 

The only player that can be punished in this autction is the 2♥+3♥ bidder who sould pass 2♠ since it is obviously natural. This is the only possible ruling you can make on the deal IMO.

Agree that hand of 2♥-3♥ bidder should be inspected. Probably he was waken up by partner's alert.

Not sure if 3♥ was making the misunderstanding obvious. The slow 3♥ probably helped. Depends of the player's alertness.

[Trinidad]

I disagree quite strongly with Josh here in that I feel that this is a very poor ruling. The 'partner cannot have that hand' argument assumes that (1) partner has forgotten our methods (2) RHO has not psyched and (3) RHO never bids spades holding only ♠xxxx. You have no reason to assume this aside from the very slow 3♥ bid.

I thought it was obvious but I guess I should have stated it. The reason partner can not have that hand is that he passed over 1♣. Personally I will never (ever!) pass over 1♣ with a hand that bids this way opposite a 1NT overcall. This has nothing to do with our methods (except to the extent my methods are to overcall or bid michaels on hands where it is completely normal to do so), and has nothing to do with what rho may have since partner had already passed over 1♣ by then. And for that matter it has nothing to do with the speed of the 3♥ bid. All it has to do with is partner's pass over 1♣ combined with his later bidding.

 

So the 'partner cannot have the hand' argument assumes none of the (1) (2) or (3) that you said it assumes.

 

Even if you came up with some example of a hand that is 5-5 in the majors with this strength and passes over 1♣, which I wouldn't believe, the only conceivable explanation would be horribly bad suits and short honors in the minors. That argues for the 3NT bid anyway, especially in the face of the 1♠ response.

Did you look at the 1NT hand? Then you would have seen that it contains a very nice 19 HCPs. (I think it is fair to say that someone who sees this as a 19 point hand is a pessimist. :))

 

Assuming that the partnership was in sync about this range (and why should we assume otherwise?), it is reasonable to expect a range for 1NT of 17-19 as the absolute minimum. It may also be 20-22. That makes it clear that 2nd hand doesn't need much to invite game.

 

Maybe you would have acted over 1♣ with something like ♠QJxxx ♥Kxxx ♦Q ♣Qxx. That is fine with me and I believe you, but I doubt that is standard. If you then keep in mind that this hand has at least 4-5(!) points to spare for the actual auction, you will see that there are quite a few hands where second hand couldn't act over 1♣, but can force to game (or invite) opposite the extremely strong NT from 4th hand. This is not caused by the fact that these second hands are so powerful. It is caused by the fact that the 1NT overcall showed a powerhouse.

 

I can buy your argument that with the relatively poor major suits (that the 2nd hand must have) 3NT would (could) be the right contract, but that argument needs to come from the player himself. That wasn't the case.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

A 17-22 hcp range for 1NT in this auction seems a bit much. How the heck is partner supposed to know what to do with his 4-5 points? Besides, what you or I think the range should be is irrelevant — what's their agreement?

 

Poll North's peers to find out what the LAs are. The infraction here, if there is one, is as Fluffy implies not the 3NT bid, but the 3♥ bid. So given North's hand (which we don't have) and the presumed partnership agreements given that 2♥ was natural, what would 2♠ mean, and what should North do now?

 

Just for grins, and without considering the legality of such an action, suppose North psyched the transfer. Does 3♥ expose the psych?

[rogerclee]

1NT was 15+ to 18. Maybe you don't agree with this call (I don't), but the player who made it is certainly a strong player.

[Phil]

One other issue is that the announcement of transfer (it was announced, right?) woke up the 2♥ bidder. However, even if screens were in use, a 2♠ call would wake up pard anyway even if 'transfer' wasn't announced.

 

Couldn't the 1N overcaller have a hand that wants to play spades but not hearts?

 

Otherwise, in my methods I find it really hard to come up with a GF hand that passed over 1♣.

[1eyedjack]

If it is not possible for 2nd seat to have 5-4 in the majors and enough to try for game here (and I have difficulty with that assertion, but let it be), then what is the partnership's systemic meaning for the 3H bid in the auction as it happened?

[Codo]

So the 1 NT bidder choose to bid his 19 HCPs with a nice suit as 15+-18?

 

And later he tries to explain that there is no hand for partner which will force to game but not act over 1 ♣?

 

And that AKJxx Axx is a such nice holding in the minors that he prefers 3 NT to 4 Spade in a 5/3 Fit?

 

Sorry, I won't believe him and I have quite strong fealings about this behaviour.

 

 

And I still don't buy that his partner with

QJxxx, Kxxx,xx,xx must bid over 1 ♣.

 

So I would let them play 4 ♠ or 5 [HE possible doubled.

 

And in the given case, where he did not find the argument about the impossible hand anyway, the ruling is even easier.

[jdonn]

And I still don't buy that his partner with

QJxxx, Kxxx,xx,xx must bid over 1 ♣.

Come on, that's not a game force opposite 15+ to 18. Nor an invitation (remember 1♠ was bid on his left.)

[Hanoi5]

I would have assigned an artificial score, like 60% to the non-offending side and 40% to the offending side. The declarer side is the offending party for they certainly made use of UI.

[blackshoe]

I would have assigned an artificial score, like 60% to the non-offending side and 40% to the offending side. The declarer side is the offending party for they certainly made use of UI.

You have no legal basis for that ruling, as far as I can see.

[blackshoe]

This hand decided to bid 3NT, and a director was called.

 

Seems irregular to me. The proper time to call the TD when you believe UI has been used is after the play. Still, calling in the middle of the auction isn't an infraction.

 

The director sided with the 1N overcaller and said result stands.

 

This is confusing. What result? Was the director not called in the middle of the auction, but properly at the end of the play?

 

Here is how things should have gone:

 

1. When there was a BIT before the 3♥ bid, opponents should have asked the OS if they agreed there was a BIT. If the OS disagreed, they should call the director immediately. If they disagreed and did not call the director (an irregularity) the NOS should call the TD. The TD should note the concerns of both sides, and direct the bidding and play to continue, the players to call him back after the play if they feel there was damage due to use of UI. Also, he should note that the 3♥ bidder had UI from the alert when he bid 3♥, and that the TD might adjust the score on that basis. The TD should not, btw, look at the hands at this time. (NB: that the hesitater has hearts and not spades is not the only possible reason for the hesitation).

 

2. When 3NT is bid, nobody should do anything. The bidding and play should continue to conclusion.

 

3. After the play is over, if the NOS feels they may have been damaged, they should call the director back.

 

4. Now the director should consider an assigned adjusted score. An artificial adjusted score is only legal if the director deems the possible assigned scores are "too numerous or not obvious", which does not IMO apply here. It appears that both members of the OS have used UI here, one in bidding 3♥, and the other in bidding 3NT. The first question is whether the 3♥ bidder had any LAs to that call, given that he must treat 2♠ as whatever it means under the assumption that partner knows 2♥ is natural. So what does it mean?

[Hanoi5]

An artificial adjusted score is only legal if the director deems the possible assigned scores are "too numerous or not obvious", which does not IMO apply here. It appears that both members of the OS have used UI here, one in bidding 3♥, and the other in bidding 3NT. The first question is whether the 3♥ bidder had any LAs to that call, given that he must treat 2♠ as whatever it means under the assumption that partner knows 2♥ is natural. So what does it mean?

So having 2 people commiting infractions do you think it's easy to decide what contract should be played? I mean, you have 2♠, 2NT, 3♥, 3NT, 4♥ and 4♠. They are all possible in these circumstances, so I'd give an artificial score and advise the infractors to be careful with the use of UI.

[blackshoe]

Directors should make the correct ruling, not just the easy one.

 

When there are multiple infractions, you take them in chronological order. In this case, the first infraction was the 3♥ bid putatively based on UI from the alert of 2♥. Did the UI suggest bidding 3♥? Surely. Was there a logical alternative? I don't know; I'd have to see the hand. If there was, and if bidding 3♥ can be demonstrated to have been suggested over the LA (likely, IMO) then I would adjust the score on the assumption that the LA was called, rather than 3♥. Let's say that LA is pass, leaving the pair in 2♠. Now there's no need to consider the second infraction, because in this scenario it will never have happened. TD might still issue a PP for either infraction, though. Generally speaking, in a club game, I wouldn't issue PPs, except perhaps in the form of a warning. But if I warn players, I'm saying "do it again, and I'll issue a PP", and I'm going to carry through with that.

 

It would be interesting if the 3♥ bidder claimed that his hesitation was due to trying to figure out what his responsibilities were in the presence of the UI from the alert. :)

 

Addendum 1: Law 12C1(d) allows the TD to award an artificial adjusted score, but only when "the possibilities are numerous or not obvious". It is rare that this should be the case. This law should not be used by the TD as an excuse to be lazy.

 

Addendum 2: in North America, Law 12C1(e) applies, and the NOS get "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred", while the OS get "the most unfavorable result that was at all possible". In most of the rest of the world, Law 12C1© applies, and the players get a weighted score on the basis of the possible results. This does not change the principle stated in addendum 1.

[Codo]

And I still don't buy that his partner with

QJxxx, Kxxx,xx,xx must bid over 1 ♣.

Come on, that's not a game force opposite 15+ to 18. Nor an invitation (remember 1♠ was bid on his left.)

Opposite a partner who bids NT with the given hand, this is a game force. :)

 

The 1 NT bidder is quite on a different wavelength then most of us.

He bids 19+ as 15-18, he bids 3 NT despite a 5/3 fit and ruffing values with the short trumps. All his values are just aces and kings, so why should he bid 3 NT?

 

Maybe his partner knows his attitudes and will bid his hand according to this style?

 

I still need too many excuses to make a ruling in his favour.

[mycroft]

To riff off Blackshoe, "numerous or not obvious" works well after (1C)-1H (showing spades, unalerted), where there could literally be 15 or so auction paths (although if it's reasonably obvious how to get to the "good" contract for the non-offending side, then do it).

 

In this case, there's what - 5 potential contracts? and two potential actions at the two points? Hard? Not in the ACBL, where a simple Fact-or-fiction play throws the auctions into "likely" and "not likely" camps, of which it should be pretty easy to find the "best result" out of the likely set; another game puts the potential contracts into "at all possible" and "not at all possible" buckets, of which you pick the "worst result". Sure, in weighted scores land, it's more difficult, but by resolving probabilities in the NOS' favour, even a complicated weighted score should be straightforward.

 

The reason Blackshoe and I are so much against Artificial Adjusted Scores in this case is that it could be that the NOS are entitled to a top on *any reasonable* L12C1e ruling; why should they be deprived of that 40% (conversely, why should the offenders get a free 40%) because the TD is too lazy to do the work?

[nige1]

IMPs, All White, Fourth Seat

♠Kxx ♥Ax ♦AKJxx ♣Axx

(1♣) - P - (1♠) - 1NT

(2♣) - 2♥* - (P) - 2♠

(P) - 3♥ - (P) - ?

2♥ was by agreement, a transfer. What would you bid?

The story: 2♥ was alerted as a transfer by agreement, and 3♥ was very slow (indicating that the hand had hearts, not spades). This hand decided to bid 3NT, and a director was called. At the table, this player argued that because of the diamond trick source and sharp values, 3NT was indicated instead of 4♠. The opponents argued that maybe 3NT could be right, but 4♠ is certainly a logical alternative, and so must be bid. The director sided with the 1N overcaller and said result stands. The opponents decided to appeal. Later, the 1NT overcaller says that he had enough information to field that partner could not have 5 spades, since there was no 5-5 or 5-4 majors hand consistent with this auction. However, this was not his argument for 3NT at the table. Is it relevant that the player probably did not think of this until after the hand was played? How would you rule anyway?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sqjtxxxhkxxxdcxxx&w=shqjxdqtxxckqjxxx&e=saxxxhtxxdxxxxctx&s=skxxhaxdakjxxcaxx]399|300|Scoring: IMP

(1♣) _P (1♠) 1NT

(2♣) 2♥ (_P) 2♠

(_P) 3♥ (_P) ??

2♥ was by agreement, a transfer. What would you bid?

IMO 4♣=10, 4♦=9 4♠=8, 3N=2

I agree with most of what Cardsharp wrote. I agree with Blackshoe's ruling and his opinion that patner's 3♥ bid is suspect. Admittedly, it is hard to construct a hand consistent with partner holding long ♠ but that was just as true over his original transfer as over his slow 3♥ rebid, Perhaps, the deal on the left is plausible. If that construction is deemed unlikely, then perhaps somebody made a mistake (but here, the unauthorised information makes it likely that the error was partner's). The bottom line is that 4♠ was a logical alternative to the 3N suggested by partner's hesitation. [/hv]

[Finch]

Directors should make the correct ruling, not just the easy one.

 

When there are multiple infractions, you take them in chronological order.

.....{blackshoe considers first infraction}...

Now there's no need to consider the second infraction, because in this scenario it will never have happened. TD might still issue a PP for either infraction, though.

The English approach is slightly different when there have been multiple infractions by one side. We look at all of them, and 'stop the clock' at the point when the offending side are worst off.

 

Take this (hypothetical) example:

 

(1S) 3C* (3S) 4H

(P) 5C (x) all pass

 

*bid with long clubs, alerted and described as Ghestem, showing the red suits

Suppose there were sufficient questions, comments, expressions etc at the table that it's established that the 3C bidder had UI, and the 4H bidder had UI (after his 4H bid) that partner really had clubs.

 

We establish that the 5C was against L16, as the 3C bidder had a logical alternative of passing 4H. Also, passing the double of 5C was illegal, as the 4H bidder had the LA that 5C was a slam try.

 

Suppose 5Cx only went one off, and they ask for a ruling.

 

The first infraction was the 5C bid, so one possible ruling is 4H (possibly doubled, depending on the opposition hands) making some number of tricks, a lot fewer than were made in 5C. From your description, you would stop there and that would be your ruling.

 

However, I would say that passing 5Cx was also an infraction, and that the other hand had a 5H or 6H bid (depending on his hand), possibly doubled. That's worse for the offending side than playing in 4H, so it's what I would rule.