Year End C #14 - Mixed/Open Pairs - UI/MI

[bluejak]

Ok, as suggested I have put the auction in the main text. It is slow because of the spacing.

 

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=st632hqj7d654ck93&w=sa4h963dqt7c87652&e=sj75hk852daj32cqj&s=skq98hat4dk98cat4]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 W   N    E    S

       P   1♦  1NT

 2♦  P*  P   Dbl

  P   P    P

 

Result: 2♦ dbld/E -3, NS +500

 

* North's second pass was agreed as slow.

 

East asked the TD to look at South's double after his partner's agreed hesitation. Also, the double was not alerted, so it was takeout under EBU alerting rules. East managed to lose an additional trick trying for an unlikely play at the end because he "knew" the ♦K was North, while just drawing trumps woudl have led to -2.

 

Any views?

[StevenG]

Easr knew that the ♦K was with North because the double was takeout? Where did he think South's ♦ stop was for the NT bid?

 

As for the double, it is MPs and you don't let opponents play at the 2 level if you can help it, do you? Is pass a LA? It probably depends how aggressive a balancer South normally is.

[gnasher]

I think it's normal for South to pass. He has an unexceptional hand for his bidding so far, and no reason to think it's right to compete further. North knows much more about the partnership's combined assets than South, and he has already expressed the opinion that it's right to defend 2♦ undoubled.

 

it is MPs and you don't let opponents play at the 2 level if you can help it

If so, why on Earth didn't North act?

[hotShot]

When was the TD called?

 

Now the agreed hesitation can only mean that North considered bidding, in a situation where he could not have more than 6 HCP (East 12+, South 16, West 6+ => 34 known HCP).

 

So I guess I can't allow the dbl.

 

As Steven pointed out, there is not much sense in the explanation why the ♦K should be with North.

 

So I'd adjust to 2♦-3.

[Ant590]

Yeah, presuming the hesitation from North existed, I think pass is a LA for South.

 

I would expect this type of hand to be routinely appealed, the committee not change the ruling but give the deposit back.

 

As for the ♦K argument --- LOL.

[Codo]

Of course passing is a LA. I would doubt that most people would call a reopening double mandatory with the south hand.

 

So we must corrct the score. But how? 2 Diamond -2? or -3?

I think I must rule -2 despite the fact that East misplayed the hand badly.

[bluejak]

Yeah, presuming the hesitation from North existed, I think pass is a LA for South.

 

I would expect this type of hand to be routinely appealed, the committee not change the ruling but give the deposit back.

Why? If the ruling is obvious, why appeal? Why return the deposit?

[hrothgar]

Yeah, presuming the hesitation from North existed, I think pass is a LA for South.

 

I would expect this type of hand to be routinely appealed, the committee not change the ruling but give the deposit back.

Why? If the ruling is obvious, why appeal?

As I recall, bridge players are required to try to maximize their expected score.

 

Traditionally, these requirements are cited in discussions about sportsmanlike dumping. I see no reason why these same principles shouldn't be extended to the appeals process.

 

If I have an opportunity to bring an appeal

AND I believe that the act of bringing my appeal has a chance of improving my score

THEN I must bring an appeal

 

Here: I know that appeals committees are

 

1. Capable of producing outlandish rulings

2. Rarely, if ever act to decrease the score of the party registering an appeal

 

Therefore, I am ethically required to appeal every ruling

[helene_t]

Back to 2♦ undoubled of course. The question is whether it is -2 or -3.

 

Declarer misplayed but woudl proably not have misplayed in the same way if South had not doubled.

 

I think declarer's mistake is serious enough to write -3.

 

Alternatively, maybe, a split score. We want to punish declarer for double-shooting, speculating on an adjustment for the failure to alert the double. At the same time we don't want NS to benefit from the use of UI.

 

Richard, I fail to see the justification for your sarcasm here. Maybe you have a specific ruling in mind?

[RMB1]

Therefore, I am ethically required to appeal every ruling

David mentioned in another thread the box on the EBU appeals form "reason for appeal".

 

If the reason for appeal is recorded as "we always appeal" the committee tend so see this as a red rag to a bull and are more inclined to keep the deposit.

 

Robin

[hotShot]

Therefore, I am ethically required to appeal every ruling

Richard, you did not think this to an end.

 

If you know you will always appeal, you are also required never to agree to a hesitation etc.

[bluejak]

Yeah, presuming the hesitation from North existed, I think pass is a LA for South.

 

I would expect this type of hand to be routinely appealed, the committee not change the ruling but give the deposit back.

Why? If the ruling is obvious, why appeal?

As I recall, bridge players are required to try to maximize their expected score.

 

Traditionally, these requirements are cited in discussions about sportsmanlike dumping. I see no reason why these same principles shouldn't be extended to the appeals process.

 

If I have an opportunity to bring an appeal

AND I believe that the act of bringing my appeal has a chance of improving my score

THEN I must bring an appeal

 

Here: I know that appeals committees are

 

1. Capable of producing outlandish rulings

2. Rarely, if ever act to decrease the score of the party registering an appeal

 

Therefore, I am ethically required to appeal every ruling

They are expected to maximise their score fairly.

 

A player who appeals a ruling he believes to be correct in case the AC is barmy is, in my view, an unethical <obvious word deleted>.

[Ant590]

A player who appeals a ruling he believes to be correct in case the AC is barmy is, in my view, an unethical <obvious word deleted>.

I guess it depends on what you deem a "correct ruling"

 

I think it is valid to appeal an action that you would have made, but are not sure if another action was an LA.

 

For instance say EW would also have game-forced with the south hand. Can they be sure that a poll of NS's peers would not see pass as a LA? What if they are far better or worse than their opponents and so out-of-touch with NS's peers? On these cases I would appeal, but expect to lose and get my money back unless my bridge judgement is lacking.

 

I think appealing on these grounds has merit, and doesn't make one an unethical XXX. For one thing, the same argument you made could be made to calling the director in the first place.

[jeremy69]

As a TD I would adjust by removing the double becuase I don't think that doubling would meet old tests for action let alone newer ones.

The play may have been barmy but it was influenced by the dubious action so letting declarer stay at -3 seems a bit tough. At matchpoints trying to rescue something from the wreckage is not wild or gambling in principle.

If north-south appealed the number of tricks I can see then keeping one finger on the deposit but if they appeal whether the double should stand or not then I would expect the appeal committee to be able to afford a round of drinks even at the prevailing hotel prices.

[duschek]

2♦ undoubled. Obviously, North has something. Obviously, pass is a logical alternative. As a committee member, I would vote for keeping the deposit if N/S just want to argue whether pass is a logical alternative.

 

Down two, because it is clear that declarer got confused about the ♦K because of the double, which he would not have after a pass from South.

[bluejak]

A player who appeals a ruling he believes to be correct in case the AC is barmy is, in my view, an unethical <obvious word deleted>.

I guess it depends on what you deem a "correct ruling"

 

I think it is valid to appeal an action that you would have made, but are not sure if another action was an LA.

 

For instance say EW would also have game-forced with the south hand. Can they be sure that a poll of NS's peers would not see pass as a LA? What if they are far better or worse than their opponents and so out-of-touch with NS's peers? On these cases I would appeal, but expect to lose and get my money back unless my bridge judgement is lacking.

 

I think appealing on these grounds has merit, and doesn't make one an unethical XXX. For one thing, the same argument you made could be made to calling the director in the first place.

So do I, but that is nothing like the situation offered by hrothgar.

[nige1]

2♦ undoubled. Obviously, North has something. Obviously, pass is a logical alternative. As a committee member, I would vote for keeping the deposit if N/S just want to argue whether pass is a logical alternative.

 

Down two, because it is clear that declarer got confused about the ♦K because of the double, which he would not have after a pass from South.

Seems reasonable and sensible to me :)

[nige1]

As I recall, bridge players are required to try to maximize their expected score. Traditionally, these requirements are cited in discussions about sportsmanlike dumping.  I see no reason why these same principles shouldn't be extended to the appeals process.

 

If I have an opportunity to bring an appeal

AND I believe that the act of bringing my appeal has a chance of improving my score

THEN I must bring an appeal

 

Here:  I know that appeals committees are

1.  Capable of producing outlandish rulings

2.  Rarely, if ever act to decrease the score of the party registering an appeal

 

Therefore, I am ethically required to appeal every ruling

Even if, in your simple-minded assessment, you believe that a director's adverse ruling is OK, it is the acme of hubris to imagine that a sophisticated appeals committee won't find a flaw. So Brothgar must be right.

[lamford]

The point that you have an obligation to get the best score possible and therefore should appeal every time seems nonsense, as you can be awarded a worse result (including any PP not originally awarded) as far as I understand the powers of ACs.

 

And not awarding a PP to South for the double of 2D seems wrong as well. Much of the time partner has two diamonds and yet has not made a take-out double, but has hitched instead. So, we make one for him! I would be keeping the deposit every time.

[MFA]

The point that you have an obligation to get the best score possible and therefore should appeal every time seems nonsense, as you can be awarded a worse result (including any PP not originally awarded) as far as I understand the powers of ACs.

I don't think we even need the threat of getting a worse result.

In my view it can never be unethical simply just to take note of the director's decision and leave it there. Whatever the circumstances in the tournament. The director is (supposed to be) an official, compentent person specifically designated to decide these matters. So his decisions should be trusted as a general principle.

 

---

The thread case is an easy adjustment to 2♦ undoubled. If NS are appealing this to get back the table result their money should be withheld.

[vigfus]

2♦ -3 is what I would rule.

South had UI from his partners slow pass, That makes his double a good bet, either for takeout or penalty. Fast passing partner over 2♦, makes PASS by south sure an LA.

3 off is what declared made, He earned it.

[bluejak]

I understand the TD ruled 2♦ -2. If there had been no infraction, that is the result that would have been obtained. If a silly play is because of the infraction - the case here - then it would not be made without the infraction.

 

The only doubt in my view is whether we should split the score: is the silly play bad enough to make Law 12C1B kick in? Well, I do not think it 'wild' - he had some idea, even if a poor one. It is not 'gambling' - same reason. And it is certainly not a 'serious error unrelated to the infraction' because it clearly was related to the infraction. So I consider it correct to rule 2♦ -2 for both sides.

[aguahombre]

relax about richard...his tongue was sticking out his cheek far enough to be quite visible. 2D-2 for e/w. Maybe it should be down 3 because of the lunacy of the play, but I think declarer was given an extra thing to overload his brain because of the irregularities, which other declarers would not have to cope with.