Appeal from the Norwegian Premier League

[jvage]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa3hkt9632d8ct975&w=s4hj5dakt95caj863&e=skj52haqdq7642ckq&s=sqt9876h874dj3c42]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

Teams, both pairs are strong (E/W are European Champions), screens

 

West North East South

1♦___1♥___2♥(1) pass

3♣(2) pass 3♥(3) pass

4♣(4) pass 4♠(4) pass

5♦(5) pass 6♦ all pass

 

1: Invitational+ with 4+ diamonds

2: Natural, not minimum

3: Asks for cue-bid (unlike in my system it did not promise a heart-control even when followed by a cue-bid)

4: Cue-bids

5: Very slow. While the tray was on the other side East actually told his screenmate that he would raise 5 diamonds. It seems this happened after almost a minute, the hesitation then lasted almost two minutes longer (this was agreed).

 

6♦ made an overtrick (North did not jump in with the ♠A). When the TD is called East says he cue-bid 4♠ because he wanted partner to bid 4NT (RKCB) to get better control towards a grand slam.

 

The TD adjusted the score to 5♦+2. His argument was that the long hesitation suggests 3 "aces" (of 5) lacking a heart-control. Since the hesitation was already established Easts comment to his screenmate did not matter. Easts reluctance to bid RKCB may have been because he feared a 5♥/♠ response, driving them too high lacking 2 aces. This also suggests that passing 5♦ is a logical alternative. I don't know if he conducted a proper poll, but when I was asked I knew about the hesitation and told him something like "Most strong players would probably raise 5♦ to 6, but pass is probably a logical alternative".

 

E/W appealed based on pass not being a logical alternative.

 

How would you rule? Feel free to ask, but I have already listed what I found relevant from the appeals form. In our match (not this one) both tables bid to 6♦ (I was North), the deal was played at 10 tables of which 1 stopped in 4♦(!), 1 in 3NT and 1 in 5♦, the last 7 (including this) were in slam (one in 6NT) (these frequencies were listed on the appeals form).

 

John

[gordontd]

The AI that East has is:

 

West has a better than minimum opener

West has at least five diamonds (I assume, unless there are system issues of which we aren't aware)

West has the ♣A

West hasn't got the ♠A

North has overcalled ♥

 

With this information, it's hard to see that Pass might be an LA for East.

[lamford]

This does not seem close; North presumably has the ace of spades and the king of hearts for his overcall, and even xx xx AKxxx Axxx which is a complete minimum makes slam almost certain. West could have Qx xx AJ10xx Axxx which is another complete minimum, but we are told that 3C showed a non-minimum.

 

In order to adjust, the hesitation would have to demonstrably suggest one hand over another, and I cannot imagine any strong player thinking pass was an LA. I tried a couple who both bid 6D, but only had time to poll two.

[peachy]

After opener's 3C showed extras, it would be unreasonable not to get to slam after the needed controls have been identified, as they have been here. So Pass over 5D is not a logical alternative. Result stands. Should you conduct a poll, I am confident you will find no passers.

[jdonn]

Something smells since east had no reason not to bid keycard himself. That some responses would take him too high is irrelevent. In fact if he mentions that then it should definitely be rolled back to 5♦ since it proves he was worried slam doesn't make and thus could only have bid it due to UI.

[lamford]

Something smells since east had no reason not to bid keycard himself. That some responses would take him too high is irrelevent. In fact if he mentions that then it should definitely be rolled back to 5♦ since it proves he was worried slam doesn't make and thus could only have bid it due to UI.

He stated that he did. "When the TD is called East says he cue-bid 4♠ because he wanted partner to bid 4NT (RKCB) to get better control towards a grand slam. "

 

It was North, the OP, who surmised:

"East's reluctance to bid RKCB may have been because he feared a 5♥/♠ response, driving them too high lacking 2 aces. "

 

This is clearly a self-serving statement, in that it is an opinion, clothed in the standard "may have been" conjecture, which contradicts the stated reason of East.

 

I suggest your re-read the OP and find who said what.

[bluejak]

I don't see how the TD's view of the matter can be treated as a "self-serving statement".

 

Incidentally, jvage, why are the frequencies listed on the appeals form? Surely they should not be considered unless they are using the same methods and had the same bidding sequence.

 

The question? Oh, I agree with Gordon.

[Pict]

If East is about to play for partner holding at least AK,A in the minors, and want's A♠ for seven, then I'd repeat jdonn's question, why doesn't he just ask, instead of this incomprehensible transfer of control stuff. Without a little more explanation this doesn't seem to add up.

[TimG]

It was North, the OP, who surmised:

"East's reluctance to bid RKCB may have been because he feared a 5♥/♠ response, driving them too high lacking 2 aces. "

The way I read the OP, that was the director's reasoning, not jvage's. jvage also said in his post that "n our match (not this one)" so he was not at the table. It seems wrong to characterize the statement as self-serving.

[jvage]

I was only indirectly involved in this case, I was not a teammate or playing at this table. I did discuss the case with the TD, so I knew his reasoning at least partly. We are both members of our national laws/appeals committee (he is the chairman), but had decided beforehand that we would send any appeals to another committee. Our committee was either directing or playing in the event (the last member was E/W's teammate...).

 

Some has mentioned East's 4♠ bid. I also found this bid and the players argument interesting, but will wait to give my current opinion. In the OP I wrote what my initial reaction to the LA-problem was when asked by the TD, I have since had a bit more time to consider...

 

To David: I also think it's a bit strange that the frequencies are listed on the appeals form, that was one reason I mentioned it (also to give the same information as the appeals committee had). I agree that this could possibly lead to other results (possibly with different bidding etc.) influencing some desicions too much, which is not a good thing.

 

John

[lamford]

It was North, the OP, who surmised:

"East's reluctance to bid RKCB may have been because he feared a 5♥/♠ response, driving them too high lacking 2 aces. "

The way I read the OP, that was the director's reasoning, not jvage's. jvage also said in his post that "n our match (not this one)" so he was not at the table. It seems wrong to characterize the statement as self-serving.

You are right; I mistakenly thought jvage was North at this table, but it was at another table. I should obey my own advice to re-read the OP! People who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones ...

 

I am not sure, however, how relevant it is whether East might have bid 4NT on the previous round. We are mainly concerend whether pass this round is an LA, and I still cannot construct a hand where slam is not very good.

[jdonn]

Something smells since east had no reason not to bid keycard himself. That some responses would take him too high is irrelevent. In fact if he mentions that then it should definitely be rolled back to 5♦ since it proves he was worried slam doesn't make and thus could only have bid it due to UI.

He stated that he did. "When the TD is called East says he cue-bid 4♠ because he wanted partner to bid 4NT (RKCB) to get better control towards a grand slam. "

 

It was North, the OP, who surmised:

"East's reluctance to bid RKCB may have been because he feared a 5♥/♠ response, driving them too high lacking 2 aces. "

 

This is clearly a self-serving statement, in that it is an opinion, clothed in the standard "may have been" conjecture, which contradicts the stated reason of East.

 

I suggest your re-read the OP and find who said what.

Perhaps I should have said no "plausible" reason since the reason given is absurd. As for the rest of your post, I recommend you grab a dictionary and look up the word "if". I bolded it for you in my the portion of my post you quoted since you obviously missed it.

[Finch]

I also think something smells, unless I have not understood the auction.

If 3H demanded a cue bid, hasn't West denied the ace of spades with his 4C bid? In which case East knows there cannot possibly be a grand on.

[lamford]

If 3H demanded a cue bid, hasn't West denied the ace of spades with his 4C bid? In which case East knows there cannot possibly be a grand on.

We are not told whether 3S would be a cue, but I agree logically it would be. Perhaps the TD should have established this point.

[lamford]

Perhaps I should have said no "plausible" reason since the reason given is absurd. As for the rest of your post, I recommend you grab a dictionary and look up the word "if". I bolded it for you in my the portion of my post you quoted since you obviously missed it.

I did, and find that one of the colloquial uses of "if" in the context of your posting is similar to "If East-West could not be bothered to complete a convention card, then they should be ruled against." Or, perhaps, "If East could not give a better explanation than that as to why he did not use Blackwood himself, then he should be ruled against." The meaning is similar to "as" in this context, and implies that you believe the statement after the if to be true. Maybe this is a misuse of the English language, but there is plenty of that in the Laws!

[jvage]

When I originally told the TD that I believed pass was probably a LA it was actually mainly because 4♠ looked more like a bid investigating six than seven. As mentioned by some posters West would probably have bid 3♠ with the Ace (may depend on methods, I agree the TD should have checked this). Secondly 4NT would either way determine if partner got all the missing 4 keycards, the grand could then be bid confidently since that is all that is needed.

 

I don't know if it "smells", to me it seems most likely that East just didn't want to admit to the TD at the table that his 4♠-bid was not a very good bid. I know many players who try to rationalize their mistakes, often realizing this when they have had some more time to think. The poor argument for 4♠ may of course also be because he realized this bid could be questioned when considering the final raise to slam.

 

This also sums up the decision from the appeals committe, which seems to be supported by the Forum. The committee found that E/W had a very good sequence up to and including 4♣ (also mentioning that West's non-mimimum probably did not include the ♥K, since West then most likely would have bid 3NT). They did not agree with 4♠ or the reasoning behind it, but ruled that pass was not a Logical Alternative after 5♦, the sequence up to 4♣ had told East that a slam should be bid . The original table-result was reinstated.

 

John

[jallerton]

The AI that East has is:

 

West has a better than minimum opener

West has at least five diamonds (I assume, unless there are system issues of which we aren't aware)

West has the ♣A

West hasn't got the ♠A

North has overcalled ♥

This is a good summary, but as Paul points out, the TD needs to be sceptical about any potentially self-serving statements and investigate further where necessary.

 

On this deal, one of the key questions for the TD to get to the bottom of is what exactly is meant by:

 

"3♣ = natural, non-minimum"

 

I also play 2♥ in this sequence as "Invitational+ with 4+ diamonds". I would expect Opener to bid 3♣ on:

 

[a] ♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx ;or

 

♠x ♥Kx ♦KJ10xx ♣ AJ10xx

 

and I could legitimately describe both of these hands as "non-minimum" in that, once partner has shown 4-card diamond support, they have significant extra playing strength compared with some hands which might have opened 1♦.

 

A sensible question for the TD/AC to ask is: "how far is 3♣ forcing?". If it is forcing to game, then perhaps Opener is marked with 3 key cards and Gordon is right that bidding slam is "evident".

 

However, if 3♣ is not game forcing, I would suggest that both hands [a] and are consistent with the authorised auction and that therefore passing 5♦ is a logical alternative. There is further evidence to suggest that the TD's ruling was correct:

 

1. Opener thought for a long time before making the weakest call available to him. Ergo, Opener must have thought that his hand was better than whatever he had shown so far.

 

2. As others have pointed out, there is an inference that Responder did not consider his hand worth 6♦ once partner had bid 4♣, else he would simply have jumped to the small slam at that stage (Opener having denied ♠A apparently).

[nige1]

1. 
    
    
   
2. ♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx ;or
    
   
3. ♠x ♥Kx ♦KJ10xx ♣ AJ10xx
    
   

[sNIP] However, if 3♣ is not game forcing, I would suggest that both hands a and b are consistent with the authorised auction and that therefore passing 5♦ is a logical alternative.  There is further evidence to suggest that the TD's ruling was correct:

1.  Opener thought for a long time before making the weakest call available to him.  Ergo, Opener must have thought that his hand was better than whatever he had shown so far.

2.  As others have pointed out, there is an inference that Responder did not consider his hand worth 6♦ once partner had bid 4♣, else he would simply have jumped to the small slam at that stage (Opener having denied ♠A apparently).

I agree.

When the TD is called East says he cue-bid 4♠ because he wanted partner to bid 4NT (RKCB) to get better control towards a grand slam.

IMO, the committee should uphold the director's ruling. East's explanation for his 4♠ seems dopey or dodgy, unless he wants to play in a grand, with only second round control of ♠. West's hesitation could mean that he was considering a slam, so seems to have cleared some of East's cobwebs. Nevertheless, the director's chutzpah is remarkable, considering that East-West are European Champions. It is, however, just a matter of judgement.

While the tray was on the other side East actually told his screenmate that he would raise 5 diamonds. It seems this happened after almost a minute, the hesitation then lasted almost two minutes longer (this was agreed).

More interesting is whether a statement like East's should affect the issue. Suppose, instead, immediately, as part of East's explanation of his 4♠ bid, he wrote to his screen-mate that, whatever his partner did, he would continue to a slam. Would that convince the director? And would East's undertaking be legally binding?

[jvage]

Jeffrey raises a couple of interesting points. I considered writing something more than "non-minimum" (the appealants also used the word "extra values"), but decided not to, since this would be guessing. I honestly don't know if it was GF.

 

Personally I use similar methods and consider both the example hands as sub-minimum for 3♣. If I did bid 3♣ on something like this I would definitely bid 3NT over 3♥ with the second example hand (x, Kx, KJTxx, AJTxx).

 

John

[nige1]

Personally I use similar methods and consider both the example hands as sub-minimum for 3♣.

With jallerton's example hands, what bids do you prefer to 3♣?

[jvage]

Maybe "sub-minimum" was a bad word, I meant borderline between 3♣ and 3♦. If partner can't find another bid over 3♦ game will normally not be laydown, while 3♣ will lead to some no-play games.

 

John

[jallerton]

Personally I use similar methods and consider both the example hands as sub-minimum for 3♣. If I did bid 3♣ on something like this I would definitely bid 3NT over 3♥ with the second example hand (x, Kx, KJTxx, AJTxx).

 

John

On the second example hand I would also bid 3NT over 3♥ playing my methods, as I play 3♥ as asking for further hand description. However, the meaning of 3♥ for the actual E/W pair was described in the opening post as "asking for a cue bid", so playing their methods it is presumably systemic to bid 4♣.

 

Maybe "sub-minimum" was a bad word, I meant borderline between 3♣ and 3♦.

 

If these hands are also borderline playing the methods of the actual E/W pair, then East should try to cater for them in his subsequent bidding. Once he receives UI implying that West has extra values, East is now obliged to cater for these borderline/minimum hands in his subsequent bidding.

[lamford]

Once he receives UI implying that West has extra values, East is now obliged to cater for these borderline/minimum hands in his subsequent bidding.

We are told by the OP that 3C showed a non-minimum, so East is only obliged to cater for hands that are non-minimum. And neither of the hands you put forward fits that description to me or anyone else I have asked.

[jallerton]

The TD was told that 3♣ showed "extra values" but this was a statement made to the TD by E/W, which (I speculate) could probably not be substantiated on their convention card or in their system file. Unsubstantiated potentitally self-serving statements provide evidence, but this evidence should not be accepted as a fact; such statements need to be viewed with a degree of scepticism; so the TD should make further enquiries and seek alternative evidence where available.

 

What we do know in this case is that ♠ 4 ♥J5 ♦AK1095 ♣AJ863 is significantly better than a minimum 3♣ bid (so significantly better than just "extra values"!), because holding this hand West thought for 2 minutes before signing off in 5♦.

[lamford]

What we do know in this case is that ♠ 4 ♥J5 ♦AK1095 ♣AJ863 is significantly better than a minimum 3♣ bid (so significantly better than just "extra values"!), because holding this hand West thought for 2 minutes before signing off in 5♦.

I think you would assess the hand held as significantly better than ♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx as well. For you to rule that pass was a logical alternative you would have to deem that the hand held was demonstrably suggested by the UI over the hands you "hand-picked". The self-serving aspect was your choice of hands with two key cards missing.