gordontd Posted March 16, 2010 Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sqj954h874dakq8c7&w=shkjt652d32caqt52&e=st82ha3djt9765c63&s=sak763hq9d4ckj984]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] 1♥ - 1♠ - P - 3♣Dble - 3♦ - 4♦ - 5♦Pass - Pass - Pass 3♣ was intended as a fit-jump, but not recognised or alerted as such.Dble was intended as penalties (alertable in the EBU), but not recognised or alerted as such.3♦ was intended as natural, but after the 4♦ bid South thought that it had been a cue-bid, although he didn't alert it as such. 5♦ was intended as a cue-bid. Final result 5♦-8 Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted March 16, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 I seem to need practical assistance on two fronts: I had intended this to be in Laws & Rulings, but it has appeared in Appeals & Appeals Committees. Would an Administrator please move it? Secondly the hand diagram has appeared Centred instead of Left-alligned, although there's nothing I'm aware of that should make it so. Does anyone have an explanation for this, or a suggestion as to how it could be rectified? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted March 16, 2010 Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 It was nice of you to ring me up and tell me about it!!! ;) Incidentally, despite 3♦ not being alerted, I understand 4♦ was also intended as natural. While it was not alerted, that proves nothing, since calls above 3NT are not alerted. The only other thought I have is: Why is this in the Appeals forum? Did someone appeal your decision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 16, 2010 Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 wtp? Result stands. NS made a mess of the auction but it didn't really influence EW's decisions, other than maybe E decided not to double because NS appeared to have a misunderstanding and he wouldn't give the a chance to escape. I think EW got a good result but even if they didn't, I still see no reason to adjust the score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted March 16, 2010 Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 I don't think EW were damaged. If they would have doubled 5D with better information then South knows he does not want to play in 5D or 5DX, and 5SX is less expensive than 5D-8. I don't think NS were damaged by misinformation. They chose to play in 5D when West had a take-out double of clubs and East had bid diamonds, then the information that West had a penalty double would not make them less likely to play in diamonds. Result stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted March 16, 2010 Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 I've moved the topic, per Gordon's request. Also, the hands appear left-justified to me, so I don't know what the problem may have been. <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellSpyder Posted March 16, 2010 Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 The focus so far has been on MI rather than UI. But clearly south had UI from the lack of an alert for 3♣. Full marks to him, therefore, in avoiding a spade bid on the next round and choosing 5♦ instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted March 16, 2010 Report Share Posted March 16, 2010 To me the hands are left-justified in Firefox but centered in Internet Explorer. IE often gets column adjustment wrong. 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.