Appeal case #3 in NABC, 2010 at Orlando

[A2003]

Read on the attachment NABC appeal case.

 

Dealer is south it says. If so, why East opened 2♠ call?

Do you agree with this ruling?

How the committee decides that there is no particular reason to think that North-South have a slam.

If you are losing in the match, can south try 6♥ or 6♣ in this brd?

 

If the card of Chip Martel says for weak two opening meaning:

Usually 6 cards Vul, 5 cards in NV, 5-10HCP.

 

Is it ok to bid with 3 HCP. like this hand ♠ KT7632?

 

(1) West asked North about the meaning of South’s 3♠ call. North answered, “We have no agreement. I’m taking it as Michaels.”

Is it true that this statement happens all the time in the clubs?

 

[hv=nn=Steven Ashe&en=Chip Martel&sn=Jeff Edelstein&wn=Jan Martel&pc=n&s=sa94hq9dqjcakqjt5&w=sqj8ha652dkt754c6&n=s5hkjt87da62c9872&e=skt7632h43d983c43&d=e&v=0&b=30&a=2s3sd(West%20asked%20North%20about%20the%20meaning%20of%20South%u2019s%203%u2660%20call.%20North%20answered%2C%20%u201CWe%20have%20no%20agreement.%20I%u2019m%20taking%20it%20as%20Michaels.%u201D)4hp5cp5dp5nd6cppdppp&p=sqs5s7sacac6c2c3ckd7c7c4hqh2h7h4h9hah8h3dtdad3djhks6dqh6hjs3s4h5hts2s9d4c9stc5s8c8d8ctd5cqsjd2d9cjdkd6]599|300[/hv]

 

Is there a limitation in getting the board number when creating the hand diagram in the forum? It goes upto 16. Board number is corrected from 14 to 30, as dealer is east and it is incorrect in the attachment.

Appeal case 3.pdf

[kenberg]

As always, i have no legal training. But the hand is posted in a general forum so I give my views.

 

I would not open the East hand 2S. I would never complain if an opponent did so. I would prefer my partner not do so. Different strokes and all that.

 

if the auction had gone just as it went up to the call of 4H, I believe that it is quite likely South would pass. Maybe he would raise hearts as a slam try. He would not bid 5C since he thinks he has already show a hand something like what he has, and his partner has said that given that information, he wants to play 4H. Why would South think this is wrong? Now here, North has kindly informed his partner that he believes that said partner, South, has a heart suit. With this information in hand now South might like to pull. He cannot do so.

 

The Life Master Pairs is not the Reisinger but it is not kitchen bridge either. Surely North knew his answer was improper. If he truly did not know so at the time, I presume he does now.

 

Added: I will leave the above there, since I wrote it. But in retrospect I am a little uncomfortable about discussing a dispute when none of the principals has asked my opinion. I am not so sure what the purpose is here.

[gordontd]

Board 30 dealer is East so the write-up seems to have put the wrong dealer.

 

The ruling seems routine and the comments of some of the committee wanting to give an AWMW seem appropriate.

[hrothgar]

The 2♠ opening isn't my style either, however, the individual who chose the opening is an order of magnitude better than I, so who am I to complain.

 

What I find interesting about the hand is whether pass is a logical alternative over 4♥.

 

I have a solid 6 card suit, first round control of the opponents suit, and Qx in support of partner.

I don't think that 5♣ is reasonable, however, 4♠ is rather attractive.

[Bbradley62]

Convention cards should reflect partnership agreements/understandings/habits. If Jan wasn't surprised to see Chip's hand, they need to update their convention card.

 

Anyone playing in LM pairs has got to know that North's explanation was not acceptable. He should have been given a procedural penalty for creating the situation leading to the adjusted score.

[inquiry]

Seems like a perfectly normal ruling. Nothing should be controversial here. Sure they might have bid the slam without UI, thing is with UI, they simply have to choose the logical bid for the sequence, which they did not.

 

 

[hrothgar]

Convention cards should reflect partnership agreements/understandings/habits. If Jan wasn't surprised to see Chip's hand, they need to update their convention card.

 

Do you have a copy of the Convention Card in question?

(Or, for that matter know anything about the partnership's alerting style?)

 

Anyone playing in LM pairs has got to know that North's explanation was not acceptable.

He should have been given a procedural penalty for creating the situation leading to the adjusted score.

 

That's not the way the laws works.

 

For better or worse, Bridge Regulations are designed to restore equity, not punish the guilty. Procedural penalties do exist.

They're described in Law 90

 

 

LAW 90 PROCEDURAL PENALTIES

 

A. Director's Authority

 

The Director, in addition to enforcing the penalty provisions of these Laws, may also assess penalties for any offense that unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table. However, the examples provided seem quite different than this case.

 

B. Offenses Subject to Penalty

 

Offenses subject to penalty include but are not limited to:

 

1. Tardiness

 

arrival of a contestant after the specified starting time.

2. Slow Play

 

unduly slow play by a contestant.

3. Loud Discussion

 

discussion of the bidding, play or result of a board, which may be overheard at another table.

4. Comparing Scores

 

unauthorized comparison of scores with another contestant.

5. Touching Another's Cards

 

touching or handling of cards belonging to another player (Law 7).

6. Misplacing Cards in Board

 

placing one or more cards in an incorrect pocket of the board.

7. Errors in Procedure

 

errors in procedure (such as failure to count cards in one's hand, playing the wrong board, etc.) that require an adjusted score for any contestant.

8. Failure to Comply

 

failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with any instruction of the Director.

[nige1]

Board 30 dealer is East so the write-up seems to have put the wrong dealer. The ruling seems routine and the comments of some of the committee wanting to give an AWMW seem appropriate.

Agree with GordonTD.

[Bbradley62]

That's not the way the laws works.

 

For better or worse, Bridge Regulations are designed to restore equity, not punish the guilty. Procedural penalties do exist. They're described in Law 90

I specifically suggested a procedural penalty because those are designed to punish the guilty. North failure to follow proper procedure led to the situation requiring an adjusted score to be awarded at his table, so it meets the requirements of Law 90.

[RMB1]

> Dealer is south it says. If so, why East opened 2♠ call?

Board 30 is dealer East.

 

> Do you agree with this ruling?

Yes. An AWMW seems appropriate: even if Pass was not a logical alternative to 5♣, surely 5♥ is a logical alternative to 5NT, leading to the same adjustment.

 

> How the committee decides that there is no particular reason to think that North-South have a slam.

That is not what the committee is deciding. If anything, it is deciding that a North-South that does not know what it is doing has no particular reason to bid a slam.

 

> If you are losing in the match, can south try 6♥ or 6♣ in this brd?

Not necessarily when he has unauthorised information.

 

> If the card of Chip Martel says for weak two opening meaning:

> Usually 6 cards Vul, 5 cards in NV, 5-10HCP.

> Is it ok to bid with 3 HCP. like this hand ♠ KT7632?

Yes. But if it is usual to bid 2S on this hand then the card should reflect this.

 

Is this a hypothetical question? Does the card of Chip Martel say "5-10 HCP"?

 

> (1) West asked North about the meaning of South’s 3♠ call. North answered, “We have no agreement. I’m taking it as Michaels.”

> Is it true that this statement happens all the time in the clubs?

Yes. But this does not make it right.

Players have been told for decades not to say how they are going to take partner's call.

[Bbradley62]

Convention cards should reflect partnership agreements/understandings/habits. If Jan wasn't surprised to see Chip's hand, they need to update their convention card.

 

Do you have a copy of the Convention Card in question?

(Or, for that matter know anything about the partnership's alerting style?)

 

Fine; I guess I could have included a couple of CYA phrases in my post...

 

IF the original poster correctly represents Chip's convention card

 

If the card of Chip Martel says for weak two opening meaning:

Usually 6 cards Vul, 5 cards in NV, 5-10HCP.

 

AND IF the report in the Daily Bulletin did not fail to include an alert of Chip's opening bid, then:

 

If Jan wasn't surprised to see Chip's hand, they should update their convention card.

[A2003]

Is this a hypothetical question? Does the card of Chip Martel say "5-10 HCP"?

 

I checked several of Chip Martel's previous convention card online and I came to the conclusion that he plays the same.

I thought he plays same method. Usually Vul 6 cards; Non-vul may be 5 cards, 5-10HCP's.

I may be wrong for this tournament.

[OleBerg]

1) Ruling is obvious. (Being from another country, I am clueless as to whether an AWMW should have been given.)

2) NS should by now have learned not to be courtous. In the future they will know just to reply "No agreements".

3) Experienced by West to ask for the meaning of 3♠. It could never hurt, and NS could get into trouble.

4) There would have been no case if the tournament had been played with screens.

[Phil]

The only thing that bothers me is if instead North says "no agreement". Clearly this creates doubt to South that North may not have understood what 3♠ meant. Would 5♣ have been OK in that case?

 

North's explanation is typical for a club player when he says "I'm taking this as...", instead of just explaining agreements.

[barmar]

The only thing that bothers me is if instead North says "no agreement". Clearly this creates doubt to South that North may not have understood what 3♠ meant. Would 5♣ have been OK in that case?

It has a better chance of being allowed, since the UI is more vague and it's harder to say which of the LAs it suggests.

 

Also, if that explanation had been given, West might not have doubled. Then North wouldn't have been making a free bid, and they could rule that Pass is not an LA. Although if North correctly understands South's bid, and they don't have a ♠ stopper, surely their expected bid is 4♣, pass-or-correct, so maybe 4♥ still shows either a good ♥ suit or a misunderstanding. If the latter may be made more likely by the "no agreement" UI, South may be required to make the former interpretation.

[OleBerg]

 

Also, if that explanation had been given, West might not have doubled.

 

LOL

[mfa1010]

I agree with the ruling.

 

1) ... (Being from another country, I am clueless as to whether an AWMW should have been given.)

Me too. And I am in general often particularly clueless when it comes to ACBL. From the text by the dissenters who thought it was an AWM:

In our opinion, if we are dealing with an appeal by the offending side in a UI case, the obligation is especially strong not to bring an appeal when the TDs have determined your action was tainted by UI.

But at the same time I can almost hear the same people mess: "Rule against the offending side and put the onus on them to appeal". Maybe it is a shift in approach to these cases. But more likely I have just understood nothing of ACBL bridge ruling philosophy once again.

[blackshoe]

I'm not sure anybody understands ACBL ruling philosophy — including those who work at HQ.

[campboy]

5♣ is certainly illegal use of UI; there are several logical alternatives which make it likely that N/S will play in hearts and so 5♣ is suggested over them.

 

However, I do not think it is clear that either 4♠ or pass is suggested over the other. In the ACBL, where weighted scores are not permitted, 4♥+2 as the worst score which is likely without the infraction is probably the right ruling, but in other jurisdictions I might give a weighted score between 4♥+2, 6♥= and 6♥x= (after a spade cue from South, doubling becomes less attractive).

[awm]

Dealer is south it says. If so, why East opened 2♠ call?

Do you agree with this ruling?

How the committee decides that there is no particular reason to think that North-South have a slam.

If you are losing in the match, can south try 6♥ or 6♣ in this brd?

 

If the card of Chip Martel says for weak two opening meaning:

Usually 6 cards Vul, 5 cards in NV, 5-10HCP.

 

Is it ok to bid with 3 HCP. like this hand ♠ KT7632?

 

There's a mistake in the writeup; East should be dealer.

I agree with the ruling.

The problem is that South has extra information that makes it much more appealing to bid over 4♥ (i.e. that north misunderstood his bid). Passing 4♥ is not "obvious" especially in a case where you're losing the match (or having a bad set at pairs) but passing 4♥ is definitely a "logical alternative." The laws don't permit South to get away with taking an action (the 5♣ bid) which is made much more appealing by the unauthorized information when there are other logical actions (passing 4♥).

Without the unauthorized information from north (i.e. if there were screens, or if north explained 3♠ as "stopper ask", or possibly even if north said "undiscussed" without further contributions) then south can bid whatever he wants.

 

Chip Martel can bid whatever he wants. However, if he frequently opens 2♠ with 3 HCP like this, then there is an issue because his convention card does not appropriately disclose his methods. If this sort of opening is a rare "deviation" then it's fine. In principle one could file a recorder form about this (there's a system of keeping records for cases like this, where a single action is totally fine but a long-standing pattern of such actions creates an undisclosed agreement).

[Finch]

I checked several of Chip Martel's previous convention card online and I came to the conclusion that he plays the same.

I thought he plays same method. Usually Vul 6 cards; Non-vul may be 5 cards, 5-10HCP's.

I may be wrong for this tournament.

 

I can't find any Martel-Martel convention cards available online.

If he plays a particular range with Stansby, that tells you virtually nothing about the range he plays with Jan.

[kenberg]

The rules are the rules and I know that I have the weak end of this argument. However, even Goren advised that high card point requirements be regarded as a guide, not a hard and fast requirement. Playing the typical 5-10 range then, following the rules,

J65432

J32

J2

Q2

can be opened 1S

while

KJT987

T9

T9

T98

cannot.

 

Seems odd to me.

 

 

If they think that five cards to the nine and an outside queen suffices then yes, I would like to be told about that. Even then, it's mostly in the play that I need to know such things. Knowing that East might open 2S on six to the KT would not affect my bidding with either the North hand or the South hand.

[Trinidad]

The rules are the rules and I know that I have the weak end of this argument. However, even Goren advised that high card point requirements be regarded as a guide, not a hard and fast requirement. Playing the typical 5-10 range then, following the rules,

J65432

J32

J2

Q2

can be opened 1S

while

KJT987

T9

T9

T98

cannot.

 

Seems odd to me.

 

 

If they think that five cards to the nine and an outside queen suffices then yes, I would like to be told about that. Even then, it's mostly in the play that I need to know such things. Knowing that East might open 2S on six to the KT would not affect my bidding with either the North hand or the South hand.

I fully agree with you that HCP should be a guide (and that your second hand is a 5-10 weak two). However, if you look at Chip's actual hand (♠KT7632♥43♦983♣43), I cannot see any reason why I would deviate from the guide.

 

Now, I am not as strong a player as Chip, so there may be a very good reason why this is actually a 5HCP hand for weak two purposes. That is all fine. However, the convention card is not meant for Chip or Jan. It is meant for their opponents (and that could be you or me). They are supposed to understand from the description on the card what Chip's weak two's look like.

 

If I would read "Usually 6 cards Vul, 5 cards in NV, 5-10HCP" on the card, I am flexible enough to allow for your second hand. But I would not allow for the hand that Chip actually held.

 

That means that either this was a one time occurance and Jan didn't know or Jan did know, but then the CC was not filled out in such a way that I -a potential opponent, for whom the CC is meant- could understand it.

 

Rik

[gnasher]

That means that either this was a one time occurance and Jan didn't know or Jan did know, but then the CC was not filled out in such a way that I -a potential opponent, for whom the CC is meant- could understand it.

We don't know what the convention card said - the range "5-10HCP's" was from a card belonging to a different partnership.

[RMB1]

All I could find online is www.okbridge.com/member/iwbc_2000/cc/118/chipm:janm.ok, which appears to be ten years old.

 

2H	Range:5-11, Desc:Can be 5 NV, Natural
Resp:2N asks; 3 suit INV
2S	Range:5-11, Desc:See 2H