Should I Have Sanctioned an Appeal?

[lamford]

I think the best description of this North-South pair would be that they're a fairly irregular partnership who play a lot of stuff and don't bother to discuss it properly. I'd be very surprised to hear them say that they don't play splinters in a sequence of this sort.

 

I'm also surprised that there's been little discussion of the meaning of 3NT. I would expect that with a major agreed this pair would play 3NT as artificial. Depending on the meaning of 3NT, that might make North's 3NT legal. If you play non-serious 3NT, that looks an obvious action on the North hand, and it's hard to believe that North would bid a serious 4♣ instead. If 3NT would be serious, then I'd make North bid 4♣.

I completely agree that a 'non-serious' 3NT would be a perfectably reasonable choice, and I also agree that it is quite likely that the North-South pair in question would play such methods. What I would not allow, however, is for North to bid it and South to pass it, claiming that he does not have any UI. That smacks of a CPU. And what would not be acceptable would be for 3NT to be passable when considering the UI, but forcing without the UI. Again, that would not be carefully avoiding using the UI, and even if the bid were best, it would have to be eschewed.

[lamford]

There was a lot of discussion going on at once, not just with me and Jeffrey but with many of the Cambs & Hunts players and another member of the Surrey team who also knew all the players concerned very well so it's not surprising things may have become slightly confused, however I am absolutely certain that I never said that an appeal had no chance. In fact, I never got as far as stating my opinion about how likely it would be to succeed. Jeffrey tells me he doesn't think he said anything like that either. We were certainly discussing what the N/S arguments could be, perhaps that sounded to Chris like a statement of absolute belief in their validity. When I spoke to N/S before the left (and before the original TD's ruling) I had told them that they would be ruled against; when I heard that the table result had been ruled to stand I assumed that I had misunderstood something about the auction.

 

The only direct opinion I gave on whether there should appeal was that if it was not going to affect the winners, I wouldn't bother. It was clear that E/W - particularly West - did not want to appeal because he wanted to go home, and he also suspected that the AC would prefer to go home. Both teams had had a decent chance of winning before the last match and some people were feeling a bit fed up having finished so badly; the appetite to appeal was from some of the other players rather than those at the table. I was also aware that NS could not attend any appeal.

I fully accept your views which were as I expected. Indeed I believed the original facts to be wrong, and on several occasions I added "provided the facts are as stated" or words to that effect, expecting that there was some error. I think it is very unfair, therefore, for you to preface a post with "Get a Life".

 

I would be very unhappy to read: " I discussed it with Frances & Jeffery amongst others (even though they weren't strictly impartial, but I thought I could trust them) and I was persuaded that an appeal would fail and that I wouldn't waste everyone's time." If I were Chris L, I would apologise for making this statement, which contains an innuendo. It would be charitable to assume that he was tired and emotional after Cambs and Hunts "poor performance on the Sunday".

 

I agree entirely with gnasher's additional point, and with dburn, wank and others. But now it is too late to adjust the score. I presume that you agree that the TD must assume 3NT cannot be serious (McEnroe) when his partner passes it.

[lamford]

I'm also surprised that there's been little discussion of the meaning of 3NT. I would expect that with a major agreed this pair would play 3NT as artificial. Depending on the meaning of 3NT, that might make North's 3NT legal. If you play non-serious 3NT, that looks an obvious action on the North hand, and it's hard to believe that North would bid a serious 4♣ instead. If 3NT would be serious, then I'd make North bid 4♣.

Are you saying that you would allow 3NT if North-South could show that it was a non-serious slam try, and accept the North-South argument (which has not previously been put forward) that this is what it meant, even though it was passed by South, who has no UI?

 

And is there not some danger that South's pass of 3NT could be "fielding a systemic misbid" (going back to the 1H bid)? This EBU approach is disliked by many of the WBFLC, but the event was indeed under the former's auspices.

[lamford]

<big snip> That's a good argument for the actual 3NT bid, and one of the reasons that EW were not so keen to appeal: they would have bid 3NT because (i) it's step 1 (a big consideration), (ii) it is a fairly weak hand with clubs well stopped. If 3S was natural, it will end the auction; if 3S was some sort of heart fit partner will clarify next round. At the time I thought this was quite convincing, but the poll I did elsewhere shows me that I may be wrong about this <snip>.

I think this approach and thinking is wrong. You know that 3NT has a chance to be passed because of the UI. Your duty to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, and your duty not to select a demonstrably suggested logical alternative, forces you to reject the 3NT bid, whatever its merits. It is clear that it is demonstrably suggested over 4C because the latter is going to project the auction into the nether regions. There is indeed a tendency not to bother too much with minor places in events, but the discussion here should assume that the decision is important; otherwise you would be right to tell me to "get a life".

[gnasher]

Are you saying that you would allow 3NT if North-South could show that it was a non-serious slam try

Yes. Doesn't it look like a routine non-serious try to you?

 

, and accept the North-South argument (which has not previously been put forward) that this is what it meant, even though it was passed by South, who has no UI?

If 3NT is the only LA, it's legal to bid it, regardless of North's motives. If I thought that North had bid a legal 3NT believing it to be illegal, I suppose that might merit a PP (if the law allows such a penalty).

 

As your questions imply, the fact that South passed 3NT suggests that it isn't systemically artificial, so the evidence to the contrary would have to be quite strong.

 

And is there not some danger that South's pass of 3NT could be "fielding a systemic misbid" (going back to the 1H bid)? This EBU approach is disliked by many of the WBFLC, but the event was indeed under the former's auspices.

Yes, that might well be a fielded misbid.

[Chris L]

There was a lot of discussion going on at once, not just with me and Jeffrey but with many of the Cambs & Hunts players and another member of the Surrey team who also knew all the players concerned very well so it's not surprising things may have become slightly confused, however I am absolutely certain that I never said that an appeal had no chance. In fact, I never got as far as stating my opinion about how likely it would be to succeed. Jeffrey tells me he doesn't think he said anything like that either. We were certainly discussing what the N/S arguments could be, perhaps that sounded to Chris like a statement of absolute belief in their validity. When I spoke to N/S before they left (and before the original TD's ruling) I had told them that they would be ruled against; when I heard that the table result had been ruled to stand I assumed that I had misunderstood something about the auction.

 

The only direct opinion I gave on whether there should appeal was that if it was not going to affect the winners, I wouldn't bother. It was clear that E/W - particularly West - did not want to appeal because he wanted to go home, and he also suspected that the AC would prefer to go home. Both teams had had a decent chance of winning before the last match and some people were feeling a bit fed up having finished so badly; the appetite to appeal was from some of the other players rather than those at the table. I was also aware that NS could not attend any appeal.

 

Of course I accept what Frances says and apologise to her and Jeffery; the post quoted by her (unlike the OP quoted by Lamford) goes too far in attributing a stated belief that the appeal would fail to them. What they did say, as Frances describes, reinforced my own view of the outcome of an appeal and no doubt I have confused what they actually said with the effect it had on my thinking.

 

We seem to have reached the position where no one actually knows how the pair in question would play the nearest analogous auction referred to by Frances in another post ( 1♦ -(X)- XX-(2♣)-3♠ - except possibly the TD who may have asked all the right questions before coming to his decision).

[lamford]

We seem to have reached the position where no one actually knows how the pair in question would play the nearest analogous auction referred to by Frances in another post ( 1♦ -(X)- XX-(2♣)-3♠ - except possibly the TD who may have asked all the right questions before coming to his decision).

And I don't think it is relevant, as there is no suit that 3♠ can be agreeing. Out of interest, I think that should be a self-splinter, but that is an aside.

[lamford]

Yes. Doesn't it look like a routine non-serious try to you?

Yes it does, but I still would not allow it. Say that 6 peers out of 10, playing the same system, would choose it, 2 would pessimisitically choose 4H and 2 would aggressively choose 4C. The bid that you know has some chance to save your bacon is 3NT, and it is demonstrably suggested, so it would be disallowed. Of course if it is the only LA, you would be right, but then South gets ruled against for the fielded misbid, so they can never win.

[Chris L]

And I don't think it is relevant, as there is no suit that 3♠ can be agreeing. Out of interest, I think that should be a self-splinter, but that is an aside.

 

I thought Frances said that XX is how this pair shows ♥ after 1m-(X), so in that sequence surely 3♠ is capable of being either a splinter agreeing ♥ or natural - and Frances said in a previous post that she thought they played 3♠ as natural in that sequence. If all that is right, then maybe that's what the TD established?

[lamford]

I thought Frances said that XX is how this pair shows ♥ after 1m-(X), so in that sequence surely 3♠ is capable of being either a splinter agreeing ♥ or natural - and Frances said in a previous post that she thought they played 3♠ as natural in that sequence. If all that is right, then maybe that's what the TD established?

Sorry I misunderstood. In her previous post, Frances stated that she was probably wrong about 3S being natural and strong (without transfers) , so I am not sure why the equivalent auction should be any different, and why 2S would not be natural and forcing instead. Out of interest, was 3S alerted?

[Chris L]

Sorry I misunderstood. In her previous post, Frances stated that she was probably wrong about 3S being natural and strong (without transfers) , so I am not sure why the equivalent auction should be any different, and why 2S would not be natural and forcing instead. Out of interest, was 3S alerted?

 

I don't know whether 3♠ was alerted; Frances may. If N did alert it, even he might be struggling to justify 3NT!

[Zelandakh]

One good question to ask N/S would be what 1D (x) xx (=hearts) 2C (3S) would mean. That is the closest to the actual "impossible" auction.

This seems to be the crux of this thread and without an answer to it it is difficult to proceed. For what it is worth I note that 3NTX= is not in the traveller link posted in the thread (but is still on the Scorecard) so the TD may have changed her/his mind on the matter and converted to 4H-1 (or not).

[gnasher]

the TD may have changed her/his mind on the matter and converted to 4H-1 (or not).

Without telling either of the captains that he'd done so?

[Poky]

You can only deny redress for a WoG action for that portion of the loss subsequent to the infraction, and I agree that some reduction in their gain is appropriate. So your first sentence is wrong in law. And several posters have indicated why your argument in the second sentence has no validity - both opponents have bid spades naturally - why on earth should East-West do so - in fact it would be difficult for most pairs to bid spades naturally here? I suggest you read dburn's posts which have summed up the issues well. It worries me that there are a handful of people on here who can condone the North-South actions in any way. "Hmm ... who knows," you add. Well, you certainly do from the UI. I would say that it is almost impossible that partner has bid a spade-diamond two suiter this way. Well over 97% that he has not.

 

How do you call doubling 1♦ with bad 10 count and then doubling 3NT with the same hand (where the partner, who knows you have, say, 11+, for some reason didn't double)? You can try to do it frequently and, in the long run, by the expected value of this action you will see if it's WoG or not. ;)

 

In other words, the truth behind the 2nd double frequently is: "Oh, look how nice situation has arosen, now I can safely double with my shitty hand, and:

1. If that's going down enough - nice;

2. If they make, the director will give me some decent score anyway - due the obvious UI situation and the misunderstanding."

 

Whoever doesn't see a problem in that, I'm not sure bridge director is the right occupation for him.

[Chris L]

How do you call doubling 1♦ with bad 10 count and then doubling 3NT with the same hand (where the partner, who knows you have, say, 11+, for some reason didn't double)? You can try to do it frequently and, in the long run, by the expected value of this action you will see if it's WoG or not. ;)

 

In the OP I said I wasn't sure who doubled 3NT but Frances confirms it was E not W

[Poky]

Say what? Perhaps you didn't notice it because it is actually an impossibility. Once he is in possession of UI, the responder is precluded from remembering.

 

Or perhaps you didn't notice it was said this was an agreement they had written on their card. ;)

 

Your a), <img src='http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> and c) read like a cheater's manifesto.

 

Why? Because I tried to emulate how should look a good bidding decision in a real situation, without any UI present? Thank you!

[lamford]

How do you call doubling 1♦ with bad 10 count and then doubling 3NT with the same hand (where the partner, who knows you have, say, 11+, for some reason didn't double)? You can try to do it frequently and, in the long run, by the expected value of this action you will see if it's WoG or not. ;)

 

In other words, the truth behind the 2nd double frequently is: "Oh, look how nice situation has arosen, now I can safely double with my shitty hand, and:

1. If that's going down enough - nice;

2. If they make, the director will give me some decent score anyway - due the obvious UI situation and the misunderstanding."

 

Whoever doesn't see a problem in that, I'm not sure bridge director is the right occupation for him.

The Law states: <snip> If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. <snip> (my emphasis)

 

East was the one who doubled, and that makes it less of a WoG action for me. He knows the diamonds are not coming in. But even if we consider his action WoG, as I stated earlier it is only the difference (in IMPs) between -550 and -400 that the double cost. He gets the rest of his relief, whatever the TD thinks of the action.

[lamford]

This seems to be the crux of this thread and without an answer to it it is difficult to proceed. For what it is worth I note that 3NTX= is not in the traveller link posted in the thread (but is still on the Scorecard) so the TD may have changed her/his mind on the matter and converted to 4H-1 (or not).

It is board 25, and the traveller clearly states 8 v 6 3NTx= N 550 16 -16. This is confirmed by the team scoresheets for Cambs & Hunts v Surrey. So, no, the score was not changed. Out of interest, the putative adjustment on here to some doubled six-level contract would have swung 39 IMPs - because of cross-imping, turned the match result from 13-7 to Surrey to 12-8 to Cambs and Hunts, and, as stated earlier, changed the order of 3rd and 4th. It would have been worth an additional two green points to each of the Cambs and Hunts players (not that I expect anyone is really bothered about those).

[Chris L]

It is board 25, and the traveller clearly states 8 v 6 3NTx= N 550 16 -16. This is confirmed by the team scoresheets for Cambs & Hunts v Surrey. So, no, the score was not changed. Out of interest, the putative adjustment on here to some doubled six-level contract would have swung 39 IMPs - because of cross-imping, turned the match result from 13-7 to Surrey to 12-8 to Cambs and Hunts, and, as stated earlier, changed the order of 3rd and 4th. It would have been worth an additional two green points to each of the Cambs and Hunts players (not that I expect anyone is really bothered about those).

 

I'm sure they aren't bothered about the putative loss of a couple of greenies - or even by the loss of a gold jobbie to which the additional greenies would have entitled them. We went there for the gold medal and are still wondering how we managed to blow it after being in a very good position overnight :)

[Vampyr]

Or perhaps you didn't notice it was said this was an agreement they had written on their card. ;)

 

It doesn't matter if the agreement is written on partner's forehead. You can't "remember" an agreement if you have come by the information illegally, unless the auction is a complete impossibility otherwise.

 

 

Why? Because I tryed to emulate how should look a good bidding decision in a real situation, without any UI present? Thank you!

 

But there was UI, so all of your reasons to bid 3NT are reasons why one can't bid it.

[Poky]

It doesn't matter if the agreement is written on partner's forehead. You can't "remember" an agreement if you have come by the information illegally, unless the auction is a complete impossibility otherwise.

 

But there was UI, so all of your reasons to bid 3NT are reasons why one can't bid it.

 

Director's job is to restore equity. Equity <= what would have happen if no UI was present (as when you play with screens). My assumption is, and I think is pretty real, that a decent pair (had it been a "no UI" situation) would have ended:

- in 3NT, about 80% of times;

- in slam, about 2% of times.

If this is the truth, adjusting to "slam doubled -x" it is a horrible ruling and a very good way to chase people away from bridge tables forever.

 

People aren't so stupid as your ruling would suggest. People tend to bid very carefully in suspicious spots (and this one is very very suspicious) and not to nail down slams with 25 points for -1400 or something like that.

 

As a test, today I gave this board to one very good player from my country asking him what would have bid (having no UI)? 3NT was the answer. I asked why, and he answered "It seems my partner has 6-5". And he plays splinters in many many situations. And he didn't read any cheaters manifesto. ;)

[Vampyr]

Poky, you do not understand the obligations of a player in receipt of UI. You don't pretend there are screens when there are not. You are often prevented from making the bid that would be best even without UI. Restoring equity really really does not mean giving the result that would have obtained without UI. These matters are assumed by everyone participating in this kind of thread, so you might as well accept them, or your arguments will have no merit or relevance.

 

Check your country's regulations on Logical Alternatives. An 80% action is no longer good enough to be considered not to have logical alternatives in most of the world.

[Aardv]

Hello, I was the West player.

 

I confirm that it was East not West who doubled 3NT. That's not a wild action. (The opening lead is interesting, East points out himself that he should probably lead spades: should it be the 10, technically best but confusing, or the ace?)

 

It was I who asked Frances for her opinion. No one should have a problem with her reply, which was mainly about the relative unimportance of what was at stake.

 

The frustrating thing for me was that it would have been easy to beat 3NT if I knew North had hearts - his hand is dead if I just duck two rounds of the suit.

 

I asked for a ruling from the Director. It was rightly up to Chris whether we should appeal. I don't think there's any obligation to make an appeal just because you think you ought to win it. The players, TD and AC all had other things to do with their time than reapportion whatever points were available.

____

 

Paul

[lamford]

Director's job is to restore equity. Equity <= what would have happen if no UI was present (as when you play with screens). My assumption is, and I think is pretty real, that a decent pair (had it been a "no UI" situation) would have ended:

- in 3NT, about 80% of times;

- in slam, about 2% of times.

If this is the truth, adjusting to "slam doubled -x" it is a horrible ruling and a very good way to chase people away from bridge tables forever.

I might well agree that with screens, the player would have assessed the probability that a wheel has come off as well over 50%, particularly as this North-South pair often don't bother to discuss things fully (we are told), increasing the chance of a misunderstanding. Without UI, I would agree that there is a good chance that you can use your short spades to judge that something has gone wrong. However, with the UI, you have to select bids that you know are wrong, if the obvious bid is demonstrably suggested. For better or for worse that is the law, and if you deliberately break it, that will chase people away from the game. They will feel "North-South pulled a fast one there".

[lamford]

Hello, I was the West player.

 

I confirm that it was East not West who doubled 3NT. That's not a wild action. (The opening lead is interesting, East points out himself that he should probably lead spades: should it be the 10, technically best but confusing, or the ace?)

 

It was I who asked Frances for her opinion. No one should have a problem with her reply, which was mainly about the relative unimportance of what was at stake.

 

The frustrating thing for me was that it would have been easy to beat 3NT if I knew North had hearts - his hand is dead if I just duck two rounds of the suit.

 

I asked for a ruling from the Director. It was rightly up to Chris whether we should appeal. I don't think there's any obligation to make an appeal just because you think you ought to win it. The players, TD and AC all had other things to do with their time than reapportion whatever points were available.

____

 

Paul

 

Good to hear from you. I have one or two questions. I presume 1H was alerted at the table and explained as spades - when exactly was this? Did North alert 3S? I agree that it was frustrating not to know North had hearts, but it subsequently seems clear that he had misbid, and you were only entitled to their methods. I agree that one role of the match captain is to decide whether to appeal, and I note that you did not think it that important. I personally think that getting the right ruling is the most important "thing for the the TD and the AC to do with their time". We are all grateful to ACs for giving up their time, but the system breaks down if we do not appeal because we do not want to trouble them.

 

Personally, I just follow Law 72:

"The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Not appealing with a cast-iron case breaches this law, and lets down your team-mates.

 

And the discussion of rulings on here must assume that they are of some importance.