bluejak Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 A correspondent writes: [hv=pc=n&s=st9542hakqdak62ck&w=sakq7h9853d75c863&n=sjht7dj9843caj754&e=s863hj642dqtcqt92&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1sp1np2np3nppdppp]399|300[/hv] Screens were in use. 1NT was alerted on both sides of screens as forcing. 2NT was alerted from North to East as 18-19, South did not alert it. Result: 3NTx+1 After the board, West asks East if 2NT was alerted on the other side, on which he gets confirmation. West calls TD and explains that he would not double for spade lead if he knew South was not inviting with North accepting; in invitational scenario he believes spade lead could be only way to set a contract if it's not makable. TD rules result stays. West calls an appeal. Appeal rules 2NT is GF by common knowledge and North alert was redundant.You are the AC [second AC! :P]. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I am not a lawyer, nor am I in any way knowledgeable about the details of the laws of bridge, but if the bid isn't alertable (which I do not think it is...if it is I need to start alerting it) then what infraction was done? West could have asked what the bid meant. Just because North volunteered the information to East does not mean that West was harmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 The basis of this appeal seems tenuous in the extreme, and I would not be surprised if it had led to a lost deposit. The 2NT bid is agreed to be 1 HCP more than might have been expected. That does not of itself make it game forcing. But in any case it's quite possible for NS to have 29 points between them. West has three tricks, without any obvious prospect of more, and in the process of taking them is likely to create two tricks for declarer. An overtrick in 3NT is the outcome that should have been anticipated by West. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 I'd let the result stand and keep the money. Why is South complaining? He didn't know what was happening and doubled with three tricks in a suit where dummy has 5 cards, which could result is setting up that suit, what did s/he expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Charge € 100 fee for 2nd appeal, then rule result stands, then order champagne. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Would you not expect an alert if 2NT was forcing? The AC seem to have decided it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 why is 18-19 forcing by necessity? I think most people play 2NT as 18-19 (ish), invitational. also just because 2NT is 16-18, or whatever West thinks invitational means, they could still have 11+18=29 points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordontd Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 Would you not expect an alert if 2NT was forcing? The AC seem to have decided it was.They seem to have decided it was GF (though I'm not sure why), but they also seem to have decided it was not alertable. That would have been my conclusion too, reading the EBL alerting regulations. Had they not been playing with screens the regulation would have explicitly told them not to alert it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigel_k Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 It isn't common knowledge that 2NT is GF. I thought it was common knowledge that 2NT can be passed (whether 17-18 or 18-19), but maybe it is not as common as I believed if the appeals committee thinks differently. We aren't told whether N/S actually play 2NT as forcing. But the description of 18-19 and North's 3NT rebid suggest that, if it is forcing, it doesn't include unbalanced hands (e.g. strong one suiter) that you might include if 2NT is forcing. So it is still limited to basically the same hand types that would bid an invitational 2NT. Also, even if it is nominally 18-19, a number of 17 HCP hands with a five card spade suit can be upgraded out of 1NT so 2NT presumably includes all of those as well. This all adds up to the 2NT bid including almost the same set of hands whether it is alerted and described as forcing or not. Added to that, West has no reason to think this is a thin game. A spade lead will probably be best to avoid blowing a trick but will hardly doom the contract. So I would let the result stand but I don't believe in keeping people's money except in extreme cases and this is not one of those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Definitely do not keep the deposit. The previous AC have given a ruling based on the blatantly incorrect assertion that it is "common knowledge" that 2NT is GF when, as Nigel says, it is anything but. If the decision was based on faulty reasoning then I think an appeal always has merit; there may be another line of reasoning which makes the same decision obvious, but the players should not be expected to come up with it themselves. Of course, this does not mean that the first appeal had merit, since the TD's reasoning may have been different. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Would you not expect an alert if 2NT was forcing? The AC seem to have decided it was. No. If it had some kind of artifical meaning in addition to being forcing, then yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrdct Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 Table result stands, but I'm feeling generous and will let EW get their deposit back. Under the EBL Alerting Policy (although it is not clear that those are regulations to be applied in this case as we haven't been told what the event was) I'm not convinced that 2NT is alertable anyway, but if was me I would at least wave the bidding cards around a bit before placing them on the tray to let my screenmate know that it might be good idea to ask about it. West to be advised that when playing with screens it's a good idea to ask before making assumptions about what point range is ascribed to any NT bid; particularly when you can ask the guy who actually made the bid. South to be advised that when playing with screens one should generally err on the side of over-alerting to fully protect one's self (i.e. when in doubt - alert). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrdct Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 You are the AC [second AC! :P]. What do you think?In which jurisdiction can one appeal to a second appeals committee if you didn't like what you got from the first appeals committee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duschek Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 In which jurisdiction can one appeal to a second appeals committee if you didn't like what you got from the first appeals committee?In Denmark it is normal to have a local AC whose rulings can be appealed to the national AC (with another deposit, obviously). I do not expect this to change, nor do I want it to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I think David was suggesting, sort of tongue in cheek, that this forum is a "second AC". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jschafer Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 What system do NS play? If they play a strong NT (including 5cM) then by default a 2NT bid here should be in the 18/19 range. If that was the case then 2NT is not artificial and shouldn't be alerted. It wouldn't even be GF as was suggested by some, responder could easily have a poor hand with two Queens and a Jack or so. Contrary to what the defender seems to have suggested, this contract may easily be a 'borderline' make without a ♠ lead even if it is in the 18/19 range. If they had an explicit agreement that 2NT is Game Forcing in the 18/19 range (with maybe artificial follow-up bids or such) then I do think it should be alerted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 What strength did West assume (and why) for the unalerted 18-19? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted February 22, 2011 Report Share Posted February 22, 2011 I am also a bit confused by the write-up, because I can't see anywhere that NS actually played 2NT as forcing. North explained it to East as "18-19", but didn't say it was forcing. East seems to have assumed that it was forcing by virtue of being 18-19 for some reason (maybe he needs a solid 6-count to respond) and the AC have gone further by saying it "common knowledge". All I can say to that is "not very common" - in a strong NT/5CM type system, 1M - 1NT - 2NT is usually 18-19 balanced, not forcing (you tend to need slightly more than 24-high to make game with 18 opposite 6, and many people respond rather lighter than that). 1M - 1NT - 3NT can then be used in whatever way you agree e.g. showing a solid 6-card major and honours outside. I agree with what appears to be the emerging consensus: West isn't damaged and the result stands. I would have kept the deposit as the original AC, but not as the 'second' AC because I think the first AC said some strange and incorrect things. If it's forcing, I think it's alertable under EBU regs because the forcing nature is unexpected.Under EBL regs it isn't alertable because (to paraphrase) it's a natural NT bid. In which case they seriously don't even have half a leg (a knee?) to stand on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mashadar Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Why does West expect to beat 3NT if N-S have 17+9 points, but not if they have 19+7? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted February 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 I do not suppose he does. But doubles of 3NT rarely contain five certain tricks and are merely a balance of probabilities thing. The player concerned may have taken the view that a spade lead might be needed to beat it and it is more likely to be beaten if there is not a game force. It is very easy to criticise other people's bidding in close judgement situations, but surely that is not the purpose of an appeal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 At the risk of repeating myself and other posts: was 2NT in fact game forcing? I see no clue in the opening post or thereafter. At the risk of being off-topic: there is a difference between sequences like1NT-2NT3NT 1♥-2♥3♥-4♥ (where 3♥ was just a range ask) and 1♣-1♥2NT-3NT (2NT 18-19) In the first two sequences opps will have barely more than game values. In "points" it would mean something like 24-26 (with adjustments). They have a firm upper limit. In the third sequence opps might have up to 30 points, they just told us they were not interested in slam. It is smart to double for speculative reasons in auctions of the first type. It is rarely indicated to do so in the latter type. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Keep the money, West has no argument to go in appeal except bad bridge from himself. Result stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy69A Posted February 23, 2011 Report Share Posted February 23, 2011 Has anyone considered taking a deposit from the first appeal committee who seem to have talked some awful rubbish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 Why can't the second committee overrule the first committee's decision to return the deposit? If there were two deposits, I agree that the second one should be returned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted February 24, 2011 Report Share Posted February 24, 2011 "You are the AC [second AC! :rolleyes: ]. What do you think?" I thought we had already established that this forum was meant when the OP referred to a second AC. 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.