Iceland Bridge festival

[vigfus]

[hv=pc=n&s=skt7hkt52daq2cqt8&w=sqj63h8dkjt4ca943&n=sa852ha743d97cj76&e=s94hqj96d8653ck52&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp1n(15-17)2s(4%20spades%20%26%205%20card%20minor)d(Genereal%20values)r(Decent%20hand)2np3nppp]399|300[/hv]

Teams. IMP's

North is Anita Sinclair

South is Zia Mahmood

East is Thor Erik Hoftaniska

West is Thomas Charlsen

 

1NT = 15-17

2♠ =4 spades and 5 card minor

Dbl = Not penalty. General values

Rdbl= Decent hand.

2NT = Zia's argument. He did not want to play in 2 spades redoubled, assuming "decent hand" had something to do with spade support.

 

Opening lead is Jack of diamonds. Contract is 3NT. 8 tricks. 100 EW

 

I was called when the opening lead of Jack of Diamonds is faced and dummy is put down.

My ruling was... 2sp redoubled. 6 tricks. 600 NS

Of course the ruling was appealed. That part of the story comes on tuesday.

[gordontd]

Could you give us a clue as to what the issue was?

[ahydra]

If that East junk is a "decent hand", I'm a ballet dancer.

 

But yes, what was the actual infraction that EW were alleging?

 

Edit: wait, what? NS made -100 and you adjusted it to +600, so it must have been NS alleging an infraction? Can't exactly see one in EW's bidding...

 

ahydra

[vigfus]

Misinformation is the issue here. When Dummy came down, Zia saw that there must be misinformation on this hand. "Decent hand", is sure a matter of style and personal evaluation, but I am not sure that majority of players value east's hand as "decent".

It was informed that the redouble was not SOS. Also that East had a 2NT bid for asking partner to bid his minor suit.

[blackshoe]

What is EW's agreement about the redouble? The fact that the hand doesn't match the explanation doesn't make "a decent hand" MI.

[lamford]

I don't think the players should be named in the OP, at least not according to the advice by bluejak.

 

I would presume that the redouble will not be on the CC, even if it was completed with the level of detail of jallerton. My guess is that it was a misbid, intended to ask partner to bid his other suit, although most would play either 2NT or 3C for that. 21B states:

 

(b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

 

What should this evidence be? Well, at this level, as one would not expect to find it on the CC, the general treatment of Redouble should be considered, otherwise we will always rule MI. East is entitled as well to psyche a redouble, although that would be very dangerous.

 

My feeling is that this was a misbid, and that N/S were given the (probably) correct explanation. But I could be persuaded otherwise.

[AlexJonson]

The information given so far doesn't suggest that any Laws were broken. I'll be interested to see if there is more information, or an interpretation that hasn't occurred to me. Otherwise the adjustment seems odd.

[vigfus]

I should not have put this board here on BBO yesterday night, when I was very tired after the tournament. But here comes better description of what happened at the table.

 

This board was life on BBO. Hundreds of spectators were watching. That is why I name the players involved.

 

East's description of the redouble was "decent hand". After the play was over, west's meaning was "prepared to compete further", and a lot of argumet between Zia and E/W. When the opening lead of Jack of diamonds was still faced, and I arrived at the table, Zia stated that he bid 2NT because he did not like playing in 2♠ redoubled, if parther was short there, as the bidding sounded. If he would have passed, it would be likely that partner would have read him with values for defending 2♠. ( Of course did north also have the explaination, no screens ) If he had correct explaination of the redouble, he would have passed 2NT. Waiting to see what happened.

After having discussed this hand with the other TD, and another expert, I ruled 2 spades redoubled East, down 2. 600 NS. The other TD was not sure if this was the right ruling, but I reasoned that it would be better that E/W would appeal.

 

The athompshere at the table was very tense after this happening. 1 minute later, Zia called again, complaining about "break in tempo" in very competetive bidding action. But that matter was not serious.

[blackshoe]

This board was life on BBO. Hundreds of spectators were watching. That is why I name the players involved.

 

None of this, including the naming of the players involved, is relevant to the ruling. You should not have named them. If others want to go do research and try to figure out who they were, that's their business. But let's not have any more naming of names, okay? That's directed at everybody, not just you, Vigfus.

[vigfus]

You are absolutly right. Naming the players is a big mistake by me. It will not happen again.

[paulg]

Naming the players is a big mistake.

Indeed, but it is relevant that EW are a regular international partnership.

[mrdct]

None of this, including the naming of the players involved, is relevant to the ruling. You should not have named them. If others want to go do research and try to figure out who they were, that's their business. But let's not have any more naming of names, okay? That's directed at everybody, not just you, Vigfus.

Generally I'm in the "not naming names" camp, however, if the match was broadcast live on BBO with hundreds of spectators and the operator reporting details of the TD call and other goings-on, I think it's sufficiently on the public record for naming names to not matter. Also, it's often quite important to have a good idea about the skill-level, partnership experience and style of players involved in rulings and in cases involving international representative players I think they're tough enough to have some dirty laundry aired from time to time.

[blackshoe]

Your opinion is noted, however I am trying to get people to stop with the naming of names altogether, so I don't really care if the details of the damn match were engraved on the brains of every person on the planet. The rule on these forums is "no naming of names". Period. Oh, one exception: "This happened to me" is fine.

 

"Ah has spoken!" -- Mammy Yokum.

[bluejak]

West used the term "decent hand". East accepted that his was not really a decent hand nor did he really mean it that way. He said that after a strong no-trump, a bid and a double, it was known he could not have a decent hand so of course that was not his meaning. He said that he did not wish to sell out to a low level contract: for example he would be willing to hear his partner bid 3♦ over 3♣, or even 3♠ over 3♦ because then 4♣ would be playable.

 

A question that was asked is whether North would have passed if 2♠ redoubled had come round to her. East, West and North all agreed she would. West said he would have bid 2NT if the redouble had come round to him.

[gnasher]

The rule on these forums is "no naming of names".

That seems a very sensible rule. It would be even more sensible to add it to the the thread entitled "Forum Rules".

[vigfus]

Here is the Appeal committie ruling...

The Committee decided that the difference between West's description of the redouble "A decent hand", and east's reason for the dedouble "prepared to compete further", constituted misinformation.

While South was convinced thet he would have passed with the correct information, the committee was not so sure. They also felt that West might bid 2NT over the redouble, being unsure of spade support.

Accordingly the committee adjusted the score for both sides to...

25% of 2♠ redoubled West -2 = NS + 600

25% of 3♦ doubled E/W -1 = NS + 100

50% of 3NT South -1 = NS -100

The score in the other room was NS -100, so this turned out to be flat board.

[Finch]

I don't think the players should be named in the OP, at least not according to the advice by bluejak.

 

I would presume that the redouble will not be on the CC, even if it was completed with the level of detail of jallerton. My guess is that it was a misbid, intended to ask partner to bid his other suit, although most would play either 2NT or 3C for that. 21B states:

 

(b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

 

What should this evidence be? Well, at this level, as one would not expect to find it on the CC, the general treatment of Redouble should be considered, otherwise we will always rule MI. East is entitled as well to psyche a redouble, although that would be very dangerous.

 

My feeling is that this was a misbid, and that N/S were given the (probably) correct explanation. But I could be persuaded otherwise.

 

I can't speak for Jallerton, but the meaning of redouble in the two closest equivalent auctions (after (1NT)-2C-(dbl) and (1M)-2M-(dbl)) is on my convention card as posted for the Camrose (http://www.bridgewebs.com/bgb/Osborne%20%20Hinden.pdf on either the main part of the card or under note 7).

 

Even if it's not on their card, they might have a system file. Neither the card nor the system file are proof of agreement, although they are evidence.

[Finch]

Your opinion is noted, however I am trying to get people to stop with the naming of names altogether, so I don't really care if the details of the damn match were engraved on the brains of every person on the planet. The rule on these forums is "no naming of names". Period. Oh, one exception: "This happened to me" is fine.

 

"Ah has spoken!" -- Mammy Yokum.

 

I was looking for this rule, as Lamford keeps quoting it, but I couldn't find it written anywhere.

Personally, I think the rule should be "No naming of players or officials unless either the people concerned have asked or consented to be named, or the poster names himself"

[Finch]

Here is the Appeal committie ruling...

The Committee decided that the difference between West's description of the redouble "A decent hand", and east's reason for the dedouble "prepared to compete further", constituted misinformation.

While South was convinced thet he would have passed with the correct information, the committee was not so sure. They also felt that West might bid 2NT over the redouble, being unsure of spade support.

Accordingly the committee adjusted the score for both sides to...

25% of 2♠ redoubled West -2 = NS + 600

25% of 3♦ doubled E/W -1 = NS + 100

50% of 3NT South -1 = NS -100

The score in the other room was NS -100, so this turned out to be flat board.

 

I agree that there are a lot of uncertainties here.

It's not at all clear to me whether 'a decent hand' means he is expecting partner to pass, or expecting partner to bid. West could/should have given a better explanation, and South could have asked for more clarification.

[blackshoe]

I was looking for this rule, as Lamford keeps quoting it, but I couldn't find it written anywhere.

Personally, I think the rule should be "No naming of players or officials unless either the people concerned have asked or consented to be named, or the poster names himself"

 

I'll discuss amending our various "forum rules" topics with David.

[Poky]

South would have passed the XX with the "correct" information!?! Give me a break, please.

If the director has no power to penalize him, at least should be so kind to let the board score stay. "Decent hand" carries no information about spade length, neither south asked for it (guess why).

Horror attitudes, horror ruling. Sycophancy at his best.

The line between a self-serving statement and a pure childish lie is very thin.

 

P.S. In my opinion, naming players involved in such cases is by far the best thing that can happen.