Another fine mess

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat96hajd963cq732&w=s843h9864d8742c84&n=s752hq5daqt5ckj65&e=skqjhkt732dkjcat9&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d(4+%20cards)1nd2dp2hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

I forgot to set the vulnerability, EW are vul, teams of 4.

 

2♦ was not alerted nor was 2♥, but EW's system was that this was a (weak) transfer. W actually intended it as a pretty random move hoping partner would bid a major (he'd forgotten the system). I can fully believe that even with a 17 count with 5 card support this particular east would not even consider breaking the transfer.

 

At the end of the auction Edit N not E as originally posted asked some questions, discovered the lack of an alert and called the TD, I'm not sure if the lead was face down or face up at this point. Edit confirmed face down

 

2♥ made on the nose and NS claimed MI/UI.

 

NS's methods, the X of 1N is 9+, X of 2♥ by S is pens, X of 2♥ by N is T/o, but virtually guaranteeing 4 spades.

 

My questions are the following:

 

1. If the lead was face down should N have been given his pass back ?

2. If the lead was face up does N get his pass back and if different to 1 has he lost some of his right to redress.Edit irrelevant, didn't happen

3. If he was given his pass back, he claims he would have bid 3♣, do we believe him ? Edit this was said after seeing all 4 hands

4. Should N have asked over the 2♦ even though it wasn't alerted ? as it's not very often that a bid of LHO's suit is natural.

5. Is pulling a "natural" 2♦ to 2♥ with a 1N overcall unusual enough that NS should have asked before passing it out ?

 

The TD ruled score stood, and so did we as appeals committee, looks like it might get appealed again. We weren't aware on the appeals committee that the director was called at the end of the auction not the end of the hand, so if a directorial error is ruled, what happens next ?

[aguahombre]

Gawd...on the other thread I was assuming 2D was a transfer. Too many things on the actual hand to even contemplate (such as whether there was a wire). That 2H bid is quite suspicious in combination with the 1NT overcall containing five hearts.

 

That is my cue to bow out in favor of the Lawdogs.

[gordontd]

We weren't aware on the appeals committee that the director was called at the end of the auction not the end of the hand, so if a directorial error is ruled, what happens next ?

There's a section on the appeals form that asks when the director was first called. Was that not filled in (and if so did the committee not ask for the information), or was it incorrectly filled in (and if so did none of the players correct it)?

[mgoetze]

At the end of the auction E asked some questions, discovered the lack of an alert and called the TD,

 

I don't quite understand, was East away from the table during the bidding, or how could he "discover" the lack of an alert at this point?

 

(Or were screens in use? But then how did E discover anything from the other side of the screen?)

[Cyberyeti]

There's a section on the appeals form that asks when the director was first called. Was that not filled in (and if so did the committee not ask for the information), or was it incorrectly filled in (and if so did none of the players correct it)?

This was a club night, the hand was written on the back of a fag packet and that was about it :)

 

The aution proceeded with no alerts, and after the final pass some questions were asked.

[Cyberyeti]

Gawd...on the other thread I was assuming 2D was a transfer. Too many things on the actual hand to even contemplate (such as whether there was a wire). That 2H bid is quite suspicious in combination with the 1NT overcall containing five hearts.

 

That is my cue to bow out in favor of the Lawdogs.

That was deliberate, in an attempt to answer point 3.

[blackshoe]

This was a club night, the hand was written on the back of a fag packet and that was about it :)

 

The aution proceeded with no alerts, and after the final pass some questions were asked.

 

By whom were these questions asked?

[barmar]

I don't quite understand, was East away from the table during the bidding, or how could he "discover" the lack of an alert at this point?

My guess is that he meant to write that it was North or South who discovered the lack of alert and called the TD.

[gnasher]

1. Yes, North can change his call.

2 (a) No, we're now in the play period, so we can't revert to the auction; (b) If South led face-up, I think it should place NS in a worse position than if he'd led face-down, but I can't find a law that says so.

3. If North is allowed to change his call, he's allowed to bid anything he wants. North has no information other than what he's entitled to, so his actions aren't constrained or subject to scepticism.

4. No. North has a right to ask questions, but not a duty to do so. And in that auction it's not uncommon to play 2♦ as natural.

5. NS are expected to protect themselves in "obvious misinformation cases". My understanding is that this is meant to cover sequences like 2NT-3♣ or 1NT-2♥;2♠. I don't think this sequence is in the same category.

[Cyberyeti]

OK, have confirmed the lead was face down when the questions were asked (by N not E, the hand got rotated in different versions).

 

So, N should have had the right to change his call.

 

He claims he would have bid 3♣ (which would make or provoke 3♥ which wouldn't, but claimed this after he'd seen all four hands), do we believe him ?

[gordontd]

This was a club night, the hand was written on the back of a fag packet and that was about it :)

Ah, I misunderstood from the title, and thought it was from an EBU event.

 

May I recommend the use of Appeals forms, which are available to be downloaded from the EBU site, even for appeals in clubs?

[Cyberyeti]

Ah, I misunderstood from the title, and thought it was from an EBU event.

 

May I recommend the use of Appeals forms, which are available to be downloaded from the EBU site, even for appeals in clubs?

I said EBU purely for jurisdiction.

 

They are used if the appeal goes beyond the end of the night, but with a playing director, there is no time to fill one out during the event so they get filled out that evening after everybody goes home.

 

It also didn't help that there was a dealing machine foul up, resulting in the same boards as were present a month earlier in the last installment of this competition being served up (despite the boards having been used several times since), so they were redealt meaning everything was running late and there were no printed hand records.

[gordontd]

They are used if the appeal goes beyond the end of the night, but with a playing director, there is no time to fill one out during the event so they get filled out that evening after everybody goes home.

This case shows how it might save time to make time to fill one out before the Appeal is held, even if only in a cursory fashion. It's especially useful in UI cases to have answered the various questions that are asked on the form.

[gordontd]

He claims he would have bid 3♣ (which would make or provoke 3♥ which wouldn't, but claimed this after he'd seen all four hands), do we believe him ?

If we are ruling on the basis of TD error, we adjust as though both sides are non-offending, so we would give a split score with NS getting a high percentage (perhaps 100%) of having bid 3♣ (or perhaps some proportion of 2♠ via a takeout double), while EW would get a high percentage (perhaps 100%) of the table result.

[gordontd]

The TD ruled score stood, and so did we as appeals committee, looks like it might get appealed again.

By what process?

[Cyberyeti]

By what process?

Awkward questions like that don't really reflect the reality in Norfolk. I've been trying to drag the standard of administration of rulings and appeals kicking and screaming into the 1990s let alone the 2010s for a while. I believe the next step should be to appeal to the county, although if both the director and appeals committee admit they got it wrong, this might not be necessary, but in fact I suspect a club committee meeting will probably have a look at it.

[Cyberyeti]

If we are ruling on the basis of TD error, we adjust as though both sides are non-offending, so we would give a split score with NS getting a high percentage (perhaps 100%) of having bid 3♣ (or perhaps some proportion of 2♠ via a takeout double), while EW would get a high percentage (perhaps 100%) of the table result.

I knew this was the procedure if the action was clear, but wasn't sure how much benefit of doubt you had to give.

 

Also (not applicable in this case, but would be with some other declarers in that room) how do you deal with the "I know I'd make 3♣ on this hand but I don't think you would" type scenario nicely without offending anybody.

[gordontd]

I knew this was the procedure if the action was clear, but wasn't sure how much benefit of doubt you had to give.

Since we are treating them both as non-offending, consider each pair in turn and assess what score you would give them in other circumstances with sympathetic weighting.

 

Also (not applicable in this case, but would be with some other declarers in that room) how do you deal with the "I know I'd make 3♣ on this hand but I don't think you would" type scenario nicely without offending anybody.

With tact :)

Rather than saying "I don't think you would make it", say something like "I don't think it's clear that it would always be made".

[Poky]

3. If he was given his pass back, he claims he would have bid 3♣, do we believe him ? Edit this was said after seeing all 4 hands

Obviously not!

 

There's no connection between the eventual infraction and the balancing decision. 3♣ is a gambling bid in both cases. Besides that, it's even possible that the "wrong" information favors bidding 3♣ more than the "right" one.

 

North is just trying to mud the water making pressure and intimidating the director. In a fair world he would get a penalty pretty much instantly.

[Cyberyeti]

Obviously not!

 

There's no connection between the eventual infraction and the balancing decision. 3♣ is a gambling bid in both cases. Besides that, it's even possible that the "wrong" information favors bidding 3♣ more than the "right" one.

 

North is just trying to mud the water making pressure and intimidating the director. In a fair world he would get a penalty pretty much instantly.

In Norfolk you won't get a penalty unless you either cause other people to be unable to play a board, or insult somebody (and even that hasn't always been enforced).

[gnasher]

If South led face-up, I think it should place NS in a worse position than if he'd led face-down, but I can't find a law that says so.

I know it's not relevant to Cyberyeti's ruling, but can anybody improve on this answer?

[blackshoe]

It depends on whether any card in dummy has been exposed. Once that happens, the opening lead may not be retracted. If no card in dummy has been exposed, Law 21 may still apply, and the opening leader may change his lead, but his original face up opening lead will normally be a major penalty card. The law does not suggest that a face up opening lead draw a Procedural Penalty. So South is in a worse position when he leads face up because if any card in dummy has been exposed, he's stuck with his lead, and if no card in dummy has been exposed, his original lead will become a MPC if he changes it.

[pran]

It depends on whether any card in dummy has been exposed. Once that happens, the opening lead may not be retracted. If no card in dummy has been exposed, Law 21 may still apply, and the opening leader may change his lead, but his original face up opening lead will normally be a major penalty card. The law does not suggest that a face up opening lead draw a Procedural Penalty. So South is in a worse position when he leads face up because if any card in dummy has been exposed, he's stuck with his lead, and if no card in dummy has been exposed, his original lead will become a MPC if he changes it.

The auction period ends when, subsequent to the end of the auction as in A2, either defender faces an opening lead. [...]

So it doesn't matter whether any of the cards in dummy has been exposed, it is too late for any application of law 21 (change of call) or Law 41 (withdrawal of opening lead) once a defender has faced an opening lead.

[VixTD]

So it doesn't matter whether any of the cards in dummy has been exposed, it is too late for any application of law 21 (change of call) or Law 41 (withdrawal of opening lead) once a defender has faced an opening lead.

If no card in dummy has been exposed, Law 21 may still apply, and the opening leader may change his lead, but his original face up opening lead will normally be a major penalty card.

I don't think either of these is correct.

A player may retract the card he has played because of a mistaken explanation of an opponent’s call or play and before a corrected explanation, without further rectification, but only if no card was subsequently played to that trick. An opening lead may not be retracted after dummy has faced any card.

Except in the normal course of play or application of law (see for example Law 47E), when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face, or when a defender names a card as being in his hand, each such card becomes a penalty card

So if an opening lead has been faced it may be withdrawn without penalty after correction of an opponent's misexplanation so long as dummy has not been faced or a subsequent card played. Law 49 implies that it is normal for the director not to declare the withdrawn card a penalty card.

[bluejak]

2♦ was not alerted nor was 2♥, but EW's system was that this was a (weak) transfer. W actually intended it as a pretty random move hoping partner would bid a major (he'd forgotten the system). I can fully believe that even with a 17 count with 5 card support this particular east would not even consider breaking the transfer.

 

At the end of the auction N asked some questions, discovered the lack of an alert and called the TD, with the lead face down.

 

2♥ made on the nose and NS claimed MI/UI.

 

NS's methods, the X of 1N is 9+, X of 2♥ by S is pens, X of 2♥ by N is T/o, but virtually guaranteeing 4 spades.

So it is completely impossible for N/S to double 2♥ for penalties if North has the long trumps. :(

 

My questions are the following:

 

1. If the lead was face down should N have been given his pass back ?

North should be given the chance to change his last pass if it is because of the UI.

 

2. If the lead was face up does N get his pass back and if different to 1 has he lost some of his right to redress.

Tricky. If the lead was face up then N/S are at fault. I would probably deny that portion of redress that involved changing the pass since he could have had it back but for South - but only for N/S. In other words, we now have two offending sides, which complicates matters. But as you say, it did not happen.

 

3. If he was given his pass back, he claims he would have bid 3♣ [said after seeing all 4 hands], do we believe him ?

Do we believe him? I do not know nor care. We do not go round calling people liars: if we adjust we do so on the likelihood of various possibilities. For example we might give a percentage adjustment based on him bidding 3♣ and a percentage adjustment based on him not bidding 3♣.

 

4. Should N have asked over the 2♦ even though it wasn't alerted ? as it's not very often that a bid of LHO's suit is natural.

Should he have asked? This is only relevant if you really believe he was at fault.

 

5. Is pulling a "natural" 2♦ to 2♥ with a 1N overcall unusual enough that NS should have asked before passing it out ?

Now I do find it incredible that anyone woudl assume 2♦ is natural without asking.

 

The TD ruled score stood, and so did we as appeals committee, looks like it might get appealed again. We weren't aware on the appeals committee that the director was called at the end of the auction not the end of the hand, so if a directorial error is ruled, what happens next ?

Appealed again? How? Unless you mean to the National Authority, there is no appeal again.

 

But it certainly does look like a TD who rather seriously went wrong here. If there was MI then he was required to allow the last pass back. Furthermore, it is the TD's job to make sure the AC gets to know all the facts. Of course they can ask pertinent questions, but it is normal to assume that players have not told them things they need to know, but the TD has told them everything relevant he knows.