Nearly appealed

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&n=skt3hakq652d72c63&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1d2hd3h4d]133|200[/hv]

 

2H by your agreements is an intermediate jump overcall at these colours. Before making the negative double, East asks and is told that the jump overcall is weak.

 

The director ruled that 4H was suggested by the UI and as a result adjusted to 4D making.

 

I was asked to stay behind on the possibility of an appeal. Assuming no new evidence is brought other than those suggested by the facts given, what would you do as the AC?

[jillybean]

AWM

[Cascade]

Seems like a normal middle of the road ruling to me.

 

I can't imagine bidding 4♥ having described my hand perfectly with 2♥ the previous round and having nothing much extra assuming 13 points is roughly mid-range and having the bland 6322 shape.

 

Agree with Kathryn - AWM.

[blackshoe]

Why doesn't partner's extension of my "preempt" suggest that he has nothing much other than three trumps, and that I should therefore pass?

[Bbradley62]

Why doesn't partner's extension of my "preempt" suggest that he has nothing much other than three trumps, and that I should therefore pass?

This is what you would normally do. But you have heard partner give misinformation, so doing anything other than passing appears to be taking advantage of that UI.

[CSGibson]

I'd want to know the response structure to 2♥ - whether that bid made partner captain, and his bid was non-invitational/non-constructive in nature, or whether it was a constructive bid that invited partner to bid again with a suitable hand. I'd also want to know how the partnership defined intermediate at this vulnerability - the way I define it when I play intermediate, this is a near max. For others, this might be a near minimum or middle-of-the-road hand.

[paulg]

I'd want to know the response structure to 2♥ - whether that bid made partner captain, and his bid was non-invitational/non-constructive in nature, or whether it was a constructive bid that invited partner to bid again with a suitable hand. I'd also want to know how the partnership defined intermediate at this vulnerability - the way I define it when I play intermediate, this is a near max. For others, this might be a near minimum or middle-of-the-road hand.

Partner is a passed hand. If this is a strong partnership then I expect that the bid is actually quite wide-ranging but would not be made on many hands where you expect to make game. If it is a weaker partnership then I would not expect them to have discussed a response structure in this situation.

 

"Keep the deposit" is (or should be) the UK equivalent of AWM.

[Cyberyeti]

Partner is a passed hand. If this is a strong partnership then I expect that the bid is actually quite wide-ranging but would not be made on many hands where you expect to make game. If it is a weaker partnership then I would not expect them to have discussed a response structure in this situation.

 

"Keep the deposit" is (or should be) the UK equivalent of AWM.

If the raise is completely non constructive as I would expect (you have 2N/3♦ potentially for better raises), you are not invited to bid 4♥ whether you are minimum or maximum unless you have something wholly exceptional. If partner had explained your bid as intermediate, would you have considered your hand exceptional ? I think it does have less defence than you will often hold, but it's not strange enough to bid, so the adjustment is right. I think this is obvious enough that you should keep the deposit.

 

If the raise is constructive, it's more awkward and depends what you consider intermediate, but you have no extra shape, and unless you're towards the top end of your range, it's difficult to justify bidding. If you're bottom end of intermediate, keep the deposit.

[Trinidad]

I'd want to know the response structure to 2♥ - whether that bid made partner captain, and his bid was non-invitational/non-constructive in nature, or whether it was a constructive bid that invited partner to bid again with a suitable hand. I'd also want to know how the partnership defined intermediate at this vulnerability - the way I define it when I play intermediate, this is a near max. For others, this might be a near minimum or middle-of-the-road hand.

For starters: The OP asked for a reply to the question: Assuming no new evidence is brought other than those suggested by the facts given, what would you do as the AC? A response structure is new evidence.

 

Having said that, it can hardly matter what the response structure is. No matter how you play intermediate jump overcalls, this hand will never be a clear accept of an invitational 3♥ (if it would be invitational, which it shouldn't be). Pass will always be either the clear call to make or at least an LA.

 

Only when the 4♥ bidder comes with a system book showing that 3♥ is GF, even by a passed hand, he will get off the hook. This is an easy AWM.

 

Rik

[Cyberyeti]

For starters: The OP asked for a reply to the question: Assuming no new evidence is brought other than those suggested by the facts given, what would you do as the AC? A response structure is new evidence.

 

Having said that, it can hardly matter what the response structure is. No matter how you play intermediate jump overcalls, this hand will never be a clear accept of an invitational 3♥ (if it would be invitational, which it shouldn't be). Pass will always be either the clear call to make or at least an LA.

 

Only when the 4♥ bidder comes with a system book showing that 3♥ is GF, even by a passed hand, he will get off the hook. This is an easy AWM.

 

Rik

I've seen people say "intermediate" meaning 9-12 in which case this is an accept of an invitational 3♥, but it would be unusual. Game is unlikely to be good although going -100 against 130 is quite likely if you don't think opps will double. Unfortunately with a passed hand opposite a WJO, they really should double and will get it back if it's wrong.

 

I don't think you can rule definitively without new evidence, but if it's not available, you have to rule AWM.

[bluejak]

Keep the money seems obvious, but as others have said, it does rather depend on what Intermediate means. One of the reasons why the EBU and ACBL dislike names is that, unlike when I was younger when there was more belief in authority, these days people are much more inclined to use a name but then define it themselves. When I was a lad, Weak meant 4-10, Intermediate meant 11-15, Strong meant 16+. Nowadays people play Strong as 11-15, Intermediate as 6-12, and Weak as "Well, it depends on the vulnerability".

[CamHenry]

Keep the money seems obvious, but as others have said, it does rather depend on what Intermediate means. One of the reasons why the EBU and ACBL dislike names is that, unlike when I was younger when there was more belief in authority, these days people are much more inclined to use a name but then define it themselves. When I was a lad, Weak meant 4-10, Intermediate meant 11-15, Strong meant 16+. Nowadays people play Strong as 11-15, Intermediate as 6-12, and Weak as "Well, it depends on the vulnerability".

 

I think you'll find that the youth of today (myself included) have simply given up on ever holding a strong hand, so there's weak (nominally 5-10, but plausibly as low as 1 with 0 being a mere deviation) and intermediate (weak, but with scattered defensive values as well: something like QJ/QJxxxx/Kx/Kx).

 

If we ever pick up a 16-count or a solid suit, we bid game and hope. :)

[bluejak]

I think you'll find that the youth of today (myself included) have simply given up on ever holding a strong hand, so there's weak (nominally 5-10, but plausibly as low as 1 with 0 being a mere deviation) and intermediate (weak, but with scattered defensive values as well: something like QJ/QJxxxx/Kx/Kx).

 

If we ever pick up a 16-count or a solid suit, we bid game and hope. :)

So do I, but nomenclature is the problem. Opponents may not play the same as you.

[CSGibson]

For starters: The OP asked for a reply to the question: Assuming no new evidence is brought other than those suggested by the facts given, what would you do as the AC? A response structure is new evidence.

 

Having said that, it can hardly matter what the response structure is. No matter how you play intermediate jump overcalls, this hand will never be a clear accept of an invitational 3♥ (if it would be invitational, which it shouldn't be). Pass will always be either the clear call to make or at least an LA.

 

Only when the 4♥ bidder comes with a system book showing that 3♥ is GF, even by a passed hand, he will get off the hook. This is an easy AWM.

 

Rik

 

Oh, you mean that you are having an appeal where the appeals committee cannot speak to the apellants? Whatever the OP meant by no new evidence, surely it did not mean that we could not clarify what their agreements are in relevant situations.

 

That being said, I'm sure it would be an AWM, but before handing them out, I want to really make sure I know what's going on, and how eggregious it was.

[blackshoe]

This is what you would normally do. But you have heard partner give misinformation, so doing anything other than passing appears to be taking advantage of that UI.

The law includes the phrase "could demonstrably be suggested". So demonstrate it, please. It's not just "he has UI so he must pass".

[sailoranch]

The law includes the phrase "could demonstrably be suggested". So demonstrate it, please. It's not just "he has UI so he must pass".

 

3♥ over a weak 2♥ is potentially stronger than 3♥ over an intermediate 2♥. The UI suggests South may have underbid, which means North has more reason to continue to game than he otherwise would have.

[aguahombre]

Keep the money seems obvious, but as others have said, it does rather depend on what Intermediate means. One of the reasons why the EBU and ACBL dislike names is that, unlike when I was younger when there was more belief in authority, these days people are much more inclined to use a name but then define it themselves. When I was a lad, Weak meant 4-10, Intermediate meant 11-15, Strong meant 16+. Nowadays people play Strong as 11-15, Intermediate as 6-12, and Weak as "Well, it depends on the vulnerability".

This one comes closest to my opinion for the given situation. But, obviously Dave is younger than I am.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that naming sucks. However, with respect to 1-suited hands --- for as long as I can remember, "intermediate" described a hand which (if allowed to do so) would open 1 of the suit and rebid 3 of that suit. This definition is not dependent on how the auction actually went; it is what I have always used when discussing methods to depict the hand quality and shape. That is my "historical perpective" on intermediate hands, and I am sticking with it at the tender age of 68.

 

The OP hand is so much below that, that I couldn't imagine any further action from North being lawful with the UI...and just plain being stupid without the UI.

[CSGibson]

In one former partnership, we described intermediate as about an ace more than a weak 2 bid (aka, 9-14 tcp, 6+ is typical). And in another partnership I play it as 9-12. Another successful pair in our area plays it about 12-17 ish (approximation; I believe their exact definition is trick-based rather than HCP based - this hand would qualify.)

 

Intermediate really tends to mean better than weak and worse than strong, but that's so wide of a range to be practically useless. Whenever I hear someone describe their bid as intermediate, I immediately ask what they mean by intermediate - how they define it in terms of HCP or tricks.

[blackshoe]

3♥ over a weak 2♥ is potentially stronger than 3♥ over an intermediate 2♥. The UI suggests South may have underbid, which means North has more reason to continue to game than he otherwise would have.

Again, you assert what the UI suggests, you do not demonstrate how it does so.

[aguahombre]

Again, you assert what the UI suggests, you do not demonstrate how it does so.

O.K. I will take a shot at that. And, I don't really know if we can use this logic: but, I sure would like to do so......2H bidder is told by his partner that he wants to raise a weak hand to 3; but, the 2H bidder doesn't have a weak hand. That is unauthorized information to the 2H bidder, and he used it to bid 4.

 

We disregard what 3H would have meant if partner knew what 2H meant, because partner told us differently and we used it.

[gnasher]

Again, you assert what the UI suggests, you do not demonstrate how it does so.

Some hands that would bid 3♥ opposite a weak 2♥ would bid game opposite an intermediate 3♥. That's an assertion, but I think you would struggle to find a competent player who disagreed.

 

Therefore the UI tells us that game is more likely to make than in a UI-free auction.

[blackshoe]

You're on the right track, I think, but you're still not quite getting it. Try this: advancer has told overcaller that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand, and has raised 2♥ to 3. This raise could show a hand with three trumps and very little else, or it could show a hand with three trumps and some values, but not enough to suggest a game is possible. The latter possibility, given that overcaller has an intermediate hand rather than a weak hand, suggests (?) that perhaps a game is possible, so bidding 4♥ is a logical alternative that could be suggested by the UI. The problem is that there's really only two LAs in this case, the other being pass, and the UI (that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand) demonstrably could also suggest passing, since if advancer has the first, weak, "extend the preempt" type hand, game is likely not on. So neither LA is suggested over the other.

 

The word "demonstrably" in the law means, to me at least, that one must construct a valid logic chain from "the explanation shows that partner believes I have X hand, when I do not" through "and in that context has shown Y hand", to "and that suggests I take action Z". We (all of us here, I think) tend to jump from "there is UI" directly to "you can't bid that" without constructing this chain. Sometimes our intuition is right, but sometimes it's wrong, and that will lead to a wrong ruling.

[Cyberyeti]

You're on the right track, I think, but you're still not quite getting it. Try this: advancer has told overcaller that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand, and has raised 2♥ to 3. This raise could show a hand with three trumps and very little else, or it could show a hand with three trumps and some values, but not enough to suggest a game is possible. The latter possibility, given that overcaller has an intermediate hand rather than a weak hand, suggests (?) that perhaps a game is possible, so bidding 4♥ is a logical alternative that could be suggested by the UI. The problem is that there's really only two LAs in this case, the other being pass, and the UI (that advancer believes overcaller has a weak hand) demonstrably could also suggest passing, since if advancer has the first, weak, "extend the preempt" type hand, game is likely not on. So neither LA is suggested over the other.

 

The word "demonstrably" in the law means, to me at least, that one must construct a valid logic chain from "the explanation shows that partner believes I have X hand, when I do not" through "and in that context has shown Y hand", to "and that suggests I take action Z". We (all of us here, I think) tend to jump from "there is UI" directly to "you can't bid that" without constructing this chain. Sometimes our intuition is right, but sometimes it's wrong, and that will lead to a wrong ruling.

I think you're missing the point. I very much doubt the 3♥ bidder has 3 hearts and nothing due to the vulnerability, you can easily be going for 1100 against a slam or 500/800 against a game. Given that partner figures to have some values, the chance of bidding game being right materially improves therefore it is demonstrably suggested.

[c_corgi]

Why doesn't partner's extension of my "preempt" suggest that he has nothing much other than three trumps, and that I should therefore pass?

 

His extension of your preempt (the AI) does suggest you pass. I do not see any way in which the UI supports the decision to pass, but as others have pointed out, it is very clear why it makes bidding again more attractive.

[ArtK78]

I guess I would approach this question in a much more simple manner.

 

Had the 2♥ bidder not heard the explanation given to the opponents, what were his logical alternatives? Clearly they are pass and 4♥. Having said that, does the information provided to the opponents (the UI) demonstrably suggest one of those alternatives over the other?

 

To answer this last question, one needs to determine what the raise of an intermediate 2 bid shows and what the range of the intermediate 2 bid is. I believe that we all have a pretty good idea of what types of hands partner might have for a raise of a weak 2 bid in this situation, so the question becomes what are the differences between the two raises and what is expected of the 2 bidder.

 

In my experience, the 2 bidder has a clear pass regardless, but I would like to hear the possibilities nonetheless.