Appeal to decide the winner

[mr1303]

[hv=pc=n&w=saj92ha4d87432ck4&e=sqt875h752dqjca53&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2dp2h2sp3sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

2D was a multi, and 2H was pass/correct.

 

3S made 9 tricks, for + 140.

 

The West hand had asked some questions over the 2D bid and there was an agreed break in tempo.

 

Director ruled that 2S was inadmissable and adjusted to 2H N/S, making for +110. EW appealed, saying that if 2H was passed back to West, he would double and they'd get to a spade contract that way.

 

What say you?

[c_corgi]

Assuming it is consistent with their methods, I think it is automatic for West to Double 2H. This comes with the usual caveats regarding whether this West really does always Double in these situations. I can't see any reason why they would get too high, or that 3S would be defeated if played the other way round. On the other hand, bidding 2S does appear to be rather naughty and would be inclined to issue a PP to East while awarding the table result to both pairs.

[nige1]

IMO, the director should consider PPs for both

• the 2♠ bidder for the apparent use of UI.
• the 3♠ bidder. When partner volunteers 2♠, his hand is worth game but he seems to believe that his previous performance expressed almost the full value of his hand.

[Cascade]

IMO, the director should consider PPs for both

• the 2♠ bidder for the apparent use of UI.
• the 3♠ bidder. When partner volunteers 2♠, his hand is worth game but he seems to believe that his previous performance expressed almost the full value of his hand.

 

Agree with Nigel and that the table result should stand (unless west is someone who waits for perfect shape before doubling).

[MickyB]

Why assume that a pair who are capable of perpetrating the auction in the OP would bid sensibly if East had passed over 2H? It depends who the players are, but I would be tempted to assign percentages of 2H, 3S, 4S and 3D.

 

I would also like to issue two PPs.

[StevenG]

It's obvious - West asked about the 2♦ bid because he had long diamonds :)

[Zelandakh]

It seems pretty normal to ask questions when the opponents open a Multi 2♦ and then take a moment to process what it all means if the treatment is unusual. The problem seems to be that the later auction suggests this pair might use the questions and/or BIT as a form of illegal communication. Let's start by asking West why they only bid 3♠. That might lead to a stiff fine and a result of 4♠-1 being included in the ruling. The correction to 2♥ seems very wrong, not only because it is unlikely that West will pass it out but also because this is the EBU and it seems lazy to adjust to a single result when others are at least as probable.

[ahydra]

I'd adjust the result to 3S by E and give both of them a PP. Once you get past the UI and "fielded UI-induced bid" (hereafter known as a FUB), you have to consider that 2H is hardly a normal result. West has an automatic double.

 

Edited because I missed that East had the ♣A :/

 

ahydra

[CamHenry]

I'd adjust the result to 2S+1 by E (assuming NS won't compete; if they do I start weighting 2S, 3H and 3S) and give both of them a PP. Once you get past the UI and "fielded UI-induced bid" (hereafter known as a FUB), you have to consider that 2H is hardly a normal result. West has an automatic double.

 

ahydra

 

I think E may have a 3♠ bid after 2D-P-2H-P/P-X-P.

[ahydra]

I think E may have a 3♠ bid after 2D-P-2H-P/P-X-P.

 

Yes, sorry, I missed the ♣A. I edited my post.

 

ahydra

[Lanor Fow]

It seems pretty normal to ask questions when the opponents open a Multi 2♦ and then take a moment to process what it all means if the treatment is unusual.

 

They already have the time of the 'stop' to process the information. I assume that if this was not adheared to, the OP would have said (and there wouldn't have been an agreed BIT), so the BIT sounds like it's over and above the 10 seconds, which I dont' think is normal for someone with no problem.

[Cyberyeti]

A common treatment (although not sure if this pair played it) is that 2♦-P-2♥-P-P-3♦ shows ♦/♠ and 12-14 ish.

 

In that case they will play 3♠.

 

W is entitled to ask, he may not know what the 2♦ bid is and there are other possibilities (precision style for example) where he may want to double. This gives E UI, but most likely that his partner has diamonds, as this seems the most likely holding he'd be bidding over some other sort of 2♦. Whether it implies values is open to question (do you double a precision or benji 2♦ with a weak 2 type hand ?).

 

Without further info:

 

E's bid is so absurd in the non protective seat that he must think his partner has something, he has no other reason at this point to assume the multier doesn't have a strong hand.

 

W has fielded as he has a clear 4♠ bid.

 

I also would adjust to 3♠= but give them a penalty.

 

Questions I'd ask that might change this:

 

What are their 6th seat methods ?

What hands would act over other types of 2♦ bid, but not over a multi ?

[bluejak]

This shows two problems that apply to a lot of TDs.

 

First, having disallowed a call, many TDs never consider reaching the same contract by another route.

 

Second, when adjusting, many TDs look for a result and do not think "weighted scores are normal" and thus should only give one score if it is blindingly obvious.

 

This seems a normal "How do you rule?" thread. Why is it in the Appeals forum?

[Vampyr]

W is entitled to ask, he may not know what the 2♦ bid is and there are other possibilities (precision style for example) where he may want to double. This gives E UI, but most likely that his partner has diamonds, as this seems the most likely holding he'd be bidding over some other sort of 2♦.

 

...

 

What hands would act over other types of 2♦ bid, but not over a multi ?

 

I don't think that there are any 2♦ bid that actually show diamonds that are alerted instead of announced in the UK. Maybe some sort of weird upside-down Lucas, but this would be extremely uncommon.

 

I think that West wished to know whether he would have another chance to act. And if he was told that 2♦ was Multi, he might ask more, because some players call it Multi when it is weak only (what is that actually called, David?).

 

To answer the above question: with this hand, West may have been interested in bidding 2♥ for takeout if 2♦ was a bid that was usually a weak-two in hearts; may have considered doubling to show "interest" if the bid showed both majors; may have just wanted to follow the auction (and be ready with explanations/alerts).

[bluejak]

I like the name "Mini-Multi" though we usually describe our openings as "Weak only Multi".

[Vampyr]

I like the name "Mini-Multi" though we usually describe our openings as "Weak only Multi".

 

I thought there was another name, named after a person. Am I mistaken?

[Zelandakh]

They already have the time of the 'stop' to process the information. I assume that if this was not adheared to, the OP would have said (and there wouldn't have been an agreed BIT), so the BIT sounds like it's over and above the 10 seconds, which I dont' think is normal for someone with no problem.

This may vary by jurisdiction but around here it is expected that questions are asked during the 10 seconds. It may then take additional time to process the answers. The local regulations do not give you 10 seconds starting from when the answers are finished so assuming that is when OP started the stopwatch is not necessarily correct.

[Vampyr]

This may vary by jurisdiction but around here it is expected that questions are asked during the 10 seconds. It may then take additional time to process the answers. The local regulations do not give you 10 seconds starting from when the answers are finished so assuming that is when OP started the stopwatch is not necessarily correct.

 

I think that it is polite to give them some more time if the questions and answers have eaten significantly into the 10 seconds.

 

What is LOL is when opponents don't quite understand the point of the STOP card, and ask their questions after it has been removed!

[Cyberyeti]

I don't think that there are any 2♦ bid that actually show diamonds that are alerted instead of announced in the UK. Maybe some sort of weird upside-down Lucas, but this would be extremely uncommon.

 

I think that West wished to know whether he would have another chance to act. And if he was told that 2♦ was Multi, he might ask more, because some players call it Multi when it is weak only (what is that actually called, David?).

 

To answer the above question: with this hand, West may have been interested in bidding 2♥ for takeout if 2♦ was a bid that was usually a weak-two in hearts; may have considered doubling to show "interest" if the bid showed both majors; may have just wanted to follow the auction (and be ready with explanations/alerts).

You misunderstood what I was saying, maybe (from E's PoV) W had a weak 2/3 in diamonds type, and wanted to double a precision (short ♦) 2♦ or bid 3♦ over a benji 2♦, but would pass over a multi. If this is the case, then 2♠ might not be particularly suggested by the question.

[MickyB]

I thought there was another name, named after a person. Am I mistaken?

 

On occasion I've seen it referred to as Wagner

[mr1303]

In answer to this question, this one was (again hypothetically) appealed after the director ruled 2H making by North. The bar appeals committee reinstated the table score and gave a PP to East West, refunding the deposit.

 

I've been asked to hang around after play has finished in case of a potential appeal a few times recently. I want to make sure my judgment is right in case someone actually does appeal (as opposed to moaning about the ruling)

[blackshoe]

On occasion I've seen it referred to as Wagner

Wagner 2♦.

[Trinidad]

This may vary by jurisdiction but around here it is expected that questions are asked during the 10 seconds. It may then take additional time to process the answers. The local regulations do not give you 10 seconds starting from when the answers are finished so assuming that is when OP started the stopwatch is not necessarily correct.

Of course you get your X seconds after you get the answers to your questions. You are supposed to (act as if you) have a problem. If you bid immediately after the explanation are you then acting as if you have a problem? I wouldn't think so.

 

What do you do if the explainer needs 15 seconds to explain his bid? Interrupt him and call after 10 seconds? Of course not. You let him finish. Then you will be (acting as if you are) processing the information. And then you will make your call.

 

Rik

[mycroft]

I just can't see West passing 2♥ - especially if she can show that their defence to Multi makes a double in 6th seat "takeout of the suit", and from there all roads lead to some number of spades. But what do I know - I live in noMultiLand. I'm glad to see that the ruling was changed on appeal - it would be interesting to know if it was overturned (either because the UI was ruled to not show anything about West's hand or because pass wasn't considered a LA) or whether pass was enforced, but West would double in balance. The PP to E-W seems to imply the AC believed UI was deliberately used, so it looks like they allowed West to balance-double; but it would be interesting to know.