Reno Appeal

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sqjhq94dkq4ckqj65&w=st632h87653d7c874&n=sk9854htdaj63ct32&e=sa7hakj2dt9852ca9&d=s&v=ew&b=1&a=1n(14.5-17)p2cp2dp2s(weak%20both%20majors)dp3cd3ddppp]399|300[/hv]

Platinum Pairs. Table result 3Dx-4 NS+1100.

 

This was the only appeal so far published in the bulletins in Reno. I shall present the facts (as published), but not the TD or AC decision, and ask you to rule. After the 2♠ bid was made, East asked the meaning and was told that it was "garbage" (or weak) with spades and hearts. East called the TD when dummy hit because the explanation did not correspond with the NS holdings (wrongly stated to be EW holdings in the bulletin). East said he would not have changed his double of 2♠. Play continued. At the end of the hand, North said that the agreement was described correctly; he and his partner had discussed it that morning, but he took a view. North further said that he would have doubled 3♥. One of the North-South convention cards showed that the pair played garbage Stayman, while the other card did not. (I do not know which one, although I think the TD should have stated which one).

 

The write-up continues, regarding the ruling, that "Law 75 states that the director must rule that the explanation was mistaken". This is incorrect; the Law that states this is 21B1b which is:

"The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary". Your decision could be a bottom to top swing. If you decide that there was MI, then the final contract is likely to be 3Hx=. If you decide there was no MI, then the table result clearly stands. All 126 match points are at stake, perhaps a record for an appeal!

 

As per the forum rules I think propounded by barmar and blackshoe, I have not included the players' names, although the bulletin saw fit to do so. SB is not involved!

[wank]

i would be inclinded to accept the 1 convention card as sufficient evidence to let the table result stand, and assume north forgot the system or some such, if it weren't for north saying 'he took a view' with his 51 shape. this sounds like such hastily made up rubbish that i'll assume he's hiding something else and change the score.

[blackshoe]

"I have no evidence, just a suspicion, but I'll go ahead and change the score anyway."

 

No. Just no.

[Vampyr]

i would be inclinded to accept the 1 convention card as sufficient evidence to let the table result stand, and assume north forgot the system or some such, if it weren't for north saying 'he took a view' with his 51 shape. this sounds like such hastily made up rubbish that i'll assume he's hiding something else and change the score.

 

Yeah, that is crap. Also the "discussed it this morning" implies that North is still playing the previous system.

 

The idea that something appearing on a CC or even two CCs is definitely the system being played is a common misconception. People will, for example, write what their partner tells them to write even though they don't understand the method. People will even write on their partner's card.

 

And sometimes, of course, one player hands their partner a filled-out or printed CC and says "let's play this".

[PrecisionL]

I thought the ACBL guidelines are to treat it as a misbid unless evidence exists that it is misinformation.

[lamford]

I thought the ACBL guidelines are to treat it as a misbid unless evidence exists that it is misinformation.

The laws do not say that, and the guidelines cannot modify the laws. They say: "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary". Now what is required as evidence is a mooot point. Personally, I would rule Mistaken Explanation unless both convention cards clearly state a method, and "garbage stayman" is normally, trawling through the internet, 2C-2D-2H, although some bid 2S with a weak 5-4 with longer spades. If both CCs here said 2C-2D-2S = 5-4 weak and 2C-2D-2H = 4-4 or 4-5 weak, then I would not change the score. North admitted that playing 2S as invitational with five spades (looking for a nine-card fit) was a common method.

[barmar]

Yeah, that is crap. Also the "discussed it this morning" implies that North is still playing the previous system.

I'm not sure there is a previous system. While both players are well known experts, I don't recognize them as a partnership, so the discussion in the morning may have been the creation of their initial agreements.

[gnasher]

"I have no evidence, just a suspicion, but I'll go ahead and change the score anyway."

 

No. Just no.

 

North stated that

- South's explanation was systemically correct, and

- He (North) bid as he did knowing that he was showing five spades and four hearts.

 

If the director judges that the second statement is likely to be false, he should place little weight on the first statement, as it came from an unreliable source.

 

That may not be quite what Wank said, but it's a reasonable basis for ruling that there was MI.

[blackshoe]

What basis is there for judging that the second statement is false?

[lamford]

What basis is there for judging that the second statement is false?

When the hand does not tally with the explanation, the TD has to decide whether there was MI or a misbid. Law 85A1 states: "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect."

 

The convention cards also gave conflicting evidence, and the TD decided, on the balance of probabilities, that there was MI. Given that one card had the "ambiguous" "Garbage Stayman" and the other card was silent, the TD decision looks clear.

[Vampyr]

I'm not sure there is a previous system. While both players are well known experts, I don't recognize them as a partnership, so the discussion in the morning may have been the creation of their initial agreements.

 

In that case one player said "let's play Garbage Stayman" and the two players had a different understanding of what that meant. So in fact, they had no agreement.

[gnasher]

What basis is there for judging that the second statement is false?

The main basis is that it sounds like a load of bullocks.

 

Judgement is intrinsically subjective, so it can't have any basis other than the judge's knowledge and experience.

[nige1]

i would be inclined to accept the 1 convention card as sufficient evidence to let the table result stand, and assume north forgot the system or some such, if it weren't for north saying 'he took a view' with his 51 shape. this sounds like such hastily made up rubbish that i'll assume he's hiding something else and change the score.

Yeah, that is crap. Also the "discussed it this morning" implies that North is still playing the previous system. The idea that something appearing on a CC or even two CCs is definitely the system being played is a common misconception. People will, for example, write what their partner tells them to write even though they don't understand the method. People will even write on their partner's card.And sometimes, of course, one player hands their partner a filled-out or printed CC and says "let's play this".

IMO, it would be simpler and fairer if your system-card were considered to represent your agreements, for law purposes. It might also encourage more players to use convention-cards.

[barmar]

The convention cards also gave conflicting evidence, and the TD decided, on the balance of probabilities, that there was MI. Given that one card had the "ambiguous" "Garbage Stayman" and the other card was silent, the TD decision looks clear.

The way I read it in the bulletin, one of the CCs was filled in pretty completely, while the other was scantily filled in. So it's not so much that they're conflicting, but rather that one of them was more dilligent in filling in his CC when they were discussing their agreements. A conflict would be if the two CCs had different meanings for a sequence, rather than one completely omitting the meaning completely.

 

This detail seems to have been omitted in lamford's brief summary of the appeal, so you can be forgiven for not realizing it.

[ggwhiz]

The Board approved a motion for NABC appeals to be held by a panel of Directors rather than players in the future, as I understand it for at least 2 years pending an evaluation.

 

I was on the fence as to the merits but after this ruling I'm fully on board. They can hardly do worse.

 

A few on BW crapped on West from a dizzy height for not pulling 3♦X to 3♥ but given the smoke being blown up their behind and the fact that north may pull (as long as I pass smoothly) I see no reason to rule that they failed to continue to play bridge as was also suggested.

[robert2734]

After 1N-2C-2D the 2S bid is free in the sense there is no hand that south will pull to 3H even 2-3 in the majors. North also knows he can't play no trump when the opponents have 9 or 10 hearts between them.

 

So back it up. What if after 1N-2C, south bids 2H. North bids 2S. Is North showing a 4 card spade suit and willing to play 4-3 fit? Is north showing a 5 card spade suit and trying to sow more confusion than a transfer to spades?

 

When north psyches garbage staymen with 5 spades and few hearts, it seems like there is no risk involved which violates some other law.

[Mbodell]

After 1N-2C-2D the 2S bid is free in the sense there is no hand that south will pull to 3H even 2-3 in the majors. North also knows he can't play no trump when the opponents have 9 or 10 hearts between them.

 

So back it up. What if after 1N-2C, south bids 2H. North bids 2S. Is North showing a 4 card spade suit and willing to play 4-3 fit? Is north showing a 5 card spade suit and trying to sow more confusion than a transfer to spades?

 

When north psyches garbage staymen with 5 spades and few hearts, it seems like there is no risk involved which violates some other law.

 

If I bid 2S after 1N-2C-2H I'm showing 5+ spades (usually just 5) in an unbalanced hand that is a hair under normal invitational values. Something that wants to play in 4S or 2S or 2nt but not 3nt. And something that has between 0-3 hearts (0-4 hearts if the sequence was instead 1nt-2c-2d-2s). Coincidentally, that happens to perfectly match the hand in this appeal - an unbalanced minimal invite hand.

 

I think this is actually a fairly standard treatment if you have an quantitative invitational sequence that doesn't go through stayman (I.e., you don't play the typical conventions like 2nt natural nor 2S size ask nor 2S size ask or clubs). If you play without such an invite you may need 1nt-2c-2h-2s to show a quantitative invite with 4 spades where 1nt-2c-2h-2nt shows the quantitative invite without 4 spades (there are obviously other ways too, but this seems the most common treatment I see with the 4-way transfer crowd). Of course you could always just play with no quant invite at all (blast or pass) and still keep the unbalanced spade invite.

 

For me, garbage stayman just means I can bid 2C with whatever I like as long as I have a plan. And usually that plan might involve correcting 1nt-2c-2d to 2h to show both majors (either longer/stronger) as 1nt-2c-2d-2s would show the unbalanced invite. There was a garbage stayman hand in the finals of the Vanderbilt where Zia bid 2C over the 1nt with 3=4=1=5 shape and a 7 count. His partner had 3=3 in the majors, 3=3=3=4 16 count. The commentators noted that it was garbage stayman. The bidding went 1nt-2c-2d-2h-2s-3c. That is, Zia pulled the 2d to 2h to show a less than invitational hand with either major longer, willing to play opposite partners better major (I suspect if 2H had been the call over 2C Zia would have at least invited, if 2S were the call probably passed). The NT bidder with equal length pulled hearts to spades - something he wouldn't do if the two heart bid showed a heart preference. Note the spades suit was J52 while the heart suit was AK7 so this wasn't a case of pulling to the stronger trump suit (although sometimes people like stronger side suits, so that may have been at play). Zia corrects the spade to clubs since he doesn't want to play in a 3=3 and hopes to catch good in clubs "knowing" that the NT bidder has at most 6 cards in the majors, and might have less if spades are longer than hearts, and at worst will be in a 5=2 but rates to be in a 5=3 or 5=4 decently often. 3 clubs made 4 where as the other table went down in 3nt. (board 25 at link).

[wank]

"I have no evidence, just a suspicion, but I'll go ahead and change the score anyway."

 

No. Just no.

 

i have evidence. my evidence is north's statement and his hand. what conclusions i draw from that evidence are upto me.

[ggwhiz]

If I bid 2S after 1N-2C-2H I'm showing 5+ spades (usually just 5) in an unbalanced hand that is a hair under normal invitational values. Something that wants to play in 4S or 2S or 2nt but not 3nt. And something that has between 0-3 hearts (0-4 hearts if the sequence was instead 1nt-2c-2d-2s). Coincidentally, that happens to perfectly match the hand in this appeal - an unbalanced minimal invite hand.

 

I think this is actually a fairly standard treatment if you have an quantitative invitational sequence that doesn't go through stayman

 

I don't think how you play it is the issue but what E/W were told certainly is.

[blackshoe]

When north psyches garbage staymen with 5 spades and few hearts, it seems like there is no risk involved which violates some other law.

If you're going to claim a violation of law, you better be able to show which law was violated.

[robert2734]

Why?

[blackshoe]

Because an assertion that "some law was violated" without specifying which law has no validity.

[Mbodell]

I don't think how you play it is the issue but what E/W were told certainly is.

 

How *I* play it doesn't matter. How many people play it, or what could be meant by "garbage stayman" with no other discussion *is* potentially relevant to assessing the explanations given. Especially when the hand in question matches a very common treatment different than what's been explained.

[blackshoe]

How *I* play it doesn't matter. How many people play it, or what could be meant by "garbage stayman" with no other discussion *is* potentially relevant to assessing the explanations given. Especially when the hand in question matches a very common treatment different than what's been explained.

Perhaps. However, where regulation states that "explanations" consisting solely of the name of a convention are unacceptable, such a name is MI on its face. The ACBL's alert regulation so states.

[barmar]

Perhaps. However, where regulation states that "explanations" consisting solely of the name of a convention are unacceptable, such a name is MI on its face. The ACBL's alert regulation so states.

It wasn't explained just by giving the name of the convention. The OP said 'told that it was "garbage" (or weak) with spades and hearts.'

 

The name of the convention was used on the convention card (well, the one that was filled in more completely). You can't really expect much more on a CC.

 

BTW, I wonder if the pair was given a PP for not having two identical convention cards. This regulation is often ignored, but when it impacts determining the facts of a case like this, they should throw the book at them.