What Should Be the Decision of Appeal Committee

[captyogi]

Tournament is Over, Appeal Committee has already Given the Decision.

I am Asking to Get The Opinion of Highly Experienced Directors Here Around.

 

Players are Playing Precision System.

There are No Screens.

There is No Self Alert.

Explanation Given Can Be Heard by Entire Table.

 

2C - 2S ( Explained by partner (2C Opener ) as Non Forcing.

4S - Asks for Key Cards, then Trump Queen and Bids 6S )

 

2C = Precision Type 11-15 HCP 5/6 Cards C + 4 Card Maj or 6 Cards of C

 

Bidder of 2S is Holding S : AKxxx , H : AJx , D : Kxx , C : Jx

 

Opponents are Not Happy, They Call TD, TD Consults 5 Experienced Players and Gives Ruling 6S Stands.

 

Now 2S Bidder Clearly was thinking 2S is Forcing Bid, in That Case 4S by Opener should be the min Hand and Should be the Shut Bid

However he has Heard Partner Telling Non Forcing Bid and Still Bidding 4S , Hence Acts and Reaches 6 S after asking Key Cards and Trump Q.

 

Request Opinion from Experienced Directors / Players.

 

Thx n Brgds

 

Yogesh V. Abhyankar

( captyogi on BBO )

[DozyDom]

If 4S, opposite a forcing 2S, is minimum, the 2S has no business bidding on in a normal situation. When bidding on is suggested by UI, it's just plain cheating.

 

Roll it back to 4S.

[captyogi]

Please Note, I am Not Interested Party. I was Not Even Playing That Tournament. I was Told About This Incident and the Ruling, and I was Not Convinced and Felt that the Decision to Go to Slam Was Based on UI information. Hence I have Put this Incident Here, to get Opinion from the Players / Directors Having Huge Experience in Tackling Variety of Situations. I was Told That the Only thing Matters is the Strong Hand of 2S Bidder which warrants bid on its Own. But in this case He Has Heard His Partner Telling the meaning to be Non Forcing, and still bids 4S.

[blackshoe]

When bidding on is suggested by UI, it's just plain cheating.

That's nonsense.

 

Captyogi, did the director explain why he ruled that way? I know, they usually don't. Did anyone at the table ask him to explain the ruling?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=sak864haj8dk84cj8&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=2c(Precision)p2s(Explained%20as%20N%2FF)p4sp?]133|200|Captyogi tells us that the 2♠ bidder then asked for Aces and the trump Q, before bidding and making 6♠

In fact, the 2♠ response is F1.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

IMO, the ruling depends on what the Precision pair's methods really are.

On the surface, the ruling seems wrong, because the 2♣ opener should have a very suitable hand to raise a non-forcing 2♠ reply to game. Opposite a forcing 2♠ response, opener could bid 4♠ with less. Thus responder appears to be in receipt of helpful UI and seems to have used it to his advantage. Unless a poll would have determined that there's no logical alternative to bidding the slam.[/hv]

[DozyDom]

That's nonsense.

 

Captyogi, did the director explain why he ruled that way? I know, they usually don't. Did anyone at the table ask him to explain the ruling?

Sorry, not cheating. Breaking the laws of the game to gain an advantage over the opposition. Whoops.

 

I can quite easily believe the facts are not as were described in the OP - the ruling is absurd if the OP is accurate, and that suggests it isn't. But if the OP is accurate, then the 2S bidder is taking advantage of UI in an incredibly brazen way.

[barmar]

When they said 2♠ is not forcing, did they provide any more details? If it's invitational, then 4♠ is accepting the invitation, so shows extra. Opener is already limited by the Precision 2♣ opening.

[pescetom]

When they said 2♠ is not forcing, did they provide any more details? If it's invitational, then 4♠ is accepting the invitation, so shows extra. Opener is already limited by the Precision 2♣ opening.

 

The first question is "what are their agreements over 2♣ opening"? Responder obviously doesn't think 2♠ is natural NF, opener says it is (and that is pretty standard as I recall).

[captyogi]

That's nonsense.

 

Captyogi, did the director explain why he ruled that way? I know, they usually don't. Did anyone at the table ask him to explain the ruling?

 

Now Days There is No TD Ruling and then if it Challenged it Goes to Appeal Committee.

 

While Giving Ruling if it is Not Straight Forward ( Like lead out of turn, bid out of turn etc. type ) then TD Consults few Knowledgeable Players and Gives the Ruling and That is Final.

 

In this Case I was Told the Explanation Given by Panel was That the Only thing Matters is the Strong Hand of 2S Bidder which warrants 2nd Bid bid on its Own.

 

But in this case He Has Heard His Partner Telling the meaning to be Non Forcing, and still bids 4S.

 

Also Please Note that these Days People tend to Open Hands Even with Shape Even with 9/10 Points ( Whatever Allowed within CoC )

[pescetom]

In this Case I was Told the Explanation Given by Panel was That the Only thing Matters is the Strong Hand of 2S Bidder which warrants 2nd Bid bid on its Own.

 

But in this case He Has Heard His Partner Telling the meaning to be Non Forcing, and still bids 4S.

 

Also Please Note that these Days People tend to Open Hands Even with Shape Even with 9/10 Points ( Whatever Allowed within CoC )

Do you know anything about opening hand and the rebids he thought he had available? From what you say it would seem he held spades headed by Queen and at most 2 side Aces with no Kings, which seems no good reason to jump to game over a NF response unless he had no other rebid showing fit.

[captyogi]

Do you know anything about opening hand and the rebids he thought he had available? From what you say it would seem he held spades headed by Queen and at most 2 side Aces with no Kings, which seems no good reason to jump to game over a NF response unless he had no other rebid showing fit.

 

I Do Not Have 2C Opener's Hand. But I suppose it is irrelevant.

 

I will Copy Paste the Comments by One Player ( Who is Top Level Player )

 

QUOTE

= = = = = =

In my opinion this is a fairly straightforward case. The first question is whether any UI had got passed and the answers is clearly yes. Now comes the question of whether that UI has helped the responder in making correct decisions in the subsequent bidding. Here responder knows that his partner has a hand strong enough to bid game even opposite a passable signoff and this is known to him only because of the UI. Without the UI the 4S bid would clearly not be the strongest bid available to partner and therefore exploring Aslam is clearly not the obvious choice. I would adjust the result to 4S making whatever.

= = = = = =

UNQUOTE

[gordontd]

Now 2S Bidder Clearly was thinking 2S is Forcing Bid, in That Case 4S by Opener should be the min Hand and Should be the Shut Bid

 

This is not true if 2S was a one-round force. In that case, 4S would show a better than minimum hand.

[captyogi]

This is not true if 2S was a one-round force. In that case, 4S would show a better than minimum hand.

 

I have mentioned 2S was Told as Non Forcing.

[gordontd]

I have mentioned 2S was Told as Non Forcing.

I understand that, but I am questioning your assertion that if it were forcing then 4S would be weaker than 3S.

[captyogi]

I understand that, but I am questioning your assertion that if it were forcing then 4S would be weaker than 3S.

 

I Suppose from the Hand of 2S Bidder you See, He was Clearly Thinking it is Forcing ( Probably to Game )

 

Opener 2C Bidder Must Have Forgotten ( Many Do Play 2H or 2S on Precision 2C Opening bid to be NF Passable )

So Gave Meaning to be Non Forcing which everybody on Table Herad.

 

Now 2C Opening is done with min 9 HCP also if having Good 2 Suiter Shape.

So 2S Bidder has to Judge the Range 9/10 HCP or 14/15 HCP, which in absence of UI was not possible for him.

with his Given Hand will he dare to Probe Slam if 4S bid was Made , he not having any Clue, here he Heard Passable and Still Pd Bids Game, Has to have Maximum Hand ( UI )

[gordontd]

I Suppose from the Hand of 2S Bidder you See, He was Clearly Thinking it is Forcing ( Probably to Game )

 

Opener 2C Bidder Must Have Forgotten ( Many Do Play 2H or 2S on Precision 2C Opening bid to be NF Passable )

So Gave Meaning to be Non Forcing which everybody on Table Herad.

 

Now 2C Opening is done with min 9 HCP also if having Good 2 Suiter Shape.

So 2S Bidder has to Judge the Range 9/10 HCP or 14/15 HCP, which in absence of UI was not possible for him.

with his Given Hand will he dare to Probe Slam if 4S bid was Made , he not having any Clue, here he Heard Passable and Still Pd Bids Game, Has to have Maximum Hand ( UI )

You keep repeating the same thing, without addressing the point I have made. Your parenthetical assumption "Probably to Game" has no sound basis that I can see.

[nige1]

Over a forcing 2♠ reply, a 3♠ is probably invitational; 4♠ better; but with a good raise to 4♠, opener could take stronger action (e.g. splinter or cue-bid).

Over a non-forcing 2♠ reply, a 4♠ rebid shows a very suitable hand, (including those better hands -- because opener wouldn't consider making a slam-try).

Hence it would be interesting to know what the Precision-pair's methods really are and whether the committee established that there's no logical alternative to bidding the slam in spite of this UI.

[PrecisionL]

Having played Precision for over 20 years, I have always played 2♠ over 2♣ opening as non-forcing with all partners, but opener can raise with a good fitting hand. All G.F. or invites go through 2♦ or 2NT.

 

What to rule? Depends on their actual agreements. However, playing 2♠ as forcing is not mainstream.

[barmar]

In standard 2/1 GF bidding, 2♠ and 3♠ are both non-forcing responses to 1♠, but they show different strength ranges. We need to know which kind of non-forcing response was meant when describing this 2♠ bid.

[blackshoe]

2♠ forcing on this auction is not mainstream in North America. I have no idea whether it might be mainstream somewhere else where I've never played.

[blackshoe]

Sorry, not cheating. Breaking the laws of the game to gain an advantage over the opposition. Whoops.

And of course he knew he was doing that. Not.

[blackshoe]

Now Days There is No TD Ruling and then if it Challenged it Goes to Appeal Committee.

 

While Giving Ruling if it is Not Straight Forward ( Like lead out of turn, bid out of turn etc. type ) then TD Consults few Knowledgeable Players and Gives the Ruling and That is Final.

 

In this Case I was Told the Explanation Given by Panel was That the Only thing Matters is the Strong Hand of 2S Bidder which warrants 2nd Bid bid on its Own.

 

But in this case He Has Heard His Partner Telling the meaning to be Non Forcing, and still bids 4S.

 

Also Please Note that these Days People tend to Open Hands Even with Shape Even with 9/10 Points ( Whatever Allowed within CoC )

You might try capitalizing only the first word in a sentence. Makes them easier to read.

 

How can there be a challenge to a ruling that doesn't exist?

 

If a judgement ruling is final, that sounds to me like it can't be appealed. And yet this case went to an appeals committee.

 

The only thing that matters is not the strength of responder's hand. The only thing that matters is not that opener jumped to game. The only thing that matters is whether responder took advantage of unauthorized information. To rule on this we need to know the agreed meaning of 4!S. If, as is reported in the OP, it is some form of Blackwood, responder has no LA to correctly replying to it, and to any followup questions asked of him.

We need the entire auction. We don't have it.

[pescetom]

2♠ forcing on this auction is not mainstream in North America. I have no idea whether it might be mainstream somewhere else where I've never played.

It's hard to imagine it mainstream anywhere: what would one do with a 9-10 hcp hand of spades, put it through 2D and then rebid spades? Seems more logical to play 2S NF and perhaps 3S F1 to invite a control bid if opener has enough to explore slam.

[gordontd]

If, as is reported in the OP, it is some form of Blackwood, responder has no LA to correctly replying to it, and to any followup questions asked of him.

I think he meant that 4S was followed by Blackwood. The original post was not a model of clarity.

[Vampyr]

And of course he knew he was doing that. Not.

 

Intent is irrelevant when an action suggested by UI is taken.