another ruling #2

[jillybean]

Hi,

I was not there but I was asked by e/w to look at ruling after the tournament.

The damage claimed by n/s is unknown, they were in private chat with td.

 

Board adjusted to A+(N/S) A- (E/W), reason given “players must explain full disclosure”

 

Are there any grounds at all for calling td, making adjustment or was it a

risky double by North now looking for a loophole?

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skq4hj985dqjck863&w=s83h3dat98542caqj&e=sajt972hakq7dk6c7&s=s65ht642d73ct9542]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 4♦    Pass  4♠    Pass

 6♠    Dbl   Pass  Pass

 Pass  

(4♦ was alerted as preemptive)

 

 

tyia

jillybean

[pbleighton]

ZERO grounds for an appeal. The TD was plain wrong, unless the EW card limited preempts to <11 hcp, which I gather it didn't.

 

Preempts with 11 hcp aren't my cup of tea (I'd rather open at the 1 level, and with this hand would open 1D with any pd), but they are commonplace. A lot of players don't like to open at the one level with 11 hcp, especially in the minors. The TD fell into the trap of "Player opened Y and explained it as Y, I would open X with this hand, therefore the explanation is wrong and a penalty applies".

 

I admire directors for the work they do, but this was a terrible ruling.

 

It's also an unsportsmanlike director call by the opps.

 

The double was also terrible.

 

Peter

[Elianna]

I basically agree with Peter, that there seems to be no misinformation. I would add that to be complete, 4♦ could be alerted as "preemptive with diamonds" instead of just preemptive, but I don't see how that would change any circumstances, unless N was under the impression that West was the one with long spades, which still seems to make it N's problem, not W's.

[inquiry]

Nothing to appeal, nothing to rule, 6♠x making. I suspect the TD was a very, very good friend of NS or very inexperienced.,,, let's hope the latter.

[mike777]

Hi,

I was not there but I was asked by e/w to look at ruling after the tournament.

The damage claimed by n/s is unknown, they were in private chat with td.

 

Board adjusted to A+(N/S) A- (E/W), reason given “players must explain full disclosure”

 

Are there any grounds at all for calling td, making adjustment or was it a

risky double by North now looking for a loophole?

 

<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> West </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> KQ4 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> J985 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> QJ </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> K863 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 83 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> 3 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> AT98542 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> AQJ </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AJT972 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> AKQ7 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> K6 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> 7 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 65 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> T642 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 73 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> T9542 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->

 

West  North East  South

 

 4♦    Pass  4♠    Pass

 6♠    Dbl   Pass  Pass

 Pass  

(4♦ was alerted as preemptive)

 

 

tyia

jillybean

How can anyone rule, we do not have all the facts.

We are given some facts not all.

We are told some of the table discussions, not all

We have not talked with NS to hear their side.

I have at least 10 questions to ask EW to gather more information.

 

Since West could be void and East bids 4s we could assume

1) EW are novices and do not know how to bid.

2) EW have private understandings that the opp are entitled to know. These understandings may be based on implicit agreements rather than explicit system discussions from a long past history of this bid.

 

Of course under time pressure with many calls and time running out, the director may just dismiss this as sour grapes by NS and move on. The time pressure on directors to make decisions on half-baked information makes this issue a big problem with online tourneys.

[pbleighton]

" East bids 4s we could assume

1) EW are novices and do not know how to bid.

2) EW have private understandings that the opp are entitled to know. These understandings may be based on implicit agreements rather than explicit system discussions from a long past history of this bid."

 

I disagree.

 

East has a huge hand, it is IMPs, he doesn't want to miss game.

 

It's a tough call, but at IMPs I would probably bid 4S with a pickup partner.

 

Peter

[mike777]

Well 5D is game also if p is short in s we have hearts to set up spades ....and sure 4s is a game one step lower but... as I said, most likely this is just sour grapes by NS, but would recommend we get all the information before passing judgement and not half a story.

[hrothgar]

Comment the first: As other folks have noted, we don't have much information to go on

 

Comment the Second: The East-West pair strike me as pretty inexperienced. I really dislike East-West's bidding. West strikes me as too strong for 4♦. East has a clear raise to 5♦. The suit is no-where near good enough to insist on Spades as trump. (Shift the North-South hands and and 6♠ doesn't far so well)

 

Comment the Third: North-South aren't entitled to an adjustment based on E/W getting lucky. North made a crappy double that could easily cost the contract by giving away the Spade position. He doesn't get to ask for an adjust because he doesn't like the board result.

 

The judgement is a farce. If you are going to adjust the score (and I don't believe this to be justified), then adjust it by rolling back the double and not the 6♠ contract.

[luke warm]

what damage are n and s claiming? looks like they said something to td like "west should give point range for a preemptive bid and he's too strong"... that's silly reasoning, but i don't know what else they're complaining about...

 

as for mike's post about further questions, fine ask them.. but let's assume the answers are:

 

1) yes i can be void in spades, he can be void in diamonds

2) no, 4♠ is not forcing, but i bid

3) yes, we play the preemptive bidder is barred from further bidding, i ignored it

4) normally 4♦ shows 4-8/9, i lied

 

ok, you have your answers... now what?

[keylime]

ZERO grounds. Result stands and in real life I give a procedural for a frivolous appeal.

[pigpenz]

Weird bidding definetley but, I would not adjust board unless there has been some prior record of teh E-W pair doing this in the past. I like Keylime's procedural penalty for a frivolous appeal.

[mr1303]

I would not adjust board unless there has been some prior record of teh E-W pair doing this in the past.

 

Doing what exactly? Taking views? Overbidding? If boards are going to be adjusted for overbidding, we might as well all give up playing now.

[rigour6]

This seems to fall into the category of:

 

1) Opps made a crazy bid (or got to it through a crazy sequence) (By "crazy" I mean "not the one I would have used")

 

2) I quite properly doubled them (not really, but I thought I did)

 

3) Opps somehow (surprisingly to me) made it, so

 

4) I should call the Director.

[the hog]

South bid the hand well! Result stands.

[Al_U_Card]

Even if the explanation included "not allowed to have an outside ace" or some such, why in the world is North doubling? Speculation? Hoping to set up an appeal if he gets a bad result? This may be a poster-boy case for SEVERLY punishing frivolous appeals....of which this is one if I ever saw it.

[hotShot]

Hi,

I was not there but I was asked by e/w to look at ruling after the tournament.

The damage claimed by n/s is unknown, they were in private chat with td.

 

Board adjusted to A+(N/S) A- (E/W), reason given “players must explain full disclosure”

 

Are there any grounds at all for calling td, making adjustment or was it a

risky double by North now looking for a loophole?

 

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=skq4hj985dqjck863&w=s83h3dat98542caqj&e=sajt972hakq7dk6c7&s=s65ht642d73ct9542]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

4♦ Pass 4♠ Pass

6♠ Dbl Pass Pass

Pass

(4♦ was alerted as preemptive)

 

 

tyia

jillybean

A 4 level preempt can't be that weak, because as both sides are none vul, west needs to get 8 tricks (or you keep opps out of a slam), otherwise it would be to expensive.

So the west hand has to be very close to having only 5-6 looser.

East has the potential to cover a lot of these loosers. East knows that he can always go back to ♦. Knowing that west will be short in any other suit than ♦, west will know that 2 card support should be fine.

I don't like the bidding style shown here by E/W, but there is nothing to complain about.

 

Opener: I want to play 4♦.

Responder: I'm strong and have lot's of ♠.

Opener: I'm maximum + distribution, let's play ♠ slam.

 

So what's the probem?

North has ♠ in front of the ♠ length, and a save trick in that suit. He can hope for a second trick and double, but he does it on his own risk.

 

No adjustment.