How do you rule?

[Robert Chance]

Both vul, dealer W


5
KJT83
KT6
KJ63
4 KQJT9
AQ97642 -
85 QJ43
T95 AQ42
A87632
5
A972
87


W N E S
4H P(1) P X
P P P

(1) Before passing, North picks up the E/W convention card, asks
whether 4H is natural (it was not alerted), and asks how strong the
bid is.

Table result: 4H* -4, N/S +1100. Lead: 5S

As Director, you ask South about their defensive methods to 4H. South
is somewhat vague, describing them as "natural" (and the N/S
convention card adds nothing more)

This is a national EBU event. N/S are a very good pair, and South has
played at International level.

Do you adjust the score? If so, to what?

[Dave Flower]

On Saturday, 5 January 2013 16:59:10 UTC, Robert Chance wrote:
> Both vul, dealer W 5 KJT83 KT6 KJ63 4 KQJT9 AQ97642 - 85 QJ43 T95 AQ42 A87632 5 A972 87 W N E S 4H P(1) P X P P P (1) Before passing, North picks up the E/W convention card, asks whether 4H is natural (it was not alerted), and asks how strong the bid is. Table result: 4H* -4, N/S +1100. Lead: 5S As Director, you ask South about their defensive methods to 4H. South is somewhat vague, describing them as "natural" (and the N/S convention card adds nothing more) This is a national EBU event. N/S are a very good pair, and South has played at International level. Do you adjust the score? If so, to what?

This one's not close - South had the logical alternatives of pass, dble and 4S, and chose the one most strongly suggested by their partner's questioning. As pass is also suggested, I would adjust to 4S*-4: a richly deserved poor score for N/S. On second thoughts, -5 not -4

Dave Flower

[derek]

On Saturday, January 5, 2013 2:07:58 PM UTC-4, Dave Flower wrote:
> On Saturday, 5 January 2013 16:59:10 UTC, Robert Chance wrote:
>
> > Both vul, dealer W 5 KJT83 KT6 KJ63 4 KQJT9 AQ97642 - 85 QJ43 T95 AQ42 A87632 5 A972 87 W N E S 4H P(1) P X P P P (1) Before passing, North picks up the E/W convention card, asks whether 4H is natural (it was not alerted), and asks how strong the bid is. Table result: 4H* -4, N/S +1100. Lead: 5S As Director, you ask South about their defensive methods to 4H. South is somewhat vague, describing them as "natural" (and the N/S convention card adds nothing more) This is a national EBU event. N/S are a very good pair, and South has played at International level. Do you adjust the score? If so, to what?
>
> This one's not close - South had the logical alternatives of pass, dble
> and 4S, and chose the one most strongly suggested by their partner's
> questioning.

I agree.

> As pass is also suggested, I would adjust to 4S*-4: a richly deserved poor
> score for N/S. On second thoughts, -5 not -4

I'm not sure your reasoning quite follows here, though the result should be similar. Just because pass is also suggested does not necessarily mean you adjust the contract to spades - in your jurisdiction, I think you give a weighted result based on all likely contracts other than 4H (12C1c).

In the ACBL (under 12C1e) we assign a (potentially) split score - and N/S should get "the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred", which I'd have to agree is 4SX-5. E/W get "the most
favorable result that was likely" - I'm not at all sure that's 4SX, but that's not a decision I have to make on my own.

[Bill Jacobs]

Robert Chance <mays...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e9d2bbb0-f3f6-4ba9-
beb8-a7c...@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:

It's tempting to leave the 1100 in place, but giving it to E/W for 4SX.

But undoubtedly the correct ruling is a weighted score between 4SX and
4H passed out. I would probably go with something like 75% of the
result in 4SX and 25% of the result in 4H passed out.

Cheers ... Bill

[Dave Flower]

On Sunday, 6 January 2013 01:18:58 UTC, Bill Jacobs wrote:
> Robert Chance <mays...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e9d2bbb0-f3f6-4ba9- beb8-a7c...@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com: > Both vul, dealer W > > > 5 > KJT83 > KT6 > KJ63 > 4 KQJT9 > AQ97642 - > 85 QJ43 > T95 AQ42 > A87632 > 5 > A972 > 87 > > > W N E S > 4H P(1) P X > P P P > > (1) Before passing, North picks up the E/W convention card, asks > whether 4H is natural (it was not alerted), and asks how strong the > bid is. > > Table result: 4H* -4, N/S +1100. Lead: 5S > > As Director, you ask South about their defensive methods to 4H. South > is somewhat vague, describing them as "natural" (and the N/S > convention card adds nothing more) > > This is a national EBU event. N/S are a very good pair, and South has > played at International level. > > Do you adjust the score? If so, to what? It's tempting to leave the 1100 in place, but giving it to E/W for 4SX. But undoubtedly the correct ruling is a weighted score between 4SX and 4H passed out. I would probably go with something like 75% of the result in 4SX and 25% of the result in 4H passed out. Cheers ... Bill

I disagree; 100% 4S*, 0% 4H

South clearly has UI that North had doubts about 4H being natural - i.e. North has good hearts.

In the terminology if L16B1a, pass (or dble) 'could demonstrably have been suggested over' 4S.

The Laws thus required South to bid 4S. Double was an illegal bid (as would pass), so should take no part in the calculation of the adjusted score.

Dave Flower

PS I retract my suggestion of adjusting to 4S*-5; 4S*-4 is the only likely outcome, assuming that the defence does not slip up.

[Bill Jacobs]

> It's tempting to leave the 1100
> in place, but giving it to E/W for 4SX. But undoubtedly the correct
> ruling is a weighted score between 4SX and 4H passed out. I would
> probably go with something like 75% of the result in 4SX and 25% of
> the result in 4H passed out. Cheers ... Bill
>
> I disagree; 100% 4S*, 0% 4H
>
> South clearly has UI that North had doubts about 4H being natural -
> i.e. North has good hearts.
>
> In the terminology if L16B1a, pass (or dble) 'could demonstrably have
> been suggested over' 4S.
>
> The Laws thus required South to bid 4S. Double was an illegal bid (as
> would pass), so should take no part in the calculation of the adjusted
> score.
>
> Dave Flower
>
> PS I retract my suggestion of adjusting to 4S*-5; 4S*-4 is the only
> likely outcome, assuming that the defence does not slip up.
>

That's a good point: I guess the pass is also suggested by the
hesitation: it's just not as "profitable" as the double.

It's interesting to contemplate what might have happened if South HAD
passed out 4H. Do you the think the opponents would have called the
cops? And would they (or should they) have got an adjustment?

Cheers ... Bill

[Dave Flower]

On Sunday, 6 January 2013 11:27:25 UTC, Bill Jacobs wrote:
> > It's tempting to leave the 1100 > in place, but giving it to E/W for 4SX. But undoubtedly the correct > ruling is a weighted score between 4SX and 4H passed out. I would > probably go with something like 75% of the result in 4SX and 25% of > the result in 4H passed out. Cheers ... Bill > > I disagree; 100% 4S*, 0% 4H > > South clearly has UI that North had doubts about 4H being natural - > i.e. North has good hearts. > > In the terminology if L16B1a, pass (or dble) 'could demonstrably have > been suggested over' 4S. > > The Laws thus required South to bid 4S. Double was an illegal bid (as > would pass), so should take no part in the calculation of the adjusted > score. > > Dave Flower > > PS I retract my suggestion of adjusting to 4S*-5; 4S*-4 is the only > likely outcome, assuming that the defence does not slip up. > That's a good point: I guess the pass is also suggested by the hesitation: it's just not as "profitable" as the double. It's interesting to contemplate what might have happened if South HAD passed out 4H. Do you the think the opponents would have called the cops? And would they (or should they) have got an adjustment? Cheers ... Bill

Well, had I been East or West, I would have called the Director, and, had I been the Director, I would have adjusted to -1100, perhaps consulting colleagues first.

Incidentally, Victor Mollo's description of a player's ethics as 'None since the age of seven. Previous record unknown.' would seem to apply to South!

Dave Flower

PS Suppose the hand had been from a match, and N/S had walked into 1100 at the other table ?

[HoneyMonster]

On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 03:43:52 -0800, Dave Flower wrote:

> Victor Mollo's description of a player's ethics as 'None
> since the age of seven. Previous record unknown.' would seem to apply to
> South

+1. If South really is an international, and there were any justice in
the world, he'd be thrown out on his ear. But I suppose we have to follow
the Laws...

[derek]

The director is empowered to eject a player if warranted - the Laws say nothing about whether it may be "on his ear".

[danc...@yahoo.com]

The consensus seems to be to adjust the hand to 4S -4 for South. If
there were no UI on the hand instead of what actually happened, in my
opinion 4S -4 for South would be the most likely result. I'm
wondering if there is any way the NS pair can avoid this result with
rational bidding.

[derek]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 10:09:05 AM UTC-4, danc...@yahoo.com wrote:

> The consensus seems to be to adjust the hand to 4S -4 for South. If

Well 4SX...

> there were no UI on the hand instead of what actually happened, in my
> opinion 4S -4 for South would be the most likely result. I'm
> wondering if there is any way the NS pair can avoid this result with
> rational bidding.

Sure:

4H (P!) P (P)

! - in tempo, which means: after a 10 second pause for thought.

Or even:

4H (P) P (X)
All pass

- I hate that double, but it's legal as long as he has no UI.

[Herb]

On 1/5/2013 8:59 AM, Robert Chance wrote:

I must be missing something here. If this was a "What do you bid?"
question, phrased simply as:

IMPS, All vul.
The bidding has proceded 4H - P - P - ?
You hold:
A87632
5
A972
87
What is your bid?

I can't believe that a significant percentage of responders would reply 4S.

What is the difference between EBU regs and ACBL regs? The ACBL ruling,
using the written basis 'most unfavorable PROBABLE result' for NS and
'the most favorable result that was LIKELY' for EW, why isn't the final
result adjusted to EW 4H -4? A 4S bid by NS seems both improbably and
unlikely, unless North overcalls in with an initial double, which didn't
happen. Should it have?

- Herb

[Lorne]

This is blatant use of UI IMO and I think you should adjust to 4S
doubled - 4.

I agree with some other posts that the question suggests passing will be
better than bidding 4S so it should not be allowed or used in a weighted
calculation. I also think that double is not what would be done if the
passes were all in tempo (pass or 4S are much more likely).

I do think you should consider N pulling to 4N but that looks like it
might also be 4 off so maybe irrelevant.

I also think that the south action should be reported to the Laws and
ethics committtee so they can consider something more punishing if
blatant use of UI occurs again for this player.

[David Stevenson]

Robert Chance wrote

70% of 4H -4, NS +400
+ 30% of 4Sx -5, NS -1400
+ PP [standard amount] to N/S for use of UI

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@gmail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

Dave Flower wrote

>On Sunday, 6 January 2013 01:18:58 UTC, Bill Jacobs wrote:
>> Robert Chance <mays...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e9d2bbb0-f3f6-4ba9-
>>beb8-a7c...@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com: > Both vul, dealer W >
>>> > 5 > KJT83 > KT6 > KJ63 > 4 KQJT9 > AQ97642 - > 85 QJ43 > T95 AQ42
>>> A87632 > 5 > A972 > 87 > > > W N E S > 4H P(1) P X > P P P > > (1)
>>Before passing, North picks up the E/W convention card, asks > whether
>>4H is natural (it was not alerted), and asks how strong the > bid is.
>>> > Table result: 4H* -4, N/S +1100. Lead: 5S > > As Director, you ask
>>South about their defensive methods to 4H. South > is somewhat vague,
>>describing them as "natural" (and the N/S > convention card adds
>>nothing more) > > This is a national EBU event. N/S are a very good
>>pair, and South has > played at International level. > > Do you adjust
>>the score? If so, to what? It's tempting to leave the 1100 in place,
>>but giving it to E/W for 4SX. But undoubtedly the correct ruling is a
>>weighted score between 4SX and 4H passed out. I would probably go with
>>something like 75% of the result in 4SX and 25% of the result in 4H passed out. Cheers ... Bill
>
>I disagree; 100% 4S*, 0% 4H
>
>South clearly has UI that North had doubts about 4H being natural -
>i.e. North has good hearts.
>
>In the terminology if L16B1a, pass (or dble) 'could demonstrably have
>been suggested over' 4S.

I don't agree. North is known to have strength, and if the strength
includes a doubleton spade, 4S might lead to a far better result than
pass. No doubt double is suggested over pass, but 4S is not.

==========================================================
Dave Flower wrote

>Well, had I been East or West, I would have called the Director, and,
>had I been the Director, I would have adjusted to -1100, perhaps
>consulting colleagues first.

**** PERHAPS !!!! **** ????

[David Stevenson]

Herb wrote

>On 1/5/2013 8:59 AM, Robert Chance wrote:
>
>I must be missing something here. If this was a "What do you bid?"
>question, phrased simply as:
>
>IMPS, All vul.
>The bidding has proceded 4H - P - P - ?
>You hold:
> A87632
> 5
> A972
> 87
>What is your bid?
>
>I can't believe that a significant percentage of responders would reply 4S.
>
>What is the difference between EBU regs and ACBL regs? The ACBL ruling,
>using the written basis 'most unfavorable PROBABLE result' for NS and
>'the most favorable result that was LIKELY' for EW, why isn't the final
>result adjusted to EW 4H -4? A 4S bid by NS seems both improbably and
>unlikely, unless North overcalls in with an initial double, which
>didn't happen. Should it have?

I am flabbergasted that someone who I have seen posting on RGB over
the years does not know that the Law he is quoting applies solely in
North America, nowhere else.

Elsewhere the norm is to give a weighted score, the same for both
sides, unless a SEWoG is present.

[france...@googlemail.com]

As Director, you ask South about their defensive methods to 4H. South is somewhat vague, describing them as "natural" (and the N/S convention card adds nothing more) This is a national EBU event. N/S are a very good pair, and South has played at International level. Do you adjust the score? If so, to what?

I adjust to some mixture of 4Sx-4 or 5 and 4H undoubled -4.
NS PP for breaching laws 16 and 73

I have to admit I'm concerned about a "very good pair" one of whom "has played at International level" who carry out these antics. What event was this, and who were NS (you are welcome to tell me in confidence)? (I don't believe this was the Year End Congress which is the most recent national EBU event).

[Dave Flower]

On Monday, 7 January 2013 16:09:24 UTC, David Stevenson wrote:
> Dave Flower wrote >On Sunday, 6 January 2013 01:18:58 UTC, Bill Jacobs wrote: >> Robert Chance <mays...@gmail.com> wrote in news:e9d2bbb0-f3f6-4ba9- >>beb8-a7c...@c14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com: > Both vul, dealer W > >>> > 5 > KJT83 > KT6 > KJ63 > 4 KQJT9 > AQ97642 - > 85 QJ43 > T95 AQ42 >>> A87632 > 5 > A972 > 87 > > > W N E S > 4H P(1) P X > P P P > > (1) >>Before passing, North picks up the E/W convention card, asks > whether >>4H is natural (it was not alerted), and asks how strong the > bid is. >>> > Table result: 4H* -4, N/S +1100. Lead: 5S > > As Director, you ask >>South about their defensive methods to 4H. South > is somewhat vague, >>describing them as "natural" (and the N/S > convention card adds >>nothing more) > > This is a national EBU event. N/S are a very good >>pair, and South has > played at International level. > > Do you adjust >>the score? If so, to what? It's tempting to leave the 1100 in place, >>but giving it to E/W for 4SX. But undoubtedly the correct ruling is a >>weighted score between 4SX and 4H passed out. I would probably go with >>something like 75% of the result in 4SX and 25% of the result in 4H passed out. Cheers ... Bill > >I disagree; 100% 4S*, 0% 4H > >South clearly has UI that North had doubts about 4H being natural - >i.e. North has good hearts. > >In the terminology if L16B1a, pass (or dble) 'could demonstrably have >been suggested over' 4S. I don't agree. North is known to have strength, and if the strength includes a doubleton spade, 4S might lead to a far better result than pass. No doubt double is suggested over pass, but 4S is not. ========================================================== Dave Flower wrote >Well, had I been East or West, I would have called the Director, and, >had I been the Director, I would have adjusted to -1100, perhaps >consulting colleagues first. **** PERHAPS !!!! **** ???? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955 <webj...@gmail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412 bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

If North's antics had merely indicated strength, then it is perfectly reasonable to allow a pass. However, North asked whether the 4H bid was natural - he might just as well have come straight out with it and said that he had good hearts. To my mind, this makes a pass by South (1) desirable and (2) illegal.

My 'perhaps' was based on the possibility that there might be no other Director to consult

Dave Flower

[Robert Chance]

Many thanks for all your replies. It seems that the clear concensus
is that South has two logical alternatives, namely 4S and pass, with
opinion split over which is the more likely call. Most people (but
not all) have argued that the UI suggests pass would work better than
4S.

I have to confess that I have led you all on a little here. The
auction and the W/S hands were as shown, but North actually held KQx
KJTx KQxx xx. 4H doubled actually went three off, but as you will
see, 4S was cold.

The point of posting this hand was to show why it can be a mistake to
look at all four hands when making a ruling. When this hand came up
(15 years ago), every single person I showed it to - and that
includes
one person who has posted to this thread - argued that pass was not a
logical alternative call for South, and that the hand should be
adjusted to 4S making. As Director, I went with my gut instinct that
the hand should be adjusted to 4H undoubled, but this was overturned
on appeal (ie adjusted to 4S making), and South was not fined by the
appeal committee for use of
UI.

The point is - when you see that 4S is cold, it looks like the only
logical call. When it is going for 1100, it doesn't look so
clearcut.

Incidentally, nobody at the time thought that the UI suggested pass
would work better than 4S.

[derek]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:13:03 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> Herb wrote

>
> >What is the difference between EBU regs and ACBL regs? The ACBL ruling,
> >using the written basis 'most unfavorable PROBABLE result' for NS and
> >'the most favorable result that was LIKELY' for EW, why isn't the final
> >result adjusted to EW 4H -4? A 4S bid by NS seems both improbably and
> >unlikely, unless North overcalls in with an initial double, which
> >didn't happen. Should it have?
>
> I am flabbergasted that someone who I have seen posting on RGB over
> the years does not know that the Law he is quoting applies solely in
> North America, nowhere else.

That may be true in Fact, but not in Law - the laws give that option for any jurisdiction, though it may well be that the ACBL is the only jurisdiction that elects to use it.

In any case, Herb is misreading 12C1e. N/S would not get the 'most unfavorable PROBABLE result' but 'the most unfavorable result AT ALL PROBABLE'. Afaict, that means if it has a measurable probability, they get that result, and 4S is possible, doubling it would be automatic, and down 5 might then happen. So 4SX-4 at least. It's possible that E/W would, in fact, get the 4H-4 result.

[David Stevenson]

derek wrote

>On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:13:03 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>> Herb wrote
>>
>> >What is the difference between EBU regs and ACBL regs? The ACBL ruling,
>> >using the written basis 'most unfavorable PROBABLE result' for NS and
>> >'the most favorable result that was LIKELY' for EW, why isn't the final
>> >result adjusted to EW 4H -4? A 4S bid by NS seems both improbably and
>> >unlikely, unless North overcalls in with an initial double, which
>> >didn't happen. Should it have?
>>
>> I am flabbergasted that someone who I have seen posting on RGB over
>> the years does not know that the Law he is quoting applies solely in
>> North America, nowhere else.
>
>That may be true in Fact, but not in Law - the laws give that option
>for any jurisdiction, though it may well be that the ACBL is the only
>jurisdiction that elects to use it.

So what? Anyone who has been reading this NG for years knows that
North America *is* the only jurisdiction. Trivial semantic arguments do
not alter this fact.

[David Stevenson]

Dave Flower wrote

>My 'perhaps' was based on the possibility that there might be no other
>Director to consult

It is still ** incredibly ** bad TD practice not to consult. No
competent TD ever gives judgement rulings without consultation. There
were some other players there, yes?

[Herb]

On 1/7/2013 8:13 AM, David Stevenson wrote:
> Herb wrote
>> On 1/5/2013 8:59 AM, Robert Chance wrote:
>>
>> I must be missing something here. If this was a "What do you bid?"
>> question, phrased simply as:
>>
>> IMPS, All vul.
>> The bidding has proceded 4H - P - P - ?
>> You hold:
>> A87632
>> 5
>> A972
>> 87
>> What is your bid?
>>
>> I can't believe that a significant percentage of responders would
>> reply 4S.
>>
>> What is the difference between EBU regs and ACBL regs? The ACBL
>> ruling, using the written basis 'most unfavorable PROBABLE result' for
>> NS and 'the most favorable result that was LIKELY' for EW, why isn't
>> the final result adjusted to EW 4H -4? A 4S bid by NS seems both
>> improbably and unlikely, unless North overcalls in with an initial
>> double, which didn't happen. Should it have?
>
> I am flabbergasted that someone who I have seen posting on RGB over
> the years does not know that the Law he is quoting applies solely in
> North America, nowhere else.

Yes, I knew that - but even reading here for a long time I don't (or
didn't) know what the relevant non-North American laws are (OK, sure, I
COULD have looked it up ...)

>
> Elsewhere the norm is to give a weighted score, the same for both
> sides, unless a SEWoG is present.
>

Thank you.

- Herb

[derek]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 7:31:26 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> derek wrote
>
> >On Monday, January 7, 2013 12:13:03 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>
> >> I am flabbergasted that someone who I have seen posting on RGB over
> >> the years does not know that the Law he is quoting applies solely in
> >> North America, nowhere else.
>
> >That may be true in Fact, but not in Law - the laws give that option
> >for any jurisdiction, though it may well be that the ACBL is the only
> >jurisdiction that elects to use it.
>
> So what?

So nothing. It was just a point of interest. Whether anybody else uses 12C1e wasn't even relevant since the question was EBU - and _they_ don't.

> Anyone who has been reading this NG for years knows that
> North America *is* the only jurisdiction. Trivial semantic arguments do
> not alter this fact.

LOL. If _I_ use that argument, you say "I shouldn't have to read every single post, blah, blah, blah."

In fact, I _do_ read every single post, and can't say with any certainty that it's true that the ACBL is the only jurisdiction using that election - and I rather doubt that you can, even with your clearly greater knowledge of regulation outside the EBU and ACBL. However, it _was_ just a matter of trivial semantics, and no argument whatsoever.

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-01-07 4:18 PM, Robert Chance wrote:
> The point is - when you see that 4S is cold, it looks like the only
> logical call. When it is going for 1100, it doesn't look so
> clearcut.

I've made the same point in other forums: deciding on logical
alternatives should be done without knowing the full deal. Nowadays,
Directors -- the good ones at least -- poll players who don't know the
full deal in order to decide. That's not always possible, but it's a
huge help when it is.

In this deal, I think pass, double, and 4S are all LAs, but of course
that's after seeing both the original deal and the made-up alternative.

> Incidentally, nobody at the time thought that the UI suggested pass
> would work better than 4S.

What is suggested depends on _exactly_ what was said and done. Tiny
differences in details could change the answer. The narrative in the OP
suggests long hearts, not just strong and balanced, and that makes pass
illegal in my view. If the actual table action showed strength but not
necessarily long hearts, the hand actually held, pass would be legal.

I'm surprised that the real-life North who held KQx KJTx KQxx xx didn't
bid 3NT. Maybe he thought he could show the hand more accurately with
some antics followed by pass. I agree with the PP for South, and I'd be
tempted to add another one for North for the blatant Law 73B1 violation.

In the made-up deal, I didn't understand down only four in 4Sx at first,
but I think it's right after all. Declarer will get a third diamond
trick. That shows the importance of consulting on all judgment rulings.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Bill Jacobs]

Robert Chance <mays...@gmail.com> wrote in news:90a420e5-1825-4c9a-
9c91-3ce...@n9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:

I don't see that Dave Flower has suggested anything inconsistent or
wrong here. He said that the pass was also suggested by the UI and
shouldn't be allowed. That is a valid argument in the context where
pass leads to a better score than 4S.

In terms of deciding LA's and actions that could be suggested by the UI,
clearly you should only look at the South hand. But in terms of
determinning the adjustment, you clearly need to look at the full
layout.

It is clear to me that pass and 4S are both LA's to the double, and that
both the pass and double are suggested by the flagrant UI. But in a
situation where South doubled, and of the two LA's, one (pass) leads to
a worse score than the other, then it should be included in a weighted
outcome, even though that call was also (but more mildly) suggested by
the UI.

This is an interesting case study, but I don't see anything wrong with
making different (and superficially conflicting) rulings based on the
two different layouts.

Cheers ... Bill

[Robert Chance]

On Jan 8, 4:38 am, Bill Jacobs <bill.jacob...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is an interesting case study, but I don't see anything wrong with
> making different (and superficially conflicting) rulings based on the
> two different layouts.

Indeed, I would agree with this in principle. The problem on this
particular hand is that the doubt is being resolved in favour of the
offending side.

It struck me at the time that South's double was a "controlled" use
of
UI. If 4S is making, you can argue vigorously at the appeals
committee that you were always going to take action on this hand, and
you will probably be given 100% of 4S making, as everyone on the
committee will take a look at the South hand and conclude that the 4S
bid is automatic. That is what actually happened, and the chairman
of
the committee was (and is) a highly respected figure in EBU Laws &
Ethics.

OTOH, if 4S is going off, then you keep mum about what alternative
calls you might have had. It would then take a brave TD to alter the
ruling to 100% of 4S going down. And if 4S is being slaughtered (as
in the alternative layout), then it is pretty much inconcievable that
you will end up with -1100. Appeals Committees do not take kindly to
directors who adjust +1100 to -1100, whatever the circumstances.

[Gordon Rainsford]

On Tuesday, 8 January 2013 03:05:25 UTC, Steve Willner wrote:
> I'm surprised that the real-life North who held KQx KJTx KQxx xx didn't
>
> bid 3NT.

Or why not 2NT, which would even better reflect his values?

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

He does have a weak NT opening, so 1 NT seems to be the obvious bid.
And then when director points out that it is illegal to overcall 4H with 1 NT he can change to a double, or if that is prohibited he can always pass...

[Sid]

"Gordon Rainsford" wrote in message
news:6113d7e9-0606-4640...@googlegroups.com...

=========


Gordon!

Nice to see you again, friend!

:)

Sid

[HoneyMonster]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:39:49 +0200, Sid wrote:

> Nice to see you again, friend!

+1. And if N is to make an insufficient bid, how about 1H? :)

[David Stevenson]

Robert Chance wrote
>On Jan 8, 4:380 >>

>> This is an interesting case study, but I don't see anything wrong with
>> making different (and superficially conflicting) rulings based on the
>> two different layouts.
>

>Indeed, I would agree with this in principle. The problem on this
>particular hand is that the doubt is being resolved in favour of the
>offending side.
>
>It struck me at the time that South's double was a "controlled" use of

>MI. If 4S is making, you can argue vigorously at the appeals

>committee that you were always going to take action on this hand, and
>you will probably be given 100% of 4S making, as everyone on the
>committee will take a look at the South hand and conclude that the 4S
>bid is automatic. That is what actually happened, and the chairman of
>the committee was (and is) a highly respected figure in EBU Laws &
>Ethics.
>
>OTOH, if 4S is going off, then you keep mum about what alternative
>calls you might have had. It would then take a brave TD to alter the
>ruling to 100% of 4S going down. And if 4S is being slaughtered (as
>in the alternative layout), then it is pretty much inconcievable that
>you will end up with -1100. Appeals Committees do not take kindly to
>directors who adjust +1100 to -1100, whatever the circumstances.

Both those possibilities suggest an ongoing problem even among fairly
competent TDs and AC members. The norm is a weighted score: too many
people forget that, as they often do on this NG and in forums.

Strong arguments from players tend to be discounted by people like me:
if they are totally valid they do not need to be strong.

[Steve Willner]

On 2013-01-08 10:13 AM, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> He does have a weak NT opening, so 1 NT seems to be the obvious bid.
> And then when director points out that it is illegal to overcall 4H
> with 1 NT he can change to a double, or if that is prohibited he can
> always pass...

Double is prohibited, and pass will bar partner. I think he has to
correct to 4NT and hope for the best.

OK, OK, I confess. Somehow I was momentarily thinking the opening bid
was 3H. Still, with this pair, I'm not sure an intentional insufficient
bid is out of the question.

Holding the real-life hand over 4H, an in-tempo (i.e., after the normal
10-s wait) pass seems completely obvious.

Add me to the list of people glad to see Gordon posting again.

[Robert Chance]

On Jan 10, 2:25 am, Steve Willner <swill...@nhcc.net> wrote:
>
> Double is prohibited, and pass will bar partner.  I think he has to
> correct to 4NT and hope for the best.

Personally I'd pass. I think it would be harsh/inconcievable for the
Director to award a law 72B1 adjustment if pass turns out to be the
winning action, and you are virtually assured of a plus score.

Whereas 4NT could go horribly wrong, and you might well get an UI or
72B1 adjustment even if it is the winning action (what is partner
supposed to do with a flat 14 count, say AJxx x AJxx Axxx)?

[bhmwe...@gmail.com]

Den torsdagen den 10:e januari 2013 kl. 03:25:45 UTC+1 skrev Steve Willner:
> On 2013-01-08 10:13 AM, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > He does have a weak NT opening, so 1 NT seems to be the obvious bid.
>
> > And then when director points out that it is illegal to overcall 4H
>
> > with 1 NT he can change to a double, or if that is prohibited he can
>
> > always pass...
>
>
>
> Double is prohibited, and pass will bar partner. I think he has to
>
> correct to 4NT and hope for the best.

If it can be pointed out that he intentionally made an insufficient call, because he wanted to bar partner, pass is prohibited. In other cases he is perfectly entitled to change into a pass.

[Adam Beneschan]

Technically, pass isn't "prohibited". Double is the only thing that's prohibited; if you correct an insufficient bid to a double, the double will be cancelled and you have to make a different call. If you correct an insufficient bid to a pass, even if it was part of a ploy, the pass stands, the auction continues, and you finish the hand. If the insufficient-bid-then-pass ploy got you a good result, the director will adjust--assuming that bidding instead of passing would have gotten you a worse result. If you managed to shoot yourself in the foot and get a bad result, there's no adjustment. But saying a call could lead to an adjusted score isn't the same as saying a call is prohibited, in my opinion. I'm not even sure that the Laws call a pass "illegal" in this case.

In fact, you don't have to *intentionally* make an insufficient call and correct it to a pass in order for the score to be adjusted; the director may adjust if he judges you "could have been aware at the time of [your] irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side".

Just some subtle nit-picks about terminology.....

-- Adam

[Ed Reppert]

In article <c4d165aa-8659-48ae...@googlegroups.com>,

Adam Beneschan <ad...@irvine.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 6:07:52 AM UTC-8, bhmwe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Den torsdagen den 10:e januari 2013 kl. 03:25:45 UTC+1 skrev Steve Willner:
> >
> > > > He does have a weak NT opening, so 1 NT seems to be the obvious bid.
> >
> > > > And then when director points out that it is illegal to overcall 4H
> > > > with 1 NT he can change to a double, or if that is prohibited he can
> > > > always pass...
>
> > > Double is prohibited, and pass will bar partner. I think he has to
> > > correct to 4NT and hope for the best.
>
> > If it can be pointed out that he intentionally made an insufficient call,
> > because he wanted to bar partner, pass is prohibited. In other cases he is
> > perfectly entitled to change into a pass.
>
> Technically, pass isn't "prohibited".

Adam is correct, but he left out something:

Law 72B1 says "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if
there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept". So if the
IB was deliberate, the player gets slapped with a procedural penalty
even if there's no score adjustment. If he does it again, he should get
hauled before a disciplinary committee. Of course, concealing the fact
that you did something deliberately isn't all that hard, unfortunately.

[Mark Brader]

Ed Reppert:

> Law 72B1 says "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if

> there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept". ...

> Of course, concealing the fact that you did something deliberately
> isn't all that hard, unfortunately.

But *that* would be a violation of Law 72B3, so under Law 72B1, a
player must not do that intentionally either.
--
Mark Brader | "'Settlor', (i) in relation to a testamentary trust,
Toronto | means the individual referred to in paragraph (i)."
m...@vex.net | -- Income Tax Act of Canada (1972-94), 108(1)(h)

[Ed Reppert]

In article <CbqdndBNwrYqh2rN...@vex.net>,

m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

> Ed Reppert:
> > Law 72B1 says "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if
> > there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept". ...
> > Of course, concealing the fact that you did something deliberately
> > isn't all that hard, unfortunately.
>
> But *that* would be a violation of Law 72B3, so under Law 72B1, a
> player must not do that intentionally either.

Of course, but I wasn't addressing the legality of it, but the fact that
it's hard to prove you infringed a law intentionally, unless you admit
it.

[David Stevenson]

Ed Reppert wrote

TDs rule on balance of probabilities, not proof. If it looks like a
suck, and quacks like a duck, then a TD treats it as a duck.

[David Stevenson]

David Stevenson wrote

>Ed Reppert wrote
>>In article <CbqdndBNwrYqh2rN...@vex.net>,
>> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>>
>>> Ed Reppert:
>>> > Law 72B1 says "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if
>>> > there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept". ...
>>> > Of course, concealing the fact that you did something deliberately
>>> > isn't all that hard, unfortunately.
>>>
>>> But *that* would be a violation of Law 72B3, so under Law 72B1, a
>>> player must not do that intentionally either.
>>
>>Of course, but I wasn't addressing the legality of it, but the fact that
>>it's hard to prove you infringed a law intentionally, unless you admit
>>it.
>
> TDs rule on balance of probabilities, not proof. If it looks like a
>suck, and quacks like a duck, then a TD treats it as a duck.

My proof reading is awful, as usual. "f it looks like a duck ..."

[Adam Beneschan]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:29:25 AM UTC-8, David Stevenson wrote:

>
> > TDs rule on balance of probabilities, not proof. If it looks like a
> >suck, and quacks like a duck, then a TD treats it as a duck.
>
> My proof reading is awful, as usual. "f it looks like a duck ..."

Care to try again? Or at this point, I guess you could just say "f it" ...

-- Adam

[Stu Goodgold]

On Tuesday, January 22, 2013 7:29:25 AM UTC-8, David Stevenson wrote:

> David Stevenson wrote
>
> >Ed Reppert wrote
>
> >>In article <CbqdndBNwrYqh2rN...@vex.net>,
>
> >> m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >>> Ed Reppert:
>
> >>> > Law 72B1 says "A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if
>
> >>> > there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept". ...
>
> >>> > Of course, concealing the fact that you did something deliberately
>
> >>> > isn't all that hard, unfortunately.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> But *that* would be a violation of Law 72B3, so under Law 72B1, a
>
> >>> player must not do that intentionally either.
>
> >>
>
> >>Of course, but I wasn't addressing the legality of it, but the fact that
>
> >>it's hard to prove you infringed a law intentionally, unless you admit
>
> >>it.
>
> >
>
> > TDs rule on balance of probabilities, not proof. If it looks like a
>
> >suck, and quacks like a duck, then a TD treats it as a duck.
>
>
>
>
>
> My proof reading is awful, as usual. "f it looks like a duck ..."

So is your typing. Luckily instead of your middle finger, you used your ring finger, not your index finger. Perhaps when trying for a "d" you should raise your left hand, lower your ring and index finger, keeping your middle finger straight......

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[Ed Reppert]

In article <yS4zBpAK1p$QF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,

David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> TDs rule on balance of probabilities, not proof. If it looks like a
> suck, and quacks like a duck, then a TD treats it as a duck.

I know that. I suppose I'm going to have to delete the verb "prove" from
my vocabulary. My point is that unless the evidence is very clear, a TD
who rules that "the balance of probabilities indicates that you did it
deliberately" is going to have problems with at least some of the
players involved. If you would word your ruling differently in such a
case, pray tell us how.

[Ed Reppert]

In article <yS4zBpAK1p$QF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> TDs rule on balance of probabilities, not proof. If it looks like a
> suck, and quacks like a duck, then a TD treats it as a duck.

I get the message, in spite of the typo. :-)

I suppose I'm going to have to try to remove the words "prove" and
"proof" from my vocabulary. What I perhaps should have said is that your
"balance of probabilities" needs to be pretty strong if you're going to
rule, in effect, that a player deliberately violated the rules, or
you're likely to have problems with that player. Perhaps that doesn't
matter, but sooner or later, probably sooner, it *will* happen.

[David Stevenson]

Ed Reppert wrote

Give me a case, and I shall tell you what I say. I never tell anyone
they are lying, for example, but I shall sometimes rule as though I do.

===================================================
Ed Reppert wrote

>In article <yS4zBpAK1p$QF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
> David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> TDs rule on balance of probabilities, not proof. If it looks like a
>> suck, and quacks like a duck, then a TD treats it as a duck.
>

>I get the message, in spite of the typo. :-)
>
>I suppose I'm going to have to try to remove the words "prove" and
>"proof" from my vocabulary. What I perhaps should have said is that your
>"balance of probabilities" needs to be pretty strong if you're going to
>rule, in effect, that a player deliberately violated the rules, or
>you're likely to have problems with that player. Perhaps that doesn't
>matter, but sooner or later, probably sooner, it *will* happen.

Having problems with a player is part of being a TD. Que sera.