Appeal decision
Stu G
partnership of two A players, E/W unknown.
Both vul, W dlr.
KJ5
Q8
K952
AT83
AT9 Q4
T9752 3
63 AJ874
KQ7 J9542
87632
AKJ64
QT
6
W N E S
P 1N 2N 3C
4C DBL P 4H
DBL P@ P 4S
AP
1N announced as 12-14, @ = North's Pass agreed as a break in tempo.
2N and 3C were not alerted (as per ACBL regs) nor asked about.
A TD was called by E/W and after 4S made, ruled result stands.
Subsequently, the DIC reviewed the case and reversed the original
ruling, adjusting to 4H* -2. N/S appealed.
Once the DICs decision was told, South stated that West's double was
put down on the table with emphasis.
During the appeal hearing E/W said they did not notice any emphasis
on West's double.
The AC noted that N had Unusual v Unusual on his card but South did
not and South stated they did not have that agreement, rather that 3C
was a general force. South claimed that the emphasis of West's double
persuaded him that hearts were not breaking and he opted for 4S.
The AC decided that while South may have indeed noticed an emphatic
double and could take inference from it, North's BIT demonstratively
suggested that 4S is a LA, and that was enough to contribute to an
adjustment. The AC upheld 4H* -2.
Do you agree?
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Rich
Completely.
Rich Regan
Alan Malloy
I don't think it matters, but in fact nobody was vulnerable, not
everybody. At any rate I agree with the AC's decision.
--
Cheers,
Alan (San Jose, California, USA)
Bill Jacobs
>
> Do you agree?
>
Yes. The nature of West's double seems irrelevant. It doesn't somehow
override the implications of North's hesitation.
Standard Law 16 application:
1. Was there an agreed hesitation?
2. Did the hesitation suggest the action taken (4S)?
3. Was the losing action (Pass) a logical alternative to the winning
action?
IF (Yes+Yes+Yes) THEN adjust_score ENDIF
For me, 2 and 3 are clearly yes, and the post states 1 is a yes as well.
Cheers ... Bill
Raija D
"Stu G" <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:e93fd953-8a68-4033...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Agree.
If anyone does not agree, I would be most interested in "why".
Douglas Newlands
Why is 2 a "yes"? Could he be thinking about XX or calling the director
or whatever. I am not convinced it suggests any action. If there was a
heavy double that could be more suggestive of action. There seem to be
two different things suggesting a move to 4S
Re 3, it seems both were losing actions. EW failed to double 4S and
failed to beat it. It looks like a dreadful contract on repeated club
leads.
It seems the damage to EW was self inflicted when they failed to double
and defended less than optimally. Looks like a double shot.
I would be interested in what the director at the table had decided
about the double of 4H being made with emphasis.
Bad AC to be on - you're going to be late for dinner :(
Doug,
Tasmania
Bill Jacobs
>
> Why is 2 a "yes"? Could he be thinking about XX or calling the director
> or whatever. I am not convinced it suggests any action. If there was a
> heavy double that could be more suggestive of action. There seem to be
> two different things suggesting a move to 4S
>
Sorry, but I think it's incredibly naive to suggest that the slow pass
suggested anything other than unhappiness with 4HX.
The whole world, including in particular North and South, know that North
is wondering whether South has shown two suits with his earlier bidding.
> Re 3, it seems both were losing actions. EW failed to double 4S and
> failed to beat it. It looks like a dreadful contract on repeated club
> leads.
>
If you think E/W's failure to double 4S was foolish beyond belief, then you
can award a split score - 4HX for N/S, 4S passed out for E/W.
I happen to think that the E/W bidding was at worst debatable, certainly
not foolish. Neither of them had power spades. West's double of 4H was
based on the expectation that a club attack would fatally shorten South.
The same argument does not apply in spades. I might go so far as to agree
with the E/W bidding, or at least sympathize with it.
Anyway, 4S is cold - as long as declarer plays a spade to the king.
E/W are blameless.
Cheers ... Bill
Douglas Newlands
>> Why is 2 a "yes"? Could he be thinking about XX or calling the director
>> or whatever. I am not convinced it suggests any action. If there was a
>> heavy double that could be more suggestive of action. There seem to be
>> two different things suggesting a move to 4S
>>
>
> Sorry, but I think it's incredibly naive to suggest that the slow pass
> suggested anything other than unhappiness with 4HX.
>
> The whole world, including in particular North and South, know that North
> is wondering whether South has shown two suits with his earlier bidding.
This situation is not one where I would be playing U/U but if I was then
S has shown hearts and rebid them.
If I was in any doubt, I would reflect that partner bid 4H and not 4D
which would undoubtedly be a 2 suiter.
I would pass 4H happily (or at least I would think I was) but I guess
the reflection, if it takes any time at all, shows preference for spades.
Ergo, I would be convinced to change my view in the discussion.
>> Re 3, it seems both were losing actions. EW failed to double 4S and
>> failed to beat it.
> Anyway, 4S is cold - as long as declarer plays a spade to the king.
That's an overbid! As soon as you play a red suit, the hand goes awry.
And any defences starting with a heart are quickly successful.
Defences ducking a diamond (as in small to Q by declarer) are
successful. There may be lines to make this contract but declarer isn't
going to find one.
Doug,
Tasmania
Bill Jacobs
>
> That's an overbid! As soon as you play a red suit, the hand goes awry.
> And any defences starting with a heart are quickly successful.
> Defences ducking a diamond (as in small to Q by declarer) are
> successful. There may be lines to make this contract but declarer
> isn't going to find one.
I'm not overbidding.
On a club attack (which is what you originally suggested), I ruff a club at
trick 2 (or force my way to hand with diamond queen), play a spade to the
king (it doesn't help for the ace to go in) and a spade back. West has no
entry. I will end up with 3 spade tricks, 4 heart tricks, 1 diamond trick,
1 club trick, and I will ruff the 5th heart. 10 tricks. East cannot
damage me when in with the diamond ace.
If they lead a heart, win in dummy, club ace, club ruff, spade to the king.
It transposes to exactly the same position.
The hand is cold, as long as you guess the spades.
Cheers ... Bill
Eric Leong
Why didn't South pass 4Cx and collect +800?
If South wants to make a case for bidding 4S what other alternative
partner's bid out of tempo show?
Eric Leong
Stu G
wrote:
Worse, you are going to late to bed! This took place after the
evening session, and finished after 11pm.
BTW, Alan Malloy was right (he was in the event) - both sides are non-
vul, not that it matters too much.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
>
> Doug,
> Tasmania- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Stevenson
Yes. Routine decision.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
>Bill Jacobs wrote:
>>> Do you agree?
>>>
>> Yes. The nature of West's double seems irrelevant. It doesn't
>>somehow override the implications of North's hesitation.
>> Standard Law 16 application:
>> 1. Was there an agreed hesitation?
>> 2. Did the hesitation suggest the action taken (4S)?
>> 3. Was the losing action (Pass) a logical alternative to the
>>winning action?
>> IF (Yes+Yes+Yes) THEN adjust_score ENDIF
>> For me, 2 and 3 are clearly yes, and the post states 1 is a yes as
>>well.
>
>Why is 2 a "yes"? Could he be thinking about XX or calling the director
>or whatever.
Sure, or what to have for tea, or when will Australia ever win a test
series in England.
But in practice when you have shown a two suiter, and partner fails to
alert, and has a limited hand, and then considers long over whether to
pass the suit you have bid [doubled] I would bet my pension that he has
a good holding in the other suit and is wondering whether you really
have a two-suiter. It strongly suggests bidding 4S.
Adam Beneschan
wrote:
Well, the decision that an adjustment is necessary is routine. The
decision about what score to adjust to doesn't seem routine at all to
me, and just figuring out what different twisty paths the play could
take is giving me a migraine. -2 seems reasonable, I guess.
-- Adam
David Stevenson
Have I missed something? The defence have two natural spade tricks,
two natural heart tricks and the DA. Declarer has five heart tricks
with a club ruff, a diamond, and will probably get a spade eventually.
-2 seems ok.
OldPalooka
wrote:
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
You have struck one chord of music like the sound of a great Amen.
-- Bill
Jürgen R.
> Douglas Newlands wrote
>> Bill Jacobs wrote:
>>>> Do you agree?
>>>>
>>> Yes. The nature of West's double seems irrelevant. It doesn't
>>> somehow override the implications of North's hesitation.
>>> Standard Law 16 application:
>>> 1. Was there an agreed hesitation?
>>> 2. Did the hesitation suggest the action taken (4S)?
>>> 3. Was the losing action (Pass) a logical alternative to the
>>> winning action?
>>> IF (Yes+Yes+Yes) THEN adjust_score ENDIF
>>> For me, 2 and 3 are clearly yes, and the post states 1 is a yes as
>>> well.
>>
>> Why is 2 a "yes"? Could he be thinking about XX or calling the
>> director or whatever.
>
> Sure, or what to have for tea, or when will Australia ever win a
> test series in England.
>
> But in practice when you have shown a two suiter, and partner fails
> to alert, and has a limited hand, and then considers long over
> whether to pass the suit you have bid [doubled] I would bet my
> pension that he has a good holding in the other suit and is wondering
> whether you really have a two-suiter. It strongly suggests bidding
> 4S.
This is true, but it doesn't *demonstrably* suggest spades, nor is
any such demonstration conceivable.
Steve Willner
> The AC decided that ... North's BIT demonstratively
> suggested that 4S is a LA,
I hope this is just misunderstanding or careless writing and not what
the AC really decided. The AC needed to decide whether 4S -- the action
taken at the table -- was suggested by the BIT and also whether
something else (presumably pass) was a LA. The LAs are determined from
the authorized information; a BIT or anything else doesn't change them.
Adam Beneschan
wrote:
> >Well, the decision that an adjustment is necessary is routine. The
> >decision about what score to adjust to doesn't seem routine at all to
> >me, and just figuring out what different twisty paths the play could
> >take is giving me a migraine. -2 seems reasonable, I guess.
>
> Have I missed something? The defence have two natural spade tricks,
> two natural heart tricks and the DA. Declarer has five heart tricks
> with a club ruff, a diamond, and will probably get a spade eventually.
> -2 seems ok.
I just now noticed this response, so I didn't respond before,
but...who gets the missing trick? You've counted five tricks for the
defense and seven for declarer. Doesn't that mean you should adjust
to down 3?
In general, I'm rather shocked that you think you can adjust just by
counting tricks that both sides seem to have, without taking time to
imagine how the play will go. That method might work (usually) if
declarer is playing in a 6-5 trump fit and trumps break 1-1, then you
can look at his hand and say "he's going to lose this trick in one
suit and this trick in another suit, and taking the rest won't be a
problem". This definitely is a bad idea when declarer is playing in a
5-2 fit and trumps break 5-1 against him. For one thing, there are
going to be control problems---can we be sure the defense isn't going
to set up a load of club tricks? Declarer is going to discover the
bad break after two rounds---can be predict what line he's going to
follow?
Anyway, I trust you do a better job of adjusting when you're actually
directing than when responding to an r.g.b question whose main point
was about whether the UI rules were broken. As I said, -2 seems
reasonable to me, but that's only after I spent a little time trying
to imagine how the play would go, including a case where the opening
lead was the S10 and the defense started with two spades and a spade
ruff. Clever, but it also sets up the suit for declarer and helps him
keep control.
-- Adam
David Stevenson
If the main point is whether the UI rules were broken the amount of
any adjustment seems of limited interest.