[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2012-January-29, 04:54, said:

By the way, North's bidding at the table is not completely irrelevant. If the TD considers her actions to constitute a "red fielded misbid" then an artificial score adjustment to +/-3IMPs (if this scores better for the non-offending side than the UI-adjusted weighting) might be indicated under EBU rules.

You must be joking. North has jump-raised partner, but has stayed below 3NT; partner could still have an excellent hand. Over 3♥ she left the decision to partner -- what denomination among ♠, ♥ and ♣ should she insist on at matchpoints?

Mods, I think this thread should be locked before things get out of hand.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2012-January-28, 18:50, said:

North bid a non-forcing 3C last time, and passed 3H. Why on earth will she overrule partner?

Probably because she has an 11-count with 5-card club support when according to a "strong Canadian player" her previous auction is consistent with "14-15 with 3 clubs or 16-17 with 2 clubs"

lamford, on 2012-January-28, 18:50, said:

Anyway, I regret that I have posted enough on this thread, and will have to call it a day now, as I have a huge amount of non-bridge matters to attend to.

Very wise. When you are in a hole, stop digging, as they say.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 04:41, said:

It should be the latter, but it is very strange that the AC apparently did not consider double an LA; thus their weighting resulted in damage.

Are you seriously implying that North would pass a double of 3♥? Shouldn't the double show a hand like:

---

I can also fill in the other cards:

---

This is a typical distribution of the cards that is consistent with what North knows about the auction. As you can see, typically both 5♣ and 3♥ are cold.

But you want to defend 3♥X. Are you really sure that your judgement isn't somewhat influenced by the hand that South had, instead of the one he should have had?

Rik

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 05:00, said:

Mods, I think this thread should be locked before things get out of hand.

I am under the impression that you were the one who started ringing this bell.

But let's face the facts as I can see them:
1) You / your partner committed an infraction. No big deal, it happens all the time. The TD rules, you thank the TD and you move on.
2) But no, you appealed. You weren't thinking this case over. You weren't thinking whether the TD had a point. You didn't realize that it is difficult to make the ethical decision when you have UI and that it is inevitable that you sometimes get it wrong. You appealed because you were sure you were right. (There is a nice new book on the market in The Netherlands with the (translated) title "Beware of people who are sure".)
3) The AC decided against you. They even wrote why, but they made a small error. Despite this small error, it is obvious what the motivation of the AC was.
4) Instead of staying quiet because you / your partner made an ethical error (most players would be somewhat ashamed and would rather forget the matter) you start blowing up the small error that the AC made by posting it on BBF.
5) On BBF, posters are siding with the AC.

And now you want the mods to lock the thread because things are getting out of hand? You should have thought about that after point 1)... or 2) ... or 3)... (You get the picture.)

Rik

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 05:00, said:

You must be joking. North has jump-raised partner, but has stayed below 3NT; partner could still have an excellent hand. Over 3♥ she left the decision to partner -- what denomination among ♠, ♥ and ♣ should she insist on at matchpoints?

Mods, I think this thread should be locked before things get out of hand.

I was just saying that a TD should always consider the fielded misbid regulations in a "forgotten the system" case. Personally, I consider 3♣ to be a serious underbid (as I think was mentioned in one of the other threads, 3♣ is more like a single raise, as 2♣ is just a transfer completion which could be a 5=4=3=1 12-count for example). I would clasify North's 3♣ as "amber" (so no adjustment).

[FrancesHinden]

Polls and determining LAs after the fact are both interesting and difficult things.
The South player objected to the AC 'doing their own poll' at least partly on the basis that they were not all his peers.
Everyone posting here, the AC and any players the TD consulted have the (dis)advantage of knowing all four hands when trying to decide what the LAs are.

Following the ruling, I did a poll of a number of players I considered approximately peers of South (some rather better, some rather worse, no-one has an exact peer) together with a few much better ones. I tried quite hard not to ask too many people in my 'circle' whom I would often expect to agree with me. Another EBU referee who had been shown the hand did a poll of a group of 'county players' on his mailing list; I recognised most of the names and would also consider them, if not exact peers, at least similar in ability and experience. Both polls were carried out under my instructions:

- They were given the South hand, the vulnerability, form of scoring and identity of the opponents
- They were told that uncontested 1S-1NT-3C was game forcing, but that this auction was undiscussed
- They were asked if they agreed with the pass over 3Cx, and then, if so, or if they were prepared to live with it, what they would do on the next round.
- Polls were sent bcc i.e. no-one could see what anyone else said (this is a very important point)
- None of them had seen or played the hand

The results of the poll were as follows:

Pass: 1
3S: 14
Double: 1
4C: 1
Disagree strongly with pass on the previous round, would have bid 3D: 4 (of whom one would now pass, 2 would now bid 3S and one would now bid 4C)

The one passer was a player who has represented his country and won the S4s, so probably not a peer.
The one doubler is a known very idiosyncratic player, who doubled on the basis that he know RHO well and they would not have the hand they've shown.

Obviously everyone guessed it was a ruling question, but no-one guessed what the problem actually was.

Many of the respondants thought that partner's 3C bid was not necessarily particularly strong but if so was very distributional. Only one person asked what North would open with 5-5 in the blacks.
There were many comments ranging from "I'd like to pass this but I can't, partner obviously thinks pass is forcing and might have a monster" to "I might have redoubled last round, I've got a very suitable hand with a side suit ace rather than anything softer, perhaps I should bid 4H choice of games rather than 3S" via the middle ground of "3S, this caters for either a strong hand or some weaker 5-5 effort" which just goes to show how people's hand evaluation differs.

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 04:41, said:

It should be the latter, but it is very strange that the AC apparently did not consider double an LA; thus their weighting resulted in damage.

Given that you
(i) sent me a PM soliciting more information
(ii) I told you that the AC considered double, but thought that North would always pull it

I find it odd that you repeat that the AC 'did not consider' double. Perhaps you think instead I'd bother making this up after the fact?

You might disagree with the judgement about North's likelihood of passing it, certainly any such decision is subjective and debatable.

[gnasher]

Trinidad, on 2012-January-29, 05:20, said:

4) Instead of staying quiet because you / your partner made an ethical error (most players would be somewhat ashamed and would rather forget the matter)

I wouldn't be ashamed. Law 16 requires us to use our judgement. Sometimes we misjudge.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2012-January-29, 05:59, said:

Trinidad, on 2012-January-29, 05:20, said:

4) Instead of staying quiet because you / your partner made an ethical error (most players would be somewhat ashamed and would rather forget the matter)

I wouldn't be ashamed. Law 16 requires us to use our judgement. Sometimes we misjudge.

You are right about that. Actually, "ashamed" isn't the right word. "Embarassed" would be closer to what I wanted to say. Anyhow, I already feel somewhat embarassed when I make a judgement error in bidding or play that doesn't have any ethical overtones. I certainly would not tell the whole world about my misplays or misbids.

When it comes to misjudgements that do have ethical implications, I would most certainly keep quiet.

Rik

[Vampyr]

jallerton, on 2012-January-29, 05:03, said:

Probably because she has an 11-count with 5-card club support when according to a "strong Canadian player" her previous auction is consistent with "14-15 with 3 clubs or 16-17 with 2 clubs"

I don't think that a super-accept can be made with 2 or 3 card support. Anyway I would never do it.

Trinidad, on 2012-January-29, 05:20, said:

2) But no, you appealed. You weren't thinking this case over. You weren't thinking whether the TD had a point. You didn't realize that it is difficult to make the ethical decision when you have UI and that it is inevitable that you sometimes get it wrong. You appealed because you were sure you were right. (There is a nice new book on the market in The Netherlands with the (translated) title "Beware of people who are sure".)

I appealed? You are obviously either misinformed or have no idea and are just making things up. Try to get the facts right if you want to participate in a thread.

Quote

And now you want the mods to lock the thread because things are getting out of hand?

Yes, I took offence, and rightly so, against being accused of fielding a misbid. The accuser then said that he was just saying that it was something the AC should always consider, fair enough. And then classified it as amber...

jallerton, on 2012-January-29, 05:26, said:

Personally, I consider 3♣ to be a serious underbid (as I think was mentioned in one of the other threads, 3♣ is more like a single raise, as 2♣ is just a transfer completion which could be a 5=4=3=1 12-count for example). I would clasify North's 3♣ as "amber" (so no adjustment).

I certainly would not complete the transfer with the example hand; I would bid 2♥, the same as I would if partner had bid 2♣. Neither of us even thought that a simple transfer completion would be forcing. Also I thought that partner could still have quite a good hand with stoppers in the reds, so going past 3NT would be a bad idea. I object quite strongly to your opinion of "amber"; I at least, had no UI at all, nor had I ever had a hand that I considered a super-accept, nor had partner, in the short time we have been playing transfers, ever forgotten the methods. Why do you persist in saying offensive things?

FrancesHinden, on 2012-January-29, 05:46, said:

Given that you
(i) sent me a PM soliciting more information
(ii) I told you that the AC considered double, but thought that North would always pull it

I find it odd that you repeat that the AC 'did not consider' double. Perhaps you think instead I'd bother making this up after the fact?

You might disagree with the judgement about North's likelihood of passing it, certainly any such decision is subjective and debatable.

Yes, sorry. You did tell me that. I felt, rightly or wrongly, that I had shown my hand and that I would have left the double in; I meant really that I am surprised that the AC thought that this was so unlikely with my aces and doubleton heart.

Trinidad, on 2012-January-29, 06:54, said:

When it comes to misjudgements that do have ethical implications, I would most certainly keep quiet.

That is your right. We, on the other hand, do not have anything to hide.

[lamford]

I am breaking my promise not to post on this thread because there have been several more significant posts. As Vampyr points out, Trinidad wrongly states in one thread that North-South appealed. This is not correct. The appeal was by East-West. It is not correct to say that the majority of this thread agrees (or agree for those that prefer) with the AC. Wank, cyberyeti, and sasioc think that there should be no adjustment. Trinidad thinks that North will bid over a penalty double. Others do not indicate what they think any adjustment should be.

Frances, who conducted a poll among her colleagues, writes: "Many of the respondents thought that partner's 3C bid was not necessarily particularly strong but if so was very distributional." I thinks she means "if not". Apart from her reply clearly indicating she was on of the AC, which goes against bluejak's principle that they should remain anonymous, this reply is very useful (mind you I think the world and his dog knows the dramatis personae by now). One other small point is that the statement: "They were told that uncontested 1S-1NT-3C was game forcing, but that this auction was undiscussed" is clearly a leading statement, causing the pollees to bid when several of them wanted to pass".

I stated to the AC that I regarded partner's minimum for 3C in the authorised auction as "something like AKxxx x xx AKxxx or a bit better", and I regarded the auction after the double as "hugely different" to the auction with a double. I think that 3S, the main choice in France's subsequent poll is a very poor bid, as there have been two takeout doubles, and partner surely does not have six spades having passed over 3H; I would expect the spades to be 5-1 or even 6-0. But how can pass over 3H be forcing? If partner's hand was not necessarily strong, but she "could have a monster", then surely she will pass with a hand that is not strong, and double with a monster, or even significant extras. Exactly the same principle as with making a Michaels' cuebid. She has already strongly implied 5-5, so this will not be misinterpreted. The TD wrote down the auction correctly at the table, and gave it correctly on the appeal form. I do not know how many people he surveyed, but the suggestion by jallerton that he gave people the wrong auction is insulting, and I would suggest that he withdraws that! It is worth noting that the TD poll did not just conclude that Pass was plausible but concluded that it was "not clear if there was any logical alternative to it", with the only other bid being suggested being double. I have since thought about this a bit more, but still think pass is best in the authorised auction. Partner is showing the "not necessarily particularly strong but distributional hand" that many of Frances' respondents suggest is likely. Given that it looks like we have an eight-card club fit, while they have an eight- or nine-card heart fit, why on earth do we want to be joining in again? Doubling is clearly the second choice, and I see no reason for partner to "change her mind" and pull it if it is selected. So the original TD ruling was exactly right, in my opinion, despite the eminent views to the contrary. It is worth noting that the TD stated on the form my response when he was called, which was, verbatim, "without the UI, he felt that his side had no fit, so the Law of Total Tricks suggested passing, and he also felt that his partner did not take action over the 3H bid, and there was no onus on him to do so either." So it was clear to the AC that I did not consider Pass as forcing.

I would say that in 30 years of playing bridge I never previously had a procedural penalty, other than for things like losing one of dummy's cards or moving to the wrong table for three consecutive rounds (it was an unexpected L-shaped layout)! As I told the AC, on this hand I was fully aware of my Law 16 and Law 73 obligations. I regarded the only alternative I perceived, double, as demonstrably suggested, a view with which DBurn agrees. Nothing that has been written since has changed my view. But if I am wrong, then, as gnasher states, I have made a Law 16 judgement error, which is not listed as one of the offences for which a PP is given (although it does state that the list only contains examples).

As a procedural matter, I think it is quite wrong, and insulting to those who have been polled, for the AC to ignore the TD poll, and improper for them to conduct a 3-person "poll" amongst themselves, as the L&E advice clearly implies that such a poll would normally be conducted among non-AC members.

Those that are bidding 3S are not stopping to think. Partner did not bid 3S over 3H, so does not have six spades, so why should we bid 3S? And as for Dburn's 4S, in private communication, he is asking to be doubled by West with Q1098xx and then men in white coats come in to drag him away. And on my example hand I gave to the AC, we will probably beat 3H one, but only if four black cards stand up, but are unlikely to make nine tricks in spades or ten in clubs. No surprise there. It is what the Law says.

And one other comment. While I agree that North's 3C is a slight underbid, it is clearly not fielding a misbid, as it would not be selected if 1NT were natural, so can only be attributed to 1NT being treated as clubs. North thought that 3C was the correct value bid. Or does it fit the bill of the "not necessarily strong distributional hand" that Frances' respondents suggest? In which case, pass by South is blindingly obvious.

[RMB1]

I have discussed this ruling/appeal with some of those involved and I have been invited (solicited?) to give my opinions here.

The other thread was directed primarily at the wording of the AC decision. I think the TD also failed to give the reasons for his ruling correctly. The TD thought that 4C and 4S were making and so that bidding by responder was only going to increase their score from +100 to a combination of +130 and +620. So the reason for the TD ruling of "results stands" was not "no logical alternative to the actions taken", nor "actions taken were not suggested by UI", but that there might be logical alternative calls and there might be calls that were suggested but there was no damage. (The TD could have issued a PP if he nevertheless thought responder's action had breached Law 73.)

I think there are logical alternative bids to both of responder's Passes. I think they would lead to contracts of 4C, 4S and 5C. I think the AC were generous to the offending side in there weighting of 4S= v 4S-1 and 4C= v 5C-1. I think that passing out this auction is not a logical alternative.

But some good players think there are no logical alternatives to the first Pass, and think that Double is the only logical alternatives to the second Pass. If Double is going to end the auction, then it is likely that it is suggested over Pass and choosing Pass over Double would damage the non-offending side. If this view is the concensus (from a poll?) then the ruling should be different.

I think that if Double is a logical alternative then Pass is not. If Double is the only logical alternative then that action should have been chosen and the TD, the AC, and the rest of the world would have been having a different discussion.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2012-January-29, 16:31, said:

Apart from her reply clearly indicating she was on of the AC, which goes against bluejak's principle that they should remain anonymous, this reply is very useful (mind you I think the world and his dog knows the dramatis personae by now).

I'm not aware of any principle that the AC should remain anonymous if they don't want to be. The only thing I do believe, and I have stuck to, is that I have made no comment about who said what, or what the discussion actually was, among the members of the AC.

Even if there were such a principle, you and Stefanie have between you posted both that 2 of the committee were members of the L&E, and mentioned private correspondence with another member of the L&E, so that leaves 4 available people to pick two from, one of whom almost never plays in tournaments that you do.

As for the rest of your rant, I can't be bothered to reply. This thread started as asking for genuine disinterested opinions of the hand, and I contributed the result of my poll. I made the mistake of starting (in both this thread and the other) to correct some of the random inaccuracies, misquotes and distortions in your and Stefanie's posts but I realise that's a mistake, if I really try I'll spend too much time on it. So I'll stop.

[RMB1]

This discussion of anomimity is a bit pointless.

As soon as the first thread appeared I only had to put the OP and partner's names into google to find their most recent result. As far as I could tell from the ranking list only two members of the L&E were playing in the event, so that told me 2/3 of the AC. Look through the travellers for an adjusted (weighted) score, and I know the board and the other team (the appellants).

Similarly, when bluejak posted about a disciplinary incident, it did not take long to find his latest result at an event where one pair had results for three rounds and AVE- for the remainder. The pair matched the ages profile (one young, one older) so you could name the one who had caused the original problem and the one who had decided to leave.

[jallerton]

Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 15:57, said:

I certainly would not complete the transfer with the example hand; I would bid 2♥, the same as I would if partner had bid 2♣. Neither of us even thought that a simple transfer completion would be forcing. Also I thought that partner could still have quite a good hand with stoppers in the reds, so going past 3NT would be a bad idea.

There's probably not a lot of point in playing transfers if you are going to make the same rebid as you would have done over a 2♣ response, but never mind.

Vampyr, on 2012-January-29, 15:57, said:

I object quite strongly to your opinion of "amber"; I at least, had no UI at all, nor had I ever had a hand that I considered a super-accept, nor had partner, in the short time we have been playing transfers, ever forgotten the methods. Why do you persist in saying offensive things?

There was nothing offensive intended about my opinion. The Orange Book section on fielded misbids and psyches explains: "The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player’s peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account." No-one is suggesting that you attempted to field a misbid. People form their own opinions based on the cards held and the calls made on those cards. I suppose all opinions on judgement rulings could be regarded as offensive to someone: even a "no infraction" ruling might be interpreted as "offensive" by the player who asked for the ruling!

[blackshoe]

Perhaps, England being such a small community, we should either agree to not waste everyone's time "researching" who was who, and just address the case on its merits. Alternatively, we can ban all posts about anything that happened in England. I've already told David I don't particularly like the latter idea, but if you all keep this up, I may change my mind.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2012-January-29, 16:31, said:

I stated to the AC that I regarded partner's minimum for 3C in the authorised auction as "something like AKxxx x xx AKxxx or a bit better", and I regarded the auction after the double as "hugely different" to the auction with a double. I think that 3S, the main choice in France's subsequent poll is a very poor bid, as there have been two takeout doubles, and partner surely does not have six spades having passed over 3H; I would expect the spades to be 5-1 or even 6-0. But how can pass over 3H be forcing? If partner's hand was not necessarily strong, but she "could have a monster", then surely she will pass with a hand that is not strong, and double with a monster, or even significant extras. Exactly the same principle as with making a Michaels' cuebid.

It's nothing like a Michaels Cue Bid. 3♣ was forcing to game, so there's no need for her to double to show extra values. Opener's Pass over 3♥ is 100% forcing. For you to continue to argue that passing out 3♥ is the correct call, or even a logical alternative, is quite incredible.

lamford, on 2012-January-29, 16:31, said:

Those that are bidding 3S are not stopping to think. Partner did not bid 3S over 3H, so does not have six spades, so why should we bid 3S?

He who claims that partner has denied 6 spades in the authorised auction is not stopping to think. With six spades, partner can make a forcing pass to see whether he wishes to defend 3♥x, failing which he can be relied upon to bid 3♠ on a doubleton, having denied 3-card support earlier in the auction.

lamford, on 2012-January-29, 16:31, said:

And as for Dburn's 4S, in private communication, he is asking to be doubled by West with Q1098xx and then men in white coats come in to drag him away. And on my example hand I gave to the AC, we will probably beat 3H one, but only if four black cards stand up, but are unlikely to make nine tricks in spades or ten in clubs. No surprise there. It is what the Law says.

No, the Law says you must carefully avoid taking any advantage of unauthorised information from partner and must not select a demonstrably suggested logical alternative. The Lamfordian poll, where you give people a bidding problem, then reject all of the answers from people who don't agree with you, is not a fair way of assessing logical alternatives.

[dcrc2]

I'm very uneasy at finding out that half the posters in this thread were participants in the case. Could you please have your private discussions in private and not disguise them as forum topics? The title makes it clear that it was not posted purely out of interest in the ruling.

[Vampyr]

This might be a good idea.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2012-January-30, 18:27, said:

3♣ was forcing to game, so there's no need for her to double to show extra values. Pass over 3♣ is 100% forcing.

Just one point, as I feel forced to correct that. Firstly, I presume you mean "Pass over 3♥". It is interesting that you accuse the TD of getting the auction wrong, when you cannot get it right yourself! 3♣ was undiscussed, obviously. The poll by Frances had "Many of the respondents thought that partner's 3C bid was not necessarily particularly strong but if so was very distributional." Exactly my arguments to the AC, with "not" substituted for "so". If 3C is not game-forcing, your whole argument breaks down. How then can Pass of 3H be forcing? We do not know what a "not necessarily strong but very distributional hand" would be exactly. If it is 6-6 it will bid 4C over 3H; If it is 6-5 it will bid 3S over 3H (surely a 6-5 hand will not want to defend 3Hx at adverse, opposite a balanced hand), and the "weak 5-5 effort", mentioned as a possibility by at least one of Frances' pollees, will pass, as will quite good 5-5s. If North has a strong hand she will double. Nothing you have written has changed my view one iota, but I suggest that any correspondence should be to the L&E, not on here.

One final point; as Dburn wrote in May 2011, "One uses a poll not to determine what the methods of a partnership are, but to determine what logical alternatives exist given that the methods of the partnership are what they are." In this case, that has to be the methods the partnership thinks they would be. I told the TD when he arrived that I did not regard 3C as game-forcing, nor did I regard 3H as forcing. I asked partner today what she would bid in my authorised auction (if 1NT were natural) with something like AK10xx x xx AK10xx and she said "3C, but we probably need some methods here", before realising that they would not apply. She would not regard 3H in my authorised action as forcing." How our partnership would play 3C, and Pass over 3H, in the authorised auction should not be decided by a poll of what others would play.