[bluejak]

It is important that unauthorised panic is not allowed without penalty. Should there be an adjustment? Well, people have discussed that fairly well. But if you do not adjust then you must penalise East for that 3♠ bid. Let's give him 10% of a top if he is slightly better than novice, 20% if he is experienced but not particularly good, and 50% of a top if he really can play the game.

Since no-one seems to have worried too much about this 3♠ bid in the original ruling, the appeal has merit.

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-December-26, 19:49, said:

Since no-one seems to have worried too much about this 3♠ bid in the original ruling, the appeal has merit.

Since the appellants don't seem to have mentioned it either, and since they offered nothing other than "we don't understand" as part of their appeal (as I read the OP), I guess I don't see any relevance of their appeal.

[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-26, 20:48, said:

Since the appellants don't seem to have mentioned it either, and since they offered nothing other than "we don't understand" as part of their appeal (as I read the OP), I guess I don't see any relevance of their appeal.

Well, they felt that they were damaged and weren't really sure how; it is not their job to figure out whether they were; it is the job of the director and the AC. Should non-expert players really be discouraged from appealing when they think they may need protection?

[aguahombre]

Hmm. I want to appeal. And what is the reason? I don't know; just because. O.K., no problem. Here's your money back.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2012-December-26, 22:14, said:

Hmm. I want to appeal. And what is the reason? I don't know; just because. O.K., no problem. Here's your money back.

The reason could be: "I wanted an explanation from the TD why he ruled like he did and didn't get one." I think that is wasting the AC's time, but it may be the TD who was responsible for that, not the appealing side.

To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says that the TD must explain his decisions so that the players understand why he decided as he did. But if I am on an AC and the players tell me that the TD refused to explain the basis for his ruling, despite the fact that they asked for one in a polite manner, I will rule that the appeal had merit, no matter how obvious it was that the TD's decision was correct.

Rik

[lamford]

lamford, on 2012-December-26, 11:07, said:

And FWIW, one never rules because there is "unauthorised panic". We just decide on the LAs, and "impose" the worst one that is demonstrably suggested.

blackshoe, on 2012-December-26, 14:12, said:

And who, pray tell, said we did?

bluejak, on 2012-December-26, 19:49, said:

It is important that unauthorised panic is not allowed without penalty.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-December-26, 19:49, said:

But if you do not adjust then you must penalise East for that 3♠ bid.

You would only penalise East for the 3♠ bid if you decided that virtually noone would select it, according to the EBU's own guidelines, which I presume will be similar in other countries. That is clearly not the case here, as signing off is one option when partner shows a spade transfer break with club values. I think making a game try is an LA, but I think bidding 3♠ is way off meriting a PP.

[barmar]

GIB says it's down 3 on a ♥ lead. Anyone see how to get the 6th defensive trick? I thought putting declarer in dummy after ruffing the ♦ would do it, since he would have to shorten his trumps to get back to hand. But since South has also shortened his trumps by ruffing the ♦, he can afford to do that.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2012-December-27, 09:22, said:

GIB says it's down 3 on a ♥ lead. Anyone see how to get the 6th defensive trick? I thought putting declarer in dummy after ruffing the ♦ would do it, since he would have to shorten his trumps to get back to hand. But since South has also shortened his trumps by ruffing the ♦, he can afford to do that.

Yes, just exiting with a club after cashing the heart winners is down 3. As long as you don't let declarer get a diamond trick, you restrict him to four trumps, one heart and two clubs.

[barmar]

How counterintuitive! Letting declarer pitch his ♥ losers actually gains defensive tricks. Once you realize that the goal is to force declarer, it makes sense, but I wouldn't fault anyone below the top echelons for not finding it.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2012-December-26, 19:49, said:

But if you do not adjust then you must penalise East for that 3♠ bid.

May I suggest that the word "must" must not be used without a reference to the Law that prescribes this "must"?

An example might be:
"I think that -before we penalize or adjust- we must identify an infraction that justifies an adjustment or penalty (Laws 12, 90)."

Rik

[blackshoe]

The fundamental problem with the initial ruling is the same fundamental problem that exists with many (most?) club rulings, and perhaps some at higher levels as well: the TD did not give the legal basis for his ruling. Personally, I sympathize with him, because I've had players many times tell me impatiently to "get on with it" - they want to hear the impact of whatever the ruling is on the hand, they don't particularly care, most of the time (and this is particularly true of the OS) what laws were broken. Just as much though, and also personally, I think it's unprofessional of the TD to leave that information out. And before somebody points out that "they don't do that in football" or whatever, let me say that I don't care what they do in other games.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-27, 10:45, said:

May I suggest that the word "must" must not be used without a reference to the Law that prescribes this "must"?

An example might be:
"I think that -before we penalize or adjust- we must identify an infraction that justifies an adjustment or penalty (Laws 12, 90)."

Rik

I think that the word "offense" in Law 90 includes "irregularity, but not infraction". I know it includes some irregularities, because that's what 90B7 is about.

[blackshoe]

@Paul: I asked "who said we adjust just because there was 'unauthorized panic?'" and you pointed to a post that was made five and a half hours after I asked the question. Well done.

David will, I'm sure, agree that there are no automatic adjustments, and that all adjustments must have a legal basis.

"Unauthorized panic" is a violation of Law 73C.

[kaustabh]

I posted this ruling problem in bridgewinners.com as well, I liked how Steve Bloom analyzed the problem there, sharing that :

1) There is no evidence that West had any UI, so no bid by West can be challenged. You may not agree with a bid by West, but that doesn't matter. West is free to bid as he sees fit, including working out that partner really meant 2S to show spades.
(2) East has clear-cut UI, and all of East's bids should come under a microscope.
(3) Even if 3C showed a spade fit with club values, that doesn't mean four spades is a poor game. Couldn't West have, say, KQxx xxx Ax AKxx? Five spades is very good opposite that. Since West might also hold a hand like KQxx Jxx Jx AKQx, where game is very poor, you can't force West to bid either three spades or four spades. Bidding 3D over 3C looks normal, and is dangerous only when you know there has been a misunderstanding. I would force a 3D call by East.
(4) A 3D call would almost certainly lead to five clubs doubled, pulled to five diamonds. That is down three, so, on a committee, I would rule 5DX, -500.
So, the committee made a bad ruling. What went wrong? I think both the director, and the appellants, focused on West's bidding, which could never be blamed. It is also possible that they didn't see the entry problems in 5D, and considered +300 adequate compensation for the damage.

[blackshoe]

The facts:

1. The hands are as shown in post #1.
2. No one was vulnerable.
3. West dealing, the auction proceeded: 1NT-(X)-2♠!-(P);3♣-(3♠)!-P;3NT-(P)-4♠!-(X);P-(P)-P. ! indicates an alert.
4. All alerted bids were explained during the auction.
5. 2♠ was explained as "transfer to clubs"
6. 3♠ was explained as "six clubs and four spades".
7. 4♠ was explained as "six clubs and five spades".
8. The table TD's ruling was "result stands" without explanation.
9. NS appealed; the appeal was deemed by the AC to be without merit.
10. The table result was 4♠X-2, +300 for NS.
11. Under the alert rules in place, "conventional" bids below the four level (2♠, 3♣, 3♠) require an alert.

Comments on the facts:

1. We are given no evidence that the pair's agreements were any different than explained, so they are not MI. West's explanations are, however, UI to East.
2. East's failure to alert 3♣ is UI to West, and, technically, MI to NS, although I don't think that matters.
3. East has failed to "carefully avoid taking any advantage" from the UI that West thought that 2♠ was a transfer to clubs, a violation of Law 73C, a "must do" law.
4. West does not appear to have violated 73C or 16B1, although his bidding, like his partner's, is markedly inferior.
5. NS were not damaged by any infractions of law by EW, as they cannot better the table result.
6. My ruling: result stands, PP (possibly a warning, as I sense they are inexperienced) to EW for East's violation of 73C.
7. If asked, I would advise NS that an appeal would likely be deemed without merit because they weren't damaged.

BTW, I see nothing in the laws that says that appellants must present a good reason, or indeed any reason at all, for the appeal. The WBF Code of Practice, however, does imply that appellants should do so, because it tasks the AC to question them about their objections to the ruling. If they can't articulate at least one reason, that may be grounds for an AWM, but I don't think it should be automatic.

NS, in effect, said they didn't understand EW's bidding. It's hard to understand bad bidding, but it's not usually illegal to bid badly.

[kaustabh]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-27, 13:38, said:

The facts:

1. The hands are as shown in post #1.
2. No one was vulnerable.
3. West dealing, the auction proceeded: 1NT-(X)-2♠!-(P);3♣-(3♠)!-P;3NT-(P)-4♠!-(X);P-(P)-P. ! indicates an alert.
4. All alerted bids were explained during the auction.
5. 2♠ was explained as "transfer to clubs"
6. 3♠ was explained as "six clubs and four spades".
7. 4♠ was explained as "six clubs and five spades".
8. The table TD's ruling was "result stands" without explanation.
9. NS appealed; the appeal was deemed by the AC to be without merit.
10. The table result was 4♠X-2, +300 for NS.
11. Under the alert rules in place, "conventional" bids below the four level (2♠, 3♣, 3♠) require an alert.

Comments on the facts:

1. We are given no evidence that the pair's agreements were any different than explained, so they are not MI. West's explanations are, however, UI to East.
2. East's failure to alert 3♣ is UI to West, and, technically, MI to NS, although I don't think that matters.
3. East has failed to "carefully avoid taking any advantage" from the UI that West thought that 2♠ was a transfer to clubs, a violation of Law 73C, a "must do" law.
4. West does not appear to have violated 73C or 16B1, although his bidding, like his partner's, is markedly inferior.
5. NS were not damaged by any infractions of law by EW, as they cannot better the table result.
6. My ruling: result stands, PP (possibly a warning, as I sense they are inexperienced) to EW for East's violation of 73C.
7. If asked, I would advise NS that an appeal would likely be deemed without merit because they weren't damaged.

BTW, I see nothing in the laws that says that appellants must present a good reason, or indeed any reason at all, for the appeal. The WBF Code of Practice, however, does imply that appellants should do so, because it tasks the AC to question them about their objections to the ruling. If they can't articulate at least one reason, that may be grounds for an AWM, but I don't think it should be automatic.

NS, in effect, said they didn't understand EW's bidding. It's hard to understand bad bidding, but it's not usually illegal to bid badly.

That was perhaps my fault, I did not explained that in detail, NS appealed to have +500 in 5D doubled or in 6D doubled whcih is the likely sopt where EW would have ended if E would not use the UI.

[blackshoe]

I do not think 5 or 6 ♦ is all that likely.

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2012-December-27, 04:05, said:

To the best of my knowledge there is no law that says that the TD must explain his decisions so that the players understand why he decided as he did.

A read of laws 9, 10 and 81 to 84 suggest otherwise, though do not say so explicitly. However, good TD practice is taught to TDs rather than in the Law book [there is no Law saying that a TD should not foul the movement or go and get drunk during the session, for example] and this is clearly bad TD practice.

lamford, on 2012-December-27, 08:31, said:

You would only penalise East for the 3♠ bid if you decided that virtually noone would select it, according to the EBU's own guidelines, which I presume will be similar in other countries. That is clearly not the case here, as signing off is one option when partner shows a spade transfer break with club values. I think making a game try is an LA, but I think bidding 3♠ is way off meriting a PP.

I did not know 3♣ was alerted as a spade fit - in fact, without going back to the start, I am pretty sure it wasn't. To put it another way, I don't believe this player took it as a fit, and if he didn't, he is acting unethically.

Of course, at the table, I would say to him "Why did you bid 3♠?". If he answered "I took 3 ♣ as a spade fit but forgot to alert" then two things will happen. One, I shall not give him a PP, and two, I shall start to believe in fairies, Father Xmas, and honest politicians and banks.

blackshoe, on 2012-December-27, 12:41, said:

@Paul: I asked "who said we adjust just because there was 'unauthorized panic?'" and you pointed to a post that was made five and a half hours after I asked the question. Well done.

I did not adjust, I gave a PP. Furthermore, it has to be blatant. So the answer to "Who said we adjust just because there was 'unauthorized panic?'" is no-one in this thread or generally.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2012-December-27, 13:38, said:

Comments on the facts:
3. East has failed to "carefully avoid taking any advantage" from the UI that West thought that 2♠ was a transfer to clubs, a violation of Law 73C, a "must do" law.

Only if there is an LA to 3♠ (or 4♠ in the next round). IMO there isn't.

With the given East hand, opposite a 15-17 balanced hand, I want to play in spades at as low a level as possible. This is even more true if partner shows a game try in spades with club values (by bidding 3♣). I would certainly not bid 3♦, as suggested by some, since with that East hand I do not want to make a counter game try.

It may well be that "unauthorized panic" was the underlying reason why East bid 3♠. But as long as there is no LA, it is neither an infraction nor an irregularity to bid 3♠, whether East bid it in good faith (deciding rationally that there were no LA's to 3♠), out of unauthorized panic, because his mother-in-law told him to, or for whatever other reason East might have had to bid 3♠.

Rik