[iggygork]

You may want to read the Appeal Case 1 in the Nashville Tuesday bulletin before reading the rest...

Reading today's (7/24/07) bulletin from Nashville, I was surprised to see that not only was "the Committee very concerned" at the lack of a proper explanation of the 3♦ checkback bid as it related to South's spade holding on N/S's CC, but also that the Committee rejected the appeal of N/S in full yet issued neither a PP (Procedural Penalty) nor an AWMW (Appeal Without Merit Warning).

What does it take for a committee to issue these warnings and/or penalties if not something this egregious (a possible intent to deceive by insufficient explanation combined with a rejected appeal)? Maybe the writeup is incomplete, but they are usually pretty good at getting these details right.

[jtfanclub]

iggygork, on Jul 24 2007, 12:21 PM, said:

You may want to read the Appeal Case 1 in the Nashville Tuesday bulletin before reading the rest...

http://www.acbl.org/...lletins/db5.pdf

Page 7.

East's question implies a spade suit, which I can't stand. Maybe that's why N/S didn't get penalized too much. I don't know.

[TimG]

I was struck by the fact that the committee was disappointed not to find this information on the convention card. Where exactly are you supposed to put the information that a checkback bid does not imply the other major? If this is supposed to be on the CC, then I imagine the CC is far too small for all the information that it is supposed to contain.

From the writeup, it did seem like this was a pretty blatant case of trying to deceive the opponents through an incomplete explanation. I expect something must have been missing from the writeup -- some consideration not explained.

[skjaeran]

jtfanclub, on Jul 24 2007, 07:34 PM, said:

East's question implies a spade suit, which I can't stand. Maybe that's why N/S didn't get penalized too much. I don't know.

Well, it was his lead..... Seems quite normal to ask what't been shown before making an opening lead....

[skjaeran]

iggygork, on Jul 24 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

You may want to read the Appeal Case 1 in the Nashville Tuesday bulletin before reading the rest...

Reading today's (7/24/07) bulletin from Nashville, I was surprised to see that not only was "the Committee very concerned" at the lack of a proper explanation of the 3♦ checkback bid as it related to South's spade holding on N/S's CC, but also that the Committee rejected the appeal of N/S in full yet issued neither a PP (Procedural Penalty) nor an AWMW (Appeal Without Merit Warning).

What does it take for a committee to issue these warnings and/or penalties if not something this egregious (a possible intent to deceive by insufficient explanation combined with a rejected appeal)? Maybe the writeup is incomplete, but they are usually pretty good at getting these details right.

Seems strange to me too. I'd have thought a AWMW should be automatic in this case and a PP very close too.

[AlexOgan]

Yeah I read this today and really couldn't understand why an AWMW wasn't at least discussed.

[SoTired]

So basically, South tried to deceive the opening leader into not leading a spade by bidding as if South was 4-4 or 4-5.

Why isn't this just a clever tactical psyche? Like bidding Exclusionary-Blkwd with a dblton?

[jtfanclub]

skaeran, on Jul 24 2007, 12:59 PM, said:

Well, it was his lead..... Seems quite normal to ask what't been shown before making an opening lead....

But you're not supposed to mention specific suits. You're supposed to say "what does the 3 diamond bid mean", Not "Does it show Spades", since the second question rather strongly implies that you have two equally good leads and the other lead is a Spade.

[Halo]

I do wonder if we have all the facts. Otherwise, it defies belief that the offenders would expose themselves by appealing.

[TimG]

SoTired, on Jul 24 2007, 01:51 PM, said:

So basically, South tried to deceive the opening leader into not leading a spade by bidding as if South was 4-4 or 4-5.

Why isn't this just a clever tactical psyche? Like bidding Exclusionary-Blkwd with a dblton?

Because South's 3♦ denied 44 or 45 in the majors (so the write-up says) and this agreement was not disclosed.

jtfanclub said:

But you're not supposed to mention specific suits. You're supposed to say "what does the 3 diamond bid mean", Not "Does it show Spades", since the second question rather strongly implies that you have two equally good leads and the other lead is a Spade.

I do understand your point, but a question about 3♦ would carry the same implication regarding spades.

[jtfanclub]

TimG, on Jul 24 2007, 02:21 PM, said:

I do understand your point, but a question about 3♦ would carry the same implication regarding spades.

Yeah, true,but maybe they complained that the question as worded confused them or something.

I know it's a stretch, but my next most likely theory for why they didn't get an appeal without merit involves aliens and mass hypnosis.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Jul 24 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 24 2007, 02:21 PM, said:

I do understand your point, but a question about 3♦ would carry the same implication regarding spades.

Yeah, true,but maybe they complained that the question as worded confused them or something.

If they asked "does it show spades" that would seem to be less confusing, or at least more to the point, than "what does 3♦ mean?"

My guess is that there were some language issues involved that softened the committee's stance with regards to PP or AWMW.

[markleon]

TimG, on Jul 24 2007, 03:59 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 24 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 24 2007, 02:21 PM, said:

I do understand your point, but a question about 3♦ would carry the same implication regarding spades.

Yeah, true,but maybe they complained that the question as worded confused them or something.

If they asked "does it show spades" that would seem to be less confusing, or at least more to the point, than "what does 3♦ mean?"

My guess is that there were some language issues involved that softened the committee's stance with regards to PP or AWMW.

Note that the writeup says that East asked if the SEQUENCE showed spades. The 3♦ could be long hearts or 4 spades. Therefore, just asking about the 3♦ bid would not get at the desired information. So, I think the wording of East's question was correct, asking about the 3N rebid after 3♦ (NMF) and a 3♥ reply. (Full disclosure: I know both East and West.)

[jtfanclub]

markleon, on Jul 24 2007, 04:20 PM, said:

Note that the writeup says that East asked if the SEQUENCE showed spades. The 3♦ could be long hearts or 4 spades. Therefore, just asking about the 3♦ bid would not get at the desired information. So, I think the wording of East's question was correct, asking about the 3N rebid after 3♦ (NMF) and a 3♥ reply. (Full disclosure: I know both East and West.)

The problem with that is, the sequence DID 'show spades'.

Assuming that the auction:
--- Pass
1♣ 1♥
2N 3♦
3♥ 3♠

asks if partner has a spade stop (which I would think is standard), then bidding 3NT directly over 3♥ promises a spade stop. So the sequence 'shows spades', so to speak.

[helene_t]

iggygork, on Jul 24 2007, 07:21 PM, said:

What does it take for a committee to issue these warnings and/or penalties if not something this egregious (a possible intent to deceive by insufficient explanation combined with a rejected appeal)? Maybe the writeup is incomplete, but they are usually pretty good at getting these details right.

Agree. Off-topic: it sayes our Han was playing with Rick Caye. I thought he would be playing with Arend?

[jdonn]

I think Arend didn't arrive until later. I met Hannie for the second time and Arend for the first, and it will take a few more times before I quit mispronouncing their names. I think Arend's first memory of me was me doubling up in a poker game

A procedural penalty would be way out of line here. North wasn't lying, he probably thought the bid did show spades and south thought it didn't, or else north was just guessing based on his experience when they hadn't specifically discussed it. South wasn't making some tactical psych, which is obvious for two reasons. One is that he never said so in the appeal. The other is that no one makes that psych ever at the table, unless they are drunk online and not even then. Anyway, anything north/south did at the table was either an honest mistake or a misdemeanor at worst.

The appeal, on the other hand, is about as meritless as any I have ever seen, there was no case at all for the director keeping the table result. If this one didn't recieve a warning then one will never be given.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Jul 24 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

I think Arend didn't arrive until later. I met Hannie for the second time and Arend for the first, and it will take a few more times before I quit mispronouncing their names. I think Arend's first memory of me was me doubling up in a poker game

A procedural penalty would be way out of line here. North wasn't lying, he probably thought the bid did show spades and south thought it didn't, or else north was just guessing based on his experience when they hadn't specifically discussed it. South wasn't making some tactical psych, which is obvious for two reasons. One is that he never said so in the appeal. The other is that no one makes that psych ever at the table, unless they are drunk online and not even then. Anyway, anything north/south did at the table was either an honest mistake or a misdemeanor at worst.

The appeal, on the other hand, is about as meritless as any I have ever seen, there was no case at all for the director keeping the table result. If this one didn't recieve a warning then one will never be given.

Except that the appeal write-up says that the 3♦ bid showed five hearts and denied 45 in the majors.

Quote

His 3♦ bid had promised five hearts. North-South’s convention cards did not reflect the fact that South’s failure to show spades on the second round denied a 4—5 distribution and the explanation made no mention of that fact.

[jdonn]

TimG, on Jul 24 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

Except that the appeal write-up says that the 3♦ bid showed five hearts and denied 45 in the majors.

And north explained it as showing 4 spades, which it did not. Ergo the changing of the result. And then north/south appealed, with no basis to do so beyond that they were ruled against. I don't understand what your point is.

[barmar]

jtfanclub, on Jul 24 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

The problem with that is, the sequence DID 'show spades'.

Assuming that the auction:
--- Pass
1♣ 1♥
2N 3♦
3♥ 3♠

asks if partner has a spade stop (which I would think is standard), then bidding 3NT directly over 3♥ promises a spade stop. So the sequence 'shows spades', so to speak.

The question wasn't whether it show a spade stopper, it was whether the checkback followed by pulling 3♥ to 3NT implies 4 spades.

[TimG]

jdonn, on Jul 24 2007, 10:58 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 24 2007, 09:13 PM, said:

Except that the appeal write-up says that the 3♦ bid showed five hearts and denied  45 in the majors.

And north explained it as showing 4 spades, which it did not. Ergo the changing of the result. And then north/south appealed, with no basis to do so beyond that they were ruled against. I don't understand what your point is.

My point was that a procedural penalty would be in order if North did not disclose the agreement and South did not correct North's error.