[Rossoneri]

The case in question is in theNABC 31 July Bulletin on page 4.

To put it shortly:
- Case arose at the end of the game
- Somehow it was discovered in screening that the correct auction at the table was not the one the original ruling was based on
- Screening director referred the case straight to the appeals committee rather than making a ruling himself

It all seems weird, puzzling and doesn't quite put the screening director or the original director in a very good light. Thoughts?

[aguahombre]

There is more which is weird than that.

Appeal three involves the same board, and one of the AC on 3 was the one who hesitated as East on appeal four. I can understand someone who merely played the board being on a committee; but having an appeal of his own pending or completed makes him much too close to the situation.

The account of appeal four states East is the only one who attended the hearing; yet West's statements to the AC are the ones quoted.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-01, 02:29, said:

Appeal three involves the same board, and one of the AC on 3 was the one who hesitated as East on appeal four. I can understand someone who merely played the board being on a committee; but having an appeal of his own pending or completed makes him much too close to the situation.

I noticed that too, but I don't think it was a problem. The two auctions were completely different.

[aguahombre]

Actually both appeals cases hinge around the point where East chooses (or does not choose) to bid 3NT.

The East who was on the committee ruled against the other East who, when asked, chose 3NT with KQTX in the question suit --then later removed his own choice after the double came back around with a BIT by partner. Yet, he himself ---after a B.I.T ---chose at the table to not bid 3NT at the same juncture of the auction.

I am not implying anything other than this respected player should not have been put into a situation like that; it was obviously known or knowable to the people involved in convening AC's.

[Rossoneri]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-01, 06:21, said:

Actually both appeals cases hinge around the point where East chooses (or does not choose) to bid 3NT.

The East who was on the committee ruled against the other East who, when asked, chose 3NT with KQTX in the question suit --then later removed his own choice after the double came back around with a BIT by partner. Yet, he himself ---after a B.I.T ---chose at the table to not bid 3NT at the same juncture of the auction.

I am not implying anything other than this respected player should not have been put into a situation like that; it was obviously known or knowable to the people involved in convening AC's.

I quite agree, it does seem that said individual can be considered to be an "interested party".

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-01, 06:21, said:

Actually both appeals cases hinge around the point where East chooses (or does not choose) to bid 3NT.

The East who was on the committee ruled against the other East who, when asked, chose 3NT with KQTX in the question suit --then later removed his own choice after the double came back around with a BIT by partner. Yet, he himself ---after a B.I.T ---chose at the table to not bid 3NT at the same juncture of the auction.

I am not implying anything other than this respected player should not have been put into a situation like that; it was obviously known or knowable to the people involved in convening AC's.

I don't think the fact that an AC member is involved in an appeal on the same board matters one iota, and I agree with gnasher that the different auction is enough to make it irrelevant. The judgement of whether 3NTx should be pulled and whether 3Sx should be pulled seems fine. In both cases Pass seems an LA. However, in my opinion, the decision as to whether, in Appeal Case 3, 3NTx will make is way, way off the mark - certainly in a Life Masters Pairs. The opening lead will indeed be the king of spades, ducked, and a spade continuation. Declarer wins, plays six rounds of clubs, discarding spades and a heart from dummy, and now leads the king of diamonds; South is marked with both red aces on the bidding, and if North has one the declarer is doomed anyway.

South must win this, or a heart up gets declarer home, and must broach hearts himself. But he knows the full layout and will lead the seven of hearts, and declarer should always rise with the king (fatally on this layout), as this succeeds when North has Jx or J in hearts, while putting in the ten only works when North has a singleton 2. We can ignore the times declarer can never make or will always make. If South leads the queen instead, declarer has no losing line. Declarer will therefore only succeed if blessed with second sight, but we do not need to decide whether declarer will sometimes make. We award 3NTx -1 if it is "likely" that the declarer will fail in his contract, and we are told that this means a one in three chance. Given that I expect declarer, in a Life Master Pairs, to fail almost all the time, it is clear that the AC decision was a serious misjudgement. And a hand which shows that weighted scores would be better, but with this particular AC, not much better.

[gnasher]

I agree with Lamford about the decision in Appeal Case 3 - the committee gave declarer far too much credit.