[vigfus]

---

1♣ = Precision
3♣ = Diamonds or Majors
Double = 5-7. With 6+ West would bid 3SHD with decent 5+ suit
pass by N = Clubs

East calls me after opening lead of ♣3. North says to South. Pd. This does not promise ♣. (perhaps not exact wording, but close to it - I had not appeared at the table at that time)
When I was present, There was no argument that South had explained that North's Pass meant ♣.

East's argument is that If he had known that North did not promise clubs, he would have bid PASS to listen to what kind of hand South had.

I ruled...
I believe that East seriously considered to make a Pass bid. That is sure a LA.
South has automatic Pass bid on 3♣, holding Qxxx in pd's suit. Result. 3♣ doubled 7 tricks. 300 EW

N/S appealed. Passing on East's hand is impossible bid.

Appeals committie's ruling...
We feel that 3♣ is impossible result. South gave logical but wrong explaination. East will bid 3♥ if South gives right explaination and east will wait and hear South bid 3♦. There after, the bidding sequence will probably be pass - pass, and East will be in the same situation as before. and they ended in the best contract, and have no Game contract, and therefore they were not damaged.
Table result re-installed. 4H -2

Footnote by me. ( it did not appear at the appeal )
Pree emtive bidding agains strong club systems, are ment to be PREE EMTIVE. Nothing wrong with that. But when there is additional misinformation, then the pree emtive side has no simpathy in my opinion.

This post has been edited by vigfus: 2012-March-17, 03:02

[sfi]

Pass looks totally normal on the East hand if North's call does not show clubs, but ridiculous otherwise. I would be interested to hear why the appeals committee ruled that South would not pass 3CX - the writeup suggests that they dismissed that.

It looks like the table ruling was spot on.

[vigfus]

Sorry all readers. I made a mistake when entering the hand yesterday. E/W hands were incorrect. The hands are now correct

[ahydra]

How exactly does one make 7 tricks in clubs? 4 looks more like it, particularly on a trump lead. -1100.

South has no UI and so can be allowed to bid 3D, it's North who can't take advantage of the fact that South thinks he has clubs. North has to bid on according to what he things pass meant, probably "show your suit", so he passes as the AC mentioned. I agree with that bit of the AC's ruling.

But the AC haven't really offered a good reason why South wouldn't pass 3CX. After all, if he thinks N has clubs, it is an obvious pass as the TD mentioned. I say adjust the score to -1100.

ahydra

[gnasher]

I agree with adjusting to 3♣x by South. Here are some possible lines:

Trump lead to the queen, diamond to East's queen, three rounds of spades, diamond ruff, [HA]K-A-ruff, diamond ruff, ♥Q, spade exit. Two down.
Trump lead to the queen, diamond to East's queen, three rounds of spades, diamond ruff, [HA]K-A-ruff, diamond ruff, ♥Q, try to ruff a heart. Three down.
Trump lead to the queen, diamond to West's king, trump, heart ruff, diamond ruff, heart ruff, diamond winner. Three down.
Trump lead to the queen, diamond to West's king, trump, [HA]K-A-ruff, diamond ruff, ♥Q, try to ruff a heart. Four down.

It's poor defence for West to play low on the first diamond, so I think I'd disregard the first two. I'd give 80% of -4 and 20% of -3. And a procedural penalty for correcting the explanation during the play.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-17, 09:50

[MrAce]

I can not understand the decision of the appeal on this one to be honest.

I have a question though, was this match made by screens ? If not, did you get to learn what the actual partnership agreement was ? I mean was it a wrong explenation of pdship agreement or was the explenation correct but North forgot their agreement ? Without screen this is important. If the explenation was correct and North forgot that agreement then appeals decision makes sense. Otherwise it does not.

[barmar]

If this had been with screens North and East would be screenmates, and East would have been given the correct explanation. So I think we can infer that screens were not in use.

The AC ruling contains "South gave logical but wrong explaination." I think that answers your question about who forgot the agreement.

[MrAce]

 barmar, on 2012-March-17, 19:52, said:

If this had been with screens North and East would be screenmates, and East would have been given the correct explanation. So I think we can infer that screens were not in use.

The AC ruling contains "South gave logical but wrong explaination." I think that answers your question about who forgot the agreement.

Ok then south gave wrong explenation but appeal didnt buy East's proposal about what he would do had he been given the correct explenation.

They decided

1-East would bid 3♥ regardless of the info he was given

2-Even if he passed, South would ignore his own alert and bid 3♦ with JTxxxxx suit anyway, when he has Qxxx support to his pd's suit.

Interesting decision...

[Trinidad]

I think this is an interesting case. It seems the AC decided that East will not pass 3♣X if East knows that pass doesn't show clubs. The main question is: What would we think that East would do when he hears that North's pass is "just neutral" (or something like that)? And remember to only look at the auction and the East hand.

I would certainly not pass. I would bid 3♥. This is because I think I will get richer playing in my own suit then defending a contract where I have a singleton with a partner who has a random 5-7 points.

There is something else that I found interesting. Why did South pass 4♥ if he thought that North showed clubs? I would not blink for a second and bid 5♣. It seems that South didn't believe his own explanation of the pass.

Rik

[axman]

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-18, 04:17, said:

I think this is an interesting case. It seems the AC decided that East will not pass 3♣X if East knows that pass doesn't show clubs. The main question is: What would we think that East would do when he hears that North's pass is "just neutral" (or something like that)? And remember to only look at the auction and the East hand.

I would certainly not pass. I would bid 3♥. This is because I think I will get richer playing in my own suit then defending a contract where I have a singleton with a partner who has a random 5-7 points.

There is something else that I found interesting.



Why did South pass 4♥ if he thought that North showed clubs? I would not blink for a second and bid 5♣. It seems that South didn't believe his own explanation of the pass.

Rik

How about the prospect that 5C is too high? -500 would be only down three [five defensive tricks] and N has yet to promise a single honor and W has promised club honors.

[Trinidad]

 axman, on 2012-March-18, 07:14, said:

How about the prospect that 5C is too high? -500 would be only down three [five defensive tricks] and N has yet to promise a single honor and W has promised club honors.

In South's view, North has shown clubs. West has not promissed any club honors. (Where did you get the idea that West has shown something in clubs?)

On top of that, East thinks that he can make 4♥ opposite a random 5-7 count. If I have undisclosed 4 card support for my partner, I would already strongly consider raising. Give me a void in the opponents' suit and I will save 8 days a week. The only thing that I am afraid of is that I will talk them into an ice cold heart slam. (This will reduce the save frequency to 7 days a week.)

Rik

[aguahombre]

Gathering:

 vigfus, on 2012-March-16, 17:39, said:

Pree emtive bidding agains strong club systems, are ment to be PREE EMTIVE. Nothing wrong with that. But when there is additional misinformation, then the pree emtive side has no simpathy in my opinion.

 sfi, on 2012-March-16, 23:32, said:

Pass looks totally normal on the East hand if North's call does not show clubs, but ridiculous otherwise. I would be interested to hear why the appeals committee ruled that South would not pass 3CX - the writeup suggests that they dismissed that.

It looks like the table ruling was spot on.

 gnasher, on 2012-March-17, 09:49, said:

I'd give 80% of -4 and 20% of -3. And a procedural penalty for correcting the explanation during the play.

 barmar, on 2012-March-17, 19:52, said:

The AC ruling contains "South gave logical but wrong explaination." I think that answers your question about who forgot the agreement.

It seems South's speculation about a non-agreement is the culprit. North's speaking out of turn before play had ended was a violation with no adverse impact on the opponents; in fact it might have helped them. It could have helped N/S (UI) during the defense, but doesn't seem to have. However, I agree with the PP; pile it on

[MrAce]

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-18, 04:17, said:

I would certainly not pass. I would bid 3♥. This is because I think I will get richer playing in my own suit then defending a contract where I have a singleton with a partner who has a random 5-7 points.

Rik

In order to think you will defend 3♣ doubled, u must have a reason to think that south will pass also. If North pass didnt promise ♣, chances of 3♣ being passed out is slim to none.

Otoh, if East passes there is a case he may have to show his ♥ suit at much higher level or not show at all. Assume south bids 3♦ showing ♦s, and North now raises it to 5♦. East will definetely regret his previous pass. In fact he is totally screwed up.

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-18, 04:17, said:

There is something else that I found interesting. Why did South pass 4♥ if he thought that North showed clubs? I would not blink for a second and bid 5♣. It seems that South didn't believe his own explanation of the pass.

Rik

Thats a very good point. In fact if EW appealed or complained to TD about the lack of 5♣ bid by south, they could have some better ground for their case, no ?

[bluejak]

Yet again, no-one seems to think of a weighted score. Ok, let's imagine what might have happened.

You open 1♣, strong. 3♣ Suction, on your left. Double, 5-7 by partner. Pass, on your right, no agreement. What do you do with a 4=6=2=1 hand? If you pass "to see what happens" I can assure you that you will get -670 some of the time! Most good strong club pairs that I know have found the best way to deal with intervention is to bid constructively. With the East hand you know South has diamonds, so if you pass he will pass or bid 3♦. Great.

So any ruling based on this hand passing 100% of the time is just wrong, in my view. Of course it will not.

How about the view that it will never pass? I would like to try a poll, to see: my guess is that few will pass. Of course, if you do pass, they will play 3♣ doubled, so you will get a good board.

So what seems a fair ruling to me? How about 25% of 3♣ doubled making some tricks, and 75% of East playing in 3♥ or 4♥?

Another question: how can you rule a specific number of tricks in 3♣ doubled? Since weighted score adjustments are the norm, I find it difficult to believe anyone is over 85% certain how many tricks are made in 3♣ doubled - and if you are not 85% certain, weight. Sorry, Andy, for saying no-one thought of weighting: at least you did for the number of tricks made.

So my view is that neither TD nor AC really realised that a weighted score is the norm, because the denouement of this hand without MI is very unclear.

[sfi]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-18, 19:36, said:

Yet again, no-one seems to think of a weighted score. Ok, let's imagine what might have happened.

You open 1♣, strong. 3♣ Suction, on your left. Double, 5-7 by partner. Pass, on your right, no agreement. What do you do with a 4=6=2=1 hand?

It is worth noting that I was presented with a 4-5-3-1 hand. The percentage action on the edited hand is less clear.

[mgoetze]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-18, 19:36, said:

Yet again, no-one seems to think of a weighted score.

Furthermore, noone seems to have thought of conducting a poll? Just give people the East hand and the correct explanation of the bidding and see what they do, doesn't seem so hard...

[richlp]

 vigfus, on 2012-March-16, 17:39, said:

Appeals committie's ruling...
We feel that 3♣ is impossible result. South gave logical but wrong explaination. East will bid 3♥ if South gives right explaination and east will wait and hear South bid 3♦. There after, the bidding sequence will probably be pass - pass, and East will be in the same situation as before. and they ended in the best contract, and have no Game contract, and therefore they were not damaged.
Table result re-installed. 4H -2

Footnote by me. ( it did not appear at the appeal )
Pree emtive bidding agains strong club systems, are ment to be PREE EMTIVE. Nothing wrong with that. But when there is additional misinformation, then the pree emtive side has no simpathy in my opinion.

The appeals committee seemed to say that South will give the correct information and will then act based upon correct information. If I understand the process properly, East must be given correct information and South must continue based upon his original incorrect view of what the pass of 3♣ showed. Without speculating on the number of tricks to be taken, it seems clear that 3♣ doubled should be the final contract.

[bluejak]

Clear? Are you sure?

Ok, I shall ask you a bidding query.

---

What do you bid? Remember that your partner has shown nothing in clubs, possibly a singleton in a 4441 hand.

If you pass, partner will have

---

and while 6♥ is on ice, you are not going to score very well here.

For it to be "clear" to pass 3♣ doubled I reckon a poll shoud be getting 90+% of players to pass, and opposite a double which is not penalties I do not believe it. For one thing, I certainly would not pass, so there's one vote for not passing.

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-24, 15:04, said:

For it to be "clear" to pass 3♣ doubled I reckon a poll shoud be getting 90+% of players to pass, and opposite a double which is not penalties I do not believe it. For one thing, I certainly would not pass, so there's one vote for not passing.

And here is another vote for not passing.

To determine whether EW have been damaged by the misinformation, we need to see what East would have done with the correct information. For me it is clear that East would have bid 3♥. In fact, for me, it is so clear that I wouldn't even consider a weighted score. That means that I think that in a poll, where players only see the East hand and the auction, less than 10% of the players asked will pass.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

 bluejak, on 2012-March-24, 15:04, said:

Clear? Are you sure?

Ok, I shall ask you a bidding query.

---

What do you bid?

Let me ask you a return question. What is the difference in our bidding agreements between:

P - P - 1♣ - 3♣
X - P - 3♥

and

P - P - 1♣ - 3♣
X - P - P - 3♦
P - P - 3♥;

and what would

P - P - 1♣ - 3♣
X - P - P - 3♦
P - 4♦ - 4♥ mean?

The East player said they would pass to find out which hand type South had. If neither North nor South has real clubs then how can partner have the given 4441 hand? It makes no sense; it is much more likely that partner has a bunch of clubs. North has asked South to bid either 3♦ or 3♥ depending on hand type, so why should we suspect a pass is coming? Now there are good reasons to bid 3♥ immediately because we do not want to get shut out if the opponents barrage us to 4 or 5♦. That means that 3♥ is probably the best bid absent agreeemnts. But in order to really judge we need to know the methods being used and that means an answer to at least the 3 auctions above. For example, perhaps the third auction is played as 4 spades and longer hearts. Then passing may well be a good course of action, no?