[roghog]

---

Declarer took the obvious 10 tricks. The hand is from Division 1 of a local event (IMP scoring) and EW are reasonably experienced. NS called the TD and suggested that E's decision to reopen may have been affected by W's (agreed) hesitation.
The TD declined to change the result on the grounds that E legitimately knows that W is short in ♥ and must have some values.
Do you agree with the TD? Perhaps you could advise on how TDs should come to a decision in this sort of circumstance.
Many thanks for your help.

[RMB1]

What did the double mean? (It was not alerted? = penalties in England?)

roghog, on 2012-September-14, 14:37, said:

Perhaps you could advise on how TDs should come to a decision in this sort of circumstance.
Many thanks for your help.

The TD should consult with other players or other TDs either face-to-face or by phone (or other more modern means). He can also try to conduct a poll although many knowledgable pollees will guess the nature of the problem.

[aguahombre]

This TD should definitely consult with someone else. Most TD's would not need to do so.

East should know partner is short in hearts and that with some values he would have bid. West must think that a slow pass is the way to show those values. Apparently West was correct. It just isn't an acceptable way to show them, and East having bid his hand the first time has no legitimate reason to reopen.

[FrancesHinden]

Looks obvious to adjust to 3H making some number of tricks I'm too tired to work out.
What is it about East's hand that he hasn't yet shown on the auction that he feels the need to act again? Oh, was it partner passing with an obvious 3NT bid?

[jallerton]

Quote

The TD declined to change the result on the grounds that E legitimately knows that W is short in ♥ and must have some values.
Do you agree with the TD?

No! Whilst it is true that East legitimately knows that West is probably short in ♥, a hand with short hearts and reasonable values would double or bid. Most likely West has a weak hand with short hearts. North and South could each hold approx 10HCP on this auction, leaving approx 3HCP for West.

I'd be surprised if double even made it into logical alternative territory, let alone being the only logical alternative.

The EBU has recently published some guidance on penalties:

Quote

In UI cases the TD may adjust based on a breach of these Laws. If it is a matter ofjudgement what the UI has suggested, or what the Logical Alternatives actually are, then it is normal not to give a PP in addition to (or instead of) adjusting the score (the purpose of score adjustment is to provide rectification only). If, however, the TD believes that both
- The player concerned was aware of these Laws and their consequences; and
- The player took what every person consulted believes is obviously not a legal action (e.g. passing in a forcing auction), then he should apply a PP, independent of whether or not he adjusts the score. (Note that a score adjustment affects both sides, while a penalty only affects the
score of the offending side.) In some cases a penalty of double (or more) of the standard amount is merited, if the TD believes that a player deliberately broke the Law.

It seems to me that the reasonably experienced Division 1 player ought to know the Laws here and that a procedural penalty is in order, as well as the obvious score adjustment.

[the hog]

I would adjust this to 3H Nth Sth. East showed his hand and then showed it again with the x.

[Trinidad]

This case is clear:

-An AS based on 3♥ by North
-A PP for East for blatant use of UI
-A directing course for the TD

The only point of these three that I find doubtful is the second. After all, if the TD at the table doesn't know that doubling is blatant use of UI, can we expect a player to know that?

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2012-September-15, 03:26, said:

The only point of these three that I find doubtful is the second. After all, if the TD at the table doesn't know that doubling is blatant use of UI, can we expect a player to know that?

Just because there are some incompetent confused TDs it shouldn't affect what we expect of players.

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-September-15, 16:04, said:

Just because there are some incompetent confused TDs it shouldn't affect what we expect of players.

No, it shouldn't. But it does change what we can expect of the TD and whether the players will ever learn what is expected of them. It is a difficult situation when the TD's rulings demonstrate that they don't understand Bridge, and the other players should not be teaching at the table, either.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2012-September-15, 16:04, said:

Just because there are some incompetent confused TDs it shouldn't affect what we expect of players.

It shouldn't, but it does. Players learn the hard way about the rules and proprieties of the game: through the rulings they get at the table and from what they are told by TDs.

If they continuously see incorrect rulings (that to us are horrible) and get faulty information how will they learn the right way? You cannot expect every player to follow a TD course.

Rik

[mycroft]

I agree with the lot; 2NT shows 15-17 balanced with a heart stopper; East has 15-17 balanced with a heart stopper. The hestitation shows that partner has points - South could easily have raised with 4=4=(41) 10 count as JAllerton says, and is going to hit anything that gets bid. South doesn't have that - but we only know that because of the hesitation.

Looks like two, maybe three things - West has points, and West doesn't have spades; and probably doesn't want to bypass 3NT.

We do need to know what a double of 3♥ by West would mean, but it looks like West had a "do something intelligent" call in his box, made it, and partner did something intelligent.

[roghog]

Many thanks for your help.

We have unpaid volunteer TDs who do an excellent job but struggle with this sort of problem. I guess we need to find ways to help and support them.

[jallerton]

The best way to help and support them is to suggest that for judgement rulings (most commonly, UI and MI cases, they consult with a TD (or Referee) who is used to dealing with this type of ruling.

[bluejak]

roghog, on 2012-September-14, 14:37, said:

Declarer took the obvious 10 tricks. The hand is from Division 1 of a local event (IMP scoring) and EW are reasonably experienced. NS called the TD and suggested that E's decision to reopen may have been affected by W's (agreed) hesitation.
The TD declined to change the result on the grounds that E legitimately knows that W is short in ♥ and must have some values.
Do you agree with the TD? Perhaps you could advise on how TDs should come to a decision in this sort of circumstance.
Many thanks for your help.

A good start would be for the TD to actually read Law 16B. He will find nothing there about not adjusting because East knows West has some values. Furthermore, it is not really true.

He should consider whether there are sensible alternatives to the double, and if so whether double is suggested by partner's hesitation. He should ask some players what they would do in this position. He would find that most of them would pass since they have what they have shown, nothing more.

Doubling rather than passing is suggested by the hesitation. Since pass is a reasonable alternative, double is suggested, he should adjust to 3♥ passed.

Another thing he can do is to find some good TDs to ask: since this is England there is a list of TDs on the EBU website and in the EBU diary. All are trained and good: the highest ranks tend to have the best TDs. For example, I get a lot of phone calls and emails asking for help. I expect that the other TDs, especially the National ones, do as well.

aguahombre, on 2012-September-14, 15:52, said:

This TD should definitely consult with someone else. Most TD's would not need to do so.

All competent TDs consult. Any TD that believes he does not need to consult is incompetent and should not be giving judgement rulings.

Trinidad, on 2012-September-15, 03:26, said:

The only point of these three that I find doubtful is the second. After all, if the TD at the table doesn't know that doubling is blatant use of UI, can we expect a player to know that?

In general, PPs are given for things that show a blatant disregard for the rules or for repeated offences. These are judgement matters for the TD. Here it is unlikely that the TD will have sufficient judgement for a PP since he does not seem to know the correct approach to UI.

roghog, on 2012-September-18, 13:16, said:

We have unpaid volunteer TDs who do an excellent job but struggle with this sort of problem. I guess we need to find ways to help and support them.

It is perfectly normal in England to have unpaid volunteer TDs. Some go on courses, some learn from magazines, eg BRIDGE a free magazine for which I write, available anywhere in the British Isles, some come on forums like this one, some learn from each other, some consult leading TDs in England.

[mycroft]

I think both AH and David are right - the TD shouldn't need to consult about this one (effectively, limited hands almost always have pass/cheapest return to real suit as an LA after partner hesitates) - but they should *do it* anyway (this won't be the first time for me or any TD that an "obvious" adjustment was obviously not, when someone else looks at it, whether because of different/better/worse* bidding judgement of consultee or because the thinking was just wrong).

On the original, I passed partner's sound 2♠ (spades only) call without a blink with Qx KTxx K9xx Axx last night. Partner lied, but figured that AT9 was "top 3/5" when accompanied by the ♦A and ♣Q. Still lost 4 tricks. Give me three spades and two clubs, and 2NT on my left, and I'd at least think of 3♠ - maybe I'd bid 4, but even with both kings working partner could lose a trick in each suit trivially. 3NT isn't going to play well, though, unless partner is AJTxxx and out...

(*) sometimes it's only with experience that you remember how to bid at a C/bracket 10/199er level.