[VixTD]

I was asked my opinion on the following incident that occurred yesterday in the first county teams-of-eight match (cross-IMPs to VPs):

---

South failed to lead a club, and the slam was made.

North asked East why he had bid 6♠, obviously concerned about the tempo of the 5♠ bid. East said that his partner was asking about the quality of his trumps, and they were about as good as they could be, so he bid six.

Do you think there's a problem here with the EW auction?

[WellSpyder]

 VixTD, on 2017-February-20, 10:54, said:

Do you think there's a problem here with the EW auction?

Not from an ethical POV, no. Even if the agreement about 5S isn't that clear, it is clearly a slam try, and East has no way of telling whether W nearly passed or nearly forced to slam rather than inviting. If the agreement is clearly as explained, then there might be much more of a problem if East had passed, given the strength of his trumps.

[FrancesHinden]

I wouldn't expect anyone to bid 5S here quickly.

[lamford]

I don't think a slow 5S suggests anything in particular. No adjustment, clearly.

[VixTD]

I didn't think anything was suggested either, but North (a very good player) maintained that anyone who wanted to ask about the strength of partner's trumps would do so quickly.

I had the same auction up to 4♠ (after a Benjamin 2♦ - 2♥) and I took some time before cue-bidding 5♣, but I spent most of that time wondering why East hadn't managed to find something to cue-bid over 3♠.

[sanst]

 VixTD, on 2017-February-20, 13:48, said:

I didn't think anything was suggested either, but North (a very good player) maintained that anyone who wanted to ask about the strength of partner's trumps would do so quickly.

I find it usually useful to ask on which law or regulation this is based. Mostly they can't give a source with any standing for it. I think that nowadays these 'certainties' are called 'alternative facts'.

[VixTD]

 sanst, on 2017-February-20, 16:08, said:

I find it usually useful to ask on which law or regulation this is based. Mostly they can't give a source with any standing for it. I think that nowadays these 'certainties' are called 'alternative facts'.

I think what concerned North was that:

(i) This auction (in her words) "does not exist". West's 3♠ bid is an invitation to cue bid.
(ii) West hasn't got a hand that wants to know about partner's trump quality in particular.
(iii) There was a break in tempo.

I can see her point, but I don't think any of this adds up to an infraction or a reason to adjust the score.

[Vampyr]

Does 3♠ promise a key card?

[helene_t]

 VixTD, on 2017-February-20, 13:48, said:

North (a very good player) maintained that anyone who wanted to ask about the strength of partner's trumps would do so quickly.

If that is true then the slow 5♠ suggests that he might be asking for something different, and hence it suggests passing. So 6♠ is the ethical thing to do.

It is of course possible that the explanation that 5♠ asks for trump quality is self-serving. But even so, there is no reason to think that the BIT makes it more likely that it is asking for trump quality.

Result stands. If they appeal I think it is without merit.

[blackshoe]

A general question: can an appeal be without merit if the director failed to explain the legal basis for his ruling?

[WellSpyder]

 blackshoe, on 2017-February-21, 10:39, said:

A general question: can an appeal be without merit if the director failed to explain the legal basis for his ruling?

I think the answer has to be yes in principle, but I would expect the AC to be relatively lenient if it became clear that the appealing side were unaware of the legal basis of the ruling and that the TD hadn't tried to explain this. The leniency might be reduced somewhat if the English system of appeals advisers (sometimes know as "cuddlies") was followed, whereby an experienced player was available to give the pair advice before they appealed about whether there was any reason to appeal and what such an appeal would be looking at.

[gordontd]

 WellSpyder, on 2017-February-21, 10:50, said:

I think the answer has to be yes in principle, but I would expect the AC to be relatively lenient if it became clear that the appealing side were unaware of the legal basis of the ruling and that the TD hadn't tried to explain this. The leniency might be reduced somewhat if the English system of appeals advisers (sometimes know as "cuddlies") was followed, whereby an experienced player was available to give the pair advice before they appealed about whether there was any reason to appeal and what such an appeal would be looking at.

I agree with the first part but not the second. Our notes about appeals that are displayed at events say:

Quote

It can often be a good idea to discuss a potential appeal with someone else and the TD will be happy to put you in touch with an appropriate “Appeals Consultant” to offer an independent opinion as to the merits of your case. Note however that this opinion will have been formed without hearing anyone else’s version of events and so it cannot be assumed that a committee will share a consultant’s opinion that your appeal might have merit.

In fact ACs don't usually know whether or not a consultant has been used.

[blackshoe]

I was thinking more of the situation in North America. No "cuddlies" here, and TDs seem to take pride in not explaining their rulings.

[WellSpyder]

 gordontd, on 2017-February-21, 12:13, said:

I agree with the first part but not the second.

I wasn't thinking that the appeal consultant's view on whether or not the appeal had merit was relevant. I was thinking specifically about the question asked which hypothesised that the TD had not made clear the legal basis for his ruling. (Obviously a hypothetical question since this would never happen with EBU TDs, right?) I would expect the appeal consultant at least to be able to explain to the potential appellants what the basis of the ruling was and what issues would be relevant to an appeal.