[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2018-August-25, 16:05, said:

East might well be doubling because a heart lead is safe, and he does not have a spade honour - indeed he would double with KJ of hearts so that his partner does not blow a trick on the lead. Anyway the correct method is to poll - a tiresome task indeed - to find out how many would double and how many would run. We can have a weighted score of 3NT-4, 3NTx-4. I think that if running from 3NTx is not the only LA, then it is demonstrably suggested.

You don't double with KJ, dummy will come down with Q10987 and a card if you do, or it will just be cold with an overtrick, double says it's going off due to my heart suit and not to lead his ♠QJ1098 which could well still be right if S is more balanced.

Yes you have to poll.

I think I would double with the E hand (I certainly would if I had AQ109x, but there's a huge chance partner has 0-1 when I have 6 so it may not help much, although a spade or diamond through from me might be welcome), but I'd definitely pull with the South hand.

The appeal committee's verdict is rubbish because 3N is the system bid, so 3♥-4 can't be right, although 3N-4 is the same score.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-25, 17:42, said:

You don't double with KJ, dummy will come down with Q10987 and a card if you do, or it will just be cold with an overtrick, double says it's going off due to my heart suit and not to lead his ♠QJ1098 which could well still be right if S is more balanced.

Yes you have to poll.

I think I would double with the E hand (I certainly would if I had AQ109x, but there's a huge chance partner has 0-1 when I have 6 so it may not help much, although a spade or diamond through from me might be welcome), but I'd definitely pull with the South hand.

The appeal committee's verdict is rubbish because 3N is the system bid, so 3♥-4 can't be right, although 3N-4 is the same score.

We agree that the AC verdict is rubbish, as is the TD verdict. What's new? But I don't think double at teams says it is going off, it just has to be more likely to go off than not, and if I had KJTx in hearts and three small spades, I would routinely double, as would two experts I polled. And neither pulled in view of the double spade stop.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2018-August-23, 07:37, said:

Nothing was stated by N/S before the opening lead - a clear infraction. I established that E/W did not ask anything at that time. I think West asked before the spade continuation at trick four, but I don't know what they were told then.

I don't have the poll results, don't know how many were polled, and don't know if these are on the AC form. I was told that one person considered 3H, but don't know what he or she chose. I don't know whether they were told the N/S agreements.

In that case, it's hard to comment on what the correct ruling should be. If the TD asked enough people and gave the correct inferences about the N/S agreements in the poll, then that he/she has adopted the correct procedure in determining whether 3H was a LA - and the conclusion seems to have been that 3H was a LA.


As TD, I would be looking to adjust for MI to 3NT-4 IF N/S did not explain that South had probably denied 3 hearts. However, if this inference was clearly explained at the table, then there would be no reason to adjust on this matter.

lamford, on 2018-August-23, 07:50, said:

I agree there is no serious error, as the bar for that is very high. I can only guess a little at the gaps, but I do know that the adjustment was to 3H-4, and was appealed by NS, who lost their deposit and also NS were fined 1 VP.

You misunderstand. The deposit nowadays is a monetary amount (£30 I think) plus 1VP. So as soon as the AC judged the appeal to be without merit, the appealing side lost 1VP. It would have not have been an a 1VP fine in addition to losing the deposit, unless the find was for something else (e.g. failing to correct the misexplanation at the proper time).

lamford, on 2018-August-23, 07:50, said:

If, and this is a big if, the facts are as reported (and I was not even present at the event), I do not agree with the adjustment to 3H-4. North polled 12 experts including Zia, all of who bid 3NT using those methods. However, I would have adjusted to 3NTx-4, with South announcing that, in his opinion, his 2NT should not have been alerted (he knew that it was natural and was able to show the system file which showed that). He should also have called the TD and told him that 3D should have been alerted. East would get his last bid back and would double to ask for a heart lead. I would still impose the 1 VP fine on NS, but, oddly, I would return the deposit because I would change the score from 3H-4 to 3NTx-4. Needless to say I would not have appealed as NS, unless I felt particularly masochistic, or thought that the TD had been unduly generous in awarding me 3H-4.

I think that the TD should normally only consider 3NTx if East suggests that me might have doubled: this call would simply not occur to many players after correct alerts and explanations.

Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-23, 08:02, said:

Do NS lose their deposit if the ruling is changed from 3♥-4 to 3N-4 and this is considered absolutely obvious ? .

Not necessarily. If the basis of appeal was "3♥ was not a logical alternative" and the AC agrees that it isn't then the appeal has merit.

Cyberyeti, on 2018-August-25, 17:42, said:

The appeal committee's verdict is rubbish because 3N is the system bid, so 3♥-4 can't be right, although 3N-4 is the same score.

Or perhaps the AC knew more than has been described on this thread about the N/S agreements. It is quite common to play accepting the transfer as showing 3-card support after 2NTopening, but this agreement makes far less sense over a 2NT overcall (which is a weaker range). I've heard from another source that this particular N/S's system file indicates that after a 2NT opener accepting the transfer shows 3-card support, but is silent as to whether this applies after an overcall. I would imagine that the TD polled and the TD/AC judged the LAs on that basis.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2018-August-26, 15:56, said:

You misunderstand. The deposit nowadays is a monetary amount (£30 I think) plus 1VP. So as soon as the AC judged the appeal to be without merit, the appealing side lost 1VP. It would have not have been an a 1VP fine in addition to losing the deposit, unless the find was for something else (e.g. failing to correct the misexplanation at the proper time).

I noted that 1VP fine in Ostend, when reading the CoC, which Murphy (and Forrester) were unaware of. I presume that this has been adopted by the EBU and is a good thing. I did not notice it being publicised anywhere.

Quote

I think that the TD should normally only consider 3NTx if East suggests that me might have doubled: this call would simply not occur to many players after correct alerts and explanations.

Here we don't agree. It might not have occurred to East that he would have doubled with the correct explanation, or that he should have been given the option to replace his final pass. The TD should poll Easts of the same ability with the explanation that 3D showed five hearts and asked what they would do instead of the final pass. Note that the TD should have been called and East would have been given the option to change his final pass, when it might well have occurred to him.

[jallerton]

1. No, the EBU is not copying the EBL. The EBL doesn't allow players to appeal these days, whatever Law 93 might say.

2. It is irrelevant whether East knew the relevant laws. It is not even directly relevant what peers of East would have done (unlike in UI cases). All the TD needs to assess is whether this particular East would have doubled 3NT had he received correct explanations/alerts of the 2NT/3♦/3NT bids. If this East doesn't think he would have doubled then there is no benefit in performing a poll.

[blackshoe]

jallerton, on 2018-August-31, 15:55, said:

1. No, the EBU is not copying the EBL. The EBL doesn't allow players to appeal these days, whatever Law 93 might say.

Not sure what the EBL is doing, but if they are not allowing players to exercise their right to a review of the director's ruling, they are acting contrary to the laws of bridge.

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2018-August-31, 16:15, said:

Not sure what the EBL is doing, but if they are not allowing players to exercise their right to a review of the director's ruling, they are acting contrary to the laws of bridge.

The EBL does allow a review of a director's ruling, though it no longer takes the traditional form of a committee of three or more.

[RMB1]

lamford, on 2018-August-27, 06:39, said:

... I presume that this has been adopted by the EBU and is a good thing. I did not notice it being publicised anywhere.

The appeal-without-merit sanction was introduced in (August) 2016 and was publicised at the Summer Meeting that year. The sanction is

• forfeiting the deposit
  
• standard penalty - 25% top, 6 IMP, 1 VP - in the final method of scoring

(The change in standard penalty in August 2018 made a minor change to the AWMS.)

There have not been many appeals found to be without merit in the last two years - but there was more than one such in the Premier League in Autumn 2017.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2018-August-31, 15:55, said:

1. No, the EBU is not copying the EBL. The EBL doesn't allow players to appeal these days, whatever Law 93 might say.

2. It is irrelevant whether East knew the relevant laws. It is not even directly relevant what peers of East would have done (unlike in UI cases). All the TD needs to assess is whether this particular East would have doubled 3NT had he received correct explanations/alerts of the 2NT/3♦/3NT bids. If this East doesn't think he would have doubled then there is no benefit in performing a poll.

The EBL has to allow an appeal to the CAS, if the laws of bridge provide for an appeal against the TD decision and they deny it. And as gordontd says, they do allow them but in a different form. Appeals to the CAS have so far only been in cases of cheating.

The only way of finding out if East would have doubled 3NT is to ask him or her "what would have happened if South had called the TD correctly and you had been given your last pass back?" Only the most blinkered of Easts would not say "I would have doubled for a heart lead if I had known dummy had five hearts, of course!" Then one polls to see if other Easts of the same ability would also have done so with correct information.