[rvbridge]

---

West North East South
1N (1) X (2) 2D (3) All Pass

1) 15-17, can be off-shape with values in short suits
2) Explained as showing 5+m&4M by North to East. Explained as showing either 5+m&4M or Strong single suiter Major by South to West
3) Explained as transfer to hearts by East to North and Natural sign-off by West to South


Table proceedings and Director’s Ruling

North and East were screen-mates. South and West were screen-mates. North explained to East that his X shows 5+m&4M (both suits not known). When the try came back to the other side, South informed West that North’s bid showed either 5+m&4M or strong single suiter major. East informed North that his 2♦ bid showed transfer to ♥. When the tray came back on the other side, West informs South that partner 2♦ is natural. West made 10 tricks in 2♦ . NS called the director at the end of the deal and informed him of the wrong explanation on both sides of the screen. East-West informed the director that their methods on Double differ depending on whether it showed competitive/weak (system on) hand or strong hand (natural). They contended that this situation arose because North did not give full explanation of his bid to East. Director let the table result stand since NS were at fault as well.

Appeal’s committee (AC) deliberations

North-South appealed. All 4 players were present at the Appeals committee (AC). North and South were called together and East-West were called together.
AC checked with both North and South on the explanation of meaning of double. Both explained that South’s explanation of it showing either 5+m&4M or strong single suiter major is the correct one and this statement was substantiated by their convention card.

AC checked with East and West on the explanation of the meaning of 2♦ . Both of them claimed that they play system-off (2♦ -natural) if X is strong and play system-on (2♦ -transfer) if X is weak. They had not explicitly discussed what they play if X could be either weak or strong as in this case, though they agreed that it should possibly be system-on since opponent is unlikely to pass a 2 way double.

AC also checked with North on why he didn’t bid again knowing fully well that there was a mis-understanding between the opponents. North explained that East could still have a good hand and that his partner had passed as well. So he considered the situation too risky to act again. Additionally South volunteered that his partner’s major was likely to be ♥s and that he didn’t consider it safe to get into the auction unless partner bid again.

AC felt that major infraction was committed by East-West in not having a clear understanding which damaged the opponents. They felt that with the correct explanation either North or South could conceivably get into the auction at some stage and possibly even reached 4♠ as well. Hence AC adjusted the score to 40% of NS making 10 tricks in 4♠ and 60% of EW making 10 tricks in 2♦ for both sides (12C1, 40C, 75). Additionally AC assessed a procedural penalty of 3 IMPs for East-West for wrong explanation. AC also indicated that North’s infraction was minor (let-off with a warning) and did not warrant a procedural penalty. The appeal was deemed to have a lot of merit and deposit was returned.

A few questions on the Players’ actions, director’s role and AC proceedings:
a) What is your final ruling on the appeal based on above facts?
Should the director have ruled on the deal differently instead of letting table result stand?
c) Should AC call all the players together initially to verify all facts?
d) Should AC ask any other questions to any of the players?
e) Will you assess procedural penalty to NS as well since North did not fully explain his bid?
f) Will you change the ruling if NS were vulnerable?
g) Will you change the ruling if EW CC clearly indicated that in 2♦ is transfer if X could be competitive or strong?

[mich-b]

Here are some of my thoughts about this case:

1. NS have a responsibility to fully expalin their convention, and I believe this responsibility is even stronger when playing a complex (=multimeaning) method.

2. I wasn't at all convinced by NS's statements, or by anything the AC had said, what exactly would either North or South do differently, had they been given the correct information. Suppose EW would use self alerts (like online) and NS would have more information than they are entitled to, what exactly would happen?

It seems to me that a major reason for NS's failure to find their ♠ fit , was the ambiguity which was embedded in their methods , rather than EW's misunderstanding.

3. Why didn't EW appeal ? after all they were making 4♥, and their misnderstanding was (at least partly) caused by NS's different explanations.
Why wasn't 4♥ by EW considered as a possible outcome by the AC?
Did EW accept that their misunderstanding was entirely their fault?

4. My advice to EW would be to treat any double as if it was Strong, and play whatever their escape system, because advancer (doubler's partner) can always find himself with a good hand , and judge to convert the double.
I know this advice is not popular in many circles , but it saves me from misunderstandings like this (which tend to be extremely costly) , and also seems to me to have enough theoretical merit.

5. I feel the AC was generous towards NS here , mainly because NS failed to even suggest how exactly they would reach ♠ game or even ♠ part score.

[TimG]

rvbridge, on Mar 31 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

AC felt that major infraction was committed by East-West in not having a clear understanding which damaged the opponents. They felt that with the correct explanation either North or South could conceivably get into the auction at some stage and possibly even reached 4♠  as well. Hence AC adjusted the score to 40% of NS making 10 tricks in 4♠  and 60% of EW making 10 tricks in 2♦  for both sides (12C1, 40C, 75).

Even if EW had a "clear understanding" they would likely be on different pages based upon the differences in explanations given by North and South.

But, beyond that, it seems wrong to me to force players to have agreements. What players must do is fully disclose the agreements that do have.

Perhaps West should have said: "If double is strong we play X; if double is weak we play Y." But, I don't think having this "unclear understanding" is a violation of any rules. And, west's interpretation of the partnership's rules for this situation were reasonable (in my opinion).

Quote

Additionally AC assessed a procedural penalty of 3 IMPs for East-West for wrong explanation. AC also indicated that North’s infraction was minor (let-off with a warning) and did not warrant a procedural penalty. The appeal was deemed to have a lot of merit and deposit was returned.

Which player did the committee deem had given the "wrong explanation"? The only person that we know gave a wrong explanation is North. If EW is hit with a procedural penalty, I can't see how north gets off without one.

[peachy]

TimG, on Mar 31 2009, 09:04 AM, said:

[snipped]

But, beyond that, it seems wrong to me to force players to have agreements. What players must do is fully disclose the agreements that do have.

[snipped]

I just have acomment on this. Some Conditions of Contest REQUIRE that the players have agreements and that they know how and when the agreements apply, at this level of competition.

Club game or some random sectional partnership is different from " World Class players who are regular partners"

[MFA]

Good comments so far, I think.

I agree with mich-b's view that the committee was generous to NS.

Quote

They felt that with the correct explanation either North or South could conceivably get into the auction at some stage and possibly even reached 4♠ as well.

This doesn't seem sharp to me.

NS has one extra chance only to get into the auction, and that is directly after East's 2♦. South was misinformed. Could he possibly bid a direct 2♠ if he were told "transfer"? Quite unlikely, and it seems that South didn't even suggest at some point that he would.
This would btw have been a good AC question to South during the hearing.

North was not misinformed, so nothing could be done about his pass.

East was misinformed by North, and maybe that caused the E-W misunderstanding. I don't think E-W were damaged as such, but a better result was possible for their side.

All in all I like the director's ruling of result stands. A weighted score of some low percentage of NS 4♠ making (as the AC decided upon) is not unreasonable. But I feel it is a favorable ruling for NS.

The procedural penalty seems wrong. As TimG points out, E-W explains differently only after N-S did so, so how can the 'secondary' explanations get punished when the 'primary' don't? I don't think any penalty points are appropriate here.

[PeterGill]

We are not given the vulnerability nor told who the Dealer was.

Later there is a reference in the original post to
"if NS were vulnerable", to add to the confusion.

The post does not reveal which explanation - East's or West's -
was deemed by the AC to be an infraction.
Without an infraction, there cannot be any score adjustment in NS's favour.

Thus I think that the original post does not explain all the relevant issues.

So my comments cannot be sensible, in such a confused context.

It seems to me that the AC may have based their decision
on slightly different facts from those in the original post.

In the original post, "EW agreed that it should possibly be"
should not be misinterpreted as setting EW up to have had
an agreement that they only possibly had.

If the post reveals all the information which the AC was given,
I think the AC established nothing about whether E or W explained wrongly.

Summary:
N misexplained to E.
E's explanation has not been shown to be wrong.
W's explanation has not been shown to be wrong.

Due to NS's methods, even if 2D is a transfer, South will think
North has 4 hearts and long clubs, so South cannot possibly enter
the auction, due only to the NS methods.

On many auctions, North has a very tough lead to 5H and might
well lead a club, allowing 5H to make, so 5H making should surely
be factored in as a %age in any score adjustment.

Because NS identified the different explanations and took the initiative by
calling the Director, did some AC members not notice that it was originally
N and S who gave different explanations?

What happened at the other table? This is vey important in this case,
because if 4S or 4SX made at the other table, that fact might well
prejudice the way that non-TD's looked at the whole hand.

Is the original post an actual report written by the AC?
It's all too confusing for me.

[rvbridge]

Dealer is West and None Vul. It was clearly established by the director that E-W did not have a clear agreement on meaning of 2♦ if double is 2-way. They play it as Natural if double is strong and transfer if X is competitive in 1 or more suits.

There is an unananimity in the BBO panel that ruling is incorrect with the facts presented in the original post. It is also clear that E-W did not deserve to get a PP and that N-S probably deserved PP more than E-W.

Couple of changes on the case presented earlier:

a) I believe the director ruled at the table after consulting couple of experts, he gave a weighted adjusted score consisting of "20% of 3♠ making 5♠ for NS, 20% of 4♠ making 5 for NS and 60% of 2♦ making 4" for EW for both sides. This case did not go to AC since EW decided not to appeal.

South apparently mentioned to the director that if it is a bit safer to act if 2♦ is explained to him as transfer to ♥ since if West actually has a sign-off hand in ♦, partner's major is more likely to be ♠. If South is told that West has ♥ suit, then there is higher probability that partner has ♠ suit.
So he felt that with the correct explanation, he would have acted.

North was clearly not affected since he knew what was happening and still decided it is not safe for acting on opponents' mis-understanding.

Would you change your opinion on the director' ruling based on the above points? Do you feel there is any justification of South's bridge reasoning?

[PeterGill]

I think South's comment is a self-servng comment which, like most self-serving comments made to ACs, should be ignored. There's no evidence to back up what he says. Bid on a 4 count into a potential misfit? Sounds unlikely to me - but it's the sort of thing which is easy to claim afterwards that you would have done.