[KurtGodel]

First off a bidding question:

---

What is your call?

You were probably expecting this to be a normal hesitation issue but...

Spoiler

The full deal was in fact:

---

double was alerted and West asked, and was told by North that it showed 3 or fewer spades and was takeout. The director was called as soon as dummy came down to let him know what happened. The hand was played and the result was 4♠x-1. EW called the director to the table afterwards and said that they felt they were damaged as they thought the auction had suggested that South bid 4♠. The director had a look at their convention cards and it said that one convention card they played this convention, and on the other it was crossed out (but said "yes" next to it). The director went away and returned saying that it was pretty clear for South to bid game because his partner had shown a very good hand by bidding 2♠. East then pointed out that South was not entitled to the information that North was showing a good hand, he should only think that his partner is showing a weak no trump with 4 spades, and that he can only be bidding 4♠ if there is no logical alternative here. South says he thinks bidding 4♠ is clear because of the law of total tricks. North said that he just wanted to bid 2♠ to compete.
The director returns and says that the table result stands, EW ask him whether he polled any players and he said he just polled the directors as they didn't have the time in a small event (60 tables). EW elected to appeal. The appeal committee was made up of one experienced tournament player, one experienced tournament director and one less experienced tournament director (despite the fact that two internationals - Mike Bell and Glyn Liggins - were present). EW stated their case, the committee said that they did not feel like this was a UI case, and that South had just deviated from their system. North could not be 5xx6 as they would have doubled 2♣.

Your thoughts? I've tried to make this as impartial as possible, but I was in fact involved. I will tell you exactly how later.
Thanks.

[paulg]

South would have to be convincing to persuade me that he'd remembered the system and then had decided to deviate from it in this situation. The AC has had the advantage of hearing his views and he appears to have done the job with them - in such circumstances their decision to leave the table result is reasonable given their belief that there was no infraction.

However I'm surprised. I'd have expected South to imply some doubt about their methods and then I'd rule it back to four hearts as pass is clearly an LA and 4S has more upside when you have a spade or two more than partner expects.

[ahydra]

I don't like this ruling at all, what East said at the table is correct ("South was not entitled to the information that North was showing a good hand, he should only think that his partner is showing a weak no trump with 4 spades, and that he can only be bidding 4♠ if there is no logical alternative here") and pass is an LA for South. Score should be adjusted to 4H=.

ahydra

[KurtGodel]

As this was in EBU land it would be interesting to here what Gordon has to say.

[aguahombre]

I cannot imagine how the jurisdiction would matter here. South has UI which could/would/did suggest 4S over the LA of PASS.

It doesn't even matter whether the UI South has is consistent with North's actual holding.

[lamford]

Even if their methods were that double showed three or fewer spades and South forgot, South still has UI and Law 75 tells us that he must continue to believe that his double showed four spades. Pass is clearly an LA, and I suspect one or more facts are inaccurately reported. North would not bid 2S if he thought his partner had a takeout double of 1H with three or fewer spades.

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2015-June-14, 18:14, said:

I suspect one or more facts are inaccurately reported.

On that we fully agree. No "international" anything...player or director could possibly think there was no UI. Actually, if there was no UI to South, then North misstated their agreements and told a porky about why he bid 2S. I don't want to believe North did that.

[gordontd]

 KurtGodel, on 2015-June-14, 06:22, said:

As this was in EBU land it would be interesting to here what Gordon has to say.

It doesn't sound as though it was an EBU event as we have a policy against having our TDs on appeals committees unless there is really no practical alternative.

[gwnn]

I don't understand this hand at all. Why did N bid 2♠ if he really thought his partner denied 4 spades?

[KurtGodel]

Well I can tell you now that I was East and I really have given you all the information that there is. This was an EBU event (Oxfordshire congress), and I could give the names of all the people involved if you want. I was basically wondering whether it was worth appealing this to the Laws and Ethics committee.
Yes 2♠ is clearly mental, but you pay your table money, you can bid what you want.

[helene_t]

South invokes the lott but there may be as little as 16 total trumps (assuming ns plays 5cM) and 17 is quite likely even if they play 4cM. So 4S is by no means obvious.

This is an adjustment and a pp.

[KurtGodel]

 helene_t, on 2015-June-15, 05:29, said:

South invokes the lott but there may be as little as 16 total trumps (assuming ns plays 5cM) and 17 is quite likely even if they play 4cM. So 4S is by no means obvious.

This is an adjustment and a pp.

pp?

[blackshoe]

 KurtGodel, on 2015-June-15, 06:19, said:

pp?

Procedural penalty. See Law 90.

[RMB1]

 KurtGodel, on 2015-June-15, 02:34, said:

I was basically wondering whether it was worth appealing this to the Laws and Ethics committee.

It would be good if you said this from the outset so that some of us could stop reading.

The secretary of the Laws and Ethics committee can help if you are considering such an appeal.

[gordontd]

 KurtGodel, on 2015-June-15, 02:34, said:

This was an EBU event (Oxfordshire congress)

That makes it not an EBU event, but a county event, so I'll keep out of this.

[KurtGodel]

 gordontd, on 2015-June-15, 07:50, said:

That makes it not an EBU event, but a county event, so I'll keep out of this.

OK I didn't realise there was a distinction. They were wearing the red shirts so I just assumed.

[blackshoe]

Redshirt.

[KurtGodel]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-15, 10:36, said:

Redshirt.

Sadly the director was not sent on a foreboding mission.

[weejonnie]

What UI does South have? That North was prepared to bid 2 Spades opposite a 3-card (or even fewer cards) suit - and so won't have a weak 4-card suit (which he might have absent the UI) - but should have a pretty good 5-card suit.
South knows of course that the vulnerability is in his favour so the question now is: is 4 Spades demonstrably suggested by the raise. With a good spade fit and favourable vulnerability I would say yes! Is there a logical alternative? yes! Pass - Let North choose - South hasn't very much extra.

So we conduct a poll - to verify if a pass is a LA.

re comment: "South had deviated from system." There is of course a possibility that North has made a call that allowed for partner having made a wrong call (raising to 2S on a 'known' 4-3 (or even 4-2!) fit) - did South Hesitate or give any UI himself? This could be a fielded misbid (EBU rules are that 'if it seemed' as though such a breach had occurred then the rules are to award an artificial adjusted score av+, av- - breach of laws 40A, 40B) Now this is described as applying in an EBU event. Assuming the EBU are the RA doesn't it mean that it applies to all events in England?

If North has no UI then he can do what he likes - but why bid 2♠ and not 2♦ when South could have had:-

♠43
♥76
♦AQJ42
♣JT43

(Which seems more likely)

[Vampyr]

 aguahombre, on 2015-June-14, 20:19, said:

On that we fully agree. No "international" anything...player or director could possibly think there was no UI.

This is at best tangential to the topic at hand, since there is no evidence that any "international" anything was asked their opinion.

Counties pay money to the EBU as a condition of holding events. I think that the EBU is, ultimately, responsible for what goes on at them.