[arrows]

Ok, This is the story of this hand,
happened in the same round, exactly just before the other one I posted in
another thread. You must be right if you found it hard to believe,
because even I couldn't believe it.

Our opponents (East-West) hold the cards in question, I sit North.
It was rotated and the actual layout is:

Scoring: IMP

---

N-----------E-----------S-----------W
P------------P(1)--------P-----------1♣(2)
p------------1♥(3)------P-----------2N(4)
P------------3♣(5)------P-----------3♦(6)
P------------3N(7)-------P-----------4♥
all pass

(7) break of tempo

It tooks about 20-30 seconds for East to bid that "serious" 3NT. Then
it's my partner's turn and he called director for the irregularity.
And that seems irritated our opponents, "What's the problem? 3NT was an
artificial call!", they said. Director asked the situation, I said west
thought "obviously longer than 10 seconds" before bidding 3NT, and neither
of our opponents denied there was a break of tempo.

3NT was explained as "serious", showing a good hand in the context and
further interest. With no delay, west drew out of 4 hearts, and it
concluded the auction.

The lead was a club..., when defense gained the lead, we continued with club
to force dummy, because of the bad break of trumps, declarer only made 4.

After the play, I called the director and said east hesitated before 3NT, and
west then only bid 4H with an non-minimum hand and all primary cards.

west argued that east's first pass already denied a mini-NT opening hand and
so forth, I asked "Do you open 1NT also with unbalanced hand?",
to which west responded with: "Do you think you know more of our system
than us?".

While I am in pain of searching anwser to west's challenge, the director
asked me if what I was trying to say is because of the break in tempo of east,
west failed to bid more positively, I said yes. The director then took the
board and ask us to continue with the next.

Up to this point, E-W only mentioned that, having not bid 3 spades, East
denied spade Ace or King. But no other additional agreement had been
mentioned and explained.

Later, the director told me the ruling was the table result stands.
I appealed, Wouldn't you? I am also puzzled that how the director got to
that conclusion.

During the hearing session that night, In the routine of "introduce yourself",
the chief didn't forget to add, "of course, we all know who you are",
he said toward east-west.

I said given East showing slam interest, holding West's hand, one could hardly
construct a East's hand for which slam has no reasonable play. Hey, not to
mention West had totally given up the slam investigation at game level.

East-West then came up with all the "additional agreements" I listed
earlier. They seem make some sense. So I asked the committee to ask them
whether they can provide any documentation for their "agreement",
they said there were none, they just play this way.

I don't know, please correct me if I am wrong, because I really would like
to learn more about this process. I guess "agreements" without evidence
are just self-serving claims, the committee should not based their decision on
these claims. In this case, the serious 3NT should be considered as general
slam invitation with no specific implications unless East-West can prove other
agreements do exist.

Also, consider the probablity that a seasoned partnership and world
champions, do not have any notes for such kind of agreements. Who knows,
anything happens these days.

The players then asked to wait outside while the committee discuss the case,
A quarter later, I was told the final ruling. The director's ruling stands and
I was given a penalty point for APPEAL WITHOUT MERIT. And the
opponents DIDN'T EVEN SHOW UP when the committee address
their final decisions.

I didn't expect to win before I went to the hearing, because their
team sponsored by a figure of prominent in the world of ACBL, and who are we?
I understand the economics, or politics, or whatever you call it, behind the
decision of ruling and appeal. However, giving me a "appeal without merit" is
just carrying this idea far beyond the imagination of us merely mortals.

The committee, fisrt, somehow, managed to find the hesitation was "about
10 seconds" instead of "obviously longer than 10 seconds".

Second, they doubt there's any UI at all, because "given such a complicated
problem East had to face" Here, I really feel impetuous to defend for East.

Their "agreement" clearly stated
3 hearts showing 5+ hearts, 3 spades showing spade A or K, 4 clubs showing
all strength outside clubs, All are HARD requirement. (well, it's designed to
eliminate any uncertainty, anyway)

If East was not pondering over the choice between 3NT and 4H, she must
have a hard time to count the number of hearts, spade ace or king, or if all
clubs were telephone numbers.
Therefore, the committee was basically saying,
according to their own argument, East was an imbecile, which I, of course, totally,
absolutely, disagree!

Finally, I was admonished, "Be very careful to bring up appeal case in the
future". Obviously, the committee concluded that my reason of appeal is
totally unjustified. and what is this, a mafia meeting?

For the technical side, the committee said "they spent no time on the bridge side
of this hand...." what they tried to say is my argument was totally nonsense.

They based their decision on E-W's self-serving claims, this is already way out of
the line. In addition,
even East-west do have the agreement as they said, slam is far from out
of the question.
For example, east may have:
1. ♠xxxx ♥ AJxx ♦ xx ♣ Axx
in a good day, you make grand
2. ♠ x ♥ AJxx ♦ QJxxx ♣ xxx
slam is almost lay-down
and so forth.

I look forward to reading the appeal case book of 2005 fall NABC.

[FrancesHinden]

You're obviously very upset about this, but to be honest I would rule exactly as the TD and the AC did including the Appeal Without Merit Warning.

Try and look at it as a third party would: to put it bluntly you are asking for an adjusted score because you don't agree with West's bidding.

You seem to be saying that your judgement is better than West's and West should have made a slam try. As making a slam try would (might) have resulted in a minus score, it's somehow not fair that they stopped at the 4-level.

The _only_ thing that I don't like about what happened (as you describe it) is the the way the ruling was given with, apparantly, the TD not really explaining his ruling. Let me tell you how I would have given the ruling, and see if that helps:

i) I ask you what the problem is, and you explain that East broke tempo before bidding 3NT. I establish that there was a break in tempo.

ii) I find out what the auction means, in particular that 3NT is artificial.

now the important bit
iii) I try and work out why a slow 3NT would suggest to West that bidding 4H is likely to be more successful than making another slam try, and I can't.

iv) I ask you why the slow 3NT suggests that signing off in 4H is likely to be right. You haven't said anywhere in your very long post _why_ bidding 3NT slowly suggests a sign off is correct.

To me, a slow 3NT indicates that he was considering other actions. These could be a cue bid, a sign off, trying to remember the system in a fairly complex piece of relay kit, wondering if 3NT was natural.... there is no indication to me that says "we should sign off now"

v) As I cannot see that the slow 3NT suggests one action over another, I rule result stands.

[FrancesHinden]

Quote

I didn't expect to win before I went to the hearing, because their
team sponsored by a figure of prominent in the world of ACBL, and who are we?
I understand the economics, or politics, or whatever you call it, behind the
decision of ruling and appeal. However, giving me a "appeal without merit" is
just carrying this idea far beyond the imagination of us merely mortals.

Well, I cannot speak for the ACBL at all and I understand that their ACs are actually paid. But I feel insulted-by-proxy, if you like!

I am a member of the EBU panel of referees, which means I frequently chair ACs. I can promise you that the ACs I sit on are never biased in favour of sponsors or experts. In fact, experts are usually held to higher standards with regard to disclosure and UI because they are generally expected to understand the rules and apply them (as a minimum, they are far more likely to be given a procedural penalty).

However, there is often a feeling that hesitation & similar rulings are given in favour of experts, because many people seem to believe in "if it hesitates, shoot it" i.e. if the opponents think and then get a good board, it's somehow underserved.

[000002]

The hand 2aces+4cards ♥ is NOT enough to bid a serious 3nt, serious means that i have 2pionts extra over the prior promise.

It's a leap to 6♥ surely if she is a expert player,OFCZ,now i think she is advanced only,and maybe novice because of 4♥ rebid.

The committee is poor ,very poor, just like my english pronunciation.

[FrancesHinden]

00002 you seem to be saying the same thing: I disagree with the bidding, therefore I deserve an adjusted score.

[hrothgar]

000002, on Dec 8 2005, 01:52 PM, said:

The hand 2aces+4cards ♥ is NOT enough to bid a serious 3nt, serious means that i have 2pionts extra over the prior promise.

The player who made the Serious 3NT is a passed hand playing a strong club system with a 10-12 HCP 1NT opening. Furthermore, the 3NT bid denies the King of Spades...

Its pretty damn difficult to construct a stronger hand consistent with the bidding

[david_c]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 8 2005, 11:31 AM, said:

Try and look at it as a third party would: to put it bluntly you are asking for an adjusted score because you don't agree with West's bidding.

Seems a bit harsh. I read arrows' argument as being:

3NT in tempo = serious slam try
3NT after a hesitation = unsure as to whether it is worth a serious slam try

If you agree with this then the sign-off should be disallowed. I don't think I do agree with this, but the argument seems to have merit at least. Unless the TD specifically addressed the question of what the hesitation suggests in his ruling, I'm surprised at the AWMW. Maybe arrows managed to rub the committee up the wrong way.

[hrothgar]

david_c, on Dec 8 2005, 04:33 PM, said:

Seems a bit harsh. I read arrows' argument as being:

3NT in tempo = serious slam try
3NT after a hesitation = unsure as to whether it is worth a serious slam try

If you agree with this then the sign-off should be disallowed. I don't think I do agree with this, but the argument seems to have merit at least. Unless the TD specifically addressed the question of what the hesitation suggests in his ruling, I'm surprised at the AWMW. Maybe arrows managed to rub the committee up the wrong way.

What's the old line... "if it hesitates, shoot it"?

Hesitation rulings are very complicated. Consider the following two situations:

Example 1: The Serious 3NT bidder made a hesitation. His partner decided to signoff in game and 10 tricks were made. The non-offending side decides to appeal since the hesitation obviously suggests that the 3NT bidder has a minimum hand.

Example 2: The Serious 3NT bidder made a hesitation. His partner decided to explore slam. The partnership rested in 6♥ and 12 tricks were made. The non-offending side decides to appeal since the the hesitation obviously suggests that the 3NT bidder has a maximum hand.

In and of itself, the hesitation can be used to support either line of reasoning. Accordingly, a decision to adjust based on the hesitation makes the hesitation an infraction. Argument could be made that players should be hit with proceedural penalties simply based on hesitations, however, this is not the way the system currently works.

As Frances has already noted, adjustments require an additional causal link. You need to demonstrate why the hesitation suggested one course of action rather than another. The fact that the partner chose the correct action is not sufficient.

[david_c]

hrothgar, on Dec 8 2005, 02:48 PM, said:

What's the old line...  "if it hesitates, shoot it"?

Hesitation rulings are very complicated.

All the more reason not to issue an AWMW.

Really, the ruling is fine, but an AWMW seems harsh to me. The issue is what (if anything) is suggested by the hesitation, and I rate this as a close decision.

I don't think that "Example 1" and "Example 2" are comparable, because in the crcumstances it's highly unlikely that the 3NT bidder was considering making a stronger bid. Clearly an appeal in "Example 2" would have no merit whatsoever. Of course, there are more possible reasons for the hesitation than just trying to evaluate the strength of the hand, which is why I agree with the ruling.

[arrows]

Quote

now the important bit
iii) I try and work out why a slow 3NT would suggest to West that bidding 4H is likely to be more successful than making another slam try, and I can't.

iv) I ask you why the slow 3NT suggests that signing off in 4H is likely to be right. You haven't said anywhere in your very long post _why_ bidding 3NT slowly suggests a sign off is correct.

Ok, my fault, I didn't mention it because I thought is so obvious for any reasonable players.

because East had passed, If there's any problem about this 3NT, it must be too
weak, not too strong, there's only one direction one can expect.

Isn't it clear? signoff 4H is obviously likely to be right after the hesitation.
and a in tempo 3NT would have made the signoff virtually impossible, as examples
many people has already listed here.

[arrows]

Quote

I am a member of the EBU panel of referees, which means I frequently chair ACs. I can promise you that the ACs I sit on are never biased in favour of sponsors or experts. In fact, experts are usually held to higher standards with regard to disclosure and UI because they are generally expected to understand the rules and apply them (as a minimum, they are far more likely to be given a procedural penalty).

since you must be knowledgeable in this area, Could you please explain for us

1. How the "agreement" of East-West said they have but cannot prove such agreement do exist, should be used in the appeal process?

2. Usually, what does the committee should do, when one side of the appealing doesn't show up for the final decision?

Thanks in advance

[inquiry]

I agree with the DIRECTOR and the COMMITTEE.

4♥ seems clear bid based upon briidge logic as described.

The logic is 3NT,
A) Denies five hearts
Promises "values" in clubs, and since slam try this must be the ACE
C) Denies the spade KING

Clearly, partner must have four hearts to the ACE and the club ACE (without club ace he would bid 4♣ or 4♥, without heart ace, he wouldn't have a slam try.

We have at least a 50% spade loser (we might have two spade losers if partner has xxx of spades). We have a potential diamond loser, and if trumps are not 3-2 (16% of the time) we are likely to have a trump loser as well. Based upon the information available, WEST can evaulate fairly accuartely that slam is likely to have less than 50% at this very moment.

On top of that, there are plenty of explaination for the hesisition beyond "oh my god, I am very mininum for my slam try". In fact, I would suggest that the hand instead of being minimum is darn near maxium. I would have also considered the appeal without merit.

[Fluffy]

From the decision on the other board changing 5♥ to 6♥ I wouldn't be surprised if the director was slightly biased to agree on anything E-W said.

I've seen that before, a director has to rule against a great player, ,the great player explains loads of reasons of why that affectd him, the director has no clue about what he is talkign about, but he is famous so he should be right.....

Of course these case could be completelly different.

[han]

I agree with everything that Frances said.

I also agree with the committee in suggesting that you should be more careful in the future before making an appeal.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 8 2005, 05:36 AM, said:

Well, I cannot speak for the ACBL at all and I understand that their ACs are actually paid.

Maybe they are at the National level, but I doubt it. As someone who is often on AC's at Regionals and at my country's team championship, I can assure you that we don't get paid! And I would be strongly opposed to any suggestion that we ought to be.

I share Frances' view of the rest of the issues, and reject any suggestion that experts get preferential treatment. This idea has existed for as long as my memory serves, and no doubt for decades before then. Part of the problem is that most members of ACs are experts and thus know and may be friendly with the expert parties while having no interaction with the less experienced. Thus we get unfortunate comments such as 'we know who you are' addressed (often in friendly or respectful tones) to the experts while the less experienced players, who often have little experience at AC's, are nervous and are treated relatively coldly.

All ACs should try to be completely neutral in the manner in which they address all parties, and should definitely NOT convey to less well known players that the experts are more welcome. This takes a very determined approach, since it is alien to common social niceties.

The perception of bias is even more damaging than the (invariably absent in my experience) presence of bias.

[000002]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 8 2005, 07:19 AM, said:

00002 you seem to be saying the same thing: I disagree with the bidding, therefore I deserve an adjusted score.

oh NO

The fact is clear,the hesitation cause 4♥ rebid,and it's underbid with her hand. 90% of experts agree a 4♦ /4nt/6♥ rebid, the few recommends 4♥.

[Kalvan14]

In every kind of sport event big teams or players are rumored to get a preferential treatment, and I suppose that this is often true. Most of the time, the preferential treatment is just what happened to you: some deference, first-name greetings, you know what.
Obviously this does not much to bolster the self-confidence of the other guy (who - to tell the truth - often makes things worse by adopting an aggressive stance against the committee).

This said, and remembering that hesitations are often tricky to judge, i can understand rejecting the appeal. IMHO, adding insult to injury is bit too much...

[arrows]

We already had a pretty thorough debate in the bridge side. Of course, you
can signoff with primary cards after partner showing slam interest. that's your
judgement. For me, It's just appalling to see someone, holding these cards,
sign off immediately over a break-in-tempo slam invitation without a qualm

Also, those who support the ruling, never want to address the problem how
the "agreement" without evidence should be used in appeal cases.
I don't expect to see it in the case book either. Actually, they probably won't
even mention it.

[mike777]

arrows, on Dec 8 2005, 10:03 PM, said:

We already had a pretty thorough debate in the bridge side. Of course, you
can signoff with primary cards after partner showing slam interest. that's your
judgement.   For me, It's just appalling to see someone, holding these cards,
sign off immediately over a break-in-tempo slam invitation without a qualm

Also, those who support the ruling, never want to address the problem how
the "agreement" without evidence should be used in appeal cases.
I don't expect to see it in the case book either. Actually, they probably won't
even mention it.

I do not understand, what "evidence of agreement" do you want? The appeal is usually heard at 1 am in the morning. My notes are 5 miles away in hotel or 2000 miles away at home, assuming I have any notes.

Why does anyone need to show up for the final decision, I gave my testimony, why show up for verdict rather than go to bed?

I do not understand what is appalling? If the hesitation suggests bidding on as the AC suggested and partner passed what is the issue?

I understand you are upset but I do not see what the heck your points/evidence are? I reread what you have typed several times but I see no case here.

[000002]

Kalvan14, on Dec 8 2005, 08:25 PM, said:

Obviously this does not much to bolster the self-confidence of the other guy (who - to tell the truth - often makes things worse by adopting an aggressive stance against the committee).

This said, and remembering that hesitations are often tricky to judge, i can understand rejecting the appeal. IMHO, adding insult to injury is  bit too much...

Justicer should be equity,and a gentleman,real gentleman should be too.

OFCZ, i'm not now ,but i think i can say what i think.


She is underbid after partner's hesitation,why?
why she did NOT bid normally?
the reason is possible with these: she is not an expert player,but the another possibility is that she read this illegal information and use it.