[jtfanclub]

barmar, on Jul 25 2007, 03:14 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Jul 24 2007, 04:43 PM, said:

  So the sequence 'shows spades', so to speak.

The question wasn't whether it show a spade stopper, it was whether the checkback followed by pulling 3♥ to 3NT implies 4 spades.

I understand what the question was intended to ask, but the only reason I can think of that they wouldn't get an AWM was that they thought the actual question, whether the bidding 'showed spades', was asking about spade stoppers. Maybe they come from a planet where 2NT denies 4 spades and therefore it didn't occur to them that the question would be asking about spade length.

[Elianna]

I've seen it said many places that Appeals committees can't issue PPs.

As is written, I have a lot of sympathy for N, because it seems that he and South were playing two different meanings for this sequence of bidding (and my bet is that South didn't know what he was doing). However, both the director and appeals committee got it right because without evidence to the contrary, they need to assume it was a mistaken explanation, not a mistaken bid.

I understand the non-AWM because of the sympathy with N's position. I'd also understand the AWM.

[TimG]

Elianna, on Jul 25 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

I've seen it said many places that Appeals committees can't issue PPs.

I've been assigned a PP by a national appeals committee. It was in 1998, so maybe the rules have changed since then, but I don't think so.

[FrancesHinden]

No-one's ever suggested to me that Appeals Committees cannot issue PPs, and ACs that I have chaired have done so more than once (admittedly not in the US).

As for this particular appeal, here is one possible way to interpret what happened:

North: 1C
South: 1H
North: 2NT (1)
South: 3D (2)
North: 3H (3)
South: 3NT (4)
North: Pass (5)

1: strong balanced, may have 4 spades, won't have 4 hearts
2: checkback/NMF/some other similar convention
3: 3-card heart support
4a: (North) implies 4-4 in the majors, offering choice of 4S or 3NT; if partner bid 3S that would imply 4-5 in the majors
4b: (South) offering choice of 4H or 3NT, if I had spades I'd bid them
[4a alternative: implies 4-5 in the majors, offering 3-way choice of game]
[4b alternative: offering choice of 4H or 3NT, partner denied 4S when he rebid 2NT]
5. OK let's try for a top in 3NT (shows dubious judgement in my view with such a prime hand for play in hearts, but that's irrelevant)

When East asked the question and North responded, South didn't say anything to correct it, because South thought "Oh, of course, partner's right I have implied four spades this way, I should have bid 4H over 3H, I'm lucky he didn't correct to 4S".

North/South's case is thus that the explanation was systemically correct. The TD ruled against them because they couldn't prove it. Doesn't seem to be any requirement for a PP here.

As for an AWMW, I think this is close. In England (where the equivalent is keeping the deposit) it would depend on how N/S presented their case. I've had a pair say, when asked why they are appealing "we always appeal". That gets an AWMW. If they explained at length why the system inferences given by North are in fact correct, and particularly if they presented more evidence than they had to the TD, then they may still be ruled against for lack of sufficient evidence, but not necessarily get a warning.

It's interesting that no-one mentioned the club lead. If I were NS I would suggest that the C10 lead is a 'failure to play bridge' is ACBL-ese, and whatever penalty you give NS, EW should retain their bad score. (I _really_ hate the club lead). On the auction as given and explained a diamond looks obvious: declarer has promised 4+ clubs on the auction by inference - 3 hearts, not 4 spades (no conversion of 3NT to 4S), which implies 3334, 2344 if they may open 1C with 4-4 in the minors, 2335 or 3325. In England it has to be worse than a 'failure to play bridge' and I would still adjust to 3NT making exactly for both sides, but my understanding is that the ACBL is harsher on the non-offending side.

[TimG]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 25 2007, 12:18 PM, said:

No-one's ever suggested to me that Appeals Committees cannot issue PPs, and ACs that I have chaired have done so more than once (admittedly not in the US).

As for this particular appeal, here is one possible way to interpret what happened:

North: 1C
South: 1H
North: 2NT (1)
South: 3D (2)
North: 3H (3)
South: 3NT (4)
North: Pass (5)

1: strong balanced, may have 4 spades, won't have 4 hearts
2: checkback/NMF/some other similar convention
3: 3-card heart support
4a: (North) implies 4-4 in the majors, offering choice of 4S or 3NT; if partner bid 3S that would imply 4-5 in the majors
4b: (South) offering choice of 4H or 3NT, if I had spades I'd bid them
[4a alternative: implies 4-5 in the majors, offering 3-way choice of game]
[4b alternative: offering choice of 4H or 3NT, partner denied 4S when he rebid 2NT]
5. OK let's try for a top in 3NT (shows dubious judgement in my view with such a prime hand for play in hearts, but that's irrelevant)

When East asked the question and North responded, South didn't say anything to correct it, because South thought "Oh, of course, partner's right I have implied four spades this way, I should have bid 4H over 3H, I'm lucky he didn't correct to 4S".

North/South's case is thus that the explanation was systemically correct. The TD ruled against them because they couldn't prove it. Doesn't seem to be any requirement for a PP here.

That does seem to be one possibility, but a possibility that is contraindicated by the write-up which says that the 3♦ bid promised 5 hearts and that the failure to show spades on the second round denied 4-5 in the majors. The explanation did not include disclosure of these agreements.

Maybe they didn't really have these agreements and the write-up is in error. I agree that the failure to assign a PP strongly suggests that the write-up is in error.

But, based upon the facts presented in the write-up, a PP does seem in order.

In summary:

1) the facts as presented in the write-up indicate a PP was in order; and
2) since a PP was not assigned, either the committee was extremely lenient, or the write-up is not clear as to the facts.

I tend to believe that we don't have the whole story.

[jdonn]

You are probably correct the write up is incomplete at best. But all I can say is if a procedural penalty was given for this, they would give out 500 a day. There would need to be clear evidence that south knew north was wrong with his explanation and didn't disclose that fact. It seems like they had no idea what their agreements were, north said what he thought was obvious, and south figured if north said it then it is true. They will always come to the committee claiming to have an agreement whether it's true or not since they surely discussed it after the director call, plus if they don't then north gets the book thrown at him for making one up.

[Cascade]

jdonn, on Jul 26 2007, 10:21 AM, said:

You are probably correct the write up is incomplete at best. But all I can say is if a procedural penalty was given for this, they would give out 500 a day. There would need to be clear evidence that south knew north was wrong with his explanation and didn't disclose that fact. It seems like they had no idea what their agreements were, north said what he thought was obvious, and south figured if north said it then it is true. They will always come to the committee claiming to have an agreement whether it's true or not since they surely discussed it after the director call, plus if they don't then north gets the book thrown at him for making one up.

I think this is the wrong way around.

They need to provide clear evidence that South thought north's explanation was correct.

The law requires you to correct the explanation if in your 'opinion' it is incorrect.

"...the player must inform the opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous"

[TimG]

jdonn, on Jul 25 2007, 05:21 PM, said:

You are probably correct the write up is incomplete at best. But all I can say is if a procedural penalty was given for this, they would give out 500 a day. There would need to be clear evidence that south knew north was wrong with his explanation and didn't disclose that fact. It seems like they had no idea what their agreements were, north said what he thought was obvious, and south figured if north said it then it is true. They will always come to the committee claiming to have an agreement whether it's true or not since they surely discussed it after the director call, plus if they don't then north gets the book thrown at him for making one up.

The problem with this is that they appear to have come to the committee with a clear agreement, but it did not match the description at the table.

They basically said: we have an agreement that the auction doesn't show spades, but we told the opponents that the auction did show spades. And, we don't think we did anything wrong.

[keylime]

Just wait until my appeal hits the table if it got to committee - it is an eerie reoccurance of the "oh s**t" ruling of Vancouver. It was completely unneeded.

[han]

I was dummy on this hand, the write-up wasn't accurate.

[cherdano]

Hannie, on Jul 27 2007, 04:02 PM, said:

I was dummy on this hand, the write-up wasn't accurate.

Uhm, I think you were the defender not on lead...

[han]

Oh right, I was Han Peters on this hand.

[han]

And also, I'm male.