[kenberg]

I recall a time when often players would ask opponents to please not alert their bids, exactly because they felt some opponents gained too much advantage from their own alerts. Similarly they read their opponent's cc instead of asking for an explanation. Of course this was taken as insulting, but it had, with some pairs, a basis in fact. This may well be such a case.

It's my view (and I know that I am not learned in the legal details) that when opponents show up not knowing whether their jump overcalls are weak or strong, and thus presumably not real clear on what they or their partner might mean by a strong jump overcall or what a raise should be based on, there should be a very high standard applied to bids that occur after an explanation that obviously has the potential to influence their actions.

[bhall]

kenberg, on Sep 30 2007, 03:06 PM, said:

It's my view (and I know that I am not learned in the legal details) that when opponents show up not knowing whether their jump overcalls are weak or strong, and thus presumably not real clear on what they or their partner might mean by a strong jump overcall or what a raise should be based on, there should be a very high standard applied to bids that occur after an explanation that obviously has the potential to influence their actions.

I agree. There is little chance that either opponent, the director, or any committee members, would know the Culbertson requirements. The only thing that would be relevant, in the event of an appeal, is how the overcaller defines the raise of a SJO. If he can't produce evidence for that definition, then he can't be allowed to bid 4S.

[ArtK78]

The Culbertson requirements for a strong jump overcall consisted of a near game forcing hand. Thus, the actual hand would fail to qualify.

It is difficult to say what the "modern" requirements for a strong jump overcall are, since almost no one plays them. I found this example on a web site of a strong 3♣ overcall of an opponent's 1♦ opening bid:

A32
----
AJ63
AKQ632

Clearly, this is not up to the old Culbertson standards, but it is much more than an intermediate jump overcall.

I would assume that the raise would be invitational. It is fairly standard practice of TDs to try to find about 5 players of similar ability to the player who made the strong jump overcall to poll them as to whether they would accept the invitation on this auction. As was previously pointed out, since almost no one plays strong jump overcalls, this will pose quite a problem. So, the TD will be left to his own judgment. He can try to find out from the bidder what the partnership understanding is for the strength of a strong jump overcall, but any information gathered in this manner would be self-serving.

So, the TD is left to his own judgment. As the hand in question has 5 losers, I don't believe that the TD should let the call stand given the UI conveyed by advancer's answer to the opponent's query about the meaning of the overcall.

[Codo]

Everybody so far agreed that there had been an UI.
I don´t get it yet.

There are two possible scenarios:
1. They have the agreement that 2 Spade shows a weak jump. In this case your lho misbid his hand but has any right to bid Spade now.

2. They agreed on strong jumpshifts, in this case he should have clarified after the final pass and TD should have been called. The TD should have allowed you to replace the final pass and should later judge whether there was an UI and a damage.
Of course there was an UI, but the TD must judge whether there are logical alternatives to the 4 Spade bid.
I think that there are some clues for a pass of 3 Spade with rhos hand, so I had judged for 3 Spade + 1.
But I had adviced them to take this to a committee. Maybe the AC will judge that pass in no LA and that the score stands.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on Sep 30 2007, 10:53 PM, said:

Hannie, on Sep 30 2007, 02:16 PM, said:

Agree with the appeal.

I appealed none of the three rulings.

I checked, and no positions would have changed, even ours (thankfully). Further, I know how these things go. Dinner is delayed so that three jokers can tell me how I lose again, and two idiots get even more affirmation.

Ken, if you aren't willing to appeal these sorts of rulings, stop whining about them:

Virtually everyone of this list is agreeing with you on each of the rulings in question. The TDs seem to be making some pretty basic mistakes. But you know what: The TDs are not going to miraculously get better at doing their job. They need feedback if / when they are making mistakes.

Having random players tell them they they got a ruling wrong doesn't mean jack *****. I suspect that a significant portion of appeals results in one side or another believing that the TD is clueless, they were robbed, whatever.

On the other hand, having an appeals committee reverse a TD's decision is (often) a sign that the TD has made a mistake. It might actually get through the TDs thick skull. (I say often because there are some well known examples where TDs have been instructed to do silly things like automatically rule against the non-offending side and straighten stuff out in committee). Moreover, one might hope that a TD who consistently gets everything wrong might not get the opportunity to practice their craft in serious events...

[FrancesHinden]

awm, on Sep 30 2007, 07:25 PM, said:

Seems to me that it's clear there was UI (partner thinks the overcall was weak) and that the UI suggests bidding (partner likely to have enough for game opposite the strong hand if raising the weak hand). The question is whether passing is really a logical alternative.

The normal way to determine this is to poll various players and see what they think. The problem is that virtually no modern player uses strong jump overcalls, so it will be difficult to poll accurately (at least without giving more specific definition of what qualifies for a SJO and what qualifies for a single raise).

However, I tend to believe that "result stands" is the correct ruling. It seems likely that the same hand with only six spades would qualify for a SJO (AQJxxx and two side aces). This hand is a trick better because of the extra trump, and there is likelihood of a ten-card fit after the raise. So it seems like passing 3♠ is probably not a LA.

I agree with all of this.

In my - very limited - experience of opponents playing SJOs, they are not usually quite as strong as is suggested here, more like the 'top end' of an intermediate JO -typically a hand that would open at the 1-level and make a jump rebid after a 1-level response (or a 2/1 in an Acol-style system) say 15-18 HCP, nice 6-card suit.

Yes, the UI suggests bidding on. In fact, if the raise is constructive opposite a WJO we probably have slam on.

However, in my - very limited - experience of opponents playing SJOs they bid game on this auction 99% of the time when partner raises. They look at their hand, think " gosh, this is a nice hand and partner has raised " and forget they have already shown a good hand.

Subject to all the investigations everyone else has suggested, I would probably also have let the score stand. But an appeal certainly has merit.

I'm also interested as to how the overcaller got the UI - was the overcall alerted and someone asked?

[matmat]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 1 2007, 07:42 AM, said:

However, in my - very limited - experience of opponents playing SJOs they bid game on this auction 99% of the time when partner raises. They look at their hand, think " gosh, this is a nice hand and partner has raised " and forget they have already shown a good hand.

are you suggesting that some us have a tendency to bid our values more than once?!?!?!?!?
the horror!

[kenberg]

Curiosity: Where did you find this game?

I play some in the ACBL indy: 1S pass 3D. Uh oh. I played her for a strong jump shift and Oh Happy Day it was. But even in that environment I think the default understanding is the jump overcalls are weak. I'm not arguing that they should be, especially if red against white, I am just saying that it seems to me that you can go into any club, at least any in the USA, play with a pick-up, and expect jump overcalls to be weak if they have not been discussed. Possible exception: A high stakes game scored by total points.

So maybe they discussed it and agreed strong (whatever that may mean, probably he meant "not weak") but forgot? It seems that even after my fourth glass of wine I would remember strong jump overcalls.


Probably you don't know how this confusion came about but to me the bizzarity of it exceeds the unfairness of it.

[TimG]

kenrexford, on Sep 30 2007, 07:25 AM, said:

That's what I thought.

It didn't matter, but I thought that a director's ruling this weekend was on the list of worst I've seen.

My RHO jump-overcalled 2♠ with something like AQJxxxx-Axx-Ax-x. His partner explained this as a weak jump overcall, clarifying that it showed about 6-10 HCP. Advancer then raised to 3♠, which was raised to game.

I think that without UI there is no alternative to bidding game. With the UI, the overcaller would be concerned about missing a slam. I think he did the ethically right thing in only bidding game rather than trying for slam.

[gwnn]

I wholeheartedly agree with Ken (I join in the ever growing group). I think you were robbed and the director had no idea what he was on about.

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on Oct 1 2007, 06:55 AM, said:

Ken, if you aren't willing to appeal these sorts of rulings, stop whining about them:

This was a friggin' regional tournament! I'll be damned if I'm going to have a group of my peers miss dinner so that they can listen to my drivel about how two elderly boneheads broke the rules and should have adjusted scores, and how they should award me the extra points necessary so that I can get another smidge of gold points on my total, especially if the points did not change. That would be damned embarassing and quite a low point. LOL

I was curious, though, how my peers here would rule, in case these situations occur in an event that matters to me more or where it makes a difference. I also find it constantly annoying how useless these TD's can be at times.

[matmat]

kenrexford, on Oct 1 2007, 06:48 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Oct 1 2007, 06:55 AM, said:

Ken, if you aren't willing to appeal these sorts of rulings, stop whining about them:

This was a friggin' regional tournament! I'll be damned if I'm going to have a group of my peers miss dinner so that they can listen to my drivel about how two elderly boneheads broke the rules and should have adjusted scores, and how they should award me the extra points necessary so that I can get another smidge of gold points on my total, especially if the points did not change. That would be damned embarassing and quite a low point. LOL

I was curious, though, how my peers here would rule, in case these situations occur in an event that matters to me more or where it makes a difference. I also find it constantly annoying how useless these TD's can be at times.

have you considered writing a letter to the editor of the ACBL bulletin, or whatnot?

[1eyedjack]

I always thought that a SJO was a hand that you or I would start with a double and then introduce the suit voluntarily next round (not playing equal level conversion). That would probably be a bit weaker than the Culbertson classic.

As to whether *you* are the cause of them missing dinner by reason of the appeal, that rather depends on whether or not you win the appeal. If you win it, then the director was the cause.

[helene_t]

Playing in Negland with a p/o partner, asked him what jump overcalls he prefered. He said "strong".

"How strong?"

"5-6 tricks"

Here in NL, intermediate JO are often refered to as "strong". In fact I don't know how to translate "intermediate" to Dutch. "Gemiddelde sprongvolgbod" klinkt niet goed.

Logically, a strong overcall could mean that it promises a hand too strong for a simple overcall, as opposed to an IJO which promises a hand in the upper part of the overcall range. This might be slightly less than an Acol two-opening, depending on overcall style of course.

[irdoz]

So this thread is about the 6 essential steps you go through to seek your peers opinions on a ruling in a totally unbiased way...

1. You introduce the subject by an irrelevant question.

2. You don't possibly intend to influence peoples opinions in the slighest possible way by prejudging tyhe outcome by describing the ruling as the worst ever seen.

3. You then outline why this decision is the worst ever.

4. You indicate your impartiality and lack of emotional involvement by describing the opponents as idiots and elderly boneheads as a further indication that you don;t want to countenance different views.

5. You don't appeal what is the 'worst ever decision' by seeking a ruling from your peers because you might lose the appeal.

6. You present all relevant evidence including all of the hands.

And then when comments are given - a number of which seem to be saying that maybe the directors decision was possibly correct - you say thats it unanimous in shock and awe about such a wrong decision. This method seems to have gained an totally accurate and unbiased assessment of peer opinions.

[han]

helene_t, on Oct 2 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

I don't know how to translate "intermediate" to Dutch. "Gemiddelde sprongvolgbod" klinkt niet goed.

A "zo'n-beetje-er-tussenin volgbod".

[kenrexford]

irdoz, on Oct 2 2007, 08:15 AM, said:

So this thread is about the 6 essential steps you go through to seek your peers opinions on a ruling in a totally unbiased way...

1. You introduce the subject by an irrelevant question.

2. You don't possibly intend to influence peoples opinions in the slighest possible way by prejudging tyhe outcome by describing the ruling as the worst ever seen.

3. You then outline why this decision is the worst ever.

4. You indicate your impartiality and lack of emotional involvement by describing the opponents as idiots and elderly boneheads as a further indication that you don;t want to countenance different views.

5. You don't appeal what is the 'worst ever decision' by seeking a ruling from your peers because you might lose the appeal.

6. You present all relevant evidence including all of the hands.

And then when comments are given - a number of which seem to be saying that maybe the directors decision was possibly correct - you say thats it unanimous in shock and awe about such a wrong decision. This method seems to have gained an totally accurate and unbiased assessment of peer opinions.

I'm a criminal defense attorney. You just stated my job perfectly.

[han]

helene_t, on Oct 2 2007, 07:41 AM, said:

In fact I don't know how to translate "intermediate" to Dutch.

Matmat just told me "Han" is a pretty good translation of "intermediate" but I don't like that.

[matmat]

kenrexford, on Oct 2 2007, 01:28 PM, said:

I'm a criminal defense attorney. You just stated my job perfectly.

heh

i think you fall into the "lawful evil" category.