[pclayton]

Scoring: NS Vul

East is dealer

2♣ - 3♦ - double - pass
pass - 3♥ - pass - pass
double* - pass - 3♠ - pass
3N - AP

3♦ showed diamonds or hearts.

* - Opener's double came after a long pause.

---

Table result: +460 EW

Note: poll is wrong - it should be +500 / +200 / -730 EW

[helene_t]

I must be missing something, I don't see any infraction. W has a normal pull, whether 3♠ or something else I dunno but it wouldn't occur to me to pass.

[FrancesHinden]

I don't think pass is a LA on the West cards, but it's beyond me what 3S was supposed to be. What's wrong with bidding his longest suit?

Seriously, I'm very dubious about this 3S bid... that's what strikes me as odd.

[jdonn]

I think it's clear pass is an LA since it is not at all hard to imagine it being right, especially at this vul. EW have no one to blame but themselves, East tank doubles on a dubious trump holding and West pulls at w/r so pardon me if I won't care if they complain. I think it's utterly uncreative to assume passing a penalty double is never an LA on an auction like this with a void in trumps.

Actually the part I'm less sure on is the play, due to the lead. Justin, give it out to your homies as a poll, I sort of have a feeling a club will be almost unanimous. Other than a penalty double of hearts, the only implication about east's shape is lack of a diamond fit, which I think argues strongly against that lead. But I have a feeling I'd end up ruling 200 anyway.

[skjaeran]

Agree with adjusting to 3♥X-1, 200. There can be no doubt pass is a LA.

[pclayton]

Director ruled table result stands since 'obviously' 3H is going for 500 after a club ruff and declarer getting tapped. I suppose it didnt occur to the director that declarer might opt to play on spades. If there's a spade ruff the opps are finding it anyway. I thought an adjustment to -200 was appropriate.

We won 11 since teammates played in 6C. The ruling made no difference in the match.

This is the same director that gave gnome and I a bad ruling in SF on a claim.

[Cascade]

pclayton, on Feb 3 2008, 09:11 AM, said:

This is the same director that gave gnome and I a bad ruling in SF on a claim.

Watch out they might come in threes.

[Codo]

If the double of 3 ♥ was a clear penalty double, it should be -200 for 3 ♥ X -1, not much discussion about that.

But why should this double be a clear penalty double?
I had asked E/W about their bidding so far. If the double was anything but penalty (cards, take out, optional whatever) a take out from west is clear cut and pass is no LA.

And his 3 Spade bid strongly looks like a wish to play in a 4-3 fit to me, so at least West thought, that the double was a kind of take out.

But this is hard to judge without being at the table and knowing their agreements.

I don't understand the point of: 3 Heart X is obviously going for 500. Didn't you tell him that this is not true?

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Feb 4 2008, 04:32 AM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 2 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

Director ruled table result stands since 'obviously' 3H is going for 500 after a club ruff and declarer getting tapped. I suppose it didnt occur to the director that declarer might opt to play on spades. If there's a spade ruff the opps are finding it anyway. I thought an adjustment to -200 was appropriate.

Aren't directors supposed to consult with good players when it comes to cardplay issues?

Also, when he explained his ruling I'm sure you could have just demonstrated why it's only 200 (this happens a lot) and he would have changed his ruling. The good thing about cardplay is right and wrong is usually easy to prove.

The director at the table consulted with the head director, so she wasn't that interested in how we thought the play would have proceeded, even though I protested the -500. We were crushing the opponents at this point so we didn't really press the issue. I felt I could have brought it up later if necessary.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Feb 4 2008, 07:13 AM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 4 2008, 10:06 AM, said:

Jlall, on Feb 4 2008, 04:32 AM, said:

pclayton, on Feb 2 2008, 03:11 PM, said:

Director ruled table result stands since 'obviously' 3H is going for 500 after a club ruff and declarer getting tapped. I suppose it didnt occur to the director that declarer might opt to play on spades. If there's a spade ruff the opps are finding it anyway. I thought an adjustment to -200 was appropriate.

Aren't directors supposed to consult with good players when it comes to cardplay issues?

Also, when he explained his ruling I'm sure you could have just demonstrated why it's only 200 (this happens a lot) and he would have changed his ruling. The good thing about cardplay is right and wrong is usually easy to prove.

The director at the table consulted with the head director, so she wasn't that interested in how we thought the play would have proceeded, even though I protested the -500. We were crushing the opponents at this point so we didn't really press the issue. I felt I could have brought it up later if necessary.

I'm beginning to see why people think directors/committees show unfair treatment towards well known players. I don't think I've ever had a director say they "didn't care" how the play would proceed when ruling on...how the play would proceed. Or maybe this is just a shitty director.

I hear you. The director was really just acting as an intermediary here, since the head director made the determination about the play. I don't think she felt she was qualified to rule on the play, although IMO she's a fair player herself.