[awm]

Here's one from some friends' GNT finals.

Scoring: IMP

---

North deals and opens 1♦. E/W are silent:

1♦ - 1♥
1NT - 4♣(1)
4♦(2) - 7♥

(1) Gerber
(2) Long break in tempo (agreed)

Of course, 4♦ shows zero aces. The grand slam rolled home when north showed up with the diamond ace (and some other cards for his opening bid).

How would you rule? If the ruling was "table result stands" then how would you treat an appeal?

If asked, south says that he was always planning to bid the grand and that if the defenders hold the diamond ace, they probably will not cash it.

[TimG]

I played a local club game with a pick-up partner recently and agreed to play Gerber, sure that it would never come up. It did. Turns out my partner thought (probably still thinks) that the responses to Gerber were: 4♦=1 ace; 4♥=2 aces; 4♠=3 aces; 4N=4 aces. I suggested: 4♦=0 or 4; 4♥=1; 4♠=2; 4N=3. He said he'd never heard of that and had always played it the other way.

Many years ago I was playing with my wife (probably before she was my wife), I opened 1N and heard (yes, before bidding boxes) this uncontested auction: 1N-3♠; 4♠-4♣*; 4♦**-4N***;...

* My RHO passed this without hesitation
** Not quite sure what is going on but, I do have the ♦A
*** Can't you just tell me how many aces you have?

We ended up in 6♠, making. When I put dummy down there were some odd looks (4♦ was not the correct response to Gerber, you see). After the hand was over, partner and RHO both asked why I hadn't responded properly to Gerber. I told them I wasn't sure that an insufficient 4♣ was Gerber. This received even more odd looks...they still hadn't recognized that there had been an insufficient bid.

Anyway, Gerber is a tricky convention.

[jdonn]

South should be ashamed. It doesn't even matter if his excuse is true, he's not allowed to any more after this UI.

It was imps so he can't even say he bid gerber to look for 7NT. And has he considered that it might go 4♦ DOUBLE?

[kfay]

jdonn, on Apr 7 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

South should be ashamed. It doesn't even matter if his excuse is true, he's not allowed to any more after this UI.

It was imps so he can't even say he bid gerber to look for 7NT. And has he considered that it might go 4♦ DOUBLE?

Totally agree with this.

This guy is obviously a liar. If he planned on bidding 7♥ no matter what the response then why didn't he bid 7♥ over 1NT?

[Trinidad]

kfay, on Apr 7 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 7 2008, 01:09 PM, said:

South should be ashamed. It doesn't even matter if his excuse is true, he's not allowed to any more after this UI.

It was imps so he can't even say he bid gerber to look for 7NT. And has he considered that it might go 4♦ DOUBLE?

Totally agree with this.

This guy is obviously a liar. If he planned on bidding 7♥ no matter what the response then why didn't he bid 7♥ over 1NT?

After a 4♥ response, he could bid 5♣. Then, when partner has denied any kings by bidding 5♦, he could bid 7NT.

Seriously, I wouldn't call people liars. To disregard UI (or 'bend over backwards') is not as easy as it seems. I have seen world champions with, in general, very high ethical standards make bids that they would have never made without the UI. One day after the fact they still think their action was absolutely obvious. One year after the fact, when they are able to separate the auhorized information from the unauthorized information, they think their action was absolutely ridiculous.

Having said that, I fully agree with everything else. The only LA was 6♥.

Rik

[cherdano]

Please don't tell us the appeals committee got this wrong.

[TimG]

Maybe the facts aren't quite right: south intended 4C as a cue-bid, understood north's 4D bid as a cue-bid and bid the grand. I generally don't like speculating that the poster has somehow changed the facts to make the problem more interesting, but if the committee got this wrong on the facts as laid out...well, even in a Flight B GNT they should be able to work out the correct ruling.

Actually, I expect the result of this appeal would not have made a difference in the outcome of the match, so it never went to committee.

Then again, two people have answered the poll in favor of NS, one indicating that an appeal by EW would be without merit.

[Cascade]

Jlall, on Apr 8 2008, 09:38 AM, said:

Was there a BIT? Yes

Did the BIT suggest a certain action? Well, it suggests that partner might be confused about what the 4C bid means which increases the chances partner has misanswered aces which increases the chance that the 7H bid will work. So yes.

So obv roll it back to 6H, and an appeal would have no merit. I would also be close to giving south a procedural penalty for blatantly taking advantage of UI if he was an experienced player.

Exactly.

In this case the penalty should be as large as possible.

[gwnn]

Disgusting! Totally punish south. It's easy to receive UI and not notice but making up a ridiculous cover up story is deplorable.

[jtfanclub]

This is textbook.

[awm]

The director ruled "table result stands."

The board was a push; it would have been win eleven for E/W had the contract been 6♥.

The E/W side ended up losing the match by thirteen imps. Since winning eleven on this board would not change the result, they did not actually appeal the ruling.

[jillybean]

awm, on Apr 7 2008, 09:21 PM, said:

The director ruled "table result stands."

The board was a push; it would have been win eleven for E/W had the contract been 6♥.

The E/W side ended up losing the match by thirteen imps. Since winning eleven on this board would not change the result, they did not actually appeal the ruling.

They should appeal, then the director may get it right next time

[Walddk]

awm, on Apr 7 2008, 07:31 PM, said:

If asked, south says that he was always planning to bid the grand ...

Was he really? But first he felt like tormenting partner with a completely useless convention. No wonder opener got the response wrong; I would too, because 4♣ is never ...... (censored by me).

To let the table result stand was a serious error by the director. It's easy to give opener lots of hands without ♦A. What a shame that an appeal did not materialise.

If I had been on the committee, I would call (using pay phone of course) a nice restaurant and book dinner for the deposit NS paid. It would take the AC about 1 minute to rule "appeal without merit". I wish they were all this easy.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Apr 8 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

If I had been on the committee, I would call (using pay phone of course) a nice restaurant and book dinner for the deposit NS paid. It would take the AC about 1 minute to rule "appeal without merit". I wish they were all this easy.

Roland

I wish the AC got to spend the deposits when I sit on them, we'd be keeping lots more of them...

[whereagles]

awm, on Apr 7 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

If asked, south says that he was always planning to bid the grand and that if the defenders hold the diamond ace, they probably will not cash it.

If so, what did he bid 4♣ for????

[blackshoe]

I do not think the sole, or the main, criterion for whether one appeals should be whether one thinks it will matter to one's standing in the event. Directors do make mistakes. When they do, they should be made aware of it. An appeal does that. Or perhaps you only think he made a mistake, and he in fact ruled correctly. The committee will let you know that, too.

If you have, or think you have, a good reason to appeal (disagree with the TD's judgement, think there was TD error, whatever) then imo you should appeal. You should not go looking for reasons to ignore your good reason to appeal.

[barmar]

I have a feeling that SO's generally prefer that appeals be waived when they won't affect the results. Except in tournaments where there's a standing AC (e.g. an NABC), setting up the AC is extra work, so should be avoided if unnecessary. There must be an easier way to educate directors, such as mentioning the incident to a more senior director or league management.

[TimG]

Committees are generally made up of volunteers who cut short dinner breaks or remain at the game later than usual in order to serve. It doesn't seem right to me to ask for a committee to be convened for the sole purpose of educating a director. In an ideal world, directors would record these situations for peer review at a later time and in a manner that would not inconvenience committee members. In fact, I would view a player pursuing an appeal just to prove a point to a director as rather frivolous and imagine that it could be construed as a violation of the Laws or of ACBL regulations (this case was in an ACBL event, I believe).

In the case at hand, I believe the director should have ruled in favor of the non-offending side and left the burden of appeal on the offending side. How to better educate directors to rule in such a manner is a good question. But, I do not believe the answer involves convening more committees.

Tim

[blackshoe]

SOs are obligated to comply with the laws. That means that unless they have made other arrangement, if a contestant wants an appeal, they have to grant a committee. They may not want to do that, but so what?

Inconveniencing those who will be asked to serve is another thing. OTOH, if these folks have volunteered to serve, then so be it.

An appeal of an incorrect TD ruling cannot be solely to educate the director. After all, you expect a favorable ruling from the committee. And it cannot be frivolous. It is, after all, a contestant's right to appeal. AFAIK, the only justification for a ruling of "frivolous appeal" is that the appellant should have known there was no way the committee would legally be able to change the TD's ruling. I was about to right "was going to change" when I realized that construction leaves the door open for the committee that upholds, for whatever reason, the TD's ruling even when it's wrong.

My point is that not appealing because you don't want to make your friend Joe miss dinner or because your SO would "prefer" you don't appeal or because it won't matter to your standing in the event is just wrong. If you have a valid reason for an appeal, you should make it.

A director should make the best ruling he can, and let the chips fall where they may. This "let the appeals committee sort it out" is the wrong approach.