[marcD]

jdonn, on Nov 10 2008, 02:51 PM, said:

5♦ of course, seriously what else?

I guess 3NT is always a possibility so it would cross my mind but tough call to defend if there was indeed an hesitation on the other side of the screen .
The situation is tricky as a winning 3NT call will often trigger a director call from some opponents whether partner hesitated or not

[Walddk]

jkljkl, on Nov 11 2008, 01:40 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Nov 10 2008, 05:36 PM, said:

Hi,

there was more to this.

A problem was also, how the whole thing got handled,
but what I know is only hear say.

Maybe someone, who knowes it first hand, could tell
the whole story.

With kind regards
Marlowe

Hello,

on blml they are trying to gather the facts.

A fair recap of an email of Michael Gromöller can be found at
http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/043859.html

The position of Ton Kooyman ( I don't know bout his function at the venue) in answer to a not perfect recap by another poster can be found at
http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...ber/043841.html

of course you can read and follow the whole discussion in the archives of
http://www.amsterdam...n/listinfo/blml
(go to november 2008 sorted by date)

It seems likely that Michael Gromöller will post there too in the near fture,

ciao stefan

Interesting reading. Facts regarding the 3rd (and decisive) appeal seem to be disputed, but if the Germans have not been heard before the AC's ruling, I think they have been hard done by.

If I understand it correctly, the TD decided not to give a ruling and that the case went straight to the AC. Apparently, the reason for the TD's non-ruling was that no matter what he ruled, there would be an appeal.

My question is then: what do we need a TD for if he declines to give a ruling? Is that not one of his/her duties when appropriate?

Grattan Endicott of England, one of the leading experts on the laws, is concerned:

"I do think the organizers have landed themselves in a mess, and I am
concerned about a situation in which a contestant that has lost two
appeals then appears to find grounds for a third that was not on the
table at the start", he writes.

Roland

[Gerben42]

Quote

After finishing the hearing I told the AC about this third case and I sent
both teams to the AC for a further hearing (second wrong statement). That
hearing took place and both sides got the possibility to give their opinion.
Nobody at that stage told the Germans that they had no right to be heard
(third wrong statement).
Then the AC asked the TD's and me whether it was necessary to have a
decision from the TD's on this case before they could handle it. Our answer
was 'no'.

I am a bit concerned about this part of Ton Kooyman's message. We have the hard facts that the Germans wanted to be heard in the meeting, but weren't. Someone tell me please how that is possible.

Also it is clear that if no TD was called during the board, that there is no evidence that at the other side of the screen, the hesitation was obvious and could be interpreted. Dr. Elinescu said he had thought before doubling, but that is not relevant. What's relevant is not who thought and who didn't, but if the other side could figure out who thought and who didn't. And apparently this was not the case.

Quote

Depending on the opponents and our own partnership bidding style i think there is something to jtfanclub's argument that given there was no raise to 4♠ there is some case for being pessimistic with this hand (or perhaps an optimistic punt on 3NT) - ♠ Qx is very poor holding when a pre-empt has not been raised. Even many clear-cut takeout doubles will have two spades (and many marginal doubles will have a stiff spade).

Perhaps the hesitation on the other side of the screen was South considering if he should raise to 4♠ because he had 3-card support? Not in the actual hand but East cannot see South's hand when making his bidding decision.

[gwnn]

maybe i'm too dumb to figure it out, but what actually happened? what did the player bid?

[hotShot]

gwnn, on Nov 14 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

maybe i'm too dumb to figure it out, but what actually happened? what did the player bid?

The player (as did the one at the other table) bid 3NT.

[Walddk]

hotShot, on Nov 14 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

gwnn, on Nov 14 2008, 02:23 PM, said:

maybe i'm too dumb to figure it out, but what actually happened? what did the player bid?

The player (as did the one at the other table) bid 3NT.

Indeed, but the auction was different. North opened a Multi 2♦, East passed, and South bid 2♠ (to play opposite a weak two in spades). Versace entered with a natural 2NT and was raised to 3NT.

Roland

[Codo]

The famous Dr. Wladow bid an inspired 3 NT which made, because partner had Kx in spades besides some other cards.
This board was a push at the table. Without an appeal, Germany had won the semifinal by 7 VPs after a nice comeback.

The AC decided that this bid was suspicious and that 5 Diamond was normal. In 5 Diamond, there are some lines which will lose and some which will win, but the AC decided to rule that the score was 5 ♦ -1, not weighted at all. I think this is a little far fetched, but at least a possible result.
This ruling is not the problem. The problem was the handling of this and some other rulings, because the story was:

As the board was played, there was no TD call, no "stating of the facts" or reserving the rights. After the session, the Italians complaint about this board and the bid. The TD made no ruling about this case. The AC decided to make a ruling but -to put it midly- they had not tried hard to get to know the German view. There are some different stories about this part, so I tried to express this as neutral as possible.

So from our teams perspective it looks like the Italians complaint after they got to know that they were losing (They had two more losing complaints) and that latter the AC made a mess out of a case which decided the semifinal of an european championship. They never explained- maybe they never thought about it- why it was still in time to make a complaint. They never explained why the TD did not make a ruling. They refused to hear the players besides a: Did you hesitate: Yes, thank you, bye bye....

To make things worse: In another earlier case of hesitation, from the same match, the TD turned a protest from the Germans down, because it was made from the wrong side of the screen. So it looks like that a protest in time, but from the wrong side of the screen is worse then a protest after the session without reservation of the rights, without stating the facts and without an inquiry from the TD about the facts. I understand their frustration.
Besides: 2006 same toruney: Semifinal Germany beats Italy.
2007 same tourney: Semifinal: ITaly beats Germany by 5, including a quite hard (but acceptable and accepted ruling against Germany).
2008: Same tourney: Semifinal.... to put it midly: The Germans are outrageous and protest at the EBU AC against this ruling. When you follow the discussion
at "http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
(go to november 2008 sorted by date)"
you will be surprised, how harst the tone between the dutch defenders of their descission and the rest of the world is.

I don't know, if this is common for them, or if this is politics, but it is harsh.

[Walddk]

And the Germans have lodged an official complaint to the Standing Appeals Committee of the European Bridge League. The letter to be found at ...

http://www.bridge.nl...n/appaeldbv.pdf

Roland

[RMB1]

Codo, on Nov 14 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

2008: Same tourney: Semifinal ... to put it midly: The Germans are outrageous and protest at the EBU AC against this ruling.

Just to be clear, this should be EBL="European Bridge League".

Robin

[Codo]

RMB1, on Nov 14 2008, 10:58 PM, said:

Codo, on Nov 14 2008, 01:57 PM, said:

2008: Same tourney: Semifinal ... to put it midly: The Germans are outrageous and protest at the EBU AC against this ruling.

Just to be clear, this should be EBL="European Bridge League".

Robin

To be even clearer:
They are outraged not outrageuos.

And yes it was not the English bridge union. Sorry..and thanks for all the helpful advices.

[Walddk]

Many questions to be asked and answered:

- 1. Was the TD summoned in time?

If "no", the case must be dismissed. If "yes", then ...

- 2. Did the TD make a ruling?

If "yes", both parties have the right to appeal. If "no", then ...

- 3. Can the AC take a case without a TD-ruling?

If "yes", no further problem. If "no", then ...

- 4. Is the AC's decision legal?

If "no", there is no longer a case. If "yes", then ...

- 5. Was the procedure legal?

As I understand it, this is one of the Germans' main concerns. They don't feel that they got a fair "trial", because they did not get the chance to explain in detail. If the procedure is indeed legal, then ...

- 6. Is the AC's decision final or can it be appealed to EBL's Appeals Committee?

...

So, here we are at the moment. I have just raised the relevant questions. I have no comment at this point.

Roland

[blackshoe]

My only comment at this point would be that if no TD ruling was made, I don't see how any appeal can be heard. Appeals are of rulings, not of table results. See laws 92A and 92C.

[cherdano]

Moral of the story: In bridge, you end up paying for having a bad reputation?

[FrancesHinden]

blackshoe, on Nov 14 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

My only comment at this point would be that if no TD ruling was made, I don't see how any appeal can be heard. Appeals are of rulings, not of table results. See laws 92A and 92C.

There is enormous and lengthy debate of this point on blml.... the two points of view appear to be

a) As blackshoe implies, the appeal was illegal as there was no TD ruling.

There is no real difference between what happened (the TD referred the ruling directly to the AC) and the TD giving some instantanious insane ruling such as "I rule 7NTxx-12, now I assume you want to appeal, the AC are just through that door there..."

Quote

5. Was the procedure legal?

As I understand it, this is one of the Germans' main concerns. They don't feel that they got a fair "trial", because they did not get the chance to explain in detail. If the procedure is indeed legal, then ...

As I understand it, the two points of view are

a) The German team got to present their case to the AC; if they didn't say everything they might have wanted to, that's their problem, and nothing wrong with the procedure.

The German team thought this was an initial fact finding/TD ruling, and that whatever happened they would still have the chance to appeal and give their considered case in more detail later. Hence they didn't bother/want to waste time/wish to spend ages explaning all their thoughts on the case, because it might be about to be ruled out of time/from the wrong side of the screen/no hesitation/no demonstrably suggested LA etc.

[gwnn]

The moral of the story is that the Italians started to preempt more aggressively than their opponents? wow

[cherdano]

Cascade, on Nov 10 2008, 06:42 PM, said:

Depending on the opponents and our own partnership bidding style i think there is something to jtfanclub's argument that given there was no raise to 4♠ there is some case for being pessimistic with this hand (or perhaps an optimistic punt on 3NT) - ♠ Qx is very poor holding when a pre-empt has not been raised. Even many clear-cut takeout doubles will have two spades (and many marginal doubles will have a stiff spade).

In general I think a slow takeout double conveys much less UI than a slow pass in second seat. Slow actions, particularly at high levels, will often not demonstably suggest one action over another.

In this case a slow double could be:

1. Marginal Minimum Values

2. Marginal Distribution

3. A marginal decision between a simple overcall and a double and bid hand

4. Some combination of 1 and 2

Marginal minimum values with a singleton in spades is an unlikely case, it would mean that opponents have a 10-card spade fit with the majority of the points, but didn't go to 4♠.

Everything else makes bidding 3NT more attractive compared to 5♦.