[Simpleboi]

Hi all,

This was a hand by one of my teammates a few years back in a regional tournament. He was sitting East. Would like to know any of your thoughts on the decisions by the director as well as the appeal committee.

Here is his sypnosis below:

In the youth round robin, we had a few disasters and were quite far behind based on our scoresheets. In order to fightback to get a respectable score, we needed the points badly within the remaining boards. The break appeared to have come on this hand when an innocent level two contract by the opposition were doubled and went down five, nonvulnerable. However, things were not what it seemed to be...

Hand Record and Bidding Sequence

Scoring: IMP

1♣-1♥-X*-2♥
X**-P-2♠-P
P-X-AP

---

* : exactly 4 card spades
** : exactly 3 card spade support

Line of Play

Contract: 2SX
Lead: small Heart

Tricks:

1. (0-1) East leads a small heart to West's Ace, all following.
2. (1-1) West returns his singleton Queen of trumps, taken by dummy's Ace.
3. (1-2) Declarer plays a small diamond to his Jack and East's Queen.
4. (1-3) East cashes King of trumps.
5. (1-4) East cashes Jack of trumps.
6. (1-5) East cashes 10 of trumps.
7. (1-6) East cashes King of Hearts.
8. (1-7) East plays a small heart to West's Queen.
9. (1-8) West plays a small heart to declarer's Jack, ruffed by East.
10. (1-9) East plays a small club to dummy's King and West's Ace.
11. (1-10) West cashes his last remaining Heart.
12. (3-10) Last 2 tricks conceded to declarer.

Result: 2SX-5, +1100 points to us.

Director!

At this point, the director was called by the declarer who claims he was misled by the West's double and therefore played West for having a strong hand with long spades. When East came up with the long spades and the Queen of Diamonds, the entire line of play fell apart and resulted in the catastrophy.

In our defence, both sides of the screen unanimously explained the double as being penalty oriented and my partner had doubled based on his judgement of the bidding:

I responded 2H, showing a minimal but constructive hand with useful points,

I hold 5 card spades (north shows exactly 4 cards with his negative X and south exactly 3 cards with his support X based on their explanation),

His two aces and my trump length + constructive hand should be sufficient to down the contract.

After a discussion with his assistants, the tournament director ruled that my partner's double was a Maximum Overcall Double that was misexplained and was not present in our convention card. As such, we have violated convention disruption and were penalized with a procedural penalty of -0.5 VP. On top of that, as the declarer was misinformed about the bidding, he was awarded with the maximum tricks he can take on the hand and the score was adjusted to 2SX-1.

An interesting fact about the judgement is that the only reason why we do not have "Maximum Overcall Double" on our convention card is because we do not play it (duh!). In any case, with only a 12 point hand, my partner's overcall of 1H can hardly be considered a maximum overcall (16-17 points).

Naturally, we appealed.

The result of the appeal was not very much in our favour either. The procedural penalty of -0.5 VP cannot be lifted as it was dealt out by the tournament director. Also, the appeal committee ruled that the double of a level two contract cannot be for penalty and must be optional, with takeout elements. Thus, we have misexplained the double and the director was correct in adjusting the score in the declarer's favour. However, as it would take a massive misdefence for the declarer to go down only one and the score was corrected to 2SX-2 instead.

To this day, I still don't understand what was wrong with our penalty double bid in that bidding sequence.

Any comments?

[PeterGill]

Some Directors and ACs are not very good at gathering the facts about what actually happened. Bridge players make mistakes aplenty when they play bridge,
so it's hardly surprising that officials also make mistakes.

[Apollo81]

I don't see anything wrong with what happened at the table. Seems like either North or South could have run from 2♠x also....

[blackshoe]

[quote name='Simpleboi' date='Apr 2 2009, 11:20 PM']Any comments?

[/quote]
Oh, yeah! (Caveat: my comments are based on the evidence presented. If it turns out some of this evidence is inaccurate or incomplete, I might have a different opinion.)
[quote]At this point, the director was called by the declarer who claims he was misled by the West's double and therefore played West for having a strong hand with long spades. When East came up with the long spades and the Queen of Diamonds, the entire line of play fell apart and resulted in the catastrophy.[/quote]
A penalty double does not say "I have a lot of your trumps". It says "you aren't making this contract." What declarer is whining about here is that he made a wrong assumption, and wants to be let off the hook for it. Tough.
[quote]In our defence, both sides of the screen unanimously explained the double as being penalty oriented and my partner had doubled based on his judgement of the bidding[/quote]
Seems fair enough.
[quote]After a discussion with his assistants, the tournament director ruled that my partner's double was a Maximum Overcall Double that was misexplained and was not present in our convention card.[/quote]
So the TD, and his assistants, have their heads up their asses. Or are inexperienced, or tired, or incompetent. Or all of the foregoing.
[quote] As such, we have violated convention disruption and were penalized with a procedural penalty of -0.5 VP.[/quote]
"Convention disruption" is a crock. There is no such thing in the laws. Therefore "convention disruption" is not a legal basis for a procedural penalty.
[quote] On top of that, as the declarer was misinformed about the bidding, he was awarded with the maximum tricks he can take on the hand and the score was adjusted to 2SX-1.[/quote]
I would really like to know what the Hell this TD thinks he's doing here. Does he think that without the "convention disruption" the contract would still end up in 2SX? Or does he think declarer would have played it differently? Either way, how does he get to down one? I suspect he just attributed best double-dummy play to declarer, or assumed the "massive misdefense you mentioned — neither of which is the right way to make a ruling.
[quote]An interesting fact about the judgement is that the only reason why we do not have "Maximum Overcall Double" on our convention card is because we do not play it (duh!).[/quote]
No surprise there. See above.
[quote]The result of the appeal was not very much in our favour either. The procedural penalty of -0.5 VP cannot be lifted as it was dealt out by the tournament director.[/quote]
Bull. [quote name='Law 93B3']In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the director, except that the committee may not overrule the director on a point of law or regulations or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the director that he change such a ruling.)[/quote]
The TD decided that you deserved a PP for violating a non-existent law. While I can see the argument that this is a matter of law as opposed to a matter of judgment (which latter the committee can overrule) it is certainly not true that the PP "cannot be changed".
[quote]the appeal committee ruled that the double of a level two contract cannot be for penalty and must be optional, with takeout elements[/quote]
Bullshit. First this is a ridiculous assertion. Second, the committee has no right to define how players must play any particular call.
[quote]Thus, we have misexplained the double and the director was correct in adjusting the score in the declarer's favour.[/quote]
Uh, huh. Right. Sure. Idiots.
[quote]To this day, I still don't understand what was wrong with our penalty double bid in that bidding sequence.[/quote]
Well, double is not a bid. Never mind that, though. It may be that the committee (and possibly the TD) thought that West's double of 2S looks like a Takeout Double, and that West's later explanation that it was penalty oriented was self serving and not supported by independent evidence (such as system notes or a notation on the system card). However, given the actual play, I don't see how this MI (if indeed there was MI) caused the damage. rather, it was the lie of the cards that caused the damage, and that's just too bad for declarer. And if that is what they thought, why in Hell did they not say so in the ruling?

[A2003]

Simpleboi, on Apr 2 2009, 11:20 PM, said:

the tournament director ruled that my partner's double was a Maximum Overcall Double that was not present in our convention card.

where do you write in the convention card?

[spotlight7]

Hi:

In the the section at top left of your convention card marked "Doubles."

Regards,
Robert

[blackshoe]

Depends on where you are. Different places design their cards differently.

[jdonn]

Perhaps instead of your partner saying he doubled on his judgment of the bidding, he should have specifically pointed out he doubled since he could be sure you held five spades. That might have made things more clear to the director.

It's certainly possible for the director to not believe what you say if your convention card doesn't prove it and the hands seem to suggest otherwise, but this doesn't seem like that time for that judgment...