[gwnn]

Scoring: IMP

---

this happened in a swiss team event in Iceland. 7th table out of a total of 9.

1♣-p-1♦-p
1NT-X-p-2♥
p-2NT-p-

Up to this point there were no alerts (S wanted to show a good hand with good clubs, his partner thought X was showing majors). Now N asks E about 1♦, getting the response "oh it promises 0-7 points, any # of diamonds".

1♣-p-1♦-p
1NT-x-p-2♥
p-2NT-p-3♦
end

Before coming down as dummy S asks about 1♣. EW say it shows "just an opening hand, could have 0 clubs" so S calls the TD.

The TD decides that S is allowed to change his last call. He bids 3NT, West doubles.

version 1: the play goes like

T1: spade to K
T2-4: diamond to the Q, A of diamonds, small diamond, west discarding a heart.
T5: spade to the A
T6: club to J and A
T7: spade, heart discarded by dummy
T8: diamond to the T
T9: club to the K
T10: club to the T
T11: spade
Declarer claims 9 tricks +550.

EW agreed that they did not alert 1♣ or 1♦ but they claimed that everybody knew what system they were playing and they aren't used to alerting this bid (which hasn't come up before this board). They appealed the ruling that S can take back his pass.

I was south and I can tell you that it was quite obvious that I was not from Iceland because I was only speaking in English. They play 2♣ as both minors (11+ points with at least 8 cards) and 2♦ as majors (same parameters) and they came up several times and they alerted every bid from every sequence that started with 2♣/2♦.

I'm not sure about this but when EW was presenting their case shouldn't I have been asked too? I think they might have told the TD that they pre-alerted this before board 1 (which they did not do).

version 2

the defence goes a little better and declarer goes 2 down, -300. Now S claims that he could have bid 2♣ (more likely than not passed out and making) and be done with the hand but EW says his 3NT bid was ridiculous so he lost all his rights.

[MFA]

There might be more nuances to this, but basically:

The TD made an illegal ruling. Only a final pass can be taken back, not the one before that. So both NS and EW should be considered non-offending sides and get compensation if the TD ruling works to their respective disadvantage.

So if 3NTX makes, EW are damaged by the TD fault. NS keep their 3NTX=, EW get NS 3♦+1 (or pehaps weighted with NS 3♦=). Their unsuccesful defense against 3NTX is not "a serious error" in the sense that they should lose their compensation.

If 3NT goes down, NS are damaged by the TD fault. EW keep their 3NTX-2 while NS get a 3♦ score. I don't think they are entitled to more here based on the failures to alert. If 3NT goes down, only a penalty against 1NT could be better, but I don't think north was damaged when he made the decision to remove his partner's double. So 3♦ is as good for NS as anything.

[MFA]

Hmm, I realize I might be wrong about the rules about taking back passes. So that the TD decision might be right after all. I don't have time to investigate this now, but perhaps somebody else remembers these procedure rules better than I do?

[gwnn]

MFA, on Oct 24 2009, 09:06 PM, said:

The TD made an illegal ruling. Only a final pass can be taken back, not the one before that.

That's what happened, I changed the pass of 3♦ to 3NT.

[pran]

MFA, on Oct 24 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

There might be more nuances to this, but basically:

The TD made an illegal ruling. Only a final pass can be taken back, not the one before that. So both NS and EW should be considered non-offending sides and get compensation if the TD ruling works to their respective disadvantage.

So if 3NTX makes, EW are damaged by the TD fault. NS keep their 3NTX=, EW get NS 3♦+1 (or pehaps weighted with NS 3♦=). Their unsuccesful defense against 3NTX is not "a serious error" in the sense that they should lose their compensation.

If 3NT goes down, NS are damaged by the TD fault. EW keep their 3NTX-2 while NS get a 3♦ score. I don't think they are entitled to more here based on the failures to alert. If 3NT goes down, only a penalty against 1NT could be better, but I don't think north was damaged when he made the decision to remove his partner's double. So 3♦ is as good for NS as anything.

Unless I am mixing up my eye views the PASS by South that the Director allowed him to change was the last call made by the non-offending side so the Director was correct in this ruling.

I would tend to let the table result stand whatever it was because the non-offending side was given the opportunity to rectify the cause for their possible damage in time and the subsequent play was then not a consequence of the misinformation.

This closes the case unless North or South can claim that they would have called differently earlier in the auction had they been given correct information at that time, and that this difference would have resulted in a better result for their side than the eventual table result.

regards Sven

[blackshoe]

Agree with Sven. Also, in the case where allowing South to retract his final pass would have been director error, with Mike's ruling on that.

I am concerned though about EW's claims that "everybody knew what system they were playing" (which was clearly not the case) and that they "weren't used to" alerting the 1♣ opening. If the bid requires an alert (sounds like it does) I would consider a PP here. On an AC, I would call it "appeal without merit", with whatever sanctions are appropriate in Iceland for that.

[gwnn]

table result stands what the final decision.

the appeal committee asked me about my reasoning behind my 3NT bid, I told them my hand improved now that partner is more likely to help me in clubs. But that I don't think it's a very good bid. I wonder though, how is this relevant at all?

[Cascade]

gwnn, on Oct 26 2009, 08:48 AM, said:

table result stands what the final decision.

the appeal committee asked me about my reasoning behind my 3NT bid, I told them my hand improved now that partner is more likely to help me in clubs. But that I don't think it's a very good bid. I wonder though, how is this relevant at all?

Its not relevant.

You are free to change to any bid you like.

[bluejak]

Quite frankly I dislike the hand and much of the comment. If 1♣ was alertable and 1♦ was alertable we need to look over the whole auction to see whether there was damage, not just a 3NT bid which might or might not be made.

As for "everyone plays it so I did not alert it" I am very unhappy with that.