[blackshoe]

It is not necessarily common sense to play a convention a certain way just because "everybody" plays it that way. In any case, it doesn't matter. The TD needs to investigate the NS methods, and determine to his satisfaction whether the pass in question is systemically forcing. In that investigation, testimony from the NS players, their convention cards, and their system notes are all evidence, and the TD will weigh all of that and arrive at a conclusion.

In the case at hand, 4♣ may or may not, in this pair's system, set up a forcing pass. We don't know. We can't ask them. So we're guessing. About all we can say for sure is that if the pass in question is forcing, the ruling should be such-and-such, and if it's not, the ruling should be something else.

[bluejak]

jeremy69, on Dec 6 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

Quote

Judgement decisions are based on the preponderance of evidence, not on proof

In a court of law the standard would be "The criminal standard of proof on the prosecution is proof beyond all reasonable doubt, which means proof to a high degree of probability but not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt."

That is a criminal court of Law. But judgement rulings are on a similar basis to a civil court of Law, where the above standard does not apply.

[greenender]

A more general question arising from this thread.

To what extent do people think it is reasonable for the TD to take a poll on the question of whether the bridge logic of a situation makes a pass forcing? Assume that, as here, even a pair with a moderately comprehensive system file are unlikely to have covered the FP implications of the specific sequence directly.

Clearly the poll must be presented in a way that gives all the relevant information (here what other ways of raising to game may be available, and any inferences clearly available as a result).

Although I don't know for certain what a "Polish" Multi is, I play a Multi with the same 4♣/4♦ responses, which are used on any hand prepared to take a stab at game in either major for any reason (normally no slam interest as it is usually helpful to find out more at a lower level via 2NT with slam interest). My system file certainly contains no reference to this particular sequence in terms of forcing passes, but it does contain the sort of section Frances mentions about general FP philosophy. I would expect my partner to agree with my conclusion that 4♣ (and 4♦) create a forcing pass at adverse vulnerability (Red), but not at any other conditions, and IIRC what the FP section of the file says, it backs this conclusion.

Otherwise I agree with most of what dan_ehh says.

[TRad]

greenender, on Dec 17 2009, 08:39 AM, said:

Although I don't know for certain what a "Polish" Multi is,

No strong options. Weak block on ♥/♠