[mrdct]

Scoring: IMP

---

I hardly have any info at all as I wasn't watching this match at the time, but I understand this board from the 2nd segment of the semi-final is the subject of an appeal which could decide the match after Zimmerman prevailed 134-127 over Strul at the table.

The auction went:

W_____N______E______S
_____________1NT(1)__P
2C_____X_____P(2)____P
2D_____P_____P_______X
P______3C____X_______P
P______P

(1) = 15-17
(2) = alert, shows stoppers

7 Tricks (-300 & -11 imps)

Ignoring speculation from the vugraph commentators, the comments made by the operator at the conclusion of the hand were as follows:

"Italians are discussing interpretations of bids given during the auction"
"director being called"
"discussion is based on whether pass of dbl of 2c can have 4 card major"
"initial explanation to Fantoni (north) was that pass denied club stopper"
"board will be reviewed by directors, moving on"

Does anyone have any additional facts or information about this hand and what the outcome of the appeal was?

[jallerton]

No, but it would first be good to know the TD's ruling and the basis of that ruling.

Note that North and East are screen-mates, so it would seem unlikely that East would deliberately describe his own pass as lacking a ♣ stop.

[mrdct]

Having worked as an operator many times, I can tell you that you will get your explanations from either or both sides of the screen depending on whether or not anyone is asking. A working knowledge of sign language is useful. Based on what the operator said, I assume the explanation entered during the bidding was from west to south.

So it looks like north was told east denies club stoppers and south was told that east is showing club stoppers. So how will this change their actions?

This also indicates that east psyched his pass which I agree seems very odd and is quite a dodgey thing to do in a self-alerting environment.

[nige1]

mrdct, on Mar 21 2010, 04:23 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP

I hardly have any info at all as I wasn't watching this match at the time, but I understand this board from the 2nd segment of the semi-final is the subject of an appeal which could decide the match after Zimmerman prevailed 134-127 over Strul at the table.
The auction went:
W_____N______E______S
_____________1NT(1)__P
2C_____X_____P(2)____P
2D_____P_____P_______X
P______3C____X_______P
P______P
(1) = 15-17
(2) =  alert, shows stoppers
7 Tricks (-300 & -11 imps)
Ignoring speculation from the vugraph commentators, the comments made by the operator at the conclusion of the hand were as follows:
"Italians are discussing interpretations of bids given during the auction"
"director being called"
"discussion is based on whether pass of dbl of 2c can have 4 card major"
"initial explanation to Fantoni (north) was that pass denied club stopper"
"board will be reviewed by directors, moving on"
Does anyone have any additional facts or information about this hand and what the outcome of the appeal was?

---

My tuppence worth: As usual most of the quoted expert comments are above my head. Although I watched, I've no factual information to add. FWIW, I think that the final decision may have been "Result stands" and I guessed that ...
North's double of 2♣ = Penalty and lead-directing.
East's pass of 2♣X = Too good ♣ to redouble.
South's double of 2♦ = Competitive but penalty-orientated.
3♣ = Aberration (if in doubt, pass seems better because 2♦X is not game. If 2♦X makes it may cheaper than bidding on).
That is just speculation. I too, would be interested in the true story.

[jjbrr]

mrdct, on Mar 21 2010, 04:54 AM, said:

So it looks like north was told east denies club stoppers and south was told that east is showing club stoppers. So how will this change their actions?

I would be totally shocked if anyone was told pass denies a stopper. This seems way elementary to me.

[gordontd]

jjbrr, on Mar 22 2010, 07:09 AM, said:

mrdct, on Mar 21 2010, 04:54 AM, said:

So it looks like north was told east denies club stoppers and south was told that east is showing club stoppers.  So how will this change their actions?

I would be totally shocked if anyone was told pass denies a stopper. This seems way elementary to me.

Why?

Both ways are played.

[bluecalm]

Quote

I would be totally shocked if anyone was told pass denies a stopper. This seems way elementary to me.

?????

I don't see what is "elementary" about it.
The point is to right side the suit contract (play it from the hand which bid stayman) as often as possible. Passing without a stopper can help to achieve that if follows up are right. What's "elementary" about it ?

[jjbrr]

You both realize he has KJ976 of ♣, right?

And wasnt this Helgemo-Helness? My point is, I'd be shocked if they didn't know their agreement or someone misbid. It seems much, much more likely that there was a misunderstanding than either of them giving the wrong explanation.

Edit: Unless you honestly think he denied a stopper and that was their agreement, but then I'd say you're nuts or on a different level than I am.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Edit: Unless you honestly think he denied a stopper and that was their agreement, but then I'd say you're nuts or on a different level than I am.

I misunderstood you. I thought you are saying that having an agreement that pass promises a stopper is pointless (elementary not to have that agreement). It seems the other poster commenting on it understood it the same way.

I think you are right that it's not possible that he said he denied the stopper having KJ9xx

[jjbrr]

Right. If he had something like Qxx or something, then it might be ambiguous what he intended his bid to mean and we wouldn't have any evidence to suggest what methods they play. On the actual hand I think it's clear what they play and that it is much more likely that someone misunderstood (I believe it was HH against Fantoni and Nunes, so language might have played some role).

Also, this was behind screens, so if the story is to be believed where N was told by E that pass denied a stopper, then you'd have the guy with KJ976 telling his opponent no stopper. I think that's totally unbelievable, which is why I said I'd be shocked if that actually happened.

I suppose I should have clarified that the events were unbelievable to me and not the possibility of pass being more than one thing.