[nige1]

Brighton Swiss Teams. Session 2. Board 28. Dealer West. NS Vul.
♠ K Q J 10 8 3 2 ♥ K 2 ♦ 9 7 ♣ A K
2♣! (_P) 2♦! (2♥)
3♠  (4♥) 4♠  AP

2♣ = Alerted: 18+ flat or strong single suiter.
2♦ = Alerted: Relay 6+ HCP (denying a good long suit).
3♠ = Not alerted but systemically RKCB for ♠.
4♠ = If P0D1 then 2 aces.

We are a regular partnership but have played only twice in the last 12 months.
At the end of the auction, partner called the director to tell him that I should have alerted 3♠ and that 4♠ systemically showed 2 aces.

The result was 4♠= but the director adjusted it to 5♠-1. Since the match was close this cost many VPs. The ruling seemed fair and we judged an appeal to be frivolous (We thought the director could equally well have ruled 5♠X-1).

In the light of other Brighton rulings, however, I have some questions:

• Should it make a difference to the ruling that neither of us were sure of our agreements here? (Or does that just make it worse?)
  
• Partner is corrrect about 3♠ being RKCB (I forgot). But I recollect our agreement as being that, in reply, the trump suit is a sign-off, not a step. But are my beliefs relevant to the ruling? (I don't think so).
  
• The five level is unsafe opposite a bare two aces (For example opponents may collect a diamond and two hearts). A slam requires extra values in addition to two aces. With such a hand, would I risk bidding 4♠, a bid that partner can pass. So would partner ever go on? (Although I find such arguments persuasive, I think the director should take them with a pinch of salt).
  
• The director consulted colleagues who confirmed his ruling; but should they have considered a weighted ruling? (eg 80% of 5♠-1 and 20% of 4♠= ?)
  
• If we sought your advice as an appeals advisor, what would your advice be?
  
• Had we appealed and you were a committee member, would you keep our deposit?

[mamos]

It's easy to answer Question 4, because to so rule would contradict EBU guidance and regulation (a so-called Reveley ruling)

Td asks "Is pass of 4♠ a logical alternative?" If the answer is "No" it's 100% "No" - you cannot use UI some of the time.

[mrdct]

The first thing the director needs to establish is whether or not EW do in fact have an agreement to play 3♠ as RKCB (which appears to have been established) and whether or not by agreement responses in trumps are included in the steps (this appear to be in doubt). In my experience I've certainly seen trumps excluded as an asking bid but I don't think I've ever come across anyone excluding the trump suit from responses or giving responder the ability to "sign-off". The RKCB-bidder is the captain and responder just needs to be answering the questions.

I think the fact that EW are unsure of their agreements is relevant evidence that the TD must give weight to in establishing whether or not it is more likely than not that EW had an agreement to play 3♠ as RKCB and/or 4♠ as sign-off. Respresentations as to the beliefs of both East and West are also relevant evidence for the TD to consider.

After the insufficient 3♥ intervention, pass and dbl will be 1/4 or 0/3 depending on whether they play DOPI or PODI (it's irrelevant which method they play) so 3♠ must be 2 keys without Q and 3NT must be 2 keys with Q. The fact that East has consumed an extra 5 steps is entirely authorised information to West that East is not treating 3♠ as RKCB as he cannot have a hand that will go beyond 3♠ as West is looking at the ♠Q and the ♣K.

So, after initially having UI that partner is treating 3♠ as natural rather than RKCB, west would on the surface need to proceed as if partner was responding to RKCB but, the insufficient intervention has thrown him a lifeline in that the 4♠ response is clearly an impossible bid which is AI so west can quite legally reassess the situation and pass 4♠.

However, I completely don't understand why West is saying that 4♠ systemically shows 2 aces. Is the OP incorrect with the intervention actually being 4♥? That would change things.

[nige1]

mrdct, on Aug 16 2010, 07:03 PM, said:

However, I completely don't understand why West is saying that 4♠ systemically shows 2 aces.  Is the OP incorrect with the intervention actually being 4♥?  That would change things.

Sorry MrDct. Yes 4♥ not 3♥. Corrected above.

[mrdct]

OK in that case we might need to have a closer look at what their agreements are after intervention over RKCB. The OP says "4♠ = If P0D1 then 2 aces" which conveys some doubt as to whether or not EW have a clear agreement of how to respond to RKCB after intervention, but I think I would be persuaded that even if an agreement couldn't be established, 4♠ would be more likely than not to systemically show 2 aces.

So now, west has unauthorised information that partner is not on the same wavelength and could very well be attempting to sign-off in 4♠. The UI obviously suggests passing, where it is clearly a logical alternative to bid-on. To determine where that might lead to would require seeing the full hand as I presume west's next bid will be an asking bid. The danger now for EW is that East who doesn't realise that he's in a RKCB auction will likely repsond 5♠ regardless of what he's holding which could propel EW to 6♠x.

[jdonn]

I would have adjusted to at least a large % of 6♠X-2. Most players who bid keycard and find they are only off one will bid slam. That the blackwood bid itself is an overbid is not relevent.

[655321]

Agree with assigning (at least some of) 6♠X.

Your partner's actions were interesting. On the one hand, he did the ethical thing by calling the director when he could have (unethically) kept quiet, OTOH he passed 4♠, which (after keycarding and hearing about 2 Aces) seems to be clearly using UI.

The other thing is http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=487122. If I was on the committee and had heard this story on the grapevine, I would be asking the director if (in addition to changing the score to 6♠X and keeping the deposit) there are any penalties we could assign to you for being a vexatious litigant!

[gordontd]

655321, on Aug 17 2010, 02:03 AM, said:

If I was on the committee and had heard this story on the grapevine, I would be asking the director if (in addition to changing the score to 6♠X and keeping the deposit) there are any penalties we could assign to you for being a vexatious litigant!

Directors are there for many purposes, including answering questions and giving rulings.

I'm sure your comment was meant tongue-in-cheek, but in case it starts to be taken up seriously may I say that I don't think any good would come of trying to avoid dealing with the questions and ruling requests of those who have a marked interest in the Laws. Better to give them full respect, no matter how tiresome the circumstance might be, and encourage the players in their interest.

Today's vexatious litigant might well be tomorrow's fine director or useful committee member.

[gordontd]

Deleted

[nige1]

mrdct, on Aug 16 2010, 07:28 PM, said:

So now, west has unauthorised information that partner is not on the same wavelength and could very well be attempting to sign-off in 4♠.  The UI obviously suggests passing, where it is clearly a logical alternative to bid-on.  To determine where that might lead to would require seeing the full hand as I presume west's next bid will be an asking bid.  The danger now for EW is that East who doesn't realise that he's in a RKCB auction will likely repsond 5♠ regardless of what he's holding which could propel EW to 6♠x.

OK. My hand is
♠ A 9 ♥ Q 10 ♦ 10 8 5 3 2 ♣ 6 4 3 2
I claim I would sign off in 5♠ over any try. Incidentally, 5♠ is our conventional denial to an asking bid. I concede, however, that a director might well suspect these to be self-serving statements, and hence rule 6♠X-1, anyway.

Our team-mates were involved in a superficially similar ruling on board 6 in the 3rd session of the Swiss teams. The opposing team are made of sterner stuff than we are: they appealed the ruling. I would be grateful to David Stevenson if he presented the case in the appeals forum.

[nige1]

655321, on Aug 16 2010, 08:03 PM, said:

The other thing is http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...ndpost&p=487122.  If I was on the committee and had heard this story on the grapevine, I would be asking the director if (in addition to changing the score to 6♠X and keeping the deposit) there are any penalties we could assign to you for being a vexatious litigant!

I admit that I report my own infractions. In this case, my partner called the director on his own infraction. I feel that such actions are ethical. If that makes us vexatioius litigants, so be it

I rarely draw attention to opponents' infractions. (Calling a director usually engenders unnecessary hassle and unpleasantness -- because the laws are so egregious).

In the linked case, I called the director when an opponent called attention to an irregularity. I believed that to be my duty in law. I explained I was interested in the ruling but that the result of the ruling would not affect us.

AFAIR I've never taken a ruling to an appeal committee. (Although partners and team-mates have done so). I confess that, out of character, and because I thought it involved a critical, important, and interesting interpretation, I tried to appeal the ruling in the linked case; but, even then, my right to appeal was denied on a point of law

[paulg]

nige1, on Aug 17 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

AFAIR I've never taken a ruling to  an appeal committee.

This may be technically true, but the rest of us in the bar have to perform the same role as an AC at a time when we'd prefer to be drinking!

OTOH, the story about calling the TD during the speedball was amusing ... although it was hard to believe that you'd ever play quickly enough for such an event in the first place.

[bluejak]

nige1, on Aug 17 2010, 12:30 PM, said:

I would be grateful to David Stevenson if he presented the case in the appeals forum.

Sorry: I do not know which case nor do I currently have access to the AC forms.

[nige1]

nige1, on Aug 17 2010, 12:30 PM, said:

I would be grateful to David Stevenson if he presented the case in the appeals forum.

bluejak, on Aug 17 2010, 08:22 AM, said:

Sorry: I do not know which case nor do I currently have access to the AC forms.

NP but, perhaps, when Bluejak does get hold of the form ...

nige1, on Aug 17 2010, 06:30 AM, said:

Our team-mates were involved in a superficially similar ruling on board 6 in the 3rd session of the Swiss teams. The opposing team are made of sterner stuff than we are: they appealed the ruling. I would be grateful to David Stevenson if he presented the case in the appeals foum.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on Aug 17 2010, 07:49 AM, said:

I admit that I report my own infractions. In this case, my partner called the director on his own infraction. I feel that such actions are ethical.

Well, it's not unethical.

Quote

I rarely draw attention to opponents' infractions. (Calling a director usually engenders unnecessary hassle and unpleasantness -- because the laws are so egregious).

Not sure I agree with your reason, but this is not unethical either — although it does mean you will sometimes not get redress to which you are entitled.

Quote

In the linked case, I called the director when an opponent called attention to an irregularity. I believed that to be my duty in law. I explained I was interested in the ruling but that the result of the ruling would not affect us.

It is the duty of all four players to call the TD when attention has been drawn to an irregularity.

Quote

I tried to appeal the ruling in the linked case; but, even then, my right to appeal was denied on a point of law

As I think has already been mentioned, the director who denied you the right to appeal was in error.

[bluejak]

nige1, on Aug 17 2010, 03:44 PM, said:

nige1, on Aug 17 2010, 12:30 PM, said:

I would be grateful to David Stevenson if he presented the case in the appeals forum.

bluejak, on Aug 17 2010, 08:22 AM, said:

Sorry: I do not know which case nor do I currently have access to the AC forms.

NP but, perhaps, when Bluejak does get hold of the form ...

nige1, on Aug 17 2010, 06:30 AM, said:

Our team-mates were involved in a superficially similar ruling on board 6 in the 3rd session of the Swiss teams. The opposing team are made of sterner stuff than we are: they appealed the ruling. I would be grateful to David Stevenson if he presented the case in the appeals foum.

Yes, but ....

In the general way of things, while I see all the forms at Brighton, except from the Teams Final, I shall not see them again for some weeks.

[nige1]

nige1, on Aug 17 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

AFAIR I've never taken a ruling to  an appeal committee.

cardsharp, on Aug 17 2010, 07:46 AM, said:

This may be technically true, but the rest of us in the bar have to perform the same role as an AC at a time when we'd prefer to be drinking!

A common feature of cases discussed in the Metropole bar was that we were not given the opportunity to appeal.

cardsharp, on Aug 17 2010, 07:46 AM, said:

OTOH, the story about calling the TD during the speedball was amusing ... although it was hard to believe that you'd ever play quickly enough for such an event in the first place.

We ventured a second speedball (Swiss Teams) at the Congress. It was fun. After we'd finished, other tables had several boards to play

[bluejak]

Not the one I directed.

I got to play one board in that one, but with my mind elsewhere. At trick 5 I discarded a useless spade from xxx and waited for something to happen.

"Come on, David," they said, "You're on lead, you ruffed."

How was I to know spades were trumps?

The auction had been very complicated is my excuse [2♠ Pass Pass Pass].

[Free]

nige1, on Aug 17 2010, 12:49 PM, said:

AFAIR I've never taken a ruling to an appeal committee. (Although partners and team-mates have done so).

Hmmm, I didn't know appeals were personal. AFAIK rulings are made against a partnership (or team), not a person. So taking a ruling to the appeal committee would seem to be a partnership (team) decision as well.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on Aug 18 2010, 07:09 AM, said:

Not the one I directed.

I got to play one board in that one, but with my mind elsewhere. At trick 5 I discarded a useless spade from xxx and waited for something to happen.

"Come on, David," they said, "You're on lead, you ruffed."

How was I to know spades were trumps?

The auction had been very complicated is my excuse [2♠ Pass Pass Pass].

I've taken contracts off with such stirling defence in the past