[r_prah]

---

The scoring is IMPs.

There was a 90 second BIT before North passed over 4!S.

5H made for +450. EW called the director after the 5!H bid to protect their rights. After the deal was over, EW
summoned the director back, who ruled that the table result stands.

This was appealed.

Two questions:
1) How would you have ruled as the director?
2) How would you rule as a member of the appeals committee?

[sfi]

As a player 5♥ looks like an obvious call. Moreover, I don't think that the hesitation necessarily suggests that North was thinking of bidding 5♥. If North was contemplating a double, then bidding might be wrong.

As a director I would have taken a poll to determine whether passing or doubling is a logical alternative, and what the hesitation might suggest. All of this would influence my ruling. But let's look at the four important questions:

- Was there unauthorised information? Clearly yes, given the break in tempo.
- Were there logical alternatives to the action taken? IMO no, but a poll might suggest otherwise.
- Was the action taken demonstrably suggested by the UI? Also IMO no. Again, a poll might suggest otherwise.
- Did the action result in a better score than the alternative? Yes. It looks like 4♠X is -300.

Since not all of the answers to this are yes, I am unlikely to adjust the score.

As a member of the appeals committee, I would consider the statements of both sides to find out on what basis it was appealed. Given the facts presented, I would rule this appeal to be without merit. But I would like to investigate North/South's agreements and the reasons behind the initial ruling a bit more before doing so.

[blackshoe]

Technically, EW should have called the director at the time of the BIT, but that's a minor detail. The question is whether South had a logical alternative to 5♥. So, how would I have ruled as director? I would have polled South's peers. If that was not possible I would at least have consulted with some decent players. If I determined that South had an LA to 5♥, I would then ask myself whether the BIT could demonstrably suggest bidding on. IMO, the answer to that is "yes". I do not think X is an LA for South. Pass may be. If it is, then I would adjust the score to 4♠, which looks to be down 2, +100 to NS.

Members of AC's don't rule, they vote. After going through the same process, if it was determined there was no LA to 5H, I would vote to affirm the TD ruling. If it was determined pass was an LA, I'd vote to adjust the score as above.

If you're asking if I think pass was an LA, the answer is "maybe". It depends on South's level of experience and expertise. More precisely, it depends on what South's peers would do.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on 2013-January-01, 23:06, said:

Technically, EW should have called the director at the time of the BIT, but that's a minor detail.

Really? A break in tempo is not in itself an infraction so why would an opponent call the director.

This is what Law 16B2&3 say in my law book

Quote

2. When a player considers that an opponent has made such information
available and that damage could well result he may announce, unless
prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the Director
be called), that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the
opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact
that unauthorized information might have been conveyed).
3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had
a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested
by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends**. The
Director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12C) if he considers that
an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

Which seems completely different than calling at the time of the BIT.

[nige1]

IMO...

• Ideally, the director would poll South's peers about LAs and what the hesitation suggests.
• North's hesitation suggests bidding on.
• Pass is an LA for South.
• The director should consider rolling the auction back to 4S-2 (undoubled because North didn't double, South doesn't seem to have a double, and the hesitation might suggest action -- i.e. "Please bid 5♥ or double")

[gordontd]

sfi, on 2013-January-01, 22:54, said:

As a player 5♥ looks like an obvious call. Moreover, I don't think that the hesitation necessarily suggests that North was thinking of bidding 5♥. If North was contemplating a double, then bidding might be wrong.

I don't think 5♥ looks like an obvious call. I think it's clear that North is short in spades, so if he was contemplating a double it was on the basis of high cards that will also be useful to me in 5♥. Hence I think any action (X or 5♥) is suggested over Pass, which I think is a logical alternative.

[sfi]

gordontd, on 2013-January-02, 04:28, said:

Pass, which I think is a logical alternative.

Why? I'm having trouble constructing hands where partner has a takeout double with four hearts where both 4♠ and 5♥ are going down. You may be right but I just don't see how pass can be the winning action.

[gnasher]

r_prah, on 2013-January-01, 22:38, said:

1) How would you have ruled as the director?
2) How would you rule as a member of the appeals committee?

The same way. The director and appeals committee have the same facts, and they're applying the same rules.

[gnasher]

sfi, on 2013-January-02, 04:39, said:

I'm having trouble constructing hands where partner has a takeout double with four hearts where both 4♠ and 5♥ are going down.

Give West AKQJxx K J10 10xxx and North xx A10xx Kxx KQJx.

[gordontd]

sfi, on 2013-January-02, 04:39, said:

Why? I'm having trouble constructing hands where partner has a takeout double with four hearts where both 4♠ and 5♥ are going down. You may be right but I just don't see how pass can be the winning action.

If I should be bidding 5♥ now, I don't think I should have bid 2♥ earlier. The only additional information I legitimately have from partner is that he definitely has four hearts.

[gnasher]

gordontd, on 2013-January-02, 05:27, said:

If I should be bidding 5♥ now, I don't think I should have bid 2♥ earlier. The only additional information I legitimately have from partner is that he definitely has four hearts.

Yes. Even if 5♥ looks automatic to some of us, what matters is whether it would be automatic for someone who bid only 2♥ on the first round.

[mamos]

gnasher, on 2013-January-02, 06:31, said:

Yes. Even if 5♥ looks automatic to some of us, what matters is whether it would be automatic for someone who bid only 2♥ on the first round.

Gordon and Andy have got to the heart of the matter. A player who a couple of rounds ago thought that 2♥ was the correct response to a takeout double now thinks the hand is worth 5♥ is the correct call. Of course its two rounds and 90 seconds later.

If you want to take a poll I'd suggest that first of all you need to find some players who think 2♥ the correct initial response. (I run a beginners' class on Monday evening, i'll ask them, but I tell you now that none of them would dream of bidding 5♥ though most would bid 2♥ initially.)

As a TD I'd feel that to rule back to 4♠ was the correct thing to do. I'd worry that a sophisticated appeals committee would allow 5♥ but I've been there before

Mike

[Cyberyeti]

mamos, on 2013-January-02, 08:16, said:

Gordon and Andy have got to the heart of the matter. A player who a couple of rounds ago thought that 2♥ was the correct response to a takeout double now thinks the hand is worth 5♥ is the correct call. Of course its two rounds and 90 seconds later.

If you want to take a poll I'd suggest that first of all you need to find some players who think 2♥ the correct initial response. (I run a beginners' class on Monday evening, i'll ask them, but I tell you now that none of them would dream of bidding 5♥ though most would bid 2♥ initially.)

As a TD I'd feel that to rule back to 4♠ was the correct thing to do. I'd worry that a sophisticated appeals committee would allow 5♥ but I've been there before

Mike

It's not so uncommon among players who think "I've got a 15 count, that's too good to overcall so I must double first" that they don't want to bid 3♥ on this sort of hand in response to the double where partner might be a 15 count with a club suit. Now partner shows up with hearts and their hand is huge so 5♥ is obvious. The question should also be asked as to how much is too much to make a simple overcall.

In my book, 3♥ showed a decent hand (at least for offensive purposes) as well as hearts (I wouldn't bid 3♥ on the hand Gnasher gives, do I really want to do this opposite flat semi-rubbish). Partner bidding 2♥ then 4♥ shows some values. I'm wondering whether what N was thinking about was not "Am I bidding 5♥" but "is pass forcing" (which by the meta agreements we have would be an interesting question). The problem is that these passes tend to be "obviously forcing" when preceded by a hesitation.

If 3♥ shows extras then I'm NEVER passing 4♠, 5♥ and double are both in the frame.

[Codo]

I would bid 5 ♥, but I am no peer- this is never ever a 2 ♥ bid in my book.

For the ruling: I think we need to know about 2 ♥ 3 ♥ and 4 ♥. If there is no convincing story behind these bids, I would rule 4 ♠ -2- undoubled.

And besides the ruling: We should explain north that he really puts an awful lot of pressure on his partner with a slow bid, but a slow pass will very often be a case for a ruling in favour of the opps...

[mycroft]

The only thing I can add to this (because my comment is "if pass is LA for this South, then 4S-2. Otherwise, no LA, no adjustment") is that double is the classic "right whichever hesitation you have" call and, unless South can convince me that this auction is forcing (which I doubt) and that 5♥ isn't logical (which I also doubt), if 4♠X, passed out, is right, we're ruling against it; so here, where it isn't right, I can't honestly allow it as an action I'm going to impose.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on 2013-January-02, 01:56, said:

Really? A break in tempo is not in itself an infraction so why would an opponent call the director.

This is what Law 16B2&3 say in my law book

[snip]

Which seems completely different than calling at the time of the BIT.

My bad. I was focused on the fact that EW called when the 5♥ bid was made, which is not correct procedure. Correct procedure would have been to establish agreement, at the time of the BIT, that there was in fact a BIT. Correct procedure, at that time, if the OS do not agree, is for them to call the TD but IME offenders frequently do not do that, leaving it to the NOS (EW in this case) to do so. Once the existence of the BIT is established (with or without the director), correct procedure is for the NOS (EW in this case) to call the TD at the end of play if they feel an opponent chose an action which could have been suggested by UI*, not at the time of the suspect action.

*Not, I should note, if they feel they were damaged, which is the instruction given by most TDs when called, usually at the time of the BIT.

[barmar]

I don't think South has a 3♥ response to the double, which shows 9-11 HCP around here. I think the choices at his first turn after the double are either 2♥ or 4♥, the latter showing a weak hand with a long suit.

But his hand has flaws for the 4♠ bid at that point. He has 3 spades, and responder didn't raise, so partner is likely to have a doubleton, possibly even 3 and hand too strong for an overcall. South's hand doesn't start looking better until after all the competitive bidding has taken place.

[sfi]

barmar, on 2013-January-02, 14:18, said:

I don't think South has a 3♥ response to the double, which shows 9-11 HCP around here. I think the choices at his first turn after the double are either 2♥ or 4♥, the latter showing a weak hand with a long suit.

But his hand has flaws for the 4♥ bid at that point. He has 3 spades, and responder didn't raise, so partner is likely to have a doubleton, possibly even 3 and hand too strong for an overcall. South's hand doesn't start looking better until after all the competitive bidding has taken place.

My thoughts precisely. I don't buy the idea that just because the person bid 2♥ initially that they cannot listen to the auction and reevaluate their hand in light of new information.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2013-January-02, 14:18, said:

I don't think South has a 3♥ response to the double, which shows 9-11 HCP around here. I think the choices at his first turn after the double are either 2♥ or 4♥, the latter showing a weak hand with a long suit.

I don't see how 2♥ can be a choice. South has xxx opposite partner's shortness, six trumps, an ace, and a singleton. What a hand!

[sfi]

billw55, on 2013-January-02, 16:15, said:

I don't see how 2♥ can be a choice. South has xxx opposite partner's shortness, six trumps, an ace, and a singleton. What a hand!

If the doubler considers a hand such as xx A10xx Kxx KQJx to not only be worth a double but also good enough to bid again, a bit of restraint may be worthwhile.