[inquiry]

Scoring: MP

Pass Pass 1♣ 1NT
DBL 2♥(1) Pass Pass
DBL 2♠ Pass Pass
DBL All Pass

1) See alert, by South

2♠x made +870 NS

---

This was Face to face, south alert the 2♥ and explained it as follows

Quote

When West questioned the meaning of 2♥ South said, “I’m not real sure. If our 1NT opening is doubled for penalty it shows hearts and spades; I’m going to play partner for hearts and spades.”

The defense started ♣Ace then a spade.

After the hand was over, EW called the director stating they had been given Misinforation regarding the 2♥ bid and that north did not correct the MI.

North told the director he thought they played jacoby transfer on this auction, and when the director asked North while he didn't correct the "misinformation" when he bid 2♠. North replied that it was obvious what had happened when he bid 2♠.

EW stated

Quote

West claimed that he might have passed 2[ if he had known that it was a transfer. East said that if she had known that 2[ was a transfer she might have led (or switched) to a heart on the actual auction.

The director ruled EW were damaged by MI and changed teh contract to 2♥ down two for +200 EW.

In appeal committee none of the facts were in dispute. The committee also uncovers..

Quote

This auction had never come up before for this NS partnership since N/S had played together every couple of months for the past year or two.

An examination of N/S convention cards clearly showed that they played a specific runout convention over 1NT doubled. Although the actual runout sequence was not listed on the card, the committee members were familiar with the runout where 2♥ shows both major. The convention card also had the major transfer boxes checked on the front of the card with the “system on” box checked on the back. The play in 2♠ doubled had been: ♣Ace, ♠ to the King, ♠ACE,  ♦Jack.

Please vote on how you would have ruled if you were on the appeals committee, and in addition, answer these questions in your reply.

1) Was there MI?
2) Should North have corrected south's explaination or was it obvious what happened
3) Did E/W do anything to hurt their case?
4) In addition to your ruling, would you do anything else?

[awm]

It seems fairly clear to me from south's explanation that the partnership does not have a specific agreement about this bid. North's action in pulling 2♥X is the only logical alternative here and cannot be based on UI from partner's explanation (there is no sensible reason for partner to pass a transfer he knows is a transfer, or to want to play 2♥ on Jx opposite a strong notrump). The 2♠ pull should clue E/W in, and it seems like 2♠ is making on this type of line (basically conceding a diamond trick to avoid the tap) regardless of the defense (so arguments about defending differently are spurious).

While north could have emphasized that "we have not specifically discussed the meaning of 2♥ in this sequence" before the lead, south did already say that.

I'd revert to the table result, +870 for N/S and -870 for E/W.

[chicken]

do they allow 5cd majors in their 1nt overcall? if yes the removal to 2spades wouldnt stand i guess. and i would set the contract to 2heart down whatever doubled.
if not the run isnt based on UI but on the obvious mistake by pd, and that is not forbidden.
if the system notes are unclear nobody is entitled to correct anything. u are not supposed to tell ur opps ur hand but ur sys. so in this case i would let the result stand.

[paulg]

inquiry, on Feb 27 2007, 04:35 PM, said:

2) Should North have corrected south's explanation or was it obvious what happened

Before the opening lead (and not when he bid 2♠) it would have been 'active ethics' for North to state that South was probably right ("... not real sure") that they had not discussed this sequence.

As North believed this was obvious, then it obviously costs nothing to state it.

Otherwise I concur with Adam.

Paul

[Gerben42]

First of all I'm going to allow 2♠, that much is clear. However when North didn't correct the explanation he robbed East of the opportunity to remove his final pass.

I'm going to rule that the bad score came from West not realizing East could have a 3rd seat opener caused the result, not MI.

[jtfanclub]

So what, this was a trick X? He X'd, intending to pull it when the obvious explanation was given, to give partner more information?

Looks to me like mistaken bid, not mistaken explanation. The fact that North made a bid that was counter to his (written) system is completely legal. I can find the chapter and verse if you'd like. I don't see any evidence that South's explanation woke up North...they have no better than a 5-2 fit doubled in hearts, and no worse than a 5-2 fit in spades which might not get doubled. 2♠ is clear regardless of the meaning of South's pass.

If I interpret a 4♣ bid as Gerber, and later in the auction it becomes clear that it wasn't Gerber and that I made a mistake in interpreting it that way, the opponents don't get to find out what I meant by an earlier bid. They get an explanation of what the bids should have meant....the same information that partner has. They don't get to find out what I was thinking when I made a bid. For North to change partner's explanation from the correct one to an incorrect one which matches his hand is against the rules.

No adjustment.

Editted to add: this doesn't make the director's ruling wrong. The director didn't know that they had, in writing, evidence that this was mistaken bid and not mistaken explanation. Just because it's being reversed doesn't mean the director did anything bad.

This post has been edited by jtfanclub: 2007-February-27, 11:31

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on Feb 27 2007, 02:59 PM, said:

What if they asked partner what 2H was and he said "jacoby transfer" and then passed 2H? Would anyone really consider pulling 2HX? I highly doubt it, if partner knows you have made a transfer and passes he obviously psyched 1N. Whatever he's doing he knows you have 5 spades so you can safely pass.

I think it's perfectly reasonable in a runout situation to refuse the transfer with a difference of two (4 hearts and 2 spades, or 5 hearts and 3 spades). If you don't get doubled, you've succeeded in running (even if it means a 6 card fit), if you do get doubled, the 2♥ bidder now has enough information to complete the xfer himself or pass. I certainly wouldn't assume that partner psyched the 1NT bid just because he refused the transfer, not in a runout.

I play a 12-15 NT overcall in direct seat. Twice, with new partners* on this identical auction, they've made what they probably thought was a transfer, even though systems are off after an X. I've refused the transfer, because...

1) Maybe they remembered this time
2) My suit in their bid is much better than the suit they're directing me to, and
3) Anything we play in undoubled is a good thing.

I expect partner to complete the transfer if we're doubled and he doesn't like the suit I've unexpectedly left him in. But then, I've never psyched a 1NT overcall or opener, and I don't expect partner to decide that this was the one time.

*yes, I have convinced multiple poor saps to play this.

[helene_t]

Gerben42, on Feb 27 2007, 07:01 PM, said:

First of all I'm going to allow 2♠, that much is clear. However when North didn't correct the explanation he robbed East of the opportunity to remove his final pass.

I'm going to rule that the bad score came from West not realizing East could have a 3rd seat opener caused the result, not MI.

This is interesting. I was just about to say that I agreed with Adam, but maybe East would have bid something if he was told that he could have changed his final pass.

East didn't mention that possibility but could that be because he didn't know his rights? This is doubtful of course, and it's also doubtful if East would have changed his final pass if told he could to so.

This is all hypothetical, though, since the explanation seems to be correct. The table result applies. North must be told that he must correct the misexplanation even if it's "obvious" but that it probably doesn't apply here.

EW seem to be double-shooting, first by West's speculative double (in light of East's possible light opening) and East's talk about a heart lead. I think they need some ethics coaching.

[hotShot]

1) Was there MI?
If south did not know what they played here, he should say "no agreement".
But he decided to state that 2♥ showed both majors, this is MI if they can't back it up with a CC or system description.

Now the CC stated that there is a specific runout convention over 1NT doubled. The runout convention itself is not explained.
So the full prove that is required from the offending side is not there, so MI has to be ruled.

Additionally north did not say, "I misbid" or "I psyched", but that "it was obvious".
I think considering that MI is clear.

2) Should North have corrected south's explaination or was it obvious what happened ?
a) If the explanation was correct, north had nothing to correct because he misbid or psyched.
b ) If the explanation was wrong, north had to correct it.

The obvious part is not so easy to answer. West bid pass- dbl- dbl.
What was the first dbl? Support, negative, penalty?
If it was negative than east know that west should have some cards in heart, spade and diamond. So east knows that together with his own 4 hearts, south explanation can't be right. I think he should have called the TD after playing the ♣A and seeing dummy, because north 4-5♥, his 4, 3 from dummy and some for partners hand add up to more than 13.
I don't see how west could know that south explanation is wrong.

But please keep in mind that, south said that north has ♥ and ♠ so I don't buy that west would have passed knowing it was transfer, and remember west dbled 2♠ too.

3) Did E/W do anything to hurt their case?

East opened very light and if east is an experienced player, I will consider that he knew that this was misinformed, and decided not to call the TD because the table score might give a better result. He should have called the TD earlier.

4) I would give north a procedural penalty for not correcting the MI.

5) We need Misinformation, Damage and the Damage has to be a consequence of of the Misinformation. We have MI and we have damage.
Both opps were told that north has ♥ and ♠ and that North has only few cards in the minors, so there are not many minor tricks for them. East knows that NS might not have a ♥ fit and suspects from partners first and 3rd dbl that the ♠ don't break well and opps might not even have a fit (south prefered ♥ over ♠).
West knows that both majors don't break favorable for NS and that he might not get his ♦K and perhaps partners ♣ might not make many tricks too, because south should probably have a ♣ stopper for his 1NT bid.
So I tend to think that the problem is that east has only 9 HCP and nothing in ♦ or the majors.
So if the 2♠ bid was allowed, I would decide that the result stands.

So the big question is: Was north allowed to run from 2♥X?
If NS can prove that 1NT can never have a 5card major and that 1NT has to have 2 cards in each suit, than north can move from a dbled 6 card fit to a sure 7 card fit in ♠. Otherwise he has to pass.

6) The TD has to rule in favor of the non offending side, and suggest to the offending side to appeal. So the ruling is what he should rule and the appeal committee might change that ruling. Without the data about 5 card majors in NT bids, I don't know what the appeals committee should do.

[jtfanclub]

hotShot, on Feb 27 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

1) Was there MI?
If south did not know what they played here, he should say "no agreement".
But he decided to state that 2♥ showed both majors, this is MI if they can't back it up with a CC or system description.

That is NOT what he said.

He said there was no specific agreement on this auction (that he could recall), but on a similar auction the bid showed ♥ and ♠. That's not the same thing as saying that this auction showed both majors.

I don't know what to say to the idea that it should be illegal to go from a doubled seven card fit to another seven card fit at the same level in hopes that it won't be doubled. To me that's automatic, but apparently not everybody agrees.

[hotShot]

jtfanclub, on Feb 28 2007, 01:06 AM, said:

I don't know what to say to the idea that it should be illegal to go from a doubled seven card fit to another seven card fit at the same level in hopes that it won't be doubled. To me that's automatic, but apparently not everybody agrees.

Since this was f2f bridge without screens north got the UI that south misunderstood his bid.
So he is not allowed to make any bid that is suggested by the UI and bidding ♠ is suggested strongly by the UI. So north is only allowed to bid ♠, if there is no logical alternative to it.

[inquiry]

I think as a whole, the forum members have done an outstanding job with this problem. There is a four page write up on this case at this link (see page 49, case 15) including comments by Bramley, Rigal, Gerard (not cohen), and Wolff. I found Wolff's comments very enlightening.

For the record, the committee ruled not MI, as south had correctly warned his opponetns that he was not sure what the 2♥ bid meant. Interestingly, the commitee ruled that north was not obligated to disclose to the opponetns the meaning for a bid for which his partnership had no agreement (this may still be open to discussion).

EW were thought to have contributed to the poor results. NS were warned to firm up their agreements to avoid this type of problem in the future.

Interesting reading.

[mink]

First of all, I would allow North to bid 2♠ even though he has a UI, because passing does not sound like a logical alternative to me.

About the MI, I would consider there was an MI. If they play transfers and have "system on" checked, then in order for 2♥ to mean both majors this case should be explicitly stated in the cc.

Now imagine what West would have done if the 2♥ was explained as "transfer". Of course, this would never happen without screens and even not with screens, as West and South happen to sit on the same side of the screen. But online, North would explain transfer, and this is the information West is entitled to get. Now South passes the transfer. Given the 1nt overcall the odds for EW to make a game are not very high, but 2♥ will go down for sure, so West would have passed.

So I would agree with the TD's decision that the contract should be 2♥ by North. However, I have no idea why this should be -2. I would rule that EW draw trump, cash their ♣ tricks and the ♦K. These are 9 tricks, so there are only 4 tricks left for the declarer, and this results to -4.

Everything else what was discussed here, including a possible double shot, happened after West doubled the second time, and can be disregarded if the double is changed to a pass. If anybody is interested, I do not consider the third double to be a double shot, as it is not very exotic. Rather, I believe that West believed that 2♠ would go down.

Karl

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Feb 28 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

I think as a whole, the forum members have done an outstanding job with this problem. There is a four page write up on this case at this link (see page 49, case 15) including comments by Bramley, Rigal, Gerard (not cohen), and Wolff. I found Wolff's comments very enlightening.

Its important to note that Wolff's little crusade against Convention Disruption is (largely) a personal thing.

His theories on this topic are far removed from the mainstream. He might wish that these philosophies were codified in Law, but they ain't.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Feb 28 2007, 09:26 AM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 28 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

I think as a whole, the forum members  have done an outstanding job with this problem. There is a four page write up on this case at this link (see page 49, case 15) including comments by Bramley, Rigal, Gerard (not cohen), and Wolff. I found Wolff's comments very enlightening.

Its important to note that Wolff's little crusade against Convention Disruption is (largely) a personal thing.

His theories on this topic are far removed from the mainstream. He might wish that these philosophies were codified in Law, but they ain't.

It is clear that his views are not the law.. he even start off with a statement that point this out... which I quote below

“There is no doubt that this experienced Committee is following the laws. However, if this NABC Open Pairs would be called a big-time event (I’d vote no) it would show to me and should show to everyone who doesn’t have his own agenda just how inferior the interpretation of our laws have become; and they are getting worse.

His views are then very clearly spelled out his views using this nice real world example. I found his arguements very strong, even whiile agreeing with the committee's view of this hand.

[david_c]

inquiry, on Feb 28 2007, 03:35 PM, said:

It is clear that his views are not the law.. he even start off with a statement that point this out... which I quote below

“There is no doubt that this experienced Committee is following the laws. However, if this NABC Open Pairs would be called a big-time event (I’d vote no) it would show to me and should show to everyone who doesn’t have his own agenda just how inferior the interpretation of our laws have become; and they are getting worse.

His views are then very clearly spelled out his views using this nice real world example.  I found his arguements very strong, even whiile agreeing with the committee's view of this hand.

Fair enough, but someone should really have told Wolff to "put up or shut up", as least as far as appeals casebooks are concerned. He makes the same comment every time, and it's incredibly annoying.

[hrothgar]

inquiry, on Feb 28 2007, 05:35 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Feb 28 2007, 09:26 AM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 28 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

I think as a whole, the forum members  have done an outstanding job with this problem. There is a four page write up on this case at this link (see page 49, case 15) including comments by Bramley, Rigal, Gerard (not cohen), and Wolff. I found Wolff's comments very enlightening.

Its important to note that Wolff's little crusade against Convention Disruption is (largely) a personal thing.

His theories on this topic are far removed from the mainstream. He might wish that these philosophies were codified in Law, but they ain't.

It is clear that his views are not the law.. he even start off with a statement that point this out... which I quote below

“There is no doubt that this experienced Committee is following the laws. However, if this NABC Open Pairs would be called a big-time event (I’d vote no) it would show to me and should show to everyone who doesn’t have his own agenda just how inferior the interpretation of our laws have become; and they are getting worse.

His views are then very clearly spelled out his views using this nice real world example. I found his arguements very strong, even whiile agreeing with the committee's view of this hand.

Wolff is a radical, in the worst sense of the word. Wolff was on a crusade to overturn the existing order. He had the truth of his convinctions and ruled based on his own theories regarding what is right and proper and ignoring issues related to process and precedent. (I readily admit, that I am streaching things to claim that the concept of precedent applies in bridge. None-the-less, I claim that there is value in ensuring that appeals are resolved in a consistant manner)

Wolff was involved in a number of quite controversial appeals, some of which were analyzed extensively on various Internet mailing lists. Unlike Mike, I don't worry much about Wolff pontificating during appeals writeups. Sure, he pretty much sounds one note, but he's not going to be able to do much harm doing writeups of Appeals Cases. (I'd even go so far as to argue that write ups of Appeals hearing are a great location for people to present different theories about the law)

What worries me extensively is the harm that Wolff was actually able to inflict back when he was chairing appeals proceedings. He was responsible for some real humdingers. As I understand matters, some people shared my view, because the end result of Wolff's little crusade is that Bobby got reigned in.

I'm going to attach a direct quote from Wolff which provides a good summary of his philosophy:

"We cannot wait for 100% evidence of violations, but must rather act with harsh punishment for apparent disrespect of the game itself. Yes, at times it will be subjective, but as long as solid people are in control, it will work. And at the very least, under threat of bad scores (plus some embarrassment) the players will be aware of the horrors of not conforming."

This is the essence of totalitarianism....

If anyone is seriously interested in this topic, I recommend looking over the following web pages. It contains an interesting discussion about the Beate Birr appeals case back in Lille.

http://www.blakjak.d...o.uk/lille7.htm

[MickyB]

hrothgar, on Feb 28 2007, 03:23 PM, said:

Wolff was involved in a number of quite controversial appeals, some of which were analyzed extensively on various Internet mailing lists. Unlike Mike, I don't worry much about Wolff pontificating during appeals writeups.

How did you guess that I agreed with David?

[helene_t]

I can sorta understand Wolff. He hardly plays any conventions himself and his partnership agreements haven't changed for the last fifty years. He would surely benefit from punishment of convention disruptions.