[McBruce]

Scoring: MP

---

(this hand has been posted to rgb and blml -- I invite comment)

ACBL: North American Pairs Unit Final
Second of two sessions: twinned Howells, following an 8-table skip Mitchell. Matchpoints.
Flight B/C Stratified, all pairs under 2000 MP

Both pairs in this case were Flight C pairs, under 500 MP and non-LM (at the beginning of the club stage at least, N-S now are both LMs over 500 MP but the CoCs specify masterpoint holding at the June 2005 cycle.)

Auction (all bids with explanations were timely alerted and explained when asked for):

South: Pass
West: 1♣ (Precision, 16+, or apparently a shapely 15)
North: Pass
East: 1♥ (transfer to 1♠)
South: Pass
West: 1♠ (forced)
North: 2♦
East: 3♦
South: 5♦
West: 6♥
North: Pass
East: 7♠
South: Double
West: Pass
North: Pass
East: 7NT
South: Double
All Pass

TD (me) was called when dummy appeared. I gave a stern lecture to North before hearing the facts because he was pointing angrily at East and holding court as I was making my way to the table.

Both sides agreed that there was a break in tempo by West after the double of 7♠. I told them to get a result and I would look at the deal and decide if an adjustment was warranted. 7NT was laydown and NS were calling me back before I returned to the desk.

1) Is pass a logical alternative for East? (Don't answer yes without considering what West can possibly have for his Precision opener from East's point of view.)
2) Is South's double of 7NT an egregious attempt at a double shot?
3) How do you rule?

(my ruling below)

































My ruling:

With the help of three players who were present but not kibitzing, it was determined that pass was certainly a logical alternative. I actually didn't listen much to their conversation so I don't know if they considered the "what can he have for 1♣?" argument later made by East. The call came just as I had figured out how to get ACBLScore to handle the Mitchell/twinned Howell and finally entered the scores from round one, then when I picked up the slips for round two the call came and I was distracted. I resumed entering the round two scores by picking up round one's slips again and discovered that everyone had played the wrong boards in round two. Five frantic minutes went by while I tried to work out a solution until I saw the other set of slips...

I decided to agree with the panel that pass was an LA, adjusted the EW score to 7♠*-3, and then turned to the second question. The panel was split on the issue of whether the double of 7NT was a double shot. I decided that the level of the players did not warrant calling this a double shot. If N-S were Flight A players or even strong Flight B players I would have made them eat -1790.

Predictably, letting the players know about the decision did not go well. I began with NS, first repeating my stern warning about North's behavior, then telling them I had decided to adjust to 7♠*-3. When I informed South that the double of 7NT was very close to a double shot, he began interrupting me repeatedly and I had to say "Excuse me--this is NOT a conversation or a debate, this is an announcement and a warning and I will penalize you for further such interruptions." I don't think South has learned his lesson: "I never considered it a double-shot," he continued to insist long after I had warned him not to argue further. I expect he will have to eat a similar score in future.

East-West were unhappy with the decision but were more accepting of it. I told them that I had given both North and South severe warnings for North's behavior and for South's very questionable double of 7NT. They asked if I had considered the fact that the Precision 1♣ opener allowed East to infer a strong possibility of having the A♦, and I told them that this had been considered and made it a closer decision that it would have in a standard auction. I also, of course, told them that they were free to appeal if they wished, since the ruling was a judgment ruling. Later during a break I talked to them and assured them that I did not think either of them were guilty of an ethical lapse. I think this is a widely misunderstood point, especially with intermediate players who think that an adjustment automatically means somebody deliberately did something wrong.

Not that it matters, or that any sane Director would ever consider changing a ruling because of the effect it has on the score, but: In the end both pairs qualified and in fact EW finished well ahead of NS, qualifying in the B and C field. EW lost a place to the ruling, NS would still have qualified easily if forced to eat -1790, as they were the third of five C pairs in the 16-pair field.





More oddities for BLML regulars to comment on:

With sixteen pairs, is there a better two-session movement than the one I chose? We played a skip Mitchell in the afternoon, 28 boards, and twinned four-table Howells in the evening, scored across the field and sharing one set of boards. This meant all pairs played four boards against 14 of the 15 other pairs, missing only the pair that they skipped or skipped them during the afternoon session. I of course ensured that the C-pairs and the best of the B-pairs did not skip one another.

One oddity that made things interesting was that the club had two sets of four-table Howell table markers that were slightly different. ACBLScore recognizes this and asks whether the table markers are the standard or alternate version. We actually had one player notice that the two movements were slightly different!

I probably would have noticed--possibly I would have been informed by ACBLScore--but I was told by a member of my ad hoc appeals panel at the beginning of the second session that factoring would be necessary, since top in the afternoon was 6 and top in the evening was 7.

One suggestion that was made might have worked a little better: set the second session up as the twinned Howells, but give one section only the first two boards of each four-board set, and the other section the second two boards of each four-board set. Play seven rounds of two boards, exchange, and play seven more two-board rounds. This would eliminate the sharing of boards (I preduplicated all of the boards as I usually do to avoid duplication errors), and would even allow for a leaderboard with 14 boards left to be posted. The drawbacks, I felt, would be the likelyhood that one side would get a round ahead of the other, making it difficult to control, and that the 3/4 time leaderboard would induce some wild actions in the final quarter. Opinions?

As a TD running a two-session game for the first time, I found ACBLScore to be marvelously self-explanatory in helping with the crossovers and the factoring. I am sure that tournament TDs do this all the time and it is routine, but for me it was all new and I found all of the information I needed in the help files. Kudos to Jim Lopushinsky and others who have helped with ACBLScore.

[david_c]

I agree that pass is a LA. But I don't think that it's obviously a LA, so no PP.

I don't have a problem with the double of 7NT. It seems perfectly normal (though that's not saying it's correct). So I disagree with the warning given to South.

Also, did E/W really agree to a break in tempo here, or did they just agree that West paused to think after the double of 7♠? I don't think it's clear what normal tempo would be in this situation. If there was an agreed pause of less than ten seconds, you might argue that this did not constitute a break in tempo at all.

[cherdano]

I think passing 7♠X is bad (since it is MP, the difference between -100 and -1100 is small, so it is only about guessing which contract is more likely to make), but bidding 7♠ is much worse. Thus this mean it has to be a logical alternative? In fact, I think 7♠ is so bad that I wonder whether XX should be a logical alternative.

I don't understand why people are so quick about assuming double shots. Not doubling 7NT would be admitting a mistake, so many would double it automatically. And if South does not double and it goes down about the same amount as 7♠ would have, he may not get a score correction because the TD judges the result to be his own fault (for not doubling 7NT). Opinions on penalty doubles vary a lot, and you will see many of them by normal players in normal situations that others would egregiously bad.

In particular I don't understand why we go to some length of always assuring those whose call may have been based on UI that we don't accuse them of doing anything morally bad. Whereas here you accuse the non-offending side of a "failure to play bridge" or "irrational and gambling action". If anything, the non-offending side should get more protection of being accused of doing something morally wrong.

Arend

[mycroft]

Oh well, I seem to be rambling; sorry.

Nice handling of a very difficult situation.

As a Precision player, I find this incongruous. I play transfer positives as well, but this hand is an obvious "I don't care, we aren't playing spades" hand. If their system really says that 1S is forced, I have no idea how they expect the strong hand to control the auctions.

What was 3D? What is their systemic response by East after 1C-1H; 1S if North passes? Was the double of 7S immediate or did South wait over the skip bid? If it was immediate, was West's call within about 12 seconds of East's 7S call? I tend to be more pushy with people who fail to follow Skip Bid Procedure (protect themselves, as it were) and then try to nail their opponents for hesitations within the time the opponent would have had had they not ignored the Procedure.

Having said all that, when I tell partner what my hand is, and he insists on slam in a totally unbid suit, I am going to trust him. If I'm going to bid 7, it's 100% going to be 7H - espeically when I can tell he's right, given my SA to 5 and HAT. 7S is insane unless 1S promises some semblance of support, however (as it does in my system) - in which case East gets to blame West for -800.

Did anyone mention to East that the double could possibly be Lightner, with Sxx and a Heart void? That doesn't say anything about diamonds, or the SK, and now 7Sx is off 1, but 7NT could be off a million, or might make - but it's much more likely to make once partner hesitates.

South's "but it's not a double-shot" - well, people do get into the doubling rhythm, and also will double 7NT for "Well, I guess I shouldn't have doubled the only contract I can set, better hope this one goes down". I'm surprised, really, that people thought it was that close (or maybe south didn't give those explanations). I often find that asking to speak to the player at the end of the game, when you can give book explanations ("irrational, wild and gambling", for instance) and the player is far enough away from the hand that he can see what it looks like from outside, tends to get a "okay, I can see that." He may still disagree with you, but at least reason has been engaged.

It is uncomfortable that the offenders were expressly told that nobody thought they did anything deliberately improper, and that the NOs were strongly warned about something that may or may not have happened, with no mention that they may not have done anything deliberately improper themselves. But I've given those responses as well, and felt uncomfortable afterwards...

The ACBL - see the Appeals Casebooks - has a very low standard for "irrational, wild and gambling" - it will deny redress if the non-offenders fail to "continue to play bridge to their level". It doesn't have to be your best game, but it still has to be to your level. This is a consciously- and deliberately-set low standard; many things are ruled IWG that would not be anywhere else in the world, especially in high-level events.

Michael.