[dogsbreath]

Hi ..
interesting to guess which of the ladies is Liz McGowan

I also suspect big 2-suiter with the S overcaller .. but a player of Liz's calibre would take the money and run ..not XX ..
And not South .. would foresee this situation ..psyching a strong bid then not knowing what to do over p's X .. so North is Liz

I've no idea what the right action is ... have i got the right lady?

Rgds Dog

[chicken]

the hardest thing for me is to imagine beeing a scottish woman :-(
compared to that the 5club bid was quite easy :-)

[Walddk]

Part 4:

And now the issue in a nutshell:

After the redouble of 5♠ you give it some thought*) and decide to pass. When this comes back to partner, she pulls to 6♣ which was the winning action on this layout:

*) agreed long think.

Scoring: IMP

---

The TD ruled it back to 5♠XX+1 (-1600), appealed by NS. The on site Appeals Committee overruled and came to this verdict:

6♣X-1 (-200) 75% of the time, 5♠XX+1 (-1600) 25% of the time, hence -550 (and 14 imps against -1660 in the other room). EW have appealed to the national body, the Laws and Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union, on grounds of incompetence of the AC and are waiting for them to reopen the appeal.

Eventually, these two teams tied for 1st place. The tie was broken on a head to head basis between the two teams. The result was in favour of the NS team, so the selection of the Scottish woman team for the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships will depend on the appeal, still pending.

How would you rule?

Roland

P.S. No, "dog", Liz McGowan was West and she was the one who walked the dog with her slow approach (3♠ and 5♠). Yes, she could have bid 6♠ after North pulled to 6♣ (doubled by East) but it wasn't that easy.

[Fluffy]

I feel those %s are reversed, -1250 seem more fair to me. It seems closer that you would pass your penalty double, specially with an UI. Sure passing is not right, but that is because doubling wasn't either. It is pretty hard to judge then.

[awm]

Is this really an occasion for a split score? I'm not totally sure because we really don't use split scores in the states...

However, I thought the rule was "you may not choose, from amongst logical alternatives, one which was demonstrably suggested by the UI." So if passing 5♠XX is deemed a logical alternative, the director's ruling should stand. It's not a case where it's somehow "hard to predict what would have happened if north had acted ethically." Seems to me you're supposed to just poll expert players and see how many would pass 5♠XX on the auction given (without hesitations). If it's a reasonable number, you award 5♠XX to both sides -- you don't award a percentage result like this one. My feeling is that passing one's own penalty double when it gets redoubled is always a logical alternative, and that with partner having shown a strong raise (2♠) it is very difficult to expect that 5♠ will make.

[han]

I agree with Adam

[whereagles]

Well, my judgement is that the UI clearly suggests taking out to 6♣, so I leave it at 5♠ redoubled.

[mike777]

Walddk, on Dec 3 2005, 01:28 AM, said:

Part 4:

And now the issue in a nutshell:

After the redouble of 5♠ you give it some thought*) and decide to pass. When this comes back to partner, she pulls to 6♣ which was the winning action on this layout:

*) agreed long think.

Scoring: IMP

---

The TD ruled it back to 5♠XX+1 (-1600), appealed by NS. The on site Appeals Committee overruled and came to this verdict:

6♣X-1 (-200) 75% of the time, 5♠XX+1 (-1600) 25% of the time, hence -550 (and 14 imps against -1660 in the other room). EW have appealed to the national body, the Laws and Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union, on grounds of incompetence of the AC and are waiting for them to reopen the appeal.

Eventually, these two teams tied for 1st place. The tie was broken on a head to head basis between the two teams. The result was in favour of the NS team, so the selection of the Scottish woman team for the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships will depend on the appeal, still pending.

How would you rule?

Roland

P.S. No, "dog", Liz McGowan was West and she was the one who walked the dog with her slow approach (3♠ and 5♠). Yes, she could have bid 6♠ after North pulled to 6♣ (doubled by East) but it wasn't that easy.

Roland you gave us the TD and the commitee conclusion but not the logic on how and why that decision was reached. Based on your post it seems they acted with no reason at all....?

I assume some law or rule was broken?
I assume a limited number of methods of restoring equity or applying penalties were available to apply?

1) Why did the TD rule that way?
2) Why did the AC rule their way?
3) What law or rules were applied?
4) What methods of equity did they have to choose from once they decided some rules were broken?

[Walddk]

I don't have the grounds of the rulings, so I don't want to speculate. However, if I were to rule based on the information I have from a very reliable source, only two rulings are possible:

1. 5♠XX+1
2. 6♣X-1

Either pass of 5♠XX is a logical alternative or it's not. You can't give a weighted score in a case like this. If South had a long think (agreed) before she passed 5♠XX, North can't pull. It is not even close in my opinion. If South had passed in tempo, North would not have pulled. The UI she got after the long think made her pull.

Therefore, the TDs ruling was correct, and I understand that the non-offending side has appealed to the Laws and Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union on "grounds of incompetence of the AC".

It's a serious case when you need to go this far by dismissing a ruling of an AC. There is usually no further step beyond the AC. On the other hand, if the rules and regulations give you the option of bringing the case before the "Supreme Court", you are obviously entitled to do so.

Roland

[Free]

I'd bid 6♣ immediatly, let opps find it out...

[LH2650]

Had the match been completed, with the score known to the Appeals Committee when it met? It seems too coincidental that the adjusted score resulted in a tie.

[Fluffy]

awm, on Dec 3 2005, 03:51 PM, said:

Is this really an occasion for a split score? I'm not totally sure because we really don't use split scores in the states...

However, I thought the rule was "you may not choose, from amongst logical alternatives, one which was demonstrably suggested by the UI." So if passing 5♠XX is deemed a logical alternative, the director's ruling should stand. It's not a case where it's somehow "hard to predict what would have happened if north had acted ethically." Seems to me you're supposed to just poll expert players and see how many would pass 5♠XX on the auction given (without hesitations). If it's a reasonable number, you award 5♠XX to both sides -- you don't award a percentage result like this one. My feeling is that passing one's own penalty double when it gets redoubled is always a logical alternative, and that with partner having shown a strong raise (2♠) it is very difficult to expect that 5♠ will make.

No expert player would double 5♠, how can they think if they would pass a redouble?

[Walddk]

LH2650, on Dec 4 2005, 08:03 PM, said:

Had the match been completed, with the score known to the Appeals Committee when it met? It seems too coincidental that the adjusted score resulted in a tie.

Sorry, I don't know, but I will keep you posted as to the ruling of the L&E Committee of the SBU. Like all other national "bodies", they take their time in starting.

Roland

[inquiry]

So,

1♣ = (1♠) - 2♠!! - (3♠)
3NT = DBL = 5cl] = 5♠
DBL* = RDBL = 6♣

* = agreed long hesitiation.

One has to assume after 2♠ cue-bid and both 3NT and 6♣, this is a forcing pass situation. The double suggest defend. But the long hesitation suggest it is not clear defend hand. There are a ton of reasonable hands for partner where defend will clearly be right, but on these hand there would be no hesitation, partner would double quickly. Despite South's "misdiscription" of her hand, PASS of 5♠XX has to be at least a logical alterantive, and the slow double suggest strongly bidding on. IF the double had been "in - tempo", south would get a chance to guess to right, here, South does not have that luxury.

I would roll the contract back to 5♠X-XX.

[Walddk]

inquiry, on Dec 5 2005, 05:08 PM, said:

So,

1♣ = (1♠) - 2♠!! - (3♠)
3NT = DBL = 5cl] = 5♠
DBL* = RDBL = 6♣

* = agreed long hesitiation.

One has to assume after 2♠ cue-bid and both 3NT and 6♣, this is a forcing pass situation. The double suggest defend. But the long hesitation suggest it is not clear defend hand. There are a ton of reasonable hands for partner where defend will clearly be right, but on these hand there would be no hesitation, partner would double quickly. Despite South's "misdiscription" of her hand, PASS of 5♠XX has to be at least a logical alterantive, and the slow double suggest strongly bidding on. IF the double had been "in - tempo", south would get a chance to guess to right, here, South does not have that luxury.

I would roll the contract back to 5♠X-XX.

I think you got this wrong Ben. North's double of 5♠ was not slow, South's pass of the redouble was - and then North decided to pull her own double with the 2425 hand.

With this said, I agree that the correct ruling must be 5♠XX+1. North would never have pulled if South had passed 5♠XX in tempo. Why should she? She must expect 5♠ to go down after her parner's 2♠ (sound club raise). Wasn't that why she doubled in the first place? You are not allowed to have second thoughts after partner has warned you (slow pass) that it may not be such a good idea to defend.

To be honest with you, I would even rule "frivolous appeal, deposit forfeited". It's quite common in cases of hesitation ... then a pull.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

There are a number of different issues brought up here.

i) The first bidding problem. 2♠ is an interesting psychic manoeuvre, designed to try and slow the auction down. I don't think it's a silly as other people make out, although i agree that 4S (or even just 5C) are the 'honest' calls.

ii) The second bidding problem. It's obvious to pull the double of 3NT, and I personally think 5C is right.

iii) The third bidding problem. IMO partner has been warned about your hand when you pulled 3NTx, and should now be doubling of her own accord, so I pass the redouble in tempo.

iv) The TD's ruling. I agree with the TD. I find it difficult to construct a hand where we can double for penalties and then claim passing a redouble is then not a LA (unless it was a deliberate stripe-tailed ape). The very slow pass of the redouble clearly suggests pulling is more likely to be successful.

v) The AC's ruling. This type of (incorrect) ruling is known in the UK as a 'Reveley' ruling: you decide to adjust, but then you include in your weighted scores a percentage of a call that you've already decided should not be allowed. You simply cannot say North is allowed to pull 75% of the time: either North's allowed to bid 6C or she isn't. You only get weighted scores when you have to decide how the auction or play might have progressed afterwards. For example, it might be right to award a split result between 5Sxx and 5Sxx+1 depending on how likely you think the overtrick is.

By the way, in England at least, the AC are kept unaware of the state of the match for any ruling, so they cannot be influenced by what impact they are having. Of course that's not always possible.

vi) Appealing the AC's ruling. I don't know the Scottish regulations, but in England at least you can only appeal an AC's ruling on a point of principle, and even then they will not change the result - they will just address the point of principle. The AC gave an illegal ruling, but sadly you just have to live with it.

[mycroft]

Walddk, on Dec 3 2005, 12:28 AM, said:

6♣X-1 (-200) 75% of the time, 5♠XX+1 (-1600) 25% of the time, hence -550 (and 14 imps against -1660 in the other room). EW have appealed to the national body, the Laws and Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union, on grounds of incompetence of the AC and are waiting for them to reopen the appeal.

Not fully used to 12C3 rulings as they are not accepted yet in the ACBL, but if I remember correctly (and DWS's page agrees with me), this is not the way to score it. Each score given weight should be resulted separately, and the final score determined by the weightings of the results.

So -550 is a nonexistent score, but:
75% of +1460 (-200 +1660) = 75% of 16 IMPs = 12 IMPs
+ 25% of +60 (-1600 +1660) = 25% of 2 IMPs = .5 IMPs
= 12.5 IMPs to N/S.

Frances' comment about a Reveley ruling seems also correct; however, the SBU may have a different regulation about Reveley rulings than the EBU (and about 12C3 scores, for that matter).

Michael.

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Dec 5 2005, 06:38 PM, said:

vi) Appealing the AC's ruling. I don't know the Scottish regulations, but in England at least you can only appeal an AC's ruling on a point of principle, and even then they will not change the result - they will just address the point of principle. The AC gave an illegal ruling, but sadly you just have to live with it.

If the AC's ruling is illegal, and I agree that it is, then it seems wrong that no one is in a position to rectify the breach of the law. If the NCBO has a Law and Ethics Committee (and Scotland has), wouldn't it be natural for the committee members, when the ruling is put before them, to tell the AC:

"Sorry guys, your ruling is illegal. You will have to come up with something that is legal according to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Try again".

Roland

[Walddk]

Here is the final result of the English! "jury":

The Laws & Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union declared themselves disqualified to deal with the case and asked another jurisdiction, the English Bridge Union, to deliver a ruling:

The AC of the EBU concluded that pass was a logical alternative for North, they therefore overruled the on site AC and upheld the TDs ruling. The result was adjusted to 5♠XX+1 = 1600. Hence the non offending side only lost 2 IMPs (against 1660 at the other table) and consequently finished first in the women's trials.

The winning team will now represent Scotland in the Lady Milne Trophy and the European Championships next year. This has, quite predictably one must say, caused some animosity between the two teams, and it is expected that the 3rd pair will be selected among pairs from other teams.

Oh well, the drama occasionally occurs away from the table and not just at the table. This is also bridge ladies and gentlemen, whether one likes it or not.

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Walddk, on Dec 12 2005, 05:33 AM, said:

Here is the final result of the English! "jury":

The Laws & Ethics Committee of the Scottish Bridge Union declared themselves disqualified to deal with the case and asked another jurisdiction, the English Bridge Union, to deliver a ruling

That's a little surprising. I assume the L&E committe has a member or members who shouldn't rule (because they are on one of the teams involved or married to a member of one of the teams) but it's odd that the committee as a whole disqualifies itself. I don't know how many people it is in total - perhaps by the time interested parties and the original AC were excluded there wasn't anybody left.

Quote

This has, quite predictably one must say, caused some animosity between the two teams, and it is expected that the 3rd pair will be selected among pairs from other teams.

I don't agree that it is "predictable" that there is such animosity that the 3rd pair can't come from the losing team. Appeals are a part of bridge, and real animosity between two teams when a match was decided by a ruling is not necessary nor indeed that common in my experience.