[Sambolino]

event: serbian invitational team cships (one of two most important team events in a year)

---

N and E share the same side of the screen

N is dealer and it goes
p - 1♣ - p - 1♠ -
p - 2♥ - p - 3♣ -
p - 3NT - p - p -
dbl - p - p - rdbl -
all pass

2♥ was natural reverse 17+. before i doubled i asked about the nature of 3♣ and i was told it's NF. if opps are in 24-26 hcp range i probably won't get redoubled, partner should lead a spade to avoid selling a trick and declarer could miss a few things in the play so i doubled.

the second issue is that on the other side of the screen opp gave my p explanation that 2♥ must be 5+♣4♥ or 3-suiter, so he knowing that 3 suiter is 30 times less likely than 54 concluded that he has to lead actively despite my dbl and led ♦ letting them make +1. note that on spade lead declarer can make only with very careful play if he raises the ace immediately.

director ruled that result stayed, we appealed and jury voted 3:0 against us. please state your opinion, thanks

[jtfanclub]

I think it's reasonable to go up with the A after the X. I am not convinced that they can't make the overtrick on a spade lead.

I think the NF aspect of the 3♣ bid isn't wrong enough to worry about. the call promising 5♥ is, but isn't that even more of a reason to lead a spade here?

[655321]

Double was ridiculous.

Partner chose not to make the lead you asked for.

3NTXX with an overtrick seems like a well deserved result...

[Sambolino]

@jtfanclub

5clubs not 5 hearts - holding 2-3 tempos in their main suit and hK my partner thought he should lead actively (that makes sense to me)

[FrancesHinden]

If 3♣ non-forcing was the partnership agreement, then the result stands.
If 3♣ was in fact game-forcing then I would adjust.

It's quite hard to tell from the hands if 3♣ was intended as forcing or not, the TD and AC I assume investigated what the agreement actually was.

If it transpires that 3♣ was in fact forcing, and I adjust for EW to +430/+630 (you don't state the vul), I would also need to consider if partner's diamond lead should be considered wild, gambling or irrational (or a 'serious error' if under the 2007 laws) which would lead to a split ruling.

[Walddk]

You took a chance when you doubled, and you lost. Accept the poor result and get on with life. And yes, I am sorry to say that if I had been on a committee, I would have deemed it an appeal without merit.

Roland

[TimG]

Sambolino, on Jun 9 2008, 09:13 AM, said:

if opps are in 24-26 hcp range i probably won't get redoubled, partner should lead a spade to avoid selling a trick and declarer could miss a few things in the play so i doubled.

You haven't told us whether 3♣ was indeed non-forcing by agreement. If it was, there is nothing more to discuss, since there was no misinformation.

I think it's hard to make a case if your double was in part based upon "declarer could miss a few things in the play". That's just evidence that you speculated (and lost).

[Sambolino]

sad thing is that i think they still don't know whats their agreement

[pclayton]

Sorry, double was the culprit. Who cares if 3♣ is NF? Your LHO can have a 22 count here.

Agree with Roland. You'd have a lighter wallet with me on the AC.

[Sambolino]

if 3c was indeed nf, and lho bid 3nt and redoubled himself and it made i would have no trouble at all. it's a huge distinction imo

[Vilgan]

I think this falls in fairly typical appeal without merit territory. X was swinging, XX got you the just reward. XX can be a lot of things here.

You made a risky X, it blew up, not your opps fault.

[david_c]

FrancesHinden, on Jun 9 2008, 03:42 PM, said:

If 3♣ non-forcing was the partnership agreement, then the result stands.
If 3♣ was in fact game-forcing then I would adjust.

Agree with Frances. Perhaps the double is a poor choice, but that is no reason not to adjust. You have to ask whether the double would still have been made if given the right information.

[TylerE]

A crucial point here is whether or not the X is so wild and gambling to deny redress. My gut feeling is that it is.

[xcurt]

Sambolino, on Jun 9 2008, 09:13 AM, said:

event: serbian invitational team cships (one of two most important team events in a year)

---

N and E share the same side of the screen

N is dealer and it goes
p - 1♣ - p - 1♠ -
p - 2♥ - p - 3♣ -
p - 3NT - p - p -
dbl - p - p - rdbl -
all pass

2♥ was natural reverse 17+. before i doubled i asked about the nature of 3♣ and i was told it's NF. if opps are in 24-26 hcp range i probably won't get redoubled, partner should lead a spade to avoid selling a trick and declarer could miss a few things in the play so i doubled.

the second issue is that on the other side of the screen opp gave my p explanation that 2♥ must be 5+♣4♥ or 3-suiter, so he knowing that 3 suiter is 30 times less likely than 54 concluded that he has to lead actively despite my dbl and led ♦ letting them make +1. note that on spade lead declarer can make only with very careful play if he raises the ace immediately.

director ruled that result stayed, we appealed and jury voted 3:0 against us. please state your opinion, thanks

I would consider the x wild and gambling. You have no side entry and don't have the ace of the suit you want led. In general I like hitting 3NT when it's reasonable since the IMP odds are so favorable, but this is going to be wrapped on you almost all the time. Furthermore, your LHO is unlimited and fairly likely to have his own source of tricks, so he will often come over the top.

As others have mentioned, if 3C really was NF then we don't even need to consider if the x is wild and gambling.

AWMP in either case.

Curt

[mike777]

I do not understand the 2h rebid?

Is this not a normal 2nt rebid?

whatever I do not understand x of 3nt bid what is going on here?
Is x a two way shot, if we beat it cool if not I bet they have misinformed/misbid us?

[inquiry]

agree with the director, agree with the appeals committee.

[1eyedjack]

Personally I would not have doubled. There is a fair chance that partner will lead a Spade without my double.

But I would not categorise a double as wild and gambling. If the opponents have announced that they have no combined values to spare, then any unclaimed values that I am missing are held by my partner. The double may cause declarer to place some of those values with me, and the double should get us off to a Spade lead which, while I don't expect to run them, avoids a potentially costly Diamond lead from partner.

Double is certainly a gamble, but I would not call it wild.

So it is back down to the misinformation question.

[Sambolino]

for those who question the nature of 3c bid:
W is somewhat mediocre but experienced duplicate and rubber player - he didn't describe his bid as NF, but his pard did. After all 9 hcp versus 17+ clearly make his bid FG and transitional towards best spot. So it's clearly a nonintentional misinformation from E (3c is NF) and also nonintentional misinformation from W (E cannot be bal but 54+ or 3suiter)

[jtfanclub]

1eyedjack, on Jun 10 2008, 12:40 AM, said:

But I would not categorise a double as wild and gambling.  If the opponents have announced that they have no combined values to spare, then any unclaimed values that I am missing are held by my partner.

But that's not what happened.

We got opening-response-power bid-negative-game auction.

The implication here is that the power bid player had enough to consider slam, and gave up and decided to play at game when partner made a negative response. They will usually have extras in this auction.

East's hand plus the maximum of the 3♣ bid is 31 hcp or less. If 3♣ showed 8 or less, then East could have 23 hcp for his reverse. And that doesn't even count that West may have discounted for lack of a major suit fit and East may have decided not to try for slam if the max combined was 32 with no major suit fit.

The only limit to East's hand is that he didn't go for slam across a negative response.

[skjaeran]

The double is just ridiculous, and so is the lead.
If 3♣ was NF, east would be stronger than promised after two bids. Doubling wouldn't be just as ridiculous whether 3♣ was forcing or NF.

I'd never ever consider adjusting the score for N-S.

I might consider a split score, with 3NT+1 for E-W.
But from what's been told here I don't think I would.