[mrdct]

WARNING: At the time of posting, the appeal is still to heard, so if you are in the potential pool for appeals commitees at the Victorian Bridge Association, do not read this thread.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: I am related to one of the players contesting the final, but who wasn't at the table where the issue arose.

DISCLAIMER: The "facts" reported here are as they were told to me by a member of one of the appealing teams and, accordingly, may not represent exactly what is presented to the appeals committee.

Only first round of bidding and final contract is known for sure.

---

The table result was 3♥x-2 for -300.

It transpires that E-W have no agreement as to the meaning of the double; indeed East was playing as a substitute due an illness of West's regular partner. E-W do, however, have some partnership experience together.

N-S represent that they have an agreement that after 2♦ is doubled, pass indicates a willingness to play in 2♦x and redouble asks partner to bid their better Major.

South represents that having been told that his RHO has a penalty double of 2♦, North must be 5512 or 5503 which will make 3♣ the best spot for N-S. South also argues that had he been given the same explanation as was given on the other side of the screen, 2♦ becomes a viable option and he would therefore pass and let North sit the double if he has something in ♦.

The TD adjusted the result to 2♥x-1 for -100, but I've not been told what the rationale for that ruling was.

Both sides have appealed the ruling. N-S seeking an adjustment to 2♦x= and E-W seeking a reinstatement of the table result.

I have no other information about the hand.

[sfi]

IMO, the two explanations are not substantively different. I would not have expected this double, when described as 'penalty' to be penalty of diamonds. Rather, in my experience when someone says that they always (and I do mean always) mean penalty of at least one of the suits shown. Given the level of players in the final, South's misunderstanding surprises me.

That's where I would expect much of the discussion to focus and I would lean towards reinstating the table result.

[Vampyr]

sfi, on 2012-November-26, 04:14, said:

IMO, the two explanations are not substantively different. I would not have expected this double, when described as 'penalty' to be penalty of diamonds. Rather, in my experience when someone says that they always (and I do mean always) mean penalty of at least one of the suits shown. Given the level of players in the final, South's misunderstanding surprises me.

In my experience the double is "always" of one of the suits shown, yes, but it is not described as "penalty". I think that it is not a "misunderstanding" to assume that a double over 2♦ described as "penalty" expresses the desire to penalise diamonds, because that is what it means.

[paulg]

If I had been South, I would have thought that three clubs looks the right place to be whatever the meaning of the double even if partner does have something in diamonds.

[Zelandakh]

Can N-S provide evidence of their agreement with details? Is the pass of 2♦X more indicative of 5 bad diamonds or 7? Under what circumstances does partner pass? Reverse South's minors and I am sure (s)he would like pass to show more than just a mild suggestion to play 2♦X. My initial instinct is that South is trying it on but I await further evidence. Please let us know what the result was after the appeal is heard!

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-26, 04:27, said:

In my experience the double is "always" of one of the suits shown, yes, but it is not described as "penalty". I think that it is not a "misunderstanding" to assume that a double over 2♦ described as "penalty" expresses the desire to penalise diamonds, because that is what it means.

I like to describe the first meaning as something like "Interested in penalizing one of his suits". On the other hand, if the opponent is just showing the suit of the artificial bid, I've never heard it described as "penalties", either; they usually just say "diamonds". It makes little sense to refer to a double of an artificial bid as penalty or that suit when there's no expectation that they'll be playing there. Would anyone call a double of a cue bid or splinter "penalty"?

[bluejak]

At first sight this looks like a normal bid by South who then, after discovering MI, is trying to gain from a ruling/appeal.

[campboy]

Comment withdrawn after realising this was sub judice.

This post has been edited by campboy: 2012-November-27, 02:13

[FrancesHinden]

I have seen pairs with the agreement that double shows values in diamonds (i.e. inviting partner to compete in diamonds). That might happily be described as 'penalty'.
So I don't agree that 'penalty' must mean a desire to penalise one of the other suits.

However I don't see much difference between 'values' and 'penalty'. I would be more sympathetic to 'a desire to penalise a major' vs 'penalty' where there is more scope for differences.

[blackshoe]

Problem: players are frequently brief in their explanations, leading to misunderstandings by their opponents. These misunderstandings are frequently ruled as MI to the opponents.
Solution: Give full and complete explanations when any question is asked.

Example: partner opens 2♥ RHO asks "is that weak?" Answer: "partner shows a six card heart suit with two of the top four honors and some 5 to 11 HCP, the majority of which should be in her suit. She tends to deny a side four card major or any void".

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2012-November-27, 17:25, said:

Problem: players are frequently brief in their explanations, leading to misunderstandings by their opponents. These misunderstandings are frequently ruled as MI to the opponents.
Solution: Give full and complete explanations when any question is asked.

Example: partner opens 2♥ RHO asks "is that weak?" Answer: "partner shows a six card heart suit with two of the top four honors and some 5 to 11 HCP, the majority of which should be in her suit. She tends to deny a side four card major or any void".

Give this answer to the question: "what is that?", "please explain" (or words to the same effect).
Answer "yes" to the question "is that weak?".

Recommendation: Avoid asking leading questions!

[nige1]

IMIO

• Penalty is different from Values and quite different from Willingness to penalize another different suit.
• If the explanation had been Values, South might have passed and hoped for the best.
• Assuming that the correct explanation was No firm agreement South would be even more likely to pass.
• Given the actual explanation of Penalty, South's 3♣ bid seems automatic.
• Hence North-South may have suffered damage and probably deserve redress.
• In any case, if the director rules "misexplanation", he should consider penalizing East-West.

[mrdct]

Breaking news: The appeals committee came up with a ruling resulting in one extra imp for NS (the result in the other room was 3SE= -140).

Now clarified as a weighted ruling of 50% of 2♦N= +180 and 50% of the table result (3♥Nx-2 -300).

So Jacobs held on to win by 4.5 imps and will now (if I understand the regulations correctly) get the double chance in the open team play-off next year.

[barmar]

pran, on 2012-November-28, 01:54, said:

Recommendation: Avoid asking leading questions!

Does ABF have a rule similar to ACBL's "The opponents need not ask exactly the 'right' question. ... all relevant disclosures should be given automatically"?

The closest I could find in http://www.abf.com.a...AlertRegs11.pdf is "Your principle should be to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can."

[mycroft]

pran, on 2012-November-28, 01:54, said:

Give this answer to the question: "what is that?", "please explain" (or words to the same effect).
Answer "yes" to the question "is that weak?".

You know, and I know you know, that while that may be the requirement in Norway, it is very clearly not in the ACBL, and I know that neither rule applies in the EBU (where it's something along the lines of "provide the information. However, if they ask a specific question, and you just answer it, and they feel misinformed because of something they didn't ask, it's their fault"). What the requirement to disclose to a leading question in the ABF is determines this, but full disclosure, even if it's more than requested, shouldn't be *wrong* (although it seems to be in Norway).

Quote

Recommendation: Avoid asking leading questions!

Absolutely. This I agree with wholeheartedly.

[pran]

mycroft, on 2012-November-28, 14:50, said:

You know, and I know you know, that while that may be the requirement in Norway, it is very clearly not in the ACBL, and I know that neither rule applies in the EBU (where it's something along the lines of "provide the information. However, if they ask a specific question, and you just answer it, and they feel misinformed because of something they didn't ask, it's their fault"). What the requirement to disclose to a leading question in the ABF is determines this, but full disclosure, even if it's more than requested, shouldn't be *wrong* (although it seems to be in Norway).

I am not saying that it is the rule in Norway, in fact I don't think we have any such rule. However I have met so many players who want an answer to what they ask and not a complete lecture on the call asked about. And as Director I shall be very reluctant to rule misinformation on a yes/no answer to a leading question unless the explainer should obviously understand that further elaboration is required.

Example: Opening bid 1♣ - Question: "Is it Precision?"
"Yes" is a perfect answer, the player definitely does not want a complete lecture on the 1♣ opening bid in Precision or he would have asked differently.

[Vampyr]

I have always been uncomfortable with the EBU position:

Quote

OB3B9 While specific questions may elicit the actual facts that the questioner wishes to know,
there is a danger that they may lead to incomplete answers. For example, if a 3§
overcall is Ghestem, showing a hand with two specified suits, and if an opponent
merely says “Weak or strong?” it is not unreasonable for a player to answer “Weak”,
since this is true (and since more complete answers have been known to elicit
comments such as “I did not ask that.”).

A player who asks "Weak or strong?" and not even "Weak, strong or intermediate?" is clearly an inexperienced player who has only heard of two possible styles and would not ever imagine that there are others. To answer "weak" and omit to mention that the bid shows diamonds and spades (or whatever) instead of clubs seems really mean, and I wish one didn't automatically get away with it.

[mycroft]

pran, on 2012-November-28, 16:19, said:

I am not saying that it is the rule in Norway, in fact I don't think we have any such rule. However I have met so many players who want an answer to what they ask and not a complete lecture on the call asked about. And as Director I shall be very reluctant to rule misinformation on a yes/no answer to a leading question unless the explainer should obviously understand that further elaboration is required.

Example: Opening bid 1♣ - Question: "Is it Precision?"
"Yes" is a perfect answer, the player definitely does not want a complete lecture on the 1♣ opening bid in Precision or he would have asked differently.

Yes, but in the ACBL, at least, whether it is what they want or not, it's not legal to give it as an answer. There are other locations. So my argument is "don't tell people that the wrong thing is right, without making it clear that 'it's wrong, but it's usually okay' ".

Of course it happens. Of course, the correct answer gets nasty comments (which I thoroughly enjoy. Have I mentioned that I'm passive-aggressive occasionally?)

As far as "Precision" goes, what harm is "Yes, 16+ any distribution, if balanced will be at least 17"?

My problem is with everyone asking about 2♦. Automatically - "is it weak?" "Yes, if it's anything else WE HAVE TO ALERT!" (even if it's natural but not weak). So I respond "6-10, usually 6 diamonds, could be any suit strength at this vulnerability" (or the equivalent). Unfortunately, it's a very effective WeaSeL situation. Also unfortunately, people forget to Alert 2♦ (when it is Alertable), so the question is "necessary".

"I didn't need all that, I just wanted to know if it was weak." "Yes, I know all you wanted to do was tell your partner you have something." Of course, I don't say *that*...

[gnasher]

Vampyr, on 2012-November-28, 20:12, said:

I have always been uncomfortable with the EBU position:

I think it's awful.

[pran]

More on our Norwegian regulation, I think this "solves" many of the problems discussed here:

Opening bids in the range 1NT to 2♠ shall never be alerted, they must immediately be announced (by opener's partner who describes all essential features of the bid).

So for instance when I open 2♦ my partner will immediately say: "Multi, that is weak 6 cards hearts, weak 6 cards spades or 20-21 NT"