bridgetalk.com forums :: Laws & Rulings

1 posts
bridgetalk member

Double edged appeal ( 09:40:56 TueAug 12 2003 )

Country: India

Hand is as below with North as Dealer. NS vulnerable.

64 JT6 T542 8763
AT9 AQ532 J K954 Q52 87 KQ873 AT2
KJ873 K94 A92 QJ

Last deal of a cricual match in the open room with a dozen Kibitzers.

After two passes, South opens 1N (15-17!), a bold semi-psyche or a foolhardy bid which ever way you look. West gave a long look at his cards and passed. Pass to East who gave a really long thought and cameup with 2D. Now West bids 3N, Pass Pass Pass. Before his pass, South calls the Director and explains. Director asks the play to proceed and due to a fortunate lie of the South club cards, the contracts soon makes. Director is called again and South claims that he was damaged by the opponents pause and bid. Director rules that the table result stands and requests NS to appeal.
Meanwhile the closed room players do the scoring and discover that the contract was 3N= in the other room.
NS appeal saying that they were damaged and the result should be adjusted to 2D+5.

What should be done to this appeal?

1. Is the Directors ruling correct?
2. What should the contract be judged as?
2D/E+5 or 3N/W= or 1N/S-4 or a split ruling?

Thanks

Guest

Re: Double edged appeal ( 16:28:50 TueAug 12 2003 )

It seems to me that west's hesitation over 1NT suggested to east that action was safe. I would disallow the 2D balancing bid and roll the contract back to 1NT by south. In 1NT, it seems likely to me that declarer would take more than 3 tricks. Down 2 or 3 seems like a reasonable guess.

I believe the director should have ruled in favor of the non-offending side, thus putting the burden of appeal on the offending side.

I would not describe south's opening bid as a semi-psyche. Perhaps it is not a very good use of judgment, but it is not so off as to warrant an exclamation point.

Tim

Earl_Purple

79 posts
bridgetalk member

Re: Double edged appeal ( 14:56:07 WedAug 13 2003 )

1NT would probably make 3 tricks so down 4 would be -400 to NS and a flat board.

Frances Hinden

Re: Double edged appeal ( 16:14:30 MonAug 18 2003 )

Country: UK

1. At least in England, the Director should make the best ruling he can. He doesn't just say 'result stands' and request N/S to appeal if they don't like it.

2. West's hestiation and thought over the NT gave UI to East. East is not permitted to choose an action suggested by this over any other logical alternative. If we believe pass is a logical alternative to 2D in the pass out position, we could change to score to 1NT passed out.

3. If we believe pass is not a LA, then the 2D bid is permitted. There is no suggestion that there is anything wrong with the 3NT bid (indeed, some people may say West has 'shown' his values twice - once with the pause, and once with the 3NT bid). So 2D+n is not a possible result.

4. As the possible results appear to be the table result of 3NT making exactly (+400 to EW) and 1NT-4 (+400 to E/W) on a normal heart lead there doesn't seem much point taking this any further.

5. If East had _doubled_ and E/W had taken a large penalty I would be quite likely to adjust.

6. I'm amazed 3NT took only 9 tricks. I wouldn't be suprised to see a few 460s on the traveller at mps, and 430 looks normal. This might convince me to think harder about the possibility of 1NT-3 only, if I think E/W may defend as poorly as they play!

bluejak

426 posts
Forum Host

Reply

Re: Double edged appeal ( 14:12:36 TueAug 19 2003 )

I agree with Frances' answer but would like to add a couple of points.

England has always had more faith in its TDs giving correct rulings than elsewhere. However, world opinion has swung everywhere towards giving the correct ruling. The idea of always ruling in one direction and letting Appeals Committees do their work for them was at its height in the 1980s especially in North America.

As to whether 2

is an LA the standard outside North America, Great Britain and one or two other places tends to be an action that at least one in four players of like ability would find. The old idea of whether the UI makes a bid easier or safer is no longer part of the Laws.

---
David Stevenson <laws2@blakjak.com>
Liverpool, England, UK
http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm

7 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 6 guest(s).
(The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003)
bluejak

Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm.

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union

International Bridge Laws Forum

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from any country in the world, this is the place!Hosted by David StevensonSenior Consultant DirectorEnglish Bridge Union

If you need help with the Laws or rulings from
any country in the world, this is the place!

Hosted by David Stevenson
Senior Consultant Director
English Bridge Union