From: rainbow@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Rob Buchner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: appeals committee ruling
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:38:22 GMT
Organization: Martinique


> Okay folks.  This is a problem from the Hunt Valley regional.  You have
> just played the day in the Flighted Open Pairs and have been asked to
> sit in on an appeals committee panel.  This is the hand:
> 
>           S: -
>           H: KQJT6
>           D: T82                      Board 11
>           C: Q9432                    None Vul
>                                      Dealer South
> S: 85                S: T9642
> H: 8                 H: 742           South  West   North  East
> D: AKQJ9764          D: 3             ----------------------------
> C: 87                C: AJT6          1S     3S     P      3NT
>                                       X      4D     X      P
>           S: AKQJ73                   P      P
>           H: A953
>           D: 5
>           C: K5
>
> The auction started as shown above.  After the 3NT call, the South player
> asked what the 3S bid meant.  East stated that they didn't play too often
> and that he assumed that it meant bid NT with a spade stopper and probably
> held a long running minor.  He bid 3NT.  South was looking at 5 sure tricks
> and decided to make a penalty double.  West ran.
>
> After the hand was played out (4D-X, off 1).  West had thought that his
> bid was just a gambling 3NT type hand with a running minor and not just
> requesting a spade stopper.  North-South thought that West's run to 4D was
> based off an inference taken from the answer given about the 3S bid.  The
> director was called to the table.
>
> The director listened to the auction and asked some questions.  She asked
> what West had meant and he said a long running minor.  He also stated that
> when he had bid it he thought it was a stupid bid and had intended to bid
> 4D at his next opportunity if possible.  North-South felt that if East-West
> had the agreement that 3S was a long running minor only, that West would
> have no reason to pull the double, since he should trust East to have all
> other three suits stopped.
>
> The director agreed with North-South and rolled the contract back to 3NT-X
> down 5 (5 hearts and 4 spades off the top) for +1100.  East-West protested
> that this was a totally impossible result and appealed.
>
> What do you think?  If you have any questions, let me know.  In a few days,
> I'll post what the actual committee did and which side I was on (or can you
> guess).
>
>	Ted Ying			ted@rosserv.gsfc.nasa.gov
>	Hughes/STX			Goddard Space Flight Center

This kind of thing happens all the time. Two friends get together
and set up a bridge date. They are not an experienced partnership.
They have not talked through every bridge sequence in detail.
They are just trying to have an enjoyable/fun day/evening. Their
skill level is probably comparable to your average club player.
I feel it is an injustice to hold them accountable for misunderstandings
in which they happen to land on their feet, unless of course it is
based on unauthorized information. This is a frequently argued
situation in which many of the experienced players demand that
lesser experienced players be held to the strict letter of the law.
Their attitude is if you can't follow the procedures/rules, don't play.
If you don't have all your partnership understandings worked out,
don't sit at the table. I think this is unreasonable/unfriendly.
Even at a regional this is unsportsmanlike. Particularly flighted.
Of course some people say this is the way bridge is played.
If you don't like it, don't go to a bridge tournament.

I think the committee should attempt to mitigate justice/fairness here.

Obviously East's call of 3NT leaves a lot to be desired.
I would not be surprised if East was intending to pull 3NT
if doubled. But we will never know. What is clear though, is that
3NT doubled would not have necessarily been the final contract, 
and therefore the committee cannot let that result stand.

So now the question is whether 4D is a normal bid
or whether the board can no longer be played out.
And this depends heavily on West's experience level
and his reasoning for bidding 4D in this auction.
And what other players would do with his cards.

West's call leaves a lot to be desired since he is distrusting
his partner. But in flighted events, this happens all the time.
Less experienced players will try to run to safety when doubled
on the assumption the opponents are right. Particularly if west
has any doubt at all as to their partnership understandings. And
it is clear that east-west do not have an established partnership.
Depending on the experience level of West, I would not consider
4D a totally unreasonable call given the auction without an
explanation. West guessed and guessed right. Unfortunately
with the explanation West is under pressure not to make any
<questionable> calls based on inferences/unauthorized information.

I would also have asked what West thought 3NT meant.
Apparently West had no good reason for his 4D call, so while
I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, it
appears now that 4D was by no means a certain call. An
alternative reasonable action is to trust partner and pass.
Since it is impossible to restore equity to the board,
and it is uncertain on what basis the 4D call was made,
east-west should get an average-minus (or quarter board
procedural penalty). Of course with an explanation and 
discussion of the obligations and responsibilities involved
when the possibility of unauthorized information exists.
West must strain to make the most normal call possible,
and when in doubt west can no longer take a "view".

As for North-South, I have little sympathy. If I could,
I would not adjust their score. South has no reason to 
ask about 3S and 3NT, south knows what they mean in all
liklihood. South should protect himself and not ask needless
questions. South should just make his normal bid of double.
You simply do not ask inexperienced partnerships what is going
on unless you have a need to know, otherwise you just help them
sort out the meaning of their bids. Who knows what would have
happened without the question, maybe the same thing, maybe not.
It is unclear that action was taken on authorized information.
South as much as anybody helped them land on their feet.
For South to now scream for an adjustment is poor at best.
They made their own bed, and they should lie in it.
But I don't have that kind of power, and the way committees
are run under today's laws/procedures, I know darn well 
North-South will get an average plus because the board 
could not be played out normally and they were not
directly responsible. Although I still think it unfair.
Even though South can't be blamed for asking questions,
south will avoid a lot of potential problems by not asking
questions for which he need not know the answer at that time.

Inexperienced players should not be judged against experienced
players when their actions are judged to be innocent.
Of course this is a very fine line. But I have often seen
rulings against inexperienced players for doing what
was perfectly normal to them, and they were left bewildered
because an experienced player would have done differently,
and then they're penalized for lacking that experience.
In those cases, geez, let the result stand, and give the 
opponents an average plus if they were perhaps injured.
On this hand I don't think North-South were injured, but
West failed to explain his actions to my satisfaction.

One word of advice to east-west, when in doubt about making
an explanation, tell your partner to leave the table. This
allows your partner the freedom to make any call he desires.