From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Appeals Committee ruling
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:26:41 GMT

In article <ted.714063980@sage0> ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) writes:
:
: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
 
Did North Ask?  If not, why not? How high do N-S play neg. doubles?
What are the N-S agreements about North's actions over 3S? What would
double show? [it makes no sense to play it as penalty; the opponents
are not going to play there]

: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.
 
I totally agree with N-S. West has made a bid he thinks simply shows a
running minor. He has his call. His partner bid 3NT. From West's point
of view his partner has all the suits stopped by his 3NT call EXCEPT
that the explanation given made it clear this was not the case. If anyone
pulls the double here it must be EAST.

IMO West has taken advantage of his partner's explanation.

: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
 
Fine!  West has exactly what he thought he promised. He has no reason to run.

:when he had bid it he thought it was a stupid bid and had intended to bid
 
Bullshit alert.
This sounds like a blatant attempt to lie his way out of the predicament.
If he thought 3S showed a solid minor, then how could it be a 'stupid bid'??
What was he trying to do by bidding 3S if he intended to bid 4D anyway?
He had what his bid said.

: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.
 
Absolutely.

: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.
 
I disagree. I think the director is right.

I also think that the league should pass a law that applies procedural
penalties in situations like this, because the actions of E-W give no
chance for a fair result on the hand. 

--
Bob Silverman
These are my opinions and not MITRE's.
Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA 01730
"You can lead a horse's ass to knowledge, but you can't make him think"