From: bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman)
Subject: Re: Appeals Committee ruling
Organization: Research Computer Facility, MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 17:08:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.153507.17967@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu> prm@aplcen (Paul McMullin APL x7823) writes:
:In article <1992Aug17.162641.27054@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
:>In article <ted.714063980@sage0> ted@sage0.gsfc.nasa.gov (Ted Ying) writes:
:>: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
:> 
stuff deleted...

:>: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.
:
:How loudly did S make his double? Who is South?  Is he a good player?  Do I
:believe him when he doubles? Of course I'm going to pull to 4 diamonds.  I
 
We are playing bridge here, not the opponents.
What difference does it make how loudly South doubles? 


Isn't South (for example) allowed to make a psychic double, hoping they
will run? Since when does a double by South guarantee 5 cashing tricks?

Once partner makes it clear to you by his EXPLANATION that he believes
he only needs spades stopped, you may not take advantage of it.

Bridge logic does NOT tell West to run. South may simply be doubling
on the confusion or be hoping to stampede you OUT of a cold 3NT.
Furthermore, even if South is doubling on 5 cashing tricks, there
is no guarantee that 4D* will be any better. It might be, for example,
that 3NT* goes down 1, whereas 4D* goes down 2.  

The point here is that it is PARTNER (East) who has the information
whether to sit or run. West does not have that information EXCEPT
for partner's explanation.

West has what his 3S bid promised. His  PARTNER knows more about the
hand than he does. West, having made a limit bid that describes his
hand perfectly, MUST leave further decisions to partner. Any other
action is a violation of partnership trust. By running, West tells
East that he does not trust East to make a sit/run decision.

:don't quite have the hand that my 3S implies, and there's no reason to allow
 
But you have PERFECTLY what the 3S bid describes. That's the whole point.
Unless West believed that his 3S bid showed outside stoppers (except for
spades) as well as a running suit [and his explanation made it clear that
he did not believe that], West has NO justification for running.

:partner to stew when it is perfectly reasonable to expect him to bid 3N on
:JT9x KQx x KQxxx which still has no prayer - and his hand could be much worse!
 
But partner, KNOWING that 3S shows only a running suit will realize himself
that the opponents have 5 cashing and run himself.

What if partner held:

JTxx Axx x Kxxxx

???


Now 3NT is ICE-COLD and West has just run!

West  CANNOT run.  Partner knows whether to do so, but West does not.

:When the 3S call was made, the auction was live, and I see no reason to
:declare it to be dead for the EW pair just because W made an unusual call that
:East can work out on bridge judgment alone... (as he apparently did)
 
West has NOT made an unusual call.

:>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.
:
:Nonsense, South's double made it clear that it was not the case!
 
Would you not double with:

AKQxxx
KQx
x
AQx

???

Most players would.  [I would not because I realize they could have
8 running diamonds and the A hearts before I can get 5 tricks, but
most players are not good enough to realize this].

stuff deleted.............

:Terrific! Now the Gods-that-are-directors are going to decide that
:for-absolutely-sure this N/S pair that couldn't work out that they had a 9
:card fit in hearts during the bidding will be able to cleanly unroll them
:during the defense?  Mistakes happen.  Yes, it is probable that they might get
:all of their tricks, but who is to say?
 
The point is that you can't say.  It is clear, however, that West did
take unethical advantage of his partner's explanation and any doubt
should go to the NON-OFFENDING side. The defense against 3NT is
absolutely clear. South cashes 4 spades and the A hearts and partner
plays the K hearts under the Ace. Only total fools would not then cash
their heart suit.
 
And it is a LOT easier to diagnose the heart fit during the auction
when East pulls than when West does.

:>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. 
:
:Oh, really? What is the situation here?  That "presumed guilty" West is a liar
:and a cheat?  Or that N/S are a pair of crybabies that got their average
 
Ths situation is that E-W were clearly playing a convention about which
they had no clear agreement what it meant and that West took advantage
of an explanation.
 
It is 100% clear that West did take advantage of the explanation.

I would be amenable to awarding E-W -1100, and only awarding N-S an
avg+, because I do agree that they did nothing to earn a top. But
E-W fully deserve their bottom.

:stolen away from them by a West player that tried an imaginative bid, believed
:the S player's double, and confused their auction enough to cause them to
 
The circumstances of the explanations given make it clear, IN MY OPINION,
that E-W simply are not good enough players for West to be that imaginative.
Good players do not spring a bid such as 3S upon partner without prior 
discussion.

It is IRRELEVENT whether West believes South's double, because only
PARTNER has enough information to decide whether to sit or run. Because
of this West's 4D bid  must be looked upon with suspicion.

:Grow up.  If the W player had a long history of improperly taking advantage of
 
Based upon your reasons for running I must conclude that you do not play
bridge as a partnership and have not yet learned to trust your partner
to make decisions. Given that, I find your advice that I should "grow up"
to be quite funny.

As one final note, may I ask how many Flight-A regionals events you have
won?
--
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"
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge