From: prm@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Paul Raymond McMullin)
Subject: Re: Appeals Committee ruling
Reply-To: prm@aplcen (Paul McMullin APL x7823)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 15:35:07 GMT

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
> 
>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.

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
don't quite have the hand that my 3S implies, and there's no reason to allow
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!

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)

>:
>: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.

Nonsense, South's double made it clear that it was not the case!

>
>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.
>

This is silly - why do we have to assume that W is lying here - he could have
been trying all along for a (LEGAL!) "two-way" result - if NS settled for 3N
undoubled, it may make, or it may go down a bunch, but undoubled it can't be
too painful... and if NS don't settle for 3N undoubled, then 4D* may talk them
out of their 4H or 4S game for a fine result!

>: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.

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?

>
>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
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
settle for 4D* down 1 instead of the probable par result of 5D* down 2?

Why not pass another law that requires W to show his hand to both N and S
whenever he preempts so that they aren't damaged by the confusion the preempt
will induce?  Maybe we should also allow them to show their hands to each
other at the same time.

Grow up.  If the W player had a long history of improperly taking advantage of
partner's explanations, that might be one thing; to assume that he is somehow
benifiting from E's expression of his bridge knowledge (that W was looking for
a stopper in S) is something else.
-- 
Paul McMullin prm@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge