I would be very interested to hear your opinions without influence you with our reasoning, if you don't mind. I would be of course happy to share our thoughts and hear you objections afterwards.
Bidding goes:
P - P - 1NT - P
2D - P - 2H - P
P - 2SP - P* - P
3CL - All Pass
BIT
OK, so here's my attempt at solving this. The only irregularity that's been alleged here is UI, so we have to follow the three tests for adjusting in the case of UI:
Was there unauthorised information?
Were there any logical alternatives to the action actually taken?
Did the unauthorised information demonstrably suggest that the action actually taken would be preferable to at least one logical alternative?
In this case, 1. is simplest: it was stated to be true in the appeal report (there was a break in tempo, and presumably the players or at least TD agreed to this).
Point 3. is the next simplest. When it comes to South's third bid, Pass is (in most bidding systems) their weakest option. Hesitating over the weakest possible bid strongly suggests that you were considering a stronger bid. (This is different from the situation where, for example, pass would have been forcing, or the likely alternative would be a sacrifice; neither seems to be the case here.) This means that North has information that South is stronger than indicated (either in strength or, more likely in this case, distribution). North's chosen action caters to most possible hand types South could have; X is obviously ridiculous and 2NT can't possibly be natural and thus would be forcing, so 3!c is the cheapest possible stopping point if North chooses to bid on; and thus a 3!c bid will allow South to show whatever they might have been thinking about bidding, or serve to show a suit if South was considering a takeout double (South couldn't possibly have been planning a penalty double as South is limited and North has shown weakness). This means, to me, that 3!c is the most strongly suggested of all possible bids by the UI, thus if there's any logical alternative to it, it's not an allowable bid.
So what about point 2.? Does North have any other viable options here? Assuming a fairly normal bidding system, a double would show strength (possibly in combination with something else), there probably weren't any relevant conventions, and there's no viable natural bid in spades, diamonds, or hearts (as North has already shown 5 hearts and has no additional strength there). A jump in clubs seems like overkill, so the only bids which are possibly logical alternatives are 3!c and Pass.
The opponents are known to have 21-23 HCP, which suggests that there's a chance that trying to push them up higher would be fruitful, and also suggests that 2!s is making (South is highly unlikely to have 5 spades, so the opponents have 21+ HCP and 8+ spades, usually enough to make 3!s and nearly always enough to make 2!s). 2!s+1 scores 140 points, and the opponents don't know North's strength (it could be anywhere from 0 to 7 points on this bidding sequence), so they're unlikely to double 3!c (for all they know it's being bid to make, rather than as a sacrifice). That means North needs to be able to make either 3!c-2 or 3!h-2 (each scoring -100 at this vulnerability) in order for 3!c to be a good bid (South will presumably correct to hearts if holding a hand where that's a better suit, and there's no way that 3!c is forcing as North's hand is already limited as less than game-invitational). A 5521 hand opposite a balanced hand, with at least 17 HCP in the partnership, seems likely to be able to make 1 of a suit if the right suit is chosen, and as such, there's a lot of reasoning that points to 3!c being the "correct" bid here. This allows us to determine one important outcome of the appeal: it's highly reasonable for North to believe that 3!c is the only logical alternative in this situation, and thus North hasn't knowingly broken any rules, meaning that there's no question of a procedural penalty or a "frivolous appeal" penalty here (I assume it was NS that appealed!).
The big question is, although 3!c is indicated in this situation, would most players of North's level spot it? I think most players would consider a Pass in this situation (to be able to go through the 3!c analysis you need to be comparing the penalty from the likely sacrifice to the score the opponents will get when they make the contract, i.e. the score of Pass); the question is thus whether a non-negligible proportion of players would actually choose the Pass. The 3!c bid is obviously correct in retrospect, but I don't see many inexperienced players finding it at the table (and those players would thus Pass by default); it took me a while to go through the reasoning above, which would likely lead to an even bigger BIT from the North side if I'd done it at the table. If North is an experienced player who's been in this situation tons of times before, then it's quite plausible that North's entire peer group would choose the 3!c bid even without help from South, making Pass not logical as an alternative. If North is less experienced than that, though, Pass seems like the most likely option. So I guess my answer to this would depend on the standard that North normally plays at. (If actually at the site, it would likely be possible to do a poll to discover what other players in the same bracket/scoring range as North would do here, and base the outcome of the appeal on the poll.)
Here is the decision and the reasoning of appeal committee. We decided to change the TD’s decision and let the score stand.
The BIT can carry, from the polls at players with similar skills, both encouraging (fit + max) and discouraging (values on spades or 6card ◇) messages so it cannot suggest any specific actions. Moreover the fit (in one of the two suits), the strength and the vulnerability is known to North before the BIT.
here is the complete board
Answering to point 1
The BIT 1 ) the TD writes that S admitted that he paused and N said that S didn’t pause but after at appeal report they both agree that S didn’t paused and EW agree on breaking tempo 2) if we look at the hand S, to determine if there was actually a BIT, he has 15 flat HCP, no heart fit and Axxx in spades.
Something else that is not clear from the report is when exactly was the director summoned, before or after the play. From the way the facts are written the later is more probable.
Answering to point 3, yes double is ridiculous in my opinion too but players of the same level as NS said and I quote “ if you have 5 spades to KJTxx wouldn’t you pause ? we know that E doesn't have 6card”.
Do you have any objections or thoughts about E passing?
If a TD at the table has determined that there was a break in tempo, it is usually unwise for an appeal committee to determine, on the basis of later testimony, that there was not.
Comments
Yes, I'm sure we would be interested to hear what you decided. Thanks.
Yes please :)
I would be very interested to hear your opinions without influence you with our reasoning, if you don't mind. I would be of course happy to share our thoughts and hear you objections afterwards.
OK, so here's my attempt at solving this. The only irregularity that's been alleged here is UI, so we have to follow the three tests for adjusting in the case of UI:
In this case, 1. is simplest: it was stated to be true in the appeal report (there was a break in tempo, and presumably the players or at least TD agreed to this).
Point 3. is the next simplest. When it comes to South's third bid, Pass is (in most bidding systems) their weakest option. Hesitating over the weakest possible bid strongly suggests that you were considering a stronger bid. (This is different from the situation where, for example, pass would have been forcing, or the likely alternative would be a sacrifice; neither seems to be the case here.) This means that North has information that South is stronger than indicated (either in strength or, more likely in this case, distribution). North's chosen action caters to most possible hand types South could have; X is obviously ridiculous and 2NT can't possibly be natural and thus would be forcing, so 3!c is the cheapest possible stopping point if North chooses to bid on; and thus a 3!c bid will allow South to show whatever they might have been thinking about bidding, or serve to show a suit if South was considering a takeout double (South couldn't possibly have been planning a penalty double as South is limited and North has shown weakness). This means, to me, that 3!c is the most strongly suggested of all possible bids by the UI, thus if there's any logical alternative to it, it's not an allowable bid.
So what about point 2.? Does North have any other viable options here? Assuming a fairly normal bidding system, a double would show strength (possibly in combination with something else), there probably weren't any relevant conventions, and there's no viable natural bid in spades, diamonds, or hearts (as North has already shown 5 hearts and has no additional strength there). A jump in clubs seems like overkill, so the only bids which are possibly logical alternatives are 3!c and Pass.
The opponents are known to have 21-23 HCP, which suggests that there's a chance that trying to push them up higher would be fruitful, and also suggests that 2!s is making (South is highly unlikely to have 5 spades, so the opponents have 21+ HCP and 8+ spades, usually enough to make 3!s and nearly always enough to make 2!s). 2!s+1 scores 140 points, and the opponents don't know North's strength (it could be anywhere from 0 to 7 points on this bidding sequence), so they're unlikely to double 3!c (for all they know it's being bid to make, rather than as a sacrifice). That means North needs to be able to make either 3!c-2 or 3!h-2 (each scoring -100 at this vulnerability) in order for 3!c to be a good bid (South will presumably correct to hearts if holding a hand where that's a better suit, and there's no way that 3!c is forcing as North's hand is already limited as less than game-invitational). A 5521 hand opposite a balanced hand, with at least 17 HCP in the partnership, seems likely to be able to make 1 of a suit if the right suit is chosen, and as such, there's a lot of reasoning that points to 3!c being the "correct" bid here. This allows us to determine one important outcome of the appeal: it's highly reasonable for North to believe that 3!c is the only logical alternative in this situation, and thus North hasn't knowingly broken any rules, meaning that there's no question of a procedural penalty or a "frivolous appeal" penalty here (I assume it was NS that appealed!).
The big question is, although 3!c is indicated in this situation, would most players of North's level spot it? I think most players would consider a Pass in this situation (to be able to go through the 3!c analysis you need to be comparing the penalty from the likely sacrifice to the score the opponents will get when they make the contract, i.e. the score of Pass); the question is thus whether a non-negligible proportion of players would actually choose the Pass. The 3!c bid is obviously correct in retrospect, but I don't see many inexperienced players finding it at the table (and those players would thus Pass by default); it took me a while to go through the reasoning above, which would likely lead to an even bigger BIT from the North side if I'd done it at the table. If North is an experienced player who's been in this situation tons of times before, then it's quite plausible that North's entire peer group would choose the 3!c bid even without help from South, making Pass not logical as an alternative. If North is less experienced than that, though, Pass seems like the most likely option. So I guess my answer to this would depend on the standard that North normally plays at. (If actually at the site, it would likely be possible to do a poll to discover what other players in the same bracket/scoring range as North would do here, and base the outcome of the appeal on the poll.)
Natalia welcome at the discussion ;)
Here is the decision and the reasoning of appeal committee. We decided to change the TD’s decision and let the score stand.
The BIT can carry, from the polls at players with similar skills, both encouraging (fit + max) and discouraging (values on spades or 6card ◇) messages so it cannot suggest any specific actions. Moreover the fit (in one of the two suits), the strength and the vulnerability is known to North before the BIT.
here is the complete board
Answering to point 1
The BIT 1 ) the TD writes that S admitted that he paused and N said that S didn’t pause but after at appeal report they both agree that S didn’t paused and EW agree on breaking tempo 2) if we look at the hand S, to determine if there was actually a BIT, he has 15 flat HCP, no heart fit and Axxx in spades.
Something else that is not clear from the report is when exactly was the director summoned, before or after the play. From the way the facts are written the later is more probable.
Answering to point 3, yes double is ridiculous in my opinion too but players of the same level as NS said and I quote “ if you have 5 spades to KJTxx wouldn’t you pause ? we know that E doesn't have 6card”.
Do you have any objections or thoughts about E passing?
If a TD at the table has determined that there was a break in tempo, it is usually unwise for an appeal committee to determine, on the basis of later testimony, that there was not.
You are right, we accepted the TD's opinion about the existence of BIT just giving details to ais523