[bluejak]

You remember this hand from Simple Rulings. Well, I have found out that it was appealed, and according to the appeals form I have some of the facts wrong. 5♣ was not doubled, and West pulled 3NT to 4♦ not 4♣. Furthermore, the ruling was not quite what I thought! Oh, well, here it is again according the appeals form.

Scoring: MP

     1♠  Dbl   3♠
 P   P 3NT[1] P
4♦  P    5♣    P
 P   P

Result
5♣ =
NS -620

---

[1] Agreed slow.

According to the TD:
Called by N/S who questioned the 4♦ bid by West after a "slow" 3NT by East. The "slow" tempo of 3NT was not in dispute.

Question to West:
"Why did you bid 4♦?"

Answer:
"With my hand shape of 1-2-5-5, it is not suitable for 3NT."

Ruling by TD:
   40% of 3NT/E -1, NS +100
+ 60% of 3NT/E =, NS -600

Appeal basis:
E/W appealed because "they did not agree with the TD".

Any further views?

[blackshoe]

Players are allowed to disagree with the TD, of course (even if they weren't allowed to do so, they will anyway). I think though, that they need to specify the nature of their disagreement.

[bluejak]

The L&EC has said, with great pomposity but some sense, that the section 'Reason for appeal' on the form would be better left blank than filled with 'Disagree with TD'.

[RMB1]

Was the result at the table 5♣= NS -600 or 5♣+1 NS -620 (more likely)?

I am not convinced that a slow 3NT suggests pulling, for the same reasons as Frances.

I do not think 3NT will go off as frequently as the TD, is a dimond lead likely?

Robin

[bluejak]

5♣ +1, sorry.

[wank]

giving any weighting to 3nt going off is ridiculous. north has opened the bidding - even uber muppets would know where the ace of diamonds was

[lamford]

blackshoe, on Jan 4 2010, 10:24 PM, said:

Players are allowed to disagree with the TD, of course (even if they weren't allowed to do so, they will anyway). I think though, that they need to specify the nature of their disagreement.

Yes, they should state:

a) we disagree with the weighted score in that 3NT will make 100% of the time even if the novice declarer ducks the first two diamonds and tries the king on the third round

b ) we disagree with the judgement that 4D (which does seem more sensible than 4C) is an LA which is demonstrably suggested (partner did not double again, so is likely to have a fit for a minor).

As E/W might argue, "we accept that we did not present the case very well, but we hope that the terse 'we disagree with the poor ruling by the TD' will not cause us to lose our appeal."

[jdonn]

wank, on Jan 6 2010, 03:01 PM, said:

giving any weighting to 3nt going off is ridiculous.  north has opened the bidding -  even uber muppets would know where the ace of diamonds was

Yes, I mean 40%? Giving it 10% is generous to N/S. In fact they were already generous to N/S by not giving any % of 3NT with an overtrick, on south leading a spade.

[bluejak]

According to the Appeals form:

The Director's Ruling was Amended.
The Deposit was Returned.
Adjustment for both sides:
  3NT/E =, NS -600

Comments:

We feel that in accordance with the Director's ruling UI has been conveyed by the slow 3NT, and that pass is an logical alternative to bidding 4D, especially as East may be balanced. However, we feel that 9 tricks will always be made as
A} the Q diamonds lead is far from clear, and
B} even if the Q♦ is led, it is normal to play North for the ace after North has opened and South has made a pre-emptive raise.

[jallerton]

I agree with most of the AC's comments. Whilst they have certainly improved on the TD's ruling, they have not followed through their logic quite far enough.

Quote

However, we feel that 9 tricks will always be made as
A} the Q diamonds lead is far from clear, and
B} even if the Q♦ is led, it is normal to play North for the ace after North has opened and South has made a pre-emptive raise.

Comment B is correct and 3NT would almost certainly make 9 tricks on the lead of ♦Q.

However, comment A is also correct. Without the benefit of seeing all four hands, North rates to be relatively short in diamonds and it looks normal to lead the suit in which the opening leader's side is known to hold a 9-card fit. On a spade lead, normal play leads to 10 tricks.

Even allowing for sympathetic weighting to the non-offending side for the possibility of ♦Q lead and/or a very lazy play be East on a spade lead, an appropriate weighting for the score an assigned 3NT contract might be:

25% of 3NT = by E , N/S -600; plus
75% of 3NT+1 by E, N/S -630.

However, when the matchpoints from this weighting are compared with the matchpoints from the table result of 5♣+1 by E, N/S -620, it seems likely that the scorers would conclude that there is no damage from the alleged infraction.

But was there an infraction at all?

Quote

We feel that in accordance with the Director's ruling UI has been conveyed by the slow 3NT

True.

Quote

and that pass is an logical alternative to bidding 4D, especially as East may be balanced.

Also true, but in order to merit an adjustment, pass would also have to be demonstrably suggested by the UI. I agree with the scepticism of Frances, Robin and Paul on this point. In all UI cases it is imperative for the TD/AC to consider all likely hand types which could give rise to a hesitation. Whilst I agree with Bluejak that East's hesitation suggests doubt, it is not clear from the UI what makes East doubtful. West's actual hand has two potentially useful features which may be just what East was hoping for if he has guessed to bid 3NT on a good hand without an obvious route to 9 tricks on his own.

It is important to remember that an adjustment under Law 16A can only be made when the UI demonstrably suggests one logical alternative over another.