BBO Discussion Forums: Should I Have Sanctioned an Appeal? - BBO Discussion Forums

Aardv, on 2011-February-18, 18:16, said:

North's logical alternatives need to be considered at every turn, including this one. However, I think that the "strong 5-6" (which is based on strong playing strength) does not need as many high card points as the 2452 20-count you suggested, so the double (suggesting that East has some high cards) makes the former more relatively likely.

jallerton, on 2011-February-19, 12:22, said:

I understood what you wrote, but do not agree with it. Nor does dburn, nor does Aardv. North has heard the alert, and he knows that he has misbid. As Dburn states, he is is allowed to know that he has shown spades, but must not use it to his advantage. Dburn made exactly the same point as me that East has heard North bid spades and may therefore not bid them. You cannot use this information to your advantage, but must use it if it is to your disadvantage. Logical alternatives are assessed in the light of all the information you have.

I don't understand where you get the idea that you are not supposed to use the UI. If you don't know what the UI is and what it indicates, how can you carefully avoid taking advantage of it?

And what I regard as nonsense is the idea that 3S is natural and forcing. Many have made similar points. "Moreover, the UI will cause him to think fantastical thoughts about his partner's bid of 3♠ - "maybe I can justify 3NT by making up a load of nonsense about not playing splinters in competition and about 2♠ being non-forcing" seems to be one quote from Dburn. And I do not regard it as insulting to suggest that you wrote nonsense. Edward Lear made a career out of it. You are not far behind.

jallerton, on 2011-February-19, 12:42, said:

So we have moved from "virtually impossible" in one thread to (the opposite of) "relatively likely" now. And what do you think your ethical duty is if one hand type is relatively likely, but suggested by the UI?

Messrs Burn & Lamford have convinced themselves that the idea that NS play 2S as NF in this sequence and don't play splinters in competition except in the opponents' suit is a lot of fantastical self-serving nonsense invented to justify 3NT. They may be right; no one (apart from the pair in question) knows. At least some contributors to this thread apparently play (or know others who play) similar methods. What disturbs me about Messrs Burn & Lamford's utter certainty is that they are not prepared to concede for a moment that, self-serving though it may be, what was said might in fact be true and are quite happy to fill the roles of kangaroo court and lynch mob not only for North but also for the TD.

I much prefer the more balanced approach of Gordon Rainsford (who made the point, very early on in this thread, that we need to know the NS methods - a point which has yet to be answered). Given his recent "promotion" no doubt Messrs Burn & Lamford regard him as an apologist for the EBU and its TDs.

Chris L, on 2011-February-19, 14:05, said:

No, I have the highest respect for Gordon's opinions and his ability as a TD, and his objectivity. But if neither of North or South, nor the TD, posts on here, we are always going to be a kangaroo court. Indeed Gordon mentioned last night an earlier case on here which criticised one of his rulings, but the facts were incorrect. We are discussing the facts as presented by the OP, as I think bluejak advised on at least one occasion. How else would you have the forum work when the TD does not contribute?

There was a way of having all the facts analysed ... an appeal.

Chris L, on 2011-February-19, 14:05, said:

One thing you must not do is to forget posts made because a poster does not post frequently in a long thread. I still think it relatively easy to find out whether 3♠ was natural, and was shouted down by arguments which were nothing to do with what I said. I stick to what I wrote, but I see no reason to write it again and again. I believe Burn and Lamford's certainty to be not justified by the facts in the OP or elsewhere.

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 15:28, said:

If the TD retained, or copied, the CC, then it will indeed be easy to find out, but I would give long odds against the sequence appearing therein. There just isn't room unless they had accompanying system notes. The TD would probably have to make a decision based on the balance of probabilities. Note that it is not just Burn and Lamford that think 3S is not natural - as a read of the thread, and a glance at the other poll shows.

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 15:28, said:

I hadn't forgotten your very constructive post and was about to pray it in aid but you beat me to it

bluejak, on 2011-February-19, 15:28, said:

Oh, nothing is certain except death and taxes (and if you are Vodafone, even the latter is far from being a certainty). I observe merely that I do not believe I or anyone has ever heard the following auction at the bridge table:

1♦ - Double - 1♥ (natural) - 2♣ - 3♠ (natural) - all pass. If I had heard it, I would hitherto have regarded it much as I would regard the sudden appearance of a Yeti or a basilisk, things that I am "certain" do not exist. But I recently had the pleasure of playing on a team with Jeffrey, and it seems that had the relevant cards been dealt, this auction might have been conducted at the other table in one of our matches.

Perhaps fortunately for the equilibrium of all concerned, the relevant cards have not yet been dealt. The fact remains, though, that if North had heard South explain 1♥ as "hearts" (or, what is the same thing, not heard South alert 1♥ as "spades"), I doubt very much whether the "natural" explanation of 3♠ would have occurred to him any more than it would occur to me.

Bluejak asks me to clarify what I believe to be the discrepancy between Law 16 and Law 73. For the purposes of Law 16 and in the absence of Law 73, it would be open to North to reason that 3♠ "must be" natural and based either on the misunderstanding that actually existed, or on the possible existence of Yetis and basilisks as described above. That is: if 3♠ cannot "logically" agree hearts, then North may bid 3NT without breaking Law 16. But Law 73 does exist, and places a greater onus on North; he must not take any advantage of the presumption (which he knows to be true) that South has four spades in a limit raise - he may not "deduce" it unless his deductions are logically true in all possible worlds. They aren't, so he can't bid 3NT.

lamford, on 2011-February-19, 14:12, said:

In the majority of cases, maybe - but not in his one because, shortly after the conclusion of this match, one of NS was on his way to the airport, driven by the other. So all the A C would have had would have been their C C plus the T D's account of what he had been told by them - and whatever "evidence" their team-mates would have been able and permitted to give - as Frances & Jeffery have tried to inform the debate on this thread, only to have their views treated with utter disrespect by you and Burn, as if they were doing no more than defending what you evidently regard as the indefensible. Your stance reeks of "my mind is made up; do not confuse me with [attempts to get at the] facts" which, given that you are purporting to sit in judgement on the ethics of the players concerned I find reprehensible.

I was not aware that contributors to this forum were obliged to deliver a judgement on every problem presented to it; sometimes the only intelligent, rational response (as demonstrated by Gordon Rainsford and David Stevenson) is to get at the facts first - and, if they can't be got at then to say "if this, then that but if ..." etc. I followed just such an approach when practising law in the City of London for 25 years and it did me no harm.

Chris L, on 2011-February-19, 16:07, said:

Au contraire ... I prefaced several of my posts, or suffixed them, with a comment such as " ... if the facts are as stated." And I think Cambs and Hunts would have done just fine with a lawyer of 25 years experience attending the AC hearing on behalf of the players who could not attend - apart from the SEWOG nature of the double. I think the L&E should contact the players and the TD to obtain further facts, assuming they can do so even there was no appeal. I think in any case there should be a statement from the L&E after contacting the TD, through one of the eminent members of the former. This case has attracted a lot of interest, and this forum is only a discussion of the facts that it has. I have no official capacity, nor do the majority of posters, and express my views of all decisions - including ethical ones - as I see them, always assuming the OP is factually accurate. North-South and the TD can be invited to post on here, and I am sure we would all welcome their views.

In passing, I post on a number of sporting forums, where often the actions of players or officials are questioned, and sometimes their ethics. These players and officials almost never contribute, as you might imagine. Rarely do posters change their views (which can be far more vitriolic than on here) from day one. Do you find this reprehensible?

lamford, on 2011-February-19, 16:22, said:

First, the players who could not have attended were from Surrey, not C&H, so I wouldn't have been representing them (though I have tried, apparently with no success, to ensure a fair hearing for them on this forum).

Secondly, given that the final double was made by E not W, I thought it had been accepted that SEWOG was irrelevant.

Thirdly, though on some occasions you qualified your posts in the way you say, the posts themselves actually assumed that three material "facts" (namely that, after a natural 1♥ and 2♣ overcall, (1) 2♠ would have been NF, (2) 3♠ would have been natural and forcing and (3) 3♠ could not, systemically have been a splinter) were not as stated.

I find your assumption of a right, particularly in the absence of all the facts, to pronounce on the ethics of other players breathtakingly arrogant. I offer you (gratis, now that I have retired) a small piece of advice: the law of libel applies equally to matter posted on the internet.

Chris L, on 2011-February-19, 17:12, said:

This forum provides for all members to offer their opinions on all decisions. On your first sentence, I would say that people often find faults in others that are most prominent in themselves. The arrogance is in your posts and it comes across at all times ... I suggest you read them again.

"I have been doing the job now for 20 years with some success". "practising law in the City of London for 25 years and it did me no harm".

But, more seriously, you claimed that I attacked the ethics of someone in this thread, and you added a veiled threat of litigation. None of my postings did so; at all stages I only commented on the merits of the decision and whether I considered North was in breach of Laws 16B and Law73C, based on the facts as presented.. Unless you withdraw that assertion and apologise, I shall make a formal complaint to the L&E. And while you are it, you might like to apologise for this at the same time:

Chris L, on 2011-February-19, 15:05, said:
I much prefer the more balanced approach of Gordon Rainsford <snip>. Given his recent "promotion" no doubt Messrs Burn & Lamford regard him as an apologist for the EBU and its TDs.

Chris L, on 2011-February-19, 17:12, said:

Very few posters on here accept that 3S is natural and forcing. Most would assume 2S was natural and forcing unless specifically discussed. Those that would issue a PP certainly do not think 3S is natural. Most of the forum would adjust. It is perfectly in order for forumites not to accept "self-serving statements" - any idea that this could be libellous is utterly barking. I did not dispute that North-South stated as they did - indeed I have no idea what they said. DBurn goes much further than me in criticising the North-South actions. I have said in a few posts that a third meaning for 3S other than splinter or natural is more likely. I expect, however, that as stated by gnasher and I think jallerton there were a lot of gaps in the North-South system file, and that the meaning of 3S is "undiscussed". So we are back to 73C, and a clear adjustment.

But, as you say, it is better to get the facts, and it certainly is not up to me to do that.

lamford, on 2011-February-19, 17:41, said:

Arrogance. Nice one. Are you the same Paul Lamford as the person by that name quoted in N16 magazine in the summer of 2006 as saying:

"I only play for low stakes in casinos, as I have an advantage and am likely to win. If I played for high stakes I'd be asked to leave." ?

And, apart from associating yourself (with evident approval) with Mr Burn, have a look at your post no. 50. I wasn't threatening anybody, just suggesting that you be a little more restrained in your "opinions". On the other hand your last sentence does look like a threat to me.

Chris L, on 2011-February-19, 18:39, said:

The statement by nigel_k was: I maintain that any reasonable North, when faced with the unusual jump to 3♠ and looking at two small spades and opponents not bidding them, would now realize that his 1♥ had been treated as a transfer even if he didn't think so at the point he bid 1♥.

I stated that I would agree with the statement if it read:

I maintain that any unethical North, when faced with the unusual jump to 3♠ and looking at two small spades and opponents not bidding them, would now realize that his 1♥ had been treated as a transfer even if he didn't think so at the point he bid 1♥.

That is clearly the case, as the Laws and Ethics committee would confirm. A North meeting an undiscussed 3S has an ethical duty not to take advantage of the previous alert. If North-South have a specific agreement that 3S is natural and forcing, then it might be different.

And the format of the last sentence was the standard option being given for somebody to withdraw an assertion before taking it further - I am always happier with amicably agreeing to differ, and I hope you can see your way to do the same. I will agree to moderate my opinions, which I fully accept are often too direct and abrasive (I know jallerton will second that).

Chris L, on 2011-February-19, 18:39, said:

I think that I have disagreed with Dburn more than I have agreed with him on this forum over all threads, but it will be close. If this thread runs longer than the Mousetrap, "agree" will overtake "disagree" very soon.

Chris L, on 2011-February-19, 17:12, said:

That is not ideal, but there is no reason an appeal cannot go ahead without their players. And their captain could have been briefed and represented them.

dburn, on 2011-February-19, 15:58, said:

The question was over the possibility of 3♠ being natural and forcing. Clearly no-one would play it as non-forcing.

jallerton, on 2011-February-19, 03:30, said:

I don't understand why South would need more HCP to bid 3S with a known heart fit than he would make the same bid with no known fit. We need to find a lot of shape somewhere to explain the auction: how about 1471?

Some other thoughts:

- It seems to me that a pair might plausibly agree not to play splinters in competition except when opponents started with a take-out double. I don't suppose this N-S pair had such a detailed agreement, but why shouldn't a vague agreement be assumed by one of them to include this exception implicitly?

- This particular East could have bid spades naturally at any level. But North didn't know that.

- There's been talk of the L&E committee. I think it might usefully consider the question of what information is AI to North here from his opponents' bidding. Is Jeffrey right that their actions are AI to him on the imaginary assumption that they've been given alerts and explanations consistent with what he originally meant by his bid (which implies that may have to work out a set of explanations by both himself and his partner)? Or is any action by opponents UI that may have been affected either way by the misunderstanding, as other commentators have held?