[inquiry]

Most of us missed this hand, as there were just a little over 100 kibitzers at the table. i had just joined this table on this "exciting" hand.

Bates took 3 or 4 minutes to make his 3NT bid, and south, with no "apparent reason" to bid again, pulled 3NT to 4♠.

---

There was a subsequent discussion that 3NT rebid either showed 5♠, at least it seems half the partnership thought so. Ig not, then the pull of 3NT is not allowed, of course. The director was called and at 12 tricks quickly claimed. This was close to the last hand of the session, the JACOBS team won 14 imps (instead of a push). When the session ended, we didn't know what the director ruled. Of course, it doesn't really matter, as surely this was going to be appealed regardless of the directors ruling by one side or the other: this is going to be a huge swing, as 6♦ makes and 3NT does not. This morning, on the usbf site, I see the 14 imps have been taken away from the Jacobs side, so that gives the first clue to how this was ruled. What factors could be taken into account to make a decision.

What if several past hands were found where this 3nt bid was made and it was always on 5S?

What if past hands were found and half of them had 4Spades, half 5 Spades?

Does the fact that north had only 4 spades factor into a finding?

What if it was written on the cc that it promised 5 spades?

thanks phil, fixed

This post has been edited by Gerardo: 2012-May-03, 07:19
Reason for edit: Fixed bidding sequence (a pass was missing)

[Phil]

Ben the diagram is wrong. It was also board 52: http://usbf.org/docs..._R8_2_31-60.PDF

[gnasher]

The committee's decision is summarised on the USBF homepage:

"An Appeals Committee ruling late Tuesday night changed the score in the Diamond-Jacobs match. The appeal will be written up in the Daily Bulletin, but essentially, a bid that was made after a hesitation was not allowed, changing the result on a board from 6 making 6 to 3NT down 1."

[gnasher]

As I understand it from Ben's description, we have two conflicting pieces of evidence about the 3NT bid: South's assertion that it showed five spades, and North's 3NT bid on a 4-card spade suit. We also know that this would be a very unusual agreement.

To make South's assertion credible, we would need at least one of:
- An alert at the time.
- Something written down before the event, either on the convention card or in a system file.
- Evidence from previous boards that North does do something different when he has only four spades.
- Evidence from previous boards that South removes 3NT to 4♠ when he has three of them.
- A convincing explanation of what North is supposed to do with his actual shape.
- Immediate corroboration by North.
- A reputation for honesty.

[Trinidad]

I pretty much agree with Andy. But I would say that South doesn't have any chance at all if he didn't alert 3NT.

Rik

[cherdano]

I am quite surprised that the director did not roll this back to 3N.

This post has been edited by cherdano: 2012-May-03, 06:17

[barmar]

inquiry, on 2012-May-02, 08:52, said:

[thanks phil, fixed

Not quite. You have East and West bidding 4♠ and 6♦, I assume it was South and North.

[gordontd]

cherdano, on 2012-May-02, 16:22, said:

I am quite surprised that the director roll this back to 3N.

Why are you surprised?

[gordontd]

gnasher, on 2012-May-02, 15:02, said:

As I understand it from Ben's description, we have two conflicting pieces of evidence about the 3NT bid: South's assertion that it showed five spades, and North's 3NT bid on a 4-card spade suit. We also know that this would be a very unusual agreement.

To make South's assertion credible, we would need at least one of:
- An alert at the time.
- Something written down before the event, either on the convention card or in a system file.
- Evidence from previous boards that North does do something different when he has only four spades.
- Evidence from previous boards that South removes 3NT to 4♠ when he has three of them.
- A convincing explanation of what North is supposed to do with his actual shape.
- Immediate corroboration by North.
- A reputation for honesty.

If we were satisfied that it really did show five spades, then one might argue that passing 3NT was suggested by the slowness of the bid, and that 4S should be required of the South player.

[RMB1]

You might think that a slow "3NT = 5 spades" suggests that responder knows 3NT shows 5 spades, but he doesn't have 5 spades. So passing is suggested by the UI over bidding 4S.

[cherdano]

gordontd, on 2012-May-03, 02:05, said:

Why are you surprised?

I typed the opposite of what I had meant to type.

[gnasher]

I am now less surprised.

[arvie]

This is the write-up in the bulletin of the appeal.

(Bates) S (Wold) conducted the following auction with E/W silent:
S    N
1♦ 1♠
2♦ 3NT*
4♠** 6♦

* 2 minute huddle and no alert to E.

** 45 seconds to 1.5 minute huddle after which he alerted W that 3NT showed 5Ss and an option to play 3NT even if S had 3Ss and then bid 4S.

After 6D was made E/W called the TD contending that the out of tempo bids conveyed unauthorized information (UI) which assisted N/S to bid the slam rather than playing 3NT.

Bates told the TD and the Appeals Committee (AC) that his huddle was his trying to remember their agree-ments about his rebid and related that 2S was forcing, but that he wasn't sure that Wold would remember, and that 2NT was forcing, but he didn't remember that it was forcing, and they used to play 3NT as showing 5Ss giving partner the option of playing 3NT even if he had 3Ss, but that he thought that Wold had asked to drop that agreement even though it was still in their notes.

Wold told the TD (he was not present at the hearing) that his out of tempo action was trying to remember their methods and finally concluded that 3NT showed 5Ss and an option to play 3NT even with 3Ss and he then bid 4S. He did not recall the discussion about dropping that agreement.

The TD allowed the table result of N/S+920 to stand and E/W appealed.

The AC believed that N's 2 minute huddle in what would be expected to be a routine auction may have awakened Wold that Bates may have uncertainty about 3NT. The AC concluded that had 3NT been bid in tempo, it was reasonably likely that Wold would have passed 3NT and the result would have been down one and therefore changed the score to E/W +50.

Jeffrey Polisner, Chairman
John Sutherlin, Member
Henry Bethe, Member

[inquiry]

Thanks for the post arvie. The only thing that seems wrong in the review is Fred and Brad did not wait until after 6♦ made to summons the director. He was called at least as early as trick 2, as that was made to the kibitzers at the table at the time.

[cloa513]

Phil, on 2012-May-02, 09:04, said:

Ben the diagram is wrong. It was also board 52: http://usbf.org/docs..._R8_2_31-60.PDF

Board 52 doesn't look even close to being bid like this.

[aguahombre]

Board 59. Same hand record link, though.

[billw55]

arvie, on 2012-May-06, 01:20, said:

Bates told the TD and the Appeals Committee (AC) that his huddle was his trying to remember their agree-ments about his rebid and related that 2S was forcing, but that he wasn't sure that Wold would remember, and that 2NT was forcing, but he didn't remember that it was forcing, and they used to play 3NT as showing 5Ss giving partner the option of playing 3NT even if he had 3Ss, but that he thought that Wold had asked to drop that agreement even though it was still in their notes.

Wold told the TD (he was not present at the hearing) that his out of tempo action was trying to remember their methods and finally concluded that 3NT showed 5Ss and an option to play 3NT even with 3Ss and he then bid 4S. He did not recall the discussion about dropping that agreement.

I am surprised and fascinated that an international class pair has this much doubt about their bidding agreements, and during a high level competition to boot.

[Mbodell]

billw55, on 2012-June-18, 09:37, said:

I am surprised and fascinated that an international class pair has this much doubt about their bidding agreements, and during a high level competition to boot.

Well, to be fair to them, it is the *second* round of an *un*contested auction. And how often does one bid 1m-1M-2m anyways?

[barmar]

This month's Bridge World has the tournament report from the Bermuda Bowl semi-finals. There was a hand where Bochi-Madala got confused about the uncontested auction 1♦-1♥-1♠-2♣. One thought 2♣ was 4th suit forcing, the other thought it was a puppet to 2♦.

In the case of Bates-Wold, part of the excuse is that they'd recently discussed changing their agreement. Even experts can have memory faults, trying to remember how the discussion ended up.

[billw55]

barmar, on 2012-June-19, 00:15, said:

In the case of Bates-Wold, part of the excuse is that they'd recently discussed changing their agreement. Even experts can have memory faults, trying to remember how the discussion ended up.

True, and many pairs fine tune their system shortly before competition. Then again, it seems this was only one of at least three issues, including the concern that partner would forget an agreement, and allowing for that concern! ("Bates ... related that 2S was forcing, but that he wasn't sure that Wold would remember.")