[VixTD]

This was from the Seniors Swiss Teams. I was not the director who gave the ruling:

---

1NT was 12-14.
2♥ was modified Astro, showing either 5-4 in hearts and a minor, or 5-5 in hearts and spades, not alerted.

Result: 2♠(E)=, NS -110

EW called the TD at the end of the hand when the misinformation came to light. East argued that if 2♥ had been alerted and explained he would have doubled (takeout), and West would have passed to score +300.

What do you think?

[Trinidad]

I would ask East why he would double a five card heart suit + a side suit for take out, but would bid 2♠ over a six card suit (that could be a five card suit).

I would think it makes more sense to double a relatively clear one suiter for takeout and to show my suit over a two suiter, but perhaps East can enlighten me.

Rik

[ahydra]

Utter drivel from East. MI - yes, damage - no.

ahydra

[c_corgi]

I would make a mental note that any self-serving statements by East in future should be disregarded.

[RMB1]

VixTD, on 2013-September-23, 09:58, said:

What do you think?

I can't think of anything nice to say, [grumpy]so I won't say anything[/grumpy].

[wank]

i think i'm happy i don't qualify to play in seniors events.

[ggwhiz]

VixTD, on 2013-September-23, 09:58, said:

What do you think?

I think Brighton is on the verge of a new record for frivolous director calls and 2-way sots. Make that shots... or maybe not. Double for TO was available MI or not and probably more attractive without an alert.

[paulg]

I'm really pleased to see that the EBU is being unbelievable successful in attracting new players to Brighton.

[VixTD]

I expected to come back to universal derision, and you haven't disappointed me.

I believe I heard that the score was adjusted to 2♥X(N)-2, but that may have been a bad dream. I can't see any justification for this, but then again I may not have heard the full story.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2013-September-23, 09:58, said:

This was from the Seniors Swiss Teams. I was not the director who gave the ruling:
1NT was 12-14.
2♥ was modified Astro, showing either 5-4 in hearts and a minor, or 5-5 in hearts and spades, not alerted.
Result: 2♠(E)=, NS -110
EW called the TD at the end of the hand when the misinformation came to light. East argued that if 2♥ had been alerted and explained he would have doubled (takeout), and West would have passed to score +300.

---

VixTD, on 2013-September-25, 07:23, said:

I expected to come back to universal derision, and you haven't disappointed me. I believe I heard that the score was adjusted to 2♥X(N)-2, but that may have been a bad dream. I can't see any justification for this, but then again I may not have heard the full story.

Judging from the facts presented above, I don't understand the criticism of East or the director. IMO, With his vast experience and the wisdom of age, East might well have doubled if privy to a correct explanation.
East bid 2♠ assuming RHO has ♥ (5+ cards). 2♠ is more dangerous if East knows RHO has a two-suiter (9+ cards), because unfavourable breaks are more likely. Whether West would pass is less certain but If the director understands and accepts that subtle Senior judgement, his ruling makes sense.

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2013-September-26, 20:44, said:

Judging from the facts presented above, I don't understand the criticism of East or the director. IMO, With his vast experience and the wisdom of age, East might well have doubled if privy to a correct explanation.
East bid 2♠ assuming RHO has ♥ (5+ cards). 2♠ is more dangerous if East knows RHO has a two-suiter (9+ cards), because unfavourable breaks are more likely. Whether West would pass is less certain but If the director understands and accepts that subtle Senior judgement, his ruling makes sense.

That was why I posted it - to see if anyone could come up with a rationale for bidding with the wrong explanation, and doubling with the correct one. It may be that East explained this to the director and convinced them, but this was not part of the story told to me.

[Trinidad]

nige1, on 2013-September-26, 20:44, said:

Judging from the facts presented above, I don't understand the criticism of East or the director. IMO, With his vast experience and the wisdom of age, East might well have doubled if privy to a correct explanation.
East bid 2♠ assuming RHO has ♥ (5+ cards). 2♠ is more dangerous if East knows RHO has a two-suiter (9+ cards), because unfavourable breaks are more likely. Whether West would pass is less certain but If the director understands and accepts that subtle Senior judgement, his ruling makes sense.

You forgot to put the smilies in.

Rik

[nige1]

nige1, on 2013-September-26, 20:44, said:

Judging from the facts presented above, I don't understand the criticism of East or the director. IMO, With his vast experience and the wisdom of age, East might well have doubled, if privy to a correct explanation. East bid 2♠ assuming RHO has ♥ (5+ cards). 2♠ is more dangerous if East knows RHO has a two-suiter (9+ cards), because unfavourable breaks are more likely. Whether West would pass is less certain but If the director understands and accepts that subtle Senior judgement, his ruling makes sense.

VixTD, on 2013-September-27, 06:25, said:

That was why I posted it - to see if anyone could come up with a rationale for bidding with the wrong explanation, and doubling with the correct one. It may be that East explained this to the director and convinced them, but this was not part of the story told to me.

Must East be able to explain to obtain justice? What if East has language difficulties?

Trinidad, on 2013-September-27, 06:44, said:

You forgot to put the smilies in.

Trinidad may not agree but I think the vacant-spaces argument (above) is worth consideration

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2013-September-27, 11:23, said:

Must East be able to explain to obtain justice? What if East has language difficulties?

Of course! Do you think the directors should be awarding adjusted scores every time there's a failure to alert, a misexplanation or a break in tempo without even considering the likelihood of whether it caused any damage?

[c_corgi]

nige1, on 2013-September-27, 11:23, said:

Trinidad may not agree but I think the vacant-spaces argument (above) is worth consideration

If bad breaks are likely, then all the more reason to play your 5-2 or 5-3 fit with great intermediates at the 2-level, rather than risk finding your 3-4 or 3-5 fit with unknown intermediates at the 3-level.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2013-September-27, 11:23, said:

Must East be able to explain to obtain justice?

VixTD, on 2013-September-27, 11:37, said:

Of course! Do you think the directors should be awarding adjusted scores every time there's a failure to alert, a misexplanation or a break in tempo without even considering the likelihood of whether it caused any damage?

I don't think directors should be awarding adjusted scores willy-nilly; I also don't think East is required to explain his reasoning to obtain justice — although it may help him to do so. The laws put the onus on the director to collect data, and to rule as best he can on "the facts he is able to collect". There's nothing in there about players being required to justify their actions. Still, the director will be making a judgment ruling - and if his judgment is flawed, so will be the ruling. I don't see how we can "fix" that, except by providing a "check and balance" mechanism — which is what appeals are supposed to be.

[nige1]

c_corgi, on 2013-September-27, 11:46, said:

If bad breaks are likely, then all the more reason to play your 5-2 or 5-3 fit with great intermediates at the 2-level, rather than risk finding your 3-4 or 3-5 fit with unknown intermediates at the 3-level.

The good five card ♠ suit is tempting but becomes even less attractive if you are told that RHO's 2♥ bid may show a 5-5 major two-suiter. Also double provides partner with the opportunity for a penalty-pass

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2013-September-27, 11:23, said:

Must East be able to explain to obtain justice? What if East has language difficulties?

VixTD, on 2013-September-27, 11:37, said:

Of course! Do you think the directors should be awarding adjusted scores every time there's a failure to alert, a misexplanation or a break in tempo without even considering the likelihood of whether it caused any damage?

Taking this question and that answer out of the current thread for a moment to generalize, if I may ---

If a person calling the TD is unable, for some reason, to articulate his case for damage I don't believe that automatically denies him redress. IMO, the TD can determine damage from the circumstances, or at least some TD's can; and they are allowed to.

[blackshoe]

Not just allowed to, they're supposed to.

[VixTD]

blackshoe, on 2013-September-27, 16:51, said:

I don't think directors should be awarding adjusted scores willy-nilly; I also don't think East is required to explain his reasoning to obtain justice — although it may help him to do so. The laws put the onus on the director to collect data, and to rule as best he can on "the facts he is able to collect". There's nothing in there about players being required to justify their actions.

Asking East what they would have done given a correct explanation and why is part of the data collection. I'm surprised that anyone finds this controversial.

If no one can see any reason why the proposed action would be more successful (as they couldn't in this case until Nigel came along, and he doesn't seem to be convincing anybody), why should there be any score adjustment?