[campboy]

jallerton, on 2010-December-28, 14:57, said:

Here West should be aware that a pause before the pass could work to the benefit of his side, so the Law tells him to be particularly careful. The word "otherwise" in the third sentence of 73D1 suggests that a tempo variation of the type described previously (in the second sentence) may itself be an infraction.

Ok, I'll buy that. But 73D1, unlike 73F, does not give the TD the right to award an adjusted score. Furthermore, even if we consider that West has committed an infraction of 73D1 by failing to be particularly careful then that type of infraction is "not often penalized" according to the introduction. It would be appropriate to remind West of his responsibilities to take care, though.

[blackshoe]

Note also that 73F starts "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent..." so in order to apply 73F there must have been a violation of an earlier part of law 73.

[bluejak]

Cascade, on 2010-December-28, 13:40, said:

Ricky Ponting is the captain of the Australian cricket team. Australia is currently in a test series with England. Australia is getting well beaten.

Two days ago Ricky Ponting was remonstrating with the umpires about a decision he did not agree with even after it had been referred to a third umpire who has the benefit of television replay technology.

He was fined 40% of his match fee for disent (or similar).

Terrible shame <giggle>. And after that nice Shane Warne said before the start that Australia would win the series 5-0 [anyone know Shane's phone number?].

[gordontd]

blackshoe, on 2010-December-28, 20:32, said:

Note also that 73F starts "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent..." so in order to apply 73F there must have been a violation of an earlier part of law 73.

Didn't you just accept that there had been a violation of 73D1?

[jallerton]

mjj29, on 2010-December-28, 16:25, said:

I ruled that the result stood, north appealed and the AC agreed with me, but gave his deposit back because it was Christmas.

What was the basis of your ruling?

What was the basis of appeal?

It's not possible to assess the merit of the appeal without knowing the answers to these questions. The only thing I can say at this stage is that "It's Christmas" is not an acceptable reason for returning the deposit.

[bluejak]

I have always thought that the second sentence of Law 73D1 is vitally important in telling a player how to behave. But it is 73F that tells the TD whether to adjust.

My guess is that West changed his mind between his first and second calls. Quite possibly, as someone suggested, he bid 4♣ on autopilot [weak had = 4♣] but by the time the auction got back to him he had started to think. Mind you, if I had been the TD I would have asked him specifically why he did not bid 5♣, or at least think about bidding 5♣, first round.

Now, if he has changed his mind and now thinks he may have a reason to bid 5♦, then he has a demonstrable bridge reason and Law 73F does not apply.

I notice criticism of North's bidding. This seems highly unfair. He has not got much strength, he knows that 4♦ will come round to him, and he can decide what to do then. Furthermore, he is the non-offending side, so unless his actions are SEWoG whether people approve of his actual choices are not really relevant. Players often disagree about the best approach, especially in uncommon situations.

Someone has said what happens if there is a breach of Law 73D1 without 73F applying. The answer is that you are allowed to: all you are asked is to be careful. But when you have a demonstrable bridge reason for your action it does not matter if your action is in breach of that second sentence.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2010-December-29, 10:19, said:

Terrible shame <giggle>. And after that nice Shane Warne said before the start that Australia would win the series 5-0 [anyone know Shane's phone number?].

The Australians have been magnanimous in defeat. In particular, the BBC Ashes Live commentary includes this quote from Shane Warne.

Quote

Via Twitter
From Shane Warne: "Congrats to the England cricket team on retaining the ashes .. It has taken 24 years for England to do it in Aust.. Well done and Congrats."

[jallerton]

mycroft, on 2010-December-28, 17:38, said:

The thing is, that if it's a typical Gambling 3NT, by the time it goes 3NT!-p-4C!, North knows 2 things:
- West is not interested in game opposite clubs, but might opposite diamonds, and
- East has diamonds.

So, he knows for a fact that it's going to go p-4D-p-something, to him. If it's pass, then he has no more knowledge than he did the first time. If it's raise, he can no longer bid 4H/double for the 4 level. So, North wants to play 5M against a good hand, but 4D opposite a bad one? No, he says, he would double 4D. So he doesn't want to play 4D, until he learns that West has to think about diamonds. What could West have? Well, shortness and DJxx, I guess.

I'm confused. I assume that North has a way of bidding over 4C that shows interest in playing. Why didn't he choose that, when he knows what the auction is going to be next round? Sure, West was lazy and should have thought over 3NT. Was that going to do anything different for North than this auction? And North was just as lazy, to my mind.

It's an interesting bidding situation from North's point of view. If you are suggesting that because North passed on the first round, he was bound to pass on the second round, then I have to disagree with you.

When your side has been heavily pre-empted, I suggest making use of all available sequences. If North can rely on East bidding 4♦ over 4♣ - Pass then North has almost twice the number of sequences available. Pass then 4♥/♠should have a different meaning to an immediate 4♥/♠. Pass then double should have a different meaning than an immediate double [The possibility of West raising to 5♦ should not be of concern as there are very few hands for Responder that would want to play at the 4-level in clubs but the 5-level in diamonds.]

[mycroft]

Fine, if that's the case. And I'm not criticising North for what he was doing, just asking what kind of hand could West have that would play 4C or (maybe) 5D that would matter at all to North's decision.

Yes, West thought at the wrong time - but would we be having the same conversation if it went 3NT-(pause)4C; 4D-(in tempo)pass? If yes, then North misunderstood why the think; if no, then what makes "not interested in club game, thought about diamond game" any more dangerous? I think there would be more of an argument if North plays for West to have hearts and clubs switched in the play in hearts (which on this hand would be irrelevant).

Yes, this is a time that West should have been careful about, but how many times does the auction not go AP after 3NT-4C; 4D-p? How should a non-expert West know that this is a misleading time to think? And West, in fact, has a "we might make 5" hand - it won't this time, but give east two spades and a stiff club...I was actually wondering if he was going to bid 4S at either turn, if there is a way to make a "bid your suit if mine's unsuitable" 4S call.

I will trust, Jeffrey, to your superior bridge experience (and significantly more experience with pass/correct auctions like this, say 2D-2H;2S?) on how "very few" hands want to play 4C or 5D. But then again, this problem is based on such a hand (almost, assuming West knows when to think). But provided that N/S have such agreements, I retract my "lazy" statement.

In short, I think there was an infraction, but no damage, and if there was, I don't think "auto-bidding on the first round" is enough to turn the think into "no demonstrable bridge reason". Now, if it had gone 4H-5D by East, that's a whole different story.

[blackshoe]

gordontd, on 2010-December-29, 10:26, said:

Didn't you just accept that there had been a violation of 73D1?

I was merely pointing out that such a violation is a prerequisite to ruling under 73F.

[mjj29]

jallerton, on 2010-December-29, 10:37, said:

What was the basis of your ruling?

Sorry, I should have said. I ruled on the basis that there was a demonstratable bridge reason for the break in tempo. The fact that everyone I asked also said "well, north should have doubled anyway" meant I didn't feel bad about it (-:

jallerton, on 2010-December-29, 10:37, said:

What was the basis of appeal?

It's not possible to assess the merit of the appeal without knowing the answers to these questions. The only thing I can say at this stage is that "It's Christmas" is not an acceptable reason for returning the deposit.

The appeal wasn't particularly relevant to the question here, so I wasn't particularly expecting people to assess the merit of it. The fact that it was the chairman's first time chairing a committee (as well as my first as TD - or, in fact, at all) may also have influence returning it. I thought the judgement about whether there was a bridge reason wasn't completely obvious, so I didn't have an issue with the deposit being returned.

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2010-December-28, 13:24, said:

So what demonstrable bridge reason did a player who was prepared to play in 4♣ with 10xx have for considering not playing in 4♦ with 8xx?

Neither opponent took action on the first round of the auction, so it would seem unlikely that the opponents would now back in with 4H. Indeed, their silence suggests that partner may well have the magic 1-3-8-1 that his adverse 3NT could suggest; before they both passed, partner could have any number of hearts. None of the AC would have opened 3NT here, as the suit is broken and East has barely seven tricks. The other consideration for West is that partner may have a doubleton spade, and a 2-3-7-1 shape could make 4S cold. And the Laws do say that North draws the inferences at his peril. North has heard West bid 4C, so he had a routine double of 4D, and it could be argued he is now seeking a double shot. I think that applying 73D1 here is wrong - it is not a particularly sensitive situation. Something like 1S - (Pass) - 2S - (Pass) - Pass* (BIT with an 11 count with only 5 spades and the opponents give in) would be a typical example. Here dummy is only a trick short of making 5D, despite partner's very aggressive 3NT.

I think I am supposed to say that I was a member of the appeal panel, and, as the chairman said to the appellant who was still loudly arguing the case the next day, the deposit was only returned because it was Christmas, although there were some arguments, primarily the ones jallerton makes, that were not instantly dismissed. The reason we considered retaining the deposit was that the appellant added little to the points already dealt with in the excellent presentation by the TD.

[jallerton]

I agree with Nigel that the answer to this case is not so obvious. I also agree with Bluejak that West should have been asked at an early stage why he bid 4♣ initially; this might help us come to a conclusion.

Irrespective of the merits of the TD/AC decision, now that we are reliably informed that North "was still loudly arguing the case the next day" I can agree that "Order of Ponting" has been truly earned!