[Chris L]

---

This hand cropped up yesterday in the final of the Tollemache Cup (EBU Inter-County teams of 8) in the match between Cambs & Hunts (of which I was the N-PC) and Surrey (for whom regular BBOL Laws Forum contributors Jeffrey & Frances were playing, though they were not directly involved on this hand). The final double in the hand diagram might have been East's rather than West's but nothing turns on that.

NS are a fairly regular partnership and play quite a lot of "stuff". 1♥ by N was alerted by S and explained (I'm not sure whether at the time or before the opening lead) as showing ♠, hence S's 3♠ bid. N had UI from the alert; whether he realised at the time that his bid, systemically, showed ♠ or merely that NS were not on the same wavelength I am not sure, but nothing turns on that, either. EW reserved their rights and, at the end of the hand (when they had allowed 3NT to make though it can be beaten) asked for a ruling first on whether the 1♥ bid had been correctly alerted and described and secondly on N's 3NT bid.

This was the penultimate match of the final (an eight team all play all over 14 boards affair with each NS pair IMPing with each EW pair) and matters were slightly complicated by the fact that one of NS had to leave immediately after this penultimate match to catch a plane to Hong Kong and the other one was driving him to the airport. However, before leaving, they gave a copy of their convention card to the TD and explained that they don't play splinters in many sequences and that this was not one of them.

The TD came to see me during the final match, explained the facts and that his decision (after consultation on the second point) was that the table result would stand - first because the convention card clearly showed that the 1♥ bid showed ♠ and secondly because he didn't think N had a logical alternative to 3NT.

Looking at the NS bidding in isolation, without reference to N's actual hand, at least a substantial number would think that 3♠ by S could only be a splinter bid agreeing ♥. However, if N is also entitled to have regard to his own ♠ holding and to the opponents' bidding (or lack of it) 3♠ is very unlikely to be a splinter because in that case EW (not shy in the bidding, as NS knew) had at least ten ♠ between them and yet had not overcalled the suit over 1♦ or bid it in response to the T/O double. I think N said that 2♠ by S over 2♣ by E would have been NF so that, a natural, forcing, 3♠ bid (putting the UI to one side) was a logical alternative.

At the end of the event, the medal positions were such that an adjustment of the result to 4♥ - 1 (whether or not doubled) would have been sufficient for my team to finish in the bronze medal position in place of Surrey. Some of my team (though not the pair directly affected - whose view was "we've asked the TD, he's given his judgement and that should be that") thought we should appeal; I discussed it with Frances & Jeffery amongst others (even though they weren't strictly impartial, but I thought I could trust them) and I was persuaded that an appeal would fail and that I wouldn't waste everyone's time.

[Vampyr]

Chris L, on 2011-February-14, 03:44, said:

At the end of the event, the medal positions were such that an adjustment of the result to 4♥ - 1 (whether or not doubled) would have been sufficient for my team to finish in the bronze medal position in place of Surrey. Some of my team (though not the pair directly affected - whose view was "we've asked the TD, he's given his judgement and that should be that") thought we should appeal; I discussed it with Frances & Jeffery amongst others (even though they weren't strictly impartial, but I thought I could trust them) and I was persuaded that an appeal would fail and that I wouldn't waste everyone's time.

Look at the other thread to see how many people, despite the unlikeliness based on their own hand, thought that 3♠ must be a splinter. It's true that an appeals committee would not have adjusted to 4♥ -1; you would have got an adjustment to 6♥X minus several. Any North who, after this start, doesn't drive to 6♥ is, let's just say, ethically challenged.

I don't think that the result of an event should be a big factor in whether to appeal a ruling, though I understand that it is natural not to want to make the effort when it "doesn't matter".

[Cascade]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-14, 04:50, said:

Look at the other thread to see how many people, despite the unlikeliness based on their own hand, thought that 3♠ must be a splinter. It's true that an appeals committee would not have adjusted to 4♥ -1; you would have got an adjustment to 6♥X minus several. Any North who, after this start, doesn't drive to 6♥ is, let's just say, ethically challenged.

I don't think that the result of an event should be a big factor in whether to appeal a ruling, though I understand that it is natural not to want to make the effort when it "doesn't matter".

Won't Blackwood easily avoid 6♥?

[paulg]

Cascade, on 2011-February-14, 05:00, said:

Won't Blackwood easily avoid 6♥?

Only if you agree on the trump suit.

[gordontd]

Chris L, on 2011-February-14, 03:44, said:

However, before leaving, they gave a copy of their convention card to the TD and explained that they don't play splinters in many sequences and that this was not one of them.

Chris L, on 2011-February-14, 03:44, said:

I think N said that 2♠ by S over 2♣ by E would have been NF so that, a natural, forcing, 3♠ bid (putting the UI to one side) was a logical alternative.

These two pieces of information, if verifiable, seem to me to make quite a difference.

[Vampyr]

paulg, on 2011-February-14, 05:11, said:

Only if you agree on the trump suit.

Yes, North could answer Blackwood in Hearts, and perhaps they could end up in 6♦. Or 6♠ Maybe these are not such realistic possibilities, but certainly 5 ♥ is not out of the question.


Chris L, on 2011-February-14, 09:44, said:
I think N said that 2♠ by S over 2♣ by E would have been NF so that, a natural, forcing, 3♠ bid (putting the UI to one side) was a logical alternative.

But does the agreement apply equally whether 2♥ was a transfer or not? There seems to be quite a bit to untangle here.

[campboy]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-14, 07:17, said:

Yes, North could answer Blackwood in Hearts, and perhaps they could end up in 6♦. Or 6♠ Maybe these are not such realistic possibilities, but certainly 5 ♥ is not out of the question.

Alternatively North could bid RKCB (perhaps after 3♠ 4♣ 4♦), hear a 5♦ response and know that two keycards are missing -- but when he tries to sign off in 5♥ partner will think it is a queen ask.

Anyway, it seems to just come down to whether the TD thinks it likely that 3♠ is natural for this pair.

[Chris L]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-14, 04:50, said:

Look at the other thread to see how many people, despite the unlikeliness based on their own hand, thought that 3♠ must be a splinter. It's true that an appeals committee would not have adjusted to 4♥ -1; you would have got an adjustment to 6♥X minus several. Any North who, after this start, doesn't drive to 6♥ is, let's just say, ethically challenged.

I don't think that the result of an event should be a big factor in whether to appeal a ruling, though I understand that it is natural not to want to make the effort when it "doesn't matter".

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something but what "other thread" - has this hand been the subject of another post?

[Vampyr]

It's called "What's going on?"

[wank]

clear adjustment and PP for north. if i entered a sweepstake on where the bidding should end, i'd go for 6NT, doubled obviously.

north should interpret 3♠ as a splinter and cue 4♣ (I don't believe about 3S not being a splinter after a natural 1H. Assuming they play transfers in other situations, ask how they play this sequence: 1C - (1D) - x (showing hearts) - 3S which is a very similar auction.

south should sign off in 4♠. what north should do now depends on their cuebidding style, but if you assume they cuebid 1st and 2nd round controls, he should sign-off in 5♥ knowing south has no diamond control. if they play kickback, 4S could even be RKCB.

i don't think this is sufficiently surprising even from a passed hand to wake up south to north's misbid. south should perforce interpret this as a particularly distributional hand. maybe something like 6520 which was wanting pass as dealer and make a 2-suited overcall. south having made an invitational raise and having signed off once can jump to 6S. This however would be sufficiently unexpected to wake north up to his error, so I think he should be allowed to convert to 6NT which should be sufficient shock for south to pass.

i would happily deny east-west a very small part of their redress though. i think the penalty double belongs under 'wild and gambling' so the extra -150 between 3NT= and 3NTX= they deserve to keep.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2011-February-14, 06:14, said:

These two pieces of information, if verifiable, seem to me to make quite a difference.

I don't think it makes any real difference. They obviously don't play 3S as a splinter in this position, because 1H showed spades. And obviously 2S (and 3S for that matter) would be non-forcing if 1H showed spades.

We don't need to establish what percentage of people think 3S is a splinter for hearts, or why the opponents haven't bid spades. West is entitled to know the methods of North-South that 1H shows spades, and he may well be lying in wait with a juicy penalty double if South insists on spades. North has to carefully avoid taking advantage of the UI, and 3NT does not do that. It fails to do so to such a great extent that a PP would be in order. I think that 4C is at least an LA, and 3NT is demonstrably suggested. Are the facts as presented correct, Frances and Jeffrey, and do you believe an appeal would have failed, as stated? My guess is that some material facts are missing.

[lamford]

wank, on 2011-February-14, 08:01, said:

clear adjustment and PP for north. if i entered a sweepstake on where the bidding should end, i'd go for 6NT, doubled obviously.

north should interpret 3♠ as a splinter and cue 4♣ (I don't believe about 3S not being a splinter after a natural 1H. Assuming they play transfers in other situations, ask how they play this sequence: 1C - (1D) - x (showing hearts) - 3S which is a very similar auction.

south should sign off in 4♠. what north should do now depends on their cuebidding style, but if you assume they cuebid 1st and 2nd round controls, he should sign-off in 5♥ knowing south has no diamond control. if they play kickback, 4S could even be RKCB.

i don't think this is sufficiently surprising even from a passed hand to wake up south to north's misbid. south should perforce interpret this as a particularly distributional hand. maybe something like 6520 which was wanting pass as dealer and make a 2-suited overcall. south having made an invitational raise and having signed off once can jump to 6S. This however would be sufficiently unexpected to wake north up to his error, so I think he should be allowed to convert to 6NT which should be sufficient shock for south to pass.

i would happily deny east-west a very small part of their redress though. i think the penalty double belongs under 'wild and gambling' so the extra -150 between 3NT= and 3NTX= they deserve to keep.

Agree with almost all of this, but as a small technical point, I think it is the 4 IMPs lost by the double (which is WoG) that they still lose, and they still get the 14 IMPs difference between 6NTx-3 (I presume they would defend similarly) and 3NT=. I am not sure how this works in a teams of 8 event - depends on how many times it is compared. Someone who knows the scoring can advise us better, but I think it would be +10 to E/W and -14 to N/S for this comparison.

[Chris L]

Vampyr, on 2011-February-14, 07:57, said:

It's called "What's going on?"

Thank you. I see Frances beat me to it by several hours. Watching my Sky + recording of Ireland v France was higher on my list of priorities when I got back from Hinckley.

[Vampyr]

wank, on 2011-February-14, 08:01, said:

clear adjustment and PP for north.

Good point. The possibility of a PP had totally slipped my mind, but now you mention it, it's pretty clear that one should be applied.

[Chris L]

lamford, on 2011-February-14, 08:19, said:

Are the facts as presented correct, Frances and Jeffrey, and do you believe an appeal would have failed, as stated? My guess is that some material facts are missing.

I'm pretty sure there are no material facts missing; no doubt Frances and/or Jeffery can expand on the precise sequences in which NS use splinters and can confirm their stated belief that an appeal had no chance (because whatever 3♠ was it was manifestly not a splinter).

North "knows" (either because the alert reminded North that he had misbid or was accompanied by an explanation which had the same effect) but is not allowed to "know" that 3♠ in fact showed ♠ support. Is it the case (as one of my team contended) that he is also not allowed to "know" what is actually in his own hand when considering his legal options over 3♠? In other words, whether he held ♠ xx or (say) ♠ Hxxx, he must treat 3♠ in exactly the same way? That seems to me to be wholly illogical in what is already an artificial situation.

[lamford]

Chris L, on 2011-February-14, 09:29, said:

I'm pretty sure there are no material facts missing; no doubt Frances and/or Jeffery can expand on the precise sequences in which NS use splinters and can confirm their stated belief that an appeal had no chance (because whatever 3♠ was it was manifestly not a splinter).

North "knows" (either because the alert reminded North that he had misbid or was accompanied by an explanation which had the same effect) but is not allowed to "know" that 3♠ in fact showed ♠ support. Is it the case (as one of my team contended) that he is also not allowed to "know" what is actually in his own hand when considering his legal options over 3♠? In other words, whether he held ♠ xx or (say) ♠ Hxxx, he must treat 3♠ in exactly the same way? That seems to me to be wholly illogical in what is already an artificial situation.

Of course he can look at his hand, but if 3S would systemically be a splinter from his point of view, and would be treated as such absent the UI, then it must be treated as such. If there had been no UI - say there was no alert - then he can draw any conclusions he likes. It is a bit like people who don't redouble when the auction goes (1C) - 1NT - (Double) arguing "the vulnerable dealer won't have psyched 1C". The opponent may not be bidding spades because South has just done so, unalerted.

One thing I cannot accept is that 3S is manifestly not a splinter. For the vast majority of players it manifestly is, and 16 out of 20 so voted at this time in the other poll. If 3S had been doubled to show spades, do you think this person would have bid 3NT?

[blackshoe]

It seems to me that what is in one's own hand is always authorized information.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2011-February-14, 10:02, said:

It seems to me that what is in one's own hand is always authorized information.

Yes, that gets us off the idea that South could be short in spades. But it doesn't let N/S play in 3NT or 4H. It seems Wank's post is a good projection of what would happen if a pair were using their hands as authorized information and not taking advantage of UI. 6NT doubled, down three works. Same defensive accident as occurred at the table vs 3NT doubled. And if the pair had actually arrived at 6NT for those reasons, no PP would be considered; in fact, praise would be in order for doing the right thing.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2011-February-14, 08:19, said:

Are the facts as presented correct, Frances and Jeffrey, and do you believe an appeal would have failed, as stated? My guess is that some material facts are missing.

If the facts are as presented, the case seems clear-cut; but everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, no matter how eccentric.

But the claim that Frances and Jeffrey would have offered this opinion to someone who is considering appealing against their teammates is a pretty serious allegation, so I would expect that Chris L has got his facts straight before making it. But there may be some mistake somewhere.

[nigel_k]

The fact that a 1♥ response presumably shows spades in other sequences is hugely important.

If Frances had told us in the other thread that 1♥ shows spades without the double, I'll bet everyone would have worked out what had happened without the benefit of any UI. You might still rule that North is not entitled to 'work this out' when he has the UI of the alert of 1♥, but at the very least it is a completely different problem to the one we faced in Frances' thread.