[Vampyr]

 bluejak, on 2011-February-14, 19:14, 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.
That suggests not forcing to me.

This agreement presumes that the heart bid showed spades. From North's point of view it doesn't, so 2♠ would be a reverse. We do not know how this pair play 1♦-(P)-1♥-(2♣)-2♠. This information is highly relevant, and...

Quote

Furthermore, I do know some people who play a shift as forcing and a jump shift as stronger and distributional.

It is also very relevant how this pair play jump reverses. Somehow, I doubt they play them like this.

I realise that people here are assuming that the pair play reverses as natural and forcing and jump reverses as something artificial. I do not think these are unreasonable assumptions.

[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2011-February-14, 19:17, said:

I think you are missing the point. He bid 1♥ natural, and has heard a 3♠ bid which without the double would be ?? We do not know for sure, but let us suppose natural. Then 3NT is not horrible, it is the only conceivable call without the UI so is legal.

You are missing the point. Why should you suppose natural? You just have to decide how people would normally play it in the absence of any evidence of how this pair might play it if they played different methods.

[nigel_k]

I'm still not convinced at all by the references to the other thread.

In that thread we were told N/S are a 'not very regular partnership' and the transfer possibility was not mentioned. So it was natural for people to interpret 3♠ according to what they would expect it to normally mean, which is a splinter since a reverse, even in competition, is normally a one round force. Even in that thread some people were skeptical that it was a splinter and willing to act accordingly. The ones who treated it a splinter seemed to recognize, from their own cards, that something funny was going on but preferred to trust their partner rather than the opponents.

In this thread N/S have metamorphosed into 'a fairly regular partnership' and have 'won national titles'. They also have transfers on their convention card.

All of this suggests to me that people who voted for splinter in the other thread were in a very different position than North would have been at the table with no UI. With all the added information in this thread 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♥.

Even if North continued blissfully unaware of the obvious evidence from the auction and his own hand, we also weren't told in the other thread of the N/S agreement that 2♠ after a natural 1♥ would have been nonforcing. We can't just disregard any self-serving statement. Instead we have to weigh it against the other evidence. IMO this agreement combined with North's own hand is close to being enough to allow the result to stand.

However, the decision not to appeal was probably wrong. Given the number of people in this thread who want to adjust, impose a PP, and probably feed North's testicles to the pigs as well, it seems as though an appeal could have worked if it struck a similarly minded committee.

[dburn]

Hang on a minute. 1♦-Double-1(natural)♥-2♣-2♠ is natural and not forcing? Well it was said by the bard:

and all of you who credit that
could sit down on an opera hat
and never crush the darn thing flat
you skeptics

Don Marquis, archys life of mehitabel

[dburn]

When I remarked in the other thread that:

"Not sure how irregular this partnership is, but if it has used splinters before I'd say it was using one now. This is a little surprising given my distribution, but that is not my business; I will alert and explain 3♠ as shortage with heart support and game values.

"Of course, if this not very regular partnership has used (or discussed using) transfers over takeout doubles in the past, then an alternative explanation is possible. If North actually alerted 1♥, then matters become more complex."

I did not know anything about the case at all, let alone how much more complex matters were to become. But I did cast my vote for 4♣, because that was what I would do on the untainted auction (where both my partner and I knew that we had hearts, whatever else was going on).

Well, it seems that my partner told the opponents that I had spades. Am I allowed to know that he did this? No. Am I allowed to guess that he might have thought I had spades? No. Oh, wait a minute... yes, because the "only" rational explanation of the opponents' failure to bid spades thus far is that I have temporarily forgotten that we play transfers.

Even if it were (which it isn't), how can I in all conscience proceed as if partner or I "must have forgotten"? How am I to understand what the Laws require me to do in this kind of position when to bid 3NT would make me feel almost physically sick, but an anonymous though doubtless extremely competent Director at a national final - having completed the necessary consultations and given due consideration to his or her ruling - thought that it was OK?

More disturbingly, some of my distinguished colleagues on the EBU L&E seem to think it OK also. Doubtless the matter will be reviewed in due course. I will try not to eat too much beforehand.

[Vampyr]

 nigel_k, on 2011-February-14, 20:43, said:

we also weren't told in the other thread of the N/S agreement that 2♠ after a natural 1♥ would have been nonforcing. We can't just disregard any self-serving statement.

The agreement was that 2♠ was non-forcing after 1♥ that was a transfer. It is unlikely that it would be non-forcing after a natural 1♥ bid. dburn and I have given the same auction as examples, and we both think that the possibility that 2♠ would have been non-forcing after a natural 1♥ bid is vanishingly small. Why are people deliberately misunderstanding this point?

[Chris L]

 lamford, on 2011-February-14, 17:14, said:

If I had been asked my opinion on a possible appeal and team-mates had been involved, I would have recused myself. As captain of a team involved in a possible appeal, I would not have put Frances or Jeffery in an awkward position of being asked to offer an opinion, and I would have sought opinion from the (presumably) several other experts on UI at the Tolly final....

Even if the pair wanted to "let it go" as the TD had ruled, your role as match captain should have been to insist on an appeal whether or not 3rd place was at stake, and certainly if other members of your team wished to do so. And, what were the final scores, as I know that huge swings can have an effect on other places in the Tollemache final, so it may not have only been third place at stake?....

It is clear from the scorecards that only third place would have been at stake on an AC decision.

As I thought a previous post had made clear, I didn't seek Frances & Jeffery out for their opinion; it was volunteered in the course of a perfectly friendly discussion. I know them both pretty well and respect their views in such matters and their integrity. Not the least remarkable thing about this, given the vehemence of some of the views expressed (and allowing for the tendency of some people to exaggerate in order to make a point) is that no one on my team felt that this was a hanging offence, not least the pair directly affected. Maybe we were all just tired and disappointed with our performance on the Sunday.

I wasn't asking for a lecture on my role as match captain (I have been doing the job now for 20 years with some success) or even a (temporary) allegation that I might not have been able to work out the scoring sufficiently accurately to establish exactly what was at stake. I would have thought that one of the functions of a non-playing captain was to take a more dispassionate view on such matters as appeals. And, given what I believed at the time, that is exactly what I did.

[helene_t]

 dburn, on 2011-February-14, 18:15, said:

because there are always (or almost always) logical alternatives to the presumption that partner has forgotten the system.

... or that I forgot the system myself. Fair enough, I just disagree. Even if we assume that 3♠ would have shown heart support if 1♥ had been natural, I don't see any alternative to drawing the conclusion that 3♠ must somehow be natural. This is a regular partnership that plays transfers in this very basic situation. And p makes a call that is all but impossible if my 1♥ bid had been natural.

[lamford]

 Chris L, on 2011-February-15, 02:33, said:

I wasn't asking for a lecture on my role as match captain (I have been doing the job now for 20 years with some success) or even a (temporary) allegation that I might not have been able to work out the scoring sufficiently accurately to establish exactly what was at stake. I would have thought that one of the functions of a non-playing captain was to take a more dispassionate view on such matters as appeals. And, given what I believed at the time, that is exactly what I did.

You weren't getting a lecture. The thread title "should I have sanctioned an appeal?" clearly asks people's opinions of your actions. You wrote: " 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."

It is clear that the discussion with Frances and Jeffery was at least partly instrumental in your decision not to appeal, and I offered my opinion that, on this occasion, another approach would have been better. And I was not commenting on how you fulfilled the role over the previous 20 years, as I don't even know you! And your opinion that your county would have come third if the score had been adjusted to 4H - 1 triggered me to ask what the scores were, as that certainly would not be the adjustment, and a bigger swing might have occurred. As wank states, we are drawing lots for doubled contracts at the six level.

[lamford]

 nigel_k, on 2011-February-14, 20:43, said:

<big snip> 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♥.<big snip>

<big snip> we also weren't told in the other thread of the N/S agreement that 2♠ after a natural 1♥ would have been nonforcing.<big snip>>

On the first point, substitute "unethical" for "reasonable" and you are right. On the second point, we weren't told in this thread either that 2S would have been non-forcing after a natural 1H. It would have been 100% forcing by all of the Surrey team, I assure you.

[Chris L]

[quote name='lamford' timestamp='1297765714' post='529046']
You weren't getting a lecture. The thread title "should I have sanctioned an appeal?" clearly asks people's opinions of your actions.

I wasn't seriously expecting anyone to reply literally to the question in the title (which was was just another way of asking "do you agree with the TD's decision?") and none has. I disagree strongly with any suggestion that the role of a non-playing captain should be to rubber stamp a request to appeal provided at least one member of the team wants to make one; if that were the case, why bother to have Law 92 D 2?

[lamford]

 Chris L, on 2011-February-15, 05:02, said:

 lamford, on 2011-February-15, 04:28, said:

You weren't getting a lecture. The thread title "should I have sanctioned an appeal?" clearly asks people's opinions of your actions.

I wasn't seriously expecting anyone to reply literally to the question in the title (which was was just another way of asking "do you agree with the TD's decision?") and none has. I disagree strongly with any suggestion that the role of a non-playing captain should be to rubber stamp a request to appeal provided at least one member of the team wants to make one; if that were the case, why bother to have Law 92 D 2?

Really? "However, the decision not to appeal was probably wrong. Given the number of people in this thread who want to adjust, impose a PP, and probably feed North's testicles to the pigs as well, it seems as though an appeal could have worked if it struck a similarly minded committee." - Nigel_k - seems to specifically address your decision not to proceed with the appeal.

But I agree that the role of non-playing captain should indeed be to decide whether to appeal - and I can tell from your posting and your various excellent bulletins I find on the Cambs and Hunts site and related clubs that you have suffficient knowledge of bridge and a balanced approach to decision-making and were quite capable of getting this one right. This thread has a parallel with cyberyeti's "should I have been ruled against?". As soon as his actions were criticised he became defensive with more and more convoluted arguments. Why not just admit you screwed up and should clearly have appealed? And who was the TD anyway, but first I think bluejak or blackshoe should confirm whether he can be named and shamed on here?

[lamford]

(duplicate - I screwed up)

[Chris L]

 lamford, on 2011-February-15, 05:37, said:

Really? "However, the decision not to appeal was probably wrong. Given the number of people in this thread who want to adjust, impose a PP, and probably feed North's testicles to the pigs as well, it seems as though an appeal could have worked if it struck a similarly minded committee." - Nigel_k seems to specifically address your decision not to proceed with the appeal.

But I agree that the role of non-playing captain should indeed be to decide whether to appeal - and I can tell from your posting and the various excellent bulletins I find on the Cambs and Hunts site and related clubs that you have suffficient knowledge of bridge and a balanced approach to decision-making and were quite capable of getting this one right. This thread has a parallel with cyberyeti's "should I have been ruled against?". As soon as his actions were criticised he became defensive with more and more convoluted arguments. Why not just admit you screwed up and should clearly have appealed?

Nigel_k has not limited himself to addressing the literal question in the title; he expresses the view that, against the background of the clear majority on this thread in favour of disallowing the 3NT bid (and assuming a like-minded committee), an appeal "could" have been successful and, in that sense, expresses his opinion that my decision not to proceed with it was "probably" wrong. I find nothing "defensive" or "convoluted" in my subsequent posts. I may well have made the wrong decision but I had at the time what seemed to me to be more than sufficient reasons for making it; there's quite a gap between that and "screwed up".

[lamford]

 Chris L, on 2011-February-15, 06:07, said:

Nigel_k has not limited himself to addressing the literal question in the title; he expresses the view that, against the background of the clear majority on this thread in favour of disallowing the 3NT bid (and assuming a like-minded committee), an appeal "could" have been successful and, in that sense, expresses his opinion that my decision not to proceed with it was "probably" wrong. I find nothing "defensive" or "convoluted" in my subsequent posts. I may well have made the wrong decision but I had at the time what seemed to me to be more than sufficient reasons for making it; there's quite a gap between that and "screwed up".

As this is going round in circles, I will limit myself to the same comment as in the other thread: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

[Chris L]

 lamford, on 2011-February-15, 06:09, said:

As this is going round in circles, I will limit myself to the same comment as in the other thread: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

I am sure we are all grateful for that small mercy.

[campboy]

 Vampyr, on 2011-February-14, 23:50, said:

The agreement was that 2♠ was non-forcing after 1♥ that was a transfer. It is unlikely that it would be non-forcing after a natural 1♥ bid. dburn and I have given the same auction as examples, and we both think that the possibility that 2♠ would have been non-forcing after a natural 1♥ bid is vanishingly small. Why are people deliberately misunderstanding this point?

I don't think the OP makes it clear when he says "N said that 2♠ by S over 2♣ by E would have been NF" whether he is talking about the situation where 1♥ was a transfer or not. I had initially assumed he couldn't mean that on the basis that the meaning of 2♠ after partner has shown spades is both obvious and irrelevant! But perhaps he did, in which case we should be asking about an auction like 1♦ (dbl) 1♥* (2♣) 2♥ with 1♥ a transfer.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2011-February-15, 05:37, said:

And who was the TD anyway, but first I think bluejak or blackshoe should confirm whether he can be named and shamed on here?

I'm an American. Last time I was in England was in 1993.

[bluejak]

I think following how their peers would treat it is unfair and unnecessary, since we know we can find out in effect how they play it.

[wank]

 bluejak, on 2011-February-15, 07:55, said:

I think following how their peers would treat it is unfair and unnecessary, since we know we can find out in effect how they play it.

well, sadly here we can't, so i think in the circumstances it seems perfectly reasonable for people to be a little incredulous concerning the suggestion it would be natural.