BBO Discussion Forums: Ruling in Poland v England - BBO Discussion Forums

I now have details of the ruling in England v Poland, much criticised by the England players, and, as one might expect, by those England supporters aware of the ruling. The auction was at a reasonable tempo until 4♦, which took 6 minutes and 20 seconds, as shown on the video, which I sat through. The auction was standard Polish club, with 1♠ 12-17, 2♦ 10+, 2NT not necessarily balanced, g13+ FG (2S would have been non-forcing), 3♦ 6+ diamonds FG, 3♠ presumably 6 spades, and 4♣ a cue, and redouble showing first round club control. Strong hands could open 1C which is stated on the CC to be 15+.

West accepted there was a long BIT, and he stated he was considering bidding RKCB. The poor slam made when the jack of spades fell doubleton and North had only two diamonds. North thought East had used UI in concluding that his partner must have had a heart control, as he would otherwise have bid 4D quickly, and West's slow 4D expressed doubt about both strain and denomination, UI to East. The TD ruled, presumably, that there was no LA to 4NT, or if there was either the only LAs would still reach slam, or that 4NT was not demonstrably suggested. North thought nothing about the auction had prevented West having AKJTxx Jx Ax JTx, except that hand would not be considering bidding RKCB, and would bid 4D immediately.

What do readers think? Of course the result of the match depends on your ruling!

This post has been edited by lamford: 2015-October-08, 10:46

Is the auction in your diagram correct?

This is a bad slam. Know ♣ finesse is failing. Limited auction means their also off an ace (description of auction sounds like KC was asked too) So, everything else has to be perfect. If slam goes down as it is odds on to do would anyone complain?

lamford, on 2015-October-07, 18:11, said:

On BridgeWinners, David Burn says West's 2N is forcing with extra values; so he must have something other than ♦A and ♠AK. Hence East''s 4N might be his only logical alternative.

WesleyC, on 2015-October-07, 20:41, said:

If the auction is as in the diagram then 5♦ is an ethical move and W can do what he wants.

If E bid 4NT then I agree with the English. The slow 4♦ suggests ♥K (a dubious cue since he is going to be dummy).

Terrible bidding methods by the way, reaching the 4-level without agreeing on the trump suit.

helene_t, on 2015-October-08, 00:54, said:

In principle 4♣ agreed spades and RKC response was for spades.

lamford, on 2015-October-07, 18:11, said:

I think we really need to know which of those three it was.

Without a complete understanding of the polish players style and methods we can't do anything more than speculate. Does 2NT actually not show extras? Does 4C actually agree spades or did 3D already set diamonds? Was 3S natural or a cuebid?

From East's point of view is it impossible that West was contemplating between a 4D cuebid/waiting bid and a signing off in 4S/5D because they had a sub-minimum? If that was the case, then the UI suggests signing off and East is ethically obligated to force to the (bad) slam.

My guess is that the ruling went the way it did because the BIT didn't actively suggest one action ahead of another.

Summarizing: We don't know the Polish system, we don't know the Polish style, we don't even know the Polish auction (there was no 4NT in the given auction, but the text in the OP says that there was no LA to [the chosen] 4NT).

Perhaps a good idea to start a new thread with the correct information?

Rik

gordontd, on 2015-October-08, 01:49, said:

I agree but I could not find anything in the bulletin, which should really have a write-up of a review. And the version presented is from the point of view of the English. Dburn states that 2NT is forcing with extra values, but it was not alerted. It is not obvious to me what one does in Polish Club with a minimum 5-3-2-3, and I do not know if a forcing 2NT is alertable in this event. I think it is in England.

Apologies folks for the missing bid in the auction, typed in the wee hours, and now corrected. And if there is a Polish Club expert out there, we would love to hear from him or her. And even if 2NT is forcing with extra values, you would not want to bid a NF 2S on AKJTxx Jx Ax JTx.

lamford, on 2015-October-08, 03:37, said:

Huh?

Of course 2NT is forcing. Nonforcing might have been alerted.

I am not a Polish Club expert but I am pretty sure that 2♠ is forcing as well.

You know, I understand you like to post hypothetical scenarios to explore subtle or illogical aspects of the law. But a scenario where a WC players bids a non-forcing 2N with AKTxxx Kx Ax Jxx after 1S-2D (not game-forcing) is taking it a little far out of the real world even by your standards, IMO.

helene_t, on 2015-October-08, 03:46, said:

I have tracked down appendix 3 of the WBF alerting rules, and it states that:

"If screens are not in use, do NOT alert the following:
1. All doubles.
2. Any no-trump bid which suggests a balanced or semi-balanced hand, or suggests a
no-trump contract. <snip>"

So, it would not be alerted whether or not it was forcing and whether or not it showed extra values. I did find a system card which states that a 1NT response to 1M by this pair was non-forcing, but there is no system card for them on the BB site. I am aware that they were a late substitute.

Furthermore, there is a regulation:
Each team captain is responsible for ensuring that the convention cards for his team are sent, by email to the WBF Systems Administrator as soon as possible, but in any event before 15th July 2015. This was not done (for obvious reasons) in the case of G-K.

In addition, the CoC provides:
22.1 Failure to File Systems in a Timely Fashion
Any team containing a partnership that, for any reason, has failed to comply with the time requirements of Section 17.3 shall (in addition to the requirements of Section 17.3.2):
a) not be sent the information regarding the website containing the Systems of opposing teams unless and until the whole team has submitted its Convention Cards in accordance with these regulations; and
b) be subject to a decision of the Systems Committee who may forbid the team to use specific conventional understandings not submitted in accordance with these Conditions of Contest. If a disallowed convention is used, the Systems Committee may impose penalties at its discretion; and
c) be fined US$ 200 to be paid prior to the commencement of the Tournament.

I look forward to seeing the minutes of the Systems Committee regarding their decision on which conventions Gawrys and Klukowski were allowed to play. Note "for any reason" in the regulations.

I have downloaded the zip file for Poland from the WBF systems folder on the website. Gawrys and Klukowski filed a system card when they were called in as replacements, but it was not in the main zip folder. The Systems Committee would have been quite within their rights to force them to play the WBF Standard card. Out of interest that has:

"A 2/1 response is forcing-to-game except where responder rebids his suit simply after opener has not promised extra values."

It is evident that 3D was forcing in the Gawrys v Klukowski auction, and 2NT in WBF standard does not promise extra values. They were therefore playing an illegal convention, and should have been fined 3 IMPs.

Poland has been treated far too generously in this event, and I think that there should be a petition to strip them of any medal won.

Postscript. I find that there is a Gawrys-Klukowski card on the WBF link now, last updated at 6 am today (!), but I do not know when that was first put there. It is not in the AllSystemsZip file. I have asked ECATS to advise when it was first uploaded.

This post has been edited by lamford: 2015-October-08, 11:09

cherdano, on 2015-October-08, 03:57, said:

I think you are missing the point. I now know that they play it as forcing, as described by Dburn, and West would not have bid a NF 2NT on the hand he had. In addition, the hand was described as g13+, FG to David. But it did not show extra values, just denying a bare minimum opener.

I think that all the facts are pretty much as stated. David Gold expresses it very succinctly. West's 2NT did not show extra values. There will be a full report in the bulletin shortly and I will post it here. Meanwhile we have David Gold's account at:

https://grandslamgou...twenty-seconds/

lamford, on 2015-October-08, 04:06, said:

Emphasis added.

gordontd, on 2015-October-08, 05:47, said:

OK. So you think it is alertable if screens are in use? And what meanings are alertable? I have played through the video again, and Klukowski did point to the 2NT bid, in an alerting manner. Bakhshi did not ask. I don't think this is an issue anyway, as there seems to be agreement on the meaning of 2NT, FG, g13+, and NS are not claiming MI, so maybe this is a red herring.

2NT is any hand that is too good to make a NF 2S bid or other descriptive bid. I think it is critical whether the hand suggested by Gold, AKJxxx JTx Ax Jx or AKJTxx Jx Ax JTx or similar would bid 2NT. Given that 2S is non-forcing, that must be the case.

It also seems to be the case that the meanings of the bids conveyed to the players asked were not accurate, certainly on the first request, and apparently prior to the review. One thing that is clear to me is that the removal of appeals in WBF and EBL events is a retrograde step. Perhaps we should remove goal-line technology in football or DRS in cricket or hawkeye in tennis ...

lamford, on 2015-October-08, 05:53, said:

Most of the comments I've read suggest that 2♠ would be forcing, although it can be minimum, and responder's only non-game forcing rebid is 3♦ over 2M. In such a system you can imagine rebidding 2♠ with Gold's sample hand and then continuing with 3♠ over a non-forcing 3♦.

paulg, on 2015-October-08, 08:16, said:

David Gold has said that 2♠ was definitely non-forcing, which makes my post moot.

lamford, on 2015-October-08, 05:53, said:

In practice, according to several posters, the current review EBL/WBF protocol is a farce. Although the old appeal protocol could have been improved, it was theoretically better for many reasons, previously explained here.

Anyway, the appeal/review protocol should mandate that the director write a contemporaneous summary of facts and the reasons for his ruling. If appealed, each side should have the option of adding comments on disagreements about any facts and arguments, which the director is unable to resolve conclusively. The report should be signed by both sides and the director. Especially important would be systemic inferences available in a UI auction. Reviewers should base their polls and rulings on this report and publish their findings.