[ggwhiz]

The 2nt bid was also explained as could be 6 spades and 4 clubs as a 3 club bid would promise 5-5.

Given those methods, figuring out the LA's would give anyone except the offenders a migrane but 6 minutes +? Looks like the reviewers just decided to take their word for it.

[nige1]

in practice, hesitations usually imply unshewn values. Also, in practice, a player in an experienced partnership is likely to interpret UI from partner, more accurately than a director would Equity law, however, is concerned with trying to please everyone, rather than with deterring wrong-doing.

[WellSpyder]

nige1, on 2015-October-08, 09:59, said:

in practice, hesitations usually imply unshewn values. Also, in practice, a player in an experienced partnership is likely to interpret UI from partner, more accurately than a director would

I have seen both these statements many times before, but I have to say I have my doubts. Playing with my regular partner in our last county match, I opened 1♠, partner thought for a bit before raising to 2♠, and I felt my hand was worth a raise to 4. Partner turned out to have a 4-count or something without a huge amount of shape, and the alternative he was considering was clearly a pass. And not surprisingly the contract went a trivial 2 off. Oppo clearly weren't bothered about any UI from the hesitation, and there was clearly no evidence that I was able to interpret partner's UI. But suppose he had turned out to have a raise to 2.5♠ rather than 1.5♠, and game had actually made. Now I can imagine everyone saying that I had a good idea of what partner's hesitation showed, even though another bridge player would not have done. But the evidence of what actually happened clearly contradicts this assertion....

[lamford]

ggwhiz, on 2015-October-08, 09:34, said:

The 2nt bid was also explained as could be 6 spades and 4 clubs as a 3 club bid would promise 5-5.

Given those methods, figuring out the LA's would give anyone except the offenders a migrane but 6 minutes +? Looks like the reviewers just decided to take their word for it.

Yes, it seems that the meaning of the auction conveyed by the TD to the panel in both the original ruling and the review was inaccurate. As it is National Poetry Day:

Playing for England in Chennai
My LHO did something sly
A hesitation from a Pole
Was used to show a heart control

Six minutes passed before he bid
Hell almost froze, I swear it did
His partner understood the BIT
And we were forced to take the hit

The TD ruled the score would stand
Gawrys had got the perfect hand
He could not understand the fuss
And soon began to shout and cuss

I asked the TD to review
She did not seem to have a clue
"What's the problem", she replied
"Are you saying that they lied?"

[axman]

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

This morning I listened to the Gold interview. Gold recounted that 2N by agreement was non forcing (as in definitely more than sub minimum but not promising strong for the bidding). It was 3D that conveyed GF values- rather than 2N.

The bone of contention was after the ruling it came to light that the first poll was based upon incorrect facts. Then a second poll was taken in conjunction with the review of that ruling. In talking afterward to those pollees the English feel that the second poll was <also> based upon incorrect facts.

I have not been able to track down 4N [the WBF library of contestant CCs seems unavailable] so there is no way yet to draw conclusions as to the reasonableness of the bidding post 5D. My understanding is that the ruling did not contain an explanation as to the reasoning used to come to its conclusion.

As a Monday morning quarterback it seems possible that hearts are wide open (hasn't opener's 2N promised a balanced hand? without identifying holding heart control?) so eleven tricks may well be an embarrassing limit. And that just might suggest that it was 'contra-indicated' for responder to use KC.

[lamford]

axman, on 2015-October-08, 11:58, said:

As a Monday morning quarterback it seems possible that hearts are wide open (hasn't opener's 2N promised a balanced hand? without identifying holding heart control?) so eleven tricks may well be an embarrassing limit. And that just might suggest that it was 'contra-indicated' for responder to use KC.

I don't buy that. If West did not have a heart control, why was he thinking about bidding RKCB himself? East concluded that West must have a heart control, but partly or mainly, it matters not, from the UI that West did not bid 4D immediately, as West would have done if he wanted to hear a heart cue. And 2NT was not necessarily balanced, but it was GF, but limited by West's failure to open a strong club. And there are two auctions that could be less successful after 4D: 4S-Pass and 5D-Pass. In addition, I think a PP should be awarded to East for the 4NT bid, as suggested by someone on Bridgewinners.

[shyams]

The official write-up in the Daily Bulletin will reveal all.

Oh wait! I'm wrong to expect miracles. The official write-up is nothing but a "cover your ***" document -- it stops just short of accusing England of bullying.

[jallerton]

The Bulletin write-up is here.. It is a shame that it doesn't give more details about the inferences available to the players from the auction.

It seems incredible that a director at this level did not follow the "correct procedure". If the director had a "severe cold", why couldn't the ruling have been handled by another director?

[cherdano]

lamford, on 2015-October-08, 04:20, 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.

Ok I understand your point now, sorry. But 13+ with a 6-card suit _is_ extra values.

[lamford]

cherdano, on 2015-October-08, 16:38, said:

Ok I understand your point now, sorry. But 13+ with a 6-card suit _is_ extra values.

Yes, as David said, it showed a non-minimum - most hands between a NF 2S rebid and an initial strong club. Maybe something like AKJxxx Jx Ax JTx ...

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2015-October-08, 15:50, said:

The Bulletin write-up is here.. It is a shame that it doesn't give more details about the inferences available to the players from the auction.

It seems incredible that a director at this level did not follow the "correct procedure". If the director had a "severe cold", why couldn't the ruling have been handled by another director?

That bulletin appears to have been withdrawn. Curiouser and Curiouser ... It has been reinstated with the correction to the auction which was originally given to some players, and maybe even the later players, as beginning with a strong club! Even then, the TD reports:

"Most of the consulted players would have continued to slam". It appears that only four players were consulted, one of whose names the director did not know! (although obviously still of world-class level, just someone who hides his light under a bushel). The expression "most" therefore presumably meant that three of them continued to slam, or the TD would have used "half" or "all", if the number had been different. If that is the case, then there is an LA to 4NT, which presumably would be either 4S or 5D.

It is not clear that the later players were given the correct auction, or the correct inferences from the auction, in particularly that 2S would have been non-forcing, and therefore 2NT showed any hand between a NF 2S and a strong club, balanced or otherwise. If the TD had done her job in the first instance, and she should have reported back to the players long before the end of the stanza, then there would have been no need for the review to take place so late at night. In addition, this looks like a routine PP for 4NT even if you don't adjust the score (flagrant use of UI), and that PP would have put England through.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2015-October-09, 02:46, said:

If the TD had done her job in the first instance, and she should have reported back to the players long before the end of the stanza, then there would have been no need for the review to take place so late at night. In addition, this looks like a routine PP for 4NT even if you don't adjust the score (flagrant use of UI), and that PP would have put England through.

Generally, I try to put "what effect will this ruling have on the final standings?" questions in a box, tape it securely shut, and stick it in a back corner of the closet. Other than that, I agree with the above.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2015-October-09, 02:46, said:

That bulletin appears to have been withdrawn. Curiouser and Curiouser ... It has been reinstated with the correction to the auction which was originally given to some players, and maybe even the later players, as beginning with a strong club!

Does this pair play strong ♣, not Polish ♣ then?

The bulletin I read 24 hours ago showed an opening bid of 1♣. At the time I assumed this was just a typo as it looks like a 1♠ opener it most systems, and a 2♦ response to 1♣ would surely have been game forcing. My assumption was correct: there is a correction in Bulletin 14:
"In the printed version of the Friday Daily Bulletin, there were two significant errors. On page 4 in the report on the review from the Poland-England Bermuda Bowl match, West’s opening bid in the diagram should have been 1♠.........."(The second correction was regarding a score in the Transnationals)

[jallerton]

Their CC confirms that they play Polish club

http://www.ecatsbrid...s-klukowski.pdf

So the maximum for a 1♠ opener is somewhat stronger than in most strong club systems. 1♠ is up to 17HCP.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2015-October-09, 16:15, said:

Their CC confirms that they play Polish club

http://www.ecatsbrid...s-klukowski.pdf

So the maximum for a 1♠ opener is somewhat stronger than in most strong club systems. 1♠ is up to 17HCP.

Yes, 1S is shown as 12-17, although I think that many Polish club players open 1C with 17. The main difference from most top Polish players is that 1M-2m-2M is NF, which even caused some to change their mind about the ruling on bridge winners. "It is na lttle bit hard to believe that Gawrys could be that old-fashioned". Therefore 2NT would be from any hand too good for 2S, and could include 6 spades and 4 clubs, because 3C would be 5-5. Axxxxx Jxx xx AK was found by Michael Clark on bridgewinners as a 2NT rebid by Klukowski in another match, and most would rebid 2S here. I thought Eric Rodwell's summary on bridgewinners pretty much said it all.