[blml] Four calling birds [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Nigel]

*     *     *

[EBU appeals casebook 2001, number 4 "Why take out?"]

Tournament Director:
Chris Barrable

Appeals Committee:
Heather Dhondy (Chairman) Steve Capal Steve Eginton

Swiss [matchpoint] Pairs      92
Dlr: South                    J2
Vul: Both                     3
                              AKQJ9863
K                                                      A863
A6543                                                  KQ9
JT542                                                  AKQ86
T2                                                     7
                              QJT754
                              T87
                              97
                              54

WEST      NORTH     EAST      SOUTH
---       ---       ---       Pass
Pass      4C        Dble(1)   Pass
4H        5C        Dble(2)   Pass
5D        Pass      6H        Pass
Pass      Pass

(1) Not alerted, not disputed, however was for take out
(2) Not alerted, but was made after hesitation

Result at table:
6H making by West, NS -1430

Director first called:
At end of auction

Director's statement of facts:
TD was called to table by North who reserved rights as a result of the
agreed hesitation prior to the second double.

Director's ruling:
Table result stands

Details of ruling:
TD believes West will bid 5D after partner's second double in 70%+
cases. The first was takeout and even though not alerted is played as
such. Law 16A.

Note by editor:
Under EBU regulations, all unalerted doubles above 3S are for penalties.

The definition of a logical alternative action in EBU events is one that
at least 30% of a player's peers would find if playing a similar system
and style. Thus if a call would be found by more than 70% of a player's
peers there is no logical alternative to it and the call is considered
evident. Note that the definition of logical alternative tends to be
different outside the United Kingdom.

Appeal lodged by:
North-South

Appeals Committee decision:
Director's ruling upheld
Deposit returned

[Appeals Committee's comments]
We felt that the 5D bid was clear cut. When 4C is doubled for take out
the double of 5C can't be out and out penalties - just showing a good
hand.


[Richard Hills]
I agree with Matthias Berghaus, Tony Musgrove and David Grabiner that
passing 5Cx is a logical action for West.  I am particularly impressed
that Matthias took the trouble to construct a plausible East hand which
was consistent with East's bidding (the actual East's bunny bidding was
totally inconsistent) in which 5H or 5D was hopeless, while 5C would
likely suffer an 800 penalty.

[David Stevenson (casebook panellist)]
Surely everyone will bid 5D? There seems little merit in this appeal.

[Herman De Wael (casebook panellist)]
Nothing to add. 5D is clear-cut.

[nige1]
IMO: North gilded the lily with 5C; but the EW bidding seems reasonable. Pass by East would *not* have been forcing (except by agreement). East's second double was the normal expert action, presumably, showing extra values and no great heart fit. It certainly did not imply that East had resorted his hand to find he had a penalty rather than a take-out double :) With a suitable 5-5, West was quite right to show his second suit. I belong to the "shoot-the hesitater" school but here I agree with David Stevenson and Herman de Wael that the result should stand and the deposit be returned.