So let me present the last hand of this article, the infamous appeal (Board 24, Closed room):
Some browsers has problems with inline display of bbo viewer.Click here if this is the case.
The screen is set up so that South and West sit at the same side of it, and North and East. The tray is at the North-East side of the screen for a long time after the 3 spade bid. We (Team Schwartz) could argue that it wasn’t clear who was thinking. It could have been the 4 spades bidder. Sure, and he did think a bit, but when the tray is away for two-three minutes it’s much more likely that it is East thinking about what to do over 4 spades. Which were the facts.
So the tray comes back and Allan believes he has a hand that is worth 5 hearts when Richie didn’t double 4 spades. This is a typical “logical alternative problem” where you can not choose to bid on if that bid may be influenced by partner’s hesitation.
After Lotan protested on the 5 hearts bid, the tournament directors asked ten top players what they would bid with Allan’s hand. Nine of them bid 5 hearts and the director let the result stand. To me, and I also spoke to Maurizio di Sacco, Chief Tournament Director at the WBF, about this, a logical alternative is something which is on your radar, a bid you may consider at the table. If ten out of ten bid 5 hearts with a 60/40 ratio over passing out 4 spades, pass is definitely a logical alternative. So personally I wouldn’t let Allan bid 5 hearts here if the ACBL and the WBF have the exact same rule these situations.
Team Cayne appealed the TD’s decision on this board and the appeal started around midnight. Allan and Richie were present for Team Schwartz while Lotan and Ron were present for Team Cayne.
During the appeal there was thrown another point in from Lotan: He had alerted partner’s pass over 5 hearts and told Allan, his screen mate that this pass was forcing. At the other side of the screen Ron did not alert his own pass. Lotan claimed that when their opponents were not in a forcing auction, his and Ron’s system agreements was that that created a forcing pass for them. Some might have that agreement when they are red vs white, but to have that agreement as a general principle seems peculiar. To state that this is the case without presenting any evidence through their system notes (they play quite a simple system and doesn’t have much written about forcing passes) seems even more peculiar (it wouldn’t surprise me if a sophisticated system suddenly appeared, but I haven’t found anything searching the Internet).
So why could this have anything to say for the appeal anyway – the appeal committee did let Allan bid 5 hearts. Well, Richie mentioned something about that his pass over 4 spades was forcing (if this was what he really thought at 1 AM or it was a bit of a self-serving argument I don’t know). This statement Lotan was quick to jump on: “When the opponents have established a forcing pass, our forcing pass is off.” Wow, they always seem to have a very specific agreement without more than their reputation to back it up with.
If Lotan had known that the opponents were in a force, him and Ron’s forcing pass would be off. Therefore he would have passed out 5 hearts and it would have been a flat board instead of the 2 IMP loss.
Well, I don’t think so. Knowing this guy has an arsenal of tricks in his sleeve I believe he already knew it was not a forcing pass situation for him and partner. By volunteering to tell Allan that partner’s pass was forcing he actually got a three-way shot:
1) If Allan’s bid of 5 hearts is not legit (there is a logical alternative) it will be ruled back to 4 spades.
2) If Allan’s bid of 5 hearts is legit (there is not a logical alternative) it will probably make and 5 spades will be a good save if Ron makes at least nine tricks.
3) If I can convince my left hand opponent that this hand belongs to us, we might even escape undoubled in 5 spades.
At 1.30 AM the appeal committee bought Lotan’s story and The Cayne Team was through with 1 IMP.
“We tend to believe people.” Me too, but not these guys.