Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Jerry Stamatov
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi all,
I do not come very often to BW and almost never posted here, but since me & Danailov were involved in the discussed case, I felt I could give some more light about the facts. I saw few people commented that they would like to know the facts….and here are they:

The boards in question were 28 & 26. Board 26 I already commented somewhere above in this thread.

Before I go in details, I'd like to point out, that we played all 4 sets - 3 of them against Migry & David Berkowitz and 1 against Chris & Gino.

Before the beginning of the 1st set we DID our normal prealert procedure (as in each match we play) - verbally and by presenting defense sheets, duly printed out from the ACBL defense database.
They are:
- Opening 2d = Multi
- Opening 2s = spades & minor
- Opening 2s = both minors (we play that when NV, 1st & 2nd seat)
- Opening 2h = both majors
- 3x = transfer preempts.

Because it was relatively big documentation, Migry and David verbally agreed that if something comes up, they will look at their own copy of the sheets and will do whatever it says. They didn’t bother to go into further detail, they only agreed that will use option 2 for Multi.

Board 28.
Bidding:
3s (Gambling 3N) - x - 4c (pass/correct) - 4s.

Before Doubling, Migry asked what 3s opening was and was told “Gambling 3N solid minor, nothing outside”. The tray came at the other side, where David asked what 4c was = “pass or correct”. He said he cannot find where the sheet is, and I helped him digging the pile of sheets we have given them at the beginning and found the “transfer preempt” sheet.

At this moment I thought that 3s opener qualifies as transfer preempt and this is the sheet we have to have. Moreover, this sheet luckily contained the exact situation that was going on at the table. The sheet says this:

Double = 14 + HCP.
Cuebid = Takeout of suit shown.
3NT = To play.
Others calls are as over an opening preempt in suit shown.

After 3X - Double - bid: Double is Responsive.
After 3X - Pass - 3 or 4 of suit: Calls are as over an opening preempt.
After 3X - Pass - 3 or 4 of suit - Pass - Pass: Double is Penalty

David said that he doesn’t know what to do and there is nothing about this in the sheet. I showed him this particular row (3x-dbl-bid:double is responsive), but David called the director.

At this time, the director told him that this bid does not require written defense and the fact that we have pre-alerted and alerted and explained now was enough and left the table. David bid 4s and the board was over.

Later on, the director came back to the table and corrected himself saying that he was not completely correct with him and that the bid did require written defense. And…moreover, this bid should not be treated as a transfer preempt, because the suit is unknown. I must say, I hadn't thought about that and now I fully agree with that.

Later on, we did realize that in the Acbl Defense database there is a specific sheet “3 level opening bid that shows a sold minor”. This sheet we DID NOT have at the table. We had almost everything else but not this.

The sheet says :

Double = Strong NT or better.
3NT = Majors.
Other bids are Natural. Later double of 4 of a minor by either hand is Takeout.
Double of 3NT is Penalty.

If we examine both sheets we would see that DBL in both cases is nearly the same - one says 14+, the other says “Strong NT or better” - not identical, but almost the same, IMO.

Here is what I guess is the key moment of the whole story.
1st - Migry didn’t ask for the sheet when she doubled. Even if we had presented the correct sheet, there would not have been any difference - Migry would've doubled anyway.
2nd - David's position - as you all can see what the 2 sheets say = the proper sheet doesn’t say anything about the position David was in, while the sheet that we presented (by mistake) - tells him more. It had the exact situation that David had at the table and he could've used this. Having said this, I do believe now that David was even in a better situation having the wrong sheet. But he simply didn’t want to use it. I don’t know why. He just bid 4s.

Speaking about technicalities and following the rules, the directors and our opponents are completely right! We DID NOT have the correct sheet with the written defense for the convention we use. I fully agree that we all should follow the rules regardless of how we like them or not and how good or bad they are. The law is a law and (our) ignorance was not an excuse!

I do accept and respect the directors' decision to adjust the score!

The score adjustment was 50% 6d and 50% 6he, both just made = effectively our opponents were awarded with 100% reaching the best contract. Our team disagreed with this decision and appealed. Directors did the polling procedure and announced the result. I do not know the details about the polling procedure - don’t know what were the questions asked and which hand was given and how the situation was handled. Don’t know how many players were polled and who these players were and what the exact result of the poll was. I only know that we lost the appeal and the match.

These were the facts.

One more time, congrats to the winners, we had a nice and exciting match.
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The polling proc was not about bidding 3s or not. It was about doubling 3nt. And the score was adjusted to what the result of that was. Im only saying that probably we would have doubled that 3nt. But the polled players do not have to have our views. So, all is normal, directors did their job, result is accepted.
March 30
Jerry Stamatov edited this comment March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2d was explained as “spades inv”, then the slow 3clubs as “she forgot”. Bid 3s and to the question “how do you know that she doesnt have 17 count and 5-6 clubs”, answer was..“then she will bid again”. Director has been called in a while with UI use complaints. I accept the directors decision, but kindly disagree with the polling proc. I think both of us have a clear cut double - we are having a passed hand opposite a non-accepting invite opening hand. One of us has K108x in sp, the other has J9xxx in clubs. How r they going to make this contract? Also partner has a 2nd reason to double with 5 small hearts to try to direct me to another lead. Not to mention the aggressive style that most of you have probably noticed (going down 4 few times in pushy 3 notrumps without fit and hcp). And..even if they make, the loss wd be minimal vs the potential profit when 2 down. But rules and procedures are as they are and I accept that. No bad feelings at all and good luck to the winners.
Jerry
March 30
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
well done Copey & Peter!
March 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
well done Dutch friends and Dano & Pat! Congrats!
March 22, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sussex Heights! ;)
Feb. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yeah, mr. Castner - thank you very much for everything, sir! Without u, we wouldnt have come to Monaco.

It's been a pleasure to play with you two (you and David), sorry that we were not at our best level in the teams. Im afraid we were a bit unlucky also, but definitely we could've done better.

Im really looking forward to playing with you guys again - anytime & anywhere.

Thank you, David Gold, for your kind words and plainspoken position in the discussion.
Feb. 23, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Mr.Ed, thank you sir! Hope to see you in Kansas :)
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Guys, thanks a lot for your congrats and nice words!

We had our moment - luck & good play at the same time. We can only be thankful for the luck and happy that we managed to play well. 4-5 slams came to our side - we were lucky for that, but managed to bid and make them all. If these slams had gone opposite, Im sure our opps would've bid and make them either. The field was really great and no doubt the result would've been different. So that's the luck, but I enjoyed playing all these great opponents.
The tournament was really nice - good job JC Allavena and, of course, Pierre Zimmermann.

Thanks again Steve, David, Peter, Logan, Tom, Mr.Ed… (sorry if missed someone) for your kind words.
J.
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
thank you Jeff! Congrats to you for being elected in the Hall of Fame. 1000% well deserved!
Feb. 21, 2017
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
what is “major”?
Sept. 12, 2015
.

Bottom Home Top