Math609

Thanks for lesson, pay you later! When playing against normal system I assume that the opponents use their system while bidding their hand (without an interruption). But if the par often deviate from their system while bidding their hand, they better let me know, isn’t? And if the opponents play an imperfect system or a system with lots of holes in it, they also better let me know. Is that difficult to understand? So playing against a normal system I usually know what is going on, simply because I know the system. I very rarely have to ask...So you call this deluding oneself into a false state of security. Very intellectual comments indeed :D But playing against a highly artificial and unusual system I really cant deluding myself into a false state of security. I really have to understand the opponents ,,conversation,, isn’t? I have to ask them...I have to believe them...and I have to rely on they know their system. Sounds reasonable to you? I hope I’ve made my point often enough! Or maybe you call this an ,,erroneous axioms from an amateur,, Thanks again for lesson! :D

I will answer this question very politely (and I already have): Those who play very rare and highly unusual system must have everything in the clear. Why? Because their opponents can not have any other choise but to believe them when they explain their biddings!. Clear enough? I think this is universal understanding, even to amateurs like me. Some emotins involved here? Or maybe the understanding of the law is to allow a pair to have lots of hole in their highly unusal system? You tell me, I'm the amateur! Regarding your comments that I want to strenghten my score through trial rights is really not worth answering (maybe my english did confuse you, maybe offender was a better choise than offensive). I like to emphasize that I have no benefit to defend whatsoever, I’m here just because of the interest of this (rare) case.

We must focus on one thing and underline it with red: Those players who play rare and unusal system must have everything in the clear and beyond any sahadow of doubt. Their opponents are usually in total darkness (one benefit of such system) so that is the price for playing artificilal and unusal system: Every information must be very clear to their oppnents. In every natural system players somtimes support partners suit on doubleton but that is familiar to the oppnents because the system is natural. This was not the case here because the opponents dosent have a clue about any bidding routine in this highly unusal system. Their opponents can not have any other choise but to believe them when the explain their biddings! ICEMachine wrongly said: To say that just because East said at the table that 3♥ was the only bid availble, we should believe him. Common sense gives us a different answer. Is it really so? I believed East! He played a system I did’nt have any knowledge of. I did’nt have any reason not to believe him! He must have had his system under control in situation like this. Or was there some hole in the system I did’nt know? Again I will underline: East said that he had no other option but to bid 3♥ (I had no other bid). Why do we have any doubts about his statement? He knows the system! Or did’nt he? Again: Who is going to pay? The defenders who was on the right track in their defence or the offensive par who put the defenders on the wrong track?

Well, that must be a reasonable question, I assume. I have been very accurate regarding the facts at the table, but for further information lets collect all the facts together: 1) I know all the facts at the table and I hava already described them in details. 2) ICEMachine knows the facts outside the table and he had stated (in discussion in Iceland) that he had conversation with East few days after the ruling of AC. Hence, we have information about ,,hole,, in the system and some ,,possible,, bids. These so called ,,possible,, bids was never explained at the table, neither to NS nor the tournament director, simply because that is in contradiction to the satement of East at the table (No other bid available). 3) No one of the players went before the AC, hence no further questions asked by the AC. Just the statement from tournament director was available to the AC.

Lets get all the facts. EW is a very experinced par and wery honest par indeed. I have already pointed out what East said at the table: I had no other bid on this hand (no other than 3♥). And he did repeat this again a few moments later. This was an honest explaination from an honest player, no doubt about that. But still...something was wrong here. EW was playing a very rare and highly unusal system and they did obviously not have more normal bid available on this pretty normal hand. So, if they didnt, 3♥ must be the systematic bidding in this case. If not, we better talk about non-system. And as I said before: Do we need any further confirmation to carry on? How do I know all this for sure? I was at the table, I was talking to East! Our conversation is firmly confirmed. It sounds like a paradox if East had picked 3♥ out of ,,possible,, bids because no such possibillities was explained, neither at the table nor in front of the tournament director. On the contrary 3♥ was the only bid available for the East hand and that was confirmed by East. So, all explainations about so called ,,possible,, bids are indeed afterwards-explainations and was brought in to the daylight 2-3 days after the ruling of AC. Also this so called hole in EW-system. As I have said before this was a rather unfortunate incident, but who is going to pay the bill? The offensive par or the defenders? Now you have all the facts!

East, looking at a fairly balanced hand, had for some unknown reason problem with his first rebid. I think we should listen more carefully to what East said at the table, namely he had no other bid and 3♥ was the only bid available for him, playing this system. That is exactly what he said. Do we need any further confirmation to go on? Implicid or systematic agreement? I think so, hence MI or at least lack of information, but very unfortunate one. Experienced or inexperienced par? Wery experinced par indeed!

We can obviously not think along this line while analysing this particular problem. Why? South, beyond any doubt, had to ask this question at this moment in the defense. He could obviously not play spade back without further information, Why again? Because it is the wrong defense if East had promised 4-card suit in heart with his jump to 3♥. Bridge is not a poker <_<

South played the correct defense according to the information available to him. South combined all his chances he had in theory by cashing ♦A (3-4 hearts in the East hand): 1) Spade ruff+♣A or 2) club to partners AQ or 3) club to partners Ace, securing all the defensive tricks in a pairs tournament. This deal was put before the Appeal Committee (AC) and I think it is of a great interest to discuss its ruling: 1/5 versus 4/5. It is very important for us to understand the logical and mathematical thinking behind this ruling. The AC worked according to the requisite (principle) that it was fair to estimate that East holds ♥Kx 20% of the time. Let´s say, for arguments sake, that this estimation is correct. Now South, given the necessary information about the highly unusual EW-system (which he did not get in the opinion of the AC), should be given the opportunity to base his defense on this ground. This understanding of the AC is confirmed beyond a shadow of doubt. Hence this ruling: 1 down 20% of the time and contract made 80% of the time (in reality a 10% correction from topscore). It is rather easy to see why this conclusion is wrong and where the failure in the line of thought lies. If South is allowed to assume for ♥Kx in the East hand 20% of the time you must also allow him to assume for ♥Kxx at the same time! Namely one thing leads to another and are combined. Let’s say, also for arguments sake, that East holds ♥Kxx 50% of the time. And remember we have an agreement for ♥Kx in the East hand 20% of the time. Then South can plan his defense by combining his chances and his plan should work 70% of the time – playing a spade immediately. Either putting the contract down or securing all the defnsive tricks. Only when East holds exactly 4-card suit in hearts is this the wrong defense. So, by putting a new variable into the defense-equation (20%-variable) it changes the whole landscape enormously for the defense. My conclusion is that the AC was a little too hasty and did not not work out this problem properly, at least not from a mathematical point of view. Was there a severe damage to the defense? Yes, as I have shown...and much greater than just allowing NS to put the contract down 20% of the time. Maybe a reverse ruling was justifiable or even 4♥-1 was justifiable because of serious damage to the defense. Misinformation or lack of information? That is another story! Jón Thorvardarson, Iceland

Was the Appeal Committee on the right track? Possibly yes, but this is a wery difficult case for many reasons: Highly unusal system, very uncommon to their opponents. And let´s not forget the statement from East: He had no other rebid on an fairly balanced hand and 3♥ was the only bid available for his hand. Misinformation? Yes, to some degree. Fair...and fair to whom? I dont know, justice is blind! More tomorrow about the AC ruling. Jón Thorvardarson, Iceland