rvbridge

Hi, I am looking at different methods used for selecting National teams in various countries with the intent of re-looking at Indian selection procedure. Traditionally we have always selected our national team based on Team trials for all qualified teams (winners of Nationals and Masters events) and direct entries (high-entry fees). Sponsor of the winning team usually foots the expenses except for the entry-fees which is borne by the federation (BFI). BFI is looking at some changes including sponsoring the Indian team fully, having a coach/team manager etc. I can think of the following methods of selecting a national bridge team with associated pros and cons: a) Teams based trials: I presume this is still the most popular methodology and is followed in many countries including US. The advantage of this method is that team is playing all events together (bonding) and sponsor is still required for the team to play other events in national and Intl circuit even if federation sponsors the national team. The downside here is that the national team may not be the strongest possible because of the presence of sponsor and/or better pairs in other teams missing out. :unsure: Pairs based trials: I have heard Polish National team used to selected based on Pairs based trials. Theoritically this seems to be best selection methodology since it could lead to 3 Top/Best Pairs representing the country. The downside here is that the Team may not have too much bonding since it is a one-off team (requires a very good npc) as well as it could be alienation of sponsors (vital for bridge eco-system) who might lose interest if they can never represent the country. Another minor issue here is that we can't have partnerships which function as a trio in regular teams. c) Selection panel/committe: Here selection panel evauates the performance of Pairs and Teams in national and zonal events and chooses the national team. This is similar to selecting Cricket, Soccer or Hockey team. Is Italian national team selected on this model? The downside here is that inspite of the best intentions of the selection panel, there is subjectivity involved and hence bound to more controversial. d) Ranking/MPs based: I have seen national teams in other sports like Tennis, Chess etc selected based on ratings/ranking (ATP, ELO). Unfortunately in Bridge and especially in India, we don't have ratings which reflect current levels of performance (too much historical bias in cumulative MPs scheme) as well as we don't have ratings for partnerships. I would like this forum to throw some light of selection procedure followed in other countries as well as preferences. Rgds, RV (BBO ID: RV)

Dealer is West and None Vul. It was clearly established by the director that E-W did not have a clear agreement on meaning of 2♦ if double is 2-way. They play it as Natural if double is strong and transfer if X is competitive in 1 or more suits. There is an unananimity in the BBO panel that ruling is incorrect with the facts presented in the original post. It is also clear that E-W did not deserve to get a PP and that N-S probably deserved PP more than E-W. Couple of changes on the case presented earlier: a) I believe the director ruled at the table after consulting couple of experts, he gave a weighted adjusted score consisting of "20% of 3♠ making 5♠ for NS, 20% of 4♠ making 5 for NS and 60% of 2♦ making 4" for EW for both sides. This case did not go to AC since EW decided not to appeal. B) South apparently mentioned to the director that if it is a bit safer to act if 2♦ is explained to him as transfer to ♥ since if West actually has a sign-off hand in ♦, partner's major is more likely to be ♠. If South is told that West has ♥ suit, then there is higher probability that partner has ♠ suit. So he felt that with the correct explanation, he would have acted. North was clearly not affected since he knew what was happening and still decided it is not safe for acting on opponents' mis-understanding. Would you change your opinion on the director' ruling based on the above points? Do you feel there is any justification of South's bridge reasoning?

Thanks for the all the comments to plethora of questions. The summary of the discussion is that West (who is in the hot-seat for the defense) was informed of the partnership agreement, but unfortunately North had mis-bid or intepreted the system was off on Interference. I presume that most of the panel have sympathy for West since with the explanation given to him, he defended accurately. In such a scenario the rules clearly say that EW is not entitled to any redress. The rationale behind the rule seems to be that in most cases North-South will end up in trouble because of mis-bid or mis-interpretation, but occassionally when it benefits them they should be allowed to hold their good result. A few supplementary questions: a) Is there any merit in proposing a bridge law/rule change, whereby it is mandatory to share the written explanation on both sides of the screen to all parties at the end of this auction? This way the non-offending side will clearly have all of the facts and will not damaged in any way. B) In the specific case, suppose NS agreement is as per South's explanation to West in case of uninterrupted auctions, but that they don't have clear / specific agreement that it applies on Interference as well, do you see any redressal to West as per existing laws. Would you assess PP in this case?

Thanks for all the comments: Can we summarise the discussion to the following points: a) If the COC clearly mentions that the folks on the other side of hesitation should clearly notice the BIT and call the director, then EW don't have a case. B) In case the COC clearly doesn't state who should call the director in case of BIT and if the director can clearly establish the BIT did happen by North, then it is close decision and director's / AC ruling is reasonable. The panel also feels that the decision is so close that they are willing to reconsider their decision if a pool amongst experts clearly brings out that most of South's peers would have acted even w/o any BIT. c) In real life since neither the director nor AC can conduct such a poll in most cases, they need to use their own bridge judgement and make a decision. This seems to be the best process within the constraints. Also should we propose a bridge rule/law change to play with clocks (similar to Chess) so that we can pin-point BIT clearly w/o relying on the statements of affected players who may not always be honest or ethical.

[hv=n=sajxxhaxxdxckt9xx&w=sqhkqxxdaqjxcqxxx&e=sxxhjtxxxdkxxxcax&s=sktxxxxhxdtxxxcjx]399|300|[/hv] West North East South 1N (1) X (2) 2D (3) All Pass 1) 15-17, can be off-shape with values in short suits 2) Explained as showing 5+m&4M by North to East. Explained as showing either 5+m&4M or Strong single suiter Major by South to West 3) Explained as transfer to hearts by East to North and Natural sign-off by West to South Table proceedings and Director’s Ruling North and East were screen-mates. South and West were screen-mates. North explained to East that his X shows 5+m&4M (both suits not known). When the try came back to the other side, South informed West that North’s bid showed either 5+m&4M or strong single suiter major. East informed North that his 2♦ bid showed transfer to ♥. When the tray came back on the other side, West informs South that partner 2♦ is natural. West made 10 tricks in 2♦ . NS called the director at the end of the deal and informed him of the wrong explanation on both sides of the screen. East-West informed the director that their methods on Double differ depending on whether it showed competitive/weak (system on) hand or strong hand (natural). They contended that this situation arose because North did not give full explanation of his bid to East. Director let the table result stand since NS were at fault as well. Appeal’s committee (AC) deliberations North-South appealed. All 4 players were present at the Appeals committee (AC). North and South were called together and East-West were called together. AC checked with both North and South on the explanation of meaning of double. Both explained that South’s explanation of it showing either 5+m&4M or strong single suiter major is the correct one and this statement was substantiated by their convention card. AC checked with East and West on the explanation of the meaning of 2♦ . Both of them claimed that they play system-off (2♦ -natural) if X is strong and play system-on (2♦ -transfer) if X is weak. They had not explicitly discussed what they play if X could be either weak or strong as in this case, though they agreed that it should possibly be system-on since opponent is unlikely to pass a 2 way double. AC also checked with North on why he didn’t bid again knowing fully well that there was a mis-understanding between the opponents. North explained that East could still have a good hand and that his partner had passed as well. So he considered the situation too risky to act again. Additionally South volunteered that his partner’s major was likely to be ♥s and that he didn’t consider it safe to get into the auction unless partner bid again. AC felt that major infraction was committed by East-West in not having a clear understanding which damaged the opponents. They felt that with the correct explanation either North or South could conceivably get into the auction at some stage and possibly even reached 4♠ as well. Hence AC adjusted the score to 40% of NS making 10 tricks in 4♠ and 60% of EW making 10 tricks in 2♦ for both sides (12C1, 40C, 75). Additionally AC assessed a procedural penalty of 3 IMPs for East-West for wrong explanation. AC also indicated that North’s infraction was minor (let-off with a warning) and did not warrant a procedural penalty. The appeal was deemed to have a lot of merit and deposit was returned. A few questions on the Players’ actions, director’s role and AC proceedings: a) What is your final ruling on the appeal based on above facts? B) Should the director have ruled on the deal differently instead of letting table result stand? c) Should AC call all the players together initially to verify all facts? d) Should AC ask any other questions to any of the players? e) Will you assess procedural penalty to NS as well since North did not fully explain his bid? f) Will you change the ruling if NS were vulnerable? g) Will you change the ruling if EW CC clearly indicated that in 2♦ is transfer if X could be competitive or strong?

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sakxxxxhxxdxcj9xx&w=shjxxdkt9xxcaqxxx&e=st987hqtxxdxxct52&s=sqjxhak9xdaqjxxck]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] West North East South Pass 2♠ (1) Pass 2N (2) 3♣ X (3) Pass 3♦ (4) Pass 3N Pass 6♠ 1) Pre-empt 2) Relay 3) Explained as showing Good-Good or Bad-Bad by South to West and only Good-Good by North to East 4) Explained as Relay by South to West and Suit/ Values by North to East 5) Explained as showing good, bal hand by South to West and showing stopper and playable spot by North to East Lead ♣2 Table proceedings and Director’s Ruling North and East were screen-mates. South and West were screen-mates. At the end of the auction, West asked South on his side of the screen, the meaning of North’s double and 3n bids. South clearly explained (written and showed system notes) that double showed either Good-Good (both quality of suit and points) or Bad-Bad (both quality of suit and points) and that 3n showed Good-Good and bal hand. West checked with South at the end of the auction and again before playing to the second trick whether North can have a singleton and South clearly mentioned (written) that North cannot have a stiff for his 3n bid. Playing 3rd and 5th best leads, East led ♣2, West won ♣A, and continued with ♣Q. Declarer ruffed in dummy and promptly proceeded to make the contract (12 tricks). West called the director at the end of the deal and informed him that he would like to appeal because of wrong explanation of 3n bid. Additionally, West & East mentioned that different written explanations were given on both the sides of the screen for both the double and 3n bids by North. Director let the table result stand, but asked EW to appeal since it is complicated matter Appeal’s committee (AC) deliberations East-West appealed. All 4 players were present at the Appeals committee (AC). North and South were called together and East-West were called together. AC checked with both West and East on the explanation of meaning of double. East explained that North informed him that double shows a good hand and West explained that South told him it showed Good-Good hand or Bad-Bad hand (Pass replaces all lost bids and Double replaces the bid by opponents-3♣ in this case). AC checked with both West and East on the meaning of 3n. West explained that South informed him that his 3♦ bid was relay and North’s 3n bid showed a Good-Good, bal hand w/o singleton. East explained North informed him that it showed a club stopper and a playable spot. AC checked with both South and North on the above facts and they confirmed that different explanations were given on both sides of the screen for both X and 3n bids by North. AC checked the system notes of NS and verified that South’s explanation to West is as per notes (not explicitly mentioned if it applies on intervention as well) for bids of X and 3n by North and 3♦ by South. North had forgotten the system and he took all bids as natural. AC asked West on the reason for playing back ♣Q at trick 2. West reasoned that playing back a ♥ at trick 2 could cost if declarer has AKTXXX, QX, XXX, XX. Similarly returning a ♦ at trick 2 is not required even if partner has ♦ void since declarer will go down anyway. Based on the explanation of 3n bid as a bal hand and partner’s 3rd/5th leads, West felt it was absolutely safe to play back ♣Q since declarer is odds on to have only 2 ♣s. He also indicated on slam auctions, partner will lead ♣2 even from T9XX2 and not T playing 0 or 2 leads. AC sympathized with West that he had a difficult defensive problem because of explanation given to him, but they felt West would lead ♣T from T9XXX even in slam auctions, hence West should preferably a ♥ at trick 2 or return a low ♣ instead of ♣Q. AC also felt with xxxx, TXXX,-JXXXX in West hand he would have supported/pre-empted clubs in the auction or made a lightner double of final contact. Additionally the members felt that this auction is quite rare, hence likely to be mis-intrepreted even if the partnership has discussed it earlier. To summarise, AC felt that there was sufficient grounds for West to realize that the wheels had come off NS bidding and that he should have worked out to play a ♥ . AC rejected the appeal and let the table result stand (Law 75C and 40C). Appeal was deemed to have some merit and the deposit was returned. A few questions on the Players’ actions, director’s role, AC proceedings and variations to get a better perspective: a) What is your final ruling on the appeal based on above facts? :D Can South or North refer to system notes and clarify West’s/East’s questions at the end of auction? Can/Should East or West ask for system notes of opponents to verify explanation? c) Should the director rule on the deal instead of just referring it to AC? d) Should AC call all the players together initially to verify all facts? e) Should AC question North and South separately to verify system details? f) Should AC ask any other questions to any of the players? g) Even assuming, playing back ♥ or low ♣ is correct, isn’t West not entitled to redress because he was misled by South’s explanation to go on the wrong track? h) Will you change your ruling if South indicated to West that he is not sure of meaning of 3n bid but took it as showing bal and good hand? i) Will you change your ruling if East did not ask North explanation of his bids and North gives same explanation of his bids to AC, as South gave to West at the table? j) Will you change your ruling if North gives same explanation (treat his hand as balanced!!) to East at the table, as South gave to West for his 3n bid? k) Will you change your ruling if South’s ♥ suit is AKXX instead of AK9X? l) Will you change your ruling if the East player is not World Class? m) Will you change your ruling if North-South are a new partnership or lower class of event (club, sectional or regional)? n) Should there be any procedural penalty to be imposed on North-South for differing /wrong explanation even if appeal is rejected?

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakxxhkqxdkxxxxca&s=sqjxxxhatxxdxcqxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv] North South 1 ♦ 1 ♠ 4♣ (1) 4♥ (2) 4♠ 4NT (3) 5 ♣ (4) 6♠ 1) Strong Splinter, Good 18+ 2) Cue bid 3) 20 secs before tray came back with 4♠ bid 4) 1 or 4 key cards Table proceedings and Director’s Ruling North and East were screen-mates. South and West were screen-mates. At the table, East called the director at the end of the auction since North did take some time (around 20 secs) before bidding 4♠ on which South proceeded further with 4N. South scored 12 tricks in 6♠ . Director verified that North indeed took some time before bidding 4♠. He felt that pass of 4♠ was a logical alternative from South’s side, hence director adjusted the score to 4 making 12 tricks (Law 16B1) Appeal’s committee (AC) deliberations North-South appealed. All 4 players were present at the Appeals committee (AC). North and South were called together and East-West were called together. AC checked with both North and South on their splinter style. Both North and South clearly mentioned that they play weaker splinters (16-17/18) via 3 ♥ bid. Bid of 4 showed strong splinter 18-21. AC checked with South why he by-passed 4 ♦ cue after partner’s 4♣ . South’s contention was that they do not cue shortness in partner’s suit. Additionally South indicated that his bid of 4♥ was unambiguous cue and that they do not play last train or any nebulous slam tries. AC asked South why he did not bid 4N directly on 4♣ if he intended to go to 5 level in any case. South’s contention was that he felt it is better for North to take control in case he had a stronger hand and / or club void especially if GS is on. Additionally South clarified that he knew 5 level was safe and that his hand warranted another try even if partner signs off. AC also checked with both North and South on their RKC response and it was clarified that they play 1430 and that North had wrongly bid 5♣ which indicated 1 or 4 keys. South informed AC that North cannot have 1 key card after strong splinter and bid the slam assuming he had 4 keys. Additionally he said that he did not consider trying for GS since partner had signed off earlier and their side was likely to have a slow ♥ loser. AC verified the explanation of direct splinter range (Good 18+) and RKC response from NS convention card / system notes. It was clearly mentioned in the system notes that RKC response was 1430 and 3♥ response on 1♠ did show medium range splinter (16-18) as one of the options, but there was no explicit mention of 4 level bids (4♣) on 1♠ . There was no mention of any special cue bidding style (not showing shortness in partner’s suit or Last train etc) as well. AC felt that the hesitation indicated that North was considering bidding over 4 ♠ since he had a better hand. Additionally the AC felt that the pause could also imply that North was worried about his diamond holding (in the absence of 4 ♦ cue by partner). Even if South had considered bidding on to 5 level in any case, his partner’s hesitation clearly made it a more attractive proposition. AC concluded that some of South’s peers (20% of other world class players) would consider passing 4♠ on this auction. Hence the AC upheld the director’s ruling and rejected the appeal and let the table result stands. Appeal was deemed to have merit and deposit was returned. A few questions on the Players’ actions, director’s ruling , AC proceedings and variations to get a better perspective: a) What is your ruling on the appeal based on above facts? :rolleyes: Is it procedurally correct on part of East to draw attention to any potential infraction on other side of screen? Instead, should West call the director? c) Should the director ask any further questions before giving his ruling? d) Should director allow table result to stand and advise EW to appeal? e) Should the director check with a few experts on whether they will bid on in South’s seat after North’s sign-off in 4 ♠ given the explanation of other bids? f) Should AC call all the players together initially to verify all facts? g) Should AC question North and South separately to verify system details? h) Does wrong response to Ace asking response have any relevance to the appeal? i) Does absence of written system notes on explicit meaning of 4♣ (strong splinter) or cue bidding style (not showing shortness in partner’s suit) have any relevance to appeal? j) How relevant is the quality of South player (WC-3 time BB QFs) and NS partnership (8+years and one of best in the country) in evaluating the appeal? Will you change your final ruling if South is just an advanced player or even new NS partnership of top class players? k) Will you change your ruling if South held say, QJTXX, AJXX, X, QXX or QJXXX, ATXX, Q, XXX instead of actual hand?