axman

There was one thing in this thread that really did surprise me: about half of the posters thought that the 4♦ bid was wild or gambling. Therefore I posted the North hand on the German bridge mailing list, asking what North should call given that the double was explained as "support". I got 11 responses. Most of them voted for pass, and most of them stated they would have bid their 2-suiter at once instead of 1♠. One poster considered 4♦, but finally chose pass in as he hoped that opps do not make 4♥ and he wanted to tell them as little as possible about his hand. One thought that something should be done, but the preferred to double which he thought would be slightly better than 4♦. Now I told them that actually North had bid 4♥ and asked them to decide if this was a serious error, wild or gambling. This time I got 3 responses all saying that the 4♦ was not SEWoG. I assume that if any of the original 11 posters had a different opinion, he would have posted that. The poll in the German mailing list was different from the presentation here: The Germans did not know that the 4♦ bid resulted in a very bad score for N/S - they only knew the North hand and the bidding up the North's second bid. This way, they were exactly in the same position as the original North and not possibly biased by knowing the other 3 hands and the final score as it happened. Karl Merely because something may work out it does follow that it is prudent to do it. Merely because a large number actually** do things because they may work out it does follow that it is prudent to do it. Frequently the hand belongs to the opponents: they suggest it, your hand and partner’s bidding suggests it- and very often at those times it is prudent to act on it. And sometimes the hand belongs to the opponents: they suggest it, your hand suggests it, but partner’s bidding doesn’t- and it still is best to let sleeping dogs lie. The point being that 4D in the subject auction is highly unsound. The N hand in question falls under the former rather than the latter since the opponents have suggested it is their hand, partner has not suggested otherwise, to bid 4D contracts for 10 tricks and N’s cards will support only 5 or 6 unless partner makes a significant contribution [and even still 6 tricks may need some help from pard]. For instance, I held 4 such hands today and because of prudence scored considerably better by staying out rather than taking the push. And on the other side pard held two such hands and by not acting prudently turned two good scores into two zeros. Today, acting prudently would have been batting 1.000 ** it is my experience that players that frequently take ‘long shot’ actions like this that are successful coincidently have UI available. And, conversely, players that frequently take long shot actions with UI mostly avoid such long shot actions when they don’t have UI.

QUOTE The committee felt that, despite the incorrect explanations that South was given,... UNQUOTE Note my lack of emphasis on the plural of explanations.

I still do not think what you are saying has any validity. The final decision was what it was: the process to reach the final decision was flawed. A decision made does not depend on the process. If I decide to increase the taxes in the USA because there is an oil leak, that decision is either right or wrong, but the method by which I decide is not part of the decision. I am puzzled by this. Do we have any reason to believe, or even suspect that the AC was ignorant of the CC for EW? The appeal writeup was sloppy to say the least, but the evidence that is (and was) available clearly confirmed that South had received correct information. And what is then left of the case for NS? Nothing as I see it; there is no claim that North (who in fact did receive MI) would have acted differently with correct information. South who claims that he would have acted differently with correct information in fact did receive correct information. (And finally: South ignored the "alarm signal" from East pulling 5♦D to 5♥.) Actually, the AC ruled that W misinformed S more than once; and as the write up did not mention inspection of the CC that is reason to believe that the AC was ignorant. It was additional evidence that you brought to attention that altered some of my perceptions. plus actually, "South asserted that he would not have doubled 5H if he was given the same explanation as his partner." I should believe that had S asserted that he had been misinformed and that he thus was induced to believe invalid inferences that lead him to do what he otherwise would have done differently, that the AC would have taken notice and recorded it in the proceedings- and noticably such a record is absent.

There is no such connotation: you seem to be inventing things that are unsaid. I can see no connection whatever between what I wrote and what you wrote. Of course a ruling does not start with a final decision: that is silly. Since I did not suggest it, why say I did? The reason for saying it is because people tend to believe what you say and ‘I think the final decision could be correct’ is not the right thing to say because ‘the final decision’ could not be correct. The reason it could not be correct is that the process by which it was delivered was flawed: no basis was provided for finding that W gave S MI. To digress, this is a somewhat special situation because all these people consider themselves skilled enough to be world champions and indeed are vying here and now for the world championship, if merely qualifying for the opportunity. Which begs the question why are NS asking questions? -when they can read the answer straight from the CC and not disturb the concentration of the opponents, and for that matter their own concentration. And EW have CCs don’t they? And accurately filled out aren’t they? Aren’t they Playing for a WC? I’ll lay 2 to 1 that NS were so focused on asking questions and distracting the opponents they forgot to think about the really important stuff. And what about the TD? Wasn’t he hired to mediate a WC event? And did he inspect the EW CCs? And, just where in his findings did he rule N or S had been given MI? not a mention. It is quite possible that the frivolous nature of the appeal could rest on the agreement to 3H even though no effort apparently was made to establish the agreements to any of the calls made- as it is quite possible that S’s belief that N could be the only possible candidate to make the last choice is erroneous at best and at worst is egregiously erroneous. It is quite probable that the seeds of NS’s lament were sown when N chose to overcall vulnerable on such meager values and thus could only hope that S would not hang him out to dry. Well, N’s action increased the likelihood for fireworks and the fireworks got too hot for N. Now, there is the question as to whether ‘he would not have doubled 5H if he was given the same explanation as his partner.’ is a valid basis for an adjusted score. Why? Because S did not assert he was misinformed nor give a valid chain of reasoning for such an assertion. After all, by this time he has seen all the cards and can come up with something double dummy- remember that he is playing for a WC and should know that to expect an adjusted score [a] he be misinformed by the opponents the MI made a difference in his action and [c] demonstrate a direct cause of damage. Does it really need to be pointed out that to N the indicated capacity of the cards suggests that 5S goes down and if his side is to be plus [which apparently is the meaning of 3H] he needs to not bid. Anyway, we are not told the premise of S’s appeal. The appeal itself is a whole different matter. In a message to blml Sven expressed, ‘I would say that the AC made a correct ruling.’ <”uphold the TD ruling even though W misinformed S”> Well, the TD made no ruling on MI. and the AC ruled that W misinformed S more than once. They made this ruling after receiving strong evidence from the EW CC that the agreement to 3D was as W purported to S. {** omitted from the write up, information a few hours ago via Sven -- http://bridgewinners.com/chicago-trials/45...ppeal#comments}. The ruling by the AC to say the least was in direct contravention of the facts. To wit, it would appear that any misinforming that occurred was from E to N. but N made no assertion that he would have acted differently, and if he had I would be skeptical [as described above] and thus would need sufficient convincing. So to get at an appropriate ruling you are looking at something like: Given the premise of the appeal [whatever it was???] the committee finds as fact that explanations on opposite sides of the screen concerning the 3D call were different, that W did not misinform S [supported by the CC]; and N has made no assertion of damage. As such the AC finds that there is no basis for damage to S, and in any event S’s assertion of damage was of dubious merit, and there being no claim of damage by N, so therefore the table result stands. The AC feels strongly that there would have been no need for an original ruling let alone an appeal had the players relied upon the CCs of the opponents rather than conducting the distracting behavior of asking questions and causing them to be answered. The quality of CCs for the team trials are known to be reliable and there is hardly a valid excuse to avoid using them and as demonstrated here every advantage to be had- from saving brain power to saving time. Nevertheless, however immaterial the effect of misinforming the opponents is or the opponent’s contribution to its creation, it still is an infraction to do so and this case warrants a PP of .1 imp assessed to EW. And that the investigation of the table TD was grossly deficient and thus the consequent ruling [however much similar to the committee’s, still,] was erroneous.

Not meaningless, which is why I posted the question about Conditions of Contest. The ACBL general conditions of contest at tournaments have a clause that players are expected to know their system in simple situations, and first round bidding certainly is simple enough. However, this is USBF. I have a recollection (but cannot be sure) that similar clause was in the Conditions of Contest in USBF as well, but I cannot find it in the March 2010 edition. If the clause is there, EW should get a well-deserved PP regardless of how the case is otherwise judged. Both of the links I provided in OP are unofficial, although the USBF Bulletin link should IMO be considered "more reliable" - I have no reason to believe the other one isn't reliable, just saying, you know... ;) Thank you for your for noticing the incorrect usage of the word. Because indeed it is far from meaningless. It takes time to investigate these things. Such time delays the game. And if the charge is baseless it irritates many people to consume so much time which in turn destroys the concentration of players. Irritated players are distracted and distracted players do stupid things, some of which are infractions that delay the game to an interminable end. So, it is not meaningless, in fact it is so meaningful that to persist in making a ruling not supported by fact, that it will cause one or more contestants to spend the rest of the event figuring out how they are going to fight the wrong perpetrated upon them by sharp shooter opponents and criminally negligent TDs- instead of focusing upon playing well. So, I ought to have said And without MI it is improper and criminal to persist in accusations with no proper foundation. And such futile exercises are most meaningful indeed to the players.

I find it bothersome, particularly in a forum concerned with learning ways to think correctly, when jargon is used in disadvantageous ways- because it represents sloppy thoughts which are created by sloppy minds. As bluejak says,’ I think the final decision could be correct, but the reasons given suggest to me that if it is correct, it was just luck.’ The connotation from the above suggests that a ruling starts with a final decision and proceeds to the reason for the outcome- the outcome being N tricks in contract C- as in the outcome does not include the reason. This is a very detrimental mindset. Actually, after a ruling, the final decision is: Q tricks in Contract C because of X. Which either is correct or it is not. Consider the hypothetical: N tricks to NS because E lied. Annotated by… the final decision could be correct, but the reasons given suggest to me that if it is correct, it was just luck. I put to you- is the final decision correct? Is ‘Q tricks to NS because E lied.’ correct? Because there is additional information. What actually happened was that E had not lied, and further, S did lie. Now, I put to you- is the final decision correct? Is ‘Q tricks to NS because E lied.’ correct? I hope it is obvious that it is not correct. But why is it not correct? The reason is that the process itself was not correct. The reasoning was based on a premise that was false. But, what is the correct decision? does that mean that the correct decision is ‘Q tricks to EW because S lied.’ We do not know. We only know that the original assertion was false because we know that the underlying premise was false, and, we do not know about the correctness of the original process. Now. Getting to Chicago. There was no ruling by the TD that EW gave MI. There was a ruling by the AC that W gave multiple Misexplanations to S. Misexplanations based upon what? What was the finding as to what the correct explanation is? There was no such finding. Until it is known what the correct explanation is it is meaningless to rule that W misexplained anything. And without MI it is improper and meaningless to look further.

There are quite a few things that a player can do that by law are claims, whether or not the player intended to claim when he did them. The referenced provision of 68 makes it possible for a player to announce prior to doing some of those things that what he is about to do is to not be construed as a claim and thus for the TD to rule that the player did not claim- should it be asserted that he did. For instance, this afternoon at my table a not so gentle lady from LA seemed to believe that 'I have the rest.' was not a claim and persisted at great length to continue playing tricks but not not permitting the opponents to contribute cards to tricks. It took the TD quite some time to get declarer to face the remaining cards: void-void-Ax-Kxx opposite void-void-KQ-A9x there having been no club tricks and but one club pitch- which might illuminate declarer's great persistance.

That is a good question, and one that I had initially hoped would resolve the matter in favour of the "common sense" interpretation. But as I have already remarked, the Definitions (perhaps foolishly) state that a defender is "an opponent of (presumed) declarer". Since South is presumed to be the declarer, and since West is South's opponent, West is (at any rate for the purposes of Law 57) a defender. The situation is not helped by the fact that the Definitions say of "Declarer" that he is: "the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn)." and of the opening lead that it is: "the card led to the first trick". Well, the seven of clubs was the card led to the first trick, even though it was initially led before the auction was over. Law 54A isn't much help, since East didn't lead anything - face down or otherwise. Of course, if West had only led his card face down as he should have done, none of this would have happened, but... Again, this is not a case I have made up to show how clever I am, or to show how stupid the WBFLC is. This is a case that actually happened, where someone making an honest and diligent attempt to follow the Law as written reached a conclusion repugnant to common sense. But it is emphatically not sufficient for anyone to say "that doesn't make sense, so it can't be the Law". There are some who would purport that L41A specifies that a [the first lead} trick begins subsequent the auction ending pass as distinct from some other location in time. Such, as for in this case, there not yet having been an auction ending pass there is no provision for a trick to legally begin yet. As a consequence, exposing a card whatever else it might be, it is not yet part of a trick. It has been suggested that a linchpin issue resolves about the existence of the presumed declarer. Whether or not this is so it is worth considering the point in time that the presumed declarer comes into existence. It has been suggested that PD comes into existence when a card is exposed irrespective whether the auction has legally concluded. It would follow that exposing a card when removing the cards from the board makes the RHO the presumed declarer.. but that is logically improper. Consider that N and E both expose their card prior to the conclusion to the auction so that W is the PD and N is the PD.

Declarer has interrupted your thinking by his improper distraction. It is up to you to recognize it and summon the TD to establish that by so doing that declarer has improperly delayed the game because you have to start over and before you start over it will take several minutes to get past the agitation that declarer has caused.

Supposedly the point L57 is that great harm can arise from a POOT that gives pard information prematurely and thus a remedy should be supplied. I mention supposedly because the law does little to [a] describe the problem and does little to remedy it. For instance ‘When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick’ seems to say that if defender has played to the ‘current trick’ and then leads to the next trick prior to pard playing to the current trick the condition for penalty is satisfied. But, what about when it is an <opponent> that leads to the next trick and then the defender plays to ‘the’ next trick prior to pard playing to the current trick- as distinct from leading to the next trick. For another instance: ‘ When a defender …. plays out of turn before his partner has played,’ notably, this condition occurs only some time during the first trick as distinct from T2 thru T13. For another instance: and what about dropped cards? Don’t they acheive the same damage as plays- yet the law57 misses them completely. And if justice is to be the objective, shouldn’t [at the least] the retracted card become a PC after the opponent chooses his penalty- rather than prior?

If I were DIC I would rule that canceling the board was a TD error. That L82C provides for an adjusted score of ??13 tricks. I would ascertain declarer's reason for slow play [and given the statements here] assess further for improper delay of game a PP of 1/2 board per table in the section plus a PP of one board for improper behavior [calculated to irritate the opponents]. Also, hold a conduct and ethics hearing.

Is it safe to assert that during the auction there is no trick? I thought that the point of the query was to draw attention to the dribble contained in L24B since by definition a card exposed during the auction is not a played card let alone a lead. For instance, this has the effect that a card intentionally exposed below an honor does not impose an enforced pass upon partner. Now, while L50 points to L57, because the PC was not a played card the issue is mute concerning a play penalty upon partner- even though it feels like it was a lead. Personally I have great sympathy for treating the exposure of a card during the waning moments of the auction [where all subsequent calls are pass] as a play of a card to a trick rather than merely a PC. Where any play penalty upon partner is first predicated upon the putative partner’s turn being skipped [which in burn’s case it wasn’t].

Upon reading L68A one ought to draw the conclusion that "run the clubs" satisfies the conditions of a claim.

After 4sf and strong support doesn't responder's failure to bid an intervening suit strongly suggest that he doesn't have first round control of S,C,or D? So, to S who has at least a C and D to lose after a D lead, N's bidding suggests most strongly that the limit of the hand is at most 11 tricks. However, the tempo suggests that N does have key undisclosed controls [he has 2-1/2 of them] that his bidding says he doesn't. As such the tempo demonstrably suggests bidding on over not bidding on- so bidding on is an infraction of L16.

In the situation described, upwards of three comparisons have just been damaged; and up to this point, if the behavior has now stopped how many others have been/ will be damaged? A player has earned a PP/DP or he has not and ought to be treated as such. To do otherwise shows disrespect for him and for you. It is one thing to prescibe a penalty incorrectly and remedy the error and quite another to pat the bad boy on the head and tell him to keep it up. As for bribing players, I do not believe that there is a prohibition against it. I for one do not have the wisdom of Solomon when it comes to choosing when to do it. I do know that once you take Monty Hall's job it will be a tough sell to be a leader of these people, and if I were around it's quite likely that I will soon want to not be around. There is something that takes many a long time to learn- if ever- in that the next hand is but a shuffle away.

RHO is certainly permitted to realize he has misbid; further he is subject to adjustment and penalty should he have UI [includes UI from any junctiure of the auction] and act on it as he did in this case.

As explained, responder's huddle inferred that he was not happy to X- suggesting he had some hearts and there were not many H winners to be had. WIthout the huddle responder could have been stiff or void in hearts and 4SX would go down handily. To illustrate I ran across a story that went something like this. Dealer picked up a round 8-5: 7H in hand and wanted to declare 7HXX so he walked the dog, got to 7HXX but wasn't allow to declare so in a fit of rage he defended 7SX- losing not only his slam bonus but when he didn't lead Hs [expecting a H void], he didn't take his two setting H tricks either. Opener created and acted upon UI. Responder's bidding did not preclude the values to for the partnership to set 4S except for the UI created by responder.

Your side has half the deck and they have half the deck. You have no confidence that 5H makes [since you didn't bid it earlier]. Pard has suggested that 4S does not make- so to take out to 5H is to turn a plus into a minus. If responder had wanted to play at the 5 level he would have competed with 4N, (which was suggested from the inference [of uncertainty whether to bid or X] that accompanied the pause after 4S). As responder had unauthorized inferences** that opener was long he would thus be reluctant to X [a call likely to be left in if made big fat and happy] unless he made opener aware that he wasn't particularly happy about it. I should think that it is straight forward to believe that pass [for a putative plus] is the superior action; and that 5H [for a minus] was demonstrably suggested by the unauthorized inferences, and since opener did not pass he infracted L16. It looks like OBM to me and the sooner these people stop it the sooner they can become skillful. ** Actually, opener's pause is much more telling. THe reluctance suggests that his values were substandard. And being substandard suggests that to comtemplate game it would be in a major because a minor needs an additional trick. Hence once the OC is made [opener's suit wasn't spades] the pause infers the bidding was based upon a strong and long heart suit.

I find it refreshing that some hold this view. Pointing out that, as the law is written someone that holds this view is likely to find himself on the short end most of the time. For the view to be tenable it is necessary to acknowlege the prinicple of continuity which states that events that are connected remain so until the connection is severed; together with the corollary that once the connection is severed it remains severed. As of this date the lawmakers are reluctant to take on such a challenge.

So, we are obligated to discard a quick spot from five (or make two painless discards from six), and then exhibit distress as we search the heavens for guidance on our next five pitches? I do not understand the connection between my post and this answer. So do I: is that not what I said? :D It often happens that players need to discard from worthless holdings in such a way as to pretend to be squeezed. This is not at all an "extremely rare" position. Maybe that does mean that later discards can be tempo sensitive. But surely not the first. :ph34r: Variations of tempo convey information. Ergo, the first discard- as well as all discards are tempo sensitve. Not really. I suppose it conveys the information that you think about your discards, but so what? No, I do not think the first discard is tempo sensitive, since there is no useful information conveyed by pausing before it. tempo conveys information about confidence, certainty, and risk. It gives partner a myriad of inferences including to believe the card as a signal according to agreement, not a signal, a signal not according to agreement, the card is convenient, the card is inconvenient, I hope you remember our agreement to this one.... In my experience my opponents have taken thousands of tricks they would otherwise have been unlikely to take except for the presence of their variation in tempo.

Variations of tempo convey information. Ergo, the first discard- as well as all discards are tempo sensitve. There are three occasions that are useful to players where providing for a consistent pause solves problems [a] when sorting/ and initially evaluating a hand after skip bids and [c] before playing to the first trick. Where such pause is consistent from deal to deal it is not tempo sensitive.

I disagree. This is very patronizing. I agree it's patronizing. I also agree that "experienced players shouldn't psyche in games aimed at attacting new players" Within 2 weeks of taking up bridge I was bluffing. Within 6 weeks the club put an end to it and I put an end to the club. Too bad because it was one of the strongest fields in the country. One of the gravest disservices done to bridge players is to tell them they are to be incensed when opponents bluff.

Three things occur to me- 1. Would Burn desire to partake of such proceedings? 2. When he did partake, how long would his sanity survive? 3. I sense an emptiness not knowing the consequences of a call not legally made. Actually, a whole lot more than three things. If you mean "would I rather play in a tournament where once you'd made a legal call, you could not change it", of course I would. I am as prone to "mechanical errors" as the next man, but unlike some of the next men I believe that whatever the penalty may be for those errors, I should pay it rather than moan about it and attempt to have it rescinded. Probably, there should be some provision for changing illegal calls. The current provisions for calls out of rotation are more or less all right; the current provisions for changing insufficient bids are more or less all wrong. The consequences of a call not legally made are that if it works, the one-handed people in the audience will clap vigorously. Numbers greater than three may exist, but don't count on it. I had been thinking about Burn25’s effect upon the behavior of players, opponents, and TDs- in addition to the effect upon the mental health of burn: There are a modest number [of players] that appear to have inescapable difficulties in extracting the desired bidding card- they hunt around for quite some time first grabbing one and then another and another, taking upwards of a minute and even considerably longer. It should be expected that Burn25 would have such an effect on a dramatically considerable number- thereby nullifying the perceived advantages of BBs while making the low tech method of voice bidding resoundingly attractive. It is quite probable that such theatrics are not lost upon the partner- and how they might imagine that some large portion of this time is actually being used to think about how best to communicate the desired messages. There also are the occasions when a player is misinformed by an opponent and takes an action different from what he would have- had he not been misinformed. Such occurrences would necessarily cause L12 to see the light of day. A couple of years ago I would have been confident that if burn were to get even three or four adjusted scores in a session it would drive him nuts [and it wouldn’t be because his side offended]- err, I mean drive him to sobriety. But I’m not so sure now.

East has no bridge reason at all to think after the dummy played ♦J. If he felt he needed to think about why ♦J was called, he could have done so after the trick is complete. If he does think before he plays, declarer can and should conclude that East holds the ♦Q. It is also plausible that the thinking was done with Qxx, because East knows that South must have ♦A and there is no point in playing anything but low with Qx. If there had been no thinking by East, declarer could and should and probably would have played ♦A in trick 1 win 12 tricks without any problem, as ducking the A is only an option in case of a bad ♦ distribution. Therefore I would adjust do 6Hx=. In this case, the question if the pause during bidding is UI or not becomes irrelevant. Karl It seems like a good idea to point out that it is variation in manner that creates problems concerning improper deception as well as UI. And given that this is T1 there is the expectation that players first take the time needed to plan so as to protect themselves from assertions of creating UI or improper deception. If the E player normally takes some [say like amount of time at his turn at T1] time then to play hastily violates L73A. THere has been some suggestion* that declarer is entitled to wear out the defense since they are required to expend great amount of brainpower over lengthy periods of time thinking about [possibly] nothing- accomplishing this by taking great lengths of time himself. This was referred to putting E to sleep. Well, it is misguided to believe that declarer having bored his opponents into distraction should be entitled to benefit from an accusation of improper deception to which he directly caused. * and counter suggestion I am wholly sympathetic to declarer taking considerable time at T1. In that position I would expect to take at least three minutres myself since the position could require [a] the danger of blocking the Ds or the danger of not blocking the Ds. As the length of pause and the action taken provide inferences to E as to the position of the cards and his choice of card to T1 may be critical to W, declarer has every expectation that E should take some time after dummy plays. imo, given the facts presented* no one has done anything wrong here except that declarer has cried foul. * It seems very ordinary for players to take 40-60 sec for sorting their hand and planning their auction, so taking one minute for the tray to pass for the first time ought to be within expectations. And with N's void I would not be surprised if he considered at longer length his preempt than one without a void.

Three things occur to me- 1. Would Burn desire to partake of such proceedings? 2. When he did partake, how long would his sanity survive? 3. I sense an emptiness not knowing the consequences of a call not legally made. Actually, a whole lot more than three things.