Moss Claimed down one

[pigpenz]

wondered if people caught the hand where Moss claimed down one on a hand where he could have made by way of a trump coup endplay....the vugraph commentators said that Zia told him during the bidding of next board that he could have made it.

 

At this level of bridge what causes an expert to get blinded like this?

 

It was board #52

Moss played 4♥ -1

other table 5♥x-1

 

so he gained 3imps

[whereagles]

Nothing. Experts are people who make few mistakes, not people who do brilliancies on a regular basis. Failing to detect a trump-coup-endplay is absolutely normal, especially if you want to keep stamina for the next boards.

[paulg]

I believe that he could make the contract but there was still a guess as to whether Zia held 3=4=3=3 or 3=4=4=2 shape. So not quite that clearcut.

 

The hand can be seen in the excellent USBC hand records.

 

Paul

[bid_em_up]

Nothing. Experts are people who make few mistakes, not people who do brilliancies on a regular basis. Failing to detect a trump-coup-endplay is absolutely normal, especially if you want to keep stamina for the next boards.

No real brilliance was necessary to execute this endplay. It should not have been particularly difficult to see (especially at this level), nor was it difficult to execute and by simply playing the hand out, without drawing another round of trumps (if I remember the hand correctly), it pretty much would have executed itself.

 

What happened (or at least, in my opinion, appeared to happen) was he saw the bad trump break and then immediately claimed -1 without at least considering whether or not the contract could be made given a certain lie of the cards. It appeared that he just resigned himself to going down. I do not consider this to be "saving stamina". Had he spent 10-15 seconds considering it, I believe he would have seen the possibility and played accordingly. This falls into either a mistake or carelessness category. (Or just plain tired).

 

Now, due to the fact that it is vugraph, it is entirely possible that he did consider it (even for some length of time), and it just wasnt determinable via the vugraph. But my memory says (and I think the vugraph operator commented as such) that he didnt.

 

I believe (though I could be mistaken) at this point, Jacobs had been on a tear making up a large amount of imps and even taking the lead in the match. This can affect you just as easily as anything else. I suspect that he was at a point in the match where nothing appeared to be going right, and dejectedly, he just claimed -1, under the assumption that "well, everything else is going poorly, why should this be any different?"

 

However, thats only a guess.

[glen]

....the vugraph commentators said that Zia told him during the bidding of next board that he could  have made it

For me, the key was for Moss not to get flustered on the next hands once Zia told him the contract could have been made (and Moss would have figured out the line in 3 seconds after that), and for it not to distract Gitelman as well.

 

Board can be see at:

 

USBF 2006 Finals

 

Click on board 52.

 

Certainly the Moss-Gitelman partnership played aggressive bridge after this board, but I believe their bidding was consistent with their partnership style (climb every mountain, bid every game).

[Flame]

Im sure if he stoped to think he would find it in no time, what i guess happend is something like this, you see dummy go down and make plans you think what i need to make this and think you need trumps to behave + this and that or this and that... and then zia takes his A of C and u know u only need the trumps to be home and then when they arent u just claim one down withhout thinking.

[barmar]

u just claim one down withhout thinking.

That's what most of us do, for sure. The reason for this thread is that we generally expect players of this calibre not to do that. As you said, he probably would have seen the coup if he'd stopped to think a bit, so why didn't he?

 

But they're human, too, and make mistakes. The difference is that they don't make them as often as the rest of us. And if they're lucky, they don't do it when they're on Vu-Graph.

[fred]

My opinion is that Brad would have tried to make 4H 99 times out of 100 and that he would guess Zia's actual distribution well over half of the time.

 

We have been regular partners for 6 years or so and I only remember him "giving up" as declarer when an obvious solution (for Brad at least) was present one other time.

 

This was a lapse in concentration - maybe because he was tired, maybe because he was distracted, maybe because he was annoyed about something, maybe for no reason. It happens to everyone, even the very best players. What makes the best players the best is that it doesn't happen to them very often and, when they do stop to think, they have a good chance of making the right decision.

 

Unfortunately Brad and I each had a few expensive lapses in concentration in that match. Eliminating any of these lapses would swung the match in our favor (we lost by 5 IMPs).

 

Here's what happened at the table: Brad claimed down 1 and showed his hand. Michael Rosenberg and I (on the other side of the screen) looked at each other. We knew immediately what he had done. Brad's mom, Gail Greenberg (who was kibitzing me), also knew. I am sure Zia did too and waited for what he thought was a good time to needle Brad.

 

Serious gamesmanship there by Zia.

 

My opinion is that this is not a difficult hand for anyone who has studied the game seriously (as it is a textbook hand - perfect for Bridge Master Level 4).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Erkson]

Board can be see at:

 

USBF 2006 Finals

 

Click on board 52.

 

Much better : here

 

http://bridgebase04.bridgebase.com:81/vug/...04%20OF%208.lin

 

you will get the hand AND the comments.

 

Comments have not been overwritten for this match. It is a luck, because more than one out of two archived-match comments get overwritten.

[jdeegan]

:P There was another hand in that match where declarer (east) conceded down one in five diamonds when he could have made the contract on a simple trump squeeze. He took the alternative of a club finesse into the bidder which lost. I don't think he saw the squeeze position.

[the hog]

There has been some discussion of the ethics of claining or not in another thread. I find it interesting that only Fred G has commented on the gamesmanship of this hand. To point out to opponennts that a line exists to make the hand is very poor sportsmanship. I find it amusing that Rosenberg who so prides himself oin ethics allowed this to happen.

[fred]

There has been some discussion of the ethics of claining or not in another thread. I find it interesting that only Fred G has commented on the gamesmanship of this hand. To point out to opponennts that a line exists to make the hand is very poor sportsmanship. I find it amusing that Rosenberg who so prides himself oin ethics allowed this to happen.

I agree that it is not appropriate to point out an opponent's error, but I don't think this sort of thing is really in the realm of what I think of as "ethics".

 

Pointing out an opponents' error is rude, not unethical. In my view, the most likely reasons that a player might do this are:

 

1) He was asked for his opinion and gave it.

2) The player in question is lacking in social skills.

3) The player in question was deliberately trying to upset his opponent.

 

On the hand in question neither 1) nor 2) was the case - Brad certainly did not ask Zia for his opinion and Zia is certainly not lacking in social skills.

 

Zia was trying to make Brad upset. While I find this distasteful behavior, in my view this does not fall into the same category as, say, deliberating taking advantage of partner's hesitation (an example of a breach of ethics).

 

I am quite sure that Rosenberg would never play with a cheater, but playing with a partner who is occasionally rude is another matter. I find Rosenberg to be very polite and pleasant at the table. My guess is that he prefers he partners to behave the same way, but is willing to live with the occasional rude incident.

 

Not that I am trying to defend what Zia did, but it is only fair that I mention that there has been some bad blood between these 2 in the past (and Brad has not always been completely polite in the way he has handled such encounters).

 

I suspect that Zia would have managed to keep his mouth shut in a similar situation had his opponent been almost anyone other than Brad. Zia (like many top players) is not above gamesmanship, but usually he is more polite about it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Gerben42]

I think the opponent should not volunteer this information during the game. However if I were playing against Zia and I went down in a complicated contract and I'd be interested to know if I could have made it, I'll ask him.

 

I wish Fred and the whole Ekeblad team good luck in the second qualification round. Unluckily the USA is such a large country, no doubt they could send more than two teams worthy of Bermuda Bowl participation (actually this is true for some other countries too, but that's just the way it is).

[SoTired]

With all due respect.... This is top level competition. As trash talk goes, how subtle can you get than just pointing out that a hand could be made. It wasn't like Zia said, "My baby sister could make that hand." It wasn't really rude and certainly not unethical. It was exactly what Fred called it: Gamesmanship.

 

BTW, let me add one to Fred's list:

4) Showing off

[kenberg]

There are a large number of people with whom I am at ease discussing a hand right after play, even if the discussion is about something I overlooked and even if I didn't ask. There are a few with whom any discussion of anything beyond verifying the correct recording of the score is something I avoid. I try hard to tune out everything they say, expecting a hook in even something like "well-done". I confess I am not always successful.

 

A heartbreaking loss, guys.

 

Ken

[zasanya]

3) The player in question was deliberately trying to upset his opponent.

 

 

Not that I am trying to defend what Zia did, but it is only fair that I mention that there has been some bad blood between these 2 in the past (and Brad has not always been completely polite in the way he has handled such encounters).

 

I suspect that Zia would have managed to keep his mouth shut in a similar situation had his opponent been almost anyone other than Brad. Zia (like many top players) is not above gamesmanship, but usually he is more polite about it.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Sir, I salute you for your sense of fairness.Wish there were more players like you.

[Rain]

how many watchers wanted to see a zidane like head butt here? =D

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/13/zi...adbutt_outrage/

[ArcLight]

>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/13/zi...adbutt_outrage/

 

HYSTERICAL!

 

:) :) :lol:

[barmar]

I agree that it is not appropriate to point out an opponent's error, but I don't think this sort of thing is really in the realm of what I think of as "ethics".

 

Pointing out an opponents' error is rude, not unethical.

There are some who consider any intentional violation of the Laws to be unethical, as the Laws are what define bridge ethics. And a rude remark like this is a violation of Law 74A2:

 

2. Etiquette of Word and Action

A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

[the saint]

Perhaps we are all forgetting that at the very heart of this game is the human element. Some elements of the human psyche are more or less pleasant than others but they make us what we are. To be utterly ruthless one has to harness the darker side to give the opponent no route back. Hence witness Zia's aside to Brad Moss.

 

I personally find this sort of thing fascinating and sometimes wish there was more of it. For all the wonder of vugraph, it is ultimately just symbols on a screen and it can resolve the drama down to a logic puzzle when the whole personality clash adds a vital dimension. The game can often do with a bit of personality and inter-personal edge to give it a bit of needle and zest. Many other sports rely on such things to up the adrenalin levels between competitors. There is a limit to what constitutes good/bad behaviour, but gaining a psychological edge and using it to your advantage is part of any sporting contest. Otherwise they might as well stick each competitor in their own hermetically sealed container before play starts.

 

Maybe its because I grew up playing the game in an area where people wouldn't hesitate to use the same sort of tactics on me that I grew stronger through it and would relish the battle.

[glen]

Certainly the conditions of contest did not reference anything like the “Zero Tolerance” guidelines that the ACBL has sort of adopted. Thus the event was open to some sort of gamespersonship.

 

And just like the Zidane red card incident, what is key is the reaction, especially not letting it throw you off or out of your game.

 

Given that Moss was playing against the main horses of the opposing team, and that these older horses could get weary (especially if they played all the sets), he could have previously adopted the tactic to play out most hands unless a pending claim would be clear to both defenders. If he had done so, following gamesmanship instead of sportspersonship, he might have played out the hand and perhaps fallen into the winning line.

 

However watching the golf playoff on Sunday, one wonders if sportsmanship is necessary or not. One could imagine Tiger playing Cink, with Cink missing a putt, and Tiger saying, just before the next T-off, “hey, you could have made that last putt”. It might make for a more entertaining broadcast, or it could result in fisticuffs or players clubbing each other, which could be entertaining but would not be golf (flog perhaps).

 

Thus the USBF needs to decide what is really bridge or not for them, and codify it in their conditions of contest.

[ArcLight]

>I personally find this sort of thing fascinating and sometimes wish there was more of it.

 

I don't think what Zia did was horrible, but I don't care for that behavior. It doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game. In general (not referring to Zia or Brad) players who are obnoxious make the game less pleasant for all.

 

 

> For all the wonder of vugraph, it is ultimately just symbols on a screen and it can resolve the drama down to a logic puzzle when the whole personality clash adds a vital dimension.

 

I don't really care about the personalities at all. I care about the card play and the at the table psychology, not the off the table baiting.

 

 

>The game can often do with a bit of personality and inter-personal edge to give it a bit of needle and zest.

 

Thats your opinion, but not everyone shares it.

 

 

> Many other sports rely on such things to up the adrenalin levels between competitors. There is a limit to what constitutes good/bad behaviour, but gaining a psychological edge and using it to your advantage is part of any sporting contest.

 

Thats true,, but hopefully there are rules to prevent it getting out of hand. I'm not saying what Zia did was a big deal. But if it was typical to be unpleasant to others, then why bother playing?

 

 

 

>Maybe its because I grew up playing the game in an area where people wouldn't hesitate to use the same sort of tactics on me that I grew stronger through it and would relish the battle.

 

So they were jerks to you, and you think thats acceptable?

 

Maybe many people like bridge as a social game, and if there were enough nasty players it would result in fewer people wanting to continue.

 

Just because bad behavior is common in the USA doesn't mean its enjoyable for most of us.

[the hog]

I don't think it was "horrible" either, just unnecessary.

[the saint]

There is a difference between being rude and offensive and playing on someones mind. I don't condone rudeness, and I am not rude at the table, nor do I point out my opponent's errors (I make enough of my own), but I do believe in making my life difficult for my opponent in every way that is legal and moral at the table.

[ArcLight]

>There is a difference between being rude and offensive and playing on someones mind. I don't condone rudeness, and I am not rude at the table

 

I'm not saying you are. (If thats how I came across I apologize).

But just because you are able to put up with crap, doesn't mean others will.

 

> (I make enough of my own), but I do believe in making my life difficult for my opponent in every way that is legal and moral at the table.

 

OK, I'm curious!

How do you make life difficult for the opponents?