Appeal in SF

[kenrexford]

I was unfortunate enough to end up on the losing side of an appeal in SF. I wonder about others' thoughts here.

 

The end position, which is perhaps not the end position I should have reached, was AJ10 of trumps opposite Kxx in trumps, trumps having not yet been touched; the opponents held four combined trumps, including the missing Queen.

 

On dummy was the diamond 10, which could be beat by the 13th diamond known to be in LHO's hand, which happened to be the Queen.

 

In my hand was the club Jack, which could be beat by the club King, the 13th club, known to also be held by LHO.

 

LHO also must have at east one spade, of course.

 

Thus, LHO either had 2011 pattern (either ♠Qx ♥-- ♦Q ♣K or ♠xx ♥-- ♦Q ♣K) or 1111 pattern (♠x ♥Q ♦Q ♣K) at the end.

 

RHO, then, would have useless side card(s) and 2-3 spades.

 

When I played the Jack toward dummy, I saw a very obvious hitch by LHO as he played small. I rose with the Ace and small back to my hand.

 

At this point, a few realities seemed apparent. If LHO actually held 1-1-1-1 pattern, and thus the hitch was BS, then the hook would do no apparent good. However, if the spades did split 2-2, as originally expected (eight ever nine never), then I could cross-ruff at the end and take all tricks.

 

However, it appeared plausible that LHO, if I successfully hooked, might err in his discard. It seemed plausible that he might ditch the club King if he was not paying attention closely. (Hence, my possible error -- I has the chance earlier to keep the heart situation unknown and dropped that for the more remote possibility that LHO might have started with KQJ tight.)

 

However, I ended up playing the more logical Ace and discovered that the hitch was BS.

 

When LHO showed out, his pitch was the club King.

 

So, I called for the TD. The TD did the around-the-table poll as to what happened. I and partner both saw the hitch. LHO denied, quite angrily ("This is B.S." not abbreviated). His partner "was not really paying attention and could not say for sure." So, the vote was 2-1-1. The TD then ruled in our favor.

 

Now, this is where it gets strange. The TD ruled in our favor because I showed her that my last two cards were good (LHO having ditched the club King). So, the issue of how many tricks I'd take on a finesse was not discussed. Nor was it noticed at the table.

 

Instead, LHO appealed because he denied the hitch. We described the play of the hand up to the final point of the hitch, and then the finesse decision, and sent it off to the committee. As it was late, no one stuck around to hear the decision.

 

The next morning, I learned that the result was reverted back to us winning three of the last four tricks. The reason was that I would have to lose either a spade (play for the drop) or a club (finesse but lose ability to ruff in dummy) or an over-ruff by RHO of the club, perhaps. I did not hear whether any PP was assessed to LHO.

 

However, this brings up an interesting question. I have to agree that LHO pitching the club King after a finesse would be irrational. However, people who are distracted into coffee-housing often pay too little attention to the cards and make irrational plays. At the table, he did actually pitch the club, albeit in the context of a different 3-card ending.

 

I can understand our side not gaining a windfall here. However, what I cannot understand is how LHO gets the benefit of assumed competence at the end to protect him from no penalty for the hitch.

 

Now, he would insist to this day that no hitch occurred, I'm sure. But, his partner could not come to his defense, and that silence is loud.

[jdonn]

I'm not sure I get it. Is your complaint that when they ruled, they failed to force your opponent to make an irrational play which you feel he would have made because he was coffee-housing and therefore distracted? And this seems to be based on you feeling the hitch deserves some sort of punishment, whatever that may be, even though he denies it? And your evidence that it occured is that his partner wasn't paying attention to his tempo, which would be inappropriate to do anyway? Uhhhhhhhhhh.........

[kenrexford]

Not really.

 

The problem is that this was yet another example of a hitch, and a blatant one at that, yielding no negative effect for the offending person.

 

When a person's partner "cannot say" one way or the other whether a hitch occurred, that is often the only implicit concession you can get. This was a blatant hitch.

 

The context, more precisely. I had eliminated suits down to effectively nothing but trumps. On two of the ruffs that finished this course, I ruffed with the 8 and then the 9, obviously adding a smidge of possible protection against a missing honor. The entire play of the hand screamed of gathering info for a trump-suit guess.

 

Despite a looming cross-ruff approach, LHO had been in to consider a spade switch early on and obviously had opportunity to consider the missing queen scenario.

 

So, with everything obviously turning on a spade guess, I ended in hand, thought for a noticable second, and then sent the spade Jack toward dummy. LHO did not just pause. He fiddled with two different cards before pulling one with a look of "oh well, let's try this one." It was so obvious a hitch that I paused to strongly consider whether anyone could possibly believe that he only had one card or whether this would be considered obvious coffee-housing.

 

Of course, I cannot "prove" other than by testimony of myself and my interested partner that it happened, and the inference of RHO having no comment, but apparently this is what the ACBL requires as "proof."

 

As for the King of Clubs pitch -- he did in fact pitch it, when I did not finesse. I don't know whether that is relevant, as perhaps he would not have pitched the club King had I finessed. But, this creates a little problem, of course.

 

As to my complaint, ultimately. These people never are punished. I finally get a ruling against them, and it is overturned because, a true fact, LHO should never pitch the club King. But, he did. And, to my knowledge, no PP even after the rules establish the break in tempo.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

If they deny a hitch occurred, it must have 'occurred' because your pair says so. Why even ask the other players opinion 'if' your version is always right?

 

You say that the hitch was 'blatant' and the other pair says, 'No.' and "I did not notice." If the hitch was blatant, why would both of the other pair not agree?

 

The TD made a ruling and you still wanted more 'punishment.' Why did the TD not follow your instructions? Perhaps he ruled according to the law and what he believed had happened?

 

A 'did not notice' vote is not a vote in your favor, a reasonable TD might consider that 'did not notice' very strongly suggests that no 'hitch' blatant or otherwise had occured.

 

You want the other pair to 'know' about the end position and yet 'still be able to throw away a winning club King' to let you make another trick. Which way is it?

Does their bridge level allow them to 'know' about the end position and still be unaware of the danger of discarding a winning club?

 

I have seen many TD calls where the version of the facts was wide apart. The bid was, A. a few seconds B. in tempo C. 30 seconds D. a minute at least

 

Is my version always correct or does the TD consider that my opinion might 'support' my version of the facts?

 

Regards,

Robert

[skjaeran]

Hi everyone

 

If they deny a hitch occurred, it must have 'occurred' because your pair says so. Why even ask the other players opinion 'if' your version is always right?

 

You say that the hitch was 'blatant' and the other pair says, 'No.' and "I did not notice." If the hitch was blatant, why would both of the other pair not agree?

 

The TD made a ruling and you still wanted more 'punishment.' Why did the TD not follow your instructions? Perhaps he ruled according to the law and what he believed had happened?

You're misrepresenting the case here.

 

The TD indeed ruled in favour of Ken and the oppponents appealed. The AC turned the TD's decision and gave the opponents one trick back.

 

And why do you try to make it look like Ken instructed the TD how to rule? The TD, as Ken told us about the case, "interviewed" all players, made a decision as to facts and then made his ruling according to Law.

 

It looks like the AC ruled based on the same facts as the TD, but made a different judgement when it comes to the number of tricks Ken should be awarded.

[jdonn]

I was right Ken, you just feel he hitched so by god he should be punished somehow. I'm not arguing with you about whether it happened, obviously you were there and I wasn't, but you are reading waaaaaaaay too much into his partner not seeing anything. That doesn't help either side one way or the other.

 

I'll give a helpful hint of the day. When the opponents hitch like this (by which I mean, in particularly blatant fashion), if they are rank novices it means they have the queen. If they are any better than that it means they don't have the queen and are messing with you, usually subconciously but sometimes conciously. This is an extremely strong read, like over 90%

[kenrexford]

I'm not sure that I am following the objections to my objection (Harald gets it though).

 

I called the TD because of what I believed to be a glaring break in tempo. Whether I was seeing somethign there or not is somewhat irrelevant. The TD decided, after discussion with the players, that a hitch occurred. So, for all relevant purposes, a hitch occurred.

 

As to how I played the hand -- I played the hand properly. Hooking would be wrong with or without the hitch, as it relies not on a simple layout for all the tricks but upon the layout and a stupid pitch by LHO.

 

As to the appeal. LHO appealed because he disagreed with the TD's assessment that he hitched. As it was explained to me, the COmmittee did not disagree with the TD that there was a break in tempo.

 

So, the end result is that LHO, who held a stiff trump, who was in an event where he should know better, coffee-housed and was caught. This was a violation of the Rules of the Game. However, because his unethical play did not actually cost me anything (probably), there was no adjustment to my score. I agree with that end conclusion, reluctantly. IMO, the pitch of the King might not have been made after a finesse, even though it was made in the absence of a finesse.

 

However, what I do not accept is that LHO, who has now been established as a person who hitched under these circumstances, was apparently not given a procedural penalty. What is the purpose of the Rules if nothing is done even after it is established that the person did breach by an unethical break in tempo? Will anyone ever fail to get away with this?

[hrothgar]

However, what I do not accept is that LHO, who has now been established as a person who hitched under these circumstances, was apparently not given a procedural penalty.  What is the purpose of the Rules if nothing is done even after it is established that the person did breach by an unethical break in tempo?  Will anyone ever fail to get away with this?

Here is a direct quote from the introduction to the 2007 Laws.

 

The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate

remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily

designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of

situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.

 

This quote illustrates one of the basic principles of the Laws: This system isn't designed to punish irregularities.

 

I'm not sure if I agree with this concept. Many is the time where I might wish that I could levee a procedural penalty to teach people a lesson. But, for better or worse, the system doesn't work this way.

 

There are some checks and balances. If you genuinely believe that your opponent is cheating, call the Chief Director, explain that you think that your opponent is a cheat and that you want to start up disciplinary procedures.

 

If you aren't willing to go and do this (I seem to recall past posts where you explained that you couldn't be bothered with an appeal), then perhaps you might cut the Tournament Director some slack when he isn't willing to do this for you.

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

Ken thinks that his version of the facts in a 'blatant hitch' case was 'proved' by a TD ruling that was "overturned on appeal." If you lose in a higher court, your earlier victory does not count.

 

I misrepensented? Ken is the one confused about the law.

If you lose on appeal, your version of the facts was "not accepted." Gripe if you like, you still lose the appeal.

 

The TD ruled in favor of Ken. The 'Powers that Be' overturned same. Ken wants the other pair 'punished' after 'winning' the appeal? They won, so they are not likely to be punished.

 

Ken wants his version of the facts in this 'hitch' case to be excepted by everyone. The other side offered 'No.' and 'didn't notice.' Ken wants the 'didn't notice' to be a vote for 'blatant hitch.' The appeal was lost by Ken so his version of the facts was apparently not accepted.

 

Ken wants his version of the facts accepted even after the powers that be decided again his version of the facts. He still wants the other pair punished after they 'won' the appeal.

 

Ken thinks that the other pair is of a high level to 'know' the end position and still so bad that they discard a winning Club King in the end position.

 

He wins no matter what happens? If they are so bad that they discard winners in an unforced end position, why does he still think that they knew what the end position was? Bad bridge players throw winners away in many end positions that they do not understand.

 

On the facts presented the TD ruling appears wrong IMO and the final ruling of the appeal also agrees with this 'final' version of the facts.

 

Ken might be right about the facts, however, he did lose the appeal. The TD ruling was overturned by a higher court and their ruling strongly suggested that the facts were not what Ken claimed.

 

Regards,

Robert

[kenrexford]

No, Robert, you got it wrong.

 

The determination that a hitch occurred was not the basis for the committee decision.

 

The end position was as follows:

 

[hv=n=skxxhd10c&w=sxhqdqck&e=sqxxhxdc&s=saj10hdcj]399|300|[/hv]

 

When the spade Jack is not covered, I am in dummy. If I play small to the Jack, the end position is such that I cannot win the last two tricks, unless LHO ditches his club King for some reason. Thus, I must lose one of the last four tricks no mater what. On the actual line of popping Ace, I can cross-ruff at the end and concede one whenever.

 

The Committee ruled that I must lose a spade or a club at the end. The committee did not reverse the TD decision that a hitch had occurred.

 

Further, I did not want to win no matter what. I specifically noted to the TD, when she put together the sheet for the committee, that "in all fairness, the end position is not as simple for the opponents as whether I hitch or not." I myself noted that the ruling should not necessarily go my way, at least as far as an adjustment of my score.

 

The sole hope that I maintained was that the actual ditch of the club King might translate into that being tossed if I had played the Jack rather than the Ace. In retrospect, while the committee paperwork was being prepared, I realized that the actual play at the table might not have been duplicated on a different play by me at trick 11 (or 12, for that matter).

 

My gripe now is that the hesitation was established and did not form the basis of the committee decision and yet the hesitation was never addressed in any way.

[glen]

Just to be clear, you led the ♠ J at trick 4, so the rest of the time when you are talking about the J (e.g. "If I play small to the Jack"), you mean the T

[1eyedjack]

I think it is possible for a hitch to occur at the table and a player who is present not be aware of it. However it is a rare thing, especially if the hitcher claims to be that individual in ignorance of the hitch. It is less rare if it is someone else at the table just not paying attention or distracted at the time, but still rare.

 

That said, I also think that on many occasions where a player says he "did not notice" his partner's hitch, especially after the alleged hitcher has denied it, he is not adhering to the truth. He feels that he is placed in an uncomfortable position of having to choose between loyalty to his partner and exposing his lie. Under that pressure, an abstention is an easy way out, and impossible to disprove.

 

As Hrothgar noted, the laws are not primarily designed to penalise, but to restore equity. Nevertheless the laws also allow for procedural penalties in certain circumstances, and I cannot see how a procedural penalty can be anything other than a punitive measure, the general objectives of the laws notwithstanding.

 

I have no expertise in the laws and have no idea if the possibility of a procedural penalty in this case is available, but I would have reservations about applying it in this case even if it is. It is I think possible that the appellant is sincere in his belief that there was no hitch (I was not there, of course). Just because a judicial body finds as a fact that there was a hitch it does not disprove that the appellant believed otherwise and that the appeal was made in good faith.

[pclayton]

I heard a story about Hamman playing a event earlier in the week. His opponents didn't know who he was (!).

 

He faced a trump suit of JTxx opposite AKxx and led the J off the board and needed all the tricks. RHO went into a relatively long tank and ducked.

 

Naturally he dropped Qx offside. :huh:

[jmc]

Hrothgar,

 

I believe the important word there is "primarily" as this does not rule out punishment as being a secondary function of the rules. For example, there are two women at my club who table talk incessantly. I informed them some time ago that I didn't think this was right. I do not think they are cheating and so far non of the table talk has really created significant UI or other problems. However, I still call the director every time. It took 6 calls by me over 4 sessions before the director decided to give them a procedural penalty. i think this was way to long BUT, I do think in this situation the penalty is an important and required way to enforce the laws.

 

jmc

[jmc]

If this guy is a routine cofee house master than I think a penalty should be assessed.

 

jmc

[brianshark]

So basically the hitch happened. After being duped into finessing, you were entitled to get 2 out of 4 tricks, but your LHO lost his ♣K and you ended up getting 3 out of 4.

 

The ruling was to revert back to you having dropped the ♠Q in which case you are now entitled to 3 out of 4 tricks. But unlike when you played the ♠T, the appeals committee decided that LHO would not drop the ♣K in that situation so you don't get the 4th trick, only 3.

 

Your contention is that it's not necessarily clear for LHO to not drop the ♣K, and certainly the fact that he threw it after you finessed indicates he might also throw it after you drop.

 

In my opinion, yes, you should have been given the benefit of the doubt. You should have received all 4 tricks.

 

When the offending side makes an infringement, an adjustment of play should not allow them to undo any subsequent mistakes they made. That's my opinion though. Can anyone quote a concrete law on this?

 

Hrothgar gave an interesting quote which basically said that you punish to ratify an injustice, not to punish for the sake of punishing. The revoke laws are an example of laws that do punish whether there was any injustice caused by a revoke or not. But that's beside the point, I don't believe this situation is what that quote refers to. This is not punishing for the sake of punishing an infringement, it's not allowing an infringing side to correct a bad play, and giving benefit of any doubt to the non-infringing side.

[jdonn]

There was an appeal along these lines I remember where the committee didn't force the offenders to repeat their irrational play in the ruling (contract changed from 3♣ to 4♣, declarer essentially pulled the wrong card to make only 4), but as far as I can remember they admitted it didn't seem clear to them in the rules either way and they did what they thought was right.

[barmar]

I was kibitzing Shannon Capelletti in the Blue Ribbon finals last week. On one deal her RHO went into the tank for at least a minute deciding what to pitch. It was obvious that he was squeezed and she could have made an overtrick (he had to either blank an ace and she could then throw him in for an end-play, or he had to blank a king that she could then pick up after leading towards her king in the suit he has Ax in). But then she played safe to make her contract. I asked her why, and she said she's played against him many times, and he's a known coffee-houser. She didn't want to go down in a cold contract if his tank was BS. The Laws say that you take inference from your opponent's tempo breaks at your own risk, and she wasn't going to take that risk.

 

Ken, you originally said:

However, people who are distracted into coffee-housing often pay too little attention to the cards and make irrational plays.

Isn't coffee-housing defined to be a deliberate hesitation that's intended to fool an opponent? What does distraction have to do with it? Do you mean unnecessary, but unintentional, hesitation?

[mike777]

It is interesting that a player makes the finals of the Blue Ribbons who is a known "cheat or unethical player in the extreme", my words.

[jtfanclub]

It is interesting that a player makes the finals of the Blue Ribbons who is a known "cheat or unethical player in the extreme", my words.

They should just legalize deliberate hesitations to fool the opps. It's not like they enforce it.

[kenrexford]

Ken, you originally said:

However, people who are distracted into coffee-housing often pay too little attention to the cards and make irrational plays.

Isn't coffee-housing defined to be a deliberate hesitation that's intended to fool an opponent? What does distraction have to do with it? Do you mean unnecessary, but unintentional, hesitation?

As coffee-housing situation is usually easy to spot if you are so inclined. However, if you spend your time figuring out how to coffee-house people, you probably need this edge because your skills are lacking. Because your skills are generally lacking, and you are dedicating a lot of effort to how to coffee-house, you are probably missing other aspects of the hand. That's what I meant.

[barmar]

Ken, you originally said:

However, people who are distracted into coffee-housing often pay too little attention to the cards and make irrational plays.

Isn't coffee-housing defined to be a deliberate hesitation that's intended to fool an opponent? What does distraction have to do with it? Do you mean unnecessary, but unintentional, hesitation?

As coffee-housing situation is usually easy to spot if you are so inclined. However, if you spend your time figuring out how to coffee-house people, you probably need this edge because your skills are lacking. Because your skills are generally lacking, and you are dedicating a lot of effort to how to coffee-house, you are probably missing other aspects of the hand. That's what I meant.

That's similar to the assumption that only poor bridge players cheat, because good players don't need to. But there have been a number of cheating scandals involving world-class players.

 

In the case of coffee-housing, I think some of it comes from their rubber bridge experience. High-stakes RB tends to be no-holds-barred, I've heard, and attempts to deceive through mannerisms are more common. There's no TD or AC to complain to if you're duped this way.

[MFA]

I think that awarding all 4 tricks would be too much here.

 

jdonn advice to play the partner of the huddler for the queen of trumps is spot on. 90% to succeed is about right.

[pretzalz]

Ken, you were the one coffee housing, not LHO. In the 4 card ending as described, leading the SJ is a clear error whose only purpose is to try to get a reaction from LHO. You were looking for a reaction and consequently saw one where one may or may not have existed.

 

If there was a 'hitch', LHO was probably pausing because it is now clear to him that you've misplayed the position, but since he regrettably doesn't have the stiff SQ it won't matter and he missed out on a good board through poor luck. Or from general annoyance that you thought he was stupid enough to fall for this stupid play instead of taking a legitimate line.

[kenrexford]

Ken, you were the one coffee housing, not LHO. In the 4 card ending as described, leading the SJ is a clear error whose only purpose is to try to get a reaction from LHO. You were looking for a reaction and consequently saw one where one may or may not have existed.

 

If there was a 'hitch', LHO was probably pausing because it is now clear to him that you've misplayed the position, but since he regrettably doesn't have the stiff SQ it won't matter and he missed out on a good board through poor luck. Or from general annoyance that you thought he was stupid enough to fall for this stupid play instead of taking a legitimate line.

Well, you actually got that wrong also. The high pip in dummy was the 9. Sure, I should probably have mentioned that, but I could not imagine that anyone who did not know where the spade nine was would play for the single position of the stiff Queen of spades to the right rather than for the six positions of the spades being 2-2. However, just to help you eliminate that bizarre line, I did, in fact, have the spade 9 on the table. In fact, I had already ruffed with the 8 and 7 in the cross-ruff.

 

So, contrary to your claims (which are wrong even under your misunderstanding of the pip locations), my line was clearly the correct line.

 

What irritates me most is that you would accuse me of being unethical because I elected to lead out the Jack from KJ10. That is a fairly innocent play that 99% of the world would make, probably even if you included people who do not know how to play bridge.

 

Misplaced arrogance and hostility based upon ignorance are often bedfellows.