German concession mid-segment

[mikeh]

I was pleased to see the facts as they were presented, at long last, and just as pleased to see Roland's gracious apology. I read the entire thread in sequence and was surprised to see Roland's initial posts, but then I read the post about his likely lack of sleep, and I think that we should all cut him some slack.

 

As for the underlying issue, I think that it is idiotic to require that contestants continue to play out a match under hopeless conditions.

 

The Bermuda Bowl held in Bermuda in early 2000 had, as a condition of contest, that a team could not concede the Finals, no matter what the score was. Brazil was slaughtered by the US.... the match was effectively over after about 1/4 of the boards, if memory serves... and out of any semblance of realistic hope many, many boards before the boring, anti-climatic end.

 

I remember feeling badly for the Brazilians. They had no hope. They were playing badly (by their own standards... they had played magnificently to reach the Finals), against a great team in peak form. The last 32 boards must have been torment for them.

 

Had the German pair simply thrown up their hands and walked out, that would have been, imo, a reason for them to be disciplined (but hardly by banning them from play!), and an apology would have to be demanded.

 

But as it is, they appear to have acted entirely properly, and, indeed, I see their conduct as being sporting... it is customary to concede once victory has become effectively impossible.

 

This would be so even if they did not have another match to play the next day. As it was, with the consolation match they were facing, it was prudent to stop the beating they were absorbing.

 

I think they deserve our respect for having done far better at the tournament than 99% of forum readers will ever do/have ever done, and our sympathies for the predicament in which they found themselves.

[han]

Not that I've ever played chess, but I believe the situation in a chess game is quite different. In chess a concession takes place when a player realise that the game has reached a point where it is inevitable that checkmate will ensue within a few moves.

 

In chess a concession takes place when a player realizes that his or her position is such that it is inevitable that he or she will lose. This may happen a few moves before checkmate, it may happen early in the game. It is up to the player.

[smiffy]

I don't see a (close) analogy to chess either. In chess you are usually able to see whether you still have a chance to win (or draw) or not. This - due to factor of randomness - is not the case in bridge.

What bothers me a little: Bridge as it is played here is a team game. While Dr. Vladow made his wild swing attempts his team mates at the other table may have played sound and winning bridge. Of course he knew that this was not going to suffice but one might still wish for a different behaviour on his part. On the other hand, one can easily imagine that this was the agreed strategy after the 5th segment. If it was not though, I'm quite sure his actions did not earn him very much respect with his team-mates.

Also i wonder whether his team-mates have been informed about their withdrawal and offered the chance to do likewise.

 

Personally i can very much understand the notion to just give up. The case was hopeless and the last boards must have been terribly depressing. I actually think there is a proper way to "throw the towel" in such a situation. Ask the opps, ask the TD, ask the team-mates, ask the captain, say thank you, congratulate opps and head to the bar. If it was done in such a way i see not reason that speaks against it, even if it has been without precedence.

[Cascade]

Not that I've ever played chess, but I believe the situation in a chess game is quite different. In chess a concession takes place when a player realise that the game has reached a point where it is inevitable that checkmate will ensue within a few moves.

 

In chess a concession takes place when a player realizes that his or her position is such that it is inevitable that he or she will lose. This may happen a few moves before checkmate, it may happen early in the game. It is up to the player.

In chess you can see all of the pieces.

[han]

Yes, are you suggesting that the German player had no way to know if the match was over or not? Does it seem like the players at the other table are complaining about this? If they are not complaining, why would anybody else?

[MickyB]

Well, Roland did post that Acol is dead in another thread in quite a contemptuous manner - and now we see England have taken at least a silver medal in three of the six sections - including in the open with 2 of the 3 pairs playing 4 card majors.

 

You don't want to know those four players' opinion of weak NT and four-card majors...at any form of scoring :P

[jdonn]

I do not take kindly to Roland making intemperate remarks about our opponents which only served to mar our achievement and put our gallant opponents in a needless bad light.

 

Nick

But you have put yourself in a wonderful light by lambasting him THREE times AFTER he made an apology more gracious than almost anyone else in his position probably would have.

 

GET OVER IT

[mrdct]

Personally i can very much understand the notion to just give up. The case was hopeless and the last boards must have been terribly depressing. I actually think there is a proper way to "throw the towel" in such a situation. Ask the opps, ask the TD, ask the team-mates, ask the captain, say thank you, congratulate opps and head to the bar. If it was done in such a way i see not reason that speaks against it, even if it has been without precedence.

It obviously wouldn't be possible to confer with one's teammates about a mid-segment concession as you would be conveying unauthorised information that things have been going poorly at the other table.

 

Bridge has an established process in place for knock-out matches to be conceded between segments. An established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions does not exist and I don't believe the sport needs one.

 

What bridge does need, however, is unambiguous guidance in Conditions of Contest as to how these sort of situations are to be managed; and in my humble opinion a segment that has commenced should always be played out unless there is some sort of medical issue.

[NickRW]

You don't want to know those four players' opinion of weak NT and four-card majors...at any form of scoring :P

Did I say I don't want to hear any of, say, David Gold's opinions?

 

Also, you're not the only person to keep on mentioning weak NT and four card majors in the same sentence as if I regard the two as inseparable - or that they are somehow inherently inseparable in Acol - or that Acol is the only system in existence to ever use either of these features. Either I will have to express myself more verbosely (but will anyone even read it) or you and others haven't read my comments properly.

 

Nick

[Cascade]

Yes, are you suggesting that the German player had no way to know if the match was over or not? Does it seem like the players at the other table are complaining about this? If they are not complaining, why would anybody else?

It is unlikely that the match is still live but it is possible.

 

I went back to the score-up in a knockout match recently when we were behind going into the last segment and said to our teammates "I don't think we have a winning score-card" but teammates had had an amazing set.

 

Many other times I can recall our "disaster" being a pick-up. Sure it does not always happen but it could happen.

 

A problem with a concession in the middle of a segment is that you do not know what has happened at the other table.

 

Lets say you try to concede but your captain says play on - you may well have extraneous information now that you still have some chance.

[dburn]

Either I will have to express myself more verbosely

As to the prospect of listening to that, the words of the Dies Irae (an early, but still the finest, manual for tournament directors) spring irrerpressibly to mind:

 

Rex tremendae maiestatis

Qui salvandos salvas gratis

Salva me fons pietatis.

[dburn]

Let's say you try to concede but your captain says play on - you may well have extraneous information now that you still have some chance.

If you try to concede, you have succeeded in conceding (and if you are a man of breeding, you conceded because you needed feeding; if you concede unheeding when your team-mates would have pleaded with you to proceed unimpeded, a doctor may staunch the bleeding).

 

But the nitwits who continue to condemn the Germans are kicking field goals by moonlight. Maybe, unlike the Germans, they don't know when to give up.

[han]

The match you won when your teammates had an amazing set, did you go into the last 16 boards down 60 IMPs and did your attempts at swinging result in 1100, 1400 and 1400 on consecutive boards? Get real.

 

[edit: this was a reaction to Cascade's post]

[jikl]

The TD is very much at fault here. The fact that the team captain was sent for is disconcerting. In this case it would seem to be irrelevant but let's consider precedent with the following 3 scenarios:

 

1) Pair 1 want to concede and the director accepts concession

This is obviously worst scenario as noone is consulted. (However this might later prove to be best scenario)

 

2) Pair 1 want to concede and the director summons team captain

This becomes more complicated, does the captain have knowledge of boards played in the other room via onsite or online vugraph, was the team captain kibitzing the other room? Now, whenever it is known the team captain was summoned whenever the answer was known there is HUGE UI. Therefore this is not an acceptable course of action. With precedent this could be used to see how "the swinging" is going on the first 1/2 of the boards and what action needed to be taken for the latter ones by an unscrupulous team.

 

3) Pair 1 wants to concede and the director talks to the other pair

This one is worse than talking to the team captain for UI. This option would never happen as it means the match can no longer be finished.

 

This doesn't leave us with many options, only the 1st option that when one pair concedes, the whole team does so. The fact that there is a match on the next day for a bronze medal makes it even more problematic. Once there is no chance of playing for the gold or silver, is it not their duty to be best prepared to play for the bronze? Should there be 2 bronze medals as there are in some sports to avoid this problem? (Not at Olympic level that I can think of) Who knows?

 

Personally I am guessing there might be new a CoC clause after this, if there isn't then so be it. The German team have given themselves the best chance of being ready for the bronze medal playoff by resting themselves before the match. In some ways isn't this what they should be doing?

 

Sean

[nickf]

Should there be 2 bronze medals as there are in some sports to avoid this problem? (Not at Olympic level that I can think of) Who knows?

Boxing for sure. Maybe other contact sports in the OG.

 

nickf

sydney

[jdonn]

Lets say you try to concede but your captain says play on - you may well have extraneous information now that you still have some chance.

If you try to concede, the match is over. If your captain says play on it's too bad for him.

[geller]

I remain of the view that it is unsporting to give-up in the middle of a segment.

I'm not quite sure I understand this. To draw an analogy with another mind sport: you can resign in the middle of a chess game, can you not? No one would cast doubts on your sportsmanship for so doing, would they?

Not that I've ever played chess, but I believe the situation in a chess game is quite different. In chess a concession takes place when a player realise that the game has reached a point where it is inevitable that checkmate will ensue within a few moves. It happens frequently and is a completely normal means by which a chess game ends.

 

A concession in a chess game is more analagous to a defender of a bridge hand conceding the rest of the tricks when he realise that no matter what he or declarer does, declarer will win all the remaining tricks. It is quite a stretch to suggest that conceding a bridge match in the middle of a segment is the same thing.

 

In bridge, the established protocol is that when you sit down to play a session of bridge you finish the session. As I said before, I'm not aware of this sort of thing ever having happened before in a major tournament.

Yes, but in any bridge event other than a KO event quitting in mid-session isn't allowed where it causes a disruption to the game. This is obviously not the case in a KO event. Quitting in the middle of a sesssion is something I've never heard of before but what harm was done? And after all, the Director did give his OK (apparently).

 

Similarly, in a Swiss teams event if two teams both announce their intention to withdraw before the Director has made pairings for the next match, no harm is done to the smooth running of the event.

 

If someone thinks it's right to play to the end of the session personally I think that's what I'd do too, but why should we criticize mid-session quitters in a knockout as long as they do it politely.

 

The argument that this is never done in sports (say soccer) involves commercial considerations. But in American high school football for example it's common for the coach of a team getting trounced to ask the referee to keep the clock running when normally it would be stopped, so as to get the agony over with ASAP.

[dburn]

The TD is very much at fault here.

 

[snip]

 

The German team have given themselves the best chance of being ready for the bronze medal playoff by resting themselves before the match. In some ways isn't this what they should be doing?

Now, this is the kind of thing that seems to me truly idiotic. You can read the full post above, but I have cut it as shown.

 

The German team could do as they wished, provided they did nothing illegal and nothing unsporting (conceding a match is neither illegal nor unsporting).

 

The TD (the WBF Chief TD) saw nothing wrong with what the German team did.

 

The original poster, after several paragraphs, concedes as much.

 

And yet... "the TD is very much at fault here". Why?

 

Maybe he ought to have banned a combination of four-card majors and a weak no trump, but it is entirely possible that Max Bavin didn't see the relevance of this (it takes a true paranoiac such as NickRW to introduce that topic).

 

Still, as I have said, freedom of speech is important. Mind you, so is freedom of listening to speeches.

[whereagles]

Quite incredibly, after going for 1100, 1400 and 1400 on consecutive boards, the Germans abandoned their semi-final versus England mid-segment.  I have never seen such poor sportsmanship in bridge.  What should the penalty be?

I think they should be forced to attend the Victory Dinner with t-shirts bearing the slogan "I voted for Angela Merkel".

 

nickf

sydney

we got a winner B)

[smiffy]

It obviously wouldn't be possible to confer with one's teammates about a mid-segment concession as you would be conveying unauthorised information that things have been going poorly at the other table.

 

Bridge has an established process in place for knock-out matches to be conceded between segments.  An established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions does not exist and I don't believe the sport needs one.

 

What bridge does need, however, is unambiguous guidance in Conditions of Contest as to how these sort of situations are to be managed; and in my humble opinion a segment that has commenced should always be played out unless there is some sort of medical issue.

Yes, you're right. I hadn't thought of UI. So team-wise maybe a slip of paper quietly slipped to the team captain or some such would have to suffice.

I don't see though why a segment needs to be played out if conceding it would put nobody at a disadvantage. Not the opposing team, not one's own team and not (most of) the audience. And, on the other hand, a concession might be beneficial to both teams. A concession might indeed be seen as a sign of respect for the opponents. In that you trust them not to make nonsensical and game-swinging bids and plays in the remaining boards.

Since this concession seems to be an incident without precedence there might be no need for an established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions as of yet. But what if other teams in other tournaments will do likewise in the future?

[mrdct]

Since this concession seems to be an incident without precedence there might be no need for an established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions as of yet. But what if other teams in other tournaments will do likewise in the future?

I think that is really the whole point. Nobody, or at least no contributers to this thread, has ever seen this happen before. That of itself makes it shocking. If we want players in knock-out matches to be able to call it quits mid-segment then I think the WBF General Conditions of Contest or the Laws of Bridge need to explicitly provide for it.

[dburn]

If we want players in knock-out matches to be able to call it quits mid-segment then I think the WBF General Conditions of Contest or the Laws of Bridge need to explicitly provide for it.

They already do. Law 74 says that:

 

As a matter of courtesy, a player should refrain from [...] prolonging play unnecessarily [...]

 

Not that the English would necessarily have been disconcerted. But they might have felt a bit irked, or even erted, at having to play the rest of the set once their opponents had expressed a wish to concede.

[cherdano]

Since this concession seems to be an incident without precedence there might be no need for an established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions as of yet. But what if other teams in other tournaments will do likewise in the future?

I think that is really the whole point. Nobody, or at least no contributers to this thread, has ever seen this happen before. That of itself makes it shocking. If we want players in knock-out matches to be able to call it quits mid-segment then I think the WBF General Conditions of Contest or the Laws of Bridge need to explicitly provide for it.

Yup, we need a midsession-concession-procedure committee to work out a protocol.

[Rossoneri]

Well done Roland, good to see a gracious apology from you B)

 

Yes, mid-session concessions need to be looked at by the WBF laws committee, but under what we currently have, there doesn't appear to be anything done wrong, either by the players or the TD.

[Codo]

Well done Roland, good to see a gracious apology from you :)

 

Yes, mid-session concessions need to be looked at by the WBF laws committee, but under what we currently have, there doesn't appear to be anything done wrong, either by the players or the TD.

Maybe we should find rules how to conced with 8, 10 or 12 boards to go and force them to play with 4 or less boards? Maybe we should ban captains who are away when such a difficult descission has to be done?

 

This happened the first time as far as all of us know, so get serious, we need NO new rules about this.

 

And sorry, it was not WD Roland. He does many many good things, but this was far away from well done- a very serious apology was the very least to do.

 

But I respect him for being man enough to do so.