German concession mid-segment

[paulie1990]

LAW 74C8 seems to cover this situation fairly well, "The following are examples of violations of procedure ... leaving the table needlessly before the round is called".

What is, however, the recommended punishment, if there is any? My opinion is that this law tries to prevent players from walking out of the room in order to get some disallowed information (that was the case in the Kramnik-Topalov 2006 chess match). So I'd expect the rules would recommend to make a score adjustment, not any kind of ban (at minimum, any kind of ban outside the very tournament). But maybe it's different?

[david_c]

There is no doubt in my mind that all commentators and spectators will agree that Wladow lost his temper at some point and bid like a lunatic.

I was watching, and no, I don't agree. Yes, he made a string of highly anti-percentage calls. If that's the way he wants to try and get back the 60-IMP deficit, I don't have a problem with it. It just so happened that each one got severely punished. And maybe he was "on tilt" at the end, but that's not the same as losing your temper.

 

I don't have any problem with the concession, so long as it was done graciously. Shake hands and congratulate your opponents - that's fine. If they stormed out, that would be different.

 

It may be that there is a rule against it. But even if so, I do not think that a severe punishment is needed.

[Sambolino]

i like the heat in here!

[paulie1990]

I don't have any problem with the concession, so long as it was done graciously. Shake hands and congratulate your opponents - that's fine. If they stormed out, that would be different.

 

It may be that there is a rule against it. But even if so, I do not think that a severe punishment is needed.

I couldn't agree more.

[Rotax]

@ mcleod

 

you are right.

 

The statements of Walddk

 

"There is no doubt in my mind that all commentators and spectators will agree that Wladow lost his temper at some point and bid like a lunatic."

 

"I was there (no surprise), and they definitely did. Wladow overbid deliberately. Unfortunately we don't have it stored in our archives, because the match finished in midstream!"

 

are not much better than the behaviour of the docs

[42]

Hi again,

I just read on the official site of the DBV http://www.bridge-verband.de/web/news/27, that the TD ALLOWED the concession in the middle of the last segment.

It is always better to know the circumstances for sure before making any statements...

Caren

[Finch]

There is no doubt in my mind that all commentators and spectators will agree that Wladow lost his temper at some point and bid like a lunatic....

It'll be interesting to hear what the players thought - I'll ask Nick when he gets back next week as he was at the table... but by then this commotion will all probably have died down. And they'll either be mourning or celebrating their results from the final!

 

p.s. England in both the Open and Women's finals. Who'd have thought it?

[Walddk]

@ mcleod

 

you are right.

 

The statements of Walddk

 

"There is no doubt in my mind that all commentators and spectators will agree that Wladow lost his temper at some point and bid like a lunatic."

 

"I was there (no surprise), and they definitely did. Wladow overbid deliberately. Unfortunately we don't have it stored in our archives, because the match finished in midstream!"

 

are not much better than the behaviour of the docs

The trouble with Entscho Wladow is that he has a record, a bad one, and he has been suepended before. Guess why? Yes, because of "unethical behaviour". I know this pair very well; as a matter of fact Michael Elinescu and I are friends.

 

With this said, it is also a fact that this pair is not very well liked (to be diplomatic), not in Germany and not outside the country. Please note that I am talking about their behaviour at the bridge table, not away from it. They are both very nice individuals.

 

I don't mind if people tell me that my bridge play is rotten, so long as they don't say that my behaviour at the table is dubious. Fortunately I have no such reputation after 45 years in the game - also at the highest level.

 

Roland

[Gerben42]

DISCLAIMER: I didn't watch the match, but I did see the results and I know the player in question well.

 

Questions to those who want to punish the German team, or even the German federation. Do you think that if some football player makes a bad foul, that he should receive a red card or should his team be disqualified?

 

This is assuming there was something worth punishment, which from here is impossible to judge.

[kgr]

- I don't see any difference in giving up in the middle of a segment ot between segments. (only that it is less nice if a vugraph is running, but then how intersting is the vugraph at that stage).

- Playing bad by purpose is against the law, but if Germany was a lot of IMPs behind then bidding wild or against the odds was probably the only way to still win.

 

Maybe they discussed between them to give up before the segment started and then decided to try to gain IMPs by bidding anti field or even very wield. This didn"t work, they congratulated the opps and they gave up. In my opinion: nothing wrong with that.

 

[Markku]

After 3 flat boards

1. Wladow tried to balance 1nt with X, bad luck

2. opps missed luckily a good slam.

3. In favorable zones with x K10xx Jx K98xxx after opps 3NT 4C doesnt always cost 1100.

4. In next board 5D bid was not worse than 4D from south.

5. In last one maybe dble of 4S was meant to penalties and if south takes out maybe 4NT is better choice than 5C

 

Not so obvious _deliberately_ imp throwing bidding, bad luck and too hard trying, I think.

[mrdct]

Ban them?  For what?

Ban them for throwing IMPs away deliberately.

Our posts crossed, but that is the first time it's been said in this thread that they threw imps deliberately.

I agree it's probably unfair to say that Elinescu-Wladow were throwing imps deliberately. From what I saw they were both taking reckless anti-percentage actions in a desperate attempt to generate some miracle imps. The first 3 boards of the segment were pushes, albeit with quite different and some unusual actions being taken in both rooms, and then a run of 60 imps to England over 5 boards took place:

 

Board 20: Wladow could've passed out 1NT at All Vul but unwisely chose to balance with a double holding a flat 12 count with AKJT in RHO,s suit. A scramble ensued and he would up in 2♠x going for 800 and 12 imps out. He won't find too many experts who agree with his double, but hardly a deliberate attempt to lose imps.

 

Board 21: Wladow were active at unfavourable vul in a competive auction which ended with England playing in a cold 4♥ contract. 11 imps were lost due to the German pair in the other room reaching 6♥ going one off.

 

Board 22: At favourable vul the German's were quiet as England bid to a cold 3NT and then Wladow decided to take a save in 4♣ holding x KTxx Jx Kxxxxx. This went for 1100 at cost 9 imps. Again, not everyone's choice of bid but he was at favourable vul in a fairly desperate situation in the match.

 

Board 23: Wladow took an unusual action on this board, overcalling 2NT against RHO's 1♣ opening holding K xx K98x AKJ9xx (I'm assuming this showed minors but I'm not sure). Elinescu found an ill-advised 4♦ bid in a competitive auction and Wladow then decided to compete to 5♦ which went for 1400 and 14 imps. Elinescu was probably the main contributor to the disaster, but again it's hard to say they were deliberately try to lose imps - they were just playing anti-persentage bridge.

 

Board 24: This one I have to say was pretty suspect in terms of the allegation of the Germans deliberately throwing imps. At Nil Vul after a first seat 3♠ opening, Wladow chose to double holding Kxx Axxx AQTx Jx which is neither here nor there, but after LHO bid 4♠ and it came back to him he doubled again! The opps then redoubled to play, Elinescu ran to 5♣ and Wladow sat that doubled which went for 1400 and 14 imps. Elinescu could have easily saved one trick and only gone for 1100.

 

At this point the match was abandoned.

[hrothgar]

Wow....

 

I don't think that I've ever seen a thread expand this quickly. The thread was two pages long when I started reading it and its now up to four pages...

 

Personally, I think that this is “We Didn’t Vote for Bush” all over again. We’re looking at another perfect example where folks are confusing their own personal set of esthetics with the rules and regulations of a game.

 

Personally, I couldn’t care less if the German team chose to concede mid-segment rather than between segments. It might have been rude. It was certainly weird. But I really don’t give a damn. In the grand scheme of things, none of this amounts to a hill of beans.

 

I can image that there some folks out there who are very concerned. For example, the team mates of the pair that withdrew probably have a strong vested interest in what happened. If the German Bridge Federation sponsored the German team they would seem to have a perfect right to complain if the team didn’t try their best to win. However, none of “us” here on the forums are principles in this affair. Our opinions are completely irrelevant.

 

I’m not even sure whether I’d care if one of the German pair deliberately threw the boards. They’re the ones who are competing. They’re the ones who will lose out on a medal.

 

When I was writing this letter, I started asking myself whether or not I would care if a member of a opposing team paid folks to throw a match. I couldn’t even find myself getting worked up about this. We’re already award gold medals to well heeled clients who get dragged across the finish line by their mercenaries’ d’jour. Paying the other teams to get out of your way seems like a perfectly reasonable extension…

[paulg]

Dave's summary above is close to my thoughts whilst commentating, although I thought Elinescu appeared to be the straight guy in Wladow's comedian act.

 

It's not the way I'd expect experienced teams to try and recover 70 IMPs but, as I said in commentary, Wladow seemed committed to this policy and it would not make sense to change tack after one disaster.

 

Personally I don't mind them conceding halfway through the set. They did play 5.5 of 6 sets and played hard for 5 of them. Talk of punishment, for the pair or team, seems too much.

 

Paul

[mrdct]

Hi again,

I just read on the official site of the DBV http://www.bridge-verband.de/web/news/27, that the TD ALLOWED the concession in the middle of the last segment.

It is always better to know the circumstances for sure before making any statements...

Caren

Google translation:

 

"After the lost segments 4 and 5, with a strong Germany was behind England in the last segment of the semifinals. With the permission of the main tournament director konzedierte the team then the match after a few boards of the last sixth.

 

Some unfortunate comments by the BBO-commentators at the end of the game were probably due to the fact that they do not live what is happening on the ground witnessed, but by domestic screen moderated and misinterpreted."

[joe_3]

I agree that the behaviour of Wladow/Elinescu was not correct. The results achieved trying to recover earlier losses in the game were not based on sound judgement but lacking basic sportsmanship.

 

However, leaving the table after four disastrous hands has to be judged against what actually happened. If the two players just left, some sort of penalty should be imminent. It should, however, only affect the players involved and not the country they were representing so poorly. Since, apart from a loss of respect, no harm was done to the opponents, penalising the entire team or even the country they played for does not feel appropriate.

 

If some sort of ban for this pair is feasible according to the rules, the international Bridge bodies and, moreover, the Deutsche Bridgeverband should impose it right away.

 

I personally would like to see the German Bridge Association take respective action.

[charles_l]

wow. this in fact changes a lot of things.

 

as the facts (albeit reported by the German site) present it, the concession seems to have been 1. legal and 2. cordial.

 

if the concession was in fact legal, there must then not be any penalties whatsoever.

 

if the concession was cordial, there must then not be any recriminations about sportsmanship and ethics. For all we know it was a series of (failed) attempts to recoup 70+ IMPs, and in a KO match you don't care if you lose by 1 or 100.

[drinbrasil]

The true is when i read it happened i remember BBO tables when players left when bad results and i put in my blacklist (already with 500+) so i think i am tempeted to ask WBF to use some black list too :-)

 

Of course only if rules are broken you can punish someone. If you dont like something happened is your business, use you own blacklist.

[OleBerg]

Wow....

 

I don't think that I've ever seen a thread expand this quickly.  The thread was two pages long when I started reading it and its now up to four pages...

 

Personally, I think that this is “We Didn’t Vote for Bush” all over again.  We’re looking at another perfect example where folks are confusing their own personal set of esthetics with the rules and regulations of a game.

 

Personally, I couldn’t care less if the German team chose to concede mid-segment rather than between segments.  It might have been rude.  It was certainly weird.  But I really don’t give a damn.  In the grand scheme of things, none of this amounts to a hill of beans.

 

I can image that there some folks out there who are very concerned.  For example, the team mates of the pair that withdrew probably have a strong vested interest in what happened.  If the German Bridge Federation sponsored the German team they would seem to have a perfect right to complain if the team didn’t try their best to win.  However, none of “us” here on the forums are principles in this affair.  Our opinions are completely irrelevant. 

 

I’m not even sure whether I’d care if one of the German pair deliberately threw the boards.  They’re the ones who are competing.  They’re the ones who will lose out on a medal. 

 

When I was writing this letter, I started asking myself whether or not I would care if a member of a opposing team paid folks to throw a match.  I couldn’t even find myself getting worked up about this.  We’re already award gold medals to well heeled clients who get dragged across the finish line by their mercenaries’ d’jour.  Paying the other teams to get out of your way seems like a perfectly reasonable extension…

It scares me that I always agree with you in such manners.

[han]

So if I understand this correctly, they were down 60 with 16 boards to go, then tried to swing madly, it backfired, they realised that it was pointless to continue, they stood up, said they conceeded, shook the hands of their opponents and left? And it is legal to do so?

 

If this is all correct, I don't see any problem with it, and the reputation of this pair should be irrelevant. Of course, if this is not how it went then it may be different.

[OleBerg]

So if I understand this correctly, they were down 60 with 16 boards to go, then tried to swing madly, it backfired, they realised that it was pointless to continue, they stood up, said they conceeded, shook the hands of their opponents and left? And it is legal to do so?

 

If this is all correct, I don't see any problem with it, and the reputation of this pair should be irrelevant. Of course, if this is not how it went then it may be different.

You are forgetting that they ruined Rolands transmission.

 

Severe penalties must be imposed.

[darlo]

Is there a problem?

 

2 English teams in the finals. The Germans beaten so badly that they ran away and left their towels on the loungers.

 

Is there a problem? Only if you think there is a problem.

 

Rejoice - it won't happen again.

[blackshoe]

Ask the England players - surely they are far happier with the concession midway  and an earlier night than having to play an additional 10 pointless boards...?

Italy earned the extra rest by beating Norway soundly. i think the walkout is unsporting.

I didn't see anything about a walkout.

 

Before we start calling people unsportsmanlike, it's only fair to find out exactly what happened, and not to make assumptions.

[blackshoe]

LAW 74C8 seems to cover this situation fairly well, "The following are examples of violations of procedure ... leaving the table needlessly before the round is called".

What is, however, the recommended punishment, if there is any? My opinion is that this law tries to prevent players from walking out of the room in order to get some disallowed information (that was the case in the Kramnik-Topalov 2006 chess match). So I'd expect the rules would recommend to make a score adjustment, not any kind of ban (at minimum, any kind of ban outside the very tournament). But maybe it's different?

A violation of procedure might draw a procedural penalty. There is no law allowing score adjustments for "leaving the table needlessly". What scores would you adjust?

 

There is nothing in the law as to reasons. Speculating as to why the law exists is pointless.

[blackshoe]

The trouble with Entscho Wladow is that he has a record, a bad one, and he has been suepended before. Guess why? Yes, because of "unethical behaviour".

So what? That doesn't mean he was unethical in this case.

 

I don't mind if people tell me that my bridge play is rotten, so long as they don't say that my behaviour at the table is dubious. Fortunately I have no such reputation after 45 years in the game - also at the highest level.

 

Not at all sure what your reputation has to do with anything. :)