USBF Chicago Appeal #2

[suprgrover]

This is from http://usbf.org/docs/2010usbc/bulletins/USBC2010news6.pdf (page 5)

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq4hak3dkq54cqt72&w=s97652h87d9cak986&e=sajt3hqj2d632c543&s=sk8ht9654dajt87cj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

West [space]North East [space]South
[space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] [space] Pass
Pass [space]1NT [space] Pass [space]2[di]*
2[he] [space] [space]X [space] [space] Pass [space]Pass 
3[cl] [space] [space]Pass [space]Pass [space]3[di] 
Pass [space]3[he] [space] [space]Pass [space]4[he] 
Pass [space]Pass [space]X [space] [space] All Pass

 

*transfer

 

From the writeup:

 

The facts: West explained his 2H bid to South as Michaels. East explained it to

North as "takeout". East led the 3 of clubs to the king. West shifted to the 9 of

diamonds, won by dummy's ten. Declarer led a low spade towards his queen,

won by East who gave his partner a diamond ruff. The final result was down one

doubled.

 

North claimed that he was afraid to play even one round of trumps for fear of losing control if trumps were 5-0. If he could steal a spade trick, he could then shift to the red suits and emerge with 8 tricks. He said that had he been given West's explanation, he would have drawn at least one round of trumps, but with the likelihood of a 3-suiter looming he wanted to minimize the damage.

 

The directors polled three players, all of whom said that a trump at trick 3 seemed automatic and that they considered a low spade obscure. As a result, they ruled that the score stood for both pairs. They considered but rejected a procedural penalty against East-West for creating the problem by their differing explanations.

 

[snip]

 

Since declarer's play was no better than break even and could lose to the actual distribution, the damage was not a consequence of the misinformation but was only subsequent to it and was caused by declarer's faulty assumptions as to the lie of the cards. Accordingly, the committee upheld the director's ruling as to North-South and agreed that East-West had not earned an unwarranted result or a procedural penalty through their presumed misinformation. The committee also assessed an Appeal Without Merit Warning to North-South. It felt that the appellants should have known not to pursue the appeal, having been told that the peer consultants strongly disagreed with declarer's play and felt it automatic to play a trump at trick 3. They brought no new information to the committee that had not been disclosed to the directors and the consultants. They also probably did not sufficiently consider the alternative results after a trump at trick three. If appellants are going to claim damage from a failed line of play, it is their responsibility to have done a minimum amount of analysis to support their contention.

 

===================

 

1) If the committee was considering a PP against E-W, is it really fair to give an Appeal Without Merit Warning?

 

2) More importantly, it seems to me that the committee is ruling that the (somewhat inferior) line taken by declarer fell in the "serious error" rubric under law 12C. Can it possibly be right that a failure to interpret the nuances of a misexplained auction is now considered to be a serious error?

[bluejak]

I think that an AWMW depends on the likelihood of the appellant gaining from his appeal. A PP to opponents does not affect this, so I think it acceptable to give an AWMW in such a case.

 

The AC did not decide that declarer's play constituted a SEWoG, but decided that the damage was not consequent on the MI. Certainly that is a reasonable view to take.

[jdonn]

Agree with bluejak on both counts. Seems to me the committee did a very good job.

[peachy]

A poll of peers was conducted and AC - reasonably enough - used the poll results. What would we all say if the AC discarded the poll results, did not use them?

[wank]

in a knock out match getting the opps a PP is improving one's own result in a way.

[Cascade]

I think that an AWMW depends on the likelihood of the appellant gaining from his appeal. A PP to opponents does not affect this, so I think it acceptable to give an AWMW in such a case.

 

The AC did not decide that declarer's play constituted a SEWoG, but decided that the damage was not consequent on the MI. Certainly that is a reasonable view to take.

Disagree.

 

Why is appealing to get the opponents a worse score without merit?

[TimG]

I think that an AWMW depends on the likelihood of the appellant gaining from his appeal. A PP to opponents does not affect this, so I think it acceptable to give an AWMW in such a case.

Surely a team or pair can gain from a PP assessed against their opponents.

[suprgrover]

The AC did not decide that declarer's play constituted a SEWoG, but decided that the damage was not consequent on the MI. Certainly that is a reasonable view to take.

I'm probably just being dense here, but which laws would one use to make such a determination? Is this just a Law 21C3 case (the misexplanation did not lead to an advantage)?

[peachy]

The AC did not decide that declarer's play constituted a SEWoG, but decided that the damage was not consequent on the MI.  Certainly that is a reasonable view to take.

I'm probably just being dense here, but which laws would one use to make such a determination? Is this just a Law 21C3 case (the misexplanation did not lead to an advantage)?

I think L40 (40B) gives several scenarios where damage that is caused by MI (wrong explanation or missing information) can lead to score adjustment, but the damage needs to be related to the MI. The poll seems to support the finding that the damage was not related to the MI.

 

PS.

I could have waited for blujak to respond. Sorry!

[bluejak]

Not at all. If you know the answer to a question, just post!

 

I agree with what you say.

[jdonn]

I have always thought an appeal can still be determined to not have merit if it changes the ruling in a way that the appealing side didn't think of or ask for. "Merit" refers to the reason(s) the appeal was brought. Saying the appeal must have merit since a different adjustment was made or considered seems like the appeal equivalent of resulting to me.

[nige1]

North claimed that he was afraid to play even one round of trumps for fear of losing control if trumps were 5-0. If he could steal a spade trick, he could then shift to the red suits and emerge with 8 tricks. He said that had he been given West's explanation, he would have drawn at least one round of trumps, but with the likelihood of a 3-suiter looming he wanted to minimize the damage. The directors polled three players, all of whom said that a trump at trick 3 seemed automatic and that they considered a low spade obscure. [sNIP]

Since declarer's play was no better than break even and could lose to the actual distribution, the damage was not a consequence of the misinformation but was only subsequent to it and was caused by declarer's faulty assumptions as to the lie of the cards. Accordingly, the committee upheld the director's ruling as to North-South and agreed that East-West had not earned an unwarranted result or a procedural penalty through their presumed misinformation. The committee also assessed an Appeal Without Merit Warning to North-South. It felt that the appellants should have known not to pursue the appeal, having been told that the peer consultants strongly disagreed with declarer's play and felt it automatic to play a trump at trick 3. They brought no new information to the committee that had not been disclosed to the directors and the consultants. They also probably did not sufficiently consider the alternative results after a trump at trick three. If appellants are going to claim damage from a failed line of play, it is their responsibility to have done a minimum amount of analysis to support their contention.

1) If the committee was considering a PP against E-W, is it really fair to give an Appeal Without Merit Warning?

2) More importantly, it seems to me that the committee is ruling that the (somewhat inferior) line taken by declarer fell in the "serious error" rubric under law 12C.  Can it possibly be right that a failure to interpret the nuances of a misexplained auction is now considered to be a serious error?

I agree. IMO...

1. The law-breakers deserved a PP but the committee decided against it. Instead, they imposed an AWMW on the victims, adding insult to injury. I feel that it's the committee's responsibility to remedy sloppy analysis and arguments, even if that raises points unmentioned by either side.
   
2. Only 3 players were polled. They judged declarer's misplay to be obscure but not egregious. The spade play was a direct consequence of North's belief in what East told him. Although the spade play may not gain, it wouldn't cost, were West really three-suited, short in hearts. North was damaged by misinformation.
   

[jdonn]

Only 3 players were polled. They judged declarer's misplay to be obscure but not egregious.  The spade play was a direct consequence of North's belief in what East told him. Although the spade play may not gain, it wouldn't cost, were West really three-suited, short in hearts. North was damaged by misinformation.

I strongly disagree on two counts.

 

The first is that I'm quite sure "obscure" wasn't a direct quote but rather just being political and sparing north. They don't want to print in writing that this north in this event made a stupid nullo play.

 

The other is that his play can absolutely lose even if the double was intended as takeout. West might have QJ doubleton of hearts and give his partner a diamond ruff with xxx.

 

Additionally what shape is north playing west for if he is worried hearts are 5-0? If 4036 then east didn't bid a 5 card spade suit in response to a takeout double and further led low from a doubleton club. If 5035 then west would run to 2♠ not 3♣. His play just makes absolutely no sense. It's as "obscure" a play as I have seen from someone who should know better.

 

Frankly if I was north I'm not sure I would have appealed even if guaranteed I would win since then my play would be in print for the world to see...

[zenko]

I wonder does ACBL have a recorder file for this kind of offenses too, so that some kind of disciplinary measure can be imposed if somebody is repeatedly caught trying to weasel out via director/appeal after making a bad play.

[nige1]

I strongly disagree on two counts. The first is that I'm quite sure "obscure" wasn't a direct quote but rather just being political and sparing north. They don't want to print in writing that this north in this event made a stupid nullo play.

The law stipulates "egregious" not "obscure" so this is the wrong context in which "to spare North's feelings." The committee seem to have had less regard for North's feelings when denying redress and issuing an AWMW instead.

The other is that his play can absolutely lose even if the double was intended as takeout. West might have QJ doubleton of hearts and give his partner a diamond ruff with xxx. Additionally what shape is north playing west for if he is worried hearts are 5-0? If 4036 then east didn't bid a 5 card spade suit in response to a takeout double and further led low from a doubleton club. If 5035 then west would run to 2♠ not 3♣. His play just makes absolutely no sense. It's as "obscure" a play as I have seen from someone who should know better. Frankly if I was north I'm not sure I would have appealed even if guaranteed I would win since then my play would be in print for the world to see...

Declarer misplayed but his error was no worse than those you can witness, several times a day, on BBO, kibitzing international matches. Even I can find similar errors, with hindsight, viewing all hands. Declarer did made a mistake but his claim is credible: had he been told that West showed a spade-minor two-suiter, he certainly would have played differently.

[jdonn]

I strongly disagree on two counts. The first is that I'm quite sure "obscure" wasn't a direct quote but rather just being political and sparing north. They don't want to print in writing that this north in this event made a stupid nullo play.

The law stipulates "egregioius" not "obscure" so this is the wrong context in which "to spare North's feelings." The committee seem to have had less regard for North's feelings when denying redress and issuing an AWMW instead.

This is all a red herring based on your statement that the consultants "judged declarer's misplay to be obscure but not egregious." when they never said it wasn't egregious. They actually "strongly disagreed with declarer's play and felt it automatic to play a trump", which is far stronger than merely "obscure". Would you say failing to make an "automatic" play is egregious or not?

 

Declarer misplayed but his error was no worse than those you can witness, several times a day, on BBO, kibitzing international matches.

The relevance being? This was not BBO, this was the US Bridge Championships. A different standard exists. A declarer who, in a major event, in a doubled vulnerable game that makes if trumps are 3-2, decides to play for 5-0 trumps, which is impossible anyway on the information to date, and thus plays for down 2 instead of down 3 (!), involving a defensive error... has made an egregious play!

 

Btw let's elaborate on how impossible what declarer was playing for was. He knew west had the AK of clubs, and was playing him for a heart void and the ace of spades. He played west to pass as dealer with Axxx - xxx AKxxxx. He then played east to, holding Jxxxx QJxxx x xx, not bid 2♠ when his partner had bid 2♥ for takeout, double 4♥ opposite a passed hand known to be void in hearts, not lead his singleton diamond, and instead lead an anti-systemic low club from a doubleton. Uh, hello? This is not egregious? For an expert?

 

One further thought. Has it occured to anyone that even if declarer was right, and even if he got the misdefense he was playing for, he hadn't saved a trick? He made a practice - egregious error!

[bluejak]

The law stipulates "egregioius" not "obscure" ...

Which Law?

[blackshoe]

Which law? None, of course. The law in question is 12C1{b}, which uses the term "serious", not "egregious".

 

Also, it was the players polled who used the term "obscure". I don't suppose they're required to know what the law actually says.

[zenko]

It is pretty obvious that N grossly misplayed the hand, in fact so grossly that something smells very fishy, and I can not shake off lingering suspicion about his true motives. I might be very paranoid but here is how I see it: lacking the spade bid from E, declarer recognized that he got wrong explanation. The double, the club bid and 9 of D play (giving W 5026 with either 5116/5125 as an alternative) made him believe that W has singleton H at best so his contract was doomed. The the only way out for him was via favorable ruling, and to get one he needs to find the line of play that appears to be influenced by that misinformation.

[nige1]

Which law? None, of course. The law in question is 12C1{b}, which uses the term "serious", not "egregious". Also, it was the players polled who used the term "obscure". I don't suppose they're required to know what the law actually says.

I apologise: I should have written serious not egregious. That too is a long way from obscure. Most players average at least a couple of obscure errors per board. Almost all of these errors escape unpunished and unremarked; in many cases experts would unanimously judge the right play to be indisputable (as here) although, occasionally they would be guilty of similar errors themselves.

 

We are told this was a National Championship (not International Level) so, IMO, the committe's criterion for serious was too stringent.

 

In answer to Blackshoe: IMO, the poll was pointless, unless the right question was asked.

 

I still feel that insufficient weight was given to suprgrover's 2nd argument in the original post.

If the committee was considering a PP against E-W, is it really fair to give an Appeal Without Merit Warning?

I go further...

• The director should consider issuing a PP for misinformation against the law-breakers if they are above club-level (irrespective of possible damage).
  
• It is reasonable to appeal when the director fails to issue a PP.
  

Finally, Zenko should be careful about airing libellous speculation in public fora.

[Bbradley62]

I might be very paranoid but here is how I see it:

would this be paranoid or delusional?

[jdonn]

We are told this was  a National Championship -- not even International Level ;) so, IMO, the committe's criterion for serious was too stringent.

You haven't said why. Which part of why I believe this was a very serious error for an expert in a major event do you disagree with? Or do you have counter arguments? I'll be repetitive and list my reasons to make it easy for you.

 

- 3 experts polled strongly disagreed with the play and found another play automatic.

- 5-0 breaks are very unlikely a priori.

- West couldn't have the shape declarer played him for.

- Even if west had the "impossible" shape he couldn't then have the high cards declarer played him for.

- East couldn't have the shape declarer played him for.

- Even if east had the "impossible" shape he would have made a different lead (and if east had the impossible shape and impossible strength he wouldn't have doubled).

- Even if all that "impossibleness" existed, declarer still needed a defensive error.

- Even if declarer got all that, his goal was down 2 doubled rather than down 3 doubled for what could easily be an insignificant gain (something like lose 9 instead of lose 12 against teammates +100), when the alternative of playing for normal breaks would be to make doubled.

- Even if you accept that declarer should play for such an obscure gain, and if declarer's view of the cards was correct, his conclusion was wrong and he wouldn't have gained any tricks anyway! In other words, if declarer played a trump and they were 5-0 he would still be down 2 by playing a spade next, not down 3.

 

Ok your turn. Why wasn't his play a serious error?

[nige1]

You haven't said why. Which part of why I believe this was a very serious error for an expert in a major event do you disagree with? Or do you have counter arguments? I'll be repetitive and list my reasons to make it easy for you.

 

- 3 experts polled strongly disagreed with the play and found another play automatic.

- 5-0 breaks are very unlikely a priori.

- West couldn't have the shape declarer played him for.

- Even if west had the "impossible" shape he couldn't then have the high cards declarer played him for.

- East couldn't have the shape declarer played him for.

- Even if east had the "impossible" shape he would have made a different lead (and if east had the impossible shape and impossible strength he wouldn't have doubled).

- Even if all that "impossibleness" existed, declarer still needed a defensive error.

- Even if declarer got all that, his goal was down 2 doubled rather than down 3 doubled for what could easily be an insignificant gain (something like lose 9 instead of lose 12 against teammates +100), when the alternative of playing for normal breaks would be to make doubled.

- Even if you accept that declarer should play for such an obscure gain, and if declarer's view of the cards was correct, his conclusion was wrong and he wouldn't have gained any tricks anyway! In other words, if declarer played a trump and they were 5-0 he would still be down 2 by playing a spade next, not down 3.

 

Ok your turn. Why wasn't his play a serious error?

Again, we agree to differ JDonn :rolleyes: but not as much as usual :) I've already agreed that declarer's play was a mistake so I've agreed most of your points (although, I reject all your "impossible" statements. There can be few bidding-certainties about the holdings of players doubtful about their agreements).

 

Nevertheless, for reasons advanced in previous posts, I still don't think it was a serious error. In summary: three experts is an inadequate poll. We don't know what they were told or what questions were asked but, IMO, one question should have been "is declarer's play a serious error?". Furthermore, IMO, the answer to that question (if it was asked) should have been divulged.

 

If the correct line caters for unlikely distributions (given opponents' agreements), then it does not seem to be a serious error for declarer to misanalyse a hand and embark on an inferior line, unlikely to cost, even if it can't gain. With or without misinformation, players often do that (See the BBO "expert" forum, for examples, ad nauseam).

 

IMO, even if NS weren't direclty damaged, the appeal was reasonable, assuming that EW are of sufficient ability to be subject to a misinformation PP.

 

In this case, my judgements may be faulty but some directors share some of them. Hence rulings are likely to be inconsistent. The real fault is in egregious rules that foster such unnecessary subjectivity :)

[peachy]

Most players average at least a couple of obscure errors per board.

This match featured players who are clearly NOT in the category of "most players". The poll was conducted among peers of the actual level of players in that match. I think it is pointless to make this type of generalized statements that are irrelevant to the case.

[jdonn]

Again, we agree to differ JDonn :rolleyes: but not as much as usual :) I've already agreed that declarer's play was a mistake so I've agreed most of your points (although, I reject all your "impossible" statements.  There can be few bidding-certainties about the holdings of players doubtful about their agreements).

How can we discuss this if your entire reasoning is based on vague general statements and cliches like "we all make lots of obscure errors", "players without clear agreements can have shapes that should be impossible" [an invalid point anyway since declarer at the time had no reason to believe there was no clear agreement], etc? I made points that were very specific. Do you have any specific disagreements, or have you analyzed the hand no further than declarer did?