USBF Chicago Appeal #2

[nige1]

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?

Im afraid I've little new to add.

 

Although I can't stomach JDonn's "impossibilities", I've already agreed the substance of JDonn's analysis. I do so again, now. From the beginning, I've conceded that declarer's line is mistaken. I've explained, in tedious detail, my qualms about the interpretation of the poll. I don't judge declarer's play to be a serious mistake on what he was told. Again, as previously explained, my own subjective judgement is based on "vague generalisations" of experience in national competition, of kibitzing international play on BBO, and analyses in the BBO "expert" forum.

 

I think the directior and committee made the wrong ruling; and were wrong to issue an AWMW.

 

It would be useful to have borderline-examples illustrating errors deemed serious at various levels; even better would be to scrap the relevant rules, reducing the number of inconsistent rulings and interminable controversies like this.

[peachy]

even better would be to scrap the relevant rules, reducing the number of inconsistent rulings and interminable controversies like this.

What is the controversy in the posted case?

[suprgrover]

It would be useful to have borderline-examples illustrating errors deemed serious at various levels; even better would be to scrap the relevant rules, reducing the number of inconsistent rulings and interminable controversies like this.

It looks like I was right to think that Law 12 indeed applied here. What is the ACBL's definition of a serious error? Does it even have one? (I recall that at one point it was the old saw "failure to play bridge".) For reference, the definition used in the White Book in the EBU--which seems to be a higher standard than used by the committee--is as follows:

 

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following

types of action would be covered:

· Failure to follow proper legal procedure (eg revoking, creating a major

penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).

 

· Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against

a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be

considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are

expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing

so.

 

· An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as

a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

 

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’:

· Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.

 

· Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in

ruling a contested claim.

 

· Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously

not the percentage line.

 

· Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such

as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.

[Trinidad]

Giving NS an AWMW can be constructed as a gross insult to EW. The message it sends is that it was ridiculous for NS to expect that the AC would give a PP to EW. This, in turn, means that EW are a pair of amateurs who are only supposed to be warned about their obligations and do not have the level that they could be penalised.

 

Unless the AC actually intended to insult EW, the AWMW was a mistake.

 

Rik

[campboy]

Giving NS an AWMW can be constructed as a gross insult to EW. The message it sends is that it was ridiculous for NS to expect that the AC would give a PP to EW. This, in turn, means that EW are a pair of amateurs who are only supposed to be warned about their obligations and do not have the level that they could be penalised.

 

Unless the AC actually intended to insult EW, the AWMW was a mistake.

 

Rik

This is wrong in so many ways.

 

We are told that it was the TDs, not the AC, who "considered, but rejected" giving a PP. The AC merely agreed that a PP was inappropriate.

 

There is no suggestion in the writeup that NS appealed on the grounds that they thought EW should get a PP.

 

There is no suggestion in the writeup that the PP was rejected on grounds of EW's inexperience. Indeed, it would be very unusual to give a PP in this situation, even to experienced players.

[JLOL]

It is a complete embarrassment to the people appealing and to the game of bridge and a sad reflection on the state of bridge that this was even a director call, let alone an appeal. I could not stop laughing when I heard about the director call, then I heard there was an appeal. Haha.

 

Moral of the story, the state of bridge "at the top" right now is that if you can appeal, why not, it can't hurt and maybe the committee loses its mind! There is no self respect let alone integrity, so from a risk/reward analysis, well there is no risk.

 

Oh I forgot, they lose 50 bucks! I'm sure it's a lot to someone who is dropping mid 5 figures for his team in that event. That'll stop this kind of BS!

 

--Disclaimer, I was on the opposing team. We were losing by ~100 before withdrawing. Some members of our team seriously considered not withdrawing out of spite because of this appeal. It is a complete disgrace to bridge. We chose not to stoop to that level, even though we would be perfectly within our rights (as they were to appeal).

[JLOL]

nige1, what is an egregious error if a completely nullo play is not one, especially when it's not like the winning play is some kind of complicated play, it is pulling trumps. I mean seriously, a 0 % play of not pulling trumps with all winners....lol.

[kfay]

In situations like this after the screen comes up can't declarer just ask West what he thought his bid meant if he likes?

 

If he says 'Michaels' then go ahead... if he says 'Takeout' well then!

[campboy]

In situations like this after the screen comes up can't declarer just ask West what he thought his bid meant if he likes?

Not without East hearing the answer, which may help the defence.

 

Anyway, why should he? No-one at the table is aware that the explanations on the two sides of the screen were different.

[nige1]

nige1, what is an egregious error if a completely nullo play is not one, especially when it's not like the winning play is some kind of complicated play, it is pulling trumps. I mean seriously, a 0 % play of not pulling trumps with all winners....lol.

I'm sorry JLall lost. I'd no idea who was playing whom. My view is just my subjective judgement. I think I'm right (for reasons stated in previous posts) but mine appears to be a minority opinion. Most commentators seem to agree with JLall and JDonn that Declarer's error was serious and NS deserved an AWMW for their appeal.

[campboy]

Declarer's error being serious is neither here nor there. The TD did not rule on that basis; if he had he would still have adjusted the score for EW, just not for NS. In fact he appears to have ruled that the MI did not contribute to declarer's misplay.

[jdonn]

(for reasons stated in previous posts)

Still looking for them! All I still see are cliches and slogans.

[kfay]

In situations like this after the screen comes up can't declarer just ask West what he thought his bid meant if he likes?

Not without East hearing the answer, which may help the defence.

 

Anyway, why should he? No-one at the table is aware that the explanations on the two sides of the screen were different.

Well I think declarer is technically within their right to send East away from the table while they hear the explanation (see Mike Flader's column July Bridge Bulletin).

 

You're right, though, that there isn't any reason to expect MI, except that I think many (most?) experts don't play this agreement, to my understanding.

[blackshoe]

Well I think declarer is technically within their right to send East away from the table while they hear the explanation (see Mike Flader's column July Bridge Bulletin).

What Mike actually said is

In cases where a defender is unsure of his agreement regarding his partner's call, it is appropriate to send that player away from the table and let the partner explain the agreement regarding the call in question.

This is advice to TDs. There is no "right to send a player away from the table" in the laws, and it is certainly not legal for a player to do this on his own. In fact, Law 20F1 says explicitly

…Except on the instruction of the director, replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question…

[nige1]

Declarer's error being serious is neither here nor there. The TD did not rule on that basis; if he had he would still have adjusted the score for EW, just not for NS. In fact he appears to have ruled that the MI did not contribute to declarer's misplay.

The AC also took the view that declarer's misplay was subequent to but not a consequence of the misinformation. IMO, however:

• Declarer was told that the 2♥ overcall showed a takeout double of hearts. In that case, his play was mistaken but unlikely to cost.
  
• If declarer had been told the truth that the 2♥ bid showed a spade-minor two suiter, the line he took would be more likely to cost. Declarer's statement that he would then have played trumps instead is credible.
  

[peachy]

Declarer's error being serious is neither here nor there. The TD did not rule on that basis; if he had he would still have adjusted the score for EW, just not for NS. In fact he appears to have ruled that the MI did not contribute to declarer's misplay.

The AC also took the view that declarer's misplay was subequent to but not a consequence of the misinformation. IMO, however:

• Declarer was told that the double showed a takeout double of hearts. In that case, his play was mistaken but unlikely to cost.
  
• If declarer had been told the truth that the double showed a spade-minor two suiter, his play would be more likely to cost. Declarer's statement that he would then have played trumps is credible.
  

You are free to disagree with the AC, the TD, three world class players who were polled, J. Lall, J. Donn, and the other experts who have posted in this thread (that does not include me, I am not in that class). But keeping posting the same thing and and saying [direct quote from one of your posts] "My view is just my subjective judgement. I think I'm right" gets a little old, over time :)

[mrdct]

In fact, Law 20F1 says explicitly

…Except on the instruction of the director, replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question…

Law 20F1 is not relevant when screens are in use. Screen regulations always modify the application of Law 20.

 

Under the WBF General Conditions of Contest 25.3:

 

At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made.

However, the USBF Conditions of Contest are quite different to the WBF regulations and include the following in section XIV.B Screen Procedures:

 

LAW 20:

Review of the Auction:

Until the bidding cards are removed from the tray, a player obtains a review of the auction by inspecting them. At trick one, when a player is still entitled to obtain a review and an inspection of the bidding cards is no longer feasible, a player obtains a written review of the auction from his screen mate.

 

Explanation of Calls:

1. During the Auction:

At any time a player may request, in writing, of his screen mate a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply, also, is in writing.

2. Prior to the Opening Lead:

a. The opening leader is permitted to ask for clarification in writing from his or her opponent on the other side of the screen.

b. The declaring side may, on their own initiative, confirm explanations given on the other side of the screen and is encouraged to do so for complex and potentially ambiguous auctions.

3. After the Screen is Raised:

Third hand (opening leader’s partner) is permitted to ask for clarification in writing after the screen is raised.

4. During the Play Period:

Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made in writing.

On that basis, in the US Open Team Trials it would be OK to ask a defender on the other other side of the screen what one of his alerts was but in the Bermuda Bowl you would not be allowed to do it and need to wait until the end of the hand to seek any redress if differing explanations have been given.

[blackshoe]

Fine, but Kevin pointed to an article of Mike Flader's in support of his position, and that article didn't say a damn thing about screens.

 

Even with screens I suspect that the intent is that the TD get involved rather than the players doing this on their own.

[campboy]

Declarer's error being serious is neither here nor there. The TD did not rule on that basis; if he had he would still have adjusted the score for EW, just not for NS. In fact he appears to have ruled that the MI did not contribute to declarer's misplay.

The AC also took the view that declarer's misplay was subequent to but not a consequence of the misinformation. IMO, however:

• Declarer was told that the double showed a takeout double of hearts. In that case, his play was mistaken but unlikely to cost.
  
• If declarer had been told the truth that the double showed a spade-minor two suiter, his line would be more likely to cost. Declarer's statement that he would then have played trumps instead is credible.
  

I think the exact opposite is true. Declarer claimed to be playing the way he did in case of a 5-0 trump split. Given that he knows by now that West had at most three diamonds, surely the 5-0 split is much more likely with the explanation "spades and a minor" than the explanation "takeout of hearts".

[nige1]

West didn't double 2♦. He overcalled 2♥. (I've corrected that mistake in my previous post but I don't think it affects the argument).

[mink]

There was a lot of discussion in this thread about whether the ♠8 in trick 3 was a serious error or not. But this was of no concern to the AC - they (and probably the director, too) ruled that there was no link between the misinformation and the play:

 

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.

Here, the AC is making fun of the declarer. If he is misinformed, of course he will make faulty assumptions. And these faulty assumptions made him play ♠8 in trick 3, which he fore sure would not have done if he got the correct information leading to more accurate assumptions. In order to decide that, the TD should have judged if East's pleading is comprehensible. What others play is only relevant when it shall be decided if the play was a serious error. Anybody who suggests that North would play ♠8 even if he got the correct information and therefore knows that there is a reasonable chance that West has a singleton ♦ also suggests that North is completely insane.

 

Some accuse North to make assumptions about the hand that are impossible or unlikely. But what should he really assume? N/S have 25 HCP, and for his "takeout" 2♥ West should hold the majority of the E/W HCP. This means East doubled with very limited strength, and one should assume that he has a good length in ♥ containing Q and J in order to compensate for his weakness. Before leading to trick 3, North already knows that West has ♣AK, as East would probably not underlead his A. The question remains, who has ♠A? If West had the A, he really would be a little strong for his initial pass. But if he had not the A, he would be a little weak for his takeout. Also, if East had the A, why didn't he ever bid ♠? The situation is so difficult for North because, given E/W played the same system, the penalty double is insane with the hands they actually have. East doubled because he thought that West had more strength for his takeout and subsequent 3♣ bid. He got it wrong. But when North gets it wrong, too, with the same wrong information, is it his own fault?

 

About the "serious error" question: Anybody posting in this thread has yet failed to provide a 52-card-layout that is consistent with the bidding and that contains a West hand that is consistent with the information North got, and where the play of ♠8 in trick 3 causes the contract to go down while it would make on drawing trumps. Only if such a layout could be found, you could argue that ♠8 was an error, and only if it was a quite possible and easy to imagine such a layout, you maybe could argue that it was a serious error. If such a layout cannot be found, ♠8 would be just obscure, as those who were polled said, but nothing one could really criticize. Please keep in mind that it does never hurt if East is short in ♦ as he would ruff with a trump that makes a trick anyway.

 

The TD, the AC and all in this thread who supported them may be excellent bridge players, but in my view fail to see the situation from North's point of view. The actual hand layout, where the ♠8 was really an error if North was provided with the correct information, seems to bias people against North. I am sure, if a hand like

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq4hak3dkq54cqt72&w=sj976h7d932cak986&e=sat532hqj82d6c543&s=sk8ht9654dajt87cj]399|300|Scoring: IMP

(always -1)[/hv]

had been posted, most would just shrug when learning that North played ♠8 in trick 3 - it simply does not matter.

 

One last comment to the AWM warning. The writeup says:

They (N/S) brought no new information to the committee that had not been disclosed to the directors and the consultants.

It is a well-known fact that in judgment cases often different people come to different conclusions based on exactly the same information. It must be possible to appeal if the appellant just thinks that the TD's decision is an minority view of the problem. A serious TD gives both sides the opportunity to present their case and delays his ruling until he has gathered all relevant information. According to this AC, it is always pointless to appeal against a decision of such a TD.

 

Karl

[jdonn]

About the "serious error" question: Anybody posting in this thread has yet failed to provide a 52-card-layout that is consistent with the bidding and that contains a West hand that is consistent with the information North got, and where the play of ♠8 in trick 3 causes the contract to go down while it would make on drawing trumps.

That is not true, here are three ways.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread, west could have QJ doubleton of hearts and east could have xxx.

 

West could have chosen to make a takeout double with something like like Axxx Jxx xxx AKx (given that declarer has already decided to play west to originally pass an opening hand and has already clearly only considered the takeout double in deciding what shape west could have but not the 3♣ bid) and then he could win the spade and give his partner a diamond ruff, and declarer would have a guess on the second round of trumps that he would surely get wrong.

 

Or how about west risked a takeout double on 4216 shape? Not a bid I or most people would make but not outside the realm of possibility for some.

 

Now how about showing a layout where declarer could gain from playing a spade if hearts were 0-5 as he thought. Even feel free to ignore the auction and give the players otherwise impossible hands if you want.

 

I am sure, if a hand like

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq4hak3dkq54cqt72&w=sj976h7d932cak986&e=sat532hqj82d6c543&s=sk8ht9654dajt87cj]399|300|Scoring: IMP

(always -1)[/hv]

had been posted, most would just shrug when learning that North played ♠8 in trick 3 - it simply does not matter.

No, we would have said why did declarer not draw trumps? And anyway that layout is not relevant to declarer's argument since he tried to sneak the spade through west. He could easily have won the diamond opening lead in his hand and tried to sneak the spade through east instead.

 

Anybody who suggests that North would play ♠8 even if he got the correct information and therefore knows that there is a reasonable chance that West has a singleton ♦ also suggests that North is completely insane.

I indeed suggest that north is insane based on the line of play and this appeal.

[Pict]

I just wonder:

 

Was the relevant player insane or mentally deficient in some way. How did he get on in the rest of the competition. Did he have to leave and go under care.

 

I suspect not.

 

I agree with the judgements reported but not with the childish reactions to someone calling a Director, or appealing, which I think is their right.

[jdonn]

I agree with the judgements reported but not with the childish reactions to someone calling a Director, or appealing, which I think is their right.

What do being within your legal rights and being insane have to do with each other? If I sued you for slander since your post suggested I'm childish then I would be within my rights and also be insane.

 

Anyway you're taking the discussion out of context. Mink essentially posted that to say the incorrect explanation didn't influence the line declarer took means declarer does things that make no sense at all. I essentially said the evidence shows that is an entirely plausible scenario. There was nothing childish about it.

[Pict]

A lot of argument has relied on the high level of the relevant competition.

 

That doesn't fit with childish talk of insanity.