USBF Chicago Appeal #2

[mink]

Jdonn:

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.

I know you said this, and you provided only 5 cards, not 52. A penalty double with ♥QJ is really calling for trouble.

 

Jdonn:

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.

This one is even worse, you want to tell us that he made his 3♣ bid with AKx and East doubled with JTxxx, Qx, x, xxxxx???

 

Jdonn:

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.

This is just a shape and no cards at all. And it is a shape not consistent with a takeout of ♥. If you want to require the declarer to take care for a mess like this, you could also say he should ignore opps' bidding completely.

 

Jdonn:

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.

In my opinion, if somebody wants to convince me that a player has made an error, it it his duty to show me a layout where the given line fails. That there is no layout where a given line gains does not make this line erroneous. He just tried for something that was impossible to achieve. As long as he does not take a risk this is fine with me.

 

Karl

[jdonn]

I didn't realize I had to play by your rules. Yes I only gave a shape for west, I'm sure you can work out where the high cards go!

 

I gave layouts where he loses that are based on a bad penalty double and an offshape takeout double. Both are possible even if you think they aren't. Declarer can cater to them by the incredibly difficult play of drawing trumps which could NEVER lose. Instead declarer took a play that NEVER gains.

[mink]

That he did not do draw trump in trick 3 does not prove or even suggest that he would also not do it he was informed correctly and knew that the ♦9 in trick 2 was likely to be a singleton. This is my main argument here. As I said in my first post, the "serious error"-question is only secondary.

 

Karl

[mrdct]

That he did not do draw trump in trick 3 does not prove or even suggest that he would also not do it he was informed correctly and knew that the ♦9 in trick 2 was likely to be a singleton. This is my main argument here. As I said in my first post, the "serious error"-question is only secondary.

 

Karl

I think this is a pretty good point. Whilst declarer clearly misplayed the hand there does appear to be a fairly strong causal link between the misexplanation and the misplay.

 

Even at the highests levels of bridge, all players from time to time will fail to completely analyse a hand and will start connecting the dots on available information and then reach a premature and inaccurate conclusion as to the layout and procede with a misplay accordingly. At the club duplicate this probably happens several times per hand and at the USBF Trials it probably happens once or twice per session with varying degrees of conspicuousness.

 

It does seem pretty likely to me that if north had been told by his screenmate that 2♥ was Michaels the chances of him finding the "obscure" play of the ♠8 would be greatly reduced, if not entirely eliminated. On that basis the misexplanation has surely contributed to NS' poor result.

 

The fact that nobody seems to be able to come up with a credible 52 card layout consistent with the information available to north suggests that north was probably having quite a hard time getting his head around potential layouts too, so he has some sympathy from me.

[campboy]

I think this is a pretty good point. Whilst declarer clearly misplayed the hand there does appear to be a fairly strong causal link between the misexplanation and the misplay.

Declarer said he was playing that way in case West has no trumps. So he is playing for declarer's distribution to be 5=0=3=5, 4=0=3=6, 6=0=3=4, 5=0=2=6 or 6=0=2=5 (or something even more distributional), as West has at most three diamonds. Which explanation do you think this is closer to?

[nige1]

I think this is a pretty good point.  Whilst declarer clearly misplayed the hand there does appear to be a fairly strong causal link between the misexplanation and the misplay.

Declarer said he was playing that way in case West has no trumps. So he is playing for declarer's distribution to be 5=0=3=5, 4=0=3=6, 6=0=3=4, 5=0=2=6 or 6=0=2=5 (or something even more distributional), as West has at most three diamonds. Which explanation do you think this is closer to?

N says he played for a 3-suiter short in ♥ (T/O shape). He says he would draw trumps, with the correct (Michaels) explanation. From original post:

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.

[campboy]

Did you not read what you just quoted?

North claimed that he was afraid to play even one round of trumps for fear of losing control if trumps were 5-0.

[nige1]

Did you not read what you just quoted?

North claimed that he was afraid to play even one round of trumps for fear of losing control if trumps were 5-0.

Yes but, to be fair to declarer, I restored the rest of his statement (which campboy again omitted) in which declarer says he was also catering for other West hands short in ♥.

[campboy]

What other West hands short in hearts are you talking about? He specifically said he was worried that West had no trumps.

[nige1]

What other West hands short in hearts are you talking about? He specifically said he was worried that West had no trumps.

Perhaps 4135 or 5134? We aren't told; but declarer said he was worried about 3-suiters suitable for a ♥ T/O double:

... 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 ...

[MBV53]

I feel that declarer North had almost right information, his screenmate east explained 2H as take out, west bid 3c showed Spade & clubs now. south knew west hold both spades & minor[later confirmed to clubs]. Knowledge of south is immaterial now because north was declarer. At the end of bidding North also gets Identical information. Hence there was a minute mis-information which can be ignored. Table result stands & no award of PP because words might be different but meaning at the end is similar.Self-Goal:)

MBVSubrahmanyam.

Chief Director,India

[dburn]

As a hypothetical exercise: suppose that instead of explaining West's bid as "takeout", East had explained it as "two- or three-suited with at most a singleton and often a void in hearts".

 

Would North be entitled to redress for his line of play?

[mrdct]

Knowledge of south is immaterial now because north was declarer. After the coclusion of bidding North also gets Identical information. Hence there was a minute mis-information which can be ignored.

How? There isn't any reconfirmation of alerts and explanations at the end of the auction. Declarer is completely entitled to assume that he got the same explanations on his side of the screen as were given on the other side of the screen.

[jdonn]

What other West hands short in hearts are you talking about? He specifically said he was worried that West had no trumps.

Perhaps 4135 or 5134? We aren't told; but declarer said he was worried about 3-suiters suitable for a ♥ T/O double:

... 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 ...

He said he was playing for 5-0 hearts!

[suprgrover]

Could someone point me to the ACBL's definition of "serious error"? (It seems that under the EBU's definition the error here might not be serious, since one of the examples in the White Book of a non-serious error is "[p]laying for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.)

[nige1]

[hv=d=s&v=g&n=sa32haqjdca765432&w=sht987dkjt9876cqt&e=skhk6543daq5432c9&s=sqjt987654h2dckj8]399|300|Scoring: IMPS

1♠ (1N) _X (_P)

4♠ (_P) 7♠ AP

East explains West's NT overcall as 16-18. Unfortunately he forgets the East-West agreement that the notrump overcall is often Comic (a weak hand with a long suit). West leads ♥T and dummy's ♥Q loses to East's ♥K. At the end of the hand, declarer calls the director claiming that, with correct information, he would have played dummy's ♥A and made the contract. Eventually, after they stop laughing, East-West point out ...

• Declarer must be mentally deficient not to realize that it is impossible for West to have a strong notrump overcall because he would have at most singleton ♠K.
  
• Even if a finagling declarer pretends that he thought West could overcall a natural notrump with a singleton, declarer's play may still fail (when West psyched, misbid, miscounted his points, or shaded a 15 count).
  
• Declarer is barking mad to adopt such a nullo line. The ♥ finesse is a "practice" finesse. The contract always makes when declarer refuses the finesse and West has ♥K, even if ♣ break 3-0.
  

;) ;) :) [/hv]

[nige1]

He said he was playing for 5-0 hearts!

For the nth time...

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.

Sorry Peachy :o

[jdonn]

Then who cares about 4135 or 5134? I'm done with how little sense you are making.

[peachy]

He said he was playing for 5-0 hearts!

For the nth time...

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.

Sorry Peachy :(

It's ok nige1, free world to post it even the tenth or eleventh time:)

[dburn]

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.

It seems to me important to distinguish between two cases:

 

[1] Declarer's play was not caused by the MI

 

[2] Declarer's play was caused by the MI, but it should not have been - he should have played differently despite the MI.

 

In neither case should the score be adjusted, but in case [2] the only option available to an AC that does not want to adjust the score is to say that declarer's play was a "serious error" or "wild or gambling action".

 

In the actual case, if the AC decides that declarer's play was not a serious error, then it must adjust the score unless it believes that the play was not caused by the MI. That is: it must flatly disbelieve North when he says "if I hadn't been given the MI, I would have played differently".

 

Note that this is not the same thing at all as deciding that even though North was given MI, he should have played differently; to do so is to hold that case [2] applies.

 

Well, North was given MI, and he made a play that he says he would not have made had he not been given that MI. On the facts as presented, I believe him. It was a poor play, and I would consider it a serious error by a US triallist, but that is not the issue, for the AC did not consider the play a serious error. The issue, then, is: why did the AC not believe North?

 

To say that the AC consulted a lot of other people who would not have played as North did is not a valid reason at all for believing that the MI did not cause North to misplay, only for believing that the MI should not have caused North to misplay. Either what North did was a serious error, or the score should have been adjusted - the AC cannot have it both ways (and neither, despite their luminescence, can jdonn or bluejak).

[Pict]

At the risk of lowering the tone...

 

Isn't it a bit like UI. Nobody uses UI, bit sometimes a TD and or an AC decide they did.

 

Similarly, nobody makes serious errors, they are just misled. But sometimes the TD and or the AC decide they did make a serious error and don't get an adjustment.

 

Philosophy most definitely doesn't rule in Bridge in real time. And sometimes the underlying explanation is a bit of aggro at the table or something else.

[jdonn]

Thought: It's possible to make a play that is so terrible and/or so obscure that claiming you made the play due to misinformation (or for any other reason in particular that makes no sense) is not particularly credible.

 

I believe the two issues some are trying to separate in this thread, serious errors compared to unsuccessful actions subsequent/consequent to MI, are inherently intertwined in this case.

[dburn]

Thought: It's possible to make a play that is so terrible and/or so obscure that claiming you made the play due to misinformation (or for any other reason in particular that makes no sense) is not particularly credible.

 

I believe the two issues some are trying to separate in this thread, serious errors compared to unsuccessful actions subsequent/consequent to MI, are inherently intertwined in this case.

Oh, they become intertwined in a great number of cases, of which the current case is but one example.

 

My belief is, though, that they become intertwined far more often than they should. The correct procedure, or so it seems to me, is for a Director or a Committee to consider in order:

 

[1] Was there MI - that is: had an explanation been given or withheld that could reasonably cause a player to form a significantly false picture of an opponent's hand?

 

[1a] If not, then the score should not be adjusted.

 

[1b] If so, then

 

[2] Did the MI cause a flawed action to be adopted, an action that would not have been adopted without the MI?

 

[2a] If not, then the score should not be adjusted.

 

[2b] If so, then

 

[3] Was that flawed action a serious error, or a wild or gambling action?

 

[3a] If so, then the score should not be adjusted

 

[3b] If not, then the score should be adjusted.

[RMB1]

...

[3] Was that flawed action a serious error, or a wild or gambling action?

 

[3a] If so, then the score should not be adjusted

 

[3b] If not, then the score should be adjusted.

I disagree with the last step:

 

[3a] If so, the score should be adjusted for the offending side only.*

[3b] If not, the score should be adjusted for both sides.

 

* This is a simplification of the implementation of Law 12C1b when all the damage is due to the serious error or wild or gambling action.

[mink]

[3] Was that flawed action a serious error, or a wild or gambling action?

 

[3a] If so, then the score should not be adjusted

 

[3b] If not, then the score should be adjusted.

Maybe, when looking a little bit closer to Law12C1b, this should be changed to:

 

[3] Did the bidding or play of the non-offending side contain a serious error (unrelated to the

infraction), or a wild or gambling action?

 

[3a] If so, then the score shall be adjusted, but the non-offending side shall get no redress for the self-inflicted damage (resulting in a split score)

 

[3b] If not, then the score shall be adjusted in the same way for both sides.

 

Here is the text of law:

If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only.

 

As I already stated, I think that playing ♠8 in trick 3 was not an error*, and therefore never a serious error (something that seems to be undefined in the US anyway). But even it it was, was it unrelated to the infraction? If you believe that the declarer would have drawn trump if he got the correct information, then the "error" would not have happened. So it is related to the infraction.

 

 

* Still waiting for a 52-card layout that conforms with the bidding and the explanation North got, where ♠8 yields a result worse than drawing trumps in trick 3. To jdonn: I am requesting 52 cards because it is easier then to verify if the layout really conforms. The examples you provided did not conform, and you were the only one so far who bothered to accept my challenge.

 

Karl