USBF Chicago Appeal #2

[campboy]

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?

Because it is a self-serving statement for which (in my opinion) there is no supporting evidence -- North's line does not appear (again, in my opinion) to be any more desirable with the information he got than with the information he should have gotten.

 

If he had been screenmates with West, instead of East, and been given the explanation "Michaels" (which we assume in the absence of evidence to the contrary is MI), played his line and then said afterwards "I played the way I did because I was worried about losing trump control if trumps were 5-0; obviously if I was told 'takeout' that is much less likely to be the case so I would have played a trump at trick 3", then I would be minded to adjust the score. I don't think I would be being consistent if I were willing to adjust the score in both cases.

 

It may be, of course, that I am simply being consistently wrong and it is correct to adjust the score in the original case but not my modification :(

[jdonn]

Mr. Burn, I don't believe the issues are intertwined because of your 3, I believe it is because of the determination of 2. The expert can't just claim he made the play because of the misinformation, he has to give a reason that makes some sense or I just won't believe him.

[dburn]

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?

Because it is a self-serving statement for which (in my opinion) there is no supporting evidence -- North's line does not appear (again, in my opinion) to be any more desirable with the information he got than with the information he should have gotten.

It is not a question of what is desirable; it is a question of what is induced. The mindset of people judging the question afterwards is emphatically not the mindset of the player given MI at the table.

 

Of course declarer's play on the hand in question does not stand up to analysis, but that is not the issue. The issue is: would he have made the play had he not been misinformed?

 

In the actual case, it is certainly open to the Director or the AC to judge that North made the play he did not because he was misinformed, but because he was doubled. Thinking, wrongly, that he would not have been doubled by an East who had only ♥QJx, he went astray for a reason that had nothing to do with the MI as such, and then tried to claim redress afterwards on specious grounds.

 

That at any rate appears to me to be what jdonn is arguing, and what the AC eventually found, and I would gainsay none of them. I say only that it is important to consider to what extent the player at the table was misled by MI, and to allow him redress unless the line he followed was ridiculous whatever the true state of affairs.

 

I should also say that RMB1's remarks are entirely correct: if a side is guilty of a serious error even though misinformed, it does not obtain redress for the damage caused by the error (though the other side collects the score it would have obtained had the error not occurred).

[Finch]

I agree with campboy (and possibly others).

 

The real question to ask is why it is more likely that trumps are 5-0 if you are told West has a made a 'take-out' bid, than if you are told West has shown a 'Michaels' hand.

 

I can't see that either explanation makes trumps 5-0 more likely than the other. The reason declarer played for trumps 5-0 is that East doubled with not very many high cards, but that's just as likely to happen either way.

[dburn]

I agree with campboy (and possibly others).

 

The real question to ask is why it is more likely that trumps are 5-0 if you are told West has a made a 'take-out' bid, than if you are told West has shown a 'Michaels' hand.

Because, given that West doesn't have very many points, his "takeout bid" is likely to be a genuine three-suiter - that is, he will have at least twelve non-hearts. For a "Michaels" bid he needs only ten non-hearts. I suspect, without performing tedious calculations, that a man who can have at most one heart is more likely to have no hearts than a man who can have at most three hearts.

[campboy]

Counting the 10 diamonds which you have seen from players other than West may indeed be a tedious calculation, but if it is a "genuine 3-suiter [short in hearts]" with at most 3 diamonds then it is 5134 or 4135 exactly. Now I would think that a man who has at most three hearts is more likely to have no hearts than a man who has exactly one heart, but YMMV.

[axman]

I agree with campboy (and possibly others).

 

The real question to ask is why it is more likely that trumps are 5-0 if you are told West has a made a 'take-out' bid, than if you are told West has shown a 'Michaels' hand.

Because, given that West doesn't have very many points, his "takeout bid" is likely to be a genuine three-suiter - that is, he will have at least twelve non-hearts. For a "Michaels" bid he needs only ten non-hearts. I suspect, without performing tedious calculations, that a man who can have at most one heart is more likely to have no hearts than a man who can have at most three hearts.

WHen establishing a connection to damage, much closer to the mark is whether the difference from the correct explanation is sufficient to exclude/ignore other possibilities.

 

However, to my thinking, a necessary condition for establishing such a difference is the prior establishment of exactly what a correct explanation is. My understanding is that in this case there is an assertion of damage in the play arising from E's expalantion to N and that E's explanation has been established. And in my mind, a correct explanation is sufficient defense to an accusation of a misexplanation to N and it has not yet been established that such infraction existed if for no other reason that a corrct explanation has not yet been established.