Year End Congress 1

[mjj29]

The EBU has it's end-of-year congress this week. I had the following ruling in the first session of the swiss pairs today

[hv=pc=n&s=sq4hqt72dj2cakj43&w=sakt932h4d874ct82&n=sj876hak653d6cq95&e=s5hj98dakqt953c76&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=3n(Gambling)p4c(Pass%20or%20correct)p4dpp(Long%20tank)p(Would%20have%20doubled%20a%20pass%20in%20tempo)]399|300|Table result: 4DE=[/hv]

 

The 3NT was gambling and after finding out that partner had diamonds, west took a long time to think before passing 4D. North passed out 4D then called me after the play to complain that west clearly didn't have anything to think about and the long pause had put him off protecting (with a takeout double), which would have lead to 4H, followed probably by 5D, doubled off one instead of 4D making. It's an open congress, about two thirds of the way up, but only the first swissed round, so not particularly representative. North has played internationally, east/west are a scratch partnership and definitely not as experienced, west claims he was thinking about whether to bid 5D.

 

Opinions? This ruling ended up going to appeal as well.

 

Matt

[dburn]

Result to stand. North to be awarded the Order of Ponting for services to pointless whingeing, First Class.

[bluejak]

Works for me. OoP!

[nige1]

Result to stand. North to be awarded the Order of Ponting for services to pointless whingeing, First Class.

Works for me. OoP!

• More interesting if the report included player-names (as do some ACBL appeal-reports).
• Publishing the appellants' names might deter frivolous appeals.
• At teams, an EW game is reasonable (swap East's black suits). At pairs, it is doubtful.
• The interesting point about this case is that West decided not to bid game, before he bid 4♣.
• With clubs, East would pass 4♣.
• West has similar holdings in both minors. So how did East's 4♦ change the picture for West?
• The director should at least ask West why he tanked over 4♦ but not 3N.
• Arguably, West's long tank deterred North from doubling and West would be aware that it might.
• The director might even issue a PP to West although deciding that North was not damaged.
• It is a matter of judgement but the issue is not as clear-cut as DBurn and Bluejak imply.

[ggwhiz]

• [*]West had decided not to bid game[/i], when he bid 4

♣.

 

If anything, this should make it easier to balance.

 

Unless of course if you are afraid they can make 5 diamonds and will bid it, exactly what the tank was about, you can pass as a safety play and whine when they only make 4 diamonds.

 

An expert and laughable two-way shot.

[l milne]

A PP to West? Pausing for thought is no longer allowed?

[l milne]

Also, I highly doubt that West was attempting to deceive anyone. This isn't exactly an auction where we are worried about opponents backing in after both have passed at the 4-level. Doesn't the warning about taking inferences from the manner of the opponents at one's own risk cover this?

[campboy]

In order to adjust the score under 73F then we need there to be no bridge reason for the tank and we need an opponent to have drawn a false inference. I don't think either of these are satisfied. West can see that a well-fitting hand from partner will make 5♦ cold, so that is a bridge reason (as Nigel points out, if he is thinking now he must have been asleep when he bid 4♣, but there is no law against that). Further, North's inference which caused him to pass was presumably that there was a danger of 5♦ making, which is a correct inference about West's hand.

 

If the ruling was result stands I don't see how an appeal had merit.

[mfa1010]

North to be awarded the Order of Ponting for services to pointless whingeing, First Class.

What does that mean? :)

 

If the ruling was result stands I don't see how an appeal had merit.

I agree.

[paulg]

Result to stand. North to be awarded the Order of Ponting for services to pointless whingeing, First Class.

 

What does that mean? :)

Ask Roland. He is the official Cricket->Danish translator.

[barmar]

I suspect West was on automatic pilot when he bid 4♣, and didn't actually realize at the time that he didn't care which minor East had.

 

However, Law 73F says that an adjustment should be made if West "could have known" than his hesitation would work to his benefit. Being asleep at the wheel is not an excuse for this.

 

So it's basically up to the TD to judge whether a player of West's calibre could have anticipated that his BIT would deter the opponents from coming in.

[Finch]

Given that Dburn and Bluejak agree with each other, it would be pretty astonishing if I disagreed with both of them, but I don't.

[campboy]

However, Law 73F says that an adjustment should be made if West "could have known" than his hesitation would work to his benefit.

No it doesn't. The phrase "who could have known" in 73F is immediately preceded by "who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and".

[RMB1]

No it doesn't. The phrase "who could have known" in 73F is immediately preceded by "who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and".

So what demonstrable bridge reason did a player who was prepared to play in 4♣ with 10xx have for considering not playing in 4♦ with 8xx?

[Cascade]

Result to stand. North to be awarded the Order of Ponting for services to pointless whingeing, First Class.

What does that mean? :)

 

Ricky Ponting is the captain of the Australian cricket team. Australia is currently in a test series with England. Australia is getting well beaten.

 

Two days ago Ricky Ponting was remonstrating with the umpires about a decision he did not agree with even after it had been referred to a third umpire who has the benefit of television replay technology.

 

He was fined 40% of his match fee for disent (or similar).

[mfa1010]

Ricky Ponting is the captain of the Australian cricket team. Australia is currently in a test series with England. Australia is getting well beaten.

 

Two days ago Ricky Ponting was remonstrating with the umpires about a decision he did not agree with even after it had been referred to a third umpire who has the benefit of television replay technology.

 

He was fined 40% of his match fee for disent (or similar).

Thanks. I'm not a cricket fan so it was too deep for me. :)

[jallerton]

So what demonstrable bridge reason did a player who was prepared to play in 4♣ with 10xx have for considering not playing in 4♦ with 8xx?

 

That is indeed the question to ask. Furthermore, West can be fairly sure that, unless the both spades are precisely 6313 around the table and the opposing diamonds are 2-1, the opponents are cold for 4♥.

 

As well as Law 73F, don't we also need to consider Law 73D1?

 

]D. Variations in Tempo or Manner

1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk.

 

Here West should be aware that a pause before the pass could work to the benefit of his side, so the Law tells him to be particularly careful. The word "otherwise" in the third sentence of 73D1 suggests that a tempo variation of the type described previously (in the second sentence) may itself be an infraction.

[barmar]

It seems like 73D1 and 73F prescribe different standards. 73F says the infraction is if the player "could have known" and "has no demonstrable bridge reason", while 73D1's standard is much lower, "may work to the benefit of their side". Which one should we apply when deciding whether to adjust?

 

I think we should follow 73F. 73D1 says when it's NOT an infraction, but doesn't explicitly say that all other cases ARE infractions. 73F further narrows down the cases where adjustment is appropriate. 73F also seems more fair; if 73D1 is the standard, a player could be punished for actions whose consequences he couldn't have anticipated. Neither of them requires the action to be intentionally misleading, but at least 73F requires that he could have known it would be.

[mjj29]

If the ruling was result stands I don't see how an appeal had merit.

I ruled that the result stood, north appealed and the AC agreed with me, but gave his deposit back because it was Christmas.

[mycroft]

The thing is, that if it's a typical Gambling 3NT, by the time it goes 3NT!-p-4C!, North knows 2 things:

- West is not interested in game opposite clubs, but might opposite diamonds, and

- East has diamonds.

 

So, he knows for a fact that it's going to go p-4D-p-something, to him. If it's pass, then he has no more knowledge than he did the first time. If it's raise, he can no longer bid 4H/double for the 4 level. So, North wants to play 5M against a good hand, but 4D opposite a bad one? No, he says, he would double 4D. So he doesn't want to play 4D, until he learns that West has to think about diamonds. What could West have? Well, shortness and DJxx, I guess.

 

I'm confused. I assume that North has a way of bidding over 4C that shows interest in playing. Why didn't he choose that, when he knows what the auction is going to be next round? Sure, West was lazy and should have thought over 3NT. Was that going to do anything different for North than this auction? And North was just as lazy, to my mind.

[campboy]

Here West should be aware that a pause before the pass could work to the benefit of his side, so the Law tells him to be particularly careful. The word "otherwise" in the third sentence of 73D1 suggests that a tempo variation of the type described previously (in the second sentence) may itself be an infraction.

Ok, I'll buy that. But 73D1, unlike 73F, does not give the TD the right to award an adjusted score. Furthermore, even if we consider that West has committed an infraction of 73D1 by failing to be particularly careful then that type of infraction is "not often penalized" according to the introduction. It would be appropriate to remind West of his responsibilities to take care, though.

[blackshoe]

Note also that 73F starts "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent..." so in order to apply 73F there must have been a violation of an earlier part of law 73.

[bluejak]

Ricky Ponting is the captain of the Australian cricket team. Australia is currently in a test series with England. Australia is getting well beaten.

 

Two days ago Ricky Ponting was remonstrating with the umpires about a decision he did not agree with even after it had been referred to a third umpire who has the benefit of television replay technology.

 

He was fined 40% of his match fee for disent (or similar).

Terrible shame <giggle>. And after that nice Shane Warne said before the start that Australia would win the series 5-0 [anyone know Shane's phone number?]. :rolleyes: :lol: :P :D :)

[gordontd]

Note also that 73F starts "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent..." so in order to apply 73F there must have been a violation of an earlier part of law 73.

Didn't you just accept that there had been a violation of 73D1?

[jallerton]

I ruled that the result stood, north appealed and the AC agreed with me, but gave his deposit back because it was Christmas.

 

What was the basis of your ruling?

 

What was the basis of appeal?

 

It's not possible to assess the merit of the appeal without knowing the answers to these questions. The only thing I can say at this stage is that "It's Christmas" is not an acceptable reason for returning the deposit.