Icelandic Pairs 2011

[bluejak]

The EW pair is obviously playing a very unusual system with a great deficiencies. That is not what you assume from a former National Champions.

Yes, it is. In my view nearly everyone has holes in their system. You have holes in your system with your favourite partner - and sometime you will find them out. Being told that you already had an agreement about them will not please you because it is not true.

[Vampyr]

Nigel's comments, particularly in post 144, are 100% spot-on.

[gordontd]

Yes, it is. In my view nearly everyone has holes in their system. You have holes in your system with your favourite partner - and sometime you will find them out. Being told that you already had an agreement about them will not please you because it is not true.

Being told they have nothing to disclose will not please their opponents, who will not have as much of a chance to work it out as those whose system it is.

[Math609]

Htothgar base his ruling on that very dubious base that 3H was an deviation from the system. How can 3H be an deviation if it was the only right bidding on this hand?

 

Bluejak says that everyone has a hole in their system, including me. True, very true. But what bothers me is that when a pair discover a hole in their system which proves to be very expensive for their opponents, you put forward a three sentence ruling: Deviation. Fix your system. The opponents pay the price!

 

So, we are dealing with lots of holes, not only in a bidding system. We have possibly holes in the law of bridge and it seems to me that we also have holes in a flawless reasoning.

[hrothgar]

Htothgar base his ruling on that very dubious base that 3H was an deviation from the system. How can 3H be an deviation if it was the only right bidding on this hand?

 

Bluejak says that everyone has a hole in their system, including me. True, very true. But what bothers me is that when a pair discover a hole in their system which proves to be very expensive for their opponents, you put forward a three sentence ruling: Deviation. Fix your system. The opponents pay the price!

 

So, we are dealing with lots of holes, not only in a bidding system. We have possibly holes in the law of bridge and it seems to me that we also have holes in a flawless reasoning.

 

Actually, I would base my ruling on facts that you provided.

You stated that E/W had no knowledge of this system hole prior to encountering this hand.

Therefore, the bid is not systemic. It must fit into some other category.

"Deviation" seems to be the best way to describe what happened.

 

FWIW, I think that you're making too much of East's statement that 3H was the only correct bid with this hand.

Do we have any idea what West might have done?

[nige1]

Nigel's comments, particularly in post 144, are 100% spot-on.

Wow! Thank you Vampyr! and it seems that you up-voted me too :)

FWIW, I think that you're making too much of East's statement that 3H was the only correct bid with this hand. Do we have any idea what West might have done?

Are West's hypothetical actions relevant? IMO, East's disclosure duties are clear if he believes that the partnership system allows no other option.

[hrothgar]

Are West's hypothetical actions relevant? IMO, East's disclosure duties are clear if he believes that the partnership system allows no other option.

 

I'm dosed up on pretty serious cold meds right now and my memory isn't what it should be.

 

I seem to recall an appeals case from a few years back that is

 

1. Relevent to this case.

2. Generated a fair amount of discussion (though not on these forums)

 

As I recall, it involved volunteering information which caused the declarer to take the wrong line...

Don't suppose that this rings any bells?

 

(Sorry to be so vague, but I am really not at my best right now)

[Vampyr]

Wow! Thank you Vampyr! and it seems that you up-voted me too :)

 

Well, I thought your post was clear and concise, yet thorough. I really don't understand how there can be any further discussion following it.

[hrothgar]

Well, I thought your post was clear and concise, yet thorough. I really don't understand how there can be any further discussion following it.

 

How cute... Nigel has a sockpuppet.

 

Going back to Nigel's original post:

 

Luckily, your other partnership understandings mandate one and only one possible call.

The understanding about that call is therefore implicit in your system, even if you've never discussed it and it's never come up before.

 

I don't recall anyone ever establishing that the decision to bid 3♥ was mandated by partnership understanding. From my perspective, we don't have anything remotely resembling an explanation why East chose to bid 3♥.

 

For example, the verbiage accompanying the 3♥ bid seems to have changed rather dramatically during the course of the conversation.

 

In the original post, Math609 made the following statement

 

When East after the hand said that he had no bid for this hand in his system, South called the TD and asked to change his defense as he was never informed that East could have this hand.

 

TD said that South got the correct explanation and the score stands.

 

This was appealed and the Appeals Committee made the following ruling:

 

EW play a system that is uncommon and that most would be unfamiliar with. Its in their responsibility to inform NS of all possibilities and make sure they understand the mechanism. EW never tried to explain what possibilities East had, so South had no chance to play East for the hand he had. East on the other hand picked 3♥ out of possible bids, knowing he would promise 3+ hearts at the time he bid, so this was not a case of misexplanation of the EW agreement of the bid, but more of too little explanation of possibilities East had.

 

Three days later, in post #38 Math609 has significantly changed his story. Here, for the first time, we see the claim that the 3♥ was the only possible bid with the given hand.

 

Was the Appeal Committee on the right track? Possibly yes, but this is a wery difficult case for many reasons: Highly unusal system, very uncommon to their opponents. And let´s not forget the statement from East: He had no other rebid on an fairly balanced hand and 3♥ was the only bid available for his hand.

 

I'm not claiming that Math609 is deliberately lying, however, there is all sorts of evidence that the human mind has a habit of rewriting memories...

[nige1]

Let's not go there, Math. If you wish to ignore Richard's posts, feel free to do so, but just leave it at that. Further posts along the lines of the above will be disapproved.

I'm not claiming that Math609 is deliberately lying, however, there is all sorts of evidence that the human mind has a habit of rewriting memories...

Once more, Hrothgar is safe in the knowledge that if Math609 objects to Hrothgar's slanders, Math609 will again incur the censure of the moderators,

[blackshoe]

If you guys won't play nice, I will lock this thread. Only warning.

[nige1]

If you guys won't play nice, I will lock this thread. Only warning.

Just reiterating your message :)

[Vampyr]

The problem with describing the 3♥ bid as a "deviation" is pretty obvious --the immediate question is: a deviation from what? What was the other bid the player deviated from? The answer is there wasn't one, because it has been established that there is no other bid that could have been used. I do not know whether bluejak and hrothgar are arguing for the sake of it, or if they really don't understand. A child could work this out. The mind boggles.

[Math609]

How cute... Nigel has a sockpuppet.

 

Going back to Nigel's original post:

 

 

 

I don't recall anyone ever establishing that the decision to bid 3♥ was mandated by partnership understanding. From my perspective, we don't have anything remotely resembling an explanation why East chose to bid 3♥.

 

For example, the verbiage accompanying the 3♥ bid seems to have changed rather dramatically during the course of the conversation.

 

In the original post, Math609 made the following statement

 

 

 

Three days later, in post #38 Math609 has significantly changed his story. Here, for the first time, we see the claim that the 3♥ was the only possible bid with the given hand.

 

 

 

I'm not claiming that Math609 is deliberately lying, however, there is all sorts of evidence that the human mind has a habit of rewriting memories...

 

Who is lying?? The first quote is certainly not from me!! My first statement about this deal was indeed #38 and I don't recall that I have ever changed my story. On the contrary I have stayed very firm in my writing.

 

Sadly, this is not the first time Hrothgar wrongly accuses me! Now I'm accused for lying, but in #91 Hrothgar very strongly implied that I was accusing EW for cheating!! But as I pointed out at that time I had on the contrary asserted that this pair is a very honest one.

 

So Hrothgar, please stop accusing me for something I haven't done. The discussion deserves a higher level than that!

[hrothgar]

Who is lying?? The first quote is certainly not from me!! My first statement about this deal was indeed #38 and I don't recall that I have ever changed my story. On the contrary I have stayed very firm in my writing.

 

Sadly, this is not the first time Hrothgar wrongly accuses me! Now I'm accused for lying, but in #91 Hrothgar very strongly implied that I was accusing EW for cheating!! But as I pointed out at that time I had on the contrary asserted that this pair is a very honest one.

 

So Hrothgar, please stop accusing me for something I haven't done. The discussion deserves a higher level than that!

 

Sorry, the initial quote was from ICEmachine...

(I mistakenly though that you were the one who instigated the thread)

 

This was very sloppy of me. It shouldn't have happened.

Once again, I apologize.

[blackshoe]

The problem with describing the 3♥ bid as a "deviation" is pretty obvious --the immediate question is: a deviation from what? What was the other bid the player deviated from? The answer is there wasn't one, because it has been established that there is no other bid that could have been used. I do not know whether bluejak and hrothgar are arguing for the sake of it, or if they really don't understand. A child could work this out. The mind boggles.

 

The answer to your question is "a deviation from the partnerships's announced understandings" (see Law 40C1). The announced understanding was that the hand that bid 3♥ would contain at least three hearts. It didn't, so that's a deviation.

[Vampyr]

The answer to your question is "a deviation from the partnerships's announced understandings" (see Law 40C1). The announced understanding was that the hand that bid 3♥ would contain at least three hearts. It didn't, so that's a deviation.

 

I don't buy this. The partnership has said that there was no system bid for this hand. So the player's choices were to wait for the appearance of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse or make a "deviation". There cannot be a deviation when there is no system bid.

 

Those who claim that the 3♥ bid was a deviation -- what would the player have bid had he decided not to deviate from his system?

 

Suppose I have decided to open 5+ card suits. I open the bidding and partner later explains that I have 5 cards in that suit. But it happens that I don't, because I didn't have any 5-card suits. Have I "deviated" from my agreements, or extended my system to handle hands without 5-card suits?

 

If finding a bid to plug a hole in a poorly-thought-out system is considered a "deviation", this is a disaster for disclosure. Unless the pair playing this system are prepared to, in their explanations, explain the entire system in minute detail so that the inference that there are hand-types which are unaccounted for is available to the opponents.

[hrothgar]

I don't buy this. The partnership has said that there was no system bid for this hand. So the player's choices were to wait for the appearance of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse or make a "deviation". There cannot be a deviation when there is no system bid.

 

Those who claim that the 3♥ bid was a deviation -- what would the player have bid had he decided not to deviate from his system?

 

The player had no systemic bid available.

Any bid that the player makes is, perforce, nonsystemic.

Whatever bid the player chooses to make is deviating from the agreed upon meaning for that bid.

 

In this example, the deviation is defined vis-à-vis the 3H bid and there is a systemic agreement for what 3H does and does not show.

[Vampyr]

The player had no systemic bid available.

Any bid that the player makes is, perforce, nonsystemic.

Whatever bid the player chooses to make is deviating from the agreed upon meaning for that bid.

 

This concept of a "forced deviation" is simply not acceptable. Even if it were, it is clear that the opponents are entitled to protection. I do hope no one actually disagrees about the latter point.

[hrothgar]

This concept of a "forced deviation" is simply not acceptable. Even if it were, it is clear that the opponents are entitled to protection. I do hope no one actually disagrees about the latter point.

 

It's fairly well established that that players are allowed to deviate from their agreements and that such deviations are not grounds for adjustment.

 

I understand that you don't like this, but stating that something is "simply not acceptable" doesn't make it true.

 

For better or worse, the Laws don't punish individuals for playing bad bridge; nor is is practical to assume that the systems that people play are perfect.

 

FWIW, I think that your opinions are a lot further removed from the mainstream than my own.

[mgoetze]

I really don't understand how there can be any further discussion following it.

 

Maybe I'm not the only one who has nige1's posts filtered out by default.

[blackshoe]

This concept of a "forced deviation" is simply not acceptable. Even if it were, it is clear that the opponents are entitled to protection. I do hope no one actually disagrees about the latter point.

 

Protection from what?

 

Your "not acceptable" is not acceptable.

[Vampyr]

The only other position is that the opponents must be given comprehensive details of the OS system so that they can work out the hand-types that the OS have "forgotten" about, and make their own inferences about how the OS might "deviate" in order to cover them. Else there can be nothing remotely resembling full disclosure.

 

So then no adjusted score will be necessary, but I would imagine that a PP would be appropriate for delaying the event by several hours.

[Vampyr]

Yes, it is. In my view nearly everyone has holes in their system. You have holes in your system with your favourite partner - and sometime you will find them out.

 

What on earth makes you think that?

[Trinidad]

The answer to your question is "a deviation from the partnerships's announced understandings" (see Law 40C1). The announced understanding was that the hand that bid 3♥ would contain at least three hearts. It didn't, so that's a deviation.

Unfortunately "deviation" is not defined in the laws. I looked it up in my copy of the American Heritage Dictionary and it explained: "The act of deviating". Under "deviate" it said: "To turn or move increasingly away from a specified course or prescribed mode of behavior".

 

The word deviation has two essential parts to it: There is a place where you deviate from and a place where you deviate to. (That last part isn't even mentioned in the dictionary definition, so it seems that the "from" part is more critical than the "to" part.)

 

This means that -in bridge use- a deviation is something like: "Taking an action other than the [systemically] prescribed one."

 

When you see it that way, it is clear that this was not a deviation. The "to" part is clear (3♥), but there is no "from" part: There was no systemic bid with the given hand (See the OP, 3rd paragraph). And if there is nothing to deviate from, it cannot be a deviation. If it isn't a deviation, don't act as if it was. Instead, it was a hole in the system.

 

EW claim that -prior to this hand- they weren't aware that they had this hole in their system. If that is true, then there was no agreement about this type of hand and then there is no misinformation and thus no case. End of story... in principle.

 

However, the TD/AC should look a little further. They should also determine the credibility of EW's claim that they weren't aware of this system hole. This requires judgement.

 

My own, personal judgement: Every pair will have holes in their system. However, I find it highly unlikely that an experienced pair will have a hole in their system

- in an uncontested auction

- at the point of opener's rebid

- with two common hand types facing each other

AND

- that they were not aware that this hole existed

 

In other words: I wouldn't believe EW. It is clear that the AC didn't believe EW either, otherwise they cannot possibly rule that this is a MI case.

 

Rik