Miscounting a hand

[Cascade]

This question comes from an actual hand although I would prefer not to discuss the actual hand.

 

It was a misinformation or mistaken bid case. At appeal the defendants produced a system note that appeared to clearly show that this was a case of mistaken bid rather than misinformation. The director had not ruled mistaken bid and so the basis of the appeal was whether or not there was a Serious Error unrelated to the infraction.

 

The situation was a bid was described as a splinter however the player did not have a splinter. In the play declarer played this player for a singleton and went off when the hand had length and an alternative line would have worked.

 

However declarer could and perhaps should have known at the time he committed to his line that a splinter was impossible as from the known or shown cards in the other hand a splinter would have meant one opponent had 14 or 15 cards.

 

1. Therefore is failing to carefully note the count a serious error or is it merely careless?

 

2. Is the fact that declarer is fixated on the singleton and therefore not carefully watching the fall of the cards a mitigating factor?

 

3. And maybe most important. It seemed reasonable to me to argue that the presumed infraction of describing the bid as a singleton being a partial inferential count was related to the infraction. So that a miscount was not a serious error unrelated to the infraction. Is this a reasonable view?

[campboy]

I don't understand the second paragraph. If there is evidence to show that there was no infraction, surely that should be the focus of the appeal.

 

Anyway, I think it is merely careless to fail to double-check something you already "know". I agree that the error is related to the infraction.

[mgoetze]

I don't understand the second paragraph. If there is evidence to show that there was no infraction, surely that should be the focus of the appeal.

 

I suspect "The director had not ruled mistaken bid" is Wayne's way of telling us "The director had ruled misinformation (and I disagree strongly)".

[gordontd]

It doesn't sound like a serious error to me, and it doesn't sound like it was unrelated to the infraction.

[aguahombre]

Once it is established that it was a misbid, there was no infraction. The actual agreement was disclosed; it seems nothing is left to be ruled upon. The AC apparently was given enough information to decide it was a misbid. Table result stands.

[Cascade]

I suspect "The director had not ruled mistaken bid" is Wayne's way of telling us "The director had ruled misinformation (and I disagree strongly)".

 

The director simply ruled that the link between the 'infraction' and the result was broken when declarer did not count the hand. At appeal the director admitted that he did not investigate whether there was misinformation or mistaken bid as he said the directing staff decided it was irrelevant after they decided the link was broken.

 

In fact declarer's opponent turned up at the appeal with system documentation clearly showing that there was no misinformation. As far as I am aware this information was not provided before the appeal.

 

So rather than 'I strongly disagree' I was interested in the questions that I posed in the theoretical case in which there was misinformation rather than the actual case where that issue was resolved.

[Cascade]

Once it is established that it was a misbid, there was no infraction. The actual agreement was disclosed; it seems nothing is left to be ruled upon. The AC apparently was given enough information to decide it was a misbid. Table result stands.

 

I am interested in a case where this is not established.

[aguahombre]

I am interested in a case where this is not established.

Apparently this case....before they brought their system notes to the AC it was not established in the eyes of the TD.

[blackshoe]

The director simply ruled that the link between the 'infraction' and the result was broken when declarer did not count the hand. At appeal the director admitted that he did not investigate whether there was misinformation or mistaken bid as he said the directing staff decided it was irrelevant after they decided the link was broken.

 

It seems to me this is director error. First, the failure to count the hand is careless, not a serious error unrelated to the infraction. Second, he still has to investigate MI vs. misbid, as that affects whether there should be an adjustment for the OS even when there isn't one for the NOS because there was a serious error. So it seems to me the AC ruling (or the director's ruling under 82C) should be that the initial ruling was director error, that the correct ruling is that there was no MI, there was a misbid, that therefore the result stands, and that since this allows the board to be scored normally, the further provisions of Law 82C do not apply.

[Finch]

If you were in England, that would generally not be considered a 'serious error' - see Appendix A in these minutes: http://www.ebu.co.uk/publications/Minutes%20and%20Reports/Laws%20and%20Ethics%20Committee/2009/24%20september.pdf (the paper is posted somewhere else as well I think) that specifically mentions that

 

"Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand."

 

would usually not be a serious error.

[phil_20686]

If you were in England, that would generally not be considered a 'serious error' - see Appendix A in these minutes: http://www.ebu.co.uk...20september.pdf (the paper is posted somewhere else as well I think) that specifically mentions that

 

"Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand."

 

would usually not be a serious error.

 

I dont think it can be a serious error. While I always count the hand in the sense of remembering all the cards the opponents have played, and if they showed out etc, and therefore might realise, I generally do not go to the trouble of fully reconstructing the hands if the bidding or play has made the line obvious. I have seen a similar hand where there was a ghestem misunderstanding, and and declarer basically played for a double squeeze which was 100% if lho had the suits he was suppose to have, but in the process of cashing the guy threw four cards in a row of a suit he wasnt supposed to hold, and declarer was meant to realise he had misexplained/mis bid and done something else. Now its true that he should have, but in a case of misexplanation, it hardly seems serious to fixate on a line that seemed like 100% based on the bidding. We have all done it. Often you basically go to sleep thinking if the q of clubs appears to this, else to this and stop watching apart from that card and stuff.

[mrdct]

1. Therefore is failing to carefully note the count a serious error or is it merely careless?

 

2. Is the fact that declarer is fixated on the singleton and therefore not carefully watching the fall of the cards a mitigating factor?

 

3. And maybe most important. It seemed reasonable to me to argue that the presumed infraction of describing the bid as a singleton being a partial inferential count was related to the infraction. So that a miscount was not a serious error unrelated to the infraction. Is this a reasonable view?

1. Generally I would say "merely careless", however, you need to take into account the standard of the player involved. Can anyone honestly say that they have never got towards the end of hand and weren't entirely sure that a pip in a particular suit was high or similar? I'd suggest that for all but elite world class players this happens with some regularity and would certainly be in the "careless" basket.

 

2. Yes. Why should I waste mental energy counting in a suit in which I already know the count from the auction? Perhaps sloppily, I am often guilty of tuning-out from the discards of who I perceive as the irrelevant player if I've formed an opinion that I only need to watch what one guy is doing or just lookout for a particular card.

 

3. Yes. If the (seriously erroneous) failure to count was in reliance on a misexplanation of a bid as a splinter then it is clearly related to the infraction. However, as it was subsequently established that the explanation was correct and it was a misbid this is moot.

[bluejak]

1. Therefore is failing to carefully note the count a serious error or is it merely careless?

It depends a lot on the quality of the player. If Mrs Guggenheim miscounts it is normal: if Bob Hamman does it is an SE.

 

2. Is the fact that declarer is fixated on the singleton and therefore not carefully watching the fall of the cards a mitigating factor?

Certainly.

 

3. And maybe most important. It seemed reasonable to me to argue that the presumed infraction of describing the bid as a singleton being a partial inferential count was related to the infraction. So that a miscount was not a serious error unrelated to the infraction. Is this a reasonable view?

I think it is just a judgement dependent on the hand. I do not think one can give an absolute answer.