Monaco vs Auken

[mrdct]

[hv=pc=n&s=s854hj53dt65caq43&w=st962haq762dc9852&n=sa3hkt4d987432cjt&e=skqj7h98dakqjck76&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1dp1hp2np3d(%21)p3nppp&p=s5s2sasjd8dkd6h2h9h5hqhkd4dad5c2h8hjh6h4dtc5d2djdqc3c8]399|300|9 tricks claimed[/hv]

 

Board 21 of Segment 2.

 

West: Helgemo; North: Auken; East: Helness; South: Welland

 

BBO Vugraph Operator Comments:

 

End of Trick 1:

"Auken asking questions about the auction - whether 2♦(assume intended to type 3♦) would often have 4 spades, I think and I think that Helness says that it wouldn't, he'd bid something else with both Majors, but not sure"

 

After the Trick 7 Claim:

"Helgemo & Helness discussing the auction"

"And now Welland has called the director"

"Sorry - Welland spoke VERY softly to the director, so I still don't know exactly what was said about 3♦ or what Helgemo & Helness are still discussing. I assume that Welland was told that they didn't have a spade fit"

 

As the auction on the next board was starting:

"I really don't know what they did or did not know - everything has been said in too low a voice to hear, or else in a language I don't know :)"

[billw55]

I don't understand, what nine tricks were claimed?

 

edit: wow, really blind this morning. lol

[spride]

Two hearts, three spades and 4 diamonds

TS provides the entry to dummy b/c declarer unblocked a high spade at trick one.

[iviehoff]

S asked if W would "often" have 4S, I think indicating the lnie of thinking. Suppose the correct answer is "not often, but could occasionally have 4 bad spades". Is that enough to change S's lead?

[Fluffy]

north had 2 options to switch to clubs and used neither, I don't understand what this has to do with whatever south leads.

[ggwhiz]

north had 2 options to switch to clubs and used neither, I don't understand what this has to do with whatever south leads.

 

The 10♠ cannot be an entry to the hearts given the explanation and play at trick 1 (?) but the 9♣ could be if you lead them.

[Fluffy]

♠5 lead is not consistent with 4 card lead unless they polay MUD and third against NT wich would be very rare, but this is perhaps an understandale mistake.

 

I don't see mch of a problem about the bidding, claiming something because both opponents decided to bypass spades when they could bid them and missed what in theory is the best cntrat with this shapes and combined strenght is not much of an argument. But I don't have the info from the explanations so there could be something wrong there

[cherdano]

Isn't this thread pretty pointless? We neither know EW's agreement, nor do we know what NS had been told. If NS had been told that 3N denies 4S, whereas in fact it doesn't, then I suppose NS have a case. And we don't know the spot cards played by NS.

[Gerardo]

Reportedly (by Peg Kaplan, who was kibitzing) West told South 3NT implied no 4♠ and no 3♥.

[MickyB]

http://www.acbl.org/nabc/2013/01/bulletins/db9.pdf page 14

[jallerton]

Interesting. Weighted scores are not permitted in the ABCL.

 

I don't consider it "likely" that South would have defended differently given the alternative explanation, but maybe it was "at all probable" that he would do so.

 

That would lead to the rare situation of a split score being assigned: 3NT= for the defence and 3NT-1 for declarer.

[mamos]

Interesting. Weighted scores are not permitted in the ABCL.

 

I don't consider it "likely" that South would have defended differently given the alternative explanation, but maybe it was "at all probable" that he would do so.

 

That would lead to the rare situation of a split score being assigned: 3NT= for the defence and 3NT-1 for declarer.

And that would have lead to a different result in the match

 

For those of us used to weighted scores this ruling seems truly bizarre. The AC seem to have rehearsed all the reasons for letting the score stand and then adjusted - as it happens I don't think it is even "at all probable" and I would have let the table result stand 100%

 

Is the Committee's advice that East "ought to have realized when he saw dummy that South had likely received inaccurate information. At that point, he could have and probably should have informed South of the actual agreement" good advice?

 

Mike

[c_corgi]

...

I don't consider it "likely" that South would have defended differently given the alternative explanation, but maybe it was "at all probable" that he would do so.

...

 

To beat the contract North (who has received no MI) must also defend differently. Presumably she must do so on the basis of South playing the 10 of diamonds rather than the 6. It seems unlikely to me that this would have the desired effect: even if it does pursuade North not to continue diamonds (far from clear IMO) that is not enough; South himself thought that it would induce a spade switch, which leads to the table result.

[blackshoe]

Is the Committee's advice that East "ought to have realized when he saw dummy that South had likely received inaccurate information. At that point, he could have and probably should have informed South of the actual agreement" good advice?

I'm no expert on rulings in the presence of screens, but my gut reaction is no, it's not. First, I don't believe that East should have realized anything of the sort - I think the committee made that up. Second, if the committee is going to assert that East "could have and probably should have" informed South of the actual agreement, they damn sure better back it up with a reference to the applicable law and/or regulation, my point being that without that reference, even if the committee thinks it's "obvious", the ruling is flawed, just as it would be if made by a director.

[Cascade]

I'm no expert on rulings in the presence of screens, but my gut reaction is no, it's not. First, I don't believe that East should have realized anything of the sort - I think the committee made that up. Second, if the committee is going to assert that East "could have and probably should have" informed South of the actual agreement, they damn sure better back it up with a reference to the applicable law and/or regulation, my point being that without that reference, even if the committee thinks it's "obvious", the ruling is flawed, just as it would be if made by a director.

 

My impression is that usually the regulations state that there should be no communication across the screen until the play is complete. I am not familiar with US screen regulations though.

[Cascade]

This is in the WBF regulations:

 

"At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the

response has been made.

"

[mrdct]

The ACBL (uniquely in the world as far as I'm aware) have included within their screen regulations:

 

After the final pass, players remove their bidding cards. At this point, the declaring side may exchange information about their own explanations.

I note, however, that this is a "may" requirement; so not doing it would not be an infraction under general principles.

[gnasher]

The ACBL (uniquely in the world as far as I'm aware) have included within their screen regulations:

The USBF rules say the same thing, so arguably it's not unique.

 

In the USBF, the regulations imply that all this takes place with the flap down, which must be a bit of a challenge:

The opening lead shall be made face-down. The declaring side may initiate a review of the alerts made by their side and may question their non-screen mate about the defender’s alerts. Opening leader's screen mate announces that the lead has been made, a defender raises the screen, and play proceeds.

[jillybean]

Was this really the end of this discussion or have I missed another thread? I am very surprised that there is not a lot more discussion sourrounding this.

 

I was sent the following today,

 

NABC Appeals Committees

The 2013 Vanderbilt was marred by a 4 AM Appeals Committee decision that reversed the outcome of a match in the round of 16. Team Monaco was eliminated while Team Auken advanced to the round of 8 and ultimately went on to win the event.

Expert bridge players with far more ability than I have told me this ruling was one of the worst decisions ever made. ACBL TDs with far more knowledge of the Laws than I have concurred.

These situations, whatever side you may be on, are very bad for the game. This is not the first time a highly controversial ruling has affected the outcome, indeed the winner, of a major NABC Championship. But I hope it will be the last time. Jonathan Steinberg

 

My initial, uneducated reaction was "this is bad for the game".

[barmar]

Expert bridge players with far more ability than I have told me this ruling was one of the worst decisions ever made. ACBL TDs with far more knowledge of the Laws than I have concurred.

Anyone want to compare it to the "oh, *****" ruling?

[GreenMan]

Anyone want to compare it to the "oh, *****" ruling?

 

No comparison; the "oh, *****" ruling was 10 times worse. Auken-Monaco, you can at least kind of see an argument for it if you turn your head and squint.

[sfi]

Anyone want to compare it to the "oh, *****" ruling?

 

Not at all. Having read through the appeal writeup, the one thing I am certain of is that I would not be qualified to be on the appeals committee for this case (and I'm saying this from the point of view of someone who does get asked to be on these committees at a national level). The law and how to apply it is straightforward. Assessing the appellants' agreements, carding, and decisions on the hand does not appear at all simple.

 

The one thing I would feel on solid ground about is that it has merit.

[gnasher]

I was sent the following today,

 

NABC Appeals Committees

The 2013 Vanderbilt was marred by a 4 AM Appeals Committee decision that reversed the outcome of a match in the round of 16. Team Monaco was eliminated while Team Auken advanced to the round of 8 and ultimately went on to win the event.

Expert bridge players with far more ability than I have told me this ruling was one of the worst decisions ever made. ACBL TDs with far more knowledge of the Laws than I have concurred.

These situations, whatever side you may be on, are very bad for the game. This is not the first time a highly controversial ruling has affected the outcome, indeed the winner, of a major NABC Championship. But I hope it will be the last time. Jonathan Steinberg

 

My initial, uneducated reaction was "this is bad for the game".

I think it's bad for the game that someone who should know better uses emotive phrases like "one of the worst decisions ever made" and presents appeals to authority (anonymous authority, in fact) instead of argument. But if we're going to place any weight on such comments, we should also consider these:

 

Henry Bethe: I could not disagree more than I do with Jonathan.

Barry Rigal: I have certainly heard a variety of opinions not just the one-sided perspective presented by JS.

 

Michael Rosenberg: I completely disagree with the unnamed experts who thought that "this ruling was one of the worst decisions ever made". I thought this was a difficult case. It would have been better if a stronger jury could have been assembled, but I think this Committee did a reasonable job in unenviable circumstances.

These are all from a BridgeWinners thread: http://bridgewinners...e-for-a-change/

[iviehoff]

Was this really the end of this discussion or have I missed another thread? I am very surprised that there is not a lot more discussion sourrounding this.

I think the issue had been clearly identified. It came down to whether you thought the effect of the misinformation was large enough to have had sufficient likelihood to have changed the play to have been worth an adjustment. Which you either did or you didn't, and it was clearly a bit of close call. There wasn't much more to it than that, which is why the discussion stopped.

 

If this had been a jurisdiction which allowed weighted scores, probably the adjustment would have been smaller and Monaco would have still won. But if there had not been MI, then either the defence would have got it right and won the match, or they would have got it wrong and lost. So you could argue a weighted adjustment removes any chance Auken would have had to win the match. At the end of the day, you can't devise an adjustment that lets you win the match 25% of the time, or whatever.

[wyman]

Also, although clearly this decision had an impact on the eventual winner of this event, the Auken squad beat several extremely talented sides to win this. I hate that the usual implication with statements like this is that they were somehow *given* the championship by this ruling, when in reality they played a hell of a tournament. I certainly feel for the Monaco side here, but there is a fair amount of randomness in bridge, and even if you disagree with the ruling, it seems pretty damn close, and I find it hard to chalk this up to anything more than just rub of the green.