Monaco vs Auken

[barmar]

Then why do they sit there? And do they wait for the tray to go back before entering the S & W calls?

You have to sit at the SE or NW corner to be able to see both sides of the screen, so you can enter the plays. And SE means that the layout on the computer is similar to the orientation of the table (West on the left).

 

And yes, I wait for the tray to be passed before entering the calls -- I believe Jan trains all her operators to do this.

[awm]

South made a couple defensive "mistakes" that could have been influenced by the UI:

 

(1) On the first round of diamonds, south played the ambiguous ♦6 rather than the clearer ♦T. On the information he was given, it seems like dummy will have no entry outside hearts (maybe a very slow club entry after south wins two club tricks). If declarer has ♥K the contract is surely cold with hearts dividing, and if not a passive defense is quite probably best. The ♦T would demand an active defense (i.e. club switch) when partner gets in again whereas the ♦6 does not.

 

(2) On the second round of hearts, south rose with the ♥J and declarer ducked. This is essentially a no-risk play for declarer (who wants to keep north off lead). If south really wanted partner to gain the lead and switch to clubs he would not do this (declarer could still succeed by playing the heart ace and another heart but that is much less clear). Rising seems to offer a chance at -2 (maintaining an entry to partner's diamonds) at no cost (again assuming declarer has three spades and thus no dummy entry).

[lamford]

(declarer could still succeed by playing the heart ace and another heart but that is much less clear).

How could it cost? The only danger situation is when North can win and the defence can cash two clubs.

[lamford]

You mean declarer told North that he didn't expect that dummy? That hardly seems damaging. Regarding the signalling issue, that can of worms has been opened elsewhere and with sufficient vitriol to not want to open it here.

There is another issue. South was entitled to the information that either opponent or both could have four spades. I polled several strong players with this information, and one led a heart, three a diamond and one a club. They were all reluctant to lead from AQxx into the 18-19 hand. On a diamond lead, declarer will play a top spade at some point, and South will give reverse count. The defence is easy from then on.

 

If a diamond lead is reasonable, then 3NT-1 is the most favourable result that was probable. I think the AC was right to criticise East for failing to inform South that he had been misinformed. I think a PP was appropriate for a player of this level of experience, but the AC decided that not many people would be aware [of 20F(b(ii)]. On reflection, in view of the different screen rules, I agree.

 

On that note it is unclear to me how, with screens, declarer can know to inform an opponent that he has been misinformed. Perhaps those familiar with screen regulations can clarify this. On this occasion, East should have asked his partner how he explained 3D and 3NT.

Edited April 4, 2013 by lamford

[paulg]

On that note it is unclear to me how, with screens, declarer can know to inform an opponent that he has been misinformed. Perhaps those familiar with screen regulations can clarify this. On this occasion, East should have asked his partner how he explained 3D and 3NT.

In the WBF and EBL (and, I expect, most jurisdictions as they copy one or other of these) the screen regulations explicitly forbid any information passing through the screen during the hand, so East cannot legally speak to his partner or converse with South. Since these are the regulations that Helness plays under most often, it is unsurprising that he did not say anything.

 

However the ACBL explicitly allows the declaring side to converse to prevent precisely this issue. So Helness, if aware of this regulation, could have checked with Helgemo if he wished.

[aguahombre]

In the WBF and EBL (and, I expect, most jurisdictions as they copy one or other of these) the screen regulations explicitly forbid any information passing through the screen during the hand, so East cannot legally speak to his partner or converse with South. Since these are the regulations that Helness plays under most often, it is unsurprising that he did not say anything.

 

However the ACBL explicitly allows the declaring side to converse to prevent precisely this issue. So Helness, if aware of this regulation, could have checked with Helgemo if he wished.

Interesting. An ACBL regulation at variance with WBF which seems to be an improvement :rolleyes: H & H play under WBF and EBL most often, for sure; but, they do also play under ACBL. I would be very surprised if they were unaware of a screen rule difference that significant. More likely, it just didn't occur to him there might have been MI given to Welland.

 

I don't see anything (Did I miss it?) to indicate Helness should have suspected a disclosure problem BEFORE the opening lead.

[lamford]

I don't see anything (Did I miss it?) to indicate Helness should have suspected a disclosure problem BEFORE the opening lead.

I agree. It was only the sight of dummy, and the later questions by North, which should have caused him to suspect. The bulletin states:

"East ought to have realized when he saw the dummy that South had likely received inaccurate information. At that point, he could have and probably should have informed South of the actual East–West agreement."

 

He cannot comply exactly with 20F5(b), but I agree with the AC that he should have told South as soon as he became aware of likely MI. The adjustment for the opening lead is a separate issue.

[pran]

In the WBF and EBL (and, I expect, most jurisdictions as they copy one or other of these) the screen regulations explicitly forbid any information passing through the screen during the hand, so East cannot legally speak to his partner or converse with South. Since these are the regulations that Helness plays under most often, it is unsurprising that he did not say anything.

 

However the ACBL explicitly allows the declaring side to converse to prevent precisely this issue. So Helness, if aware of this regulation, could have checked with Helgemo if he wished.

I felt a bit confused when reading this, and looked up the particular part of the Norwegian regulation. It says (my translation and my enhancement):

 

After all four players have had opportunity to examine the auction (equivalent to the right to require all previous calls to be restated), the players remove their bid cards. Declaring side may at this time exchange information on their own side's explanations.

 

Our regulation is clear on the point that this is supposed to take place before the screen is opened.

 

I have every reason to believe that this regulation conforms to the corresponding WBF and EBU regulations and I am quite confident that both Helgemo and Helness are familiar with it.

[paulg]

The WBF regulations (PDF) include:

 

1.3 Alerts and Explanations

c) 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.

 

This is quite different from the Norwegian regulation, although the latter is more sensible.

[jallerton]

There is another issue. South was entitled to the information that either opponent or both could have four spades.

 

No, the opening leader was entitled to a correect explanation of the opponents' methods. The correct explanation was determined by the TD/AC to be the one given by declarer to his screenmate, namely that dummy had shown 5 hearts and had denied 4 spades; whilst declarer had denied 3 hearts but had not provided any information about his spade length. With this information, the opening leader "knows" when he has to choose his opening lead that his partner has at least 3 spades, often 4 and occasionally 5 (if declarer is 2=2=6=3 or 2=2=5=4 say).

 

Hence it is not surprising to me that all the players polled by the TD led a spade given the correct information.

 

I polled several strong players with this information, and one led a heart, three a diamond and one a club. They were all reluctant to lead from AQxx into the 18-19 hand. On a diamond lead, declarer will play a top spade at some point, and South will give reverse count. The defence is easy from then on.

 

Three out of five led a diamond? At which game are these strong players?

[jallerton]

South made a couple defensive "mistakes" that could have been influenced by the UI:

 

(1) On the first round of diamonds, south played the ambiguous ♦6 rather than the clearer ♦T. On the information he was given, it seems like dummy will have no entry outside hearts (maybe a very slow club entry after south wins two club tricks). If declarer has ♥K the contract is surely cold with hearts dividing, and if not a passive defense is quite probably best. The ♦T would demand an active defense (i.e. club switch) when partner gets in again whereas the ♦6 does not.

 

(2) On the second round of hearts, south rose with the ♥J and declarer ducked. This is essentially a no-risk play for declarer (who wants to keep north off lead). If south really wanted partner to gain the lead and switch to clubs he would not do this (declarer could still succeed by playing the heart ace and another heart but that is much less clear). Rising seems to offer a chance at -2 (maintaining an entry to partner's diamonds) at no cost (again assuming declarer has three spades and thus no dummy entry).

 

(1) Maybe, but it seems unlikely to me that this was influenced by the MI. More likely, I suspect, he had a split-second decision to make as to whether he could afford to waste ♦10 (if partner has switched from J87x(xx), this will freeze the suit and possibly expose her to an endplay) or to just make the clearer signal anyway. I think he would still have had the same dilemma, had he received the correct explanation of the opposing methods.

 

(2) This line of defence was not suggested by West. He suggested that he would be more likely to play ♥J on the first round with the correct explanation, and that he did not do so at the table in case this was interpreted as suit preference for spades.

[lamford]

No, the opening leader was entitled to a correect explanation of the opponents' methods. The correct explanation was determined by the TD/AC to be the one given by declarer to his screenmate, namely that dummy had shown 5 hearts and had denied 4 spades

Firstly, there were no system notes available, so I cannot see how the TD could determine which information was correct. The statement by East that his explanation was correct has some self-serving element. I would be asking why East does not bid 3S over 3D with four spades and two hearts. South is entitled to use the information provided by West that he thinks East does not have four spades, and therefore could have four spades himself.

 

I told my pollees that either opponent or both could still have four spades. South is entitled to the actual methods and the explanation by West. Both are authorised. What would you lead given that information?

 

If East only has four diamonds, and opens 1C with 4-4 in the minors, he has to have four spades. His possible shapes are 4-2-4-3 and 3-2-5-3. I think the former is 58% and the latter 42% (assuming wiki is right), so he is odds-on to have four spades if it is systemically possible. If East can be 4-2-5-2, he is even more likely to have four spades. Note that he is odds-on to have only four diamonds as well, so is the diamond lead wrong? Leading a suit which can be 1-4 for the opponents instead of one which could be 4-4!

 

I did a 24 hand simulation, assuming East is 18-19 with 3-4 spades and 4-5 diamonds, and West is 6-7 points with 5 hearts. I know he could be better, but then we are probably not beating it. Even then there were only 5 hands out of 24 we could beat it, but two others where a spade lead saved declarer a guess. In two a club was fatal, in one it was necessary to take out dummy's club entry for the hearts! If declarer has five heart tricks, you probably need to cash quickly. A diamond lead let through one contract, beat one, and in three it did not matter as declarer had only eight tricks, but on two of these a club was fatal. So inconclusive, and I do not have time to do more tests. My view now is that a club is wrong, and it is close between a diamond and a spade.

 

And I am suprised that a pair of this calibre and experience should be unclear what this sequence shows. It must have occurred 50 times.

[PhilKing]

FWIW I don't think South would ever lead anything other than a spade. It was just another horse for the appeal, albeit one that should never have been given starting orders.

 

For me it just boiled down to the heart jack issue.

[barmar]

There is another issue. South was entitled to the information that either opponent or both could have four spades.

I think it was considered to be an obvious implication. If West's checkback denies 4 spades, then East could obviously have 4 spades and not show them.

[jallerton]

Firstly, there were no system notes available, so I cannot see how the TD could determine which information was correct. The statement by East that his explanation was correct has some self-serving element.

 

Why does it have any self-serving element? At the table North could easily (and did) infer from the explanation she received and the sight of dummy that there had been a misunderstanding. If the TD had determined the South/West explanation to be the correct one, then it would have been obvious to rule no damage from the MI (South receiving a correct explanation and North knowing exactly what had happened before she had to play to trick 1).

 

In practice, the TD determined that the North/East explanation was the correct one. This implied that South had received a wrong explanation and could potentislly have been damaged by this MI.

 

I would be asking why East does not bid 3S over 3D with four spades and two hearts. South is entitled to use the information provided by West that he thinks East does not have four spades, and therefore could have four spades himself.

 

I told my pollees that either opponent or both could still have four spades. South is entitled to the actual methods and the explanation by West. Both are authorised. What would you lead given that information?

 

No. Playing with screens, South receives all his explanations from West. Normally West explains accurately and South uses this information. If it later transpires that West has given a wrong explanation then we adjust to what would/might have happened had a correct explanation been given. If West had given a correct explanation, then South would never have seen West's erroneous thoughts.

 

If East only has four diamonds, and opens 1C with 4-4 in the minors, he has to have four spades. His possible shapes are 4-2-4-3 and 3-2-5-3. I think the former is 58% and the latter 42% (assuming wiki is right), so he is odds-on to have four spades if it is systemically possible. If East can be 4-2-5-2, he is even more likely to have four spades. Note that he is odds-on to have only four diamonds as well, so is the diamond lead wrong? Leading a suit which can be 1-4 for the opponents instead of one which could be 4-4!

 

Your simulation makes the wrong assumptions. They can't have a 4-4 spade fit (in theory, at least!). If East can rebid 2NT with some 4=2=5=2 hands then surely he can also be 2=2=5=4, except that he'd be more inclined to supress the side suit when it is a minor. (22)6(3) is also quite a common shape for a 2NT rebid.

[JanM]

You have to sit at the SE or NW corner to be able to see both sides of the screen, so you can enter the plays. And SE means that the layout on the computer is similar to the orientation of the table (West on the left).

 

And yes, I wait for the tray to be passed before entering the calls -- I believe Jan trains all her operators to do this.

 

Actually, I tell operators to enter the calls as they are made IF THEY ARE USING THE KEYBOARD FOR INPUT and the keyboard is quiet, otherwise to wait for the tray to come through the screen. In this particular match, we were in a fairly noisy room, so I think that even with the mouse it wouldn't have caused a problem to enter bids as they were made (but at this particular table, I was the operator and I use the keyboard, and do enough random typing anyway that the players don't know whether I'm answering a question from a spectator or entering a bid. We've considered trying to use a Vugraph record to establish the time taken by each player (we don't now do this), and if we ever start doing that it will be necessary for the operators to enter bids as they are made. Now, the advantage to doing so is that the audience knows who's thinking.

 

As for where the operator sits - it's really hard to see from anyplace other than the NW or SE corner of the table - the screen gets in the way. And being at the SE corner makes it much easier to see both sides of the screen - it also has the (minor) advantage that it doesn't take a "prime" seat away for kibitzers, since when you're a kibitzer and only allowed to look at one hand, it is much easier to see what's going on if you sit at an "open" corner (NE or SW) of the table.

 

As someone said, in this match I was often guessing what the players were saying to each other - they were mostly speaking not writing and it was early in the event so I hadn't managed to make sure they had pens to write with when they did write. I don't now remember how I guessed what Helness had said to Auken - they're on the far side from me and I'm sure it was not written.

[lamford]

Normally West explains accurately and South uses this information. If it later transpires that West has given a wrong explanation then we adjust to what would/might have happened had a correct explanation been given. If West had given a correct explanation, then South would never have seen West's erroneous thoughts.

In selecting the opening lead, South is entitled to both the system notes, and West's erroneous thoughts. Both are AI. You say the opponents cannot have a spade fit in theory. Well, if West thinks East does not have four spades, and East thinks West does not have 4 spades, they can. I presume you think that one rules as though South gets the correct information, and has to block out the erroneous thoughts. I think one rules as thought South gets both the correct information and the erroneous thoughts. Is there any case law on this? Both are clearly AI, so it seems logical to rule that South uses both.

 

Regarding the simulation, West stated East had three spades and two hearts, not two spades. So South is entitled to believe East has 3-4 spades, when choosing a lead. But even if one allows other shapes, we do not get much of a different result. This time it was beatable only 4 times in 24 hands. A diamond was fatal once, a club let it through three times and a spade failed twice. A spade was necessary once, and failed twice when it took a second finesse for declarer who was short of entries to dummy. It saved a guess once (where the contract needed the spade finesse, one of the other 20). A passive lead beat it every time one could, expect the once a spade lead was needed when declarer had 10 red suit tricks. A heart lead failed twice when a diamond or spade worked.

[jallerton]

I presume you think that one rules as though South gets the correct information, and has to block out the erroneous thoughts. I think one rules as thought South gets both the correct information and the erroneous thoughts. Is there any case law on this? Both are clearly AI, so it seems logical to rule that South uses both.

 

There's no need for case law when the answer is contained in the Laws themselves. Laws 12B1 and Law 12C1(e) both refer to "had the irregularity not occurred". Here, the irregularity was the provision of the incorrect explanation. So if the irregularity had not occurred, the opening leader would not have known about his screenmate's erroneous thoughts; the correct explanation is all he would have known.

 

Still not convinced? Well, there is a WBFLC minute on the matter:

 

Corrections under Law 21B1 and adjustments under Law 21B3 are only given when the TD judges that a call might well have been different if in possession of the correct information. Such corrections and adjustments are inappropriate if they would only happen if a player had both correct and incorrect information.

[lamford]

Still not convinced? Well, there is a WBFLC minute on the matter:

WBFLC minutes 2009-09-08#12 said:

 

Corrections under Law 21B1 and adjustments under Law 21B3 are only given when the TD judges that a call might well have been different if in possession of the correct information. Such corrections and adjustments are inappropriate if they would only happen if a player had both correct and incorrect information.

These specifically refer to a change of call, and not to a different opening lead. I don't think South wanted to change any of his passes! I am sure that if the WBFLC intended the player to have to ignore the incorrect information when leading they would have said so. Instead they carefully used the word "call" when they could have used "call or play". Without screens, East would have corrected the wrong information before the opening lead, and South would have been able to use both pieces of information which would have been AI. He would have known that it was possible for either or both opponents to have four spades, and he should be entitled to know that, so I cannot agree with your interpretation.

 

Under 20F5(a) East is obliged to correct the wrong information before the opening lead. We should rule as though he did so whether he knew there was MI or not. In that case South would have both the correct and incorrect information. Nothing in the ACBL screen regulations exempts declarer from correcting a misexplanation from partner.

 

Indeed:

b. The declaring side may, on their own initiative, confirm explanations given on the other side of the screen and is encouraged to do so for complex and potentially ambiguous auctions.

 

So, the infraction is the breach of 20F5(a), and had that not occurred declarer would have been more likely to lead a diamond (or a heart). All that is necessary for an adjustment is that it would be at all probable that he would lead a diamond or heart, or defend differently if he led a spade.

[jallerton]

These specifically refer to a change of call, and not to a different opening lead. I don't think South wanted to change any of his passes! I am sure that if the WBFLC intended the player to have to ignore the incorrect information when leading they would have said so. Instead they carefully used the word "call" when they could have used "call or play".

 

Do you really believe your own argument? Could it possibly be the case that the WBFLC was commenting on a particular case where a call had potentially affected by MI, and that they consider it too obvious to mention that the same arguments applies to plays?

 

Without screens, East would have corrected the wrong information before the opening lead, and South would have been able to use both pieces of information which would have been AI. He would have known that it was possible for either or both opponents to have four spades, and he should be entitled to know that, so I cannot agree with your interpretation.

 

Without screens, that is true, because the bidder would hear the incorrect explanation and would be obliged to correct it at the end of the auction under Law 20F5. If the bidder failed to correct the explanation, then we could potentially adjust for a breach of that Law.

 

However, with screens, explanation must be provided only by the player's screenmate. Law 20F5 does not apply; it is "trumped" by the screen regulations permitted by Law 80B; and in any case Law 20F5 would make no sense when a player does not know what explanation was given on the other side of the screen or indeed whether any such explanation was sought.

 

Indeed:

b. The declaring side may, on their own initiative, confirm explanations given on the other side of the screen and is encouraged to do so for complex and potentially ambiguous auctions.

 

As you know perfectly well, this does not say "must" or "should". The word "may" is interpreted in the Laws as "failure to do so is not wrong". For a partnership of this experience, this auction would not have been regarded as complex or potentially ambiguous, so the regulations do not even encourage a confirmation of explanations.

[lamford]

However, with screens, explanation must be provided only by the player's screenmate. Law 20F5 does not apply; it is "trumped" by the screen regulations permitted by Law 80B; and in any case Law 20F5 would make no sense when a player does not know what explanation was given on the other side of the screen or indeed whether any such explanation was sought.

It makes no sense either that a defender's rights are reduced because there are screens in place. I agree that it is impractical for a declarer to correct a misexplanation before the opening lead (although I presume that after the verification allowed by the ACBL he will, and that will be an example of a correction not being issued by a screenmate). However, there is no problem in ruling as if he had. And the ACBL screen regulations allow him to avoid committing the breach. I did not suggest he was obliged to confirm explanations, just that he was allowed to do so. For what purpose other than complying with Law 20F5 and other associated MI clauses? And do you think it is fair that the opening leader will know that either opponent can have four spades without screens, but is deemed not to know that with screens?

 

The screen regulations indicate which Laws are treated differently. They do not indicate that 20F5 is. In fact they specifically say: "The International Code of Duplicate laws is in effect except as specified below." So, whether it makes sense or not, 20F5 is in force, and if declarer elects not to find out the explanation on the other side of the screen, he can breach the law.

 

And, for what it is worth, "call" and "play" are different, and have different sets of rules. When both are covered, the Laws generally say so. I don't think even you believe your argument that they meant "call and play" but it was too obvious to add the extra two words. A mechanical error can be corrected in the bidding but not in the play, for example, so why on earth should the same rule necessarily apply here?

[bluejak]

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".

My initial reaction is that this communication from my friend Johnathan is bad for the game. As a member of the BoD he really should know better. It is a judgement decision, not completely clear. Of course there have been far worse decisions. All he really means is he thinks it was the wrong decision.

 

If it had been the worst ever decision there would have been far fewer posts because it would have been obvious with little to say.

 

I wonder if the committee actually started earlier, but handled other cases first. Or is the rule "one case, one committee"?

Last year I had a pretty horrible experience when I appealed an NABC ruling. It was not terribly important, but we thought it worth taking to appeal. They spoke to us, and then told us it would be heard "immediately". The TD then went away.

 

70 minutes later we gave up. I then made the mistake of telling an ACBL TD we wished to withdraw our appeal. He was extremely rude, had a complete go at me, and threatened me with me being dragged in front of the Chief TD. He is quite a senior TD, but the only one I have run into in whom I have no trust whatever. He reduced me and my partner to a terrible state and enjoyed himself immensely. Even my partner's husband, who does not play bridge, had run into this TD in the lift and he had been rude to my partner's husband.

 

What is the point of this story? When I first got involved in ACBL appeals they were organised by Linda Trent. After she stopped doing it, no-one seems to have the job of Secretary. Ok, I exaggerate, sometimes there is someone there, but on other occasions there is not. During our 70 minute wait there was no-one to speak to to find out how long it would be. Basically, there is often no organisation amongst the appeals.

 

While it is no more than a contributing factor, the memories of this appeal is some part of the reason I did not visit the ACBL last year and will not this year. They need an Appeals Secretary. I am not surprised that the appeal referred to here was held at 4.00: they probably had not made suitable arrangements and were running round trying to find people.

 

An ACBL regulation at variance with WBF which seems to be an improvement :rolleyes:

 

This is quite different from the Norwegian regulation, although the latter is more sensible.

 

There is a principle outside North America and Norway that there is no communication across the screen during a hand. This seems eminently sensible, even if it has one disadvantage. So it is far from clear that the Norwegian/ACBL approach is better.

 

There are quite a few posts on differing subjects over the years which look at one item and assume it is wrong, without looking at the overall picture. This is common when discussing individual alerting, where individual items often look poor, but they are necessary to make an overall working structure. Similarly here, the idea of no communication across a screen is good: that there is one item where it seems less than best: that does not make the principle wrong.

 

I notice with interest the fact that both the Norwegians and the North Americans expect players to talk to the partners before the screen is raised. Do they provide phones?

[aguahombre]

So, you are saying that the one exception is indeed an improvement to eliminate one particular problem ---but there shouldn't be any exceptions because the rest of the screen regulations are fine.

[bluejak]

So, you are saying that the one exception is indeed an improvement to eliminate one particular problem ---but there shouldn't be any exceptions because the rest of the screen regulations are fine.

Pretty much. But not as strongly: the one exception has an upside and a downside. The downside is that exceptions weaken the whole structure.

[mycroft]

"My initial reaction is that this communication from my friend Jo[]nathan is bad for the game. As a [former] member of the BoD he really should know better..."

I'm trying to stay out of this as best I can, especially given my history and current with several people involved (but mostly because my bridge skills and amount of concentration I can take away from the rest of my life are insufficient to understand the bridge of it). But Jonathan retired from the BoD 5 years ago now, and that does change things. It may not and maybe should not invalidate your point, of course.