Demonstrable Bridge Reason

[PhilKing]

I'm very comfortable with E/W being awarded -400, but I think people are being way too soft on South.

 

South was in a position where there were four key pieces of evidence available. They ignored three of those and utilised the only one that could lead to an adjustment when it proved to be wrong. By not even considering East's play at trick one, East's spade return and the lack of a Michael's, South had stopped playing bridge, which is a Sewog in my book.

 

There was nothing deliberate about this - South was presumably too tired to play the hand properly, but I ain't giving them +430.

[lamford]

I'm very comfortable with E/W being awarded -400, but I think people are being way too soft on South.

 

I don't really see this as a standard Sewog. South was in a position where there were four key pieces of evidence available. They ignored (or rather did not consider) three of those and utilised the only one that could lead to an adjustment when it proved to be wrong.

 

There was nothing deliberate about this - South was presumably too tired to play the hand properly, but I ain't giving them +430.

I think you mean -430 for E/W. You should award only -400 to NS if you think South made a serious error unrelated to the infraction. In the play, the general guidelines for a serious error are things like revokes, ruffing your partner's ace, discarding a winner for no reason, or failing to cash the setting trick. South did consider spades might be 6-3, but rejected that because West would have nothing to think about. The Laws say that he draws this inference at his peril, but it is generally accepted that Law 73 trumps this.

[PhilKing]

I think you mean -430 for E/W. You should award only -400 to NS if you think South made a serious error unrelated to the infraction. In the play, the general guidelines for a serious error are things like revokes, ruffing your partner's ace, discarding a winner for no reason, or failing to cash the setting trick. South did consider spades might be 6-3, but rejected that because West would have nothing to think about. The Laws say that he draws this inference at his peril, but it is generally accepted that Law 73 trumps this.

 

Could you please link me to the guidelines regarding "serious error unrelated to the infraction."

[gnasher]

I think that South contributed to his poor score, but not to the extent of committing a serious error. I don't really like this, but that's mainly dissatisfaction with the Law and the way it's interpreted.

 

It's reasonable to assume that some of the time South would have misread the position anyway. There's no reason to believe that at trick nine he would have asked the right questions about East's spade plays at tricks one and five, or reached the right conclusions about the bidding. Hence I think a weighted score is appropriate.

 

This might just be between +430 and +400, but is there any possibility that South would cross to dummy with ♦9 and finesse into West's jack?

[lamford]

Could you please link me to the guidelines regarding "serious error unrelated to the infraction."

White Book 12.8.3 (12.8 is when to deny redress):

 

It should be rare to consider an action a ‘serious error’. In general only the following

types of action would be covered:

· Failure to follow proper legal procedure (eg revoking, creating a major

penalty card, leading out of turn, not calling the TD after an irregularity).

· Blatantly ridiculous calls or plays, such as ducking the setting trick against

a slam, or opening a weak NT with a 20-count. Such errors should be

considered in relation to the class of the player concerned; beginners are

expected to make beginners’ errors and should not be penalised for doing

so.

<snip>

For clarity, the following would usually not be considered to be a ‘serious error’:

· Forgetting a partnership agreement or misunderstanding partner’s call.

· Any play that would be deemed ‘normal’, albeit careless or inferior, in

ruling a contested claim.

· Any play that has a reasonable chance of success, even if it is obviously

not the percentage line.

· Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such

as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand.

[gnasher]

Could you please link me to the guidelines regarding "serious error unrelated to the infraction."

 

http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/white-book/white-book.pdf

Page 33

[RMB1]

Could you please link me to the guidelines regarding "serious error unrelated to the infraction."

 

The law is Law 12C1b.

 

EBU guidance on what is considered a serious error is in White Book section 12.8.

 

Having decided that something is a serious error, the details of calculation to implement Law 12C1b are also in the White Book.

[ahydra]

Hmm, do you not think it should be classed a SE if Meckwell play an opponent for a 14-card hand or forget their (more common) agreements? I don't like the idea of only counting ridiculous mistakes. One should still be expected to play bridge even if the opponents have committed an infraction.

 

I'd say the South in this case though did not commit a serious error, though he certainly could have helped himself a bit by asking about carding agreements etc. At an advanced level, one should be thinking about discards in advance, particularly when a hesitation might mislead.

 

Overall I'd agree with gnasher that a weighted score is best for NS. I'd go with 60% of 3NT+1 and 40% of 3NT=, with EW getting -430.

 

ahydra

 

ps. FWIW I would bid 1♠, not Michaels, on ♠K109xx ♥Jxxxx ♦ - ♣Axx.

[PhilKing]

Thanks. Yuck! but thanks.

 

I particularly like the bit where playing someone for 14 cards is not a serious error.

[billw55]

We haven't been told the exact plays in the diamond suit, but it seems likely that at the time of West's pause there was still an entry to dummy. If so, West would have to keep ♥J in order to protect his partner's putative 10 from a finesse.

Unless east holds ♥T8 over the nine, which is still possible from west's point of view?

[Trinidad]

I see a "serious error" as an error that a typical player of this caliber makes once a year. Many players "stop playing bridge" about once a year.

 

On a typical bridge night, I will miscount a hand at least once. For me, playing someone for 14 cards is an error, but it is not a serious error. It is certainly not "stopping to play bridge": It is the core of playing bridge to try and count a hand correctly, which implies that you will fail some of the time.

 

I will not miscount my HCP. That would be a serious error and -at my level- that doesn't have much to do with playing bridge anymore.

 

Rik

[PhilKing]

ps. FWIW I would bid 1♠, not Michaels, on ♠K109xx ♥Jxxxx ♦ - ♣Axx.

 

Presumably, if declarer had not stopped playing bridge, they could have asked East about their threshold for using Michaels.

[lamford]

Presumably, if declarer had not stopped playing bridge, they could have asked East about their threshold for using Michaels.

And you think a first-time partnership would have discussed this?

[PhilKing]

And you think a first-time partnership would have discussed this?

 

Well you never find out if you don't ask - and the same goes for the spade carding.

 

My main point is, South was not really thinking at all. But that's OK, because as long as they do not play lefty for 15 or 16 cards, they can get an adjustment!

[lamford]

Well you never find out if you don't ask - and the same goes for the spade carding.

 

My main point is, South was not really thinking at all. But that's OK, because as long as they do not play lefty for 15 or 16 cards, they can get an adjustment!

South did not get any adjustment, because the TD ruled that West had a demonstrable bridge reason - considering whether to discard the JH. And if that is what West was thinking about, I believe the Chief TD of the EBU would rule the same way, although he can correct me if I am wrong. As would, it seems, an erstwhile chair of the L&E.

 

Their principle seems to be that if West says he was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress.

[PhilKing]

South did not get any adjustment, because the TD ruled that West had a demonstrable bridge reason - considering whether to discard the JH. And if that is what West was thinking about, I believe the Chief TD of the EBU would rule the same way, although he can correct me if I am wrong. As would, it seems, an erstwhile chair of the L&E.

 

Their principle seems to be that if West says he was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress.

 

Yes - I get that bit and definitely agree with you that West did not have a legitimate tank.

[gordontd]

Their principle seems to be that if West says he was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress.

Actually, my principle is that if West was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress. An important difference.

[gnasher]

Overall I'd agree with gnasher that a weighted score is best for NS. I'd go with 60% of 3NT+1 and 40% of 3NT=, with EW getting -430.

Is that legal? You can't use 12c1e as well as 12c1c.

 

Anyway, the English regulations explicitly tell us not to do it:

WB 12.1.5(d): It is not normal to have an adjusted score that is both split and weighted except in these three situations, ie when the non-offenders get part of their redress reduced, when both sides are treated as non-offending, and when both sides are treated as offending.

[lamford]

Actually, my principle is that if West was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress. An important difference.

How could you find out what West was thinking about, other than by asking him?

[gnasher]

How could you find out what West was thinking about, other than by asking him?

You ask him what he was thinking about, and then you use your judgement, your experience and your knowledge of the individual to evaluate his answer.

[WellSpyder]

Actually, my principle is that if West was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress. An important difference.

I thought it was normal to be a bit stricter than this. For example, if declarer leads up to KJx and a defender with Q42 thinks about whether to signal length or not. Or if declarer finesses against KQ in a suit and the last hand to play thinks about whether winning with K or Q might be more misleading (maybe he wants to make it trickier for declarer to place another missing card by counting points, or something). Both of those are genuine bridge decisions. But is it really OK to spend time thinking about these in a situation like this where you almost know it will mislead declarer?

[aguahombre]

I thought it was normal to be a bit stricter than this. For example, if declarer leads up to KJx and a defender with Q42 thinks about whether to signal length or not. Or if declarer finesses against KQ in a suit and the last hand to play thinks about whether winning with K or Q might be more misleading (maybe he wants to make it trickier for declarer to place another missing card by counting points, or something). Both of those are genuine bridge decisions. But is it really OK to spend time thinking about these in a situation like this where you almost know it will mislead declarer?

You raise a good point. Principles are not hard and fast rules, and you are addressing an exception.

[gordontd]

I thought it was normal to be a bit stricter than this. For example, if declarer leads up to KJx and a defender with Q42 thinks about whether to signal length or not. Or if declarer finesses against KQ in a suit and the last hand to play thinks about whether winning with K or Q might be more misleading (maybe he wants to make it trickier for declarer to place another missing card by counting points, or something). Both of those are genuine bridge decisions. But is it really OK to spend time thinking about these in a situation like this where you almost know it will mislead declarer?

We have a White Book regulation based on Law 73D that tells us these sorts of decisions are not demonstrable bridge reasons for this purpose.

 

73.1 Hesitating with two small cards

Players have argued that they were wondering whether to play high-low, but Law 73D1

makes clear that this is an infraction. The player has failed to be "particularly careful in

positions where variations [in tempo] may work to the benefit of their side" and to do so

is not usually considered "a demonstrable bridge reason" for the purposes of Law 73F.

 

But when a player is genuinely choosing which card to play because it may make a difference, other than in the sense of signalling or misleading (both of which the player should have taken care to prepare for earlier in the play), then that seems to me to be a demonstrable bridge reason. Whether or not that applied in the case that started this thread was for the director to decide.

[blackshoe]

But when a player is genuinely choosing which card to play because it may make a difference, other than in the sense of signalling or misleading (both of which the player should have taken care to prepare for earlier in the play), then that seems to me to be a demonstrable bridge reason. Whether or not that applied in the case that started this thread was for the director to decide.

"Should have taken care" presumes that the player is sufficiently skilled that he may do this - as opposed to the players who don't think about what card to play to a trick until it's their turn to play to the trick, because they have no idea what they're doing.

[ahydra]

I agree that for 99.5%+ of players, expecting one to plan your discards and deceptive plays in advance is a bit much, and if you tank on a card then chances are you have a good reason - at least in your mind - for thinking about which card to play. The TD probably needs to ask more questions than just "what were you thinking about" - skill level alone is a poor indicator of whether the decision should be "obvious" to that player or not. For example, I'm generally a bad cardplayer and often have to stop and count whether if I duck, I still have two stops in the suit or now just one, etc, where other players of my skill level would know that without even thinking.

 

I got the impression from this thread that the West player involved was of a high standard. Hence I would expect him to plan his plays in advance more than others and that was the basis for my (somewhat illegal) ruling. Perhaps the TD had reason to think otherwise, and if so, I'm in no position to question his judgement, though perhaps he might have asked West some follow-up questions, for example "why didn't you choose five discards for the diamonds back at trick 3", or "how did you think discarding the ♥J might have helped". (The purpose is to try to judge whether the "could have misled" outweighs the "demonstrable bridge reason", not to poke fun at West!)

 

ahydra