2HX

[nige1]

Also, I wouldn't trust South to make 10 tricks in a cold grand.

:)

[KingCovert]

:)

 

:P :P :P

 

A bit harsh, I'll admit.... But... If a player can't develop a plan for declaration that takes into account a 1NT opener, or worse, doesn't consider that during the auction. They can't possibly be a strong declarer. (Which is not a rules violation I know. <_< )

 

Can't see how it's not a serious error of the highest order to literally play a 1NT opener for half the value of an opening hand though.

[sanst]

Can't see how it's not a serious error of the highest order to literally play a 1NT opener for half the value of an opening hand though.

Weejonie wrote that the EBU doesn’t consider it an extremely serious error if:

“• Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand. It is common in misinformation cases for a player to ‘tunnel vision’: if they know from misinformation that there is a certain layout, they will not change that view during the play. It is sometimes possible to work out from the sight of dummy or the first few tricks that there must have been either misinformation or a misbid during the auction. Many people, including experienced players, do not correctly draw that conclusion if they have been misinformed, even if it would be considered obvious when given as an academic exercise away from the table."

 

Don’t try to put the blame on the NOS. If you explain your double as penalties and afterwards it is ‘no agreement’, there is misinformation and you’re responsible for the result if an opponent comes to the wrong conclusion. Besides, how many players you think don’t keep count of the HCP’s during the play? My guess: a considerable majority. It’s hard enough to keep track of all the cards played in the four suits.

[Cyberyeti]

Weejonie wrote that the EBU doesn’t consider it an extremely serious error if:

“• Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand. It is common in misinformation cases for a player to ‘tunnel vision’: if they know from misinformation that there is a certain layout, they will not change that view during the play. It is sometimes possible to work out from the sight of dummy or the first few tricks that there must have been either misinformation or a misbid during the auction. Many people, including experienced players, do not correctly draw that conclusion if they have been misinformed, even if it would be considered obvious when given as an academic exercise away from the table."

 

Don’t try to put the blame on the NOS. If you explain your double as penalties and afterwards it is ‘no agreement’, there is misinformation and you’re responsible for the result if an opponent comes to the wrong conclusion. Besides, how many players you think don’t keep count of the HCP’s during the play? My guess: a considerable majority. It’s hard enough to keep track of all the cards played in the four suits.

 

If counting to 12 counts as detailed analysis then the laws insult the intelligence of bridge players. There is no real analysis, you have seen basically every other card.

 

Penalty doubles are often made on the basis of "we have too many points for you to make this" rather than trumps.

[lamford]

If counting to 12 counts as detailed analysis then the laws insult the intelligence of bridge players. There is no real analysis, you have seen basically every other card.

You tend to deny redress for a serious error when someone fails to play a no-cost show-up squeeze. Others think that serious error means that, such as a revoke or ducking the setting trick in a slam.

[Cyberyeti]

You tend to deny redress for a serious error when someone fails to play a no-cost show-up squeeze. Others think that serious error means that, such as a revoke or ducking the setting trick in a slam.

 

Nobody's answered the question I posed earlier, how bad does this have to be before you're denied redress ? If both players have shown up with 5 points, there are 8 remaining and you play the non 1N opener for 7 of them, I don't think you get redress, or is the law that soft ? If you don't in that case, where is the borderline ?

 

You used to not be able to go for a "double shot" which I consider this to be, but that seems to have gone from the law.

[nige1]

KingCovert is right that South played badly, but in the 3-card ending, which assumption should South make?

• East-West misdefended after East opened 1NT with a hand like:
• ♠ T43 ♥ K94 ♦ AJ42 ♣ K43? or
• ♠ T43 ♥ Q94 ♦ A42 ♣ AK43? or
• ♠ T43 ♥ Q9 ♦ AJ42 ♣ AK43? etc..
• Or West made a low-level penalty double with a small singleton trump?

[sanst]

Nobody's answered the question I posed earlier, how bad does this have to be before you're denied redress ? If both players have shown up with 5 points, there are 8 remaining and you play the non 1N opener for 7 of them, I don't think you get redress, or is the law that soft ? If you don't in that case, where is the borderline ?

 

You used to not be able to go for a "double shot" which I consider this to be, but that seems to have gone from the law.

Ton Kooijman answered that on behalf of the WBFLC in the commentary to the 2017 Laws: “In bridge it is normal to make mistakes; it’s just part of the game. When considering the damage related to an infraction a player should not be punished for making such a mistake, unless it is considered to be really unacceptable.” When considering whether an action constitutes an extremely serious error should be judged according to the calibre of the player (WBFLC minutes Beijing 10th Oct. 2008). Your example comes nowhere near the ESE criterion for an average player.

[Cyberyeti]

Ton Kooijman answered that on behalf of the WBFLC in the commentary to the 2017 Laws: “In bridge it is normal to make mistakes; it’s just part of the game. When considering the damage related to an infraction a player should not be punished for making such a mistake, unless it is considered to be really unacceptable.” When considering whether an action constitutes an extremely serious error should be judged according to the calibre of the player (WBFLC minutes Beijing 10th Oct. 2008). Your example comes nowhere near the ESE criterion for an average player.

 

If the example I gave here (playing a 1N opener to have a 5 or 6 count instead of 12 or 13) is nowhere near ESE then the law is an ass, sorry.

[KingCovert]

KingCovert is right that South played badly, but in the 3-card ending, which assumption should South make?

• East-West misdefended after East opened 1NT with a hand like: ♠ Txx ♥ K9x ♦ AJxx ♣ Kxx; or ♠ Txx ♥ Q9x ♦ Axx ♣ AKxx; or ♠ Txx ♥ Q9 ♦ AJxx ♣ AKxx etc..?
• Or West made a low-level penalty double with a small singleton trump?

 

I don't think this sort of approach is valid. It seems rather reductionist. You're essentially claiming that declarer should be considered reasonable for deciding what the final three cards look like based solely on one bid in the auction, but, can be absolved for ignoring EVERY other bid in the auction for the prior 10 tricks. On top of that, declarer has decided that they also want to ignore every card played in the prior 10 tricks as well. Declarer has no idea how many high card points the 1NT opener has revealed so far.

 

It's not a detailed analysis to count the high card points of a NT opener, it's honestly one single step beyond beginner bridge. Thus I do think that declarer is absolutely hopeless from a skill perspective...

 

I think it's far more fair to look at the entire line of play by declarer, where declarer plays West for absolutely every card in the deck, this is not justifiable.

[sanst]

If the example I gave here (playing a 1N opener to have a 5 or 6 count instead of 12 or 13) is nowhere near ESE then the law is an ass, sorry.

Maybe, but it’s the law. But you’re essentially wrong in not allowing a player to loose count or not to remember exactly who played what. Only the very best players are able to reproduce the play correctly and somebody can easily miss who played which card.

Even more important: it’s irrelevant. You should give a full and accurate description of your agreements and a failure to do so is a serious breach of the laws. If a player claims to have been damaged by this, and his claim is not completely unbelievable, he has a right to redress without being subject to an thorough examination of his line of play. Only when some stupidity, unrelated to the MI, is obvious you can decide otherwise but without favouring the OS.

[KingCovert]

If the example I gave here (playing a 1N opener to have a 5 or 6 count instead of 12 or 13) is nowhere near ESE then the law is an ass, sorry.

 

Bridge law is objectively terrible. It's far too open to interpretation, and every serious gamer who has played games that are actually popular competitively knows that good competitive games have laws that are entirely the opposite of this. It's bridge's most serious flaw.

 

It certainly doesn't help that while directors may well be educated in the content of the laws, far too many are woefully insufficient in their education on how to properly enforce laws. The positions that I see too many directors take are far too often based on some construct in their mind, and how they want to see the game enforced, and hardly on the laws.

 

I think it takes a collaborative and community oriented spirit to want to spend your time directing instead of playing, and that's commendable. The problem is this very nature of directors can lead to some directors trying too hard to stand in defense of those that they perceive to be aggrieved, often in defiance of the laws.

[Zelandakh]

I think it takes a collaborative and community oriented spirit to want to spend your time armchair directing instead of playing, and that's commendable. The problem is this very nature of such players can lead to some trying too hard to stand in defence of those that wilfully and deliberately mislead their opponents, often in defiance of the laws.

[KingCovert]

I think it takes a collaborative and community oriented spirit to want to spend your time armchair directing instead of playing, and that's commendable. The problem is this very nature of such players can lead to some trying too hard to stand in defence of those that wilfully and deliberately mislead their opponents, often in defiance of the laws.

 

I'm hesitant to even address such a moronic statement that really can only serve the purpose of inducing a response... It speaks volumes about your character and integrity. So, I'll just take that cheap shot at you and say this:

 

"those that wilfully and deliberately mislead their opponents"

 

I think you'll have an impossible time defending those words. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the definitions of willfully and deliberately. (Perhaps the spelling too)

[StevenG]

I think you'll have an impossible time defending those words. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the definitions of willfully and deliberately. (Perhaps the spelling too)

It's not Zel's fault that Americans can't spell.

[sanst]

This is getting far too personal.

[Cyberyeti]

Maybe, but it’s the law. But you’re essentially wrong in not allowing a player to loose count or not to remember exactly who played what. Only the very best players are able to reproduce the play correctly and somebody can easily miss who played which card.

Even more important: it’s irrelevant. You should give a full and accurate description of your agreements and a failure to do so is a serious breach of the laws. If a player claims to have been damaged by this, and his claim is not completely unbelievable, he has a right to redress without being subject to an thorough examination of his line of play. Only when some stupidity, unrelated to the MI, is obvious you can decide otherwise but without favouring the OS.

 

Actually the issue with it being a self alert is complicated. They got the explanation of what the guy genuinely intended the bid to mean, whether that was their agreement or not which is not good enough. What if he said "undiscussed but I think/meant it as penalties" ? He clearly has actually made a penalty double with a stiff heart, so it's not as ludicrous as people are suggesting, he just thinks he has enough to beat this contract and no game.

[nige1]

Is it so unreasonable for West to think their double is penalty here? If South didn't request an explanation and made an assumption, what assumption would they make? It could easily be the case that West thinks that, while they may not have an explicit agreement, they have an implicit agreement or meta-agreements that would dictate that this double is penalty. The bid was described as penalty, functioned as a penalty double, was intended as penalty, and has enough values to justify a penalty double. I'm not really sure how an accurate description of the intended meaning of the bid can cause harm here. I've read no law obligating that penalty doubles show length in the trump suit, when doubling a suit contract.

What if West had typed in "undiscussed, intended as penalty"?

As I said earlier in the thread, there may be a distinction between describing your intended meaning of a bid instead of describing your agreement in a self-alerting situation. I could see an argument that if declarer was aware that the agreement was "No Agreement", and that East chose to leave it in under those pretenses, that they may have been more likely to suspect a different type of holding from both players. I don't agree with that argument, because, well, it's somewhat unclear if that's "misinformation". Also, I wouldn't trust South to make 10 tricks in a cold grand.

Penalty doubles are often made on the basis of "we have too many points for you to make this" rather than trumps.

Actually the issue with it being a self alert is complicated. They got the explanation of what the guy genuinely intended the bid to mean, whether that was their agreement or not which is not good enough. What if he said "undiscussed but I think/meant it as penalties" ? He clearly has actually made a penalty double with a stiff heart, so it's not as ludicrous as people are suggesting, he just thinks he has enough to beat this contract and no game.

With a small singleton trump, a player makes a low level-double, about which he has no partnership-agreement. After 3 passes, in response to a question by declarer, he annotates the double as Pen. IMO, these comments are interesting.

[Cyberyeti]

With a small singleton trump, a player makes a low level-double, about which he has no partnership-agreement. After 3 passes, in response to a question by declarer, he annotates the double as Pen IMO, these comments are interesting.

 

I think I may have misunderstood slightly, when you said he "alerted" it as penalties rather than explained I assumed it was a self alert when he bid it, if he said that at the end of the auction then it's MUCH more dubious.

[blackshoe]

Part of the problem here may be that historically (i.e., in f2f bridge) the phrase "alerted as" has been used as shorthand for "alerted, and when asked explained as". In online bridge, of course, the bidder just puts the meaning in the alert box and makes the bid, at which point the opponents see his explanation. This is more like a f2f announcement than anything else, IMO. Maybe that's what we should call it.

[RMB1]

Part of the problem here may be that historically (i.e., in f2f bridge) the phrase "alerted as" has been used as shorthand for "alerted, and when asked explained as". In online bridge, of course, the bidder just puts the meaning in the alert box and makes the bid, at which point the opponents see his explanation. This is more like a f2f announcement than anything else, IMO. Maybe that's what we should call it.

 

In EBU regulations and conditions of contest (for BBO events), I have written "alerted/explained" - it is clumsy but rams home the point that all alerts should be accompanied by an explanation. But "alerted/explained as" is shorter than "alerted and simultaneously explained as". (Instead of "alerted as" or "alerted, and subsequently explained as"

[KingCovert]

I think I may have misunderstood slightly, when you said he "alerted" it as penalties rather than explained I assumed it was a self alert when he bid it, if he said that at the end of the auction then it's MUCH more dubious.

 

Well, it's more dubious if we believe that they decided the meaning to be penalty because their partner passed. (In fact that's downright cheating) It's a lot less dubious if that was simply the intended meaning, and they explained it honestly.

 

I'd certainly agree with those that think that West could have done a better job conveying that they had no explicit agreement, but that their intention was penalty as StevenG suggested. But... Declarer has clearly made multiple serious errors and their complaint is far more dubious than the potential offense by East/West. They're not complaining because they felt mislead by the agreement, they're complaining because their interpretation of penalty did not match West's interpretation of penalty and they made a faulty assumption.

 

I think a good question is: Had East/West had an explicit agreement that this bid was penalty, do you think Declarer would have complained? Because, everyone here knows they would have. How? Well.... That was their understanding when they complained. What's the difference?

 

If Declarer had played the hand without making serious error, I'd be far more inclined to favour them, but, they absolutely butchered the hand.

 

(assume I'm restating all my comments about meta-agreements and implicit agreements)

[Zelandakh]

(In fact that's downright cheating)

Perhaps one might even describe it as "wilfully and deliberately misleading"?

[msjennifer]

Sir,1) I am assuming that 1NT was known to be a regular 15/17 or 14/16 .2)If it was so then declarer erred in not counting the HCP holding of the 1NT opener at the three card end position.3)I,personally,would let the result stand.4)I have not studied the laws in details and hence have no idea if the opponents be awarded any "procedural "warning or penalty.5)The double of 2H bid ,in light of the bidding till then,certainly can not be a ‘penalty’ double but ,as per holding,may be considered an ‘optional ‘ double as some partnerships play.But then, West cheated by saying it was a penalty double ( after realising that the opener has converted it to a penalty double) after the auction was over.Thanks.

[KingCovert]

Perhaps one might even describe it as "wilfully and deliberately misleading"?

 

Well, if you'd like to hitch your wagon to the position that the player was trying to cheat. I welcome you to do so. I think that most reasonable people will agree that the player was possibly lazy in providing proper disclosure or uninformed as to their obligation to provide their agreement and not their intended meaning. Hence why I said you'd have an impossible time defending that statement.

 

But, I understand, this was simply an opportunity for you to be snarky. Classy.