[luis]

An exciting match finished in the worst possible way, with an accident and law/ethical discussion following. What a pitty.

Many, many years ago the great Walter Avarelli was playing a game contract in the world champoionship and the final decision was to guess who had the ace and who had the queen in a side suit, a typical guess where you have KJ opposite xx and need 1 trick. Avarelli was thinking and thinking when accidentally his LHO dropped the ace of the critical suit.
Instead of playing low to the K and win the contract Avarelli shuffled the King and the Jack, put the cards face down and asked his opponent to pick a card. He didn't want to win the contract due to the accident. He decided it was a guess and a guess should remain a guess. Eventually his opponent refused to pick a card so he did that himself picking the jack. Low he played to the jack and RHO won the trick with the queen to put the contract down 1.

I learned one thing from the final of this Bermuda Bowl, Hamman may end up with more titles than Avarelli but he is not as great as Walter was. There's just a little more in this game than winning and not all the great players have it.

[ack_hh]

Luis - I really appreciated all your previous posts but here I must disagree.

From the Bulletin:

"Lauria’s partner had left the table after putting down the dummy, so Lauria was playing the cards himself. Lauria apparently expected Soloway to cash his winning heart, so he pulled the S7 from dummy".

1) Lauria played the card HIMSELF
2) Why blame Hamman?
and 3) Why the <anything> had the dummy left the table during the last hand of such an event? Incredible.

[inquiry]

This is an emotionally charged issue... I am certain Luis meant no ethical slight to Mr. Hamman. And no one should read one into the story he presented. Here is why, comparing the two situations.

The case Luis quotes was Italy versus New Zealand or Australia in the early 70's. Italy, as usual was in command, so the state of the match was quite different, not that I think declearer would have acted in any other manner if it had been the last hand of a very tight match, as was in this case. But that is no matter.

Here, having seen the opponent's card, the rules allowed Walter to benefit from it (exposed card), but he choose not too. That is, the rules did not dictate how play should continue. Another fact not mentioned by Luis, but reported at the time was that in the two card ending Walter turned over the previous trick to review it, and the opponent thinking he had played to the 12th trick, "followed suit out of turn". So in fact, Walter had materially contributed to the situation by his own action of turing up the card he played on the previous round. This was another part of the story that makes this situation different. But again, without the turning of the previous trick, I still think Walter would have acted the same way.

Walter could directly benefit from his opponents misplay by playing HIS cards in a certain order. He choose to let fate do it for him.

What appears to have happened in the current day Bermuda Bowl is completely different in that Lauria was playing dummy cards himself, because his partner had left the room. In playing the cards he played the spade seven and Bob had to followed suit with the only card he held in that suit. If, in fact, this is what happened, and this is the report in the WBF bullentin, that was it. Under those circumstances, as stupid as the low spade play from dummy was, and it was so stupid as to be "impossible", I am still shocked the Italians would ask for an appeal in the first place. The rules on played cards from dummy are clear.

Bob couldn't do anything about it. The cards had been played. Bob, with a single spade left had to follow suit, probably assuming declearer was trump tight (not to win Spade Q). There can be no arguement over did Lauria say "Queen" or "high" or "low" if he played the card himself.

This situation is very much like the revoke, where bob tried to not take the penalty (also which would have given back an imp). He wasn't allowed to give back the trick there, and he would not have been allowed to give one back here, either.

To question Bob Hamman's ethics here would be completely unfair. This isn't an ethics situation. Bob seems ethical to a fault to me.

There seems to be only one of two situations that occurred here.

1) Lauria called for a spade (high or perhaps low and then immediately changed his mind...which is allowed), or

2) Lauria in fact played a low spade from dummy himself.

In situation #1, if Lauria said he called low, and bob said he called high, I would rule that lauria called low and allow a low card to be played. But if Lauria himself pulled the spade seven from dummy (situation #2), then that is it, that card is clearly played.

In case #1, bob or paul or the director should have ruled quickly in italy's favor. In case #2, italy should not have bothered appealing the directors ruling. Both our vugraph operator and the WBF bulletin stated that Lauria pulled the low spade himself. I wait to hear what Lauria has to say himself (he is quoted third hand in a rgb post by someone who claims he allegedly stated that he thought Paul had lead the heart TEN and he was discarding a spade on it, I have no idea if that person's claim is true). Hopefully we will soon find out what the really happened. But someone screwed up ruining an otherwise wonderful ending... either the american pair if Lauria called for a high spade and they misheard and somehow forced the play of a low spade, or Lauria if he played the low spade himself and then let the appeal process go foward. The one thing for sure, 99.999% of the people speculating on this were not in the room at the time, and so they don't know what happened.

Ben

[csdenmark]

Quote

Both our vugraph operator and the WBF bulletin stated that Lauria pulled the low spade himself.

My log-file tells(I have taken out comments not relevant to the topic):


[tt]Vugraph99: it seems tha Lorenzo ( but beware of rumors) said SMALL !S and when he realize his mistake he take Q with his ...
Vugraph99: hands...and argue that it was a non-sense to play low...
Vugraph99: and all of that in a second !
lc: If he called the !SQ (the obviously normal bridge play), he is down 1 and match is tied and goes to playoff.
compton: I believe the dispute is whether he changed his call witout pause for thought. Not positve
lc: If he plays low (silly bridge play, but apparently what happened), US wins.
smispi: herve can you tell us if lorenzo was playing dummy by himself?
compton: It is a silly bridge play unless you thought the opponent was playing a heart
Vugraph99: himself
Vugraph99: yes it was sure..Lorenzo was playing alone !..Alfredo was not in the room
Vugraph99: but i think that he expect a !H10 and said low !S ...and when he realize that Paul return a !S it was too late..( my ...
Vugraph99: opinion) [/tt]

[luis]

I'm not questioning Hamman's ethics thats for sure, I'm just saying that it was a pitty he decided to win the game due to an accident. It was 100% lawful and respectful but his pd erred and so I think the bridge gods would have liked Italy to win. I was told Lauria touched a low spade from dummy and when he realized Soloway wasn't playing a heart he quickly switched surprised to the sQ but Hamman had already played reacting to Lauria touching a card and that was that. If he actually "said" something then I think it is the other way around and Lauria wanted to win a match that he lost when he called for a low spade without noticing his opponent play.
Anyway my biggest disappointment was that an exciting match as the final was ended with some incident.
If Lauria only touched a card and realizing his opp didn't cash the heart changed to the sQ it would be great for Hamman to accept that his pd erred and let Lauria play what he would have played normally.
If instead Lauria actually "called" for a spade then it would have been great for him to accept he blew his chances with careless play on that trick.
Someone must have shown a strong sportmanship attitude, I don't know if it should have been Hamman or Lauria since every new report confuses me more.

[JRG]

Quote

I'm not questioning Hamman's ethics thats for sure, I'm just saying that it was a pitty he decided to win the game due to an accident. It was 100% lawful and respectful but his pd erred and so I think the bridge gods would have liked Italy to win.[.snip...]

Actually, if the ruling had gone the other way (or Lauria had played the Spade Queen), they would NOT have won -- just tied. Then there would have been an 8-board playoff for the World Championship, which Italy might have won, or might have lost (or perhaps they would have tied again). Nobody knows.

[inquiry]

Quote

I'm not questioning Hamman's ethics thats for sure, I'm just saying that it was a pitty he decided to win the game due to an accident. It was 100% lawful and respectful but his pd erred and so I think the bridge gods would have liked Italy to win.

I think you have made an HUGE error here in logic Luis when you say Hamman "decided to win" the game based upon an accident. First, when the play occurred at the table, none of the players at the table knew this was the critical play in the whole match. There was an irregularity when Lauria touched (PLAYED) one card and then decided to play another. What do you do in this case? You call the director for a ruling. It is not even clear to me that Bob called the director, but whoever did so, did so correctly.

Once an irregularity is pointed out, my understanding is that a player can not waive a penalty for an opponent's infraction, even if he feels that he has not been damaged, or as in this case, if he will be damaged. (of course, technically in this case there is no "penalty" other than dummy must play the appropriate card). All he can do is REQUEST that the director waive the penalty. Bob and Paul tried to wave a revoke penalty earlier in the match and this was disallowed by the director, to point out one such instance.

Now it is true, that after the director was called and when the ruling was made and appealled, EVERYONE knows (including the players) that this ruling will dramatically effect the state of the match. But at this point, the proprieties of the game as codefied in the rules will not permit the american pair from allowing the change of which spade was played. I suspect, perhaps, if Zia had been at the table, he would "allowed" the exchange of spades, but that in itself would have been against the rules.

Quote

Someone must have shown a strong sportmanship attitude, I don't know if it should have been Hamman or Lauria since every new report confuses me more.

Perhaps the rules need to be looked at more closely, but let's handle the fuzzyness here that seems to be rampant. It deals with the difference between a "played" card and a "designated" card. If anyone "plays" a card then that card is played, and can not be retracted (note word is play), unless it was played illegally, in which case penalties can apply. (Also note, it is also not only declearer who can designate a card...see rule 45C4a below). To play a card, we know from the rules, a player must remove it from his hand and place it upon the table.

The dummy, however is a special case. The dummy's cards are exposed (so detach and lay on table makes no sense) and he doesn't play cards, instead declearer instructs the dummy what to play. This is usually done by declearer "Designating" which card to play. The best way is to state rank and suit (spade 7, or Spade Q, for instance). But "high" or "low" can be used, or "win it", I have even seen people desginate cards by pointing to it, or saying something like "any spade" or heaven forbid "a spade". Rule 45B handles such "plays" by dummy as "designated" by declearer.

However, rule 45C handles a special case of dummy play. Here, designation is not a part of the issue. Here, it clearly states clearly: "A card in the dummy must be played if it has been deliberately touched by declarer except for the purpose of arranging dummy's cards, or of reaching a card above or below the card or cards touched. This is a clear distinction between a card being "designated" by declearer and a card being played (similar to a card being played by any other player).

This distinction is further clarified in law 45C 4, which deals specifically with "Named or Designated Card". Here on playing "named cards" (as opposed to playing a card), the rules state: (a) Play of Named Card
A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposed to play. [Note the use of the word player, instead of declearer].
( Correction of Inadvertent Designation
A player may, without penalty, change an inadvertent designation if he does so without pause for thought; but if an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw without penalty the card so played and substitute another (see Law 47E)."

Herein is the total issue. Everyone quotes the correction of the "inadvertent designation" issue by stating that rules should allow Lauria to retract his play of the low spade. But he did not make a designation, he played a small spade. The rules on this are quite clear. For example, if a defender accidently "drops" a card he didn't intent to play, it is still deemed played. A dropped card was not designated, and neither is a card physically "played" by dummy (as defined by the laws).

Are the laws consitent and logical that the inadvertent play of a card from dummy by touching it can not be retracted but the inadvertent "play" by a slip of the tounge when designating it can be? Perhaps not, but the rules are very clear. No doubt if Alfredo had stayed at the table for the play of the last hand, Lorenzo would have "designated" a small spade, and then in an instant, changed his designation to the Queen. I am sure in that case, no one would have said a thing. The change would have happened, the match would have been tied, and two tired teams would face an 8 board playoff.

There is more than enough problems on this hand to go around. Paul for not cashing the heart Ten, Alfredo for leaving the table, Lorenzo for bidding 5D, Eric and Jeff for not doubling 5H's, Loreenzo for choosing the down two line, and then given a gift for playing too fast to the spade lead. The one person who seems faultless in the entire affair of this hand is Bob Hamman. All he did was follow suit, and someone, maybe hamman, maybe the team captain, maybe Lorenzo, maybe paul called the director when Lorenzo tried to change his "play", which clearly isn't allowed by the rules. If Lorenzo "played" the low spade instead of designating it, case over, and the appeal was frivolous no matter how "impossible" the low spade was.

Ben

[luis]

I know I'm wrong. What happened was perfectly legal and so it's ethical, correct, etc etc. It just doesn't seem to be -to me- the right thing, if touching/calling the card was accidental then in my view the right thing is to let declarer change his accidental designation.
I think the law should be changed to "accidental" to cover this situations, sometimes declarer calls, or touches a card thinking his opponent had played something when it was the other way around. When you claim you can't be forced to use an ilogical line to go down, when you call or touch a card you should be protected as well.
I don't like the idea of winning an event because the law lets you take advantage of an accident (a card that falls, declarer touching a card, accidental designation, exposed card, etc etc etc).
Bah, just a feeling.

[hrothgar]

Hi All

I've been watching / reading about this event since it occurred "live" during the wee hours this last weekend.

At this point in time, the only thing that I am sure about is that there an amazing number of rumors floating arround. I for one, am in no position to try to make any kind of judgement regarding what took place. With the exception of Lauria NO ONE is really in a good position to speak.

What I do find interesting is that while the fans have been amazingly vocal about the entire situation, I haven't seen any "formal" commentary directly from any of the principles. Until I do, I'm not going to waste cycles worrying about this.

In short, I would have preferred that this whole mess never happened.
I wish that Italy would have won.
However, I'm not going to bother getting emotionally involved one way or another.

[doofik]

I'm sure that players involved also wish for a clearcut result. That being said I don't quite understand diminishing the value of the achievement of both Italian and American players. I thought we were kibitzing a great bridge game rather than nationalities. Putting down any of the contestants has no place in this event, especially in view of the fact, that in the end the law prevailed. No one wanted that to happen.

Statements made in the general channel of BBO immediately following the final hand, put me in a state of shock. I guess I'm naive thinking that bridge is above nationalistic sentiments. And the beat goes on...

[luke warm]

Quote

I'm sure that players involved also wish for a clearcut result. That being said I don't quite understand diminishing the value of the achievement of both Italian and American players. I thought we were kibitzing a great bridge game rather than nationalities. Putting down any of the contestants has no place in this event, especially in view of the fact, that in the end the law prevailed. No one wanted that to happen.

Statements made in the general channel of BBO immediately following the final hand, put me in a state of shock. I guess I'm naive thinking that bridge is above nationalistic sentiments. And the beat goes on...

hi doofi... as long as events are divided into teams whose main criteria is the flag under which one competes, things like that will occur... doesn't matter whether or not it's bridge, soccer, or the olypics

i was happy to see the usa win, but i (like you) was watching vugraph because i wanted to see the greatest players in the world, i wanted to see how they played a hand of bridge... had italy won it would not have caused me any loss of sleep... not all feel that way though, and i guess that's ok... nationalistic fervor isn't a bad thing, necessarily, unless it's misdirected