[peachy]

What do you think?

http://usbf.org/docs...BC2010news4.pdf page 3,
also http://bridgewinners.../chicago-trials

I looked at the Conditions of Contest and the Special Conditions of Contest for this event. It seems that the requirement that participants "know their system and understand how it applies in simple situations such as first round bidding" has been removed. The edition is from March 2010. Can anyone confirm if this is a change, if it never was in the regulation, or if I just could not find that statement.

[pran]

peachy, on Jun 22 2010, 03:12 AM, said:

What do you think?

http://usbf.org/docs...BC2010news4.pdf page 3,
also http://bridgewinners.../chicago-trials

I looked at the Conditions of Contest and the Special Conditions of Contest for this event. It seems that the requirement that participants "know their system and understand how it applies in simple situations such as first round bidding" has been removed. The edition is from March 2010. Can anyone confirm if this is a change, if it never was in the regulation, or if I just could not find that statement.

I think that first of all they could have made sure the document was correct.
(The result: 5H doubled by South making… +650 N/S ?)

But then I find the statement by South a bit "suspicious" although I accept that he would not have doubled 5♥ if he had been told that the jump to 3♦ showed heart support with short diamonds rather than a weak jump shift. Apparently West believed in his own explanation when he bid 5♦. I should like to know what is the correct explanation?

[iviehoff]

The appeal committee ruled that S got a bad score precisely because he doubled 5H. But S is complaining he doubled 5H precisely because he had a misexplanation which caused him completely to misunderstand what was going on in this auction, so this justification by the appeal committee is an utter nonsense.

The appeal committee further said it was utterly obvious to S that E couldn't be weak with diamonds. I can't see that at all. S has 3 diamonds and W, unknown to S, has 6. Apparently N's double of 5D doesn't show diamond length, because in fact N doesn't have it. So how does south know from this that East doesn't have diamonds?

If S has the correct explanation, which he is entitled to, that 3D shows a shortage, W's 5D call takes on a completely different complexion, and also partner's double of it. It is a completely different situation.

To me, S's claim of damage from misinformation is strong.

[Cascade]

This appeal report to me is curious. In particular this statement:

"Since we felt it was only between 10% to 25% that N-S would have gone
right with proper explanations"

I would have thought that if there was a 10-25% chance that N-S would have gone right with proper explanations then there was good reason to adjust or rather more particularly that it was unfair to give them the score they obtained at the table when they may well have gone right with proper explanations.

That statement also seems to suggest that the explanation that South received was in error with explicitly saying so. I suppose it is possible that the intention was that North may have done better with a proper explanation.

I wonder what if any explanation was given to north of the 5♦ bid.

[pran]

iviehoff, on Jun 22 2010, 10:30 AM, said:

The appeal committee ruled that S got a bad score precisely because he doubled 5H. But S is complaining he doubled 5H precisely because he had a misexplanation which caused him completely to misunderstand what was going on in this auction, so this justification by the appeal committee is an utter nonsense.

The appeal committee further said it was utterly obvious to S that E couldn't be weak with diamonds. I can't see that at all. S has 3 diamonds and W, unknown to S, has 6. Apparently N's double of 5D doesn't show diamond length, because in fact N doesn't have it. So how does south know from this that East doesn't have diamonds?

If S has the correct explanation, which he is entitled to, that 3D shows a shortage, W's 5D call takes on a completely different complexion, and also partner's double of it. It is a completely different situation.

To me, S's claim of damage from misinformation is strong.

We still have not been told what is the correct explanation of the 3♦ bid! West's bidding corroborates his own explanation.

The strongest argument in favour of the AC is the fact that East pulled the 5♦ bid to 5♥. That fact is inconsistent with 3♦ being a weak shift jump and suggests that West gave an incorrect explanation.

Were N-S damaged? Yes, obviously

Were MI the cause of this damage? Only partly yes, as South paid insufficient importance to the fact that East pulled to 5♥.

Was the Double of 5♥ wild or gambling? I don't think so given South's hand.

Did South seriously contribute to his own damage by not drawing sufficient inference from East's pull to 5♥? I believe yes.

[blackshoe]

I'm not at all sure I trust a bulletin write-up to give all the information needed to make a correct ruling. There's no indication of what, if any, investigation the TD did at the table, for example.

Quote

There was sympathy and considerable discussion about some kind of adjustment; either a 2 to 3 imp procedural penalty (although the committee generally finds such adjustments unattractive) or an adjusted score.

Not just "unattractive" — it's illegal to use a PP to adjust the score. If there was a procedural violation, you can, if you wish, give a PP for it, as a deterrent to further such violations. If you want to adjust the score, you use Law 12.

Quote

Since we felt it was only between 10% to 25% that N-S would have gone right with proper explanations, we were not prepared to adjust the E-W score to -100 (in 6HX, the expected result if N-S did compete to 5S).

So they want to give the benefit of the doubt to the offending side. That's just so very wrong.

Quote

All other adjustments would be to artificial scores, which we were not willing to proffer. So we decided not to adjust the E-W score, either.

They seem to be alluding to 12C1{d} here. At least in their unwillingness to use that law, they got one thing right.

[bluejak]

The most worrying thing about the whole write-up is that the AC do not seem to know the Law. While I do not expect AC Chairmen to have a deep knowledge of the Laws overall, I expect them to understand the basics of MI, UI and adjustments, since those are what most appeals are about.

I think the final decision could be correct, but the reasons given suggest to me that if it is correct, it was just luck.

Was there MI? Clearly: when there are two different explanations, one at least must be wrong. What is the correct meaning? Not given in the report. That's bad news!!!!!!

If East's explanation is correct, South was misinformed. If you decide he would not now double 5♥ - I am not absolutely convinced, but I would poll - what would North do? Let us suppose we accept the AC's figures: South would pass, North would get it right 10-25% of the time

So, we have MI, we have possible damage, let us apply Law 12C1E. What is the most favourable result that was "likely"? Does the likelihood of South passing rather than doubling and North progressing rather than doubling add up to "likely"? I think probably not.

For E/W, what is the most unfavourable result that was "at all probable"? Does the likelihood of South passing rather than doubling and North progressing rather than doubling add up to "at all probable"? I think probably yes.

How about a PP? Well, at lower levels I think them unsuitable unless part of the CoC. Even at this level I do not like them without a regulation and there does not seem to be one according to the OP. I certainly think it irrelevant to the adjustment but would not apply it.

So, how about:

For N/S:
Table result stands

For E/W:
6♥x -1/W, NS +100

[pran]

More information is available on http://bridgewinners.../chicago-trials (has this reference been edited in later, I don't remember seeing it first time?)

It appears that South was given correct information by West on the 3♦ bid, and that East misbid and mis-explained this bid to North. Quote: However EW had it marked on their convention card as a weak jump shift, therefore South was not given any incorrect information by his screen mate.

So South has unfortunately no case claiming misinformation. With this in mind I tend to agree with the AC both on premises and result.

[axman]

bluejak, on Jun 22 2010, 09:11 AM, said:

The most worrying thing about the whole write-up is that the AC do not seem to know the Law. While I do not expect AC Chairmen to have a deep knowledge of the Laws overall, I expect them to understand the basics of MI, UI and adjustments, since those are what most appeals are about.

I think the final decision could be correct, but the reasons given suggest to me that if it is correct, it was just luck.

Was there MI? Clearly: when there are two different explanations, one at least must be wrong. What is the correct meaning? Not given in the report. That's bad news!!!!!!

If East's explanation is correct, South was misinformed. If you decide he would not now double 5♥ - I am not absolutely convinced, but I would poll - what would North do? Let us suppose we accept the AC's figures: South would pass, North would get it right 10-25% of the time

So, we have MI, we have possible damage, let us apply Law 12C1E. What is the most favourable result that was "likely"? Does the likelihood of South passing rather than doubling and North progressing rather than doubling add up to "likely"? I think probably not.

For E/W, what is the most unfavourable result that was "at all probable"? Does the likelihood of South passing rather than doubling and North progressing rather than doubling add up to "at all probable"? I think probably yes.

How about a PP? Well, at lower levels I think them unsuitable unless part of the CoC. Even at this level I do not like them without a regulation and there does not seem to be one according to the OP. I certainly think it irrelevant to the adjustment but would not apply it.

So, how about:

For N/S:
Table result stands

For E/W:
6♥x -1/W, NS +100

I find it bothersome, particularly in a forum concerned with learning ways to think correctly, when jargon is used in disadvantageous ways- because it represents sloppy thoughts which are created by sloppy minds.

As bluejak says,’ I think the final decision could be correct, but the reasons given suggest to me that if it is correct, it was just luck.’

The connotation from the above suggests that a ruling starts with a final decision and proceeds to the reason for the outcome- the outcome being N tricks in contract C- as in the outcome does not include the reason. This is a very detrimental mindset.

Actually, after a ruling, the final decision is: Q tricks in Contract C because of X. Which either is correct or it is not.

Consider the hypothetical: N tricks to NS because E lied.

Annotated by… the final decision could be correct, but the reasons given suggest to me that if it is correct, it was just luck.

I put to you- is the final decision correct? Is ‘Q tricks to NS because E lied.’ correct?

Because there is additional information. What actually happened was that E had not lied, and further, S did lie.

Now, I put to you- is the final decision correct? Is ‘Q tricks to NS because E lied.’ correct?

I hope it is obvious that it is not correct. But why is it not correct? The reason is that the process itself was not correct. The reasoning was based on a premise that was false.

But, what is the correct decision? does that mean that the correct decision is ‘Q tricks to EW because S lied.’ We do not know. We only know that the original assertion was false because we know that the underlying premise was false, and, we do not know about the correctness of the original process.

Now. Getting to Chicago. There was no ruling by the TD that EW gave MI. There was a ruling by the AC that W gave multiple Misexplanations to S. Misexplanations based upon what? What was the finding as to what the correct explanation is? There was no such finding. Until it is known what the correct explanation is it is meaningless to rule that W misexplained anything. And without MI it is improper and meaningless to look further.

[peachy]

axman, on Jun 22 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

And without MI it is improper and meaningless to look further.

Not meaningless, which is why I posted the question about Conditions of Contest. The ACBL general conditions of contest at tournaments have a clause that players are expected to know their system in simple situations, and first round bidding certainly is simple enough.

However, this is USBF. I have a recollection (but cannot be sure) that similar clause was in the Conditions of Contest in USBF as well, but I cannot find it in the March 2010 edition. If the clause is there, EW should get a well-deserved PP regardless of how the case is otherwise judged.

Both of the links I provided in OP are unofficial, although the USBF Bulletin link should IMO be considered "more reliable" - I have no reason to believe the other one isn't reliable, just saying, you know...

[axman]

peachy, on Jun 22 2010, 12:28 PM, said:

axman, on Jun 22 2010, 11:37 AM, said:

And without MI it is improper and meaningless to look further.

Not meaningless, which is why I posted the question about Conditions of Contest. The ACBL general conditions of contest at tournaments have a clause that players are expected to know their system in simple situations, and first round bidding certainly is simple enough.

However, this is USBF. I have a recollection (but cannot be sure) that similar clause was in the Conditions of Contest in USBF as well, but I cannot find it in the March 2010 edition. If the clause is there, EW should get a well-deserved PP regardless of how the case is otherwise judged.

Both of the links I provided in OP are unofficial, although the USBF Bulletin link should IMO be considered "more reliable" - I have no reason to believe the other one isn't reliable, just saying, you know...

Thank you for your for noticing the incorrect usage of the word. Because indeed it is far from meaningless. It takes time to investigate these things. Such time delays the game. And if the charge is baseless it irritates many people to consume so much time which in turn destroys the concentration of players. Irritated players are distracted and distracted players do stupid things, some of which are infractions that delay the game to an interminable end. So, it is not meaningless, in fact it is so meaningful that to persist in making a ruling not supported by fact, that it will cause one or more contestants to spend the rest of the event figuring out how they are going to fight the wrong perpetrated upon them by sharp shooter opponents and criminally negligent TDs- instead of focusing upon playing well.

So, I ought to have said And without MI it is improper and criminal to persist in accusations with no proper foundation. And such futile exercises are most meaningful indeed to the players.

[peachy]

axman, on Jun 22 2010, 03:27 PM, said:

So, I ought to have said And without MI it is improper and criminal to persist in accusations with no proper foundation.  And such futile exercises are most meaningful indeed to the players.

You still did not understand what I said. Whether it was a misbid or MI, they are both violations [I]if the conditions of contest have clause that requires players to know their systems in simple situations[/I]. The ruling as it was made, is based on the TD and AC opinion that, behind screens, South should have realized from East's later bidding that she did not have a WJS afterall although she explained her bid as such. This raises question What if she did have WJS afterall, then South figured [using the AC writeup word] from East's later bidding that she could not have it, and then S made a bidding decision on this figuring, and THEN got damaged? He would get no redress whatsoever. Forgetting system in a simple situation SHOULD be an infraction that carries a penalty if opponents are damaged. Club level play and lower level tournaments obviously should not have this clause enforced to the same degree as the team trials to play in Bermuda Bowl.

I don't know where you get it that there was no MI. The writeup says there was. Or else I am not understanding at all what you say. Sorry.

[bluejak]

axman, on Jun 22 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

As bluejak says,’  I think the final decision could be correct, but the reasons given suggest to me that if it is correct, it was just luck.’

The connotation from the above suggests that a ruling starts with a final decision and proceeds to the reason for the outcome- the outcome being N tricks in contract C- as in the outcome does not include the reason.  This is a very detrimental mindset.

There is no such connotation: you seem to be inventing things that are unsaid. I can see no connection whatever between what I wrote and what you wrote.

Of course a ruling does not start with a final decision: that is silly. Since I did not suggest it, why say I did?

[axman]

bluejak, on Jun 22 2010, 07:08 PM, said:

axman, on Jun 22 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

As bluejak says,’  I think the final decision could be correct, but the reasons given suggest to me that if it is correct, it was just luck.’

The connotation from the above suggests that a ruling starts with a final decision and proceeds to the reason for the outcome- the outcome being N tricks in contract C- as in the outcome does not include the reason.  This is a very detrimental mindset.

There is no such connotation: you seem to be inventing things that are unsaid. I can see no connection whatever between what I wrote and what you wrote.

Of course a ruling does not start with a final decision: that is silly. Since I did not suggest it, why say I did?

The reason for saying it is because people tend to believe what you say and ‘I think the final decision could be correct’ is not the right thing to say because ‘the final decision’ could not be correct.

The reason it could not be correct is that the process by which it was delivered was flawed: no basis was provided for finding that W gave S MI.

To digress, this is a somewhat special situation because all these people consider themselves skilled enough to be world champions and indeed are vying here and now for the world championship, if merely qualifying for the opportunity. Which begs the question why are NS asking questions? -when they can read the answer straight from the CC and not disturb the concentration of the opponents, and for that matter their own concentration.

And EW have CCs don’t they? And accurately filled out aren’t they? Aren’t they
Playing for a WC?

I’ll lay 2 to 1 that NS were so focused on asking questions and distracting the opponents they forgot to think about the really important stuff.

And what about the TD? Wasn’t he hired to mediate a WC event? And did he inspect the EW CCs? And, just where in his findings did he rule N or S had been given MI? not a mention.


It is quite possible that the frivolous nature of the appeal could rest on the agreement to 3H even though no effort apparently was made to establish the agreements to any of the calls made- as it is quite possible that S’s belief that N could be the only possible candidate to make the last choice is erroneous at best and at worst is egregiously erroneous. It is quite probable that the seeds of NS’s lament were sown when N chose to overcall vulnerable on such meager values and thus could only hope that S would not hang him out to dry. Well, N’s action increased the likelihood for fireworks and the fireworks got too hot for N.

Now, there is the question as to whether ‘he would not have doubled 5H if he was given the same explanation as his partner.’ is a valid basis for an adjusted score. Why? Because S did not assert he was misinformed nor give a valid chain of reasoning for such an assertion. After all, by this time he has seen all the cards and can come up with something double dummy- remember that he is playing for a WC and should know that to expect an adjusted score [a] he be misinformed by the opponents [b] the MI made a difference in his action and [c] demonstrate a direct cause of damage.

Does it really need to be pointed out that to N the indicated capacity of the cards suggests that 5S goes down and if his side is to be plus [which apparently is the meaning of 3H] he needs to not bid. Anyway, we are not told the premise of S’s appeal.

The appeal itself is a whole different matter. In a message to blml Sven expressed, ‘I would say that the AC made a correct ruling.’ <”uphold the TD ruling even though W misinformed S”>

Well, the TD made no ruling on MI. and the AC ruled that W misinformed S more than once.

They made this ruling after receiving strong evidence from the EW CC that the agreement to 3D was as W purported to S. {** omitted from the write up, information a few hours ago via Sven -- http://bridgewinners.com/chicago-trials/45...ppeal#comments}. The ruling by the AC to say the least was in direct contravention of the facts.

To wit, it would appear that any misinforming that occurred was from E to N. but N made no assertion that he would have acted differently, and if he had I would be skeptical [as described above] and thus would need sufficient convincing.

So to get at an appropriate ruling you are looking at something like:
Given the premise of the appeal [whatever it was???] the committee finds as fact that explanations on opposite sides of the screen concerning the 3D call were different, that W did not misinform S [supported by the CC]; and N has made no assertion of damage. As such the AC finds that there is no basis for damage to S, and in any event S’s assertion of damage was of dubious merit, and there being no claim of damage by N, so therefore the table result stands.

The AC feels strongly that there would have been no need for an original ruling let alone an appeal had the players relied upon the CCs of the opponents rather than conducting the distracting behavior of asking questions and causing them to be answered. The quality of CCs for the team trials are known to be reliable and there is hardly a valid excuse to avoid using them and as demonstrated here every advantage to be had- from saving brain power to saving time. Nevertheless, however immaterial the effect of misinforming the opponents is or the opponent’s contribution to its creation, it still is an infraction to do so and this case warrants a PP of .1 imp assessed to EW.

And that the investigation of the table TD was grossly deficient and thus the consequent ruling [however much similar to the committee’s, still,] was erroneous.

[bluejak]

axman, on Jun 23 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

The reason it could not be correct is that the process by which it was delivered was flawed: no basis was provided for finding that W gave S MI.

I still do not think what you are saying has any validity. The final decision was what it was: the process to reach the final decision was flawed. A decision made does not depend on the process. If I decide to increase the taxes in the USA because there is an oil leak, that decision is either right or wrong, but the method by which I decide is not part of the decision.

[pran]

bluejak, on Jun 23 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

axman, on Jun 23 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

The reason it could not be correct is that the process by which it was delivered was flawed: no basis was provided for finding that W gave S MI.

I still do not think what you are saying has any validity. The final decision was what it was: the process to reach the final decision was flawed. A decision made does not depend on the process. If I decide to increase the taxes in the USA because there is an oil leak, that decision is either right or wrong, but the method by which I decide is not part of the decision.

I am puzzled by this.

Do we have any reason to believe, or even suspect that the AC was ignorant of the CC for EW?

The appeal writeup was sloppy to say the least, but the evidence that is (and was) available clearly confirmed that South had received correct information.

And what is then left of the case for NS? Nothing as I see it; there is no claim that North (who in fact did receive MI) would have acted differently with correct information. South who claims that he would have acted differently with correct information in fact did receive correct information.

(And finally: South ignored the "alarm signal" from East pulling 5♦D to 5♥.)

[axman]

pran, on Jun 23 2010, 08:06 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 23 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

axman, on Jun 23 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

The reason it could not be correct is that the process by which it was delivered was flawed: no basis was provided for finding that W gave S MI.

I still do not think what you are saying has any validity. The final decision was what it was: the process to reach the final decision was flawed. A decision made does not depend on the process. If I decide to increase the taxes in the USA because there is an oil leak, that decision is either right or wrong, but the method by which I decide is not part of the decision.

I am puzzled by this.

Do we have any reason to believe, or even suspect that the AC was ignorant of the CC for EW?

The appeal writeup was sloppy to say the least, but the evidence that is (and was) available clearly confirmed that South had received correct information.

And what is then left of the case for NS? Nothing as I see it; there is no claim that North (who in fact did receive MI) would have acted differently with correct information. South who claims that he would have acted differently with correct information in fact did receive correct information.

(And finally: South ignored the "alarm signal" from East pulling 5♦D to 5♥.)

Actually, the AC ruled that W misinformed S more than once; and as the write up did not mention inspection of the CC that is reason to believe that the AC was ignorant. It was additional evidence that you brought to attention that altered some of my perceptions.

plus actually, "South asserted that he would not have doubled 5H if he was given the same explanation as his partner."

I should believe that had S asserted that he had been misinformed and that he thus was induced to believe invalid inferences that lead him to do what he otherwise would have done differently, that the AC would have taken notice and recorded it in the proceedings- and noticably such a record is absent.

[bluejak]

pran, on Jun 23 2010, 02:06 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 23 2010, 01:23 PM, said:

axman, on Jun 23 2010, 05:51 AM, said:

The reason it could not be correct is that the process by which it was delivered was flawed: no basis was provided for finding that W gave S MI.

I still do not think what you are saying has any validity. The final decision was what it was: the process to reach the final decision was flawed. A decision made does not depend on the process. If I decide to increase the taxes in the USA because there is an oil leak, that decision is either right or wrong, but the method by which I decide is not part of the decision.

I am puzzled by this.

Do we have any reason to believe, or even suspect that the AC was ignorant of the CC for EW?

None whatever: did I say that?

I consider that an AC that splits the score because they think one side should know what is going on has ignored the Law: either the MI was the sole or part cause of the result, or it was not.

I consider that an AC who considers a "2 to 3 imp procedural penalty" as an "adjustment" has not followed the Law.

I consider that an AC who considers that if they are not "prepared to adjust" to a score of -100 would then consider adjustments to artificial scores has not followed the Law.

So I believe this AC followed flawed processes, even if they did decide whether or not there was MI, and whether or not you consider their final decision correct.

[pran]

[quote name='axman' date='Jun 23 2010, 04:30 PM'] I am puzzled by this.

Do we have any reason to believe, or even suspect that the AC was ignorant of the CC for EW?

The appeal writeup was sloppy to say the least, but the evidence that is (and was) available clearly confirmed that South had received correct information.

And what is then left of the case for NS? Nothing as I see it; there is no claim that North (who in fact did receive MI) would have acted differently with correct information. South who claims that he would have acted differently with correct information in fact did receive correct information.

(And finally: South ignored the "alarm signal" from East pulling 5[di]D to 5[he].) [/QUOTE]
Actually, the AC ruled that W misinformed S more than once; and as the write up did not mention inspection of the CC that is reason to believe that the AC was ignorant. It was additional evidence that you brought to attention that altered some of my perceptions.

plus actually, "South asserted that he would not have doubled 5H if he was given the same explanation as his partner."

I should believe that had S asserted that he had been misinformed and that he thus was induced to believe invalid inferences that lead him to do what he otherwise would have done differently, that the AC would have taken notice and recorded it in the proceedings- and noticably such a record is absent. [/quote]
Well, your information given here does not match the information given in the (official?) USBF bulletin. Nowhere do I find any statement to the effect that West misinformed South, not once and definitely not more than once.

There is a reference to the obviouos fact that different information had been given by East and West to North and South respectively, but no indication of any attempt to clarify which information was correct. If it is true that the correct information was available on the CC I find this missing investigation very surprising.

From the information we have available by now I am convinced that the AC ruling was correct, but I am not convinced that the AC did a good job.

(The assertion by South that he would not have doubled 5[he] if he had been given the same explanation as his partner is of course completely irrelevant when that explanationn was incorrect and South really was given the correct explanation of the agreement, even when the incorrect explanation given to North was the explanation matching East's cards.)

[axman]

pran, on Jun 23 2010, 06:14 PM, said:

Well, your information given here does not match the information given in the (official?) USBF bulletin. Nowhere do I find any statement to the effect that West misinformed South, not once and definitely not more than once.

QUOTE
The committee felt that, despite the incorrect explanations that South was given,...
UNQUOTE

Note my lack of emphasis on the plural of explanations.