[Bbradley62]

zenko, on Jul 1 2010, 08:11 AM, said:

I might be very paranoid but here is how I see it:

would this be paranoid or delusional?

[jdonn]

nige1, on Jul 1 2010, 10:37 AM, said:

We are told this was  a National Championship -- not even International Level so, IMO, the committe's criterion for serious was too stringent.

You haven't said why. Which part of why I believe this was a very serious error for an expert in a major event do you disagree with? Or do you have counter arguments? I'll be repetitive and list my reasons to make it easy for you.

- 3 experts polled strongly disagreed with the play and found another play automatic.
- 5-0 breaks are very unlikely a priori.
- West couldn't have the shape declarer played him for.
- Even if west had the "impossible" shape he couldn't then have the high cards declarer played him for.
- East couldn't have the shape declarer played him for.
- Even if east had the "impossible" shape he would have made a different lead (and if east had the impossible shape and impossible strength he wouldn't have doubled).
- Even if all that "impossibleness" existed, declarer still needed a defensive error.
- Even if declarer got all that, his goal was down 2 doubled rather than down 3 doubled for what could easily be an insignificant gain (something like lose 9 instead of lose 12 against teammates +100), when the alternative of playing for normal breaks would be to make doubled.
- Even if you accept that declarer should play for such an obscure gain, and if declarer's view of the cards was correct, his conclusion was wrong and he wouldn't have gained any tricks anyway! In other words, if declarer played a trump and they were 5-0 he would still be down 2 by playing a spade next, not down 3.

Ok your turn. Why wasn't his play a serious error?

[nige1]

jdonn, on Jul 1 2010, 11:54 AM, said:

You haven't said why. Which part of why I believe this was a very serious error for an expert in a major event do you disagree with? Or do you have counter arguments? I'll be repetitive and list my reasons to make it easy for you.

- 3 experts polled strongly disagreed with the play and found another play automatic.
- 5-0 breaks are very unlikely a priori.
- West couldn't have the shape declarer played him for.
- Even if west had the "impossible" shape he couldn't then have the high cards declarer played him for.
- East couldn't have the shape declarer played him for.
- Even if east had the "impossible" shape he would have made a different lead (and if east had the impossible shape and impossible strength he wouldn't have doubled).
- Even if all that "impossibleness" existed, declarer still needed a defensive error.
- Even if declarer got all that, his goal was down 2 doubled rather than down 3 doubled for what could easily be an insignificant gain (something like lose 9 instead of lose 12 against teammates +100), when the alternative of playing for normal breaks would be to make doubled.
- Even if you accept that declarer should play for such an obscure gain, and if declarer's view of the cards was correct, his conclusion was wrong and he wouldn't have gained any tricks anyway! In other words, if declarer played a trump and they were 5-0 he would still be down 2 by playing a spade next, not down 3.

Ok your turn. Why wasn't his play a serious error?

Again, we agree to differ JDonn but not as much as usual I've already agreed that declarer's play was a mistake so I've agreed most of your points (although, I reject all your "impossible" statements. There can be few bidding-certainties about the holdings of players doubtful about their agreements).

Nevertheless, for reasons advanced in previous posts, I still don't think it was a serious error. In summary: three experts is an inadequate poll. We don't know what they were told or what questions were asked but, IMO, one question should have been "is declarer's play a serious error?". Furthermore, IMO, the answer to that question (if it was asked) should have been divulged.

If the correct line caters for unlikely distributions (given opponents' agreements), then it does not seem to be a serious error for declarer to misanalyse a hand and embark on an inferior line, unlikely to cost, even if it can't gain. With or without misinformation, players often do that (See the BBO "expert" forum, for examples, ad nauseam).

IMO, even if NS weren't direclty damaged, the appeal was reasonable, assuming that EW are of sufficient ability to be subject to a misinformation PP.

In this case, my judgements may be faulty but some directors share some of them. Hence rulings are likely to be inconsistent. The real fault is in egregious rules that foster such unnecessary subjectivity

[peachy]

nige1, on Jul 1 2010, 10:37 AM, said:

Most players average at least a couple of obscure errors per board.

This match featured players who are clearly NOT in the category of "most players". The poll was conducted among peers of the actual level of players in that match. I think it is pointless to make this type of generalized statements that are irrelevant to the case.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Jul 1 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

Again, we agree to differ JDonn but not as much as usual I've already agreed that declarer's play was a mistake so I've agreed most of your points (although, I reject all your "impossible" statements.  There can be few bidding-certainties about the holdings of players doubtful about their agreements).

How can we discuss this if your entire reasoning is based on vague general statements and cliches like "we all make lots of obscure errors", "players without clear agreements can have shapes that should be impossible" [an invalid point anyway since declarer at the time had no reason to believe there was no clear agreement], etc? I made points that were very specific. Do you have any specific disagreements, or have you analyzed the hand no further than declarer did?

[nige1]

nige1, on Jul 1 2010, 12:47 PM, said:

Again, we agree to differ JDonn but not as much as usual I've already agreed that declarer's play was a mistake so I've agreed most of your points (although, I reject all your "impossible" statements.  There can be few bidding-certainties about the holdings of players doubtful about their agreements).

jdonn, on Jul 1 2010, 01:24 PM, said:

How can we discuss this if your entire reasoning is based on vague general statements and cliches like "we all make lots of obscure errors", "players without clear agreements can have shapes that should be impossible" [an invalid point anyway since declarer at the time had no reason to believe there was no clear agreement], etc? I made points that were very specific. Do you have any specific disagreements, or have you analyzed the hand no further than declarer did?

Im afraid I've little new to add.

Although I can't stomach JDonn's "impossibilities", I've already agreed the substance of JDonn's analysis. I do so again, now. From the beginning, I've conceded that declarer's line is mistaken. I've explained, in tedious detail, my qualms about the interpretation of the poll. I don't judge declarer's play to be a serious mistake on what he was told. Again, as previously explained, my own subjective judgement is based on "vague generalisations" of experience in national competition, of kibitzing international play on BBO, and analyses in the BBO "expert" forum.

I think the directior and committee made the wrong ruling; and were wrong to issue an AWMW.

It would be useful to have borderline-examples illustrating errors deemed serious at various levels; even better would be to scrap the relevant rules, reducing the number of inconsistent rulings and interminable controversies like this.

[peachy]

nige1, on Jul 1 2010, 02:16 PM, said:

even better would be to scrap the relevant rules, reducing the number of inconsistent rulings and interminable controversies like this.

What is the controversy in the posted case?

[suprgrover]

nige1, on Jul 1 2010, 02:16 PM, said:

It would be useful to have borderline-examples illustrating errors deemed serious at various levels; even better would be to scrap the relevant rules, reducing the number of inconsistent rulings and interminable controversies like this.

It looks like I was right to think that Law 12 indeed applied here. What is the ACBL's definition of a serious error? Does it even have one? (I recall that at one point it was the old saw "failure to play bridge".) For reference, the definition used in the White Book in the EBU--which seems to be a higher standard than used by the committee--is as follows:

Quote

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.

· An error in the play in or defence to a contract which was only reached as
a consequence of the infraction should be treated especially leniently.

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.

[Trinidad]

Giving NS an AWMW can be constructed as a gross insult to EW. The message it sends is that it was ridiculous for NS to expect that the AC would give a PP to EW. This, in turn, means that EW are a pair of amateurs who are only supposed to be warned about their obligations and do not have the level that they could be penalised.

Unless the AC actually intended to insult EW, the AWMW was a mistake.

Rik

[campboy]

Trinidad, on Jul 2 2010, 12:29 PM, said:

Giving NS an AWMW can be constructed as a gross insult to EW. The message it sends is that it was ridiculous for NS to expect that the AC would give a PP to EW. This, in turn, means that EW are a pair of amateurs who are only supposed to be warned about their obligations and do not have the level that they could be penalised.

Unless the AC actually intended to insult EW, the AWMW was a mistake.

Rik

This is wrong in so many ways.

We are told that it was the TDs, not the AC, who "considered, but rejected" giving a PP. The AC merely agreed that a PP was inappropriate.

There is no suggestion in the writeup that NS appealed on the grounds that they thought EW should get a PP.

There is no suggestion in the writeup that the PP was rejected on grounds of EW's inexperience. Indeed, it would be very unusual to give a PP in this situation, even to experienced players.

[JLOL]

It is a complete embarrassment to the people appealing and to the game of bridge and a sad reflection on the state of bridge that this was even a director call, let alone an appeal. I could not stop laughing when I heard about the director call, then I heard there was an appeal. Haha.

Moral of the story, the state of bridge "at the top" right now is that if you can appeal, why not, it can't hurt and maybe the committee loses its mind! There is no self respect let alone integrity, so from a risk/reward analysis, well there is no risk.

Oh I forgot, they lose 50 bucks! I'm sure it's a lot to someone who is dropping mid 5 figures for his team in that event. That'll stop this kind of BS!

--Disclaimer, I was on the opposing team. We were losing by ~100 before withdrawing. Some members of our team seriously considered not withdrawing out of spite because of this appeal. It is a complete disgrace to bridge. We chose not to stoop to that level, even though we would be perfectly within our rights (as they were to appeal).

[JLOL]

nige1, what is an egregious error if a completely nullo play is not one, especially when it's not like the winning play is some kind of complicated play, it is pulling trumps. I mean seriously, a 0 % play of not pulling trumps with all winners....lol.

[kfay]

In situations like this after the screen comes up can't declarer just ask West what he thought his bid meant if he likes?

If he says 'Michaels' then go ahead... if he says 'Takeout' well then!

[campboy]

kfay, on Jul 3 2010, 02:07 PM, said:

In situations like this after the screen comes up can't declarer just ask West what he thought his bid meant if he likes?

Not without East hearing the answer, which may help the defence.

Anyway, why should he? No-one at the table is aware that the explanations on the two sides of the screen were different.

[nige1]

JLOL, on Jul 3 2010, 01:18 AM, said:

nige1, what is an egregious error if a completely nullo play is not one, especially when it's not like the winning play is some kind of complicated play, it is pulling trumps. I mean seriously, a 0 % play of not pulling trumps with all winners....lol.

I'm sorry JLall lost. I'd no idea who was playing whom. My view is just my subjective judgement. I think I'm right (for reasons stated in previous posts) but mine appears to be a minority opinion. Most commentators seem to agree with JLall and JDonn that Declarer's error was serious and NS deserved an AWMW for their appeal.

[campboy]

Declarer's error being serious is neither here nor there. The TD did not rule on that basis; if he had he would still have adjusted the score for EW, just not for NS. In fact he appears to have ruled that the MI did not contribute to declarer's misplay.

[jdonn]

nige1, on Jul 3 2010, 08:31 AM, said:

(for reasons stated in previous posts)

Still looking for them! All I still see are cliches and slogans.

[kfay]

campboy, on Jul 3 2010, 08:15 AM, said:

kfay, on Jul 3 2010, 02:07 PM, said:

In situations like this after the screen comes up can't declarer just ask West what he thought his bid meant if he likes?

Not without East hearing the answer, which may help the defence.

Anyway, why should he? No-one at the table is aware that the explanations on the two sides of the screen were different.

Well I think declarer is technically within their right to send East away from the table while they hear the explanation (see Mike Flader's column July Bridge Bulletin).

You're right, though, that there isn't any reason to expect MI, except that I think many (most?) experts don't play this agreement, to my understanding.

[blackshoe]

kfay, on Jul 3 2010, 12:35 PM, said:

Well I think declarer is technically within their right to send East away from the table while they hear the explanation (see Mike Flader's column July Bridge Bulletin).

What Mike actually said is

Quote

In cases where a defender is unsure of his agreement regarding his partner's call, it is appropriate to send that player away from the table and let the partner explain the agreement regarding the call in question.

This is advice to TDs. There is no "right to send a player away from the table" in the laws, and it is certainly not legal for a player to do this on his own. In fact, Law 20F1 says explicitly

Quote

…Except on the instruction of the director, replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question…

[nige1]

campboy, on Jul 3 2010, 10:14 AM, said:

Declarer's error being serious is neither here nor there. The TD did not rule on that basis; if he had he would still have adjusted the score for EW, just not for NS. In fact he appears to have ruled that the MI did not contribute to declarer's misplay.

The AC also took the view that declarer's misplay was subequent to but not a consequence of the misinformation. IMO, however:

• Declarer was told that the 2♥ overcall showed a takeout double of hearts. In that case, his play was mistaken but unlikely to cost.
  
• If declarer had been told the truth that the 2♥ bid showed a spade-minor two suiter, the line he took would be more likely to cost. Declarer's statement that he would then have played trumps instead is credible.