[peachy]

nige1, on Jul 3 2010, 03:04 PM, said:

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 double 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 double showed a spade-minor two suiter, his play would be more likely to cost. Declarer's statement that he would then have played trumps is credible.

You are free to disagree with the AC, the TD, three world class players who were polled, J. Lall, J. Donn, and the other experts who have posted in this thread (that does not include me, I am not in that class). But keeping posting the same thing and and saying [direct quote from one of your posts] "My view is just my subjective judgement. I think I'm right" gets a little old, over time

[mrdct]

blackshoe, on Jul 3 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

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…

Law 20F1 is not relevant when screens are in use. Screen regulations always modify the application of Law 20.

Under the WBF General Conditions of Contest 25.3:

Quote

At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made.

However, the USBF Conditions of Contest are quite different to the WBF regulations and include the following in section XIV.B Screen Procedures:

Quote

LAW 20:
Review of the Auction:
Until the bidding cards are removed from the tray, a player obtains a review of the auction by inspecting them. At trick one, when a player is still entitled to obtain a review and an inspection of the bidding cards is no longer feasible, a player obtains a written review of the auction from his screen mate.

Explanation of Calls:
1. During the Auction:
At any time a player may request, in writing, of his screen mate a full explanation of an opponent's call. The reply, also, is in writing.
2. Prior to the Opening Lead:
a. The opening leader is permitted to ask for clarification in writing from his or her opponent on the other side of the screen.
b. The declaring side may, on their own initiative, confirm explanations given on the other side of the screen and is encouraged to do so for complex and potentially ambiguous auctions.
3. After the Screen is Raised:
Third hand (opening leader’s partner) is permitted to ask for clarification in writing after the screen is raised.
4. During the Play Period:
Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made in writing.

On that basis, in the US Open Team Trials it would be OK to ask a defender on the other other side of the screen what one of his alerts was but in the Bermuda Bowl you would not be allowed to do it and need to wait until the end of the hand to seek any redress if differing explanations have been given.

[blackshoe]

Fine, but Kevin pointed to an article of Mike Flader's in support of his position, and that article didn't say a damn thing about screens.

Even with screens I suspect that the intent is that the TD get involved rather than the players doing this on their own.

[campboy]

nige1, on Jul 3 2010, 09:04 PM, said:

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 double 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 double showed a spade-minor two suiter, his line would be more likely to cost. Declarer's statement that he would then have played trumps instead is credible.

I think the exact opposite is true. Declarer claimed to be playing the way he did in case of a 5-0 trump split. Given that he knows by now that West had at most three diamonds, surely the 5-0 split is much more likely with the explanation "spades and a minor" than the explanation "takeout of hearts".

[nige1]

West didn't double 2♦. He overcalled 2♥. (I've corrected that mistake in my previous post but I don't think it affects the argument).

[mink]

There was a lot of discussion in this thread about whether the ♠8 in trick 3 was a serious error or not. But this was of no concern to the AC - they (and probably the director, too) ruled that there was no link between the misinformation and the play:

Quote

Since declarer's play was no better than break even and could lose to the actual distribution, the damage was not a consequence of the misinformation but was only subsequent to it and was caused by declarer's faulty assumptions as to the lie of the cards.

Here, the AC is making fun of the declarer. If he is misinformed, of course he will make faulty assumptions. And these faulty assumptions made him play ♠8 in trick 3, which he fore sure would not have done if he got the correct information leading to more accurate assumptions. In order to decide that, the TD should have judged if East's pleading is comprehensible. What others play is only relevant when it shall be decided if the play was a serious error. Anybody who suggests that North would play ♠8 even if he got the correct information and therefore knows that there is a reasonable chance that West has a singleton ♦ also suggests that North is completely insane.

Some accuse North to make assumptions about the hand that are impossible or unlikely. But what should he really assume? N/S have 25 HCP, and for his "takeout" 2♥ West should hold the majority of the E/W HCP. This means East doubled with very limited strength, and one should assume that he has a good length in ♥ containing Q and J in order to compensate for his weakness. Before leading to trick 3, North already knows that West has ♣AK, as East would probably not underlead his A. The question remains, who has ♠A? If West had the A, he really would be a little strong for his initial pass. But if he had not the A, he would be a little weak for his takeout. Also, if East had the A, why didn't he ever bid ♠? The situation is so difficult for North because, given E/W played the same system, the penalty double is insane with the hands they actually have. East doubled because he thought that West had more strength for his takeout and subsequent 3♣ bid. He got it wrong. But when North gets it wrong, too, with the same wrong information, is it his own fault?

About the "serious error" question: Anybody posting in this thread has yet failed to provide a 52-card-layout that is consistent with the bidding and that contains a West hand that is consistent with the information North got, and where the play of ♠8 in trick 3 causes the contract to go down while it would make on drawing trumps. Only if such a layout could be found, you could argue that ♠8 was an error, and only if it was a quite possible and easy to imagine such a layout, you maybe could argue that it was a serious error. If such a layout cannot be found, ♠8 would be just obscure, as those who were polled said, but nothing one could really criticize. Please keep in mind that it does never hurt if East is short in ♦ as he would ruff with a trump that makes a trick anyway.

The TD, the AC and all in this thread who supported them may be excellent bridge players, but in my view fail to see the situation from North's point of view. The actual hand layout, where the ♠8 was really an error if North was provided with the correct information, seems to bias people against North. I am sure, if a hand like

Scoring: IMP

(always -1)

---

had been posted, most would just shrug when learning that North played ♠8 in trick 3 - it simply does not matter.

One last comment to the AWM warning. The writeup says:

Quote

They (N/S) brought no new information to the committee that had not been disclosed to the directors and the consultants.

It is a well-known fact that in judgment cases often different people come to different conclusions based on exactly the same information. It must be possible to appeal if the appellant just thinks that the TD's decision is an minority view of the problem. A serious TD gives both sides the opportunity to present their case and delays his ruling until he has gathered all relevant information. According to this AC, it is always pointless to appeal against a decision of such a TD.

Karl

[jdonn]

mink, on Jul 4 2010, 12:20 PM, said:

About the "serious error" question: Anybody posting in this thread has yet failed to provide a 52-card-layout that is consistent with the bidding and that contains a West hand that is consistent with the information North got, and where the play of ♠8 in trick 3 causes the contract to go down while it would make on drawing trumps.

That is not true, here are three ways.

As I stated earlier in the thread, west could have QJ doubleton of hearts and east could have xxx.

West could have chosen to make a takeout double with something like like Axxx Jxx xxx AKx (given that declarer has already decided to play west to originally pass an opening hand and has already clearly only considered the takeout double in deciding what shape west could have but not the 3♣ bid) and then he could win the spade and give his partner a diamond ruff, and declarer would have a guess on the second round of trumps that he would surely get wrong.

Or how about west risked a takeout double on 4216 shape? Not a bid I or most people would make but not outside the realm of possibility for some.

Now how about showing a layout where declarer could gain from playing a spade if hearts were 0-5 as he thought. Even feel free to ignore the auction and give the players otherwise impossible hands if you want.

Quote

I am sure, if a hand like

Scoring: IMP

(always -1)

---

had been posted, most would just shrug when learning that North played ♠8 in trick 3 - it simply does not matter.

No, we would have said why did declarer not draw trumps? And anyway that layout is not relevant to declarer's argument since he tried to sneak the spade through west. He could easily have won the diamond opening lead in his hand and tried to sneak the spade through east instead.

mink, on Jul 4 2010, 12:20 PM, said:

Anybody who suggests that North would play ♠8 even if he got the correct information and therefore knows that there is a reasonable chance that West has a singleton ♦ also suggests that North is completely insane.

I indeed suggest that north is insane based on the line of play and this appeal.

[Pict]

I just wonder:

Was the relevant player insane or mentally deficient in some way. How did he get on in the rest of the competition. Did he have to leave and go under care.

I suspect not.

I agree with the judgements reported but not with the childish reactions to someone calling a Director, or appealing, which I think is their right.

[jdonn]

Pict, on Jul 4 2010, 03:19 PM, said:

I agree with the judgements reported but not with the childish reactions to someone calling a Director, or appealing, which I think is their right.

What do being within your legal rights and being insane have to do with each other? If I sued you for slander since your post suggested I'm childish then I would be within my rights and also be insane.

Anyway you're taking the discussion out of context. Mink essentially posted that to say the incorrect explanation didn't influence the line declarer took means declarer does things that make no sense at all. I essentially said the evidence shows that is an entirely plausible scenario. There was nothing childish about it.

[Pict]

A lot of argument has relied on the high level of the relevant competition.

That doesn't fit with childish talk of insanity.

[mink]

Jdonn:

Quote

That is not true, here are three ways.

As I stated earlier in the thread, west could have QJ doubleton of hearts and east could have xxx.

I know you said this, and you provided only 5 cards, not 52. A penalty double with ♥QJ is really calling for trouble.

Jdonn:

Quote

West could have chosen to make a takeout double with something like like Axxx Jxx xxx AKx (given that declarer has already decided to play west to originally pass an opening hand and has already clearly only considered the takeout double in deciding what shape west could have but not the 3♣  bid) and then he could win the spade and give his partner a diamond ruff, and declarer would have a guess on the second round of trumps that he would surely get wrong.

This one is even worse, you want to tell us that he made his 3♣ bid with AKx and East doubled with JTxxx, Qx, x, xxxxx???

Jdonn:

Quote

Or how about west risked a takeout double on 4216 shape? Not a bid I or most people would make but not outside the realm of possibility for some.

This is just a shape and no cards at all. And it is a shape not consistent with a takeout of ♥. If you want to require the declarer to take care for a mess like this, you could also say he should ignore opps' bidding completely.

Jdonn:

Quote

Now how about showing a layout where declarer could gain from playing a spade if hearts were 0-5 as he thought. Even feel free to ignore the auction and give the players otherwise impossible hands if you want.

In my opinion, if somebody wants to convince me that a player has made an error, it it his duty to show me a layout where the given line fails. That there is no layout where a given line gains does not make this line erroneous. He just tried for something that was impossible to achieve. As long as he does not take a risk this is fine with me.

Karl

[jdonn]

I didn't realize I had to play by your rules. Yes I only gave a shape for west, I'm sure you can work out where the high cards go!

I gave layouts where he loses that are based on a bad penalty double and an offshape takeout double. Both are possible even if you think they aren't. Declarer can cater to them by the incredibly difficult play of drawing trumps which could NEVER lose. Instead declarer took a play that NEVER gains.

[mink]

That he did not do draw trump in trick 3 does not prove or even suggest that he would also not do it he was informed correctly and knew that the ♦9 in trick 2 was likely to be a singleton. This is my main argument here. As I said in my first post, the "serious error"-question is only secondary.

Karl

[mrdct]

mink, on Jul 4 2010, 05:37 PM, said:

That he did not do draw trump in trick 3 does not prove or even suggest that he would also not do it he was informed correctly and knew that the ♦9 in trick 2 was likely to be a singleton. This is my main argument here. As I said in my first post, the "serious error"-question is only secondary.

Karl

I think this is a pretty good point. Whilst declarer clearly misplayed the hand there does appear to be a fairly strong causal link between the misexplanation and the misplay.

Even at the highests levels of bridge, all players from time to time will fail to completely analyse a hand and will start connecting the dots on available information and then reach a premature and inaccurate conclusion as to the layout and procede with a misplay accordingly. At the club duplicate this probably happens several times per hand and at the USBF Trials it probably happens once or twice per session with varying degrees of conspicuousness.

It does seem pretty likely to me that if north had been told by his screenmate that 2♥ was Michaels the chances of him finding the "obscure" play of the ♠8 would be greatly reduced, if not entirely eliminated. On that basis the misexplanation has surely contributed to NS' poor result.

The fact that nobody seems to be able to come up with a credible 52 card layout consistent with the information available to north suggests that north was probably having quite a hard time getting his head around potential layouts too, so he has some sympathy from me.

[campboy]

mrdct, on Jul 5 2010, 06:28 AM, said:

I think this is a pretty good point. Whilst declarer clearly misplayed the hand there does appear to be a fairly strong causal link between the misexplanation and the misplay.

Declarer said he was playing that way in case West has no trumps. So he is playing for declarer's distribution to be 5=0=3=5, 4=0=3=6, 6=0=3=4, 5=0=2=6 or 6=0=2=5 (or something even more distributional), as West has at most three diamonds. Which explanation do you think this is closer to?

[nige1]

mrdct, on Jul 5 2010, 06:28 AM, said:

I think this is a pretty good point.  Whilst declarer clearly misplayed the hand there does appear to be a fairly strong causal link between the misexplanation and the misplay.

campboy, on Jul 5 2010, 05:13 PM, said:

Declarer said he was playing that way in case West has no trumps. So he is playing for declarer's distribution to be 5=0=3=5, 4=0=3=6, 6=0=3=4, 5=0=2=6 or 6=0=2=5 (or something even more distributional), as West has at most three diamonds. Which explanation do you think this is closer to?

N says he played for a 3-suiter short in ♥ (T/O shape). He says he would draw trumps, with the correct (Michaels) explanation. From original post:

suprgrover, on Jun 24 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

North claimed that he was afraid to play even one round of trumps for fear of losing control if trumps were 5-0. If he could steal a spade trick, he could then shift to the red suits and emerge with 8 tricks. He said that had he been given West's explanation, he would have drawn at least one round of trumps, but with the likelihood of a 3-suiter looming he wanted to minimize the damage.

[campboy]

Did you not read what you just quoted?

Quote

North claimed that he was afraid to play even one round of trumps for fear of losing control if trumps were 5-0.

[nige1]

campboy, on Jul 5 2010, 06:42 PM, said:

Did you not read what you just quoted?

Quote

North claimed that he was afraid to play even one round of trumps for fear of losing control if trumps were 5-0.

Yes but, to be fair to declarer, I restored the rest of his statement (which campboy again omitted) in which declarer says he was also catering for other West hands short in ♥.

[campboy]

What other West hands short in hearts are you talking about? He specifically said he was worried that West had no trumps.

[nige1]

campboy, on Jul 5 2010, 08:56 PM, said:

What other West hands short in hearts are you talking about? He specifically said he was worried that West had no trumps.

Perhaps 4135 or 5134? We aren't told; but declarer said he was worried about 3-suiters suitable for a ♥ T/O double:

suprgrover, on Jun 24 2010, 07:10 PM, said:

... He said that had he been given West's explanation, he would have drawn at least one round of trumps, but with the likelihood of a 3-suiter looming he wanted to minimize the damage ...