[CSGibson]

chudecek, on 2012-May-10, 14:27, said:

If declarer had the heart king he had nine tricks after Meckstroth led the HQ. 2S 2H 2D 3C.
Rodwell knew that, and the whole world knew that, and Meckstroth knew that Rodwell would know that,
especially after a long tank. So Eric's attitude signal in hearts HAD to be trusted, because it was
consistent with H JTxx. So continuing with the HK is not only a logical alternative, it is
the SUPERIOR alternative and should have been required after Rodwell's long tank.

I'm not jibber-jabbering - I am describing conditions as they occurred.

What weight are you giving to the fact that Moss didn't take the ace, which he might do with Axxx in order to block the suit?

[Hanoi5]

A bridge huddle cannot be compared to a chess huddle.

[CSGibson]

chudecek, on 2012-May-10, 14:27, said:

Meckstroth knew that Rodwell would know that,
especially after a long tank.

Are you suggesting that a long tank followed by the 3 would be MORE likely to show JTxx than an immediate positive signal? Or that Meckstroth should take into consideration the time that Eric tanked when deciding whether he had JTxx? Maybe Meckstroth's switch was out of a profound sense of ethics then, not taking advantage of his tank and positive signal, instead following through with his original plan.

[mikeh]

Nobody can win an argument on this thread, because, ultimately, the whole thread is pointless.

A committee made of experts from whom we have not heard has made a decision based on facts and explanations of which we have only a partial understanding (and I can well understand why Fred doesn't want to write about this situation, and he is the only poster in a position to actually say what happened, in detail, at the table and the committee).

Even Fred's perspective is incomplete. Those of us who have served on committees know that the parties to a hearing are given the result, and maybe a summary of the rationale, but are not told, when the decision is announced, precisely what discussion led to the eventual outcome. Appeal summaries, even when available, are just that, and reflect the decision, not the discussion that led to the decision. I know that sometimes a committee member may later tell a friend, whose case was heard, a bit more about what happened....I don't think that should take place, but we're all human...but even that isn't the full story.

We are, in other words, being asked to second-guess a decision made in good faith by competent people without knowing exactly what they were told, what they chose to accept, if there was any controversy about the facts, and precisely how they weighed or viewed the issues.

Yes, I can see how it would be possible, by making some relatively minor assumptions about the missing information, to determine that we wouldn't agree with the decision...but neither I nor Carl nor anyone else has the 'right' to make such assumptions and then bemoan the outcome on the basis that our assumptions are correct.

The case is over. No-one, including, I suspect, the Nickell team is 'happy' that this situation arose. It would be wonderful if no BITs ever happened, or if all cases were susceptible to a readily-apparent outcome. This is, however, the real world.

I suggest we move on. Another analogous situation will arise in the next few years, and we will have a new oxe to gore...this one's already dead.

[chudecek]

CSGibson, on 2012-May-10, 15:14, said:

Are you suggesting that a long tank followed by the 3 would be MORE likely to show JTxx than an immediate positive signal? Or that Meckstroth should take into consideration the time that Eric tanked when deciding whether he had JTxx? Maybe Meckstroth's switch was out of a profound sense of ethics then, not taking advantage of his tank and positive signal, instead following through with his original plan.

No, I am stating that both Rodwell and Meckstroth knew the hand was unbeatable if declarer held the HK.
So from Rodwell's perspective, he must assign that card to Meckstroth. And since Eric did not hold JTxx,
he probably erred by playing a card (H3) that would encourage a continuation. And Meckstroth erred by
not continuing hearts after his Q held with the 3 being played on it, since Rodwell holding JTxx was the
only legitimate beat.

[bluecalm]

Is this appeal going to be public ?
No matter what one thinks about this hand it would be very interesting to read.

[pigpenz]

it was interesting that in the NY Times yesterday they never brought up anything about this hand having an appeal.
they only reported that Meckstroth broke ranks played ♥Q, Moss didnt take safety play and went down. Made it
sound like Meckstroth was genius for his approach when he broke system and played Q from KQ.

[chudecek]

pigpenz, on 2012-May-11, 12:19, said:

it was interesting that in the NY Times yesterday they never brought up anything about this hand having an appeal.
they only reported that Meckstroth broke ranks played ♥Q, Moss didnt take safety play and went down. Made it
sound like Meckstroth was genius for his approach when he broke system and played Q from KQ.

Maybe Meckstroth led the Q to show a doubleton, knowing Rodwell could work out that he had the king.

[billw55]

bluecalm, on 2012-May-10, 17:38, said:

Is this appeal going to be public ?
No matter what one thinks about this hand it would be very interesting to read.

Agree, and also: I wonder who was on the committee. When the contestants are eight of the best players in the world, it seems that peers would be in short supply!

[steve2005]

regarding long huddle. i think part of current Bob Hamman interview on BBO is pertinent.

What are the 3 things you wish to happen to bridge?
...
"2) A truly legitimate timing mechanism which would force all bids and defensive plays to be made with an even tempo. "

[blackshoe]

steve2005, on 2012-May-11, 14:41, said:

regarding long huddle. i think part of current Bob Hamman interview on BBO is pertinent.

What are the 3 things you wish to happen to bridge?
...
"2) A truly legitimate timing mechanism which would force all bids and defensive plays to be made with an even tempo. "

He said that, did he? If he's talking about high level bridge that's one thing. If he's talking about club level bridge, he's dreaming.

[bluecalm]

And here we can see the appeals: http://usbf.org/inde...=986&Itemid=397

This:

Quote

The director ruled and the committee affirmed that there was no unauthorized information, since the heart queen did not ask for jack-attitude and the indication was overwhelming that East never planned to continue hearts.

confirms that the committee doesn't know what they are doing.
It doesn't matter for existence of UI what E planned to do yet it's given as a reason. Deeply disappointing explanation imo.

[barmar]

No, it doesn't matter for the existence of UI, but it does suggest what LAs were available. From what he knew about the hand, continuing the suit was not an LA, so partner's attitude is irrelevant.

I think the TD and committee made the common mistake of conflating these two aspects of the UI laws in the writeup. If the UI is irrelevant to deciding among the LAs (or there's only one LA so no decision needs to be made), they will often write this up as if there were no UI -- they're only considering relevant UI.

[bluecalm]

I just hope they got it confused only in the write-up or they really shouldn't be doing the job.
Anyway, the verdict doesn't look that bad to me I can certainly see some justification for it but the explanation dissapoints greatly.

[Fluffy]

East took some time before playing the diamond 10, which was inconsistent with his planned defense contention. East denied that he took any appreciable time before switching to the diamond 10.


So who's lying?

[mikeh]

bluecalm, on 2012-May-15, 15:34, said:

And here we can see the appeals: http://usbf.org/inde...=986&Itemid=397

This:



confirms that the committee doesn't know what they are doing.
It doesn't matter for existence of UI what E planned to do yet it's given as a reason. Deeply disappointing explanation imo.

We must be reading differently.

As I understand it, those who disagree with the ruling assert that an in-tempo 3 would have shown the heart J, and now a heart continuation is clear. Thus, the BIT suggested that maybe W didn't hold the J and now a switch made sense. A continuation of hearts being, so the critics assert, a LA, the defender was not permitted to switch once the 'encouraging' 3 was played slowly.

However, the ruling makes it clear that the assumption underlying all of this is simply untrue. The 3 was NOT encouraging re the Jack. So whether it was played in tempo or otherwise, it couldn't be showing the Jack.

The defenders said that E would lead the K if what he wanted was info on the Jack. By leading the Q, he was systemically NOT asking re the J, so partner's in-tempo 3 would NOT have shown the J.

if this is true....if E switched to a non-systemic card, then surely a BIT would suggest the J, rather than the opposite?

The Q DID NOT ASK about the J. So an in-tempo card would not say anything about the Jack. But if West were to tank while trying to figure out that East had led a deliberately misleading card, and then figure out that, wait a momment, he has the KQ even tho he should lead the K from that holding....I'd better encourage.....now (were the continuation necessary to beat the hand) I think there is a good case to be made that the continuation was made more attractive by the tank than by an in-tempo 3.

I appreciate that I am not a bridge laws expert, and maybe I have this wrong, but it seems to make sense to me. The key, as I said, is that W's card was unrelated to the presence or absence of the J in his hand....by partnership carding agreement. Therefore a smotth 3 would have said nothing about continuing or switching, and a slow 3 would seem to argue in favour of a continuation, thus making the switch the ethical choice.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on 2012-May-16, 16:32, said:

East took some time before playing the diamond 10, which was inconsistent with his planned defense contention. East denied that he took any appreciable time before switching to the diamond 10.


So who's lying?

Why conclude that anyone is 'lying'?

I know, in the popular media, whenever there is a blatant contradiction between two versions of events, one side or the other is always 'lying'.

In real life, that simply isn't true, and I think that there is an abundance of psychological evidence and opinion backing me up on this, although I come to this view primarily from having questioned or read transcripts of questioning of literally thousands of witnesses to disputed events.

In my experience, few people actually lie, in the sense of telling deliberate falsehoods. However, we are all imperfect (well, other than say Sheldon in The Big Bang Theory) recorders of our own lives, and our memories, in any event, do not appear to be stored in a fashion analogous to a recording on a hard drive. We store aspects of experience and, when we retrieve the memory, we retrieve these aspects and our brains fill in the gaps, all without any conscious intent or knowledge on our part.

In addition, we tend to reconstruct events in a manner favourable to our image of ourselves.

As I once read: we all are the stars of our own videos....

Add to the mix the extreme pressures of the situation, the intensity of focus, the desire to win, the desire to look good, and the rivalry that existed (no matter how well the players respect each other or may (or may not) be friends away from the table) and we have all the makings of a situation in which there could be honestly held disagreements about detail.

Black and white explanations are very popular, and underly the success of so many politicians, especially of the populist variety, but they are often profoundly wrong and unfair.

[awm]

This does seem like a poor ruling to me. If Roswell held the heart JT8x, would he hesitate before encouraging? I think not.

This business of "attitude about card X" is really bull. An attitude signal indicates your attitude about the suit. With a solid holding surely encouraging is automatic. Certainly T8xx may also encourage (since it appears from the queen lead that Meck has QJ) meaning its far from 100% clear to continue given encouragement, but I still think continuing must be a LA.

Claiming "not to have noticed" Brad's tendency to open balanced 11s also seems irrelevant and something of a dodge.

Of course, the writeup in these cases often fails to reflect what was said. And the winning margin was more than the value of this hand, so suggesting that "the wrong team won" is too much.

[nige1]

Presumably, the committee asked Rodwell why he took so long to play a card, when, whatever card he chose had no conventional significance?
If the committee believe Rodwell that it did not matter what card he played, then they must still consider whether Rodwell could have known that his (now, seemingly unnecessary) hesitation might work to his side's advantage, for example, by giving declarer a false picture of the distribution.
Previously in this thread, we were told that, after ducking ♥Q, Moss asked about defender's signals. Did he do that? Was he told (or could he establish form defender's system card) that the card Rodwell played could have no conventional significance?
The committee must judge what are Meckstroth's logical alternatives. In particular, is a ♥ continuation an LA ,in spite of Meckstroth's protestations to the contrary. If so, did Rodwell's long hesitation deter a ♥ continuation because with ♥J, Rodwell would have been more likely to play in tempo?
It does not matter that Meckstroth failed to notice declarer's point-count requirements for his bids, It matters only than an alert defender could easily have established that Moss, in fact, opened balanced 11 counts so Meckstroth could avoid defending under a delusion.
I suppose that Moss must just be suitably grateful that he escaped the AWMW that the committee seriously considered!

[bluecalm]

The committee sound completely confused imo. The ruling should go like this:

a)was there UI ?
There was of course, long huddle transmits information about partner having a problem; this information is not authorized by bridge rules.

b)does UI clearly suggested some actions ?
To be established but just because Meckstroth claimed he didn't notice something or small heart wasn't "attitude for J" (lol) shouldn't be even considered here. If low heart wasn't attitude for J what was it then ? What would Rodwell play from JTxx ? Would he have any choice ? If not, then UI suggests discontinuing hearts

c)Is continuing hearts LA here ?
Again, the answer to this questions is the same as the answer to similar question: "Would at least some players at level similar to Meckstroth at least consider continuing hearts?". If the answer is yes, then continuing hearts is LA. What Meckstroth planned to do before, what he claims he noticed etc. has no bearing what so over here. The question is if having his agreements in this spot (apparently none) would other players consider continuing hearts after seeing a small one.

It's cute that Meckstroth wanted to be tricky and played a Q from KQ but what was he claims his reason for doing that was doesn't matter here. Meanwhile in the rulling there are a lot of meaningless information (what he claims he intended to do, why Rodwell thought for so long etc.), lack of meaningful information (what his agreements are for spots like that) and general fail at getting even point a) right.

Quote

I appreciate that I am not a bridge laws expert

Thanks god. Too many "law experts" and too few people with reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills