[nige1]

ddrankin, on 2015-July-07, 00:00, said:

I agree with adjusting to 4♥ but I can't see a line that the defense can give up the overtrick, other than cashing two club tricks early, which seems quite unlikely, if not totally improbable. Can someone enlighten me?

If South leads a ♠ declarer can make only 10 tricks in ♥s. On the likely ♦ lead (or any non-♠ lead), declarer can make 11 tricks by drawing trumps and using dummy's ♦ entries to lead ♣ twice towards his ♣QTx.

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2015-July-07, 13:16, said:

If South leads a ♠ declarer can make only 10 tricks in ♥s. On the likely ♦ lead (or any non-♠ lead), declarer can make 11 tricks by drawing trumps and using dummy's ♦ entries to lead ♣ twice towards his ♣QTx.

I don't understand why a ♦ lead is likely. In fact, I don't believe a Diamond lead is close enough to apply that possibility in the ruling (doubtful outcome decided in favor of the NOS). Hence 4H=, not 4H+1.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2015-July-07, 21:26, said:

I don't understand why a ♦ lead is likely. In fact, I don't believe a Diamond lead is close enough to apply that possibility in the ruling (doubtful outcome decided in favor of the NOS). Hence 4H=, not 4H+1.

A matter of judgement about which Aquahombre and I disagree. It's a pity that directors balk at finding out what happened at other tables. In a multiple teams event, after similar auctions, I'd expect several of the Easts who played 4♥ to make an overtrick. To humour me, please would VixTD access the relevant traveller?

[Lanor Fow]

One of the main issues with looking at travelers as a director is that the auction may not be the same. Even if the auction were the same, the systems played could well be different, either obviously or subtlety, giving different inferences. Unless I could find a set of peers, playing the same system, against opponents with the same system, who had the same auction (and enough of these to have a sample set to suggest something) then the travelers are often worse than useless. Practically, trying to find this information when running an event, as well as consulting on the ruling and polling for LAs, is likely to be too time consuming to provide a timely ruling.

[nige1]

Lanor Fow, on 2015-July-09, 04:09, said:

One of the main issues with looking at travelers as a director is that the auction may not be the same. Even if the auction were the same, the systems played could well be different, either obviously or subtlety, giving different inferences. Unless I could find a set of peers, playing the same system, against opponents with the same system, who had the same auction (and enough of these to have a sample set to suggest something) then the travelers are often worse than useless. Practically, trying to find this information when running an event, as well as consulting on the ruling and polling for LAs, is likely to be too time consuming to provide a timely ruling.

Sometimes, the director can ask what happened at another table. (If the system or auction was slightly different, the data may still be relevant, although less so). Such evidence might, at least, help to inform a director's judgement, in cases like this. Also, If a ruling is appealed, such evidence might be relevant.

[blackshoe]

I'm with Lanor. I don't think "might be" is all that compelling.

[jallerton]

I agree with Nigel. Sometimes, the TD can work out that the bidding problem will be the same at most tables; in those cases, why not make use of an 'at the table' poll, for each the answers already exist? On other occasions the TD can infer that the auctions are likely to vary considerably at other tables; in those cases the results at those tables are unlikely to be relevant to the ruling.

[mycroft]

The problems are:

- if you don't push really hard "don't use the other tables" (even to the point of "unless it's reasonably obvious they're going to have the same problem") that will be the default of many directors (and they won't even hear that "unless" bit). Whether it's a reasonable tool for an experienced, knowledgable TD with good and practised judgement, knowledge of the local metagame, and enough bridge skills to do it right or not - how many are there of those, compared to the local TD?
- If you decide that you can look at the travellers, and it seems that only tables 4, 8. and 11 didn't let through the overtrick - well, it could be skill; it could be "likely"; it could be that table 4 was E- and me playing EHAA, table 8 was the Precision pair, and table 11 was the pair that just went for 1100 in the 2-1 fit and are still talking about it. Or maybe it's just that 9 times out of 12, the defence gave away a trick because the right defence is difficult and unlikely.

A nice, if dangerous tool in the right hands, in other words. There are a lot of not right hands for the tool to go to, however.

[nige1]

mycroft, on 2015-July-09, 16:19, said:

The problems are:

- if you don't push really hard "don't use the other tables" (even to the point of "unless it's reasonably obvious they're going to have the same problem") that will be the default of many directors (and they won't even hear that "unless" bit). Whether it's a reasonable tool for an experienced, knowledgable TD with good and practised judgement, knowledge of the local metagame, and enough bridge skills to do it right or not - how many are there of those, compared to the local TD?
- If you decide that you can look at the travellers, and it seems that only tables 4, 8. and 11 didn't let through the overtrick - well, it could be skill; it could be "likely"; it could be that table 4 was E- and me playing EHAA, table 8 was the Precision pair, and table 11 was the pair that just went for 1100 in the 2-1 fit and are still talking about it. Or maybe it's just that 9 times out of 12, the defence gave away a trick because the right defence is difficult and unlikely.

A nice, if dangerous tool in the right hands, in other words. There are a lot of not right hands for the tool to go to, however.

In other law-courts, lawmen try to exclude objective evidence, seemingly to ensure that their arguments and judgements are decisive Similarly, the 2007 Bridge laws delegated power to directors and relied more on their judgement

IMO, the laws of a game should rely as much as possible on objective evidence and as little as possible on subjective judgment.

I posted the lead problem as a poll
http://www.bridgebas...post__p__853995

Of the 4 people who've voted, so far none have chosen a ♠.

[nige1]

jallerton, on 2015-July-09, 14:32, said:

I agree with Nigel. Sometimes, the TD can work out that the bidding problem will be the same at most tables; in those cases, why not make use of an 'at the table' poll, for each the answers already exist? On other occasions the TD can infer that the auctions are likely to vary considerably at other tables; in those cases the results at those tables are unlikely to be relevant to the ruling.

Here, the bidding is likely to be slightly different at other tables but Aquahombre and I are arguing about likely leads (not auction). If the inferences from a different auction, ending in 4♥ by East, are similar, I think the director should take the result from that table into account when judging how the play might go.

[VixTD]

There were only three teams, so it was played at only one other table, in 5♥ making eleven tricks on the lead of the ♦3.

So much for your poll.

[aguahombre]

VixTD, on 2015-July-10, 06:05, said:

There were only three teams, so it was played at only one other table, in 5♥ making eleven tricks on the lead of the ♦3.

So much for your poll.

Gulp.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2015-July-09, 18:20, said:

In other law-courts, lawmen try to exclude objective evidence, seemingly to ensure that their arguments and judgements are decisive Similarly, the 2007 Bridge laws delegated power to directors and relied more on their judgement

IMO, the laws of a game should rely as much as possible on objective evidence and as little as possible on subjective judgment.

The problem with this is that the types of rulings we're discussing rarely have objective solutions. Bridge is a game of judgement, and this is very contingent on circumstances.

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2015-July-10, 06:05, said:

There were only three teams, so it was played at only one other table, in 5♥ making eleven tricks on the lead of the ♦3. So much for your poll.

IMO a director can inform his judgement in determining likely results by consulting a player's peers.

• When BBFers were polled, so far they've voted 16-0 against a ♠ lead. Admittedly, they aren't necessarily peers of the players.
• Also even Vixtd's actual result at another table shows that a non-♠ lead is a possibility (although I accept that there may have been different inferences available to the leader).

I hope law-makers (and directors) haven't closed their minds, on this issue.

[VixTD]

nige1, on 2015-July-13, 18:36, said:

When BBFers were polled, so far they've voted 16-0 against a ♠ lead.

billw55, on 2015-July-09, 14:52, said:

I would not be on lead against 4♥.

I might be against 5♥. What would be the best shot? Leading the stiff ♦ amounts to hoping partner has the ♥A: possible, but optimistic. Meanwhile he very well might have ♦Qxx(x) when the lead solves declarer's guess in the suit.

In the end I think I would unimaginatively lead a spade.

I originally thought the way to hold declarer to ten tricks was to lead trumps to prevent a club ruff in dummy, and I didn't think that very likely at all.