[gnasher]

mink, on 2013-April-08, 16:05, said:

After the first 7 tricks West was holding ♠K963, ♥J, ♣A. West knew that he had to discards 2 more cards on ♦. In trick 6 he had already pitched a ♥ in order to make South believe that he did not need to protect an ♥honor. But what if South would not care but cash ♥KT? On the other hand, if East had the Ten, it would be reasonable to discard the J so that his partner would know that he must keep his Ten guarded.

We haven't been told the exact plays in the diamond suit, but it seems likely that at the time of West's pause there was still an entry to dummy. If so, West would have to keep ♥J in order to protect his partner's putative 10 from a finesse.

The idea that East needs to be told to keep a heart guard seems doubtful: what else might he be considering keeping?

Quote

In my view this was really enough bridge reason to be allowed to think about it.

This might depend on the level of the player. Lamford's description of "a player who had won the event on more than one occasion" encompasses quite a wide range of abilities, but it seems unlikely that a player who could quickly work out to bare ♥J would then need a minute to decide whether to throw it away.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-09, 00:04, said:

Did South ask that question specifically about the trick-one card, or was this a general question about carding? Also, did he ask what card East would play back at trick five from different spade holdings?

A general question about carding. And that was the only question South asked. He thought he was sure of the layout from West's tempo.

[Zelandakh]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-08, 14:46, said:

It takes two things: no Bridge reason, AND could have been cunning. My point is we haven't got the first one, from which we would then go to the second. We don't get to say maybe no Bridge reason, and maybe cunning= nail em.

I do not think this is right. It takes no bridge reason + could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit to adjust the score. There is no requirement for cunning, nor even that the player realise that there was a problem, only that they could have known. Here I think it is clear that West could have known that they get an advantage so it is merely a question of whether there was a bridge reason. In my view, the wording within Law 73 suggests an adjustment here.

To get to a PP we need one of the magic words. That occurs in 73D as should (not often penalised)

Quote

However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.

and as may not (second strongest prohibition)

Quote

A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure.

It is clear that the first of these has been breached but not necessarily the second. There is enough doubt that a PP is probably unnecessary, although that is surely easier for the TD to decide in person.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-09, 00:00, said:

For what infraction?

For not being "particularly careful" under 73D1.

Zel's reply, which crossed, is better than mine and I accept his view.

This post has been edited by lamford: 2013-April-09, 04:58

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-09, 00:30, said:

We haven't been told the exact plays in the diamond suit, but it seems likely that at the time of West's pause there was still an entry to dummy. If so, West would have to keep ♥J in order to protect his partner's putative 10 from a finesse.

After three rounds of diamonds, there was indeed 10x opposite 9x.

[PhilKing]

I'm very comfortable with E/W being awarded -400, but I think people are being way too soft on South.

South was in a position where there were four key pieces of evidence available. They ignored three of those and utilised the only one that could lead to an adjustment when it proved to be wrong. By not even considering East's play at trick one, East's spade return and the lack of a Michael's, South had stopped playing bridge, which is a Sewog in my book.

There was nothing deliberate about this - South was presumably too tired to play the hand properly, but I ain't giving them +430.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-09, 05:10, said:

I'm very comfortable with E/W being awarded -400, but I think people are being way too soft on South.

I don't really see this as a standard Sewog. South was in a position where there were four key pieces of evidence available. They ignored (or rather did not consider) three of those and utilised the only one that could lead to an adjustment when it proved to be wrong.

There was nothing deliberate about this - South was presumably too tired to play the hand properly, but I ain't giving them +430.

I think you mean -430 for E/W. You should award only -400 to NS if you think South made a serious error unrelated to the infraction. In the play, the general guidelines for a serious error are things like revokes, ruffing your partner's ace, discarding a winner for no reason, or failing to cash the setting trick. South did consider spades might be 6-3, but rejected that because West would have nothing to think about. The Laws say that he draws this inference at his peril, but it is generally accepted that Law 73 trumps this.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-09, 05:20, said:

I think you mean -430 for E/W. You should award only -400 to NS if you think South made a serious error unrelated to the infraction. In the play, the general guidelines for a serious error are things like revokes, ruffing your partner's ace, discarding a winner for no reason, or failing to cash the setting trick. South did consider spades might be 6-3, but rejected that because West would have nothing to think about. The Laws say that he draws this inference at his peril, but it is generally accepted that Law 73 trumps this.

Could you please link me to the guidelines regarding "serious error unrelated to the infraction."

[gnasher]

I think that South contributed to his poor score, but not to the extent of committing a serious error. I don't really like this, but that's mainly dissatisfaction with the Law and the way it's interpreted.

It's reasonable to assume that some of the time South would have misread the position anyway. There's no reason to believe that at trick nine he would have asked the right questions about East's spade plays at tricks one and five, or reached the right conclusions about the bidding. Hence I think a weighted score is appropriate.

This might just be between +430 and +400, but is there any possibility that South would cross to dummy with ♦9 and finesse into West's jack?

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-09, 07:09, said:

Could you please link me to the guidelines regarding "serious error unrelated to the infraction."

White Book 12.8.3 (12.8 is when to deny redress):

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.
<snip>
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.

[gnasher]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-09, 07:09, said:

Could you please link me to the guidelines regarding "serious error unrelated to the infraction."

http://www.ebu.co.uk.../white-book.pdf
Page 33

[RMB1]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-09, 07:09, said:

Could you please link me to the guidelines regarding "serious error unrelated to the infraction."

The law is Law 12C1b.

EBU guidance on what is considered a serious error is in White Book section 12.8.

Having decided that something is a serious error, the details of calculation to implement Law 12C1b are also in the White Book.

[ahydra]

Hmm, do you not think it should be classed a SE if Meckwell play an opponent for a 14-card hand or forget their (more common) agreements? I don't like the idea of only counting ridiculous mistakes. One should still be expected to play bridge even if the opponents have committed an infraction.

I'd say the South in this case though did not commit a serious error, though he certainly could have helped himself a bit by asking about carding agreements etc. At an advanced level, one should be thinking about discards in advance, particularly when a hesitation might mislead.

Overall I'd agree with gnasher that a weighted score is best for NS. I'd go with 60% of 3NT+1 and 40% of 3NT=, with EW getting -430.

ahydra

ps. FWIW I would bid 1♠, not Michaels, on ♠K109xx ♥Jxxxx ♦ - ♣Axx.

[PhilKing]

Thanks. Yuck! but thanks.

I particularly like the bit where playing someone for 14 cards is not a serious error.

[billw55]

gnasher, on 2013-April-09, 00:30, said:

We haven't been told the exact plays in the diamond suit, but it seems likely that at the time of West's pause there was still an entry to dummy. If so, West would have to keep ♥J in order to protect his partner's putative 10 from a finesse.

Unless east holds ♥T8 over the nine, which is still possible from west's point of view?

[Trinidad]

I see a "serious error" as an error that a typical player of this caliber makes once a year. Many players "stop playing bridge" about once a year.

On a typical bridge night, I will miscount a hand at least once. For me, playing someone for 14 cards is an error, but it is not a serious error. It is certainly not "stopping to play bridge": It is the core of playing bridge to try and count a hand correctly, which implies that you will fail some of the time.

I will not miscount my HCP. That would be a serious error and -at my level- that doesn't have much to do with playing bridge anymore.

Rik

[PhilKing]

ahydra, on 2013-April-09, 07:52, said:

ps. FWIW I would bid 1♠, not Michaels, on ♠K109xx ♥Jxxxx ♦ - ♣Axx.

Presumably, if declarer had not stopped playing bridge, they could have asked East about their threshold for using Michaels.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-09, 08:39, said:

Presumably, if declarer had not stopped playing bridge, they could have asked East about their threshold for using Michaels.

And you think a first-time partnership would have discussed this?

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-09, 08:40, said:

And you think a first-time partnership would have discussed this?

Well you never find out if you don't ask - and the same goes for the spade carding.

My main point is, South was not really thinking at all. But that's OK, because as long as they do not play lefty for 15 or 16 cards, they can get an adjustment!

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-09, 09:00, said:

Well you never find out if you don't ask - and the same goes for the spade carding.

My main point is, South was not really thinking at all. But that's OK, because as long as they do not play lefty for 15 or 16 cards, they can get an adjustment!

South did not get any adjustment, because the TD ruled that West had a demonstrable bridge reason - considering whether to discard the JH. And if that is what West was thinking about, I believe the Chief TD of the EBU would rule the same way, although he can correct me if I am wrong. As would, it seems, an erstwhile chair of the L&E.

Their principle seems to be that if West says he was thinking about a bridge decision, however poor that decision is, there is no redress.