Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Eduard Velecky
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Deal is from old European team championship. NS is “nobody”, EW are world class players. East called the director (btw: with is name :)) when the tray came back with x over 4♠.
My comment: typical presumption of guilt.

Director ruled that there had been a break in tempo. He asked a number of players, most of whom would have bid 5 straight over 4. When asked to pass at that turn, some would also pass over the double. Director also established, from the players, what the hesitation showed: a good hand, but only in hearts and clubs. Director saw some problems for the play of 4, but decided West would probably find the Q and make 10 tricks.

Ruling: score adjusted to 4 by West, making 10 tricks, NS -590.

NS appelead. The jury (two members from WBF laws comittee, other with similar high qualification) judges that the UI does not demonstrably suggests one LA (5) over another (pass). Original table result restored.
July 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some words about South BIT. Many situations average player do not solve automatically as a world class player. He look for solution at the table, sometimes at the cost of losing their time. Sometimes he make bad decisions. Therefore, he is non-professional player, he is not world class. However, this does not mean he is want to cheat or use UI.

So what was wrong with player as South? Nothing. He was wanting to play well and was need time for his bid.
July 7, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I don't understand your attitude. But I'll respect him.

My last note: point A summarizes the EBL jury's opinion on this UI case.
July 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael:

a/In this situation player transmit UI, but this UI dont contain new information about S hand. North bidding tell that South has 5 clubs, 4 hearts, and a strong hand. The double tells him that it is a very strong hand, and the hesitation adds nothing to that.

b/ you are welcome
July 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: that's fair enough - I would agree that is support for your view. However, you said “some” so you need at least one more - probably two more to be fair.

This is simple: two people liked this cited note (I used as usually Occam's razor).
July 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I dont undertstanding your position.

Before you said: “The message we should want to send is ‘South, don’t do that'. Double in tempo. The way to send that message is to disallow the 5♣ bid.”

Now you said: “The slow double is not a problem. The 5♣ bid is.”

It is same?

=================

Speculation: if South doubled in tempo, then is no reason for director call. Or bad bidding (N pass after undoubled 4 and 5 after doubled 4) is enough as reason?
July 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: you too call director when the tray came back behind one's time with x over 4 (without knowing NS cards)?
July 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve: “South also claims the double was in tempo. Usually such claims are doubtful, but here, the hand speaks for itself. So I think I have to believe South.”

South certainly thought longer than this situation needed (I know him :)). Does it change anything?
July 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Veljko: Please add option “other”.

Added. Sry, I should have done it at the beginning.
July 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I was say, South pass is serios error. I dont say, this si
egregious error or extremely serious error.

I wrote: “It is obvious that many of them have a similar view.”

You change my words into other question: “Please name those who said in the discussion that South's pass of 4♥ was an extremely serious error or an approximation. ”


I cite similar view: “It seems to me that South forgot to play bridge after opening 2♦. While doubling 4♥ isn't guaranteed to work out well (could be -790), NOT doubling 4H is likely to result in something worse.”

Michael:“ I'm guessing almost all of them had a different reason for their vote.” Which reason,pls? You think the players voted for the result stay because they think S didn't make a mistake? Its suprice for me.
July 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: “perhaps having only two basic systems allowed. ”

Yes, in my opinion, bidding regulation is necessary. There are many possible solutions.

Michale, you wrote: “you seem to be alone in your opinion that it should be deemed thus.”

I don't feel alone :)See these poll results:

table result stands.: 47 votes (37%)
(Some) split and weighted for EW, but result stand for NS.: 6 votes (5%)
other (pls specify): 12 votes (9%)
Abstentions: 23

It is obvious that many of them have a similar view to me.
Some said it in the discussion.
July 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, I see it exactly the opposite :). As you know, ethics and laws are not the same. Some rules (for example claim, revoke) support unethical behavior. Formalism sometime dominates over the player knowhow. Players are punished for inattention errors, minor mistakes or memory failures. Such decisions provokes great indignation.


Yes, many rules are changed. In my opinion they are better and clear (only sometimes: see vote in this poll) for expert players, not for average player. For the beginners many of these rules dont make sense. With little sarcasm we can say operation was successful, but the patient dies.

We need to simplify our game. Maybe basic things too. Otherwise we will be like a sect.
July 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, if it is better today than in past, why does the jury change the order of many the highlights events in last years? In world championships, many european championships, ACBL events too, for example last Blue Ribbon pair. I remember pesterous atmosphere in Wroclaw or incredible Montecatini event. A week ago were some problems around the mixed pairs in Istanbul.

Slowly we dont have events without scandal.
July 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael, still a few words about why I oponents your position. My resistance is also ideological. I'll try to explain.

40 years ago, I saw hundreds of players on local events. Today they are dozens.

Well, what has changed? One side of the problem is things outside the bridge that we can't influence. The other side, however, is the problems we create ourselves.

Computer, screens, bridgemates, bidding boxes, even cameras were added. The laws are really complicated. Only the experts really know all laws and know how use it (even they often have different views). For the average players laws is unnecesary complicated and often ethically offensive.

Worse, we've lost one of our bases, and it's a gentlemen's approach to opponents . For comparison: snooker player alert the referee on own mistake. The bridge player thinks formal ops mistake is more important than his gambling. Bridge players usualy deny own errors or change facts (typical is time estimates). Of course, there is more another combination, but they have a common ground: predacity win over other factors ( I have one really funny deal with this aspect from Istanbul, but that would be a long time, maybe another time).

But this is not enough: we all subordinate to the fight against cheating. Rules, their interpretation on all levels, bridge history (Blue Team) and the future of the game (maybe once we will play with electronic devices). At the same time - with all due respect to the world's stars - it is mainly their problem and it is caused by their fight for sponsors. We deployed cameras to watch the players and analyze what they're doing and we succesfully exchanged gentlmen access onto watch and spy. This is our game today…

I could go on, but I guess you probably know what I mean. Yes, I think, we kill our game. I don't even know if we can rescue her. Maybe no, maybe yes. But if so, one of the first ways is to go back to the foundations: to be critical especially to yourself. We need more gentlemens and less predators.
July 4, 2019
Eduard Velecky edited this comment July 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael: “Ok, I understand you don't want to answer the question.”

This is your interpetation. But you can answer instead of me. I accept your answer. I guess it will be in harmony with my answer to your question 2.

Btw: I was talking about strategy. Not about the rule.
July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I still do not understand. I think your Q is speculative. The goal is to show some double standard.

We can simplify the problem. Let's look at the situation after 4.

In your universe South pass 4 with xx,QJ10xx,xx, Q10xx. And pass with QJ10xx,xx,xx,Q10xx. In your universe S cards and S bidding not in any relationship.

In my universe S with xx,QJ10xx,xx,Q10xx double the 4 contract, with QJ10xx,xx,xx,Q10xx not. In my universe N dont need oracle help - he pass in first case and without any risk bid 4 in second. In my universe S not bid “irrelevant” redouble after 4. In my universe NS don't call director - they don't have reason. Yes, sometimes they are negative flashes in my universe, but I prefer my universe :).
July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I dont answered your first Q. Sorry, but I dont understand this Q(my english or my mental limit…). Answer to second Q is easy: in game level after multi I dont play pass or correct (maybe it's not right, maybe this is right, I not sure). I bid 4 as percentage action.
July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
John: 1. EW bid bad contract. This is not advantage. East 4 bid is not infraction (he forgot system). East 2 is of cource not infraction .
2. Yes, N think, EW have big hearts fit, etc. This is obvious.

I ask: why point 2 has priority?

And I have second q: East forgot system. This cause damage to the opponents, who based next NS actions on their implicit explanation bidding. For this situation in my opinion weighted adjusted scores are better than table result stand or roll back to 4, which is in my eyes bad decision. It is correct or no?
July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“If W had forgotten and bid 2H with hearts, and East alerts and says 16-18 balanced, nothing has so far gone wrong.”

This situation often leads to unauthorized information (UI). When East alerts the bid as multi, West has UI and if he takes advantage of the UI, this is an infraction that lead to an adjusted score.

What is the EW advantage from infraction in our hand?
July 2, 2019
Eduard Velecky edited this comment July 2, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Some words about MI based on EBL Tournament Directors Course

A MISTAKEN EXPLANATION is an unintentional incorrect, misleading or partial explanation of an agreement of a call or play. This includes failure to alert when an alert was required by regulation.

A DEVIATION FROM SYSTEM is an intentional call or play not consistent with the partnership agreement.

The opponents are entitled to full disclosure of the agreements – but not of the mistakes! They have no claim to an accurate description of the hands. It is not an infraction to make a mistake when bidding (or when playing) and it is not an infraction to forget the system, and not an infraction to deviate from system,

Convention disruption is the term used when a player forgets a convention or understanding he is playing. This is not considered an infraction by the laws.

(However, there are many influential players - for example, Bobby Wolf- who believe that the Laws should expect players to remember their systems (at least at a certain level of play), and forgetting an understanding that damages opponents should lead to an adjusted score. In particular they use the argument that players who use complicated systems should be required to remember their understandings and use them correctly. However, this is not the law)

Now the LAW 12 - DIRECTOR’S DISCRETIONARY POWERS
B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction.

Key: is not an infraction to forget the system. If forget system is not infranction, then result stand.

Or no? Why?
July 2, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top