[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2020-July-26, 04:56, said:

CyberYeti correctly points out that few Easts would open 1N on such a hand. But had he done so, in the 3 card ending, if South exits with a ♥, East wins his ♥ honour to lead a plain suit , promoting West's ♥ honour. In the actual 3-card ending, the only way for South to succeed is to guess that West has made a low-level penalty double with a small singleton trump.

How far off an opening bid does it have to be before it's a serious error ? I evaluate that hand as a 10 count which is a mile off a 1N opener, K&R is slightly more generous but still reckons less than 11.

Now imagine with everybody known to hold 3 hearts at trick 11 declarer has Q10x opposite xxx, with the hand over the Q having opened 1N and each opp having shown up with 5 points, so he leads up and plays the Q and of course loses to the obvious AKx. I wouldn't expect him to get that back, but I consider this one just as ridiculous a piece of play (although it won't matter a lot of the time as the NT opener will have KQ tight left).

[johnu]

nige1, on 2020-July-26, 04:56, said:

CyberYeti correctly points out that few Easts would open 1N on such a hand. But had he done so, in the 3 card ending, if South exits with a ♥, East wins his ♥ honour to lead a plain suit , promoting West's ♥ honour. In the actual 3-card ending, the only way for South to succeed is to guess that West has made a low-level penalty double with a small singleton trump.

If East started with ♦AJxx they could/would have played ♦J instead of a club at trick 10 to let West trump with a hypothetical trump trick. Based on the sound principle of "Smoke em if you got em", East doesn't have ♦J.

[sanst]

nige1, on 2020-July-26, 15:26, said:

IMO, 2♥X+1 is over-generous. South made (at least) 2 idiotic mistakes

• Not rising with ♣Q at trick 2. A cost-nothing play. which would gain when, in view of dummy's ♣ holding, and having heard West double 2♣, East under-led his ♣s with ♠ 1043 ♥ Q94 ♦ A42 ♣AK43.
• Ruffing dummy's ♦ winner.

Defenders can make mistakes too: Double-dummy, 2♥ can always be defeated

That’s true, but irrelevant. S could have made 2♥X+1, thanks to a misdefence. The MI led to a line of play that wasn’t an extremely serious error, so NS are entitled to the result that would have been reached without the MI. What to do about the misclick is not covered by the Laws.

[mycroft]

lamford, on 2020-July-25, 16:03, said:

Indeed the silver bullet is the yellow border which displays "Pen" when you hover over it. Perhaps Mycroft is colour blind.

Or maybe it happened that South, at the end of the auction, queried what the unalerted X of 2♥ was by clicking on it; and West said "penalty" in the explain box. At that point it goes yellow with the penalty comment available. You can't tell by looking at the myhand record (but the TD could with table history) whether it was my order or what I am somewhat condescendingly being told happened. The difference is that their version of events requires West to have done the correct thing in England, knowing that late-round doubles is one of the most confusing parts of their (very reasonable and mostly obvious) Alert Procedure. My version of events relies on one sentence:

Original Poster, my emphasis said:

At the end of the auction, South, asked West the meaning of his double of 2♥. West alerted it as penalties.

Given the evidence, am I colour-blind, or do some other people have difficulty reading? Or, given the ambiguity (and to be polite), is it worth asking which of the two things actually happened at the table? Sort of like somebody said earlier:

"Somebody" said:

Alerted? or asked about and answered? Both would lead to the result in the OP.

[KingCovert]

mycroft, on 2020-July-27, 09:41, said:

Or maybe it happened that South, at the end of the auction, queried what the unalerted X of 2♥ was by clicking on it; and West said "penalty" in the explain box.

This is how I interpreted it. Perhaps that wasn't the intended meaning, but that's definitely what was written.

As I said earlier in the thread, there may be a distinction between describing your intended meaning of a bid instead of describing your agreement in a self-alerting situation. I could see an argument that if declarer was aware that the agreement was "No Agreement", and that East chose to leave it in under those pretenses, that they may have been more likely to suspect a different type of holding from both players.

I don't agree with that argument, because, well, it's somewhat unclear if that's "misinformation". Also, I wouldn't trust South to make 10 tricks in a cold grand.

[nige1]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-27, 10:08, said:

Also, I wouldn't trust South to make 10 tricks in a cold grand.

[KingCovert]

nige1, on 2020-July-27, 10:36, said:

A bit harsh, I'll admit.... But... If a player can't develop a plan for declaration that takes into account a 1NT opener, or worse, doesn't consider that during the auction. They can't possibly be a strong declarer. (Which is not a rules violation I know. )

Can't see how it's not a serious error of the highest order to literally play a 1NT opener for half the value of an opening hand though.

[sanst]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-27, 14:43, said:

Can't see how it's not a serious error of the highest order to literally play a 1NT opener for half the value of an opening hand though.

Weejonie wrote that the EBU doesn’t consider it an extremely serious error if:
“• Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand. It is common in misinformation cases for a player to ‘tunnel vision’: if they know from misinformation that there is a certain layout, they will not change that view during the play. It is sometimes possible to work out from the sight of dummy or the first few tricks that there must have been either misinformation or a misbid during the auction. Many people, including experienced players, do not correctly draw that conclusion if they have been misinformed, even if it would be considered obvious when given as an academic exercise away from the table."

Don’t try to put the blame on the NOS. If you explain your double as penalties and afterwards it is ‘no agreement’, there is misinformation and you’re responsible for the result if an opponent comes to the wrong conclusion. Besides, how many players you think don’t keep count of the HCP’s during the play? My guess: a considerable majority. It’s hard enough to keep track of all the cards played in the four suits.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2020-July-28, 01:56, said:

Weejonie wrote that the EBU doesn’t consider it an extremely serious error if:
“• Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand. It is common in misinformation cases for a player to ‘tunnel vision’: if they know from misinformation that there is a certain layout, they will not change that view during the play. It is sometimes possible to work out from the sight of dummy or the first few tricks that there must have been either misinformation or a misbid during the auction. Many people, including experienced players, do not correctly draw that conclusion if they have been misinformed, even if it would be considered obvious when given as an academic exercise away from the table."

Don’t try to put the blame on the NOS. If you explain your double as penalties and afterwards it is ‘no agreement’, there is misinformation and you’re responsible for the result if an opponent comes to the wrong conclusion. Besides, how many players you think don’t keep count of the HCP’s during the play? My guess: a considerable majority. It’s hard enough to keep track of all the cards played in the four suits.

If counting to 12 counts as detailed analysis then the laws insult the intelligence of bridge players. There is no real analysis, you have seen basically every other card.

Penalty doubles are often made on the basis of "we have too many points for you to make this" rather than trumps.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-28, 02:33, said:

If counting to 12 counts as detailed analysis then the laws insult the intelligence of bridge players. There is no real analysis, you have seen basically every other card.

You tend to deny redress for a serious error when someone fails to play a no-cost show-up squeeze. Others think that serious error means that, such as a revoke or ducking the setting trick in a slam.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2020-July-28, 07:50, said:

You tend to deny redress for a serious error when someone fails to play a no-cost show-up squeeze. Others think that serious error means that, such as a revoke or ducking the setting trick in a slam.

Nobody's answered the question I posed earlier, how bad does this have to be before you're denied redress ? If both players have shown up with 5 points, there are 8 remaining and you play the non 1N opener for 7 of them, I don't think you get redress, or is the law that soft ? If you don't in that case, where is the borderline ?

You used to not be able to go for a "double shot" which I consider this to be, but that seems to have gone from the law.

[nige1]

KingCovert is right that South played badly, but in the 3-card ending, which assumption should South make?

• East-West misdefended after East opened 1NT with a hand like:
• ♠ T43 ♥ K94 ♦ AJ42 ♣ K43? or
• ♠ T43 ♥ Q94 ♦ A42 ♣ AK43? or
• ♠ T43 ♥ Q9 ♦ AJ42 ♣ AK43? etc..
• Or West made a low-level penalty double with a small singleton trump?

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-28, 07:58, said:

Nobody's answered the question I posed earlier, how bad does this have to be before you're denied redress ? If both players have shown up with 5 points, there are 8 remaining and you play the non 1N opener for 7 of them, I don't think you get redress, or is the law that soft ? If you don't in that case, where is the borderline ?

You used to not be able to go for a "double shot" which I consider this to be, but that seems to have gone from the law.

Ton Kooijman answered that on behalf of the WBFLC in the commentary to the 2017 Laws: “In bridge it is normal to make mistakes; it’s just part of the game. When considering the damage related to an infraction a player should not be punished for making such a mistake, unless it is considered to be really unacceptable.” When considering whether an action constitutes an extremely serious error should be judged according to the calibre of the player (WBFLC minutes Beijing 10th Oct. 2008). Your example comes nowhere near the ESE criterion for an average player.

[Cyberyeti]

sanst, on 2020-July-28, 09:16, said:

Ton Kooijman answered that on behalf of the WBFLC in the commentary to the 2017 Laws: “In bridge it is normal to make mistakes; it’s just part of the game. When considering the damage related to an infraction a player should not be punished for making such a mistake, unless it is considered to be really unacceptable.” When considering whether an action constitutes an extremely serious error should be judged according to the calibre of the player (WBFLC minutes Beijing 10th Oct. 2008). Your example comes nowhere near the ESE criterion for an average player.

If the example I gave here (playing a 1N opener to have a 5 or 6 count instead of 12 or 13) is nowhere near ESE then the law is an ass, sorry.

[KingCovert]

nige1, on 2020-July-28, 08:22, said:

KingCovert is right that South played badly, but in the 3-card ending, which assumption should South make?

• East-West misdefended after East opened 1NT with a hand like: ♠ Txx ♥ K9x ♦ AJxx ♣ Kxx; or ♠ Txx ♥ Q9x ♦ Axx ♣ AKxx; or ♠ Txx ♥ Q9 ♦ AJxx ♣ AKxx etc..?
• Or West made a low-level penalty double with a small singleton trump?

I don't think this sort of approach is valid. It seems rather reductionist. You're essentially claiming that declarer should be considered reasonable for deciding what the final three cards look like based solely on one bid in the auction, but, can be absolved for ignoring EVERY other bid in the auction for the prior 10 tricks. On top of that, declarer has decided that they also want to ignore every card played in the prior 10 tricks as well. Declarer has no idea how many high card points the 1NT opener has revealed so far.

It's not a detailed analysis to count the high card points of a NT opener, it's honestly one single step beyond beginner bridge. Thus I do think that declarer is absolutely hopeless from a skill perspective...

I think it's far more fair to look at the entire line of play by declarer, where declarer plays West for absolutely every card in the deck, this is not justifiable.

[sanst]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-28, 09:57, said:

If the example I gave here (playing a 1N opener to have a 5 or 6 count instead of 12 or 13) is nowhere near ESE then the law is an ass, sorry.

Maybe, but it’s the law. But you’re essentially wrong in not allowing a player to loose count or not to remember exactly who played what. Only the very best players are able to reproduce the play correctly and somebody can easily miss who played which card.
Even more important: it’s irrelevant. You should give a full and accurate description of your agreements and a failure to do so is a serious breach of the laws. If a player claims to have been damaged by this, and his claim is not completely unbelievable, he has a right to redress without being subject to an thorough examination of his line of play. Only when some stupidity, unrelated to the MI, is obvious you can decide otherwise but without favouring the OS.

[KingCovert]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-28, 09:57, said:

If the example I gave here (playing a 1N opener to have a 5 or 6 count instead of 12 or 13) is nowhere near ESE then the law is an ass, sorry.

Bridge law is objectively terrible. It's far too open to interpretation, and every serious gamer who has played games that are actually popular competitively knows that good competitive games have laws that are entirely the opposite of this. It's bridge's most serious flaw.

It certainly doesn't help that while directors may well be educated in the content of the laws, far too many are woefully insufficient in their education on how to properly enforce laws. The positions that I see too many directors take are far too often based on some construct in their mind, and how they want to see the game enforced, and hardly on the laws.

I think it takes a collaborative and community oriented spirit to want to spend your time directing instead of playing, and that's commendable. The problem is this very nature of directors can lead to some directors trying too hard to stand in defense of those that they perceive to be aggrieved, often in defiance of the laws.

[Zelandakh]

I think it takes a collaborative and community oriented spirit to want to spend your time armchair directing instead of playing, and that's commendable. The problem is this very nature of such players can lead to some trying too hard to stand in defence of those that wilfully and deliberately mislead their opponents, often in defiance of the laws.

[KingCovert]

Zelandakh, on 2020-July-28, 10:38, said:

I think it takes a collaborative and community oriented spirit to want to spend your time armchair directing instead of playing, and that's commendable. The problem is this very nature of such players can lead to some trying too hard to stand in defence of those that wilfully and deliberately mislead their opponents, often in defiance of the laws.

I'm hesitant to even address such a moronic statement that really can only serve the purpose of inducing a response... It speaks volumes about your character and integrity. So, I'll just take that cheap shot at you and say this:

"those that wilfully and deliberately mislead their opponents"

I think you'll have an impossible time defending those words. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the definitions of willfully and deliberately. (Perhaps the spelling too)

[StevenG]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-28, 10:57, said:

I think you'll have an impossible time defending those words. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the definitions of willfully and deliberately. (Perhaps the spelling too)

It's not Zel's fault that Americans can't spell.