[blml] Close Encounter of the Third Kind [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Wayne Burrows]

On 27/01/07, richard.hills at immi.gov.au <richard.hills at immi.gov.au> wrote:
>
> New Zealand blmler Wayne Burrows regularly plays in
> the Aussie Summer Festival of Bridge.  The feature
> event is the National Open Teams, 200-odd teams
> playing a week-long Swiss of 14 20-board matches,
> from which only 16 teams qualify for the knockout
> rounds.  Wayne's team and my team luckily had a
> close encounter, despite playing in different
> qualifying venues, since we met in the Round of 16.
>
> The World Chess Champion Emmanuel Lasker said:
> "Lies and hypocrisy do not survive on the
> chessboard."  The same could be said of a knockout
> match, where the reasoning and analytical skills of
> Wayne and his team-mates proved superior to those
> of me and my team-mates, knocking my team out while
> Wayne is now playing in the Round of 12.  Keep up
> the good work, Wayne.
>
> But since our match was played in the best of spirit,
> there are no incidents worth reporting to blml.
>
> Unfortunately the same could not be said of my last
> round Swiss match against a different sponsored team.
> In a contract of 2S, this was the three card ending,
> with the declaring sponsor needing one more trick to
> make 2S.
>
>                       Me
>                       AK
>                       K
>                       ---
>                       ---
> Dummy                                   Sponsor
> Q9                                      J65
> K                                       ---
> ---                                     ---
> ---                                     ---
>                       Pard
>                       72
>                       ---
>                       3
>                       ---
>
> The lead was in dummy, and the sponsor claimed.  If
> the claim had been, "ruffing a heart high", then I
> would have moved on to the next board.  Instead the
> sponsor merely stated, "giving you two spades", so I
> summoned the director since it seemed to me that the
> sponsor might carelessly allow pard's spade seven to
> score an over-ruff.
>
> When the director arrived, the facts were determined
> after some argy-bargy.  Because the issue was a
> judgement ruling of "careless" versus "irrational",
> the director correctly announced that he would not
> give an immediate ruling, but would first consult
> with the rest of the directing staff.
>
> After the director left, the sponsor remarked to me,
> "I make tricks through skill, not stealth".  Since I
> interpreted the word "stealth" as a derogatory remark
> on my ethics, I immediately summoned the harried
> director back again.
>
> The director stated that the sponsor's remark was
> "inappropriate", but the sponsor disagreed.  Dummy, a
> decent and fine expert, supported the sponsor on the
> grounds that the claim was valid (not realising that
> the issue that I was complaining about was rudeness).
>
> There was good news and bad news.  The bad news was
> that the sponsor never apologised, but the good news
> was that we thrashed his team 103 imps to 56 imps.
>

Thanks Richard.

It was an enjoyable experience.  I suppose it is easier for me to say
that when I was on the winning team.  Alas we lost in the next round.

The match against Richard's team was close indeed.  We were tied 44-44
after the first half when Richard was my opponent and screenmate at
one table and edge ahead 38-24 in the second half when Richard was
sitting out since he was part of a team of six whilst my teammates did
not have the luxury of being able to put me on the bench.  In the
second half I brought in a dubious slam in a 5-2 fit with trumps
breaking 5-1 that had the curious feature of being cold if the diamond
side-suit were 7-0, 6-1 or 5-2 but had no play on a normal 4-3 break.
On the result of that slam swung the match.  So Richard flatters me
with the reference to skill when there were significant amounts of
luck involved.

Coincidentally playing against the same sponsors team in the Mixed
Teams I was involved in an incident with my opponent.  This time it
was a professional at the other table from the sponsor who caused the
problem.

1NT Pass 2NT* 3S
Pass Pass 5C All Pass

2NT was systemically Both minors weak or strong but at the end of a
long week and an evening off I had forgotten our system and on
auto-pilot reverted to a system I play with several other partners
where it showed a single-suited minor weak or strong.  In my regular
partnership I would have doubled 3S to try for 3NT but I was playing
in an unfamilar partnership - we had played once before and that was
six or seven years ago - and I was not sure how a double would be
interpreted.  Over 5C I feared a diamond preference but was 1=3=3=6 so
hoped that I would survive since if I had both minors I figured that a
jump to 5C would show 4-6 in the minors at least and it was
inconsistent that a limited hand could pass over 3S and then make a
slam try with 5D so I could probably pass 5D.

5C made and at the end of the hand I said to my partner that I had
misbid and my RHO questioned why I had not told them I had misbid.  I
said "I have no obligation to tell you I have misbid".  At which point
he questioned my morals.

Like Richard I was not happy with the remark so summoned the director.
 After some discussion the chief TD asked my opponent to apologize and
when he would not fined him 1 VP.

Thereafter my path diverged from Richards outcome as we were
comprehensively beaten by these opponents.

To me this is a move in the right direction as my experience has been
that rudeness which is often a form of gamesmanship is often left in
the "too hard basket" by the directors with either no action or a
request to report the incident to a recorder - at least down-under -
when in fact courtesy is a matter of law and therefore the
responsibility of the director to uphold.

I had another incident that involved a claim that I am reminded of
from Richard's incident that resolved in a much more civil manner.

At trick twelve my LHO tabled his hand claiming the remainder of the
tricks.  These were the remaining cards in his hand and my hand with
the other cards being largely irrelevant:

s J
h -
d A
c -

            s 10
            h 10
            d -
            c -

My opponent had not realized that I had one good heart left to cash
and so was in the position of having to find a discard.  I say the
other cards were largely irrelevant because while I had discarded my
dK the position of the dJ was unknown - I could easily have had h10
and dJ remaining.

The director IMO correctly determined that I was entitled to both
tricks after the false claim.

A few years ago in a similar position the director ruled against me as
did the appeal committee with the added comment that I was just trying
to win a trick by stealth - my paraphrase not the actual words.
Luckily I did not accept their opinion and was willing to ask for a
ruling when this situation occurred.  My opponents who were obviously
not happy to conceed a trick nevertheless accepted the ruling with
grace - afterall it is based on their own mistake.

Wayne