[blml] A question of player ability

[Guthrie]

[Karel]
I'll give 2 examples reported to me from a local club game.
(1)  Declarer is in 4H's and has DQTxx opposite DJ9 in a side suit.
In spades SAK8 opposite SJ9xx.  The opps have lead and knocked out
declarer CA which were 2/2 to start with.  So at this point in time
Dec. has 3 losers (2 diamonds + 1 club).  The contract is stone cold
as you knock out the  DAK and discard your S8 on the DQ.  Rigid.
The declarer led the SJ, covered by the Q and won, back to dummy with
a trump and led a spade to the 8 won.  Cashed a trump high in hand.
Cashed the SA break 3/3 and pitched a loser on the 3rd spade via a 3rd
trump to dummy.  Dec had to use dummy trump entries to do this so ran
the risk of a spade ruff (spades 5/1).
Percentage wise this needs spades 3/3 AND QTx under the AK8, spades
not to be 5/1 or incur a ruff.  So 25% * 36% = 9% probably less.  This
declarer did not see RHO's cards (1st thing I asked) and was more than
good enough to know this was a very poor line.  If the SJ is not
covered it is now huge odds its going to lose if run and the opps will
cash out for -1 and a duck.  Not only that but you cannot now
legitimately make the contract as you have given away the tempo and
set up a spade loser for the opps. so 9% versus 100%, declarer once he 
leads the SJ is fully commited to 9%, and is more than good enough to 
know this.  What's going on ?

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2)   S KQJTxxxx H- D Jx C xxx
Bidding goes 1H  P 7S all pass
1H opener has
S Ax  H Jxxx  D AQT9 C Ax
Diamond finesse works and K drops ... care to explain this ?
I can come up with lots of inexplicable scenarios, some real clangers,
others dubious at best, some have a small measure of logic but vastly
against the odds for the risk taken (case 1).  There are situations
like this which have no bridge logic.  Is there any recourse in the
laws ?


[nige1]
Others will point out logical reasons for what seem unlikely intuitions. 
For example tactical considerations that dictate playing for a swing.

Also experts do make mistakes.

Notwithstanding such mitigations, I feel that in some contexts, when the 
expert can advance no logical reason for a successful bid or play that 
is well against the odds, the probability may be overwhelming that an 
infraction has occurred: thus, cases like (2), smack of some kind 
illicit knowledge of the board (perhaps an overheard post-mortem). I 
think the law should empower the director to impose a penalty. In a 
criminal court, an alleged law-breaker may be convicted even if the 
modus operandi is unclear.

Anyway, as with similar Bridge laws, the director can explain that this 
ruling does not imply deliberate wrong-doing by this particular player 
-- it is simply a *deterrent* measure against hypothetical bad-guys who 
might be tempted to do naughty things if there were no penalty.

 From the tenor of Karel's posts, I feel that I echo her attitude. If 
so, I hope that my support does not alienate orthodox BLMLers.