[blml] A question of player ability

[Robert Frick]

On Sun, 16 Mar 2008 00:17:27 -0500, Guthrie <Guthrie at NTLworld.com> wrote:

> [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.

I agree with Nigel. (2) is flagrant cheating. Gives the opps an  
average+ and ask the 7S bidder not to come back to the club. (Unless there  
is more going on here than is described -- I can't imagine why even a  
cheater would bid this way.) I think you destroy the morale of the other  
players if you allow this at your club.