[blml] A question of player ability

[Karel]

So it appears that unless the case is clear cut as per my 2nd example
there is no way to question the opponents more murky dubious decisions
even when there is very little if any bridge reasons to support such a
decision.

Just for arguments sake - say in the 2nd case the guy said "I'm very
sorry I meant to pull out 5S's and when I looked at the table 7S's was
there.  I didnt know what to do, so I left it there.  I didn't think
it would make ... " or something similar.

The 1st case would have me much more worried.  We all know there are
times we are behind and require a swing - but there are boards you do
this on and there are others you dont.  Swapping a 100% line for a 10%
one for a good player is IMO unacceptable.  But in case one for
arguments sake guy says - "Ya sry I could have sworn I had the AKT and
not AK8.  When I played the J I had no choice but to continue with the
double finesse ...."



a 3rd example (again local club)

Again a very good player

Bidding goes P P 3D ??

S AJxx
H KQx
D -
C AKJTxx

Good hand - I think almost everyone without exception would double.
No rush to bid clubs, spade or even heart game possible, and a slam in
either of the 3 suits concievable.

The actual bid was 6C's !!

Dummy comes down with

S QTx
H xxxx
D Axx
C Qxx

Spade K on side 12 tricks - for a joint bottom.

Now I can see some rational behind this bid.  Passed opener, weak 3
diamond bid 3rd seat, partner must have some values, probably outside
of diamonds.  Didnt want to double incase pd left it in with Dxxxx.
The opps might sacrifice in 6D's.  Depending on partner maybe doesnt
have the system to investigate scientifically - punted what they felt
would be maybe on a finesse.   All valid reasons - but none so
outstanding/concrete/urgent to avoid the normal double and for the
level of the player make a quite remarkable bid ?  Just imagine this
was Zia, known for his flair - would one not feel something was out of
place ?

K.




On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 7:31 AM, Robert Frick <rfrick at rfrick.info> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blml mailing list
> blml at amsterdamned.org
> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>