[lamford]

chrism, on 2014-August-03, 17:15, said:

You have obviously never asked a helpful countryman how far it is to the next pub, and been told "over that hill, cross the bridge, and follow the stream for a mile until you get to the village"; three muddy hours later ...

I asked an Irishman when I was in Dublin recently where Clare was, and he replied "She'll probably be in Murphy's pub".

[lamford]

duplicate sorry

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2014-August-03, 02:38, said:

100% of 430 for me. Well done, AC, and Wildavsky has gone up another notch or two in my estimation. I recall he was chair in the infamous Auken-Welland v Helgemo-Helness appeal and I was one of the few supporters on here of that excellent AC ruling (and, no, I not intend to reopen that can of worms).

Before you congratulate the AC too much, can I remind you that they only gave one side the ruling you are advocating? The non-offending side got to keep their table score.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2014-August-03, 17:37, said:

Before you congratulate the AC too much, can I remind you that they only gave one side the ruling you are advocating? The non-offending side got to keep their table score.

Indeed I realise that now, and I think the AC were wrong to rule in that manner; barking in fact to decide that finessing the five of diamonds is SEWoG. I have changed my view more than once as a result of other posters, mainly wank. And I have already hung my head in shame once!

[aguahombre]

Either way, the AC was wrong.

If there was the infraction of misinformation, serious error related to it does not make the Declaring side keep its table result..therefore 430 and -430.

If the AC decided there was no infraction, the table result stands. You don't conjure up a PP for "no infraction".

As I said, I don't know whether there was an infraction..therefore don't know which way they should have ruled...but I do know that wasn't the way.

[Cascade]

There is a paraphrase of serious error, unrelated to the infraction or wild or gambling action that I have heard that is unhelpful and that is a player or side 'must continue to play bridge'. As best I can tell this paraphrase is often used to justify not giving a non-offending side an adjustment when they have made an error but not one that would be classified as 'serious' and 'unrelated to the infraction' nor 'wild' nor 'gambling'.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2014-August-03, 17:04, said:

You wrote: "A diamond to the five never gains over a diamond to the queen." It gains when RHO has a singleton king and you misguess not to finesse the nine on the next round. With correct information, you will be told that South's shape is "not known for sure". You don't give an example of when it is clearly wrong to finesse the five, if South has four or five diamonds. I think it may be symmetrical with the five losing to singleton six and the seven losing to singleton eight, but that may depend on the rest of the hand and play. All I need to show is that low to the five is not SEWoG, not that it survives a Lamford simulation. Even if loses equity it is a country mile from SEWoG. (and why are country miles supposed to be longer than city miles?)

If you believe that the suit is 4-1 or 5-0, you won't "misguess not to finesse the nine on the next round".

If you believe that the suit might be 3-2, it's obviously wrong to start with a finesse of the six, because that never gains and it loses to 10, 10x, K10, and K8 (regardless of whether we were going to guess correctly on the next round).

If you're sure the suit is 5-0, all plays (except the ace) are equal. If you think it could be 5-0 or 4-1 but not 3-2, you should play one to the queen and, if that loses, finesse the nine on the next round. If you think all distributions are possible, you should play one to the queen and then guess on the next round.

I agree that declarer's play probably isn't a serious error, but it's also untrue to say that she wasn't taking a "totally pointless line". Finessing the six is totally pointless, and might possibly be considered "wild".

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-August-04, 01:30, said:

If you believe that the suit is 4-1 or 5-0, you won't "misguess not to finesse the nine on the next round".

The decision which card to play on this round is at a different time, and with different information, to the decision on the next round. Bridge is a game of piecing together many bits of information. Say that Wang believes they must be 5-0 because that is what she understands from the MI (if we accept there is) although she is worried that they could be more equally distributed. She agrees with you that all plays are equal if they are 5-0. She plays a diamond to the five (in case North has a singleton K when she is much better placed) and North wins deceptively with the king from KT doubleton, cunningly taking advantage of the fact that she now knows for certain that partner is 4432, but declarer will think South is surely something like (4 3) 4 2. Wang now plays a diamond to the nine and goes many off. I actually think a low diamond to the five is routine on the information she has (because it is tougher to find the king from KT as North) and I would always be mortified if a declarer play of mine was classified as SEWoG. If she plays a diamond to the queen North will certainly duck with Kx and should do so from KT, especially if she thinks Wang might not have understand her explanation correctly, but she thinks she can win an appeal.

I am sure that she will not understand Levitina's "Fallen for that old chestnut, eh. I guess you should look up 'usually' in your Chimerican dictionary."

In another thread, declarer was playing AJ97x opposite K6 and ran the jack successfully. You argued that low to the six was a tiny bit better, although I disagree with that. If it were the case, and declarer argued that he was misinformed about the opening lead, would you have classified running the jack as SEWoG? And would you have agreed with rhm that failing to cover from QT84 was "embarrassingly bad at this level" and presumably therefore SEWoG by your own stringent standards?

Your seeming definition of SEWoG is from Planet Zog. When you write: "Finessing the six is totally pointless, and might possibly be considered "wild"," I know that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. And normally we write "finessing the five" here rather than "finessing the six".

As an interesting footnote, I wonder what correct play is if declarer plays a diamond to the seven, and North plays the six, assuming that East has been correctly informed. But I am getting too involved in this hand.

As ever in these threads, I bow out at some time, as they become too time-consuming. That point has been reached and I will not post again on this one. If you consider that "a lame reply", as PhilKing once did, so be it.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2014-August-04, 03:17, said:

Your seeming definition of SEWoG is from Planet Zog.

What seeming definition? So far as I know I haven't seemingly defined a SEWoG, or said anything that might seemingly define a SEWoG.

So far as I know all I've done is
(a) Dispute with Wank and then with you the extent to which declarer's play was pointless.
(b) Point out a particular action which I believe to be totally pointless.
(c ) Say that an action which is pointless might possibly be considered "wild". The word "possibly" was intended to indicate that I wasn't defining "wild", but making a suggestion about whose accuracy I was uncertain. Sorry if that was unclear.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-August-04, 06:44, said:

What seeming definition? So far as I know I haven't seemingly defined a SEWoG, or said anything that might seemingly define a SEWoG.

So far as I know all I've done is
(a) Dispute with Wank and then with you the extent to which declarer's play was pointless.
(b) Point out a particular action which I believe to be totally pointless.
(c ) Say that an action which is pointless might possibly be considered "wild". The word "possibly" was intended to indicate that I wasn't defining "wild", but making a suggestion about whose accuracy I was uncertain. Sorry if that was unclear.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the last paragraph of the answer I gave some moments ago.

[mycroft]

In the ACBL, case law has interpreted "serious error" as "failure to play bridge, for a player at your level". Which is much more stringent than "serious error" in my opinion, but it's part of the general set of decisions in the ACBL that try to counteract the "pro ethics" games (need to be legal, but need to win despite the loadstone CHO that's paying). [Edit: Please note I don't believe that this is the case with either team in this appeal, but it is a problem; it has been a problem; and it's considered big enough to strongly affect legal interpretation (viz: explanations of Logical Alternatives over time).]

If the AC believed "MI, but serious error (given the interpretation in force)", then the double-bad ruling is appropriate. I am not going to say word one about the decision :-).


Elsewhere, I've seen the "well, there goes any attempt at me being proactively ethical", which is entirely not what we want. How to solve that while still giving the information required, and being able to handle international players with limited English (similarly, limited Mandarin Chinese, Polish, ...) is an issue for the ages.

- I guess I should make explicit my standard disclaimer, which is that while I occasionally work for the ACBL, I never speak for them.

[Cascade]

mycroft, on 2014-August-04, 10:36, said:

In the ACBL, case law has interpreted "serious error" as "failure to play bridge, for a player at your level". Which is much more stringent than "serious error" in my opinion, but it's part of the general set of decisions in the ACBL that try to counteract the "pro ethics" games (need to be legal, but need to win despite the loadstone CHO that's paying).

Even with such an interpretation the requirement in law has the caveat 'unrelated to the infraction'.

[blackshoe]

I agree with Wayne. Still, the 500 pound canary will sit wherever it likes.

[aguahombre]

Cascade, on 2014-August-04, 18:37, said:

Even with such an interpretation the requirement in law has the caveat 'unrelated to the infraction'.

Why can people read that plain English everywhere but here? If you have a good recipe which calls for a 500 lb. canary, ship it here by Thanksgiving.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-August-04, 19:02, said:

I agree with Wayne. Still, the 500 pound canary will sit wherever it likes.

I bought one for only £300. Had to be slow-cooked though, and was still a bit tough.

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2014-August-05, 05:51, said:

I bought one for only £300. Had to be slow-cooked though, and was still a bit tough.

Did the feathers tickle your throat?