ACBL Miami NABC 8/9 Vugraph + Appeal
Chyah Burghard
Spingold Final To Be Viewed World-Wide
On Sunday, bridge players around the world will have a
treat. If they can log on to OKbridge, there will be a
vugraph show of the finals of the Spingold Teams broadcast
from the site here in Miami Beach. Admission will be free
to as many as can fit into a special room provided for the
occasion by Matt Clegg, who created OKbridge.
Karen Allison will provide analysis, card by card, as well
as colorful information about the players, the event and
the ambience in the actual vugraph room, where she will be
sitting. She will also relay some of the better comments
from the podium, where such notables as Edgar Kaplan, David
Berkowitz and perennial host Ron Andersen will be sitting.
Some folks may remember her productions of the past from
the Spingold at San Diego and the World Championships at
Albuquerque.
ACBL has given permission for this show to be produced.
OKbridge and Allison are providing their services without
charge for this enjoyable and exciting event.
**********************************************************
Chyah's Note: this is the appeal that caused a
17 imp swing to change a losing team to a winning
team in the Spingold.
APPEALS CASE 23
SUBJECT: Correcting Misinformation
EVENT: Spingold Knockout Teams, third round, August 8
Bd: 29 Karen McCallum
Dlr: N S AK
Vul: None H K6432
D A32
C K98
Lea DuPont Benito Garozzo
S J763 S 52
H Q H JT875
D KJ876 D T54
C AQ4 C 532
Cenk Tuncok
S QT984
H A9
D Q9
C JT76
WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH
1NT (1) Pass 2H (2)
Pass 2S (3) Pass 2NT (4)
Pass 3H Pass 3NT
All Pass
(1) 14+ to 17 HCP
(2) Transfer to spades
(3) Denies four spades
(4) Transfer to clubs; invitational or better
RESULT: The H5 was led (attitude leads). 3NT by North made
three, N/S plus 600.
FACTS: The Director was called to the table at the end of
the play of the hand when North was found to have held
five hearts. East said that he had asked about North's 3H
bid before making his opening lead, and was told by South
that it showed five hearts. North corrected this saying
that she did not have to hold five hearts (although she
might), but that the bid simply showed heart values and
sought direction. East led a heart, allowing the contract
to make. East said that he would have led a diamond had
North not corrected South's statement, and a diamond lead
would have defeated the contract. The Director ruled that
there had been misinformation by N/S and adjusted the score
to 3NT down two, N/S minus 200.
THE APPEAL: N/S appealed. They testified that at the end
of the auction, and before making his opening lead, East
asked for a review with explanations. South conducted the
annotated review, ultimately explaining North's 3H bid as
showing five hearts. At that point North intervened saying
that the bid did not show five hearts (although she could
have five), but rather showed heart values in search of the
correct game. (This interpretation was confirmed by N/S's
system notes.) North stated that she felt obligated to
correct South's expanation for two reasons, even though
her hand coincidentally conformed to the mistaken
explanation.
The first reason was that she felt that E/W were entitled
to know the basis on which South had bid 3NT (that he didn't
have three-card heart support), and the basis on which North
had bid 3H (that she was concerned about the N/S diamond
holding for notrump, being somewhat protected in hearts by
her length in the suit). If a diamond lead was best for E/W,
it could help them to know that North had bid 3H intending
to elicit help from South in diamonds. No such inference
would be available to E/W if they believed that North's 3H
bid was a search for a heart contract, since then it would
not directly imply concern about diamonds. (N/S's notes also
made it clear that in their methods 3H could never suggest
playing in hearts.)
North's second reason for her correction was that the
erroneously disclosed (but accurate) information about
her heart length might act to deter a reasonable (or even
normal) heart lead when, given the poor quality of her
heart spots, it was possible that such a lead could prove
best for E/W. North also stated that her 3H bid was equally
intended to keep alive the possibility of a 4S contract,
and that she almost bid 4S over 3NT anyway, taking a long
time before she finally passed. This was not disputed by E/W.
E/W testified that the "emotional" nature of North's
disclosure gave them the distinct impression that North
wanted to avoid inhibiting a heart lead in case that
lead proved to be best for E/W, and that North was therefore
attempting to act in E/W's best interest. In addition, East
stated that although he initially "had his finger on a
diamond lead," North's emotional reaction caused him to
change his lead to a heart. He reasoned that, since North
was sincerely concerned that a heart lead could be best
for E/W, the heart lead must therefore be right.
THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION: The Committee members strongly
agreed on the following points relating to this case.
First, that North acted properly in correcting the
misinformation provided by South. In general, a player
should be cautious in correcting a misexplanation which
accurately describes his actual holding. However, when
the misexplanation also contains inaccuracies which could
damage the opponents, suggest false inferences, or deny
them potentially useful information, the player has an
obligation to correct the misinformation. This should be
done in a way that makes it clear that the player may
indeed have a holding which is consistent with the original
explanation. Then the misleading aspects of the explanation
should be corrected. For example, "I could certainly have
the hand that my partner described, but our agreement is
that my bid shows . . ." North's statement that she "could
have five hearts" was in keeping with this principle.
Second, North could hardly have done any more than
she did to make all of the relevant information available
to E/W. She disclosed the meaning she intended for her 3H
bid (showing heart values and seeking direction for notrump),
thus providing the inference that diamonds was of concern to
her. (The inference that South's 3NT bid was not necessarily
based on diamond values, but rather on the absence of three
hearts, was available from his misinterpretation of the 3H
bid.) The emotional nature of her reaction made it clear
that she was also concerned that hearts could be the winning
lead even after she showed heart values, and that she wanted
E/W to know it.
And finally, East, by his own admission, based his
heart lead wholly on the emotional content of North's
statement (that she was concerned that the heart lead
could be best). Of course, given who East was, he was correct!
But by ignoring the informational content of North's statement,
including the intended meaning of her 3H bid and the inferences
available from it, the winning alternative of the diamond lead
was rejected. East was entitled to draw the inferences he did,
but (as suggested by Law 73D1) only at his own risk.
Based on the preceeding analysis, the Committee
restored the result originally achieved at the table: 3NT
making three, N/S plus 600.
CHAIRPERSON: Alan LeBendig
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Rich Colker, Bill Pollack, John Sutherlin,
John Wittes
***********************************************************
Bruce McIntyre
Two things seem odd to me about this appeal:
1) It was clear to all when the director arrived that North had corrected the
mis-explanation by South before the opening lead had been decided upon, and yet
the director ruled that North-South had given mis-information.
2) This inane business of "the emotional nature of North's correction"
(oddly without details, leaving it all to our imagination) was not part of the
facts of the case and sounds awfully sexist to me, or perhaps like the
testimony of a side who knows that they are losing.
All things considered, the committee made the right call, but I think the
director OBVIOUSLY should have ruled no mis-information and forced e/w to
appeal. This illustrates the folly of the deposit system: had this happened
and e/w appealed I would bet they'd lose their deposit, but since through the
director's blown call n/s had to appeal, the deposit system was irrelevant.
Maybe n/s should claim the amount of a normal deposit from the director?
--Bruce McIntyre
Dave Eisen
In article <4ug0hf$p...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com>,
Chyah Burghard <DMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION: The Committee members strongly
>agreed on the following points relating to this case.
>
>First, that North acted properly in correcting the
>misinformation provided by South. In general, a player
>should be cautious in correcting a misexplanation which
>accurately describes his actual holding.
Is this really true?
I've always felt that the opponents are entitled to an
explanation of my agreements and if my partner gives
them an incorrect explanation, I correct it as a matter
of course. They are not entitled to be told what my hand
is and my explanations and corrections of such are the
same regardless of what I hold. I will correct partner's
misexplanation of our agreements even if I hold exactly
the hand partner has described, either by coincidence
or because I've misbid.
The people on this committee are clearly closer in touch
with the rules, both as written and as interpreted by
committees than I am, but this just doesn't sound right
to me. Or at least it doesn't sound like the way I want
the rules to be interpreted.
--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (415) 967-5644
dke...@netcom.com FAX: (415) 967-5648
There's something in my library to offend everybody.
--- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
David Stevenson
Dave Eisen wrote:
>In article <4ug0hf$p...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com>,
>Chyah Burghard <DMF...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>>
>>THE COMMITTEE'S DECISION: The Committee members strongly
>>agreed on the following points relating to this case.
>>
>>First, that North acted properly in correcting the
>>misinformation provided by South. In general, a player
>>should be cautious in correcting a misexplanation which
>>accurately describes his actual holding.
>
>Is this really true?
>
>I've always felt that the opponents are entitled to an
>explanation of my agreements and if my partner gives
>them an incorrect explanation, I correct it as a matter
>of course. They are not entitled to be told what my hand
>is and my explanations and corrections of such are the
>same regardless of what I hold. I will correct partner's
>misexplanation of our agreements even if I hold exactly
>the hand partner has described, either by coincidence
>or because I've misbid.
>
>The people on this committee are clearly closer in touch
>with the rules, both as written and as interpreted by
>committees than I am, but this just doesn't sound right
>to me. Or at least it doesn't sound like the way I want
>the rules to be interpreted.
I think you should reread the original article. The AC agreed that
North acted properly: so what is the problem? That they advised care to
be taken?
--
David Stevenson Bridge Cats Railways Logic /\_/\
Liverpool, England, UK http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk =( ^*^ )=
da...@blakjak.demon.co.uk Emails welcome RTFLB ( | | )
Tel: +44 (0)151 677 7412 Phone before Fax please (_~^ ^~
David desJardins
Chyah Burghard <DMF...@prodigy.com> writes:
> First, that North acted properly in correcting the
> misinformation provided by South. In general, a player
> should be cautious in correcting a misexplanation which
> accurately describes his actual holding.
I think this is nonsense. If there's some doubt as to whether or not it
really is misinformation, maybe. But if there is no doubt that it's
misinformation (here we are told that is confirmed by system notes),
then all misinformation should be corrected always, period, no thought
involved. The rules of the game are full disclosure and so one should
practice full disclosure. What one holds has no relevance at all.
It's hard to understand how this hand ever got to committee. My reading
of this description is that the director simply made a terrible ruling,
and the committee was trying to throw him or her some small sop in
restoring the obviously correct result. Unfortunately I think that
comments like this tend to lead to similar bad rulings in the future.
Oh well. At least I'm glad to see that the committee ruling which
decided a match was a clear-cut decision rather than a close issue.
David desJardins
P.S. Thanks for posting the information.
Gisela E. G. Meckstroth
Can you please help?
Jeff Meckstroth called his father to tell him that the game this afternoon
would be on Vugraph. We have found this www location but can not find
instructions on how to sign in for Vugraph session.
We would appreciate your help.
Gisela and Bob Meckstroth