re: NPL trumps non-offending pair

To say your story is interesting is to understate it. However, even after saying the above, and agreeing to the majority view on your opponents, no doubt, benefiting with their result from unauthorized information (UI), there are still fish to fry before your subject leaves the building.

In any and every round robin type of format, used in almost every major sport, there are several factors:

1. The score of the subject encounter and its effect with those two teams.

2. How that score affects every other pair. In matchpoints every pair has quite a large number of teammates, all sitting the other direction to which that particular pair is sitting. Even though any one particular board only has a maximum of 1 matchpoint up for grabs for every pair sitting their way, the particular pairs who are present at the table, with an irregularity, have up to one board (whatever top happens to be) at stake.

A major question is in the event of an irregularity, should not equity make its way into the picture or should there just be cut and dried rules. Right now those cut and dried rules are probably correct in punishing the offending pair (not much argument), but what about the opponents to that pair?

Should they be given a windfall result of being awarded a top board, when, in reality every pair in the room would normally love to be the opponents of a pair who missed a laydown slam, the only way to go set being a 5-0 trump break. Of course, it would be different if the defense defended beautifully to beat the slam or there was a mechanical error, or even a revoke, by the declarer, but the normal playing luck (constantly present during every bridge tournament might suggest that by missing the slam, normally (90+%) they would get an earned zero, but this time Dame Fortune was smiling directly on them and their bad bridge gets them a top.

Now, mind you, I do not even begin to think that what they admitted doing should go unpunished, even though it was caught by casual conversation by you and furthermore had all the earmarks of being a true statement. But it is not them I am trying to protect. It is your pair receiving a top when normal playing luck (NPL) is suggesting that you got royally fixed.

The discussion of equity in bridge is a difficult one to comprehend unless one understands all the luck which accompanies a normal session.

While whenever I may describe the subject above, almost everyone’s instinct is to both punish the wrongdoers and make random rewards to the offended pair.

That is only half right as far as I am concerned. Yes, a different ruling should be made if the opponents were wired on that board, e.g. knowing the result before arriving at the last table, since, in that case NPL has also left the building since the playing of that board is severely tainted because of one pair’s knowledge of the result. However, when the opponents have a misunderstanding, in this case an alert which is compromised and a great slam is missed, but circumstances, in the form of lady luck (LL), intervenes, then, of course, the offenders need to be highly penalized, mitigated a little by their free admission (sort of like a plea bargain) and perhaps a full board penalty but no more than that should result, but, at least to me, your -650 should remain, just as if the trumps broke no worse than 4-1, your -680 would have been a top for you.

While I fully realize that others will not buy this type reasoning, I think it should apply and one thing certain:

Whenever there is an appeal with the result not having any administrative error, such as someone else boxing a card or causing a 14-12 situation etc., then a TD ruling followed by a committee ruling should never allow more than a full board’s matchpoints since director calls are always about the possibility of something wrong happening and if such is the result it is not logical that the board involved will result in more than that board’s matchpoints to be awarded on such a basis to make it more than whatever is top, on a cumulative basis.

One thing for sure is that the particular pair who played against you should realize that although the one admitting what happened didn’t realize the repercussions of his comment, without which this subject would never have existed, at least in such a transparent way, he may have, in effect, learned something by it and just maybe what I am talking about will make more sense to bridge lovers who are interested in making our game the fairest it can be.

At the very least in my coloring book, I would like all logical scholars, to consider what I am saying, and then voice an opinion as to why they agree or why they don’t. At least, in that way we can all learn something about this sometimes very difficult subject.

I happen to have a story that involved both Edgar Kaplan (whom I never met or spoke with) and an appeal that was deemed controversial. So, while I wait for “Just another Sunday afternoon,” here it is.

The place was Charlotte, NC and Mr. Kaplan was not there. The date was 1980 (plus/minus ~two years). The event was a big local game, perhaps a club championship. The hand was (IIRC) the last hand of the tournament.

The bidding was clearly difficult, as indicated by periods of long thought, though my own role (and that of my partner) was simply to pass in tempo. Our opponents were “experts” of local renown and the final contract was four spades.

There was little to the play.

Indeed, slam was virtually laydown so much so that if one saw only the hands of declarer and dummy, slam was the obvious place to be. In fact, this pair was the only one in the room NOT to be in slam.

The problem was that I held all five missing trump and declarer could make only eleven tricks, just like every other declarer in the room.

I suspected it would a bottom for us as soon as dummy came down. This was confirmed at the elation of declarer when my partner showed out on the first round.

The play had been so quick that, despite the protracted bidding, our table was first finished. The pair began to discuss the bidding (and how they had missed the slam they “should” have bid).

Then the one who had been declarer uttered fateful words, something like “when you didn’t alert my xxxx, I wasn’t sure if you had remembered … so I decided not to ….”

I raised my hand and called for the director, and the other three at the table leaned back in shock.

When that long-suffering notable appeared, I explained that the other pair had used a failure to alert as unauthorized information in their auction and requested score adjustment.

The uproar was instantaneous but their witnessed speech was their petard. The director ruled against them and they appealed. The appeal committee met and also ruled against them.

One of those involved wanted to appeal even higher afterward and called Edgar Kaplan (so I was told).

To the phone-caller’s absolute horror, Kaplan not only agreed with the ruling but expressed pleasure that the bridge authorities in North Carolina were so enlightened.

That was the last of it.

The irony for me was that I would not have known to appeal except that I was then a Bridge World subscriber and Kaplan had addressed specifically almost that exact situation! That is, that any player who used a failure to alert by partner as a factor in an auction should never be allowed to keep a good score on that hand.

Is it the same in bridge? I am told (and have no reason to doubt) that those involved in this situation are players of the highest merit in both skill and ethics. If we have the right to use this subjective information the 6S contract could be allowed, but where do we draw the line between the law abiders and the law breakers?

The only way to solve this is to use the same rules for all, as unfair as it may appear in cases like this one.

I was not aware of that reference but did check it out and can explain it.

For the record: The original foursome were Seymon playing with Bobby and Bob Hamman/Jim Jacoby (alluded to as “and the Texans” ) who in 1986 won The Grand Nationals. Meckstroth and Rodwell were subsequently added to round out their 1987 Trials Team where they were victorious and went on to capture the whole shebang in 1988. That solves the mystery of the unnamed Texans.

I also saw something on another site where it mentioned that Seymon won the 1988 World Championship with Meckwell “and the Texans.” Curious what they meant.

I do not know what Chris or Mike said. However, I do know what I said and that was that the player who doubled 4 clubs, sitting on Chris’ left, by inference, denied holding the HK by his double of 4 clubs.

That is all that I said. However, that fact alone gives much greater emphasis to a making slam than not knowing that stand out fact.

In any long winded discussion, usually turned argument, there are many points to be clarified. It is certainly important and necessary when discussing other views to get right what was said and how it contributes to the discussion.

You cover a number of very important points in bridge jurisprudence and the high road to getting it done, but the overall result is very difficult for others to address any of the issues, and nigh impossible to find an agreeable solution.

However, your opinion on the current laws involved are shared 100% by me, and only one other point to be made: How would anyone in Chris’ position after the tray is passed back to his side of the table after perhaps a 30+ second interval, work out the overall problem of who was the cause of it, and if so why, and much more pertinent, what to now do about it since he did not have any real way of determining who was delaying progress in the bidding on the other side of the table.

To repeat, during my experience with screens, there have been more times than I can count of players, not directly involved in the constructive part of the bidding, who sometimes think the longest, both probably for legal and also for nefarious intent, which they will always defend by obfuscation. I have even had my screenmate grab my arm before allowing me to send the tray back to the other side after I had bid in tempo (perhaps 4 or 5 seconds) and he had passed. By coincidence, his partner led one of our suits which was necessary to defeat a slam, but by luck we had signed off in game.

And so it goes, but the wrong side seems to always win these arguments by just letting it die a normal death, which will usually happen when bad guys and gals are toe to toe with good ones.

It does get frustrating to try and fight the good battle and have so many IMO, lesser knowing attempted truthsayers, present an abbreviated view which in no way begins to solve this horrible dilemma of policing ethics entwined with screens, especially when the whining starts about the poor volunteers.

How about the poor intended honest players who have to put up with these nothing less than abominable rules?

This ruling is such an example.

Nobody has acquitted themselves well.

1. the TD- Did not explain his reasoning [beyond 3 of 4 pollees passed]. The director did not explain the pollees’ reasoning for their action. Did not explain the basis for finding that east broke tempo. Did not explain reasoning for the adjusted score.

2. the AC- did not come to a finding as to the length of BIT. Did not deliver a finding as to the agreement in force [to 4S]. Did not investigate relevant alternative sequences [such as 4CXX]. Did not deliver a finding as to the assertion “West also claimed that the double of 4C marked the king of hearts in South’s hand, making slam even better.” Did not address the four assertions of NS.

3. EW- supposedly the basis of the appeal was that pass was not a LA alternative given “West also claimed that the double of 4C marked the king of hearts in South’s hand, making slam even better.”

My comment is that the assertion is not merely dubious, but given that it was made after seeing that S did not have the HK it was a ludicrous assertion. This discredits the premise of the appeal; thus discredited it is without merit.

4. Wolff- Wolff asserts that because of the inference that north doesn’t have the HK [which makes the HQ a working card] that slam is a shoo-in. And because the AC ignored this that their ruling was a bad on. Well, I agree that the AC ruling was a bad one [in part for that reason] but because of additional factors many of which I’ll mention here:

[a] west asserted that 4S suggested values. This is dubious [why preempt partner when partner doesn’t know if the five level is safe?] and a bit convenient [self servingly so].

[b] east asserted that 4S is the weakest sequence available [this is logical and credible- and also in contradiction of his partner]
[c] the failure to 4C XX infers that NS hold the CA

[d] the failure to bi 4H infers that E does not have the HK

[e] Wolff’s assertion the 4CX infers north doesn’t have the HK and thereby the HQ is working is dubious because W has a difficult time visualizing how to get to east without losing the lead- unless east in fact has the HK [which east has suggested he may not have].

[f] has anyone looked up the score for 4CXX with an uptrick? I take it that since it was Levin that got the ball rolling that XX wasn’t dumb….
[g] what inferences were available from the lengthy huddle?

[1] the huddle was by east because of east’s dubious spade holding required W to have a lot of specific cards for slam.

[2] most of the honor strength was ‘wasted’ in clubs

[3] cueing would infer stronger spade holding for slam than the anemic actual holding

[4] that east continued to consider at length infers powerful honors in spite of preempting with 4S [because of his hand W can infer the HK and C?K? as it is the only possible such honor]

[5] the length of consideration suggests that even with good honors he doesn’t have a source of length tricks [in other words, long clubs which in turn means short reds]

[h] where are the partnership’s tricks to come from? Stipulating that S has the HK then west still has 4 red losers for east to cover. One can probably be covered by ruffing while the useful spots are the HK, DQ, DJ. If N is given six clubs to the ace and east 4 spades and two club honors then east has only 7 empty spaces to fetch all three special cards while NS has 20 spaces. The odds are reasonable that east has at most one card, poor for two, and down right unlikely for three.

5. Ruling- inferences [as discussed above] solely from AI suggest 10 to 11 tricks are indicated at the most [missing CA and so many cover cards for red suit losers] while inferences from UI suggest specific cards [HK and CK working] were held by east which AI suggests east did not hold- making 12 [5-6S,3H,2D,1C] tricks likely. AI strongly suggests that the contract not surpass 4S which is a LA to the action actually taken. Therefore 6S breached L16B1a; the L12 definition of damage [the table result is greater than the expected result] being met L16B3 provides for an adjusted score. EW earned the contract of 4S; everything beyond 4S was tainted.

I agree that the rules are sadistic, masochistic, and pernicious. But this hand does not demonstrate it- let alone act as a poster child.

As for law that yields justice, if you really feel that your case in this hand is a true one, I would rather you not be an advocate because what ever came of it would be so hard to fix. I can advise that Kojak and Ton are very resistant to change. And, it is notable that the marching orders for the drafting committee reflect that.

Personally, I have submitted a proposal which if taken to its conclusion would address several ailments including such matters that you hold dear [CD for instance]. However, it found its way to the dust bin. Notably, the Secretary issued a solicitation to interested individuals over a year ago to make submissions to the WBFLC. As of now, door for such proposals this drafting cycle [2017] closed last December.

JS