BBO Discussion Forums: Marrakesh Case 9 - the Final - BBO Discussion Forums

I moved this out of my "full review" topic, first because it was the size of the rest of the cases combined, and second because I expect it will have as many comments as the rest of the cases combined.

I've seen this one on the Other Site, and I was confused by it at the time (and didn't look to see the case when I was reading the OS comments). Now that I have, I Am Officially Confused. But I do think that Pro players, who are famous for "knowing what Real Bridge should be, and if that means the Laws are wrong, well then we won't follow them" should RTFLB (all words in that acronym, even the one usually only in there for Hysterical Raisins, intended) and realize that, even in the finals of the world championships, it is possible to commit an infraction and yet not be penalized (in fact, get a better result than if they hadn't forgotten their system).

• North is lucky that West doubled, which allowed him to pass the "splinter". Probably a bit shocked to find he was putting his hand down, but oh well.
  
• N/S is lucky (or has good system notes) that South's explanation was the correct one, and that they could convince the TD of that. It would have been nice to have more information in the writeup about how/why that determination was made. Obviously if West had been misinformed, the ruling is completely different - and much more favourable to E/W.
  
• East's behaviour at the table is unconscionable; sure, protest that there are other problems here, but "now that you know that partner doubled an invitational 3♠ call, you can change yours. Anything else has to be handled after the hand. Now, your decision please?" is very clearly the Law, and he has heard it before. Failing to follow instructions after the Law was read to him somehow avoided a L90B8 penalty, for which he should be grateful.
  
• The protest ("immediate" or not, don't care) is perfectly valid, and I probably would have too. I mean, we've already made it clear that we think there's a problem beyond what can be done at the table under L21B1a. L21B3 could apply, let's get the Director here to see.
  
• Nice save in the writeup on the Director's ruling. I guess "for unknown reasons" is better than "the directors didn't quote the laws they used because they don't exist".
  
• I can see why East wants to argue that the hand was unplayable. He's got a 2 count and partner's double is going to lead to a poor score, and if we can throw this hand out we'll save IMPs. But the Law is pretty clear that he gets to make the call he would have made if North had explained 3♠ as "invitational with spades" and passed it. Which, with screens, is exactly what would have happened.
  
• Both teams asked for a review of the ruling. E/W's arguments - at least with the explanations given in the writeup - seem like players who care neither about the law or the deposit, if anything might give them a chance at a title. We *can't* allow North to wake up in a further auction, and without North raising spades with Kx, even having passed the (DSI?) double of (to him) his invitation, it looks like a misfit we're better defending. Definitely "up to even bidding a slam" (I wonder why that was mentioned. Oh yeah, there's only 11 tricks. That might be a reason). I have sympathy for them, but if you get to the finals of the world championship without being fished when the opponents forgot their system, well, this is a crappy time to find out it happens.
  
• Specifically "they caused the problem with the incorrect explanation"? What problem? In time, East was allowed to make his call with the *correct* explanation, chose not to change it. West had the right explanation and chose to double. What is the problem? If you get to the finals of the world championship without learning that "they did something wrong, we get a good score" isn't in the Law Book, again, crappy time to find out.
  
• N/S, or their NPC, seems to have actually read the Laws before, and came with a reasonable argument. The reviewers agreed.
  
• I'd be willing to argue that if there ever is a place where "Players are expected to know and be able to explain their system in common auctions, especially the first round" regulation is appropriate, the finals of the BB are it; if that regulation does exist (I can't see it in a quick look), then I think a penalty for causing the whole issue is in order. The reviewers didn't agree, or there isn't such a regulation.
  
• Do I think the further penalty reasonable? Not for the appeal - that's what forfeiting the deposit is *for*. If you need to penalize them in IMPs for the frivolous appeal, then quit with the deposit nonsense. Giving East the PP he managed to escape from the table TD (or recommending to the TD that it be assigned)? If that's the case, sure - but then what's this about the "yellow card"? I'm as thrilled with E/W as the reviewer, but that doesn't excuse inventing punishments.

All in all, a simple ruling (if potentially inequitable) made much bigger by the table it happened at and the "let's see if we can get from the Director what partner has guessed badly to give them at the table" behaviour.

I will note that I have read some things on the Other Site that are "not mentioned" in the writeup. However, it is pretty clear that the person making those statements was East at the table, so I'm willing to just point others to them with the big red "Self-Serving Testimony" (which does not mean "that's a lie, and I'm shocked you'd try it on", just "note, biased POV") sign.

The one thing I do see is that East is trying to say that the director said he can change his call, but didn't explain the ramifications of doing/not doing so. Which, if that happened, and the director didn't just pull out the FLB and let him read L21B1a - especially the "without other rectification for that side", and clarify if necessary that despite how the law reads, if he chooses not to change his call, we still rule it as "without other rectification", is shocking. Another "yeah, the law doesn't actually say what it means" moment, but the way it's ruled is quite clear - the last call from your side is changeable, and that's the extent of what the Law will do for that call; previous calls are not changeable, and we do the Law 12 dance on them.

Actually, I can see the "unknown reasons" for "adjusted score to 4♣x-3", if this director read the Law the other way - if you change your call, then no further; if you don't, we will look at adjusted score. Which falls afoul of 21B3 (or at least isn't included in 21B3, and there's "no mention of what to do in 21 if this situation exists" (which is why it's read the way I explained above). It's certainly a reading. But would lead to "no I won't change my call. If it's right, great. If it's wrong, they adjust to what's best for me to have called. Why should I ever stick my neck out?"

Warning people in advance I will be AFK tomorrow all day, so I won't see anything.

East is just plain foolish

I think this is what happens when you’ve been playing and directing a bridge tournament at the highest level for two weeks. I can’t even imagine how exhausting it is, but I know from some of those who participated in such matches, that you’re more than just tired, both physically and mentally.. And here is something really at stake, which will make the contestants more than a bit anxious and irritable.
Let’s face it, neither of us is a player of this class or, more importantly, a director of this level. They don’t just pick someone, but all, AFAIK, have to be wbf (assistant) td’s, which takes a lot of proven ability.

sanst, on 2023-September-26, 02:29, said:

I disagree. I was a scorer for the WBF at the previous Worlds and I can testify that the directors and their assistants were always alert and on the ball. As were (apparently, at least) the players in the BB, despite the huge number of boards already played. The players in the WC were considerably more disorderly and argumentative, but that's a different level and they were so from the beginning.

pescetom, on 2023-September-26, 06:02, said:

The “unknown reasons” for the AS of 4♣x-3 are IMO proof that the table director was at least confused and, I guess, worn out. Nor can I think of a reason other than irritation, to which exhaustion might have contributed, that East behaved as he did. To state, like steve2005 does, that he is plain foolish, is not what I would say of a player in the final of the BB.
Playing in the WC might be pretty hard, given the available space . I suppose that they played in the VC.

sanst, on 2023-September-26, 10:01, said:

I haven't read all the facts here, so will make no judgement. But worn out directors are not the norm, as sfi and mikeh would probably confirm.

sanst, on 2023-September-26, 10:01, said:

Wuhan Cup (national mixed teams).

OK, I now read it, simpler than I expected given all the noise. mycroft hits the nails on the head as usual: I think he was generous in offering to let the TDs out of jail free despite 21B3, but spot on that it is surprising NS were able to prove the agreement (not so much because it should not be in their System Notes, but because it's a weird agreement).
But as almost all have said, East's behaviour is illogical and distasteful. The review itself says everything about the TDs performance this time.