Imagine you are declarer in 1NT after partner opened the bidding 4th in hand with 1H, your RHO overcalled with 1S and you bid 1NT. The lead is the DK and this is what you see:
S 7 5
H K T 8 5 4
D 8 7 4
C A K J
S K Q 4
H J 6
D 9 6 5
C Q T 9 6 4
East plays the jack and when you ask the leader what kind of signal that is, he tells you it shows
count (high from even).Well, you think, they have five diamond tricks and two aces. If I guess
hearts wrong, or perhaps both the ace and queen of hearts are behind the king, I will be two
down.
LHO shifts to the S 10, you play small from dummy and RHO takes his ace. What do you do now? It flickers through your mind that if RHO can be persuaded to continue spades you will have six sure tricks which should be maximum, but not minimum, of what you can get on this board (unless West has AKQ bare or AK10 x of diamonds). Therefore you drop your S Q!
Unfortunately it turns out that the explanation was incorrect. The DK asked for an unblock and the diamonds were 4-3 all the time. Furthermore, since LHO passed originally and has shown up with D AKQ, he can't have the HA as well. And your RHO also is a passed hand and has the S A J and the DJ to go with his presumed HA, so he can't have the HQ as well - so LHO must have that card. There is no guess in the heart suit.
Even more unfortunate is that you didn't realize this when your RHO played the S A. As a matter of fact, when he played it you had about one tenth of a second to contemplate a false-card, If you are going to play a spade honor you must obviously play it fast otherwise no one will be fooled by your false-card. Perhaps you could have thought about it at trick one, but back then you presumed they would cash some more diamonds. Besides, you were under time pressure so some speed was called for.
As our declarer remembers it, the essentials of the aforesaid are what he told the committee.
If declarer had played a small spade he would probably have made his contract, so the Director changed the score to +90 for declarer. The opponents appealed. Now, what does the committee say about this?
1. When describing declarer's standpoint the committee says,
"Declarer contended that given the proper information he would have had an alternate play option.
There seems to be something missing if this should be described as a good description of declarer's point of view.
2. As reason for their verdict, 1NT down one, the committee say that they "don't appreciate declarer's explanation of his rationale for playing the S Q". Not very illuminating either.
Here we have a clear case of misinformation and damage. Was the damage consequential in relation to the misinformation? Well, at first it seems so, doesn't it? The crux of the matter is, as I understand it, if declarer played so badly that we should snap the connection between infraction and damage, i.e. if declarer made a gross misplay, then he shouldn't be given redress. The opponents still could be penalized as long as the infraction in some way caused the damage. Whether the committee deliberated upon this question and, if they did, what answer they arrived at, we don't know.
Was this really so bad a play? I don't think so. And if it was considered to be that bad, shouldn't the opponents still have been given minus 90? The criteria for penalizing the offenders are lower than those used for redress to the innocent. Perhaps the committee thought declarer's play was a gross misplay but tried to spare his feelings by not pointing this out, instead just gently implying that they did not appreciate it ? But then the educational value of the publication of the case appears to have lost its weight substantially.
Appeals Case 3
[The facts of the case are not in question, nor of particular relevance to the article, Ed.]The fact
with which I'm concerned is that West, on his side of the screen, made an erroneous explanation
of his own 4NT bid. The committee decided that the misexplanation did not have any influence on
the outcome of the deal.
In the last paragraph the committee says:
"E/W were fined one VP for West's wrong explanation and for the damage which any misexplanation (Convention Disruption) always does to the game."
Please read this sentence once again. I nearly choked when I read it. This must be a misprint, I thought. There are two points to make.
1. Do all wrong explanations cause damage?
It says that any wrong explanation always causes damage to the game. I've been told that "game" should be interpreted as meaning the game as a whole, not the specific deal.
Of course it is not true that all misexplanations cause damage. Most misexplanations do not matter at all. You just conclude that they didn't have any influence on the deal and go on playing. You don't feel that "the game has been damaged" in any way. But of course some misexplanations do cause a fuss, and that could be looked upon as damaging the game, especially when they occur in competitive sequences.
This point is a minor quibble on my part. An exaggerated formulation; obviously incorrect.
2. Can you get fined for forgetting your system?
This point however, is much, MUCH, more serious.
We are not given any explanation as to why the erroneous explanation results in a fine. We know it was established that it didn't have any influence on the outcome on the deal. If we presume that we have been given all the information we need to interpret the verdict, which we should be given, the conclusion must be that whenever you forget your system, even though it doesn't influence the outcome of the deal, you will be fined.
If we haven't been given all the information we need to interpret the verdict, then again the educational aspect of the publication of the verdict has lost its weight substantially.
As I understand it, the Laws do not justify procedural penalties against someone just because he forgets his system. But apparently some people believe they do. If you misexplain and it influences the outcome of the deal then, of course, redress should be given, but should redress be given just because you misexplain? Can forgetting your system on an occasional deal be deemed illegal in itself?
If a law is bad, you change it - but you don't stop applying it. This is an elementary principle in the interpretation of law. A judge in our normal society would never intentionally make a verdict contrary to the law and thereby inflict a penalty on an innocent man. If he believes the law is wrong, he would try to get around it, but always within the limits of that and other laws.
I believe those in our bridge society who are chosen to uphold the law should abide by the same high standard. But they can do so only if the law is clear and understandable. Is it?
Since one of the main objectives of publishing these Appeals Committee decisions is to establish a basis for a common understanding of the application of our written law (i.e. to create precedents, a highly praiseworthy objective), it is of extreme importance that what is written in these summaries be in accordance with both the law and previous precedents or, when you want to change precedents, that you clearly point out what you are doing.
But the committee must always work within the law, not outside it. The committee may change precedents, but they may never change the law. I would like to offer an example of what the proposed principle may lead to.
When Sweden was up against France in the Open, the bidding went: 2S (weak) - 4D (5-5 reds, forcing) - Pass - 5C. The 5C bidder alerted his call and explained it as a cuebid with diamonds as trumps. Alas, his partner interpreted it as natural and passed. The French played a 3-3 fit and went down when 6D was cold. It appears that they had no firm agreement.
If this new principle were to be applied and you established that they had no firm agreement, then Sweden, besides winning some 10 IMPs on the board, could have called for the TD and had France fined one Victory Point for wrong explanation (on at least one side of the screen; perhaps even 2 VPs if both explainers were in error... just joking).
It would be very good if someone, e.g., the WBF or the WBF Laws Commission, made it clear for us all what the law is and how it should be interpreted.
Preferably very soon. How about tomorrow?
Imagine what kind of situation we would be in if everyone took advantage of this new principle!