[GreenMan]

 barmar, on 2013-March-27, 21:26, said:

Anyone want to compare it to the "oh, *****" ruling?

No comparison; the "oh, *****" ruling was 10 times worse. Auken-Monaco, you can at least kind of see an argument for it if you turn your head and squint.

[sfi]

 barmar, on 2013-March-27, 21:26, said:

Anyone want to compare it to the "oh, *****" ruling?

Not at all. Having read through the appeal writeup, the one thing I am certain of is that I would not be qualified to be on the appeals committee for this case (and I'm saying this from the point of view of someone who does get asked to be on these committees at a national level). The law and how to apply it is straightforward. Assessing the appellants' agreements, carding, and decisions on the hand does not appear at all simple.

The one thing I would feel on solid ground about is that it has merit.

[gnasher]

 jillybean, on 2013-March-27, 20:46, said:

I was sent the following today,

NABC Appeals Committees
The 2013 Vanderbilt was marred by a 4 AM Appeals Committee decision that reversed the outcome of a match in the round of 16. Team Monaco was eliminated while Team Auken advanced to the round of 8 and ultimately went on to win the event.
Expert bridge players with far more ability than I have told me this ruling was one of the worst decisions ever made. ACBL TDs with far more knowledge of the Laws than I have concurred.
These situations, whatever side you may be on, are very bad for the game. This is not the first time a highly controversial ruling has affected the outcome, indeed the winner, of a major NABC Championship. But I hope it will be the last time. Jonathan Steinberg

My initial, uneducated reaction was "this is bad for the game".

I think it's bad for the game that someone who should know better uses emotive phrases like "one of the worst decisions ever made" and presents appeals to authority (anonymous authority, in fact) instead of argument. But if we're going to place any weight on such comments, we should also consider these:

Henry Bethe: I could not disagree more than I do with Jonathan.

Barry Rigal: I have certainly heard a variety of opinions not just the one-sided perspective presented by JS.

Michael Rosenberg: I completely disagree with the unnamed experts who thought that "this ruling was one of the worst decisions ever made". I thought this was a difficult case. It would have been better if a stronger jury could have been assembled, but I think this Committee did a reasonable job in unenviable circumstances.

These are all from a BridgeWinners thread: http://bridgewinners...e-for-a-change/

[iviehoff]

 jillybean, on 2013-March-27, 20:46, said:

Was this really the end of this discussion or have I missed another thread? I am very surprised that there is not a lot more discussion sourrounding this.

I think the issue had been clearly identified. It came down to whether you thought the effect of the misinformation was large enough to have had sufficient likelihood to have changed the play to have been worth an adjustment. Which you either did or you didn't, and it was clearly a bit of close call. There wasn't much more to it than that, which is why the discussion stopped.

If this had been a jurisdiction which allowed weighted scores, probably the adjustment would have been smaller and Monaco would have still won. But if there had not been MI, then either the defence would have got it right and won the match, or they would have got it wrong and lost. So you could argue a weighted adjustment removes any chance Auken would have had to win the match. At the end of the day, you can't devise an adjustment that lets you win the match 25% of the time, or whatever.

[wyman]

Also, although clearly this decision had an impact on the eventual winner of this event, the Auken squad beat several extremely talented sides to win this. I hate that the usual implication with statements like this is that they were somehow *given* the championship by this ruling, when in reality they played a hell of a tournament. I certainly feel for the Monaco side here, but there is a fair amount of randomness in bridge, and even if you disagree with the ruling, it seems pretty damn close, and I find it hard to chalk this up to anything more than just rub of the green.

[PhilKing]

On balance, I don't agree with the decision - it's a tad too deep a reach for my taste. But I think it was a perfectly reasonable decision.

[McBruce]

Here is an entirely different take on the situation: I agree with the ruling although I had to read about six digits worth of words to understand it. But if the Committee ruling took place at 4am, that is SIXTEEN HOURS after the scheduled start of a 64 board match. Even allowing for a short dinner break of 90 minutes and another delay of 90 or so while a Committee was assembled, convened, and deliberated, this still leaves 11 hours -- 660 minutes -- to play 64 boards, which is over ten minutes a board, almost 40% more than we mortals are normally given! OK, they had screens in use, but does this require more than two extra minutes each board? What on earth is going on in these matches? We play 28-board matches in our local IMP league and the matches are over in 3.5 hours tops -- and the boards are shuffled each half! Three such matches: 84 boards, could easily be played at that pace well-within the time apparently allowed for a Vanderbilt match.

The schedule for the NABC for the round of 16 day (Thursday) says 12:00 noon and 7:00 pm for the Vanderbilt. If, even with screens, you can't finish 32 preduplicated boards, a few more than a normal 3.5 hour session, fast enough to get but a quick dinner break out of what's left of SEVEN FREAKING HOURS, it seems quite clear that bridge at the highest levels has ceased to be a timed event.

[cherdano]

I have certainly made worse decisions at 4am.

[barmar]

 McBruce, on 2013-March-30, 06:27, said:

it seems quite clear that bridge at the highest levels has ceased to be a timed event.

I was operating Vugraph for one of the semi-final matches (Fleisher vs. van Prooijen). They were given 2.5 hours for each 16-board quarter, with a 15 minute break after the 1st and 3rd quarters, and a 2-hour dinner break. Some of the quarters ran right up against the time limit, but not more than a minute or so beyond. So it's still timed, but with very generous time limits -- about 9.4 minutes/board.

Although we do have Vugraph, I don't think the tournament planners make their decisions with the audience experience primarily in mind. At this level, players often bid to difficult contracts, and experts frequently go into tanks of several minutes planning their play or defense (and occasionally also for bidding decisions) -- I think this happened every 4-5 boards. I suppose this is considered acceptable, because thinking and planning are the primary features of this game, and we want to see the best example of this in championship events.

I think things have gotten better, though. I remember when the Vanderbilt and Spingold finals used to end at 2am (although part of this improvement comes from moving the start times earlier).

I'm not sure what this has to do with the ruling, though.

[blackshoe]

I wonder if the committee actually started earlier, but handled other cases first. Or is the rule "one case, one committee"?

[mycroft]

WBF gives 2h20 for 16-board segments, on the goal of 8m45/board. 2h30 for ACBL seems in the same ballpark (an extra 30 seconds/board; adds up, but it's not excessive). So yeah, about 2 minutes per board slower; from my (very limited) experience, 1 minute is inevitable, and maybe some more time for written explanations and language issues. So probably 8 minutes/board to play.

[blackshoe]

Local clubs here allow either 6m40s or 7m per board and about 10s "move time" regardless of the number of boards per round. That's pairs - we don't see teams much and I don't know how much time would be allowed then. Typically some number of pairs are perpetually slow, and some other number are perpetually fast - and the latter tend to move when they're done with their round, pressuring the pairs at the next table, regardless whether the round has been called. We also get people walking up and taking boards in the middle of the round, or the next table asking for boards even though the round has not been called.

I once participated in a game here in which, by about half time, half of the field was a full round ahead of the other half.

[pran]

 blackshoe, on 2013-April-01, 17:06, said:

Local clubs here allow either 6m40s or 7m per board and about 10s "move time" regardless of the number of boards per round. That's pairs - we don't see teams much and I don't know how much time would be allowed then. Typically some number of pairs are perpetually slow, and some other number are perpetually fast - and the latter tend to move when they're done with their round, pressuring the pairs at the next table, regardless whether the round has been called. We also get people walking up and taking boards in the middle of the round, or the next table asking for boards even though the round has not been called.

I once participated in a game here in which, by about half time, half of the field was a full round ahead of the other half.

The standard time in Norway (Pairs - no screens) seems to be 7 minutes per preduplicated board plus 2 minutes for round shift. (16 minutes for 2-board rounds, 23 minutes for 3-board rounds and 30 minutes for 4-board rounds)

[Mbodell]

 pran, on 2013-April-01, 17:21, said:

The standard time in Norway (Pairs - no screens) seems to be 7 minutes per preduplicated board plus 2 minutes for round shift. (16 minutes for 2-board rounds, 23 minutes for 3-board rounds and 30 minutes for 4-board rounds)

In clubs near me it is usually 15 minutes for a 2 board round and 21 minutes for a 3 board round (occasionally 22) and 4 board rounds are rare. Usually there will be one point around half way where the clock will get frozen or 3 or 4 minutes added to allow slow pairs to catch up or fast pairs to take a longer break.

[McBruce]

I like the idea of 6.5 minutes per board plus two minutes to change, which is a good standard for club games. If you think two minutes is too long for a move of two or three meters, I will show you some East-Wests who take five, laden with purse, snack, drink, convention card, glasses, pencil, and twelve other things.

But if the championships are taking 8 or 9 minutes a board, without anyone having to move, is it really the same game? Not a complaint, just an observation: other sports do different things for their championships. They came to the golf club where I run a ladies game and turned all the rough into a well-mowed fairway nearly indistinguishable from the actual fairway for the Canadian Open last summer. And as a Vancouverite still reeling from 2011, don't even get me started on what happened to the idea of what constitutes a penalty in the Stanley Cup Finals and how it contrasts with the rest of the season...

[barmar]

Playing with screens adds about a minute to the auction -- even when players bid quickly, they deliberately delay pushing the board through the screen to maintain an even tempo. I estimate this adds an average of 5 seconds to each call.

Except for the simplest contracts, declarers almost invariably take 30 seconds to a minute before playing to the first trick, and longer when they've overbid (as is quite common in these events).

To some extent, this IS a different game. They bid far more aggressively than ordinary club players, and this puts them in more contracts that they have to think hard about.

This is somewhat balanced by the fact that they claim more than most club players.

[aguahombre]

 barmar, on 2013-April-02, 09:47, said:

To some extent, this IS a different game. They bid far more aggressively than ordinary club players, and this puts them in more contracts that they have to think hard about.

This is somewhat balanced by the fact that they claim more than most club players.

The really big balancing factor is that they spend less non-productive time between hands yapping about the previous hand, the weather, etc.

[barmar]

 aguahombre, on 2013-April-02, 10:02, said:

The really big balancing factor is that they spend less non-productive time between hands yapping about the previous hand, the weather, etc.

Sometimes they do that one one side of the screen while waiting for the board to be passed.

[lamford]

 PhilKing, on 2013-March-29, 15:34, said:

On balance, I don't agree with the decision - it's a tad too deep a reach for my taste. But I think it was a perfectly reasonable decision.

I was with you until I read a bit more on forums and analysed a bit. However, I think that everyone has missed something quite important. Let us say the layout is

---

South led the five of spades (some commentators have said that this was not consistent with four small; that is not relevant as North established that EW did not have a 4-4 spade fit so it could well have been a false card). North won and switched to a diamond on which East played the king, and South the six. Now declarer finessed the queen of hearts and North won. Now North, knowing the clubs are favourable, has to try a diamond. To get home East needs to rise, cash the spades and then lead the king of clubs, exploiting the miracle lie in both minors, but finessing in diamonds is much more likely. Now the defence has five tricks. If North has correct information, she will never try a second diamond, as she will be able to see that only a club switch offers any hope. Now some argue that East would have opened 1C with 4-4 in the minors, and the above layout is not possible. Well, East is not a member of our side, and Zia opens whichever minor he feels like all the time. With correct information, North would have always beaten the contract, so I think the AC did a fine job.

[c_corgi]

 lamford, on 2013-April-03, 08:52, said:

Post 39

But hadn't North received correct information (from East)?