Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Brian Platnick
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
WADA rules require public reporting of the violation including prohibited substance …

14.3.2 No later than twenty days after it has been determined in a final appellate decision under Article 13.2.1 or 13.2.2, or such appeal has been waived, or a hearing in accordance with Article 8 has been waived, or the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not otherwise been timely challenged, the anti-doping organization
responsible for results management must Publicly report the disposition of the anti-doping matter including the sport, the anti-doping rule violated, the name of the athlete or other Person committing the violation, the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method involved and the Consequences imposed. The same anti-doping organization must also Publicly report within twenty days the results of final appeal decisions concerning anti-doping rule violations, including the information described above.

While I agree that these regulations make little sense, they are unfortunately the current regulations. One of the allergy medications I take is on the WADA list of banned substances. So before playing in Orlando, I downloaded the TUE (Theraputic Use Exemption) form from the WBF website and forwarded it to my doctor who filled it in. Then sent I it to the WBF for approval. It was a simple process.
Feb. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Because we have a set of rules that prevent accidents.”

Then why do you spend so many nights sleeping on the couch?
Jan. 15, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A friend who is a mathematician emailed to me the story below and asked iif it were true. Can anyone confirm?


"Another story about bridge, that I heard from Peter Swinnerton-Dyer himself: At a tournament, Peter called over the referee, told him formally that he was not making an error or oversight, then bid 8 clubs. Although this bid is impossible, he had calculated that he would lose less going down in it than allowing his opponents to make their grand slam. He knew the fine wording of the rules of bridge, and the match referee was forced to accept the impossible bid, since it was not made by error or oversight; the rules were subsequently changed to block this obscure loophole.”
Jan. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Danny,

I remember when this happened and was under the impression Colker has a lot of evidence on them.
Dec. 27, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
For me, this problem is easier if you assume Monty chose the other unopened door.

Change the game a bit. There are 10 paper cups turned upside down. One of them has a silver dollar under it. The contestant chooses one, but doesn’t turn it over. The host then chooses another cup and guarantees that the coin is under one of the two selected cups. The contestant now has the option to switch with the host.

Two things are now obvious to those who did not previously understand restricted choice.
(1) the cup chosen by the host will have the silver dollar 90% of the time.
(2) revealing that the other 8 cups have nothing under them doesn’t change the odds as it reveals no additional information.
Dec. 26, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“When opponents have a misunderstanding and play in a cuebid - for a “likely” top for me - I'll still look to make the most of it. One never knows. If I could have gotten more but didn't, it means there was some element of doubt for me. Just as there was some element of doubt for the leader against 7N.”

I agree. However, doubling on this auction has a very high risk/reward ratio even if “certain” partner has the ace of diamonds. Leading the King is another story. One could argue that if the opening leader was completely focused, he would have led the king. So The fact that he led a low diamond implies he was consciously or subconsciously awaken by the hesitation.

In one of Mike Lawremce’s books, there is a hand where he scores well over average for going down 1 in 7NT off an ace.
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“I don't think a double or ♦K lead necessarily trumps the UI. I think that the failure to do those things shows that the leader did not actually KNOW partner had ♦A - he only suspected it. And therfore there was theoretical risk involved.”

Michael,

I generally agree with your view on this hand, however, the argument you make above is irrelevant. Beating 7NT 2 tricks undoubled is likely the same Matchpoint score as beating it 5 doubled.

As I stated earlier in this thread a few thousand comments ago, it is patently obvious somebody screwed up in the auction. If Bobby was lazy and didn’t try for 7NT, then they likely have more than 13 to tricks. If Joe turned his brain off and didn’t realize the auction made it “obvious” Bobby had a diamond void, then you beat them with a diamond lead. Therefore it is “Obvious” to lead a diamond because in the universe where Bobby made a mistake, your lead doesn’t matter. If you were right, doubling gives you no extra matchpoints. If you are wrong, doubling could cost you.

I agree with you 100% about experts making stupid mistakes and hesitations like this one acting as wake up calls. Here is an actual example of that happening in the Blue Ribbon Pairs in Hawaii.
A world class player (let’s call him Joeseph) denied a diamond control. His partner (let’s call him Robert) took control, bid Blackwood and jumped to 7S over the response. Joseph forgetting that because he had denied a diamond control, his partner might have bid Blackwood with a diamond void, bid 7NT. He remained blissfully ignorant until his LHO hesitated over his 7NT bid, at which point a loud alarm went off in his head.
Dec. 17, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think Dave means the real party wronged financially. His comment was in the context of financial disgorgement.
Dec. 12, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Randy,

I have certainly seen a few committee rulings where I felt that a committee member or 2 might have recused themselves. I have also seen rulings that I thought were unconscionable (the “oh sh t” ruling particularly), but they have cut both ways. Sometimes the “celebrity” player comes out on top, sometimes not.

The “oh sh t” ruling is not very good evidence for your unfounded accusations. In the round of 64, the professional team of Bobby Wolff,Dan Morse,George Rosenkranz, Roger Bates, Mark Lair, Ron Smith lost this appeal to
Jeffrey Blond,Doug Fraser, Michael Shuster, JoAnna Stansby.

Maybe you can find a better example.
Dec. 7, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi AT,

I don't usually get involved in back and forth arguments on BW because it seems to involve both sides just repeating themselves. However, I'm going to repeat myself one more time then move on to all of the non-bridge responsibilities I neglected while in Hawaii.

you said:

“Brian, you proved my point exactly. Joe belatedly figured out that Bobby was void in ♦ AFTER the long hesitation from South (from many of the posts, I believe he made the comment after the hesitation). If a player with Joe's caliber failed to consider that Bobby might be void in ♦ (if he had considered that, he couldn't possibly be deliberately gambling that Gloubok wouldn't lead a ♦ because Gloubok might have ♦A for his double of 4♦), how can we assume that Gloubok would figure it out?”

Just because it took the hesitation to wake up Joe to the fact that he made a terrible mistake doesn't mean that Glubok wasn't already aware. The auction was illogical. Even though Bobby and Joe are not a regular partnership, 2 players of their caliber shouldn't have screwed up an auction like this. Yes, everyone makes mistakes. I have played enough boards against each of them to actually witness rare occasions on which Bobby and Joe have made
“stupid mistakes.” The auction patently reveals that this hand is one of those rare occasions where a stupid mistake was made, the question is by whom? Two possibilities:

(1) Bobby screwed up by not inviting Joe to the party. 7NT might be cold, but Bobby lazily bid 7S.

(2) Joe turned his brain off and didn't consider that given the earlier auction Bobby could have a void.

When presented with the auction, it took less than 2 seconds for me (and many others) to determine that either (1) or (2) had happened. Glubok had more time to think about the auction even before the hesitation. As soon as Bobby bid Wood, he was likely aware that Bobby might have a void.

If I were on lead in this situation, my thought process would be - “Who screwed up, Bobby or Joe. If it were Bobby, but Joe still bid 7NT, they have 18 top tricks. If it were Joe, they are off the entire Diamond suit. So I might as well lead a diamond or we have zero chance to beat 7NT.”

So for me, the diamond lead is so obvious that I would never consider any other suit. I don't mean that I wouldn't “seriously consider” another lead, but that it would never occur to me to lead anything other than a diamond. If my Aunt Sadie* had the Ace of Diamonds, she would not consider leading anything else. I would give the same level of consideration to other suits as Aunt Sadie would if she held the Ace of Diamonds.

Now for the problem. Partner hesitated considerably before passing 7NT. Even though for me it makes a diamond lead go from 100% to 100%, other experts who were polled disagree. So the directors correctly adjusted the score. Glubok probably thought along the same lines as I did and thought the lead was so obvious, that even with the hesitation, no one would argue that he couldn't lead a diamond because of the UI. Turns out, he was wrong. Sometimes I have sympathy for players in this situation, but in this specific case, the hesitation was so egregious, I think the ruling was fine.

To continue restating what I said earlier, if playing with JD, his pass would deny the Ace of Diamonds. But with a client or inexperienced partner, the considerations are different.

*By the way, I really had an Aunt Sadie (my great Aunt) who played bridge in my hometown of Bluefield, WV. I played with her a few times. She was not a good player, but defense was easy because she always would lead an Ace if she had one.
Dec. 6, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“How did you arrive at the conclusion that EW screwed up if there was no break of tempo from South?”

The same way Joe belatedly arrived at this conclusion and the same way a hundred earlier posts have explained:

- Joe denied a diamond control
- Bobby can now bid wood with a diamond void
- Bobby didn’t try for 7NT

If you ask Joe what he thinks of his 7NT bid, I’m sure he would agree it was Ill-advised. He is lucky that the hesitation saved him. I have no doubt Glubok would have led a diamond absent the hesitation, but unfortunately, his partner didn’t pass in tempo. Joe and Bobby got lucky, but luck is part of the game.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit,

I agree the considerations are completely different depending on the level of your partner. With a weak partner, I don’t need a double to know to lead a diamond - but the hesitation certainly helps.
Dec. 5, 2018
Brian Platnick edited this comment Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
AT,

Not that I’m a decent player but on the auction, my assumption is that the opponents screwed up and are missing the ace of diamonds.

You also seem to be arguing that East erred by failing to take into account that West may have a diamond void, but N/S should never consider this possibility.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit,

What if you were playing with a client instead of your regular partner?
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Kit,

I play that a double here calls for a diamond lead. If JD didn’t double, he doesn’t want a diamond lead. So a slow pass in my partnership implies an ace in a suit other than diamonds that could go away, which on this auction must be clubs. Therefore I wouldn’t lead a club as the UI points to a club lead.

If the Rules of bridge were such that penalties doubles didn’t exist, I would lead a diamond assuming Joe screwed up and Bobby had a diamond void. Playing with an inexperienced player, I would also lead a diamond. The logic of the auction = Joe made an illogical bid, thus a diamond lead is called for. Unfortunately, partner’s hesitation changes the equation. Now my logic has become a near certainty.

How should the committee rule? No idea? My view is that The diamond lead is so automatic on this action, that partner’s hesitation has no effect. The directors polled many experts and they didn’t all agree with me, so they ruled for Joe & Bobby. Joe’s comment, if it occurred before the hesitation, may affect the situation, again that depends on who was polled.

My final thoughts:
- for me, the diamond lead is clear 100% (absent an agreement double calls for a diamond)
- hesitating before passing 7NT is ridiculous
- the final decision is reasonable, no reason everyone polled has to agree with me
- this hesitation was so bad, that if it were me, I wouldn’t lead a diamond even though I think it is 100%

If I were the judge, I would making a ruling not allowed under ACBL rules:

-1520 for the defending side plus a procedural penalty for the ridiculous hesitation.
-100 for Bobby because the diamond lead is so obvious
+1520 for Joe because I like Joe, even though he was an idiot on this hand

So Joe wins the BRP, Chris/Eldad 2nd, Bobby 3rd.

PS The opinion that Joe and Bobby did anything wrong by appealing is offensive. They deserve to get a zero for bidding 7NT on this hand only if the opponents find the correct lead with no UI.
Dec. 5, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Wow!
Dec. 2, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Richard,

Partner couldn’t bid 4H with that hand. Risks going down in game facing Kx Qxx JTx AKQT.
Nov. 21, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Agree 100% with Jan above. As already mentioned, the original motivitation behind announcing NT range was to protect the opening side. It seems better to require everyone to announce, but have no penalty for a failure to announce.
Nov. 11, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Jean-Charles,

How can the bridge community of Monaco feel any pride in the tainted medals their team has “won?”

I would think that you would want to renounce every win associated with FN and focus on the future.
Oct. 31, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Michael,

I agree with you almost 100%. In the OP, my view is declarer would take 12 tricks even though he had AKTx instead of AKJx. Again, if the defenders call the director who ruled down 1, I think that is reasonable and have no sympathy for declarer. However if the Diamonds were AKJx, ruling down 1 feels a bit harsh.
Oct. 19, 2018
.

Bottom Home Top