[bluecalm]

I dunno, you either know what the card means here or you don't. Usually when it's trick 7 or something you don't need time recalling.
Of course it's possible that they showed their notes and it's 100% clear Rodwell couldn't have Jh they way he carded but I have trouble believing this.
I am sure the committee had its reasons for the decision that's why I would like to see them before making my judgement but it really looks suspicious for now.

[CSGibson]

After the long tank Moss was reported to have pointedly asked Meckstroth if the 3 was upside-down attitude. Then Meckstroth switched. I'm wondering if he could take inference from the question as well as from the tank (not legal inference from the tank, more a question of if there was no tank, would you expect to be able to take any inferences from a strong declarer asking that question)?

[gnasher]

 Fluffy, on 2012-May-09, 10:03, said:

I hate it when opponents cheat (often unintentionally)

If it's unintentional, it's not cheating. "Cheating" implies that they deliberately broke the rules.

In UI cases we never have to make that sort of accusation. All we say is, "You had UI; the UI suggested LA1 over LA2; therefore you can't choose LA1." If they did choose LA1, it doesn't mean they were cheating, it just means that their evaluation of the UI and the LAs was different to ours.

 bluecalm, on 2012-May-09, 13:31, said:

I surely hope to hear more about how appeal went.
The law is clear. There was unauthorized information and if playing Kh was logical alternative then the result shouldn't stand.
The only way for Kh not being logical alternative is that they have some very detailed carding agreement here which I seriously doubt (if they had, Rodwell wouldn't think).

The other way is if the facts were different to what we have been told here. As Fluffy says, the source of information doesn't seem particularly objective.

[Fluffy]

sorry, its a language misshap, I should say break rules unintentionally instead of cheating unintentionally.

[nige1]

 mikeh, on 2012-May-09, 14:13, said:

Wow....the more detailed my agreements, the more I have to think about them. True, Rodwell has a tad more experience than I do, but otoh he has a tad more agreements than I do. In fact, one of the commentators spoke about how she was inthe seat ahead of them on a cross-country flight and Meckwell spent the entire flight discussing finely detailed agreements. I don't care how smart they are....with the details they have, and the changes they make, I would expect thought more often than not.

I agree with mikeh that we can only speculate until we read the appeal write-up. For example, if detailed agreements apply in such contexts, then Meckwell are unlikely to regard "attitude" as adequate disclosure.

[TimG]

 CSGibson, on 2012-May-09, 14:45, said:

After the long tank Moss was reported to have pointedly asked Meckstroth if the 3 was upside-down attitude. Then Meckstroth switched. I'm wondering if he could take inference from the question as well as from the tank (not legal inference from the tank, more a question of if there was no tank, would you expect to be able to take any inferences from a strong declarer asking that question)?

I was watching the vugraph when this hand was played. My impression was that Moss asked about the 3 after Meckstroth switched. Maybe others got a different impression? The order in which the card was played and Moss's question was asked could easily have been backwards from the way it appeared on vugraph.

[barmar]

There's a difference between playing deliberately and going into a long tank.

In the interview with Fred in the BBO lobby news, he said "Jeff's main argument was that he had already planned a clever defense and that Eric's signal and the length of time he took to make it were not relevant. Apparently he convinced both the TD and the Appeals Committee."

This seems wrong. It sounds like they ruled based on the "I was always going to do that" explanation. But when UI is involved, this is not supposed to be a sufficient excuse. He should have to convince the TD and AC that believing his partner's signal was not a logical alternative.

[JLOGIC]

He might have argued that he switched to an anti-systemic heart (I think this is true, but not 100 % sure, he shifted to the Q from KQ), ergo he was planning a deception, while also deceiving his partner who he knew would encourage with the ten, ergo he was clearly flying solo and "had a plan."

Not saying whether this is a good or bad argument, just that this might have been his argument.

[bluecalm]

Quote

In the interview with Fred in the BBO lobby news, he said "Jeff's main argument was that he had already planned a clever defense and that Eric's signal and the length of time he took to make it were not relevant. Apparently he convinced both the TD and the Appeals Committee."

I can't wait to read this appeal I sure hope they didn't consider what he was planning to do anyway as argument there...

[JLOGIC]

Playing devils advocate, if you shift to an anti systemic card, presumably you are aware you will mislead partner and get the wrong signal (eg, if you show QJ when you don't have it, your partner will encourage with the ten). If you are doing such a thing in the middle of the hand, you could argue that logically you did not care about your partners signal, you thought your only chance to beat it was an elaborate deception (which worked), and that the proof you had made that decision is in the play of the queen rather than the king.

I am guessing from freds interview that this was mecks argument, I actually have not discussed the hand with Fred or Brad yet so I'm not sure.

[JLOGIC]

Also, I am guessing what really happened is Brad just got crucified for his later play. If I was on the committee, I would not have given Brad the full adjustment, because his subsequent play of the hand was really a huge error, and did not satisfy continuing to play bridge after an infraction. It is unfortunate, because I'm sure Brad was pissed when this was happening and got distracted which caused him to err later in the play, it seems a little unfair that if none of this had happened I am 100 % Brad would have made the hand, given that Brad was the non offender, but there ya go.

[fred]

As you might have guessed if you read the interview, I am not exactly eager to talk about this hand, but for the record...

Confirmed: The Queen of hearts was a non-systemic lead and the Appeals Committee was made aware of this.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[chudecek]

 fred, on 2012-May-10, 09:53, said:

As you might have guessed if you read the interview, I am not exactly eager to talk about this hand, but for the record...

Confirmed: The Queen of hearts was a non-systemic lead and the Appeals Committee was made aware of this.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

---

Continuing with D10 after the HQ holds cannot beat the hand whether declarer has H AJxx or Axxx.

Meckstroth led DJ, K, 3, 4
Moss led S5, 7, Q, 4
Moss led C4, 2, Q, 5 (Count by Eric?)
Moss led S6, T, J, A
Meckstroth led HQ, 2, 3, 5

For whatever reason – skill, experience, whatever - Jeff led HQ.
It HELD as Eric played H3 which HAD to be attitude. Now Jeff shifted to D10.

Declarer simply wins the diamond in dummy as the D8 falls. Now declarer leads dummy's last spade
as Eric wins. Declarer has remaining a good spade, heart A?x C Ax. Eric has only hearts
and clubs left. If he leads a heart, Moss goes up Ace and on the actual hand HK falls for trick nine.
If the heart king does not fall, declarer cashes his spade, plays Ace and a club to dummy, and leads
D9 as Meckstroth has only diamonds left and must give dummy D7.

If Eric leads a club, Moss goes up Ace and cashes his HA as HK falls for trick nine.
If the heart king does not fall, declarer cashes his spade, plays a club to dummy, and leads
D9 as Meckstroth has only diamonds left and must give dummy D7.

The diamond continuation by Meckstroth was a losing play regardless.

[CSGibson]

 chudecek, on 2012-May-10, 11:59, said:

---

Continuing with D10 after the HQ holds cannot beat the hand whether declarer has H AJxx or Axxx.

Meckstroth led DJ, K, 3, 4
Moss led S5, 7, Q, 4
Moss led C4, 2, Q, 5 (Count by Eric?)
Moss led S6, T, J, A
Meckstroth led HQ, 2, 3, 5

For whatever reason – skill, experience, whatever - Jeff led HQ.
It HELD as Eric played H3 which HAD to be attitude. Now Jeff shifted to D10.

Declarer simply wins the diamond in dummy as the D8 falls. Now declarer leads dummy's last spade
as Eric wins. Declarer has remaining a good spade, heart A?x C Ax. Eric has only hearts
and clubs left. If he leads a heart, Moss goes up Ace and on the actual hand HK falls for trick nine.
If the heart king does not fall, declarer cashes his spade, plays Ace and a club to dummy, and leads
D9 as Meckstroth has only diamonds left and must give dummy D7.

If Eric leads a club, Moss goes up Ace and cashes his HA as HK falls for trick nine.
If the heart king does not fall, declarer cashes his spade, plays a club to dummy, and leads
D9 as Meckstroth has only diamonds left and must give dummy D7.

The diamond continuation by Meckstroth was a losing play regardless.

Meckstroth and Rodwell regularly make plays that are double-dummy losing plays, but which give them more chances to beat the hand single dummy. I don't think double-dummy analysis is the only leg you should stand on when evaluating the hand.

Meckstroth knew that Rodwell was going to be encouraging any time the Q held - he had to with some combination of AJT outstanding. The fact that he led the Q is evidence, in my opinion, that he was not concerned with the signal given by Rodwell, and that he had the action planned to give declarer a losing option - which declarer took. It's unfortunate that Rodwell took so long, because all of this is only speculation, but I can definitely be convinced that Meckstroth was not influenced by the tempo.

On the other hand, its doubly unfortunate that this took place against Brad and Fred, because they are so sensitive to their own tempo-signals and the ethical implications that it provides a stark contrast for those that want one.

Edit: I just saw that Justin beat me to this thought process.

[bluecalm]

Quote

and that he had the action planned to give declarer a losing option - which declarer took. It's unfortunate that Rodwell took so long, because all of this is only speculation, but I can definitely be convinced that Meckstroth was not influenced by the tempo

.

It doesn't matter what he planned what he would played etc. Either playing 2nd heart was logical alternative or it wasn't.
If it was then the question is Moss made hazardous play or big mistake if he didn't then score should be changed.

[chudecek]

 CSGibson, on 2012-May-10, 12:52, said:

Meckstroth and Rodwell regularly make plays that are double-dummy losing plays, but which give them more chances to beat the hand single dummy. I don't think double-dummy analysis is the only leg you should stand on when evaluating the hand.

Meckstroth knew that Rodwell was going to be encouraging any time the Q held - he had to with some combination of AJT outstanding. The fact that he led the Q is evidence, in my opinion, that he was not concerned with the signal given by Rodwell, and that he had the action planned to give declarer a losing option - which declarer took. It's unfortunate that Rodwell took so long, because all of this is only speculation, but I can definitely be convinced that Meckstroth was not influenced by the tempo.

On the other hand, its doubly unfortunate that this took place against Brad and Fred, because they are so sensitive to their own tempo-signals and the ethical implications that it provides a stark contrast for those that want one.

Edit: I just saw that Justin beat me to this thought process.

Why should a World Class player chose a play that requires an error, rather than choosing
a play CONSISTENT WITH PARTNER'S SIGNAL, which beats the hand when it is beatable?

[CSGibson]

 chudecek, on 2012-May-10, 13:30, said:

Why should a World Class player chose a play that requires an error, rather than choosing
a play CONSISTENT WITH PARTNER'S SIGNAL, which beats the hand when it is beatable?

Geez, Carl, I don't know. Maybe because he thinks the error is more likely than the layout you proposed? I mean, this is ridiculous. Successful players play for errors rather than technical layouts all the time, even against top competition, because they believe the chance that opponents make an error to be a higher percentage. You are a good player, you should know that.

The fact that he led the Q indicated that he knew his partner's signal COULD NOT BE TRUSTED because Meckstroth had purposely given him the wrong information, and he knew that before leading the Q.

If Meck wanted to play for the technical layout, he would have led the king. His intention is clear when he leads the Q.

Now I am much more convinced by the thought that he's no longer allowed to be brilliant after partner's tempo issues than I am any of your technical jibber-jabber - don't read this as my saying the committee got this right. I just don't think your argument is particularly convincing.

[chudecek]

 CSGibson, on 2012-May-10, 14:07, said:

Geez, Carl, I don't know. Maybe because he thinks the error is more likely than the layout you proposed? I mean, this is ridiculous. Successful players play for errors rather than technical layouts all the time, even against top competition, because they believe the chance that opponents make an error to be a higher percentage. You are a good player, you should know that.

The fact that he led the Q indicated that he knew his partner's signal COULD NOT BE TRUSTED because Meckstroth had purposely given him the wrong information, and he knew that before leading the Q.

If Meck wanted to play for the technical layout, he would have led the king. His intention is clear when he leads the Q.

Now I am much more convinced by the thought that he's no longer allowed to be brilliant after partner's tempo issues than I am any of your technical jibber-jabber - don't read this as my saying the committee got this right. I just don't think your argument is particularly convincing.

If declarer had the heart king he had nine tricks after Meckstroth led the HQ. 2S 2H 2D 3C.
Rodwell knew that, and the whole world knew that, and Meckstroth knew that Rodwell would know that,
especially after a long tank. So Eric's attitude signal in hearts HAD to be trusted, because it was
consistent with H JTxx. So continuing with the HK is not only a logical alternative, it is
the SUPERIOR alternative and should have been required after Rodwell's long tank.

I'm not jibber-jabbering - I am describing conditions as they occurred.

[Hanoi5]

Wasn't it possible for Rodwell to have JTxx in hearts? Would he have taken a long time to give the signal then? Would Meck have shifted if the play/signal from Rodwell had been made in tempo?

[steve2005]

The problem is the long thinks. Rodwell thinking forever weather to show +ve or -ve attitude just slows the game down too much.
Matches at this high level each team should be timed and if you go over there should be a penalty. Not just a time limit for the combined teams(with one team possibly getting the blame).I watched several sessions of the match on vugraph and there was many very long huddles, surely they should make a decision and play.

Chess matches were long ago untimed and a single game could go on for days.