[wyman]

barmar, on 2013-March-12, 08:44, said:

Do you give them the player's opinion of SOTM, or give them all the previous hands and results and let them decide what they think SOTM is?

There's also the point that the player's statement about SOTM is self-serving. We shouldn't ignore it, but we need to be aware that it may be part of a rationalization of their action.

Not clear to me whether the TD is ever going to give sotm to the people he polls, though it certainly helps the case of the "accused" if he tells the TD at the time what he thinks the sotm is (and, privately, that the opponents are weak, perhaps). The TD can look at some of the boards if he deems it relevant to polling. Maybe this isn't an effective use of the TD's time, though.

But my only point is that, for example, if opps had had bidding misunderstandings and gotten to two no-play slams, and the other two boards were both 1N making 1 (1N - AP) for the OP, one of which is down on best defense but OP made it on a dbl squeeze, it should be pretty clear to all involved that OP expects to be ahead dramatically in the match. I would think it reasonable to provide that info when polling.

[to answer your question: ideally, you'd just give everyone the hands and results, but in practice this is really impossible and not a good use of time. So I think if there exists a pretty clear SOTM, it should be summarized in the poll.]

[billw55]

Anyway, if (at a tournament) I am faced with a choice between coddling opponents feelings or getting a correct ruling, I will certainly choose the latter. With regret, perhaps, but this is a competition after all.

[FrancesHinden]

You are thinking about this in completely the wrong way.
The question is not what argument should you bring to an appeals committee, the question is what you should bid at the table when you know that
- if partner has what he has shown, grand is odds on to be right
- bidding grand is a LA
- the UI (so you say) suggests not bidding grand because partner may not have what he has shown

You clearly know what the rules say, so you know that you are legally obliged to bid grand.
This thread reads like 'i did something dubious, how do i convince the AC not to rule against me?'

p.s 'state of the match' arguments in a 7-board swiss with random teammates are somewhat dubious (as demonstrated by the actual state of the match at that point)

[barmar]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-15, 16:30, said:

This thread reads like 'i did something dubious, how do i convince the AC not to rule against me?'

I thought the point of the thread was that he thought his argument was valid, he just wants to know how to express it without offending the opponents.

But that seems like a silly concern in this case. No one should be offended because you think you won a few boards. Estimating whether a result is good or bad is a normal part of the game, and most players know when they've tanked a board. As long as you don't say something like "They really botched the defense to let me make a no-play game" you should be OK.

[Cyberyeti]

barmar, on 2013-March-16, 00:34, said:

I thought the point of the thread was that he thought his argument was valid, he just wants to know how to express it without offending the opponents.

But that seems like a silly concern in this case. No one should be offended because you think you won a few boards. Estimating whether a result is good or bad is a normal part of the game, and most players know when they've tanked a board. As long as you don't say something like "They really botched the defense to let me make a no-play game" you should be OK.

It's more the (real thought) "this is the sort of hand with a combined 25-26 count that lols like them don't bid the small, so why should I bid the grand when I'm already ahead and not gambling" bit that needs the phrasing.

[JLOGIC]

If you just take out the "lols" part and say it almost exactly the same "This is the sort of hand where it is often difficult to even bid slam because it only has 25-26 HCP, so why should I push for a grand when we are already having a good set." That is complete unoffensive.

It might seem implicitly arrogant to some (since you are bidding 6 or 7), so if you wanted to add in that this was a good hand for your system (void showing splinter) and without it, it might be difficult to even bid slam, that might be even better but who cares.

Even if you are playing against meckwell they won't be offended when you suggest that with 25 HCP the other table might well play game, and that you are having a good set.

[aguahombre]

manudude03, on 2013-March-11, 06:39, said:

Besides, if you have a club loser, you could be off in 6, if they lead a spade.

That is an argument for bidding 5 or 7, whether there is U.I. or not.

Also, on this hand, I don't see the damage and don't see how it could get to an AC.

[bluejak]

JLOGIC, on 2013-March-12, 00:41, said:

If I could not do a poll I would rule against you. Bidding what likely amounts to about an 80 % grand slam must be a logical alternative.

Not necessarily. If bidding the grand can gain 1 VP or lose 10 VPs, you may find that others do not consider bidding the grand. The state of the match is relevant.

FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-15, 16:30, said:

You are thinking about this in completely the wrong way.
The question is not what argument should you bring to an appeals committee, the question is what you should bid at the table when you know that
- if partner has what he has shown, grand is odds on to be right
- bidding grand is a LA

Of course if bidding the grand is an LA and partner's actions have suggested not, you must bid it. But ....

FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-15, 16:30, said:

p.s 'state of the match' arguments in a 7-board swiss with random teammates are somewhat dubious (as demonstrated by the actual state of the match at that point)

Maybe so, but bridge is a game of odds, and the state of the match might easily affect those odds, even if you could be wrong [see below ].

Cyberyeti, on 2013-March-11, 06:08, said:

Opps have already demonstrated by going for a love all 500 that should have been 800 on a partscore board, failing to bid a decent 4♥ and going off in a cold 4♠ that you don't need to bid the grand, and will probably pick up just for bidding the small. You are also confident (wrongly) that you're already winning this match at least 16-4 (this is board 5/7, you were actually only winning 13-7 before this).

This reminds me of a match I played with John Armstrong as partner against the top team in North-West England [at that time] of Endicott-Hill-Churney-Reveley. John and I bid a slam off two aces followed by a grand off two aces [neither made], missed two games, and went off in a cold game. On the last board Endicott-Hill had a long and complicated sequence. Eventually Grattan had to decide whether to bid six or seven. A glance at his score-card convinced him and he settled for six - and lost the match! What he said to Reveley-Churney about their card doesn't bear repeating!