[jdonn]

Cascade, on Oct 15 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

Lets say you try to concede but your captain says play on - you may well have extraneous information now that you still have some chance.

If you try to concede, the match is over. If your captain says play on it's too bad for him.

[geller]

mrdct, on Oct 16 2008, 09:01 AM, said:

dburn, on Oct 15 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

I remain of the view that it is unsporting to give-up in the middle of a segment.

I'm not quite sure I understand this. To draw an analogy with another mind sport: you can resign in the middle of a chess game, can you not? No one would cast doubts on your sportsmanship for so doing, would they?

Not that I've ever played chess, but I believe the situation in a chess game is quite different. In chess a concession takes place when a player realise that the game has reached a point where it is inevitable that checkmate will ensue within a few moves. It happens frequently and is a completely normal means by which a chess game ends.

A concession in a chess game is more analagous to a defender of a bridge hand conceding the rest of the tricks when he realise that no matter what he or declarer does, declarer will win all the remaining tricks. It is quite a stretch to suggest that conceding a bridge match in the middle of a segment is the same thing.

In bridge, the established protocol is that when you sit down to play a session of bridge you finish the session. As I said before, I'm not aware of this sort of thing ever having happened before in a major tournament.

Yes, but in any bridge event other than a KO event quitting in mid-session isn't allowed where it causes a disruption to the game. This is obviously not the case in a KO event. Quitting in the middle of a sesssion is something I've never heard of before but what harm was done? And after all, the Director did give his OK (apparently).

Similarly, in a Swiss teams event if two teams both announce their intention to withdraw before the Director has made pairings for the next match, no harm is done to the smooth running of the event.

If someone thinks it's right to play to the end of the session personally I think that's what I'd do too, but why should we criticize mid-session quitters in a knockout as long as they do it politely.

The argument that this is never done in sports (say soccer) involves commercial considerations. But in American high school football for example it's common for the coach of a team getting trounced to ask the referee to keep the clock running when normally it would be stopped, so as to get the agony over with ASAP.

[dburn]

jikl, on Oct 15 2008, 10:23 PM, said:

The TD is very much at fault here.

[snip]

The German team have given themselves the best chance of being ready for the bronze medal playoff by resting themselves before the match. In some ways isn't this what they should be doing?

Now, this is the kind of thing that seems to me truly idiotic. You can read the full post above, but I have cut it as shown.

The German team could do as they wished, provided they did nothing illegal and nothing unsporting (conceding a match is neither illegal nor unsporting).

The TD (the WBF Chief TD) saw nothing wrong with what the German team did.

The original poster, after several paragraphs, concedes as much.

And yet... "the TD is very much at fault here". Why?

Maybe he ought to have banned a combination of four-card majors and a weak no trump, but it is entirely possible that Max Bavin didn't see the relevance of this (it takes a true paranoiac such as NickRW to introduce that topic).

Still, as I have said, freedom of speech is important. Mind you, so is freedom of listening to speeches.

[whereagles]

nickf, on Oct 15 2008, 10:39 AM, said:

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Quite incredibly, after going for 1100, 1400 and 1400 on consecutive boards, the Germans abandoned their semi-final versus England mid-segment.  I have never seen such poor sportsmanship in bridge.  What should the penalty be?

I think they should be forced to attend the Victory Dinner with t-shirts bearing the slogan "I voted for Angela Merkel".

nickf
sydney

we got a winner

[smiffy]

mrdct, on Oct 15 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

It obviously wouldn't be possible to confer with one's teammates about a mid-segment concession as you would be conveying unauthorised information that things have been going poorly at the other table.

Bridge has an established process in place for knock-out matches to be conceded between segments.  An established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions does not exist and I don't believe the sport needs one.

What bridge does need, however, is unambiguous guidance in Conditions of Contest as to how these sort of situations are to be managed; and in my humble opinion a segment that has commenced should always be played out unless there is some sort of medical issue.

Yes, you're right. I hadn't thought of UI. So team-wise maybe a slip of paper quietly slipped to the team captain or some such would have to suffice.
I don't see though why a segment needs to be played out if conceding it would put nobody at a disadvantage. Not the opposing team, not one's own team and not (most of) the audience. And, on the other hand, a concession might be beneficial to both teams. A concession might indeed be seen as a sign of respect for the opponents. In that you trust them not to make nonsensical and game-swinging bids and plays in the remaining boards.
Since this concession seems to be an incident without precedence there might be no need for an established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions as of yet. But what if other teams in other tournaments will do likewise in the future?

[mrdct]

smiffy, on Oct 16 2008, 02:50 AM, said:

Since this concession seems to be an incident without precedence there might be no need for an established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions as of yet. But what if other teams in other tournaments will do likewise in the future?

I think that is really the whole point. Nobody, or at least no contributers to this thread, has ever seen this happen before. That of itself makes it shocking. If we want players in knock-out matches to be able to call it quits mid-segment then I think the WBF General Conditions of Contest or the Laws of Bridge need to explicitly provide for it.

[dburn]

mrdct, on Oct 16 2008, 03:04 AM, said:

If we want players in knock-out matches to be able to call it quits mid-segment then I think the WBF General Conditions of Contest or the Laws of Bridge need to explicitly provide for it.

They already do. Law 74 says that:

As a matter of courtesy, a player should refrain from [...] prolonging play unnecessarily [...]

Not that the English would necessarily have been disconcerted. But they might have felt a bit irked, or even erted, at having to play the rest of the set once their opponents had expressed a wish to concede.

[cherdano]

mrdct, on Oct 16 2008, 02:04 AM, said:

smiffy, on Oct 16 2008, 02:50 AM, said:

Since this concession seems to be an incident without precedence there might be no need for an established and accepted process for mid-segment concessions as of yet. But what if other teams in other tournaments will do likewise in the future?

I think that is really the whole point. Nobody, or at least no contributers to this thread, has ever seen this happen before. That of itself makes it shocking. If we want players in knock-out matches to be able to call it quits mid-segment then I think the WBF General Conditions of Contest or the Laws of Bridge need to explicitly provide for it.

Yup, we need a midsession-concession-procedure committee to work out a protocol.

[Rossoneri]

Well done Roland, good to see a gracious apology from you

Yes, mid-session concessions need to be looked at by the WBF laws committee, but under what we currently have, there doesn't appear to be anything done wrong, either by the players or the TD.

[Codo]

Rossoneri, on Oct 16 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

Well done Roland, good to see a gracious apology from you

Yes, mid-session concessions need to be looked at by the WBF laws committee, but under what we currently have, there doesn't appear to be anything done wrong, either by the players or the TD.

Maybe we should find rules how to conced with 8, 10 or 12 boards to go and force them to play with 4 or less boards? Maybe we should ban captains who are away when such a difficult descission has to be done?

This happened the first time as far as all of us know, so get serious, we need NO new rules about this.

And sorry, it was not WD Roland. He does many many good things, but this was far away from well done- a very serious apology was the very least to do.

But I respect him for being man enough to do so.

[geller]

Codo, on Oct 16 2008, 08:45 PM, said:

Rossoneri, on Oct 16 2008, 06:34 PM, said:

Well done Roland, good to see a gracious apology from you 

Yes, mid-session concessions need to be looked at by the WBF laws committee, but under what we currently have, there doesn't appear to be anything done wrong, either by the players or the TD.

Maybe we should find rules how to conced with 8, 10 or 12 boards to go and force them to play with 4 or less boards? Maybe we should ban captains who are away when such a difficult descission has to be done?

This happened the first time as far as all of us know, so get serious, we need NO new rules about this.

And sorry, it was not WD Roland. He does many many good things, but this was far away from well done- a very serious apology was the very least to do.

But I respect him for being man enough to do so.

Enough already! Roland's been working hard and probably was a little tired (to say the least) when he said what he said, and anyway he's already apologized for it. Can't we just accept his apology and move on from here?

Why can't we start a thread about something really important, like how great it is that a team from Japan has made it to the finals (Seniors) for the first time ever in a WBF event.

[ArtK78]

Unless I am mistaken, each segment of the match was 16 boards. At a reasonable pace of about 8 minutes per board, the entire segment should last no more than 2 hours 10 minutes. Even at 10 minutes per board, the entire segment would last no more than 2 hours 40 minutes.

Barring some serious medical condition, I do not see how it is a tremendous hardship on any of the participants that they be required to complete the segment once it is started. So, I do not believe that there is any need at all to provide for abandoning a match in mid-segment. Furthermore, if the conditions of contest do not already provide for it, there should be an explicit statement that all participants must complete a segment of a match once it is commenced, barring some significant unforseen circumstance, such as a medical emergency.

Under the circumstances that were present here, with the TD agreeing to the termination of the match, there is obviously no problem. But this incident and the publicity arising from this incident should give the tournament organizers incentive to clarify the rule. I disagree with those who are calling for the conditions of contest to permit the abandonment of a match in mid-segment. I believe that the rules should be clarified to prevent the abandonment of the match in mid-segment.

[blackshoe]

jikl, on Oct 15 2008, 11:23 PM, said:

The TD is very much at fault here. The fact that the team captain was sent for is disconcerting. In this case it would seem to be irrelevant but let's consider precedent with the following 3 scenarios:

1) Pair 1 want to concede and the director accepts concession
This is obviously worst scenario as noone is consulted. (However this might later prove to be best scenario)

2) Pair 1 want to concede and the director summons team captain
This becomes more complicated, does the captain have knowledge of boards played in the other room via onsite or online vugraph, was the team captain kibitzing the other room? Now, whenever it is known the team captain was summoned whenever the answer was known there is HUGE UI. Therefore this is not an acceptable course of action. With precedent this could be used to see how "the swinging" is going on the first 1/2 of the boards and what action needed to be taken for the latter ones by an unscrupulous team.

3) Pair 1 wants to concede and the director talks to the other pair
This one is worse than talking to the team captain for UI. This option would never happen as it means the match can no longer be finished.

This doesn't leave us with many options, only the 1st option that when one pair concedes, the whole team does so. The fact that there is a match on the next day for a bronze medal makes it even more problematic. Once there is no chance of playing for the gold or silver, is it not their duty to be best prepared to play for the bronze? Should there be 2 bronze medals as there are in some sports to avoid this problem? (Not at Olympic level that I can think of) Who knows?

Personally I am guessing there might be new a CoC clause after this, if there isn't then so be it. The German team have given themselves the best chance of being ready for the bronze medal playoff by resting themselves before the match. In some ways isn't this what they should be doing?

Sean

It seems obvious that a team's captain should be consulted in the event of a desire by some of his team to concede a match — but I don't see anything in the laws or conditions of contest that says so.

I presume the reference to "HUGE UI" is an invocation of law 16C, since there is no provision of law or regulation that says anything about a NPC having UI. I can see that if the TD disallows a desire to concede, when the NPC is aware of how things are going in both rooms, then the NPC's concurrence may provide UI to the players who wish to concede (the players in the other room should not find out what's going on until after the match), but I do not see how it matters — and if the concession is allowed, it can't matter. If the NPC does not concur, then perhaps we have a problem — but I'm not so sure of that, even then.

I don't see that the TD did anything wrong here. He used his judgement in a case where there is no specific law or regulation governing the situation. Granted judgement can be flawed, I don't believe it was in this case.

[fred]

geller, on Oct 16 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

Enough already!  Roland's been working hard and probably was a little tired (to say the least) when he said what he said, and anyway he's already apologized for it.  Can't we just accept his apology and move on from here?

I second that.

Everyone (me very much included) who regularly posts to Forums occasionally makes posts that they later regret. It is unfortunately not the case that all of us are willing to admit when we were wrong and to try to make up for our mistakes. Not only has Roland done this publicly in a most sincere and gracious manner, I also happen to know that he has done so in various private ways (such as a letter of apology to the DBV).

I am not trying to excuse Roland's mistake and it shouldn't really need to be said, but as others have pointed out, Roland's contributions to bridge over the years have been rather extraordinary. I don't know how this man has the physical and mental energy to do what he does over the course of a tournament as long, complex, and important as the WMSG. I know that I certainly could not do it. I also know that for every day during the past 2 weeks while I have sat at home and enjoyed the show, I have been personally grateful that Roland Wald exists. I say this not only as one of the people who runs BBO, but also as one of the many 1000s of fans of bridge whose lives are brighter as a result of Roland's dedication and hard work.

Finally, I would like to share something I know from personal experience: it is not easy or fun to be in the public eye. When people in such positions make a mistake everyone notices. Furthermore it is unfortunately the case that a small % of people seem to take pleasure in pointing out when the mighty have fallen.

People in the public eye are still human (even if their ability to function with zero sleep suggests otherwise) and still deserve forgiveness (especially when they are willing and able to admit when they were wrong).

Quote

Why can't we start a thread about something really important, like how great it is that a team from Japan has made it to the finals (Seniors) for the first time ever in a WBF event.

I second that too.

Congratulations to all of the teams who are still alive in Beijing. I think it is great that several of the teams still fighting for medals are not "the usual suspects". Congratulations and thanks are also in order to the WBF for running such as spectacular event and for providing bridge fans from around the world the priviledge of following the WMSG live as BBO vugraph.

Roland and his team have done an outstanding job. Let's not let Roland's badly-judged post, for which he promptly and sincerely apologized, mar what has otherwise been an amazing accomplishment that has resulted in a great deal of entertainment and stimulation for all of us.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[jkljkl]

Walddk, on Oct 15 2008, 01:45 PM, said:

To my ears Michael and Stefan make it sound as if I am anti-German. I am not; I have a perfectly normal relationship to our southern neighbours.

Hello,

I would like to say that Mr Wald has my unconditional support.

When I stated about "Mr Wald style" I was referring to the fact that I have the impression that he does not do/state things by halves when he feels strong about a matter. Maybe sometimes he even goes over the top. From that I cannot deduce any anti german feeling, only that he is human. Worse things, than being human, have been done on earth.

As a man with backbone he apologized for pulling a boner. I suggest to go back to bridge and to be grateful for the great amount of work that he puts in it. I am.

ciao stefan
germany

[Rossoneri]

Codo, on Oct 16 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

And sorry, it was not WD Roland. He does many many good things, but this was far away from well done- a very serious apology was the very least to do.

But I respect him for being man enough to do so.

I said well done to him for being man enough actually.

[Echognome]

fred, on Oct 16 2008, 06:43 AM, said:

Furthermore it is unfortunately the case that a small % of people seem to take pleasure in pointing out when the mighty have fallen.

One word: schadenfreude

[NickRW]

fred, on Oct 16 2008, 02:43 PM, said:

...I also happen to know that he has done so in various private ways (such as a letter of apology to the DBV).

Now, that's better as far as I am concerned. For what it is worth, which is probably not a lot, I "consider the hatchet it buried".

I have appreciated in the past and continue to appreciate now Roland's services both to BBO and the broader game.

Sorry if I bit your head off Roland - maybe I was a bit over the top.

Nick

[Lobowolf]

FrancesHinden, on Oct 15 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

In chess, and in snooker, you concede both a game and a match when you cannot win it (e.g. if it is 'best of 11' and you have lost 6 games you don't play on).

Admittedly bridge is not quite the same until you are down by more than 24 imps x number of remaining boards.

I don't know much about snooker, but there's a difference in your "game" and "match" examples in chess. In chess, a player resigns a game, of his own volition, when he decides that to continue is pointless.

If a chess player loses so many points that it is impossible to win (e.g. giving up 5 1/2 points in a "Best of 10" match), the match ends of its own accord; the player does not "concede."

[geller]

Lobowolf, on Oct 18 2008, 06:33 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Oct 15 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

In chess, and in snooker, you concede both a game and a match when you cannot win it (e.g. if it is 'best of 11' and you have lost 6 games you don't play on).

Admittedly bridge is not quite the same until you are down by more than 24 imps x number of remaining boards.

I don't know much about snooker, but there's a difference in your "game" and "match" examples in chess. In chess, a player resigns a game, of his own volition, when he decides that to continue is pointless.

If a chess player loses so many points that it is impossible to win (e.g. giving up 5 1/2 points in a "Best of 10" match), the match ends of its own accord; the player does not "concede."

The problem is that in bridge you can be losing by 1199 imps with 50 boards left in the match, and theoretically it is possible to score 24 imps on each board to recover 1200 and win the match, but obviously this is practically impossible. So whether and when to concede is a matter of common sense to be left to the losing team. It's hard to imagine that any hard and fast rule could be made.

Incidentally, some posters in this thread have suggested that the WBF should adopt a regulation governing mid-session concessions. I don't have a strong opinion (it's probably rare enough that no regulation is needed) but I'd like to point out that the Laws of Duplicate Bridge (below) give the director full powers to adjudicate such a concession in the absence of a specific WBF regulation (see below).

Quote

LAW 81 THE DIRECTOR
B. Restrictions and Responsibilities
1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer.

The actual on-site director appears to me to have made a reasonable decision to accept the concession.