mrdct

Would it be worthwhile compounding LHO's potential problems by overcalling a bit more agressively?

Sadly, bridge has little or no chance of recognition as a sport in Australia which applies the following definition: 'A human activity capable of achieving a result requiring physical exertion and/or physical skill which, by its nature and organisation, is competitive and is generally accepted as being a sport'. It's unfortunate for bridge as we miss out on our share of the $2+ billion of government funding for sport in this country.

Can anyone suggest a viable defence for this opening bid which is part of an otherwise plain vanila SAYC system? My preliminary thoughts are that no special defence is required and just treat it as you would a natural 1♣ opening.

From reading the "suit up" discussion on bridgewinners, it seems that the WBF are having another push at getting wider recognition of bridge as a sport. It was interesting to note quite a few of the superstars that posted to the discussion saying that bridge is a game, not a sport, which got me thinking about whether or not anyone really should care about how bridge is perceived by the general population. I can think of a number of advantages for bridge to be treated as a sport, not the least of which is better access to government funding which is most definately the case in my country. But there are also some downsides such as drug testing (although some may argue that's an upside) and expensive uniform requirements for small NBOs and self-funded representative players. What do people think?

It may be urban legend, but I was once told of the cheating technique where one encodes a message to one's teammates by selectively sorting one's hand at the end of the board. When the board gets played in the other room, your similarly unscrupulous teammates looks to see if their opponents sort their hand and if they don't the encoded message has been passed. The message could be something like "the marginal slam is making" or "the sacrifice is profitable". This is obviously a very high risk form of cheating as you would need to have your entire team in on the plan. Another insidious technique I've been told of is sorting your hand with a ♣ pip within the ♠ suit such that you might get your opponent at the other table to open a 4-card ♠ suit and play in a 4-2 fit. I'm still of the view that the potential EI conveyed by a hand arriving sorted is non-conclusive and I wouldn't feel any need to call the TD if my hand arrived sorted; I would simply bid my hand on its own merits taking into account whatever AI there is from the auction and other authorised sources.

Spare a thought for Australia where our Zonal Championships in June were in Malaysia (8 hours from Sydney) and August's World Youth Congress is in Croatia (28 hours from Sydney) with not much change out of US$2000 for the flights alone for the latter. I envy the availability of top class youth tournaments like the White House, European Juniors and the World Youth Congress right at your door-step, as I'm sure NBOs in Asia and North America must do also.

Can you give me an example of where EI would not be UI?

There can be several reasons why a hand would come to you sorted: hand duplicated (first round only); machine duplicated from a new deck of cards (first round only); the player at the previous table was quized on what he had at the end of the hand and sorted it in order to respond; a very early claim at the previous table; passed-in at the previous table; the player at the previous table in the habit of sorting his hand at the end of each board from time to time; or any of the above combined with an inadequate shuffle (noting that Law 7C is silent as to how thoroughly the shuffle needs to be, whereas in other parts of the Laws and some regulations there is more specific guidance about shuffling). Assuming we aren't in the first round, to determine the likelihood of 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 you would need to have a fair bit of knowledge about the behaviours of the person who previously held your hand (all of which would be EI and UI). I think the early claim is probably the most common reason, followed by post mortem and passed-in a close third. Attempting to draw any inferences from receiving a sorted hand sounds like a bit of a crap-shoot to me and is certainly unethical. Note that the Law 7C requirement to shuffle one's hand at the end of play before returning it to the board is a "should" not a "must", and the Laws tell us that failure to comply with a "should" requirement "is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised". As TD, I would track down the person who returned a sorted hand to the board and ask for an explanation and then delicately remind him of the need to shuffle his cards after each hand and that would be it. If he persistently failed to follow that instruction I would then issue a formal warning and if that didn't work I might issue a PP as a last resort. Under Law 16A3 it is absolutely clear-cut that it would be an infraction to base a call or play on the fact that your hand arrived sorted as this is obviously EI. On the hand in question, the only people that would ever be entitled to an adjustment would be East-West if South happened to take a successful action indicated by the EI/UI but on the standard of evidence required (enter Pran?) I'd be hard pressed to find South had acted inappropriately unless he freely admitted doing so.

What's going over there Wayne? I read a Facebook post from someone at your National Congress that "in New Zealand, that your partner asked a question is Authorised Information".

The 2007 changes are a big improvement as they actually provide guidance as to the burden of proof that needs to be satisfied to establish a "fact" for the purposes of making a ruling. I don't see any limitations in the Director's power to collect evidence; indeed if the game is being played in a jurisdiction where such techniques are allowed he can water-board the players to extract some testimony if he wants. The WBF similarly place responsibility on the alerting player to make sure that his opponent if aware the alert (GCC 23) and I fully agree with the approach that if a player denies having seen an alert the strong presumption is that no alert was made. I also think it make perfect sense, and naturally follows, that responsibility for clarity and comprehension of explanations rests with the player giving the explanation and, as I've said before, in every misexplanation/misinterpretation ruling I've ever seen the facts were always determined against the person who gave a misinterpreted verbal explanation. Interestingly, the Google Translation of the Norweigan Screen Regulations indicates a "should" rather than a "must" for the provision of written explanations during the auction. Google translates "svaret skal også være skriftlig" to "the answer should be written" (my emphasis added).

1. It depends. If he said 15-17 when his real agreement was 12-14, it's most certainly an irregularity. That's where the TD needs to step in and discover all of the evidence, weigh it up and determine the facts based on the balance of probabilities. 2. Yes. The oral statement was not following correct procedure, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. 3. Yes. All statements made by the players are evidence that the TD needs to take into account. 4. Quite a lot. In a straight he-said-she-said situation the versions of the events reported by the respective parties will be the primary pieces of evidence to consider. mjj29 mentioned a few others to which I would add have a look at their convention card. 5. They are sensible, but like most things there is room for improvement. I would like it to be explicitly stated that where an explanation is given verablly, doubtful points of fact will generally be resolved in favour of the person receiving the explanation. Whilst I guess this is a hypothetical example, I would hope that if and when Nige1 finds himself playing in a WBF competition with screens he will ascertain what his opponents' basic system, suit lengths, NT range, carding and twos are before he pulls his cards out of the first board of the match.

No. We can just agree that you are completely wrong.

It implies no such thing. The words "must", "should" and "shall" are extremely important words in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge which are selectively and delicately used to distinguish between the really important stuff that is subject to sanction, adjustments and penalties and mere descriptions of correct procedure which if not followed to the letter don't really make much difference but we'd prefer that people follow correct procedure as best they can.

Well that just defeats your own argument. An assertion can quite easily be something which "gives reason for believing something". If I were to assert that I am wearing black underwear today, would that give you reason to believe it to be true? Maybe or maybe not, so you might gather some further evidence such as character tesimony to see if I'm an habitual liar or get an affidavit from my wife who saw what I put on this morning. But it's all evidence that you need to weigh-up to establish the facts to whatever level of surity you require. If it's to send me to the electric chair we'd want "beyond reasonable doubt" but if it's to award an adjusted score at the bridge table "on the balance of probabilities" will do fine. The alternative definition of "statements made ... to support" looks even more like verbal testimony in the form of assertion which, again, are not proof of anything but are nonetheless evidence by any reasonable definition (including Oxford's).

Yes. Quite clearly it is evidence of you having said it; just as your denial is evidence that you did not say it. Neither of these pieces of evidence is proof of what actually happened; it is merely evidence for the director to weigh-up amongst all other evidence at his disposal to determine the facts on the balance of probabilities. Giving weight to different types of evidence is tricky and largely subjective; particularly in "he said she said" situations. We all know from playing Chinese Whispers that what people hear does not always coincide with what people said. When you throw in language and cultural differences, the gaps between what was said and what was heard tend to widen. Whilst not explicitly stated in the Laws (perhaps it should be) I generally apply the principle that it is the responsibility of the person conveying the message to make sure they have been understood properly.

They are not "absolute conditions" they are a description of correct procedure. Failure to follow correct procedure does not necesarily attract a penalty and nor would it ordinarily impede the orderly conduct of the game. If you go through the parts of the Laws that describe even the most basic procedures such as sitting down, dealing, bidding, arranging dummy, playing a card, turning over a trick, etc. some things include "must", "should" or "shall" and some things don't. The things that don't carry the gravity of a "must", "should" or "shall" are to be taken more as general guidance such that minor deviations that aren't really of any consequence would not attract any penalty. I would equate verbalising an explanation behind screens to leading face-up or not having dummy arranged properly; although verbalising so loudly that you can be heard on the other side of the screen (which is where this thread started) is perhaps crossing the line somewhat. Good quality screens can mitigate the problem, but heavier and thicker screens cost more to make and transport so some balance needs to be struck.

The tests from Law 73F are quite simple: No demonstrable bridge reason; and Could've known it could work to his advantage. I think we tick both boxes here, so I'm adjusting the result to 5♣-1.

I don't agree with that at all. I have never seen a procedural penalty issued for a player verbalising an explanation behind screens and to do so would be quite silly. Players who choose to verbalise their explanations do so at their own risk and will usually have the facts determined in favour of their non-offending screenmate in the event that a dispute arises which to my mind is a fair enough price to pay. This discussion possibly belongs in the "Changing Laws and Regulations" section as there would be merit in Screen Regulations providing clear guidance to directors as to how to handle situations where there is a dispute about what explanation was given. The current WBF screen regulations don't actually use the word "must" in describing the manner in which explanation are given: From the preface to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge: I would hone in on the phrase "the reply is also in writing" where the word "is" to my mind imparts a similar concept to the word "does" which describes the correct procedure, but does not suggest that a violation be penalised. I've played a lot of bridge with screens and also vugraphed quite a lot of bridge with screens and in my experience: - 98% of the time questions about bids are made by pointing at the bid you want an explanation of and/or looking inquisitively at your screenmate; - 90% of explanations are either whispered, conveyed by hand signal or indicated by pulling a different bidding card out of the box (i.e. for a transfer); - written explanations tend to only be given if they are a bit complex or if the questioner has explicitly requested a written response by handing a pen to his screenmate or pointing at the notepad on the table; - I have never seen anyone use the WBF alert procedure of placing the alert card on the bid and waiting for their screenmate to return it. Most commonly people overtly point at the alertable bid with or without an alert card in hand. - On 100% of occasions where I've seen disputes about what verbal explanation was given, these have always been ruled on the basis of what the receiver of the explanation thought he heard.

I wonder if any work has been done in integrating this new electronic recording system with BBO. I expect that it would be quite a big task and would take a fair bit of testing to iron any bugs outs.

The rules of evidence for bridge purposes are basically embodied in Law 85: The director needs weigh-up all forms of evidence, be that written or verbal, and which may include assertions, representations, prior history, hearsay, polygraph tests, and wire-taps. No individual piece of evidence is likely to be persuasive of itself, but in total the director just needs to balance it all up and determine the facts. If South says "West said it showed 12-14" and West says "No I didn't, I said 15-17" both of those statements are of evidentiary value but may not be enough to reach a conclusion. But if we start to take other pieces of evidence into account, we may be able to tip the scales sufficiently determine the facts. WBF GCC#15 is quite specific that it is the duty of the person who has alerted to make sure that his opponent has seen the alert. In situations where there is a dispute about whether or not a bid was alerted, there is a very strong presumption that it was not alerted and the facts would almost always be determined under Law 85 that there was no alert with all of the related consequences. Misinterpreted verbal explanations behind screens is an analagous situation where I believe it is strongly implied that the accuracy and clarity of explanations is a responsibility of the person giving the explanation. If that person chooses to verbalise their explanation they are taking a serious risk that they will be misinterpreted and in applying Law 85 I would generally give more weight to what the receiver inferred than what the provider claims to have said.

If South had described the double of 3♠ as penalty and then gone ahead and bid 4♥, that would leave North with a completely different impression of what South holds when compared to bidding 4♥ in response to North's known 3-card ♥ support.

But he's sitting on some pretty heavy UI that south think he has ♥ support, so I'm not going to let him do anything other than pass given that in the absence of UI his partner has shown a self-sustaining ♥ suit - why should ♦ be any better at the 5-level?

I'll let West undo his 4♠ as it seems to have been predicated in part at least on a false assumption that his opponents have a ♥ fit and adjust the score to 4♥S which I guess will be 2 down. North also needs to be disciplined for his "glare" and comment - possibly separate procedural penalties for each.

If the defender on lead passes a note seeking a recount of the explanations given on the other side of the screen he would presumedly be doing so because he has some doubt regarding the accuracy of the explanation he has been given on his side of the screen. The fact that he has reason to doubt the accuracy of explanations given to him is UI to his partner, unless he makes such enquiries every single time he is on lead. The latter situation would, of course, be a huge time waster when screens already add a little bit of time to the process. As I said before the NOS are well protected when differing explanations have been given and every ruling and appeal I've ever seen in those circumstances come down heavily of the side that got their explnations wrong - quite reasonably imho.

Usually what they play 2♥:2♠ as would be important, and you should probably still ask the question, but here South has such a clearcut ♥ raise it's hardly relevant. This hand is quite similar to an appeal I recently chaired. I adjust to whatever unambigously non-forcing bid either of North and South get to after it goes 2♦:2♥:3♥. What was the North hand? What does a 3♥ response to the 2♥ relay show? What is North likely to do next?