alphatango

Reading this thread reminded me of the following club position, which was part of the final exam for the 2001 EBL directing course (Q9, questions here, answers here): JT2 AK9865 Quoting from the exam paper: "Trick 2: ♣J , 4 , very long hesitation … K , 3". Declarer now follows up by leading a small card from hand, and LHO ducks from his original holding of Q73. Again from the paper: "West calls the TD . South , not a very strong player said that he suddenly realized that it would be wrong to cash the ♣K and ♣A [for entry reasons] , in case the clubs were divided 3-1." The supplied answer: "...South, on his level, has a bridge reason for his pause for thought. Result stands." I recall being uncomfortable with that answer when I read it. It seems to me that it is a situation where the pause may not be unethical, but the laws still require an adjustment (failing to maintain tempo in a sensitive situation). But if this is the answer in an EBL TD exam, then maybe...?

FWIW, the case was real up to the point where East led a heart (and he did have a void club). East did not lead at the relevant point; however, South did make the statement "I want a club", and it was clearly an attempt to direct East to do so. In any case, that was the situation in which I was interested; I shall figure out what to do if it was a side comment after I figure out what to do if it was a command. :rolleyes:

Isn't that precisely what the parenthetical clause in 68A does? (I refer to "unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim...") I think it applies only to the showing of cards and not the other methods of claiming, but it does cover the situations where a player wants to show his cards (or some of his cards) in order to speed play without claiming. Furthermore, I think we should interpret "curtail" as follows: it could be regarded as referring to shortening in time, or to reducing the number of cards played. It clearly cannot be the former, since otherwise statements like "We should hurry up; we've still got a board to play" would be claims. So it must be the latter. Then the cases described above are attempts to speed play, but not attempts to curtail play (although one's aim might be to allow opponents to so suggest).

The case is partly hypothetical, being derived from a recent experience in which my South had lots of trouble understanding anything to do with penalty cards. Unfortunately, she managed three at her table in one round. :rolleyes: My current wording includes, relevantly: "One: You may demand a spade lead, West will pick up the card, and East will have to lead a spade if he has one. Two: You may forbid a spade lead, West will pick up the card, and East may lead any card which is not a spade. In either case, if East can't comply with your request, he can lead anything he likes." So I am inclined to regard an average club East as having attempted to follow my instructions, not realising that declarer did not choose a legal option, but an experienced East as improperly gaining an advantage. That's the main reason I asked whether East's experience was relevant. ...And after reading the responses, I still don't know what to do. :P

Scenario 1. Average club players. Declarer South, West holding a major penalty card in spades, East to lead. You are called and explain the options to the table. South thinks for a moment. From her point of view, a club would be best, a spade second-best, and a red suit lead would be bad. So she says, "I want a club." Before you can explain that this is not one of her legal options, East puts a heart on the table. He is, of course, void in clubs. Now what? Scenario 2. Same situation, but East is experienced. In either case, does it matter whether East could have known that a heart would be advantageous for his side?

Director: What relevant agreements do you have? Player: We had five minutes to discuss system before the session, so our only agreement is that all hands have to bid 2♦ over 2♣. Director: So why did you try to have the auction 2♣-(Pass)-2♥? Player: Well, I found seven solid hearts and nothing else, and I thought I might have a better chance of convincing partner to play hearts if I got my first heart bid in before he bid spades (2♣-2♥-2♠-3♥-3♠-4♥, for example). Director: But your agreement is that 2♥ has no meaning. Player: True, but I was hoping he'd catch on eventually. I hope no one will suggest that they have an implicit agreement to bid 2♥ on a hand with seven solid hearts...yet. :)

Indeed. But then I read: and it is not clear to me what this implies in the case of "bids with no meaning". (Actually, perhaps it shows that the player does not know his system, and he may thus replace the insufficient bid with any other legal call which shows that he does not know his system...) :lol: And, now that I have been reminded, a further question came up in a recent session for those who advocate discovering the player's intention: where the two do not coincide, are you trying to find out the auction the player intended, or the meaning the player intended to convey? For example, consider a case where the player has forgotten some bit of system in making his call, but has now remembered it during his conversation with the director (without the assistance of UI, of course).

I refer to your post at #212 in which you said that "It is now obvious that West believed that his partner had 3 hearts", which implies that he also believed that 3H was not systemic on doubleton heart. ...♠Kx ♥AJxxxx ♦Txx ♣Qx. Or ♠Kx ♥AJxxxx ♦Txxx ♣Q. And so on. Throughout my reading of this thread, it has not been clear to me what parts of their system were stated at the table and/or documented, and which parts you are inferring from what you already know of their system. Do you play it, or do you have system notes for it, or some other source of information? (FWIW, I find it hard to believe the assertion that 3NT even suggests a sixth spade -- 5=1=3=4 GF hand types, an example of which I suggested in my previous post, need to to go somewhere.) In any case, all I was trying to point out is that the actual hand is about as far away from the "expected" hand shape for another bid (3NT) as it is from the "expected" hand shape for 3♥.

Hmm. I may not have been following the thread closely enough, but "only right bid" seems to be an overly strong assertion. First, the only statement at the table to this effect was given by opener, who made the bid -- there seems to be no evidence that responder agreed with this assessment. Nor is it manifestly obvious to me that it is the "only right bid"; for example, give responder ♠Kx ♥AJxxx ♦Txx ♣Qxx and opener will find himself raised to a dangerous 4♥ contract when 3NT was essentially cold. (3NT may well be inferior to 3♥ as a choice of call, of course, but I certainly do not think it is irrational.) What do we expect a 3♥ bid to look like, based on the agreement? ♠AQJxx ♥xxx ♦Q ♣AQxx? What do we expect a 3NT bid to look like? ♠AQJxx ♥K ♦QJx ♣AJxx would qualify, yes? Is it then sensible to call a 3♥ bid on ♠AQJxx ♥Kx ♦QJ ♣AJxx systemic but a 3NT bid a deviation?

FWIW, my (current and very shaky) viewpoint is that so long as offender has not restricted the possible intended meanings by some extraneous remark or gesture, he may choose a call whose meaning is fully contained within that set. In my example above, the player would be allowed to replace 2H with 4H. (Had he said something at the table like, "Oops, thought you bid 1H", or similar, that would restrict the set of possible intended meanings and thus restrict the allowable 27B1b replacements.) So, I suppose, that means one should offer the following: "When we return to the table, (LHO) will have the opportunity to accept your insufficient bid. If not, you can replace it with (27B1a) without penalty. If not, you may choose to replace it with a call with a meaning at least as precise as the insufficient bid, and there will be no penalty. If you want to do that, you must tell me now so I can rule on whether or not your proposed call meets the criteria. Otherwise, you may choose any call and partner will be barred." Which, of course, is too complicated for club level, but it might be a sensible way to proceed with more experienced competition. I'm not sure I can find solid textual support in laws for this viewpoint, although I do think the parenthetical clause of 27B1b points that way. That is, I read "(such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid)" as "(such meaning being fully contained within the possible intended meanings of the insufficient bid)". (Postscript: I know the issue of what knowledge LHO is entitled to before he chooses to accept/reject has come up before, but I don't remember if there was consensus. IIRC, there seemed to be support for the view that LHO is entitled to know which calls will be allowed under 27B1b (and 27B1a, if applicable) -- and presumably the meanings of those calls.)

*shrug* I'll make a quick attempt: b) Until a card has been played from his partner's hand, a player may change an unintended designation of a card from his own hand if he does so without pause for thought. c) Until a card has subsequently been played by his side, declarer may change an unintended designation of a card from any other hand if he does so without pause for thought. d) If, following a change of designation as in b) or c) above, an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another (see Laws 47D and 16D1).

Consider the following auction: 1♣-(2♥)-2♥ Player: Oops. Director! Having established (perhaps in private) that L25A is not applicable, the director takes the player away from the table... Director: What happened? Player: I thought my opponent bid 1♥, so I bid 2♥, 5+ spades with a strong hand. Director: OK. If the opponents choose not to accept your 2♥ bid, I can let you replace it with any call that has the same or a more precise meaning, and the auction will continue without penalty. If 2♠ would also show 5+ spades and a strong hand, for example, you could do that. If you choose any other call, partner will be barred for the remainder of the auction. Any questions before we return to the table? Player: Well, as it happens, I have this nice 5=1=2=5 hand. In the uncontested auction 1♣-(Pass), we would play 2♥ as a splinter with club support and GF values. Could I replace 2♥ with 4♥ to show that hand? After all, partner doesn't know whether I saw 1♥ or whether I just missed the 2♥ bid entirely. The player, of course, gave no indication at the table about either his actual hand or his reason for making an insufficient bid. How should the director rule?

I think that can (and logically should) go in Law 65 -- something approximating your suggested L65D, perhaps.

It was a tangential comment in response to your own comment about shooting the Norths for their bid -- I did not mean to imply that it was important to the ruling in any way.

Hiss. :P I would also deny E/W an adjustment, but I strongly disagree with this application of the regulation, except perhaps in the case where the players in question are known to be novices. I am not completely familiar with the regulations in place, but it seems to be the case that there is at least one non-alertable meaning, and that the support double should be alerted. When there is no alert, the opponents are entitled to assume that it has one of the non-alertable meanings. I think you can only overcome this presumption if there is evidence that the opponents should have been particularly suspicious. Four cases spring to mind: (1) because of the regulations, the call in question must always be alerted, (2) because the opponents know that the pair in question have a relevant agreement (e.g. there is evidence that they have read the relevant portion of the system card), (3) because a previous explanation implies that the bid should be alertable, (4) because the player in question is known to be inexperienced enough not to know when to alert. In the present case, I see no reason for the opponents to be particularly suspicious. They have the right to assume that the pair in question, being at least somewhat experienced, knows the alerting regulations and will alert appropriately; the fact that others frequently do not merely means that they should, if damaged, expect an adjustment against those pairs as well. One can sensibly deny them redress on other grounds, but not this one.

...and similar comments by others above. This was my thought process: If West has five spades (for the opening 1S) and, say, four or more hearts (for the pass of the takeout double), and East has shown the minors, diamonds are certainly being ruffed by the defender with long trumps. It does not seem irrational to me, given that information, to set up diamonds now in order to pitch the potential club loser (before West comes in with a trump to play a club through Ax). If West has five spades and East has merely shown a penalty double of 3H, it's significantly more likely (i.e. possible) that diamonds are about to be ruffed by defender with short trumps. That makes it plausible that North would have at least considered two rounds of trumps, denying defenders their fifth trump trick. (In fact, one round of trumps will work for -3, and might be a better play.) How likely we think that is would be reflected in the weighting, of course. So I'm not sure why North's explanation of damage seems opaque, but would welcome someone pointing out the error in my analysis.

Just that the HA, H ruff line appears to be necessary to defeat 4S, while the 3H bid apparently managed to obtain -300 at one table and should possibly have obtained -500 at the other! (I agree with the viewpoint that it is terrible, though; perhaps not a shootable offence, but well on the way there...)

New draft; not really sure how I feel about it yet. In an attempt to make it clear when it is too late to correct one's error, I have adopted the language concerning revokes. It makes the law longer but more precise, and it does (I think) achieve the objectives I outlined above at #45.

(edited slightly) 73D2, misleading the opponent by means of a remark or gesture. The story as told to me was that the thick wrapper had some markings on it so that it looked vaguely like a playing card. But that is only tangentially relevant; my point was that we have laws which will cover the situation where someone has taken an action so that they have apparently played a card, even though they have not actually done so. Of course there is some minimal threshold of care for NOS.

Having clarified my thoughts, here is what I want Law 67 to look like. I use "regularise" to mean "supplies a missing card, or withdraws an extra played card" with all such withdrawn cards subject as normal to penalty card provisions. 1. East plays too many cards or no card at all to trick n, but East/West have not yet played to trick n+1, and (a) N/S have led to the next trick. Rectification: East regularises trick n, his card does affect ownership of the trick, N/S's card is a lead out of turn to trick n+1. (b) N/S have not led to the next trick. Rectification: East regularises trick n, his card does affect ownership of the trick, play continues. 2. East plays too many cards or no card at all to trick n, and East/West have played to trick n+1. Rectification: East regularises trick n, his card does not affect ownership of the trick, and play continues. East is (or may be, when he has played too many cards and those cards are restored to his hand) deemed to have revoked in line with the current provisions of L67B (with the clarification that all of L64 applies). * * * A couple of thoughts: If opponents are damaged by the production of a card previously played and now ostensibly played to a later trick, we simply adjust for any such damage where necessary. Consider the case where an unscrupulous character, on lead, produces a card from another deck, and an opponent follows.* We would have to rule that the opponent's card was a lead out of turn, but we would (I hope) adjust for any damage caused by the apparent lead. (For pran's benefit, yes, in my construction I will rule that the card previously played belongs to that trick, and the later trick is defective or incomplete.)Thus, I am open to a provision to be added to L65, per iviehoff, to explicitly state that we should return the card to its proper place amongst the played cards, but I do not think we need a specific provision in L67.I do not know whether case 1, above, should be called "defective" or not. To me, it seems like the trick is merely incomplete (and where opponents have led to the next trick, that is premature but should not affect the right of East to complete trick n). So I prefer the definition I proposed in the OP, but I do not think it is terrible for case 1 to also be referred to as defective, as it is now. * I seem to recall an old story from Culbertson days in which a cigarette wrapper or the like was deliberately "led", causing dummy to be exposed prematurely. I imagine we might consider an adjustment (and assign a PP) today if we believed the action was deliberate!

Table 1: I assume the line for four off was as follows: three rounds of spades (the third ruffed), diamond to the ace, diamond ruffed, spade ruffed (high) by East, third diamond ruffed with the HJ with two natural trump tricks still to come for East. That looks like 2S + 1D + five trump tricks for the defenders. Declarer's explanation of damage seems reasonable, so I would probably give him his -500. (Might be talked into a weighted score -- two rounds of hearts could leave declarer open to an unfortunate tap if the DA is with the spades, but I haven't really analysed deeply. There's also the nice ploy by West of dropping the HJ on the first round of trumps...) Table 2: Not sure I believe South would actually run, but this seems like a problem for the TD at the table, being highly dependent on the pair in question. (...Only two off?!) (EDIT: It occurs to me that it may be a small but significant piece of evidence regarding partnership style that South chose not to open the South hand with 3D. I think that convinces me to not adjust, but, as I said, it's highly dependent upon the pair.) Whatever one might think of 3H, bluejak...were you about to find the heart ace lead from the North cards against 4S? :lol:

Tasmanian, I believe, referring to a (very picturesque) state of that country. :)

EDIT: I forgot to refresh the page before I posted, so I wrote the following without seeing posts in this thread from #17 onwards. Apologies if I am repeating things that have already been said. * * * In responding to you, pran, I do want to note that you began your response to my OP with "Without having scrutinized this suggestion too carefully", and your response to iviehoff with "so many words which I could not bother to study". I would simply point out that a sensible debate may be more likely if you care to read and try to understand posts written by other people, even if they are somewhat lengthy. We might surprise you with a reasonable argument or two. :P I think this is the root of the difference of opinion. In my opinion, an ostensibly completed bridge trick should consist of exactly four cards, of which exactly one has been contributed by each player; for it to be otherwise is an irregularity, and is "the real problem". A failure to hold the right number of cards is a common consequence, but that is something to be dealt with when we construct a sensible rectification. In other words, I do not care if North has ten cards in his hand with ten tricks yet to be played -- if he played two cards to trick 1 and no cards at all to trick 3, I think there is a problem. * * * I concur with most of iviehoff's posts at #11 and #14. I am not quite sure how I feel about the proposed extensions to L65 yet; on the face of it, they are sensible specifications of what should happen, but I will need to think about it a little more. Indeed. I more or less reached that conclusion myself, so in the actual draft of a new L67 (in my OP), you will notice that this wording is retained -- almost. The change I made was to consider a trick defective only when the player's side has played to the next trick. I'm not sure I like this now; I may prefer the current wording. At the time, I was thinking of something like the following: South is declaring a spade contract, and leads the HK; West covers with the HA, North follows with the H3, and East pauses to consider ruffing with a worthless trump. Playing quickly, and assuming that the HA was holding, South, West and North all turn their cards and West leads to the next trick. Now everybody catches on and calls the director. What should happen? We require East to play a legal card to the HK-A-3, obviously, but what next? Well, who is at fault? West, clearly, for he didn't wait for the trick to be complete before playing to the next one. (North and South to a much lesser extent for turning their cards early.) So it seems OK to apply the L67B rectification. Now suppose the trick, beginning with South, was HA-2-3-(no card). Now it feels like it is South who is primarily at fault when he leads to the next trick, with East-west essentially not at fault (yet). So I think we should require East to contribute a card to the heart trick. If he discards, South's next lead stands. If he ruffs, South has now led out of turn and the defenders have the usual options. But if West plays to South's lead, then East-West are back to being at fault, so we hit them with 67B. Is that sensible? If not, what should we be doing? And what about the case where the trick proceeds: South HA, West H2, North H3, East H4; South HK... West: "Didn't you already play the H4 a couple of tricks back?" East: "Oops, I suppose I did." Director: "Well, you didn't actually contribute a card to the previous trick, so please face a card you could legally have played." East chooses a trump. Now what do we want to happen? * * * Finally, a less-related comment. First, that is not a sufficiently good reason to give up on trying to improve the law. Second, I would be interested in your list of the first 70000 such issues. I would settle for, say, the top 10. I appreciate that you wrote your words as encouragement and in good faith. Nevertheless, I would appreciate it if you could (a) show at least a tenuous connection between my words and the idea that I do not "know the definition of bridge"; (b) contribute something constructive by, for example, identifying where you believe either the current law or the proposal is flawed.

Well, as a player, I do care somewhat. If there is UI, then I am under an obligation to carefully avoid taking advantage. That is manifestly different to a situation where I have no UI; now I can simply take the best action available to me and let the director sort out whether any advantage was in fact gained, even if I expect the score to be adjusted under 27D.

Yes. But it expresses one (or, I hope, close to only one) interpretation of the current law, with less room for different interpretations. Obviously, we can construct versions which will express different (single) interpretations if those are preferred. My proposal is not in accordance with your (pran's) interpretation of the current law. This is not unresolved in my proposal; the trick stands as played. (If the director gets called at this point, he directs the player to place the card in the appropriate position among his played cards. And removes the offender's alcoholic beverage.) If such a situation happens, there is no defective trick. See the definition I am proposing. The later trick is (or, rather, will be) defective, as the player has not legally played a card to that trick. If the opponents are damaged by the apparent play of a card, they obtain redress via other laws (perhaps 12A1?). So the proposed 67B will apply if offender's side has played to a subsequent trick; 57 otherwise. Well, he hasn't actually played that card yet, so there isn't (yet) a problem in terms of revokes or defective tricks. He may, of course, be infracting L65, etc. When he fails to follow suit with that card when required, then he will have revoked. (By the way, given that I'm perhaps overly verbose, it might not be strictly necessary to quote my entire post. :lol:)