szgyula

ACBL chart says "Non-forcing suit bids by an unpassed hand" are alertable. Simple conclusion: "Non-forcing suit bids by a passed hand" is not alertable.

Dear All, There was some argument concerning the first trick in a game. I would like to know what others think. Basic assumption is that opening lead is made properly (face down, partner asks for lead) and the dummy is faced. Now the quiz: Must the declarer wait XXX seconds before playing from the dummy? What is XXX? Can the defender look at the dummy and analyze the party, make a plan? How many seconds is he allowed to think? Is there a time limit? Does the previous answer change if the defender has an obvious card to play (singleton or only small cards)? Does the answer change if the defender has an obvious play BUT he knows that he will need time to make a plan and it will be his turn to lead? The actual situation was: my ♥ lead against a NT contract. ♥ was my announced suit that partner did not support. My partner had a singleton ♥A. The declarer played a card immediately and my partner spent a noticeable time to plan a defense that does not involve a ♥ lead back as he did not have any. My interpretations so far, please correct them: 73F does not play as there was a bridge reason to think about the defense. Namely he had to switch to a different suit and had to guess which one it is. 16B1(a) does play but one has to analyze what the information is in the tempo and what does it influence later. I can not find easily a law that forces the declarer to wait before playing from dummy. It is my fault, probably. Please correct me.

I hate to be pedantic here but law 21B1(b) states that "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." This law does not explicitly state what the TD should do in the presence of evidence. Thus, the TD can weight the evidence and rule MI, even if there is evidence to support mistaken call. The TD can simply use 85A1: "In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect."

Without alert or with screens, I would have bid 5♣. Thus, I did so. One complication: We can not prove that we play leaping Michaels. If the 4♥ turns out to be a very good contract (as a matter of fact it would have been), the TD can not possible decide if if was misunderstanding or MI. I was more concerned with that than the results. I did not want to get an accidental, questionable good score...

The problem is that 4H would have been a very good score for us. The TD can argue that I passed because of the Scheinwolds first rule. Over a preempt, the 4C is a good five suiter for us. The 4H is also a good fiver. I had 1H in my hand. Thus, 5C was obvious to me. I would have bid that anyway. Try a 5-2 fit in ♣ instead of an 5-1 in ♥. Using the UI I would have passed, hoping they bid 4S or just simply minimize the effect of MI. So for me it was upside down: I did not have a long club and I knew we were heading for doom but I did not want to pass based on the UI (we have a miscommunication). I could have also bid ♦ in that situation but the TD can argue that I was warned by the UI and I simply wanted to warn the partner about the miscommunication. After the auction period I called the TD, of course and explained what happened.

I interpreted the 4H as 5+ hearts, maximum 2 clubs. I interpreted the 5H as 6+ hearts and 1- clubs. I interpreted the 6H as 7+ hearts and no clubs. Having 1 heart, I was able to pass and play in a 7-1 fit in hearts. Am I supposed to bid 7C and risk playing in a 7-0 fit and one level higher?

That is simple in theory. How would you determine that "peers would wake up" at a certain point? I.e. as a TD, what would you rule acceptable "wake up time"? At the table I said that I would "never wake up", thus, I bid up to 6C (showing 7) and only passed 6H (partner shows 7 hearts, with my small heart that is 8 hearts, better than potentially 7-0 in 7C). Thus, I treated all H bids as natural. As a TD, you can not even ask people in a meaningful way. Either you tell them that they play leaping Michaels or you don't. Either you wake them up up front or they never wake up. A marginally correct question: The bidding goes 3S - 4C - p - 4H - p - 5C - X - 5H - X - 6C - X - 6H - X ... When would you entertain the thought that something went wrong and there is a misunderstanding?

I was in a strange situation yesterday and I do not know what is the proper procedure: Auction went like 3S - 4C (me). My partner was asked what the 4C was and he explained it correctly as "leaping Michaels", i.e. clubs and hearts, game force. The explanation was correct, my bid was not (we just introduced this convention and I forgot) -- I had a long C. My partner had a very good H holding so he bid H. What are you supposed to do in this situation? I heard the explanation which "woke me up". I have to ignore it as it is UI. Thus, I repeated C since I had a single small H. My partner repeated H. My partner is clearly allowed to "weak up" and realize the bid error -- with proper disclosure, of course. When am I allowed to "wake up" and act on it? With screens, I can, since I do not hear the explanation. Unfortunately there were no screens. It was MP so it did not matter much -- bottom for us -- but in IMP it does make a huge difference.

That is an absolutely valid point. This is one of the reasons a mixed (very good players to beginners) pairs event will not tell you which is the best pair, especially in IMP. The disagreement is over the importance of the irregularity. Some people take the position that the irregularity is part of the game just like rare stupid mistakes by the opponents that you benefit from. Others believe that irregularities must lead to rectification. This is a matter of opinion and personal preference. It is clear that in certain cases (SEWoG) the laws agree with the former approach. May be a more balanced approach might be eventually entertained. May be not.

I fully agree here. On the other hand, it does not seem to be right to me to punish the revoke by 20IMP instead of 1 because the opponents reached illegally a contract. This is only my opinion only, but still: Your final result in an event is a score assigned to your performance. In IMP, you start with zero and you are "punished" for mistakes and you are "rewarded" for good performance on each board. Each mistake has some price assigned to it. Not bidding a game has a high price, giving an overtrick has a low price. The revoke has a variable price, depending on the contract. The question here is if you allow an illegal action to change this price of a mistake for the NOS. You obviously think it should be allowed, end of story. I would be more in favor of some middle ground. I fully agree that a revoke in a clinch is more serious than in a boring contract. Thus, I fully agree that the price should be higher for a revoke that gives the 13th trick, even in an illegally reach 7NT. I just do not happen to think it should be the same "penalty" you assign to a revoke in a legally reached 7NT. I may be too much of a mathematician but I would prefer to have the same expectation value (price) assigned to a mistake on each board. This is not possible, of course, but I would like to get as close as possible. This is obviously a can of worms: Kaplan is right, the connection between the revoke the the illegal 7NT is broken. You can not ignore the revoke and there must be a penalty. Full agreement on this one. On the other hand, the -20IMP is the effect of the illegal 7NT and the revoke, combined. There are two, unrelated events that contribute. The connection between the two events is broken. The connection between the damage and the two mistakes (illegal 7NT and revoke) is clearly not. The effect should still be split somehow between the two. I know this is not easily achieved... I think we said everything that could be said. We should just agree to disagree. I see your point, I accept it, I would just prefer to live in a different word. Since 2017 is coming, this is the right time to do this...

Actually this could have happened to us. Opponent wanted to look at my hand after we finished the board. He did not notice that we swapped boards so he looked at my hand for an unplayed board. We were ordered to play the board with the condition that if we get better than 3IMP, we keep it (teams). Otherwise we get 3IMP. I know this is "strange" from the TD but this is what he decided. Now lets assume we score something really bad. How would you rule? Would you invoke SEWoG in this situation? At one point you should. E.g. 1N-p-3N-P bid with 15-17 opening and 6 points, 3244 distribution by responder. This is clear gambling. You know you do not have game. You know you have 3IMP in your pocket. You try something insane...

If you revoke in 6NT (all other tables), you loose 1IMP. In 7NT the revoke is 20 IMP. Does not seem to be fair to me if 7NT is an illegal contract and you are going to roll back to 6NT for the OS. Calculating the price of the revoke in an illegal contract and THAN rolling back to 6NT does not seem to restore balance. It is too harsh for my taste. YMMW.

Yes, but that is not the issue I am raising. I fully agree that you still have to play bridge in an illegally reached contract. The question is if you have to play BETTER bridge than others because your opponents reached a contract illegally...

Correct but if 7NT was reached through an infraction, than the 13th trick suddenly becomes very expensive. This is not exactly fair to the players that did not commit the infraction that led to the 7NT. One can just as well argue (I know that this is not how it is done) that the contract is rolled back to 6NT, the NOS still revokes (SEWoG) so the result should be 6NT+1. This is not fair either but fair should be somewhere between, IMO. I know that it is not. I think this goes back to the argument that if the NOS is in a much harder situation than players at other tables, this should be taken into account. For a revoke, it is not. The field is not quite level. A simple mistake in an illegally reached 7NT is not relevant as the result is rolled back to 6NT+1 since it is not a SEWoG.

The WB example says the following: The "without infraction" result would have been 4S+2. Thus, this is the result what the OS gets. This would be the adjusted result of NOS without the revoke. As they revoked (unrelated serious error), they get "penalized" for the revoke. How much did the revoke cost in the illegally reached 4H contract? This was teams and the other room table score was 4s+2, 680 total points. In this room, the table result with revoke is 300, thus, board is -9IMP. Without the revoke, the result (4Hx-3 vs. 4s+2, i.e. 500 vs. 680) would have been -180 net, i.e. -5IMP. The "self inflicted" damage is the difference of -9IMP and -5 IMP, i.e. 4 IMP. The final result for the board is 0IMP (4S+2 in both rooms) reduced by the self inflicted damage, 4IMP. To put it simply: the self inflicted damage is calculated in the illegally reached contract. Overall, the board result is 0IMP for the OS and -4IMP for the NOS (split score). Confusing? Yes. Fair? This is the question. In the WB case you compare apples and oranges (4S by NS vs. 4H by EW) so you can not really determine what the revoke means. In my example it is much simpler. Same contract (NT). Same play. Same revoke. At Table 1 it is an overtrick, at Table 2 it is the 9th trick to make the game. Cost of the revoke is 1IMP vs. 12IMP. Only difference is an infraction by the OS. Is it fair to the NOS? I do not think so. Still, that is the rule.

This is straight out of the Kaplan article and I fully agree. You make a mistake that is not connected to the infraction and you "pay for it". My question is "how much do you pay"? Why does the price of a mistake go through the roof because of an infraction?

Quote from the White Book: "4.1.3.1 General Consider a case (with only N/S vulnerable) where N/S allow 4H doubled to be played by E/W because they were misinformed, and the TD judges that if they had not been misinformed they would have bid and made 4S+2. Suppose that 4H doubled is always 3 down except that N/S commit a serious error (e.g. a revoke) and the result is only 2 down. Let us say that the result in the other room was N/S +680. How do we apply Law 12? E/W, the offending side, get the score for N/S +680 (0 IMPs) under Law 12C1 ©. Applying Law 12C1 (b) to the non-offending side, we have to calculate the part of the damage that was self-inflicted. The self-inflicted damage is the difference in score between N/S +500 and N/S +300 = imp(500 - 680) - imp(300 - 680) = -5 - (-9) = 4 IMPs. So do N/S get the adjustment for the offending side less the self-inflicted damage = -4 IMPs? Yes, because this is better than their score at the table" So the self inflicted damage is calculated based on the contract they actually played, not the one they should have played. Thus, the damage due to the revoke is calculated in the 3NT contract, not the 2NT. For the NOS, that's it. OS gets 2NT+1.

Dear All, As 2017 is coming, I would like to present a simplified example and ask for opinions. The question is not what should be ruled using the 2007 rules. I am more interested in the common sense )or lack thereof): IMP pairs. Normal board result is 2NT= by North. Both the contract and the number of tricks is "obvious". Now consider two tables: Table 1: One defender revokes and the result is 2NT+1. Table 2: A contract of 3NT is reached through a clear infraction BUT the one defender (NOS) revokes and the table result is 3NT=. The infraction is very clear and the TD adjusts accordingly to 2NT. Lets compare what the score of EW should be: At table 1, there is no infraction (beyond the revoke but that is already taken care of) so table result stands. The consequence of the revoke is 1 overtrick, around 1IMP. At table 2, there is an adjusted score for the infraction. The TD starts for the NOS from the 2NT contract but there is a correction for the revoke (SEWoG). The "price" of the revoke is the difference between 3NT= and 3NT-1, e.g. 650 total points or ~12IMP. To state the obvious: Exact same hand, exact same revoke. Due to an infraction, the "cost" of the revoke is 12IMP instead of 1IMP. This does not seem fair to the NOS. I understand that a revoke is more serious in IMP if it gives an overtrick but not a game but still. Is it not too harsh? Repeat: This is not about the application of the rules. It is about the implications of the rule.

I could. The problem is that there are two meanings to "range": you can interpret it as "span" (10-count is 0 span/range) or as the number of elements in a set (10-coount has one element, i.e. range is one). This is even more complicated for non touching intervals. It it the max-min? Is it the sum of the disjunct spans? Is it the number of elements? One can argue forever and there is no clear answer. Points are discrete things normally so some would argue for the "set based" definition. On the other hand, some people subtract 0.5 points for a 4333 distribution or no 9/10 cards, etc and the 1NT is 15 to 17.5 points. Now what is the range?

I just wanted to say that bringing in "intentional" was wrong. I had the translation in mind, not the original. The title got translated into the equivalent of "intentionally/knowingly causing possible damage". I also had a TD and Appeals ruling in mind when this law was used to rule in a simple MI case, claiming that the OS was intentionally giving wrong information to intentionally damage the NOS by misleading them. Sorry about that...

I think the key is "could have been aware". One can argue that in all situations the OS "could have been aware", thus, one can interpret Law 23 like this: "After an infraction, the TD shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*." Now what does this add to Law 12A1 and 12B1?

Law 23 comes into play if it is INTENTIONAL: you want to silence the partner. You have to establish intent. In my opinion Law 12 is sufficient to adjust the score if necessary -- after 5NT is played. 12B1 defines "damage" and also declares that the objective of the score adjustment is to redress the damage. Thus, the adjusted score is what was expected to happen without the infraction, assuming it does not hurt the NOS. 12A1 explicitly empowers the TD to adjust the score in this case. The forced pass does not provide indemnity, thus, the TD can adjust. I do not think 12B2 applies as the forced pass is not a rectification, in my opinion.

What is wrong with this argument: 1. Per Law 27B2, 5♦ can be changed to 5NT and partner must pass. Thus, they play 5NT. 2. They do not become defenders, thus, no lead restrictions. 3. They play the board. 4. Now, the TD checks if the infraction damaged the NOS, per law 12B1: (s)he must compare the expected result without infraction and the actual result and make changes accordingly. Thus, the TD must figure out what the possible outcomes are. The example is a bit confusing. Was it 5♥ or 5♠ over 4NT? First I will assume 5♠. If 5NT over 5♠ is asking for kings, than I would assume an answer of 6♦ (1 king) and 6NT is the final contract. If this is worse than 5NT for the NOS, this would be the adjusted score. Otherwise the table score stands -- we only adjust in favor of the NOS. Now if the bid is 5♥, it is more complicated. What are the realistic options? Asking for kings is not an option with a missing ace. Thus, I have to figure out what 5♠ and 5NT would mean. Opener has exactly 4♠ (did not open 1♠) so 5♠ to play is not an option in my opinion. Thus, 5NT may be the expected end contract, thus, no adjustment.

Sure. Is it WoG?

2♦ was explained correctly (see above) for both opponents. There was no alert for the 2N and the 3N on the side of South. Thus, 2N is invit to 3N, 3N accepts it with maximum. On the other side of the screen, the correct explanation was given: 2NT forces partner to bid 3 ♣ (either stop in ♣ or strong invit with 55 in majors or GF with 54/45 in majors). 3N was not part of the system. 2N was stretching it a bit as it was only 54 in majors and 13HCP, i.e. close to GF but not quite.