weejonnie

Via 63A4 A revoke is established ... 4. when agreement is established (as per Law 69A) to an opponent’s claim or concession; the offending side having raised no objection to it before the end of the round, or before making a call on a subsequent board. When you don't read 63A1 A revoke is established ... 1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).

True - because of Law 63A1 1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke). I think that the query is because of law 63A4 4. when agreement is established (as per Law 69A) to an opponent’s claim or concession; the offending side having raised no objection to it before the end of the round, or before making a call on a subsequent board. Which means that if you revoke and the opponents claim BEFORE you play to the next trick then if you object it is argued you have been denied the chance of correcting the revoke before it becomes established.

Yes - under that law - but 72C says "If the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non‐offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity."

Law 8 B. End of Round 1. In general, a round ends when the Director gives the signal for the start of the following round; but if any table has not completed play by that time, the round continues for that table until there has been a progression of players. So the question is: has the Director given the signal? if he has then there is no automatic trick penalty (but 64C still applies). if he hasn't then there will be a 0,1 or 2 trick penalty - and 64C. (It is slightly different for the last round)

Please be careful about this - accepting a claim is NOT a concession. You want law 69B B. Withdrawal of Established Agreement Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C: 1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or 2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. (Which is much more favourable to the non-claiming side)

Yep - Agreed (didn't think of that one) So at the end of the day we have several methods of removing the advantage the the OS obtained - but I can't find one (unless Law 47E) that allows redress for the NOS.

Yes Law 53A A. Lead Out of Turn Treated as Correct Lead Prior to the thirteenth trick17, any lead faced out of turn may be treated as a correct lead (but see Law 47E1). It becomes a correct lead if declarer or either defender, as the case may be, accepts it by making a statement to that effect, or if a play is made from the hand next in rotation to the irregular lead (but see B). If there is no such acceptance or play, the Director will require that the lead be made from the correct hand (and see Law 47B). HOWEVER There is a partial get-out. Law 72 B. Infraction of Law 1. A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept. So if the player deliberately led from the wrong hand (an infringement of law) then the director can penalise him sufficiently to remove any gain from his actions.

Unfortunately the white book only discusses declarer and third in hand. 8.73.2 Pauses at trick one 8.73.2.1 Pause by declarer before playing from dummy A pause by declarer before playing from dummy at trick one should not give rise to the possibility of an allegation by a defender that they have been misled; indeed, such a pause is recommended practice. 8.73.2.2 Pause by third hand Whether or not declarer plays quickly from dummy at trick one, a pause by third hand should not be considered to transmit any unauthorised information to partner, nor to convey potentially misleading information to declarer. No disclaimer is necessary. The freedom for third hand to think about the deal generally at trick one applies irrespective of their holding. Thus, for example, it is perfectly legitimate to think about the deal generally at trick one even if third hand holds a singleton in the suit led. As a consequence, TDs should not entertain claims that declarer has been misled by a pause from third hand at trick one. ... From the OP, I think that it is obvious that RR has a problem with his opening lead and thus ChCh must carefully avoid taking advantage of this. Since OOs excellent course on bridge opening leads (Bird and Anthias) says that singletons are obvious best leads in virtually every case Vs a suit contract - and RR knows this. Then it is obvious he hasn't a singleton. (Doubletons are recommended in many situations, but not always doubletons of opponents' suits! That is not the whole of the story, of course. We haven't found out whether going up with the Ace is a logical alternative. However I, too would rule in favour of SB - after all sometimes he wins.

If so then they will still have to come clean - sometime before the end of the clarification period IIRC.

The EBU have a lot to say on fielding - but in general if you alert the bid and add 'but partner has forgotton in the past' then you are OK. If you suspect from partnership knowledge that partner may forget and don't say then you could be penalised for playing an illegal convention. You can field if you can tell from your own hand that partner has misbid e.g. shows 3 Aces when you hold 2. In this case the diamonds in the North hand suggest that South has mis-bid: but if they are a regular pair then the call should have been alerted. I would hope the explanation is "Systematically shows the red suits but partner has beeen known to forget. We have previously played 3♣ as a strong jump overcall (if that is what has happened in the past)." Obviously the spectre of UI still lurks.

Yes - the assigned adjusted score applies both ways. If playing an illegal convention. 2.8.3.3 Illegal method, fielding of psyche or deviation If a contestant uses a method that is not permitted, or is adjudged to have fielded a psyche or deviation then the deal should be completed. If they attain a score of AVE− or less then the score stands. Otherwise they get AVE− and their opponents get AVE+.

Normally a TD polls players, so creating a poll e.g. at bridgewinners might help - but here are my thoughts. 1) South presumably thought they were making a strong jump overcall 2) North knows that the call shows the red suit. (I am amazed North only bid 3♦ on that hand. It looks as if he has given the correct explanation and then decided that South had misbid. As long as there was no UI from South e.g. a facial grimace, then he can do what he wants. There is no automatic penalty for fielding a misbid now in the EBU and as this was holiday bridge North might have no idea that South is likely to misbid.) We don't know the class of player - it is quite possible that the bidding could go 3♣ 3♦ 3♥ pass OR 3♣ 3♦ 3♥ 4♥ pass Equally to such a player there may not be an alternative to rebidding 4♣ - after all the suit isnt bad (We don't know how 4♣+1 scored of course. One would hope that NS score over 50% and EW scored less than 60%, otherwise the TD has rewarded a breach of the laws.)

Lamford has been discussing this elsewhere - you are entitled to know that there is no partnership understanding AND any information that has been communicated to you by the opponents - so if West bids 2H and East says it's a transfer to 2S then you are entitled to know not only that there is no agreement but that East will be taking it as a transfer. If there are screens then you don't know what East is taking the call as - just that there is no agreement as to what it actually means. (Or vice versa depending on where you and the screens are situated.) This does not affect the UI position - The TD will look at all three scenarios (MI, UI & Combined) - if he has time. In this case it looks like the UI will be having a greater effect than the MI.

Actually the laws are clear: If there is no agreement (West thought they played transfers, East thought the bid was natural) then, if the fact isn't announced, the TD makes a ruling based on what the opponents would do if they knew there was no agreement, so the situation isn't equivalent to having an agreement that it is natural. (Law 75D which was added last year as an aid to TDs handling this situation). (This is the MI aspect of the problem, not the UI which is dealt with separately.)

No doubt some hands can be constructed where the fact that a player does NOT make a super-accept materially affects the auction - A player might be more willing to make a borderline penalty double if they know that there definitely isn't a super-accept opposite. I do alert my partner's completion of transfers, stating that we have a super-accept available, if asked. To quote Terence Reese, "A convention is an agreement between partners, not an undertaking to opponents." - If a player passes a transfer then that is a private matter between him and his partner. (Unless there is UI of course). Since players are entitled to full details of partnership agreements then I would agree (providing that IS the agreement) that if any bid potentially unexpectedly is or isn't forcing should be declared. That still does not prevent partner from passing a forcing bid, of course (again assuming no UI) - this often happens after a psych.

"More in general, is it legitimate to assume that when a bid is alerted (or announced) as "transfer" with no further explanation then any call by partner except a bid in the target suit represents a deviation from agreement? " Also, of course, the partner of the player making the transfer could have a large number of cards in the suit called and a void in the suit to be transferred to. I think Blackshoe has given a pretty thorough explanation of the appropriate parts of law 16 and law 20. A few other comments. When there is Misleading Information (MI) there is almost always unauthorised information (UI). In this case whether there is MI depends on the partnership agreements. If 2♥ = transfer to spades is the partnership agreement then there is no MI - and your side would have no right for an adjusted score under this section of the law. If the call is not a transfer then East "must call the Director" - after the final pass of the auction. (If West realises he has given an incorrect explanation then he "must summon the director" before the end of the clarification period and correct it (he can do so earlier but is not obliged to do so). The director can give the defender who made the last pass the opportunity to change his mind, if the director believes that the decision to do so as a result of receiving the correct information. Regrettably there is nothing that you can do in the auction at the table - but the TD should find out (before the play period) whether you would have changed your call had you been given the correct information. Atthat moment you have no idea whether 3♣ would score better - and just because opponents make an infraction does not give you automatically the right to the optimum contract. (Now you can see why directors can get grumpy. MI and UI cases take a lot of sorting out) The laws of bridge define various words used in procedures e.g. "may = not to do so is not wrong", "should - a breach may prejudice a player's right, but not often penalised", "shall - a breach of which should result in being penalised", and "must - the strongest word, a serious matter indeed". Now we come to the UI aspect:As mentioned above if you suspect that the opponents have UI then you may mention it at the time (or call the TD if your RA insists on it) - this is not an accusation of cheating, it is to let the other side know that you consider the position to be one in which there is UI. Assuming you do this and the TD accepts there is UI then he will ascertain. "What was the UI?" - in this case East's grimace "What does the UI demonstrably suggest?" - in this case that the 2♥ call is intended to be natural and that passing may work to the advantage of the pair. "Is there a logical alternative?" - in this case (Unless West has lots of hearts) there is a clear logical alternative in completing the transfer (or making a super-accept, if that is available and appropriate). If all those apply then the TD will consider what would happen without the UI - he might decide that the final contract would be 2♠, he might decide that you might compete to 3♣ (or give a bit of the result for each option). He may find out that (after 2♥ : P : 2♠ East should raise partner's presumed spade suit and the final contract might be 3♠ or 4♠, possibly doubled. Without the hands all this is speculation.

White book - 2.8.3.4 d. Incomplete system card11 – inexperienced or irregular partnership 1st offence :W 2nd offence :PP 3rd offence :DP e. Incomplete system card – regular partnership 1st offence: W/PP12 2nd offence :PP 3rd offence :DP 11 A system card is ‘incomplete’ for this purpose if it does not have the opening NT range and 2-level responses, 1- and 2-level openings, any artificial defensive bids or responses, or opening leads, signals and discards filled in correctly. 12 If an incorrect or incomplete card causes damage at the table, the TD should usually give a PP as well as an adjustment on the board if the pair concerned are known to be a regular partnership. If the TD announced at the start of the event that two system cards were compulsory, this may be considered to be the warning. This probably means SB has no redress- since the double is not an 'artificial defensive bid' - it is an artificial defensive call.

LAw 40B2(a)... The Regulating Authority (ii) may prescribe a System Card, with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use. Definitions Infraction: a player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation. Law 12B Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. Conclusion : SB is entitled to an adjusted score if the RA requires that the system card or required supplemetary sheets show what a double of Stayman would show.

I noticed - but the rectification for a trick with 5 cards is that the director asks which one was superfluous and if not clear plays the highest one and returns the lower one to the offender's hand. (Where if it had to be played earlier would constitute a revoke). So, assuming, a spade wasn't led later I decided it was irrelevant to the discussion. If the card had been exposed (in this case it was obscured by the treacle) it would have become a MPC. (There is nothing about 'equity' in Law 67B2 - just rectification). Revoke laws are ones where Equity is only applied after the fixed rectification (if applicable).

This tale is pur efantasy - RR is a scrupulously ethical player and would never dream of breaking tempo with a singleton. That aside ChCh no doubt applied his own morals. Assuming ChCh 'knew' that RR had a singleton, the 1st question to arise is: was there any logical alternative to leading a 2nd round of spades? Would anyone lead a small diamond through the AQ asking for a club back if RR had the king, for instance? the pertinent laws are 72B 2. In general there is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2). Law 62A A. Revoke Must Be Corrected A player must correct his revoke if attention is drawn to the irregularity before it becomes established. Note that this has changed - it used to be that the revoke had to be corrected if the player became aware of it. 3. A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. All this is irrelevant of course: there is no legal way that Charlie knows for certain that it is RR who has revoked and not SB. (obiter dictum: In fact the laws were changed to cover the situation where both sides revoke but only one revoke is established.)

yes - 2-down. Declarer goes 4-down. We give him a trick. He is now 3 down. (64A) Declarer determines that this is inadequate compensation and so awards an adjusted score. (64C). You don't give an adjusted score and then add the revoke penalty.

The case quoted proves to be an exception. NB The requirements for correcting an unestablished revoke changed in the 2017 laws. LAW 62 - CORRECTION OF A REVOKE - 2007 version A. Revoke Must Be Corrected A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established. LAW 62 - CORRECTION OF A REVOKE - 2017 Version A. Revoke Must Be Corrected A player must correct his revoke if attention is drawn to the irregularity before it becomes established.

Probable != (or <>) Possible. Probable = likely to happen or be the case it is possible that the final result would be 7NTXX - it is probable that the result would be 3H or 3S. I don't think that 'probable' excludes a weighted ruling though.

I do not think that a bid at the one level is comparable to a pass. (Unless there is a partnership agreement that says all responses at the 1 level deny 12 points). the law (30) says "(a) Offender’s partner may make any legal call at his proper turn, but Law 16C2 applies. (b) Offender may make any legal call at his correct turn and: (i) When the call is a comparable call (see Law 23A), there is no further rectification. Law 26B does not apply, but see Law 23C. (ii) When the call is not a comparable call (see Law 23A), offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call. Laws 16C, 26B and 72C may apply." So: a) partner cannot make a call that could enable the offender to make a comparable call if there is a logical alternative. b) If you correct with a non-comparable call then 23C obviously does not apply and the rectification in b(ii) does. The only time an adjusted score would be imposed would be if 72C applies. (i.e. could have known it would damage the NOS) c) IMHO Be careful with law 23C. In most cases the 'working' is not with the assistance of the comparable call but despite it. The person who made the original pass is being forced to make a call that is not as descriptive of his hand as he would have wanted. e.g. he cannot show his 4 or 5CM. (He is allowed to know the rectifications that will occur if does/ does not make a comparable call of course). The fact that you end up in an inferior contract that works, for example, is not with the assistance of the call out of turn. Note also that if partner guesses what your hand is then there is probably going to be no adjustment anyway - since if you had not made the infraction you would have shown that hand "and the outcome of the board" would most likely not have been different.

Law 27B1 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following. Law 26B is lead restrictions and law 16C is 'information from a withdrawn call' so the information is indeed AI. 'D' is shown below (There is limited additional information anyway since the same suit(s) are shown.) D. Non‐offending Side Damaged If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non‐offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred. One example would be if a player overcalls 1NT (e.g. 1H - 2D - 1NT which may only show 6-9 points: he can replace the call with 2NT even though that may show 10-12 points (assuming the bid is natural and not showing a heart raise) and partner is allowed to carry on with the knowledge that the call only showed 6-9. e.g. not bid game with 15 points. HOWEVER: suppose that 2NT makes exactly and there was no other bid that the offender could make. Now there could be damage and the TD will rule the contract back to 2C (or however he thinks the auction would progress afterwards if the 1NT bid hadn't been made - if that is better for the NOS. (I may need advice here - the law says "had the insufficient bid not occurred" - I assume it does allow the offender to make a different call at this point.