weejonnie

But if a player has given you misinformation then it is going to be impossible to find out the methods of the partnership by asking him. If you know he has given you misinformation then I can think of no other reason for the asking. I have wondered how this law could ever be applied - and I think that this is the circumstance for it.

It's slightly obscure - the law (20G) says "2. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to elicit an incorrect response from an opponent." Once you know that there is a partnership misunderstanding then asking a question whose sole purpose is to find out what the opponent thinks is happening i.e. elicit an incorrect response, seems to be forbidden.

I don't think that the spade lead has to be 'blindingly obvious' - all that has to be decided is whether West would be more likely to lead a spade given the 'incorrect' information. If he is then we do a weighted score e.g. 50% 3NT -n off and 50% 3NT making. Obviously I am not going to second-guess a referee at such an event, however I presume the argument is that if West was apprised of the partnership agreement (Law 20 IIRC) as he is entitled to be, then he can make use of the answers to the questions he has asked (at his own risk) to decide if there is MI. NB He cannot ask South questions once he gets the first inclination that there may be a misunderstanding as this is now specifically forbidden.

I suppose you could look at the results of other hands that session as an indicator. If ChCh and his 'partner' play a lot more hands than others, or have bid more games/ slams, then that could be an indication of aggressiveness. Not much to go on, naturally, as there are other reasons (system/ misunderstandings to name but two) but better than nothing.

However: is the pass a LA for Charlie the Chimp? Even if we assume he is highly ethical (which might be regarded as libel) there might be no logical alternative for him to raising to 2NT. The fact that 3NT only makes 17% (or 42.5%) of the time is irrelevant since no player can work out the odds accurately. If ChCh is a very aggressive player then 2NT may be mandatory (he has a potential source of tricks and 6 controls), whilst for SB (being less aggressive) 2NT would be a clear LA. It is up to OO to determine (based on what he thinks ChCh attitude is towards bidding, or a polling of (are there any?) players of ChCh's class) whether for ChCh pass is a LA. That is why he gets paid.

First of all, I assume ChCh is playing a 'flexible' weak NT i.e. 12-14 points but distribution could vary to reduce the chance that RR could play the hand. I have no problem with 1 Spade. 1 have no problem with 1NT from RR - he has no UI so can bid what he wants. I think however, that in most cases ChCh should be forbidden from raising to 2NT (or rather the board should be scored as 1NT+1 for NS.) The reason is that when RR bids 1NT only, it is 90% certain that his 'stop' bid was going to show a weak 2 in hearts. This makes ChCh hand much better than it could have been - hence his raise allowing RR to bid game on the 'extra' values shown. However SB has damned himself. For the class of player as ChCh there is, indeed, no logical alternative to bidding 2NT. (Which raises the question - if you are an unethical player and an unethical player would always do something unethical, doesn't that mean that there is no LA to that unethical action - and so should be allowed?)

Isn't there a law about not deliberately looking at an opponent to see what cards they hold - but any information accidentally obtained can be used? Could be amended.

We have a law that was 'accidentally' included in the 2017 laws and which should be deleted in 2027 : Law 15B

I acknowledge the correctness of your response, however we have still to decide whether ChCh can make advantage of knowing the length of time a board was played. AFAICS if that is allowed then it would appear that knowledge of where each player is sitting is also AI - note that even if a player does not look at the initial sittings they can work it out gradually for Nearly half (mitchell) or more than half (Howell) the opponents merely by knowing the bridge movement and the pair number shown on bridgemates. 2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations. Would seem to mean "the traits of all other players in the session" as they are all opponents: maybe it should read "traits of the opponents at the table" So I am finding it very hard to refute your argument that ChCh can make use of the fact that RR played the hand.

:o Hence the use of the word "unenforceable". There are exceptional cases of course and some player yklept ChCh is well noted for paying attention to other hands than the one that he is playing. SB is allowed to make use of that knowledge of course in calling the TD as the known attributes of other players is specifically allowed information.

16D1 - but totally unenforceable. D. Extraneous Information from Other Sources 1. When a player accidentally receives extraneous information about a board he is playing or has yet to play, as by looking at the wrong hand; by overhearing calls, results or remarks; by seeing cards at another table; or by seeing a card belonging to another player at his own table before the auction begins (see also Law 13A), the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information. ChCh has information that the hand took an exceptionally long time to play - and hence was difficult and therefore made use of this fact (by ensuring he became declarer) without calling the Director (as he should). This is no real different from being given a board very quickly (or noting that a table has finished very quickly) and deducing it was passed out.

Law 50E is close 4. If following the application of E1 the Director judges at the end of play that without the assistance gained through the exposed card 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 without the effect of the penalty card(s). Note that this is still part of the rectification so 10B4 doesn't apply.

Couldn't declarer have left the 2 of spades on the table - and then sought rectification under 50E4? Given the results elsewhere I would be sympathetic. Regrettably under the rules discussed (72C) and on this forum I have to agree to rule against both RR and ChCh, since there is always going to be some possibility. (If I can't rule against RR I will certainly rule against his Guardian Angel - this definitely comes under 16D.)

I might be in favour of changing "could be aware" to "could be reasonably aware". The trouble with 72C is that it is under "General Principles" and so is very wide ranging - as lamford has pointed out.

The Rabbit is a scrupulously ethical player. Regrettably there are players who indulge in sharp practice (one with the initials HH) prepared to hide behind the laws - and not all of them are found in a certain North-London Bridge Club. As a TD we do have one protection : 72B1 Of course sometimes rectification is actually better for the NOS than an adjusted score. The classic example is a revoke where there is usually a fixed 1 or 2 trick penalty. Other examples are COOTS/ IBs when the NOS get a better result than if the COOT/ IB hadn't been made. For the sake of logic chopping, I would agree that whenever an infraction is committed "you could be aware that it could well damage the non-offending side"; however,"the law does not concern itself with trifles" and there must be a point at which the probability that "you could be aware" is so low that it can be neglected. There is, of course, no definition of such a point - it is purely subjective. So: what would you have us do?

The objective of score adjustment means that when the TD is empowered to adjust the score (12A or 12C1) - either through the laws or to resolve a situation that isn't covered by the laws - then he does so to redress damage i.e. doesn't use it to penalise the OS (12B). It does not mean that just because a side is damaged that the TD has the right/ obligation to adjust the score - instead he applies the rectification stated in the appropriate law. In this case we look at 72C - certainly if the conditions mentioned are met then an adjusted score is authorised "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." Since RR was not aware of the final contract I cant TBH see how he could have been aware that the lead could well damage the NOS playing it.

I have decided that the ruling should initially be 100% in favour of SB, but since OO has ruled differently, the ruling should be split taking both sides as non-offenders. Law 24 (which OO has applied) states that When the Director determines that during the auction, because of a player’s own error, one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner, the Director shall require that every such card be placed face up on the table until the auction ends. Information from cards thus exposed is authorized for the non‐offending side but unauthorized for the offending side (see Law 16C). Note that this is different from a MPC (where the information is authorised for both sides, but the OS is adjusted if they gain from such information) Thus RR must carefully avoid taking advantage of knowledge of the Ace of Hearts - if we decide that bidding 7 Spades is a logical alternative for RRs (how do we poll this? there is only 1 RR (unless you call TT and WW, members of the same class)) then the ruling has to be 7 Spades X -1 and/ or 7 Spades X -2. Obviously OO hasn't taken this into account - hence director's error : ChCh is given 7[he}X -1 and SB as above.

However, I think that our main disagreement is whether the chimp dropping the card is 'his own error'. You think it is, I do not. 16D1 is 'extraneous information' - the information came courtesy of HH who most certainly was extraneous to the four players at the table. I am basically trying to use the law to produce an equitable result. The chimp has form, of course. On a previous session Molly was being pseudo-squeezed when the Chimp 'accidentally' dropped a card to let MM know declarer had no entry to the long suit in dummy. I certainly agree that the NOS (SB) got a worse result than they might have - however I am arguing that ChCh (for once) is also a NOS. In real law there is a test of forseeability - could ChCh forsee that someone in a bridge club would bang against him sufficiently hard that his normally firm grip would be relaxed due to the shock. At least he didn't bang down the double card to tell his partner "DOn't take this out" - which I have seen happen.

2. The Director may not award an adjusted score on the grounds that the rectification provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. I think this is pretty conclusive: where there is rectification specified under the laws the director cannot use his rights to offer an adjusted score.

Presumably we are looking at "assistance gained through the infraction". It seems quite clear from law 12 that if there is a prescribed rectification then the director cannot adjust the score, so only in cases where an adjusted score can be awarded in the laws, is the director allowed to do so. Which leaves us onto 23C (presumably) If following the substitution of a comparable call [see Laws 27B1(b), 30B1(b)(ii), 31A2(a) and 32A2(a)] the Director judges at the end of the play that without the assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non‐offending side is damaged, he shall award an adjusted score [see Law 12C1(b)]. So: did RR actually gain from the infraction. Instead of applying his best (or whatever) bridge technique he was forced, by the rectification applied following the infraction, to have a wild guess as to the final contract. I do not really regard that as assistance. A serendipitous outcome? Yes! Assistance? No! I think that I have already noted that after rectification a side may make whatever call (within limits) even if they appear to gain from it. The rectification for the COOT is that RR must either make a comparable call or his partner will be silenced.

We apply Law 24 - and Law 72C. So we award an adjusted score (the latter one).

You can't say that this was "not own error" and then apply 'card exposed under the auction" since one interpretation of the laws is that the statements about what to do assume that the card was exposed as a result of "own error". Thus the card is picked up and there is no rectification under law 72C. BUT I think we can apply law 16D1 (UI from extraneous sources) since the examples given are not exhaustive (yes I know the example of exposure of a card before the auction is mentioned). The director should therefore allow play to continue ready to award an adjusted score since the extraneous information affected the result. Since neither side is offending (depsite ChCh reputation) the director awards doubtful points in favour of each side. So: For ChCh we award the score for 7♥X -1 And: For SB we award a score of 50% for 7♥X -1 and 50% for 7♠X -2 (This assumes that #doubtful# means "will RR bid 7♠ a quarter of the time or half the time" rather than 'since RR might have bid 7♠ we must assume he always will'.)

If the agreement that a double in this situation is for penalty AND shows at least 4 hearts then I would agree. I think the offender need only be told the law by the TD. It is up to him to understand the law - ignorance of the law is no defence - and decide whether he has a CC before making his call. Once made then the TD must find out what the call means and decide it is comparable or not. This should mean looking at the CC and asking questions of the offender's partner (as if he were another player). I agree that there are arguments made that the offender should be told by the TD whether he will accept a call as being comparable were he to make it - but that would certainly involve a long discussion away from the table. As I say - there is nothing in the law that requires a TD to say how (s)he will rule in hypothetical situations. Of course it would be a serious matter, if you had an agreement to make an IB: but the EBU Blue book says that you should alert any call if you have no agreement what it means: I am just pointing out the result of that rule in this case.

I suppose it is how you interpret 12B1. if you interpret it as purely the infraction itself then obviously 10C4 will apply as the infraction has been rectified.

You can ask about relevant calls not made when the IB was selected until you decide to refuse to accept the call. Once that is done you can only ask about relevant calls to the replaced call. And YES! The EBU thinks that because you are entitled to know about the other side's agreements you are entitled to know when they don't have an agreement. Example: Blue Book 2D1 (b) The partner has given an incorrect statement of the partnership understanding (including stating incorrectly that there is, or is not, any mutual agreement). If the opponents have been damaged by this they are entitled to redress. and 2D2 Unless a player knows that his partner’s call is not alertable (or announceable) he must alert. If the player is unsure when asked for its meaning he may refer the opponents to the system card if it is likely to be on the card. If there is no relevant partnership understanding, he must not say how he intends to interpret his partner’s call.