sanst

Coming back to this point: I still don't know what can possibly be not ethical about playing according to the Laws. As I wrote, I don"t think it's a decent thing to do to revoke and hope for the best, not calling the director afterwards, but it's legal according to the Laws and I wouldn't call it unethical. But one one hand English is not my native language, on the other ethical or unethical is subjective, it's 'in the eye of the beholder'. May I recall the Commentary on the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, as published by the WBFLC. About Law 61B3 Ton Kooijman, chairman of that august body, wrote: AFAIK the purpose of this law is to limit the problems arising from an established revoke. Revokes are often problematic for the less experienced director, which led to the introduction of the prescribed transfer of one or two tricks. PS, some posts before this I wrote that the card mistakenly played when revoking, is a mPC, where it should have been MPC.

E expected W to win the third clubs trick by trumping, but W has to play ♣9. That makes it more than likely that NS win this trick, which would without the revoke been lost to EW. Whatever happened afterward is impossible to know for us. That the TD should check that NS are compensated sufficiently, is obvious.

It looks like the director made a mistake. N should have been given the opportunity to change his or her call. West’s explanation is, to say the least, ambiguous. If there’s no agreement, explicit or implicit, it’s up the the opponents and partner to figure out what the hand might be. If there’s some form of agreement, e.g. ‘garbage’, say so and don’t claim that there’s no agreement. The TD should figure out what it is, garbage or no agreement. If this is a regular pair, it’s less likely that there really is no (implicit) agreement. Maybe a poll would have made clear what players of the same ability would have chosen. I don’t blame S for not doubling 4♥, but it would not have been my choice to pass. As pescetom wrote, a solomonic decision is called for, but I would also take 4♥-2, the table result, into account.

I don’t see what’s unethical about asking about a possible revoke, as long as you do it standard. I do, because my partner has problems to keep her cards firmly in her hand and is always fumbling when she has to play. That’s the price to pay for old age, I’m afraid. Anyway, it’s certainly better than let the revoke become established, even more so if you leave it to opponents to draw attention to it.

Srry, I missed the part of W trumping ♣6. With the clarification I would decide that: ♦7 is played in trick 2 and goes back to the quitted cards, both ♣9 and the trump that W showed and played in trick 3 are MPC’s, in trick 3 W should the ♣9, N is told what his rights are in connection to the MPC, and E is told the part about AI/UI from the MPC, one trick is transferred to NS. Afterwards the TD checks a possible disadvantage for NS and, at least I would, tells W never to make such a mess again on penalty of being flogged and, if not sufficiently demure, gives both a PP (error in procedure) and a DP (to maintain order and discipline) :D Without more information about the hands and the play, it’s impossible to say for sure, but I think NS aren’t damaged. W didn’t trump the third club and one trick extra is transferred to NS.

Another lesson to be learned: when your partner doesn’t follow the suit led, ask whether he still has a card of that suit. Yes, you might have a mPC, but that’s much easier to deal with than this quite common mess. Another lesson to be learned: if you revoke, don’t say a thing till the play is over. Make sure that all cards remain on the table without anyone messing with these, call the director and tell that you revoked. You’re not obliged to point out that you revoked, but it’s IMO the decent thing to do.

A true mess, indeed! Some posters mention a trump that was played in the third (?) trick, but that’s not mentioned in the OP. What I read in the OP is: ♥ are trump (Implicit) N is declarer E leads ♣A, everyone follows (second trick) E leads ♣K S follows, W plays ♦7, N follows clubs (third trick) E plays ♣6 W shows ♣9, making clear that he revoked in the previous trick. I don’t think that W played the ♣9, merely showed it and maybe said something about a revoke. It’s possible that point 6, E leading ♣6, came after 7, in which case ♣6 becomes a MPC, being a card exposed by a defender not during the normal course of play. There’s been an infraction, the revoke, and W has drawn attention to the infraction by showing nine of clubs. At that moment the play halts and the director should and in this case was called. The play doesn’t resume until he has made a decision. Well, let’s hope Blackshoe gets a speedy answer.

Certainly in this case it is splitting hairs, the ♣6 is the lead in trick three, either as the legally played card or as MPC. But any card of a defender that’s exposed becomes a PC, unless it was played in the normal course of play (Law 49). But there has been an irregularity, the revoke. Exactly when attention was drawn to the revoke isn’t clear, before E led or at the same moment or later. In the first case it certainly is a MPC, the play stopped until the TD had given his decision. About the the second situation the Laws are silent. In case there’s A MPC the declarer should get the option to require or forbid the lead of the suit of the MPC. Here’s a MPC, caused by the establshed revoke which in its turn was caused by the play of ♣6. If this is ‘normal play’ or exposing a card not in normal play, which makes it a MPC, doesn’t matter, the card is or should be played. That effectively means that the Laws rob the declarer of the right to require or forbid the play of clubs :huh:. I looks like the WBFLC didn’t think about this common situation. It’s quite normal for a player who revokes to draw attention to the revoke by saying so and showing the card that should have been played while the partner already played in the next trick, as is the case here. Its consequence is, that the TD should decide after the play that the NOS was damaged or not. To be honest, I never looked at the situation in the way I describe now. I just let the play continue, tell the players the number of tricks that should go to the NOS and to call me if they thought it was not enough to restore equity. Well, my question is, what am I missing, too?

What mPC is there? The ♣9 nor ♣6 were accidentally dropped, but played or at least intentionally shown.

Law 50D1a: “a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading…”. I accept that it isn’t a MPC yet, but it becomes one once the TD give the declarer the option to prohibit or to require to play clubs. It doesn’t make any difference whether it’s a MPC or not, if it is one it should be played, if it isn’t one, it’s the lead in this trick.

Assuming the cards are as given now, we should take the problem apart. First: W revokes, plays the ♦7 and the revoke becomes established by E playing ♣6 in the third trick. So at least one trick to NS, more if the TD decides afterwards that this doesn’t restore equity. Second: W has shown ♣9 which becomes a major penalty card. Third: E has led ♣6 before the TD was called and had given the declarer the opportunity to require E to play clubs or prohibit to do so. The ♣6 becomes a MPC and has to be played at the first legal opportunity, which is now, so that’s the lead in this trick, W has to play the nine and the J or Q of N or S wins the trick. I don’t think that NS are damaged, actually the advantage is theirs. W doesn’t trump the third club trick, that’s probably one trick extra for NS, to which is added the one trick they get as correction of the revoke.

Maybe a bit OT, but has anyone tried to explain Law 50E to the players? I did, but nobody really understood why the information is AI as long as the PC is open on the table, but becomes UI when the card is returned to the hand. To add to the confusion there’s 50E4 which obliges the TD to examine whether the information from the PC, although AI, has influenced the outcome of the play. The “If you think that defenders choose a line of play that they wouldn’t have chosen without the knowledge of the PC and that gained them an advantage, you should call me again” leaves almost everyone in total confusion. What’s also confusing, is that the Laws are unclear about when a mPC should or can be played. If a card of the suit of the PC is played, it should be the PC or a honour of that suit. That the partner has no lead restrictions, is made explicitly clear, but whether the player with the PC can play whatever card he chooses or not, I can’t deduct from the Laws.

Yes, unless you can play a honour of clubs. The ten is a honour, too. Actually, I’ve never been asked for a ruling which would result in a minor PC. Usually the player is allowed by the others to pick it up and put it back. Afterwards it might happen that you are called because the partner is accused of having made use of the knowledge :).

That’s not our agreement. Our agreement is 15…17 HCP, balanced, but can be off-shape. But the 4333, 4432 and 5m332 is what was taught last century and, because many players took their lessons then, it’s considered ’standard’ by most elderly, ‘social’ players. That went well with cards that were shuffled by hand, since the distribution was far more often a balanced than is statistically right. Hardly anybody took the trouble shuffling often enough. It usually was ‘hop, hop, hop, ready!’. With computer generated hands there are far less hands with the balanced distribution. The result is that a hand with a NT HCP range is quite often off-shape and that forces you to think twice what to open with such a hand. It’s not a simple rule like it was before, but it takes a bit of consideration and some intuition or gut feeling. I put that on my CC, but it doesn’t help my opponents much. Besides, my decision is not necessarily the same as my partner would make. And yes Barmar, I’m prepared to play a 5-1 fit if it happens. ‘Tant pis’ as the French say. You can’t win them all :). I don’t open NT with a void.

Assuming you play 1NT 15…17 HCP, what’s your opening bid with ♠K1087 ♥A ♦QJ73 ♣AQ52? I pull 1NT out of the box and that’s considered legal here, even if your agreement about NT is a 4333, 4432 or 5332. The same goes for a 6m332 or 5422, which are outside the range taught and considered ‘normal’. You’re supposed to alert when your opponents might not be aware of these off-shape NT’s, but they mostly find that very confusing :).

You would prefer that the players don’t see the results till these are published afterwards? Changes are that they don’t remember exactly whet happened or accept the result and let NS get away with it. Besides, it would lead to a revolt amongst the members of our club :) You make clear that this was a grave infraction of S, since he didn’t ask about 4♣. A stiff penalty is asked for. These ‘eternal intermediates’ as pescetom calls them quite often are very good at ‘accidental cheating’, like telling their partners that they should alert a call or asking questions at the wrong, but convenient - to them - moment. And I’ve no idea what to do about it, unless it’s so obvious as in this case. Calling the director causes anger amongst these players and they might choose to leave the club ‘en masse’, which is something most clubs over here - and AFAIK it’s the same in many other countries - can’t afford. You’re then the nuisance and might probably be asked to quit.

I don’t think 20G1 should play a role in the ruling, unless you have some proof that the question was asked with the SOLE purpose to benefit the partner, which might be near to impossible. But this is an obvious case of UI, maybe intentional, and a clear infraction of Law 41. Use Law 16B1a and rule +1 and a stiff warning to S and N or even a penalty. A poll is not necessary since the other N’s, who are probably of about the same strength, choose a hearts lead and N considered it too. And I don’t give a *** for their ‘explanations’, which smell of coffee housing, although maybe unintentional.

North is a beginner. I don’t know about you, but do you remember what it was to be a beginner? I’ve been teaching bridge and that reminded me how hard it was to remember all those things like when to use stayman or transfers. How often do you get a 2NT hand and how did things go then? I don’t think it’s useful to elaborate about what N should have done after the 6♦ bid. From the OP I got the impression that just remembering what to do after 2NT and how to handle a transfer was already a real problem. I actually find it praiseworthy that this beginner didn’t pass, but bid 6NT. Most beginners just pass when they don’t know what to do.

No, probably not. It was a remark based on the hands as published. But this has nothing to do with the ruling.

Law 73A1 and 16B1. The penalty is for the TD to decide. It could be anything from a warning - too lenient in this case IMO - to 100% at MP’s. I don’t see how the remark did influence N to go to 6NT. The remark certainly conveys UI, but how that influenced N at this particular moment in the auction, is beyond me. Maybe you can enlighten me. When exactly did S made this remark? After he had seen his hand or was he still picking up his cards? From your post I gathered that S is the experienced player an N the beginner, although you wrote that S is the beginner. But that doesn’t fit with the rest of the post.

Even if S is the most ethical, honest an honorable player on earth, this reminder at this moment is totally inappropriate. Even ChCh wouldn’t probably do it and a penalty is in order. But can E explain what’s wrong with the auction? If N is a beginner the 6♦ bid must have left her flabbergasted. I’ve no idea what I would have done. Pass? 6♥? 6NT? 7♣?? You might organize a poll, but it might be difficult to find enough beginners to do so. I don’t see a connection between the remark of S and the bidding of N, so I wouldn’t change the result. Besides, given the distribution, you have 13 tricks from the start, but that’s sheer luck. PS, it might be useful to tell N that her second bid with five hearts should have been 3NT and to S that, when opening NT, the partner is in the lead. Also, that this hand with nine tricks is too strong for 2NT which is not forcing. But that’s for a teacher to do, not the TD.

You’re right. RR wouldn’t have started with the 3 from Kx3 when leading against 4H, nor from KQ3. But against 3NT that lead could easily have been from Kx3. Adjustment is correct, even if you hate SB for his bellowing.

Usually those players, if any good, know methods to find that out.

I know I’m a bit simple, but I would think a spade lead is rather obvious. NS have seven spades max, so E must have at least five and more points than W. Therefore it might pay off to develop east’s spades, you will probably make two heart tricks anyway. I certainly wouldn’t like to lead from AJ93 if there’s an more attractive option. Bird & Anthias (Winning Notrump Leads) show that, in an action like this, the lead from a short, i.e doubleton, major on average beats the lead from a four card major or minor. That makes the lead from a singleton even more attractive.

It was nothing commercial, but a survey under club players. The numbers are indicative, but credible given the background. It was done by Rob Stravers and his coworkers, who run a very well read website and publications - free of charge - on bridge.