mink

Yes, but for a human it would be poor matchpoint play not to try finesse the K, after a previous finesse has revealed that South had the Q.

I looked in myhands and found that this board was really adjusted to 4♥-1. I understand that these adjustments are done be letting robots finish the hand. The only way to go down is afaics that North wins trick 10 with ♥J and then the ♦ finesse is not taken. But in trick 9 the finesse was already taken, so refusing the finesse in trick 11 or 12 this time makes no sense. Does a GIB robot take this into consideration? Karl

I would allow North to replace the 2♦ bid by any legal call, and South may bid what he wants, because any call is more precise than a relay that does not show anything. (Law 27B1b) Karl

In my last post I was discussing 2 different layouts of the last 8 cards: One shown by the diagram and the other the same but the red Jacks exchanged between South and West. In the layout shown in the diagram, obviously defenders will win 2 tricks for sure if this is played without a revoke, and yes, declarer could have conceded the last 2 tricks. I also agree that law 23 cannot be applied in case of a revoke by East, because the non-offending side is not damaged. But East does not know if this is the actual layout of if the red Jacks are exchanged. In the latter case, defenders can win only 1 trick with ♥K, and the last trick is won by the ♦J in the South hand. East, however, can try to win 2 trick here, too, by revoking deliberately with ♦9. Now West can claim 2 tricks with ♥J and ♠K. In this case, East does not call the director, hoping that the revoke is not recognized. If it turns out that South had the ♥J as in the diagram, East does call the director and gets back the trick lost by the revoke. Of course I know that a deliberate revoke is a serious infraction. But East can easily say that she thought the ♦9 was a ♥9, and it is impossible to prove that the revoke was committed deliberately. Karl

I started this thread for 3 reasons: To find out if I had missed any other law that should have been applied in addition to law 62D1. Looks like there isn't any. To point out that in this case the offending side benefits from the law, as a trick lost by the infraction is returned to them. To point out that in this case drawing attention to an infraction causes a disadvantage for the non-offending side. Meanwhile I also found a way to utilize this law in an unethical way. The original example is slightly changed: [hv=pc=n&s=sqhjdc&w=skhdjc&n=shqtdc&e=shkd9c]399|300|NT contract by South, this time North (dummy) has the lead and ♥10 is ordered.[/hv] East knows that partner must have a good spade, as declarer did not play the spades. She also knows that the red Jacks are missing, but has no idea who has which. Playing ♦9 now results in 2 further tricks if West has the ♥J and N/S fail to recognize the revoke, which is not unlikely as West wins both tricks and the last East card is deemed irrelevant. If West has the ♦J (as shown above), East calls the TD and gets the lost ♥ trick back by law 62D1. Applying Law 62D2 has no effect in this case. According to blackshoe, the non-offending side is not damaged, so Law 23 cannot be applied. Karl

"Law 64B ..." When I was talking about rectification here, I meant a rectification according to Law 62D1, of course, and not Law 64. Karl

Again: if the revoke had not been recognized early enough, the offending side would have been damaged. The revoke was established after trick 13. There are two steps: the revoke and the rectification. After the revoke, the offending side had 1 of the two last tricks. After the rectification, the offending side had 2 of the two last tricks. Effectively, one trick was transferred to the offending side. But you are happy, if you happen to commit such a revoke, that the rectification returns trick to you that you had already lost by this stupid error? It was not only a revoke, but also a bridge error, because a winner was discarded. There are plenty of errors every day that are entirely lawful but hardly can be called "bridge mistakes". I cannot see why this is relevant. Anyway, it was the dummy who mentioned the revoke after trick 13. Karl

The topic header says that the offending side was damaged by their own revoke. Maybe it should have said, they were potentially damaged. If all cards were put back into the board without mentioning the revoke, the damage would have been established. As, however, the revoke was recognized in time, the damage was eliminated by the rectification required by law 62D1. Probably this is the only case where calling attention to an irregularity causes a disadvantage for the non-offending side. This is really odd and the contrary of what I expect any law in any sport to be designed. There are a lot of places in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge where the non-offending side is granted the right to accept an irregularity if they expect a better result this way. Likewise, law 62D1 should be amended by "..., unless the correction would transfer one or more tricks to the offending side." Karl

In an NT contract Dummy had ♥QT and RHO had good ♥K and good ♦9 left. In trick 12 Declarer played a low ♥ to the Q, and RHO discarded the ♦9. The last trick was played and won by the ♥K. The revoke was recognized when the cards were still not put back into the board. Ruling? Karl

Tourney list format: The title is white on blue and the details back on white. This requires a lot of visual adaption when reading. Title and details are in the same column without indentation. This makes it difficult to get an overview over the tourneys available. I would prefer host name and Register-button to be located at the leftmost position, as I am used to read host and title in this order. In the details I would like to know if it is a clocked or unclocked tourney. The German translation contains an error: "Matchpoints" are not "Masterpunkte" - better do not translate this term. On the other hand, some text that could be easily translated, remains in English, producing some language mixture. The running tourneys still do not display how long the tourney will last, so if I have a registration for a new tourney with a player still playing in an old tourney, I have no idea if this tourney will be finished before the new tourney starts. The info display of a running tourney is too narrow for most tourney titles. As far as filters are concerned, it would be great if I was able to filter away all tourneys that I am not allowed to play in, because I am not member of that club, low tcr, etc. Movies are just great. Karl

The UI in your text is not even close to the character of UI in the original post (which was no cheating at all only gave a clue that something must be wrong, but not what might be wrong), and the AI in your text is also different - the fact that the opening was in third seat and the and the the vulnerablility are much easier overlooked than an opening bid visible on the table. And what is more, the hints your partner give to you point directly in the same direction as you AI, which is not the case in the OP case. So I think your example is far more away from the OP case than my police example is, where the similarity of bridge law and public law is incredibly close - in both cases it is forbidden to use UI. I posted it because it might be a good idea to see the case under a different light, but of course it proves nothing. I would be grateful if somebody who thinks that in the police case the photo can be legally used points out what is the difference between the cases that makes the use of seeing the opening bid of 1S illegal. Karl Karl

You are a police officer investigating in a case of murder. You have found a person A and some evidence that he is guilty, but you cannot prove it, and A has an alibi. Now you ask a judge for permission to bug A's phone, and when the permission arrives you do so and tape a call where A confesses the murder to a friend. Unfortunately, the judge had forgotten to sign the permission, so it was not valid and the confession is now UI to you. But, now knowing that A is guilty, you take a closer look at some photos made by automatic cameras at the site where the murder happened, and suddenly you are able to identify A on some photo, proving that the alibi is false. What will the jury decide - is the photo legal evidence or must it be ignored, too, because it was discovered only after the illegal bugging? Karl

Law 64 does not explicitly state what to do in case of multiple revokes. So we can argue that all revokes are handled separately, or that we first try to use A and B for all revokes, and if that fails to compensate sufficiently, apply C and assign an adjusted score that takes care of all revokes. To me, solution (2) makes more sense, because (1) combines a treatment that sometimes - randomly - overcompensates (A, B) with a treatment that strives for equity ©. The argument that if we use method (2) the second revoke effectively gains a trick for the offending side, would only be valid if the revoker consciously committed the second revoke for this reason. However, the likely cause for the 2 revokes was that a trump card was hidden under some other card. The reason for the damage was not the first revoke or the second revoke, but the two revokes combined - there would have been no damage if either of them was omitted. To look at them separately when adjusting seems odd to me. Karl

Yes of course. If I know about this "feature" and remember to do it every time I add somebody to my enemy list, all is fine. For people who do not know about it this behavior is unexpected. Karl

A "no enemies"-Tourney is going to start soon. Somebody asks me to remove his enemy status, and I do so. He usually still cannot register for the tourney until I change something in the tourney, no matter what. I did not complain about this up to now as I was able to live with that. Recently, however, I discovered that the opposite is also true: if I make somebody an enemy, he is still able to register for a tourney that already exists when the player's status is changed. This is an unexpected behavior that leads to very undesired results, so please let us know when you have fixed this. Karl

In the end position, south should have only 2 cards, as he started with only 11 cards. If we assume that the end position is correct, apart from East's ♦ being a ♣, 6♠ make with no doubt. Karl

By the non-alert you got the UI that partner thinks your 2♣ bid was natural. By seeing the 1♠ opening bid you get the AI that your partner thinks that your 2♣ bid was natural. In such a case I strongly believe that the UI is no longer relevant. No law requires you to ignore AI, which would be necessary if it was forbidden now to make calls that are suggested by the UI. On the contrary, Law 16A1a explicitly allows you to use AI, if it "is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; ...". I cannot see how a missing Alert can affect a bidding card lying on the table. Of course, the UI may have been one of the clues that made you see the AI. But it was in no way required to make to 1♠ opening visible to you. Karl

My opinion about multiple calls out of turn is that the last one should be handled first when asking opps if they accept it (Law 29A). So here I would ask South if he likes continue, and if yes, nothing else happens. If South refuses to call, East's pass is withdrawn and he is instructed to pass the first time it is his turn to bid. Now North has the opportunity to call, and if he refuses, too, West's pass is withdrawn, too. East, the dealer, is now required to start with a pass, and after South calls, West is required to pass, too (Law 30A). It is not likely that Law 23 has to be applied in this case, and an UI is not very likely, too. Karl

I am using the web version for teaching, and in my view there are no disadvantages. However, when I tried first I did not discover all features. Especially loading a payed hand to the table is a little bit hidden in the menu. Karl

I have been playing a tourney where the TD happened to be on my enemy list. This caused all his tourney chat to be invisible to me, and I did not notice that. After some time, when players where obviously responding to the TD by tourney chat, I imagined what was wrong, found out who was the tourney director (there were 3 of them listed in the tourney info, so I had to guess who of them really was there), set this player to neutral, and was able to read his chat from that moment on. I suggest that the chat suppression of an enemy is lifted while he is TD in a tourney I play in, and while I am TD for all enemies that play in my tourney - this is quite possible if I am only TD and not host of the tourney. Karl

Yesterday at a teaching table I sat in all 4 seats and added an explanation for a bid that was already made. At my screen, the bid got a yellow background and the explanation was displayed on mouse-over as it should. The kibs however told me that nothing happened. Subsequently I entered an explanation along with a new bid, and this was visible to the kibs all right. All were using the web version. Karl

I am using my Android phone a lot currently to watch the mindsport tourney in Lille, using the cell network. Though at my current location there is no umts connection available, it is possible listen to the audio comment, and everything else works well, too. What I am missing is the display of the result at the other table, if the current table is slower. In the web version, it is displayed as soon as available and visible without any action required. In the app, 2 taps and maybe some scrolling is required in order to see it, and the main table display is not visible while looking. I suggest to insert another entry into the menu where one can already review the bidding. Karl

It should be possible to talk to an invisible player if you are registered to play a tourney with that player. Currently, it is not possible unless the invisible player starts the chat. Web version. Karl

In all cases where a non-agreed method was imagined, UI that reminds the player of the actual method cannot be handled without implying your wording of the law. If we take literally what the law says, this would be in contradiction to the principles stated earlier in law 16A and in law 73C. Law 16B1b is technical detail. If this obviously does not make sense if taken literally in this case, it must be okay to assume what was clearly intended. Karl

Thanks for your posts. I have forwarded the thread to the players involved. Karl