dburn

The fact that some posters would give the defenders [at least one] trick encourages me to believe that even the equity merchants are to some extent supporters of Burn's 68th Law: When claiming, a player must state the number of tricks his side intends to take and the order in which his side proposes to play its cards in order to take those tricks. Any cards not explicitly covered in the claimer's statement shall be deemed played in the legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer (moreover, if the claimer is a defender, his partner shall be deemed to play as badly as possible). As I have said elsewhere (and often), it is not for some Director or Committee to take over the play or defence of a hand just because someone has claimed. Although most Directors and some Committees do not play very well, most of them can usually work out the right thing to do in a three-card ending when they can see all the cards. More frequently than you would think, however, the player at the table cannot. Here, though, Burn claim laws would operate in favour of declarer, who would simply call for the king of clubs rather than make any claim statement or claim. As lamford rightly says, to do anything else would be stupid, and Burn claim laws are designed to protect people from the consequences of their own stupidity. However, if they insist on still being stupid, they pay the maximum penalty in accordance with a well-known principle in software development: you can make it foolproof, but you can't make it damn-fool-proof.

Down ten seems reasonable. One should endeavour to encourage proper claims, and if this South thinks he can get away with down nine he should be disabused of the notion. The point is that a rational "disciple of Burn" would never concede down exactly one. Instead, he would either play the hand out or make some more exact statement than "I concede down one". If the Burn claim laws were universally adopted, more claimers rather than fewer would actually end up with the number of tricks God intended them to take, because no one would ever risk making a bum claim [statement]. As it is, there appears to exist a distinction between a bum claim statement and a bum claim. While this distinction may be fruitful for what I will call bridge theologians, it should have no practical import whatsoever. Objections to Burn claim laws to the effect that "it would slow the game down" or "nobody would ever claim" are simply nonsense. All that would happen is that someone who claims would be required to elaborate on his statement by adding a few words that would take a few extra seconds. In most cases, this would require only that he conforms with the current Laws anyway, which the vast majority of claimers currently do not. As long as you consider claims from the point of view of "how many tricks would the claimer have made had the hand been played out?", you are rendering all claim rulings at best subjective and at worst illegal. And as long as you stick to misguided notions of "equity", you render yourselves liable when appearing as TDs or AC members to a rousing chorus of "Who's the wanker in the black?"

As I said, at the table (where partner twitched over 1♥) I would pass - but I would pass because I think that's what the Laws require even though if partner had not twitched over 1♥ I would have an obvious double. His actual hand - king-jack empty sixth of hearts and a twelve count - is about par for the course in partnerships where twitching is par for the course (maybe with the ten of hearts, he would have bid). That is: in an untainted auction pass is (for me) not a logical alternative to double; but in this tainted auction I would pass anyway. I suspect that (not for the first time) Justin and I may agree with each other despite appearing not to. The difference (not for the first time either) may lie in the fact that he has on his side the certainty of youth, while I have the doddery lack of conviction that accompanies old age. But the old blokes make the rules.

The business of deciding what you are required to do, bearing in mind Laws 16 and 73, is necessarily convoluted. As gnasher rightly says, it often comes down to the judgements of the player on the one hand and the umpires on the other hand, and the player should not object if overruled by the umpires. But the question is not simply one of "I have an obvious call, so I should make it"; instead, the question is one of "what does the UI suggest I should do?" Here, the UI suggests that partner has a lot of hearts, but not quite enough to bid 2♥. If that is the actual case, then to me the UI suggests that I pass, so I should not pass if without the UI I would have doubled. But your partner might need rather more to bid 2♥ on this auction than mine would need, so to you the UI might suggest rather more in partner's hand than it would suggest to me. It is a curious fact that although there now seems to be a consensus among expert players that a 2♥ overcall on this auction should be natural, there is no consensus as to how strong it should be. The only high-level pronouncement on the matter I have ever seen came from either Berkowitz or Cohen (I cannot remember which, but I'm sure it was one of them), who suggested that it ought to be about a good WJO. Maybe that has not found a wider audience. Maybe it's a silly idea anyway. But it makes sense, and it's what I play in my partnerships. Tell me - how strong is the bid in yours?

Well, to some extent that depends on how strong partner should be to overcall 2♥. For me, especially favorable at MP, he doesn't need much more than a decent weak jump overcall - he can do it with, say, ♥KJ1098x and a king (significantly stronger hands will pass and perhaps later bid hearts, particularly if the opponents are using a strong club). Your mileage may vary, and probably does, but it isn't quite the laughing matter you may think.

Curious position, this. That slow pass over 1♥ usually shows a hand just short of the values for a natural 2♥ overcall. If I knew partner had that, I would pass - defending 1NT doubled is top-or-bottom stuff, and without the ten in any of my three suits I consider a bottom more likely than a top. So, the UI suggests to me that I pass, so I should double if takeout of hearts. If the partnership agreement is that double shows a diamond trap, then of course I pass now, but I will be changing either my agreement or my partner in short order (in truth, if I played this way I would overcall 1♠ in order either to get a good result or to persuade my partner to give up on me before I gave up on him - I hate being the bad guy in partnership break-ups). Still, at the table I am sure I would pass - if I double, everyone passes, and we beat the hand I don't think I could live with it. Without any UI this is an obvious double; with the UI it is not at all obvious how I should try to comply with the Laws. Interesting question, though: if I passed, and they made it and asked me why I didn't double, what should I say?

Yes, but failure to ask such a question does provide UI. Or do you mean to assert that when a 1NT opening is not announced, the next player is obliged to ask a question?

Follow-up question: if you bid 5♥, is this auction forcing on the opening bidder? Say why, or say why not - there are many janitors who would love to hear from you.

Result to stand. North to be awarded the Order of Ponting for services to pointless whingeing, First Class.

[hv=pc=n&n=sak9854hkjd9876ct&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1d4h5d]133|200[/hv] IMP scoring. East-West play five-card majors, 1♦ three cards only if 4=4=3=2, tend to open 1♦ with 4-4 in the minors, strong no trump. Both opponents are sounder bidders than your partner. What call do you make?

Oh, it isn't my "logic" - I didn't write the Laws. If I had done, no one would be allowed to ask anyone about a possible revoke, and I can see no "logical" reason why anyone should be allowed to ask anyone anyway. As I have remarked elsewhere, the penalty for a revoke should be death, so that the tendency to revoke would be eliminated on Darwinian principles and we would not need so many stupid Laws. But Sven seems to me to have overlooked Law 62A: "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." True, a player must not attempt to conceal a revoke (Law 72B3), but Law 62A is stronger in that it refers to positions in which the player may have become aware of a revoke by means that would be considered "extraneous" per Law 16. That is: if declarer revokes by ruffing or discarding on a spade lead, and a passing waiter (or a passing Director) says "you have a spade", declarer must correct his revoke per Law 62A whether or not the information that he has revoked is authorized. Since the penalty for an established revoke is more severe than a penalty for an unestablished revoke (indeed, declarer is not "penalized" at all for the latter), and since dummy may ask declarer "having none?" there is no real difficulty except in Sven's mind. He will "honestly try to figure out how you can assert that having an already committed revoke become established is an irregularity", but of course it is. To address a point made by campboy: the reason dummy cannot ask a defender "having none?" is that dummy may not participate in the play nor suggest to declarer anything about the play. Dummy, who may well be aware that a defender has just discarded a diamond on a heart, is not permitted to draw the fact to the attention of a somnolent declarer who may not have noticed. In this best of all possible worlds it is not the case that dummies are altruists, whereas it is usually the case that altruists are dummies.

Put simply: if you lead to the king and it holds (but the ten does not drop), then either: the suit is 3-2; or someone has ducked with A10xx. If you lead the queen next, you lose when West has ducked with A10xx, which he will always do. If you lead to the jack next, you lose when East has ducked with A10xx. How often will he do this? Well, he cannot do it more often than always, but he can do it less often - some players are firmly convinced that aces are meant to take kings. So, you had better lead to the jack next because this loses less often than leading the queen next. By the same token, if East wins the king with the ace, you had also better lead to the jack next. East will always win with the singleton ace, and while he cannot win with A10xx more often than always, he can win with it less often. How often "should" East duck with A10xx? It doesn't matter. Against declarer's optimum stratgey (low to the jack on the second round) East will win two tricks with A10xx whether he wins or ducks. What you must not let him do is deprive you of a trick by winning the king with the singleton ace.

If dummy may legally enquire of declarer whether or not he has revoked, then if dummy does so, declarer must correct the revoke if he has in fact committed one. Of course, it is not mandatory for dummy to ask declarer whether or not he has revoked - but dummy may do so in order, as bluejak says, to prevent declarer committing the irregularity of failing to correct the revoke once he becomes aware of it. The fact that he would not have become aware of it if dummy has not asked does not matter.

I have never been quite sure of the rights and obligations of a defender in this kind of position. Suppose for example that I (East) know the layout but my partner does not (comments from my partners such as "fat chance of that" will be ignored). South leads from dummy when he should have led from his hand. I perceive that this is a mistake, because South could have made the contract by leading from his hand but not by leading from dummy. Is West allowed per Law 16 to draw any inference from the fact that I actively accept the lead from dummy (as by saying "you're actually in hand, but I'm going to play second to this trick"), rather than from my simply playing second to the trick? If I do simply play second to the trick, is West allowed per Law 16 to draw the inference that I don't care, else I would have actively accepted the lead from dummy? Once, I had a queen in front of dummy's king-jack. Declarer led towards the king-jack, and I played low slowly to give my partner time to object to declarer's lead from the wrong hand. He didn't object, so declarer went up with the king and screamed blue murder when partner won the ace. Did I do wrong?

Sure - if you get a bad result, you are 100% to blame. But I would attribute 0% to North, 0% to South, and 100% to the Grinch Who Stole Christmas.

Unlikely. After all, there has unaccountably been little public support for my equally sensible suggestion that the penalty for a revoke should be death, so that sooner or later bridge would come to be played only by people who could follow suit and there would be no one left to moan about the fact that the current revoke law is inequitable. However, I am entirely serious when I say this: people who claim should follow Law 68C in terms of stating far more exactly than they do at the moment the number of tricks they are claiming and the order of play that will lead to making those tricks. If they do not follow that Law (which is in the current code, not the Burn Laws of 2020), then they should expect to be ruled against far more often and far more severely than at present.

A thing that always puzzles me: why do people instinctively play ace of diamonds and ruff a low diamond in positions like this? Why not play ace and king of diamonds (if the suit was 5-1, you weren't going to set it up anyway)? Running that nine of spades was a blunder, it is true - but ruffing that second diamond was a more serious blunder.

Of course, players will be required to claim more carefully than they do at present if they want to be awarded the tricks that are rightfully theirs. In fact, they will be required to claim as they are legally required to claim at present but do not, because this "case law" of which you speak means that in most cases they are not penalized (sorry, do not undergo rectification) for failing to make the kind of claim statement that the present Law 68C demands. In the example you give above, declarer will need to delay the progress of the game for as long as it takes him to cash the jack of diamonds before tabling his cards. So what? The kind of thinking that requires him to cash the jack of diamonds before tabling his cards is precisely the kind of thinking that should be encouraged, because it will lead to fewer bum claims (indeed, in the limit it will lead to none whatsoever without actually slowing down the progress of the game very much at all). The analogy with the third umpire at cricket, or with the use of technology in sport in general, is simply false. An AC is required to make exactly the same kind of "value judgement" as a Director, without the aid of technology and without the aid of clearly-defined Laws. The question "did the ball cross the line?" is capable of better resolution with the aid of technology; the question "is it normal to try to cash the fifth club when West shows out on the first?" is not. The substitution of an AC's ruling for a Director's ruling does nothing to advance the belief that the ruling is correct, unlike the substitution of a third umpire's ruling for that of the umpire on the field. Law 71E1 does not exist, and Law 70E1 is as far as I can see not relevant. But since neither of them would exist under Burn's 68th Law, this does not actually matter very much.

[hv=pc=n&e=s8ht764dakj84cq86&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1s3hppdp]133|200[/hv] Game all, IMPs, opponents both solid players, partner equally solid if not more so. 1♠ showed 5+ cards in the context of a 2/1 system with no strong opening except 2♣. Your double of 3♥ would be for takeout. Do you agree with East's pass over 3♥? If not, what call do you make? Having taken over from an East who passed over 3♥, what call do you now make?

I am not at all sure about this. Whereas a declarer who sees East drop the king of spades under the ace will not "normally" fail to notice that the jack of spades is therefore a winner, a declarer who claims on the basis that he has "twelve top tricks" may "normally" fail to notice that his fifth club isn't good even though West shows out on the first round of clubs. But what has that to do with anything? Waffle about declarer finding out that he doesn't have five club tricks, so that repeating the spade finesse has become "normal play" even though declarer explicitly said that he would not do it, is... well, it is waffle. So is waffle to the effect that declarer, on finding out that he doesn't have five club tricks, is "luckily" forced by his statement not to repeat the spade finesse. If you attempt to adjudicate doubtful claims on the basis of "what would have happened if declarer had played the hand out", you are bound (as this thread and many others amply show) to get involved in the kind of subjective reasoning about declarer's ability and state of mind, and about the "intent" of the Laws, that leads to complete absurdity. This is not entirely your fault, of course, for the Laws themselves are (in this respect) completely absurd; nevertheless, it is important to follow them if at all possible. We do so thus: Declarer has claimed. He should have made "a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played" [Law 68C]. He hasn't - he has merely burbled something about not repeating the spade finesse because he has "twelve top tricks". The opponents (presumably) having objected to the claim, the Director "hears the opponents’ objections to the claim (but the Director’s considerations are not limited only to the opponents’ objections)". [Law 70B2]. Well, East objects on the grounds that declarer does not have "twelve top tricks". That is: East has spotted that declarer does not have five club tricks. The Director has doubtless spotted it also - but that is no reason for the Director to believe that South would have spotted it even if South had played the hand out. He didn't spot the possibility before he claimed - why should he be presumed to spot it if he continues to play? Many, many times I have seen declarers (and defenders) try to cash a card that isn't a winner because the suit has broken worse than they imagined it could; I am sure that everyone here has experienced such cases. In my sleepier moments, which become more frequent as my years advance, I have made such plays myself. Of course, I should have claimed instead - or at least, I should have claimed if certain lunatic contributions to these forums are to be viewed as representing the current legal position. These plays fall squarely into the category of "careless" or "inferior", and these plays are certainly "normal" within the meaning of the Act. And declarers prone to making them should not be saved from the consequences of their folly simply because the opponents or the Director can count better than they can. Frances is quite right - declarer should be presumed to try to cash his clubs, and to lose the fifth round of the suit to East. But should he, as Frances suggests, be presumed to cash his side winners first? And if so, might not those side winners include the ace of spades? How can Frances justify her suggestion that declarer would in fact cash his red-suit tops but not the spade ace before the fifth club? Now do you begin to see what happens if you follow the route of trying to decide how a "normal" declarer would in fact play the hand? And now do you begin to see why this route leads to complete absurdity? It simply must not be the case that two equally and highly competent referees, confronted with exactly the same set of facts, should give two diametrically opposite decisions both of which they can argue with equal force are consistent with the Laws. Yet this happens time and time again at bridge (and will continue to happen as long as the Laws attempt to remain based in some nebulous notion of "equity"). This is why the only rational Law relating to claims reads as follows: Law 68C A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. In adjudicating a claim, any cards not explicitly covered by this statement will be adjudged by the Director to be played in the legal order least advantageous to the claimer's side, and the score adjusted accordingly (in the absence of any statement, all cards belonging to the claimer's side are so treated). It will be noted that once this suggestion is adopted, the Law that follows it will be the present Law 72. What is good for bridge is also good for the rain forest. Meanwhile, declarer is down at least three (two for being incompetent and one for wasting police time) - but since he probably doesn't exist, he probably won't mind.

No one aspiring to even "medium" status would try to play this in a 5-3 heart fit. East may well have reasoned "initially I forgot and thought 2NT was minors - maybe West also forgot, so let's try 3♣." This phenomenon is known as "reverberant doubt" and is not uncommon among bridge players. If that was what East was doing, he should be executed for terrible ethics; if he was really going to play 4♥ when West had five of them, he should be executed for terrible bidding. Either way, he will not be greatly missed.

If you have a solid minor and a spade stop, you bid 3NT without asking any questions. If on the other hand you have a solid minor without a spade stop, you ask a question and then bid 3NT. Partner will of course remove this without a spade stop of his own, and this will be all right because it was the opponents' infraction that caused you to be in this position in the first place (the "gnasher defence"). Should you fail to adopt this obvious solution, you will be held as an experienced player to have failed to protect yourself adequately against potential misinformation. You may object that the solution involves cheating, and you would be right, but I cannot help that. Certain regulations, in particular the EBU regulations regarding questions, are sufficiently ridiculous that the only way to defend against them is openly to defy them.

Some tentative thoughts on the principles involved, having recently given a couple of "simple rulings" about which the players concerned are still doing vast amounts of ear-bashing. The relevant passages from the Laws are: Now, the important words in Law 73F are the first clause: When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent... These are often ignored by those who believe that just because a player who appeared to think had no apparent reason for thinking, that in itself is sufficient reason to adjust. For redress to be due, there must have been a violation of Law (or Propriety, which is the same thing nowadays), and thinking is not a violation of Law. If this South thought he had something to think about, then whether or not (in the opinion of better players) he should have been thinking about it at all, he has not violated 73D2 - that is, he has not "attempted to mislead" by pretending to think. Nevertheless, he has (or may have) violated 73D1 by not being "particularly careful" when his variation in tempo might work to the benefit of his side (as it appears to have done in this case). That is the reason it is still appropriate to use Law 73F in favour of East-West - as Jeremy correctly remarks, thinking on tram tickets after 1NT-pass-pass is an old dodge of which no self-respecting player nowadays should even be suspected. But it is not always the case that Law 73F can be used when there has been no attempt to mislead and no dereliction of the duty of "particular care". I summarize the two "ear-bashing" cases briefly below, in order to exemplify my way of thinking with an acknowledgement that I might have been wrong in either case or both. Case 1: a player was defending 6NT after a relay auction in which declarer had shown a 5=3=3=2 shape. At a critical point, he asked dummy to confirm that declarer really had shown 5=3=3=2. "Yes", said dummy. Dissatisfied still, the defender asked declarer to confirm that he really had shown 5=3=3=2. "Yes", said declarer, and added jocularly something to the effect that "...but you know what these systems are". Concluding from this that declarer was instead 4=4=3=2, the defender discarded the wrong thing and let the slam make because declarer really was (gasp) 5=3=3=2. My opinion was that although declarer's remark was (to say the least) inappropriate, it was not an attempt to mislead, nor did it fall foul of the need to take "particular care". There was no demonstrable bridge reason for making the remark, though, so had it not been for the opening words of Law 73F I would have adjusted the score anyway. But those words are there, and they are there for a reason. Case 2: declarer in two diamonds doubled had a trump suit of K7432 facing 1065. He led an early round from his hand - two, jack, five, eight. Later he led the six from dummy and caught a very slow nine to his right. He thought about it for a long while, then lost the king to the (now singleton) ace on his left and was down one instead of making. The bidding had marked RHO with next to nothing, and there was no doubt that had the ♦9 been played in anything like normal tempo, declarer would have ducked - he almost ducked anyway, because he knows about the "own risk" provision of Law 73D1. But there was also no doubt that the chap who played the nine slowly was just wool-gathering - there was absolutely no "attempt to mislead", and no violation of Law 73D2. (You may say that this implies a trust in the chap's character that might not be warranted, but you will have to take my word for it that the chap is as honest as they come). Here, though, there was a violation of Law 73D1 - the chap had failed to be "particularly careful" when he should have been. These are deep waters, and as has been made clear by the replies so far, nothing very much actually belongs in "Simple Rulings" at all.

If North-South allege that they have been damaged by an irregularity, correct procedure is for the Director to determine why they think they have been damaged and to allow redress if the damage was in whole or in part due to the irregularity. That is: if North-South allege that absent the irregularity (MI from West as to the nature of the 1NT overcall) North-South would have played in a club part score, they must show plausibly how they might have achieved such a result. What would South have done over an overcall that showed round or pointed suits? What would North have done over South's action? And so on, and so forth. If, for example, South says "I would have bid 2♠ to show about 4-7 points with spades", and North says "then I would have bid 3♣, natural and non-forcing", and South says "then I would have passed", and if the Director believes all of this (at first sight it is plausible but see below), then he should adjust to 3♣ by North making nine or ten tricks. If they allege that they would instead have defended 2♦ - well, again the Director is in duty bound to listen to how they might have conducted the auction in order to achieve this, but I must say that any explanation would strike me as a lorry full of shoemakers. North opens a strong club, and South passes the opponents out in two diamonds? I hae, as they say north of the border, me doots. Whereas the benefit of doubt should be given to the non-offending side, they should not be presumed to operate with 20-20 hindsight. The above follows the principle set out in Law 21B3 that if a misinformed player obtains a worse result than he would have done had he been correctly informed, the score should be adjusted in his favour. It does not really matter how good or how bad a contract 3NT was - if North-South would have reached a more profitable contract with the right explanation of 1NT, that is where they should be deemed to play. Mind you, if North bid 3NT when he thought East had the minors, who knows what he might have done had he been told that East didn't have the minors? My guess is that he'd have bid 3NT anyway once he found that South had some spades and a few points, so I would not necessarily believe the "at first sight plausible" explanation outlined above. It is open to a Director to draw inferences from the actual auction that the proposed auction by the pair claiming damage would not actually have happened. Finally, this is an impressive post from a Director who has just completed the Club Directors course, and I congratulate the original poster who will, I am sure, acquit himself nobly once he or she is given some actual directing to do. At any rate, I hope so.

Oh, I don't mind it either. But that is why I suggested that the hands matter, and the vulnerability matters, and the form of scoring matters. If you are going to take the view that North would look at East only when North had a good hand, you need as a minimum the supporting evidence that North had a good hand in the actual case as posted. If you are going to take the view that South used whatever UI may have existed, you need as a minimum the supporting evidence that South would sometimes pass "the worst 2♥ overcall ever" - but at love all, for example, some very good matchpoint players would never pass the opponents out in 1NT if they had a five-card suit that their methods allowed then to show. If the question is no more than "does ostentatiously waiting for an announcement necessarily convey UI", I would answer with bluejak "No". But if it came to my attention that the next time North heard an unannounced 1NT to his right, he passed with [a] no histrionics and a balanced four count, I might change my mind.