dburn

Martian: "What is equity?" Earthman: "Equity is satisfied when a thief, on being immediately apprehended for the crime of stealing a dollar, is compelled to give his victim two dollars." Martian: "I see. Tell me - if the thief steals three dollars, must he give four dollars to his victim, or six?" Earthman: "No, no - only three, for equity is thereby also satisfied." Martian (into communicator): "Prepare to return to base - our journey has been wasted. There is no intelligent life here."

The difficulty with the notion that something should be alerted if it is "highly unusual" or "unexpected" is, of course, that it leaves open the question "unusual to whom?" or "unexpected by whom?" There are no doubt many players for whom any redouble that is not to play is "highly unusual" and more or less totally "unexpected". There are no doubt many other players for whom almost all redoubles are for rescue (or a transfer, or show a top honour in the suit of partner's overcall, or show three-card support for the suit of partner's response, or...). A Committee containing players in both of the categories above may experience some difficulty in coming to a decision, given the vagueness of the regulation. The primary (indeed, the only) reason for alerting anything at all is not to conform to some set of regulations, however well intended. Instead, it is to ensure that your opponents will know what is happening in any given auction, especially when there is no reason to suppose that they can work it out from what would be the "natural" significance of your calls in that auction. For that reason I would expect, in the absence of a completely clear regulation to the contrary, that any player would alert any redouble that expressly showed a desire for partner not to play the present contract redoubled. If the regulations leave the question of "alertability" (of a redouble or of anything else) open to doubt, then: [a] the regulations should be amended so that they do not; and in the meantime, players should follow the principle I have just cited. That said: if the bidding proceeded 1NT - penalty double - business redouble to me, and I held a nine count, I would consider it highly likely that all was not what it seemed, and I would ask a question or two before making my next call, rather than at the end of the play. But I am an experienced player with the firm belief that I should take certain steps in the presence of possible misinformation from the opponents; I can understand that a less experienced player (or one with a less firm belief) might act otherwise.

Treating this as a serious question about damage from misinformation, not a question about how to deal with thirteen card suits ... Following Law 12B: I rule no damage to the non-offending side, no advantage gained by the offending side through its infraction; so no adjustment. Thank you, Robin - that is most... er, what's that new word bluejak has learned? Ah, yes... responsive. Now, in the actual case West had a nine count, and his partner doubled a 1NT opening, and he signed off. The question bluejak asks is: "might West have done something else if his opponents had done something else as far as alerting and explaining was concerned?" If so, bluejak wants us to adjust not necessarily East-West's score, but (necessarily) North-South's score. In the example I gave (which, I freely concede, is not take from actual play) West has done something ridiculous, but may claim to have done it because his opponents' explanations caused him to doubt the evidence of his own eyes. But there comes a point at which we say (as Robin says above) that the cause of the damage to East-West was entirely their own stupidity, and that there is no reason to suppose that they would have been any less stupid had the opponents not committed an infraction. In the actual case, there is no reason to suppose that a West who ridiculously signed off after South redoubled would not, equally ridiculously, have signed off after South passed (or after North gave a correct explanation of the redouble). That is, there is no reason to adjust the score for either pair in the actual case, any more than in my example case. Of course, one may penalize North-South for a breach of the alerting regulations, but that is not the same as adjusting their score to minus 620. Nonetheless, there are circumstances in which such an adjustment would be reasonable. If East-West were in the habit of doubling 1NT with 13 points or so; or if West were a clearly inexperienced player overawed by an eminent South into doubting East's double rather than South's redouble or North's opening bid; then one might say that the cause of damage was not entirely West's stupidity. But bluejak seems to assume that North-South should not be allowed to "get away" without a score adjustment, on the basis that West "might" have acted differently in different circumstances. He might, but that is not the only consideration.

Try to bear with me, bluejak - this is, I promise, a serious question. West holds: ♠AKQJ1098765432 ♥None ♦None ♣None South, dealer, opens 1♠, alerted by North. West enquires, and discovers that according to the partnership methods, this shows the ace of spades. Convinced, despite repeated examinations of his cards, that his ace of spades must in fact be the ace of clubs, West bids six spades and calls you to the table after making thirteen tricks. It transpired that North's explanation was in error - South's opening bid actually showed the ace of clubs. How would you rule? Again, I stress that this is a serious question. I note what you say above regarding the different scores that might be awarded to a pair giving a misexplanation and a pair affected by that misexplanation. And, to some extent, I agree with what you say - in the actual case, NS -620 and EW +170 seems to me a reasonable ruling. But I am not at all sure that if a player makes a "serious error" following a misexplanation, his opponents should automatically be awarded the worst score they might have obtained had the misexplanation not been given.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "a normal revoke". What I tell you is this: that the "random" transfer of anywhere between 0 and 2 tricks certainly does not "restore equity" in the vast majority of cases. This is to be expected, of course, for any "random" penalty will have little to do with "equity" in the first place. It may be worthwhile to examine why the revoke Law and other Laws are as they are. One begins with the reasonable notion that if you steal what is not yours, you should give it back. One supplements this with the equally reasonable notion that you should be punished for attempted theft. Hence, the earliest form of the revoke law involved an implacable transfer of two tricks - the one that you stole (by ruffing when you could follow suit) and the one that constituted your debt to society as embodied by your present opponents. The assumption underlying all this is that no one would actually revoke except for immediate gain - that is, miscreants would cheat by ruffing when they could follow suit. Similarly, the assumption underlying the Laws relating to calls out of turn, or insufficient bids, is that no one would actually make them except for gain; so, the Laws were constructed to ensure that [a] no gain could ensue and the offenders would be punished (by having to bid in the dark). Now, there was no question of "equity" involved in any of this. The notions were more primitive: the penalty for doing wrong combined an element of restitution with an element of deterrence (you gave the opponents their trick back, and you were penalized another trick to encourage you not to commit the same offence again). Of course, this would not do - it became clear (if it was not clear already) that even after the prescribed penalty was paid, some revokes could gain more than the trick transferred by way of restitution and the trick transferred by way of deterrence. What was done about this? Well, by that time an enlightened society had chosen to distinguish between deliberate and inadvertent transgressions; so that if you swindled the opponents out of three tricks (with or without meaning to), you didn't have to give them anything by way of a deterrent in order to prevent you from trying the same swindle again. If on the other hand you swindled them out of no tricks at all (as by showing out, then showing back in again while an opponent ran a solid suit), you were punished to the full extent of the Law. That extent is now one trick rather than the two it used to be, but whatever else it is, it is not "equitable". This is, of course, hopeless. But it is the Law, and (as with many of the other Laws to which I have alluded), it is an unacceptable compromise between one of two equally tenable positions. The first (and the easier) of these is to cast the Laws as if everyone were potentially a cheat. The second (and the more difficult) is to cast the Laws as if everyone were determined to follow them to the letter, and to ignore transgressions by calling them all "irregularities" rather than "infractions", and to refer to "rectification" rather than "penalty". Moreover, one refers - as Bluejak refers in his more lucid moments - not to a "cheat" but, pardon him, to someone who has "inadvertently" failed to follow the rules. Almost all games have rules that follow the first of the paths outlined above. Bridge is the only game I know that follows the second. Hinc, as someone wisely remarked, illae lacrimae.

Why are they different? Because the situations are different. We have a Law that in effect simplifies life for TDs - especially lesser TDs - by often making sure equity is satisfied, and also providing a random penalty element of between 0 and 2 tricks. If you do not like the Law this is not the right forum to discuss a change. But we have to interpret it and apply it, and the random penalty element is part of it. I should go on record here as saying that I agree with almost every word uttered by my learned brother Bluejak. I would, however, make one small correction: in the phrase "by often making sure equity is satisfied", the word "often" should be replaced by the words "almost never".

No one is talking about whether North-South failed to investigate game. What Tyler is suggesting is that West's failure to investigate game, with a nine count facing a double of 1NT, may be evidence that East might not have as much for a double of 1NT as you or I might have. Either that, of course, or West might have made a serious error in failing to investigate game - he did bid 2♥ "to play", after all. Put it this way: suppose that South's redouble were actually to play, and that he had the values for it because North had psyched his 1NT opening. If you were West's team-mate, would you be inclined to say "there, there - of course you should have bid 2♥, because you had to believe the opponents' bidding and not your partner's?" Or would you be inclined, as I would, to say "you cretin - your partner showed a penalty double of 1NT, and you signed off in 2♥ with a nine count?"

I think you mean "if you guess wrongly, then the director will treat it as misinformation". That seems to me reasonable, for any statement to the effect that "we have such-and-such an agreement" is misinformation if in fact "we" don't, but if your guess is correct, the chances are that no harm will be done. I do not agree at all with the notion that "if you don't want to guess, then you may offer to leave the table". Apart from the fact that this creates UI for partner, which is admittedly only a minor inconvenience since he is constrained not to act on it, there is no reason why you should have to guess even though you may opt to do so. If it really is the case that your partnership has no agreement as to the meaning of a call, that is what you should say, for that is all the information to which your opponents are entitled. As to "the standard system", that - whether em (not im) bellished or otherwise - is pie in the sky. It is hard enough to remember one's own methods, without having to remember the extent to which they might deviate from some "standard" or other. Even Paul Erdos was wise enough to know that he had to meet the Supreme Fascist before being permitted to read The Book.

I would have thought the exact opposite: with a bad hand and long hearts I would bid immediately, while with a good hand in context (whether it contained long hearts or not) I would pass and act later if there were further bidding. That is: if I pass over 1NT redoubled, then (whatever the redouble means) I show preparedness to defend 1NT redoubled; if I bid, then I don't. It bewilders me that some other approach might be considered "standard", but these days I spend much of my life in a state of bewilderment (whether at the bridge table or away from it). I should say that if a chap with five hearts and a nine count bid 2♥ "to play" when his partner had doubled 1NT, I would be likely to find that he had committed a serious error. In these enlightened times, though, it appears that provided the opponents can be shown to have done something illegal, you can no longer be held to have done something stupid even when you patently have.

IMO, the new information doesn't make a lot of difference. Perhaps... After the auction, ♠K = 10, ♦Q = 8, ♥ = 6. After learning about possible Canapé, ♦Q = 10, ♠K = 8, ♥ = 4. That doesn't seem right. If declarer is certain to have five hearts and may only have four clubs, so that the heart fit is likely to be 5-3, there is less urgency to set up fast winners; if declarer is certain to have at least five clubs and may only have four hearts, so that the heart fit is likely to be 4-4, there is more urgency to set up fast winners. Thus, I would be more inclined to lead a diamond against the auction "without canapé" and a spade against the auction "with canapé". I might lead a trump against the "without canapé" auction, while I would never do so against the "with canapé" auction (that lead would seem to me bizarre, since it is the lead most likely to allow a 4-3 fit to make). Probably, though, I would lead a spade against either auction. It isn't clear to me at the moment how we're going to beat this contract anyway, but I know how we're going to let it make: by leading a diamond and finding declarer with ♦Ax, dummy with ♦K10 and others, and our side with two fast spade tricks that have just become one slow spade trick to go with our heart trick and our club trick. Of course, declarer could have ♠Ax and dummy ♠Jxx(+), while declarer also has ♦Ax facing a bunch of low ones and we have enough control to prevent declarer establishing his clubs to pitch dummy's spade losers in time (now do you see why it matters how many clubs declarer surely has?) But that's life.

Actually (at least in the EBU L&E) it was held that it did not matter whether a player taking an illogical alternative action was in breach of Law 16 or not. If his motive was to increase his expected score on the board, he was in breach of Law 73 because he had failed in his duty not to take any advantage of UI. In the ACBL, as previously noted, it is now held that any action taken by a player is considered among the LAs for that player.

North should not have covered the nine; declarer's correct play for no loser when the queen is covered is to lead to the jack next. If declarer did not have the eight he would not lead the nine, since this is a "hopeless" play. South was right in the sense that declarer should have been going to play South for ♥K10. Students should note that if South does not cover the king in this position, East will (if playing optimally) next run the jack, so perhaps South ought to have allowed this to happen, since he seems to know more than North does.

As has been pointed out (twice, in fact) they don't.

I am still baffled. What aspect of "bridge judgement" do you believe is exercised in determining whether or not a player has passed at some stage during the auction?

Ye Gods and little fishes - what "answer"? Do you mean to say that: in some case A, a player's failure to notice partner's original pass is a "serious error"; while in some case B, it is not? If you do mean to say that, perhaps you could provide an example that might enable students of the Law to distinguish among cases A and B. If you do not mean to say that, what do you mean to say?

If the question were "is it a serious error not to have spotted that partner is a passed hand?" I would far rather have a definitive answer (however arbitrary) than to have a situation in which one Committee might say yes, while another might say no. What would be the point of conducting a poll, or listening to players' views, in such a case?

Would play ♣A and a club. What happens?

For the sake of simplicity, I will grant this and say that partner is as likely to have a marginal game bid as a marginal slam try. Equally, for the sake of simplicity I will assume that if partner has a marginal slam try, slam will make (certainly if I had this and my partner made any kind of slam try, I would bid a slam and expect it to be cold most of the time and good the rest of the time). If partner has a marginal game bid, then slam will not make very often, but it will make enough of the time that the overall expectation from bidding it is positive (not least because some of the time that slam does not make, game will also not make). The question is not "what kind of hand does partner's BIT suggest?" but "given that partner has a hand that justifies a BIT, is one more likely to gain by bidding six than by passing four?" If the answer to the second question is "yes", as I believe that it is, then the BIT demonstrably suggests bidding six regardless of what the BIT actually suggests about partner's hand (as I have said above, I am happy to concede that it says nothing about partner's hand other than "I do not have a clear 4♥ bid").

Eleven, subject to the Director's view under Law 64C. That deals with East's revoke at trick two. That deals with East's revoke at trick three. I can see no reason why a Director would apply Law 64C to arrive at a different conclusion, but I can see no reason for a number of things Directors do, despite which they do them anyway.

No. "Typically" 1♣-1♦-2NT does not deny a four-card major, so if you are playing this "bizarre" method (first described in the Bridge World circa 1983 and currently employed by, among others, Zia Mahmood and his partners) 3♥ shows four spades and 3N denies a like number.

If I am to be considered one of the "others", then my answers are yes, yes, yes, yes, no and yes. I do not want to play against people who do not know their methods, and thereby initiate calls for the Director - I would rather win or lose at bridge because I played better or worse than my opponents, not because their memory was worse or better than mine. I do not want to sit on appeals committees when I could be sitting in the pub. I do not want to have to decide whether or how I should be protecting myself against damage from possible misinformation, instead of deciding what to bid or how to play. Still less do I want Directors or Committees making those decisions for me, since absolutely none of them has any clue whatsoever how to do it. I do not want to see tournaments decided on the basis of split scores, weighted scores, artificial adjusted scores, or anything but the scores obtained at the table. All of these things make bridge a less enjoyable game for me than it ought to be. I don't care whether the methods people forget are artificial or not - but an artificial method is considerably more likely than a natural one to be forgotten. I do care that a great many problems that spoil the game arise because the purveyors of both artificial and natural methods do not disclose them properly, and because their opponents are not given anything like enough opportunity to prepare defences - but an artificial method is considerably more likely than a natural one to create such problems. As I have said, I think people ought to be allowed to play whatever they like, but only if they can disclose it properly. As soon as it becomes clear that they can't, they should be prevented from playing it until they can.

The word "demonstrably" implies that there must be some substance in the alleged suggestion of the chosen action. The word "could" reduces the requirement for a proof to showing a likely possibility. These two words are both essential. Neither of the words "could" and "demonstrably" is even useful, let alone essential. We begin with the proposition "X is suggested". We strengthen this to "X is demonstrably suggested", and then weaken it again to "X could demonstrably be suggested". In so doing we accomplish precisely nothing, except to ensure that we follow standard legal practice in not using one word when three will do.

Yes. That is much better.Well, maybe. It certainly does what the ACBL wants, which is to prevent people from fluking good scores by choosing an illogical alternative that happens to work. It also makes clear that you are allowed to do what the AI suggests even when it is also what the UI suggests (this is obvious anyway, but the wording of the current Law renders it less obvious than it ought to be). Perhaps it also resolves the conflict between Law 73 and Law 16, and it may even cure cancer and neutralize greenhouse gases. As an afterthought, for next to nothing you could remove the words "that could demonstrably have been" without detracting from the sense. But there is probably something wrong with it that I haven't spotted. Well it was said by the bard: A Romanian rhymer I met Used a system he based on roulette. His reliance on chance Was a def'nite advance And yet... and yet... and yet...

If an opponent doubles you and you go for 1400, is the double an action which "might cause annoyance" or "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". It has always seemed a clear infringement of Law 74A2. :( Indeed. That is why all doubles today are for takeout.

This is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard. If the Laws are not designed to prevent cheating, what in blazes are they designed to do? They are designed to run a game, and define how it is played. If you do not know this, I am absolutely flabbergasted. Surely you realise that the Laws are designed to control the playing of bridge? Of course they are. But in defining how a game is played, its Laws say also how it is not played. That is: they render certain practices illegal (failing to follow suit when able to do so, communicating with partner other than by means of legal calls and plays, and so on and and so forth). For these illegal practices, the Laws impose what used to be called "penalties" but are now called "rectifications" (however, for something to be put right, a wrong must first have been done). That is: the Laws seek to provide redress when players act illegally either through ignorance or by design. In so doing, the Laws take no particular notice of whether an offender has acted illegally through ignorance or by design. Although there is a common assumption that no one will "really" act illegally on purpose, this does not matter - the "penalty" or the "rectification" will be identical regardless of the actual motive of the offender. As I once put it in a remark that led to the existence of that helpful legal fiction the "Probst Cheat": When we rule against you, we do not say that you are a cheat; we say only that you did what a cheat might have done. We are right to do so, of course, for the vast majority of infractions are committed through ignorance and not by design - no one actually revokes on purpose. But again, this does not matter: what the Laws are designed to do is to ensure that no one derives benefit from breaking them, no matter what their motives. That is: the Laws are designed to prevent cheats from prospering, and in that (important) respect to prevent (by deterring) cheating. In English, the verb "to cheat" carries a very definite connotation of wilfulness; to cheat is to gain an advantage through deliberate chicanery. It is true that at bridge, most people who break the Laws do not do so by design, and are thus not actually "cheats" - but again, this does not matter, for they will be dealt with as though they were. It is also true that anyone who is incontrovertibly found to have attempted to gain an advantage by a premeditated attempt to break the Laws is dealt with far more severely than someone who is merely found to have acted illegally while the balance of his mind was temporarily disturbed. That is why, for example, Law 73B2 says that: That Law is expressly designed to prevent cheating. But so are all the other Laws, from Law 1 onwards; if you break one of those Laws, you are not necessarily a cheat - but you might be.