dburn

I observe that Ton Kooijman's paper on Adjusted Scores says (in my opinion) all that needs to be said about Reveley Rulings: Of course, this is not the full story. Suppose West "uses UI" to bid four spades over South's four hearts and his side scores well thereby. A Director or a Committee may cancel West's bid of four spades - but may still consider that East would (some or all of the time) bid four spades anyway after an in-tempo pass by West. In such a case, the Director or the Committee may make an adjustment based in whole or in part on a contract of four spades (doubled or not, according to circumstance) by East-West. I observe also that I have read Grattan's paper twice now, and I don't understand it. But this is to be expected: on a fifth reading I will perhaps have some idea of what it means, and by the eighth or ninth I may even be able to say whether I agree with it or not.

I am not sure I understand mycroft's question, but I will do my best to answer it. Violation of any regulation made in accordance with Law 80B2f is an irregularity, and as far as I can tell and as far as my own opinion goes is subject to rectification (including disciplinary or procedural penalty) as if that regulation were Law. For example, if the Tournament Organizer says "no cellphones in the playing area", when you are found to have a cellphone you must pay the penalty (the regulation is pursuant to Law 40C3, which says that a player is not entitled to any aid to memory, calculation, or technique, and it may reasonably be held that a cellphone might constitute such an aid). There isn't actually anything in the Laws that embodies the notion that "Bridge Is A Timed Event" (cf. chess, which is a timed event because it has dealt with the problem correctly). It's not illegal to do a whole lot of thinking. Indeed, any "slow play guidelines" (or regulations) are on very shaky legal grounds - what Law says that I can't pause for a minute (or an hour) before every call or play that I make? You might claim that I am prolonging play unnecessarily, but I might claim that I need the time to make sure I can play to the best of my ability - if I were compelled to play faster, I would be in breach of Laws 74A and 75B1. The only way to make sure that I don't do "too much thinking" at the expense of my opponents or the field or the smooth running of the event is to allocate an overall time (in minutes and seconds) during which I can do "my" thinking for the match, or the round, or the session, or whatever (and my partner and opponents likewise). But to implement any kind of Law or regulation which acknowledges this simple truth has always been regarded as infeasible. So we muddle along: "try to catch up on the next round" says the director at the club; "both sides are equally responsible when a match finishes late unless a monitor has been called" say the international regulations, but no one has yet had the courage to summon a monitor before playing board one against tut-tut-tut or what's-his-name or also - well, you know who.

My own comment on the Facebook discussion was: Superficially, dummy is in breach of Laws 74A2 and 74B2. If he could have known that these breaches could damage the opponents, the Director may award an adjusted score under Law 23. This has nothing to do with dummy's rights as defined in, for example, Law 9B3: When an irregularity has occurred dummy may not draw attention to it during the play period but may do so after play of the hand is concluded. However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43). which suggests that if slow play is an irregularity per se, a dummy who has not forfeited rights per Laws 42 and 43 may not draw attention to it during the play, but may try to prevent another player from committing it. This is an absurdity: how can dummy prevent his opponents (or his partner) from playing slowly without drawing attention to the fact that his opponents (or his partner) are playing slowly? Is slow play "an irregularity per se"? The Law waffles as follows: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. a truly ridiculous pronouncement which implies that no declarer should ever think about how to operate a trump coup, nor a defender about whether to attempt a Deschapelles, because doing so may "work to the benefit of their side" (if they actually succeed). I know that this is not what the Law intends, but it is what the Law says; the words "work to the benefit of their side" should be replaced by "convey unauthorized information to partner or deceive an opponent", but the Laws are written in Weasel by sheep for chimpanzees. Assuming that varying one's steady tempo or manner by thinking about how to extract the maximum from the cards one holds is not really illegal even though Law 73D1 says in so many plain words that it is, the Law remarks also that "a player should refrain from [...] prolonging play unnecessarily". Well, defenders who have to think about not chucking overtricks in a pairs event are not prolonging play "unnecessarily", so a dummy who makes some general remark about the speed of play of his opponents is not "attempting to prevent an irregularity" - instead, he is making "a remark [...] that might cause embarrassment or annoyance to another player" (a breach of L74A2) or "a gratuitous comment during the [...] play" (a breach of Law 74B2). But there is a technical question to answer. In an event where timing is a critical factor to the extent that a round or a match that finishes late will attract score penalties for slow play: may dummy, during the play of any particular board, cause a time monitor to be called to the table?

Thomas Andrews has a fairly thorough discussion of this topic on his Bridge Fantasia site. He gives this:[hv=pc=n&s=sj9h65432dkcaqt87&w=skhaqt87d65432cj9&n=s65432hj9daqt87ck&e=saqt87hkdj9c65432]399|300[/hv] Whoever is declarer makes three tricks in his 65432 suit and five in his AQ1087 suit; he also makes three tricks in notrump.

My dictionary (compiled by the clever men at Oxford) can find no use of the word "curtall" [not a typo, but one of the original spellings of the verb] in English prior to 1553. It is scarcely possible that the word was used in America prior to 1553, but it is entirely possible that American lexicographers believe that the year 1553 occurred in the fifteenth century, given some of the other things they believe.

Assume screens as currently arranged: West (and South) would have no idea that North thought 2♥ was strong, and West would not have changed his call. Is the notion that, upon finding out that North had told East that 2♥ was strong, West could double the final contract? Assume the Kaplan Paradigm: East-West are entitled to knowledge of the North-South methods, and to nothing else. If the North-South methods are (demonstrably) that 2♥ is weak, that is all West is allowed to know. He would not have doubled given that knowledge; how can he double now? Moreover, under the Kaplan Paradigm I don't agree with mrdct at all: West would not know that North thought that 2♥ was strong, and cannot claim redress on the grounds that had he known this, he would defend differently. After all, had he known this (while also knowing that South knew that 2♥ was weak), West would bid differently; if we don't allow him to do the latter, on what basis do we allow him to do the former? Of course, the Kaplan Paradigm (despite being the only logical possibility according to Law 40 and the only desirable possibility according to common sense) is not fully capable of implementation in practice. It implies that whereas it is OK for people to deviate from their system (whether deliberately or accidentally as long as no prior partnership understanding is involved), it is not OK for the opponents to acquire in any way the knowledge that this deviation has taken place. But as a practical matter, especially without screens, sometimes the opponents are legally mandated to alert or explain or answer questions in a way that informs of the existence of a cock-up. And such information may be, per the Laws, authorised to those opponents. For myself, I would greatly prefer that the "principle of full disclosure" was always considered to conform to the Kaplan Paradigm: the opponents are entitled to know what methods you play, and they are not entitled to know that either of you has departed from those methods in some impromptu fashion, as long as that fashion is truly impromptu. But I would also prefer that a player may if he wishes consult the IMP scale during the auction. The WBFLC has a different view from mine in both cases. Either it is mad or I am, but in keeping with its view of full disclosure I will not at present opine which.

I am having difficulty understanding why South's "I want a club" is an infraction of Law - which Law? The only possibility I can see is that it is "a gratuitous comment during the auction and play", hence a breach of Law 74B2. But in the actual case it is close to impossible that East-West have been damaged (in the sense of being innocent parties to deception) by the "comment" that South wants a club lead (but see below). The level of experience of East appears to me completely irrelevant, except insofar as it might convince me to take a very dim view indeed of his performance. The Director should rule that East must lead whatever South legally requires him to lead, and that East's heart is... ...well, what is it? East led a heart, so that heart is not directly subject to Law 50 because it was led, not otherwise "prematurely exposed". Law 50 refers to Law 57 in the case of a card prematurely led, but Law 57 makes no reference whatsoever to the position in the actual case. Instead, it waffles on about what happens when a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, and so on, and so forth. Doubtless the position in the actual case was never envisaged by the Lawmakers, which is to some extent forgiveable. In the actual case, I would not as a Director choose not to designate East's heart as a penalty card - if I have any discretion at all (and the Laws themselves do not appear to cover the case, so I have all the discretion I want), that heart is as bent as a nine-bob note. It is a major penalty card; the fact that East has no clubs is UI to West; and East will be required after the end of play to present himself in front of the local firing squad. Of course, if East had a club and had in all innocence led it in response to South's illegal request for a club lead, then I would rule that South's "comment" might indeed have damaged East-West. That club would still become a major penalty card (though South would presumably require East to lead it in any case), but I might award an adjusted score on the basis of what would have happened if East had been required to lead a spade and not a club. I would then present myself in front of the local firing squad for having allowed the situation to degenerate in the first place, but alphatango won't do it again.

The paradigm on which the Laws appear to me to be based is this: East-West are entitled to an imaginary copy of North-South's complete system file, together with North-South's complete partnership experience of cocking things up (as well as their partnership experience of not cocking things up). Alerts, questions, explanations and so forth are unnecessary - East-West know exactly as much about North-South's agreements (both explicit and implicit) as the Law entitles them to know. So, when the bidding proceeds 2♥-pass-4♥-pass-pass, West knows that 2♥ is weak and that North has raised to 4♥. He is not entitled to know what North thought 2♥ was - he is only entitled to know what 2♥ actually was. If the entire imaginary portfolio of North-South's bridge experience reveals to West that North, after all these years (or minutes, for North-South may be a pick-up partnership), has a habit of forgetting that they play weak two bids and not strong ones, then West might double - but in a single isolated instance, why on Earth should he?

If North-South can demonstrate that: 2NT really was Jacoby in their methods; and South's 3♦ really did show a singleton in their methods; then had North-South followed the alert procedure correctly throughout, East-West would simply have been fixed. No doubt the above assumptions formed the basis of the ruling given in the Bulletin (which would not, for obvious reasons, discuss why it was that North signed off in 4♥ having received an apparently favourable response to 2NT - the article was not about use of UI by North). "Correct TD procedure" is usually to restore equity in the presumed absence of any infraction. Hence, a TD may correctly rule that if South had not committed the infraction of failing to alert 2NT, the table result was the equitable result and should stand. What blackshoe is arguing is that when North failed to correct the non-alert of 2NT, East-West were deprived of the opportunity to know that South had cocked things up in some way or other, or at any rate to guess that he might have done (either by failing to alert Jacoby or by failing to respond correctly to it). He has a point, in that if North had followed correct procedure after the auction by explaining that 2NT was Jacoby, West might or might not have misdefended - when North did not follow correct procedure, West was "bound to" misdefend. But "correct procedure" is designed only to ensure that East-West are properly informed about North-South's methods; it is not designed (nor should it be) to allow East-West to know anything either about North-South's actual hands or about North-South's actual thought processes. If East-West had been properly and tempestively [look it up] informed about North-South's methods, West would have misdefended, and the table result should stand. I stress, however, that the foregoing is true if and only if North-South really were playing Jacoby as assumed in the article. If in reality North-South had a history of forgetting Jacoby or the responses thereto, then of course East-West would be entitled to that information and perhaps to redress.

The standard defence to a strong club in my college days was: Double, 1♦ and 1NT were CRASH (but denied a good hand); 1M was a natural overcall (but denied a good hand); Two-level bids showed either that suit or the next two higher suits (but denied a good hand); 2NT showed any strong two-suiter; Higher bids were natural and weak (3NT and 4NT were majors resp. minors with a lot of shape). With a good hand, one passed and bid on the next round if appropriate. With a bad hand unsuitable for any of the above, one also passed of course. We occasionally played this method as opener or in second seat, pretending that RHO had opened a strong club (we replaced double with 1♣). A notable triumph occurred when I (perforce) passed a balanced 21 count as dealer, finding partner with a jack and the field in 2NT down at least one.

Since North-South don't have any agreement about 2NT, the only explanation to which West is entitled is "we don't have any agreement about 2NT". In the face of that explanation, he might or might not have doubled three diamonds - his statement that he would have doubled three diamonds was made in the context of an explanation that 2NT showed the majors, but he was not entitled to and should not be assumed to receive that explanation. As I have remarked before, it is a striking example of God's mercy to those who hate Him that people who cock up two-suited overcalls are invariably blessed with a passed partner. Hence, North might argue that South couldn't possibly want to play in three diamonds facing a major two-suiter, because a hand that wanted to do that would have opened the bidding with a pre-empt in diamonds. Such arguments are given rather less sympathy by me than by many of my learned colleagues on Appeals Committees. For example, if the bidding had been pass - 1♣ - 2NT explained as red suits - 5♣ - 5♦ - double, I would be strongly inclined to rule that North had to pass with his actual hand, but I suspect I would be in a minority. Still, in the actual case it would have been appropriate (as Nigel remarks) for some investigation to have been conducted as to the kinds of hand on which South would pass initially with a large number of diamonds. When cases of this kind appear on these forums, and indeed when cases of this kind appear (as they often do) outside these forums, one almost invariably finds that the Director has not asked enough of the right questions.

For clarity: suppose I were this East and I actually had ♠AQJxx ♥Kxx ♦QJ ♣AJx. Is it the contention that I should explain 3♥ as "might be based only on two-card support", because although I have never supported hearts with a doubleton on this auction in my life before, it has just occurred to me to wonder what I would do with ♠AQJxx ♥Kx ♦QJ ♣AJxx and I have concluded that I would indeed bid 3♥? Indeed, some appear to me to contend that East should tell South that East might only have two hearts even though it has never occurred to East that East might only have two hearts. One can see problems with this approach. I don't know what this particular East would have done with ♠AQJxx ♥KJ10x ♦QJ ♣Jx, but if I were playing his system I imagine I would bid 3♥. If East then told South that East might only have two hearts, so that South tried to give North two spade ruffs with ♦A as an entry for the second, thus letting through with an overtrick a game with four off the top, South might well be justified in screaming blue murder. And yet, the next time this deal occurs East is mandated to tell South that East might only have two hearts even when East actually has four, because East-West have now established an agreement that East might only have two. Good luck to the Director who has to sort that one out. Judging by the paper clip, I seem to have posted in this thread already. I cannot be bothered to look at what I said, and it is possible that I may now be contradicting myself (I am large, I contain multitudes). But as a practical matter: if I were East on the actual deal I would correct my partner's explanation of "at least three-card support" because on the actual deal I don't have it - I bid 3♥ because I have applied my judgement within the context of my system, and the opponents don't know the context of my system. If I actually had three hearts but it occurred to me that I might bid 3♥ with only two, I would stay schtum - what reason would I have to speak, after all? It is entirely possible that in so doing I might be acting illegally. But I sleep at night.

Did it occur to anyone to ask South why she passed 3♠?

Nor have I for some considerable time. But the annual match between London and the St Dunstan's institute for blind ex-service people used to be one of the more memorable fixtures on the calendar.

Theoretically, this is indeed the case. As a practical matter, though, one might hold that a player who wishes to change a designation after the completion of the current trick may not do so, since there has been a "pause for thought" as referred to in Law 45C4.

Perhaps. But consider: Dummy has a spade and a heart (and some diamonds, and perhaps a club or two). Declarer (South), intending to say "heart", inadvertently says "spade". Dummy, who is thinking of a plan to dye one's whiskers green, does not move. Yet I believe we are all agreed (even pran and bluejak) that dummy's spade is a played card the moment the word "spade" passes declarer's lips. Hence, East is not committing any irregularity when he follows suit with a spade. South now realises what he has done, and wants to correct his inadvertent designation so that North's heart and not North's spade becomes the lead to the trick. The Director is summoned, and is convinced that South's original designation "spade" was "unintended" within the meaning of Law 45C4: Since South has not yet played a card, the Director gives passing consideration only to the first seven words of this Law: the heart is played from dummy (who by now has completed his design to keep the Menai bridge from rust, so places the heart in the played position); East (if he wishes, or if he has a heart) changes his card; and all continue on their way rejoicing. Again, I do not believe that anyone here would dispute this procedure. Now consider: Events occur exactly as above, except that South plays the king of hearts to the trick before realising what he has done. He again wishes to change his original inadvertent designation, and the Director remains convinced that Law 45C4 applies as far as lack of intention is concerned. The Director must now consider the first seven words of Law 45C4: do they mean that South cannot change his designation because South is North's partner and has played a card (the king of hearts)? That (as far as I can tell) is the view of bluejak, pran and perhaps others - and I should say here that it seems to me a perfectly sensible and practical view. Unfortunately, it does not seem to me a legally sound view. North did not play the spade from dummy - South did that, and the card was played even though North had not physically done anything with it. For the purposes of Law 45C4, then, the "player" referred to can only be South, and "Until his partner has played a card" can mean only "Until North has played a card". Per Law 45B ( inter alia) North cannot actually play a card at all; and per Law 42A3 North (dummy) did not actually play the spade in any case (yet it was played). So, South may change his designation after all (even if West has also played to the trick). A question for those who consider that South may not change his designation: suppose South does not have any spades - does he still have to play the king of hearts?

Oh, there is no doubt that declarer is dummy's partner and vice versa. But the actual question is: does declarer play dummy's cards, or does dummy play dummy's cards?

Indeed. But this is because there is a helpful footnote to the effect that "a trick won in dummy is not won by declarer for the purposes of this Law". There is no such helpful footnote for Law 45C4b. Exceptio probat regulam, I might say, if I thought you would understand it.

No, he hasn't. You see, "declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card" - dummy does not, indeed cannot, actually play a card himself. Declarer, who may change an unintended designation "until his partner has played a card", may certainly therefore change it after he has played a card from his own hand, and after his left-hand opponent has played a card, since his partner has not played a card (and cannot do so until at least the start of the play period on the next hand). You didn't think that was what the Law said? To tell you the truth, neither did I until recently. We were wrong.

South, declarer at no trumps, says "spade" intending to say "heart". This is borne out because when East follows with a spade, South (who has spades) plays the king of hearts. West (who has no spades) plays a low heart and South now says "Sorry - I meant to ask for a heart." Assuming that the Director accepts this as an attempt to change an unintended designation: May South lead a heart from dummy? If so, may East (who has no hearts) change the spade he has played for some other card? Must South play the king of hearts? May West change the heart he has played for some other heart? If your answer to the first question was "no", you may have been disinclined to consider the other three. This was an error on your part.

Bluejak's construction of Law 73 is quite correct; it does not apply in the case of an innocent remark. Pran's is quite wrong; there is no violation of Law 73 unless there was an attempt to mislead (or an illegal communication between partners, obviously irrelevant here). Law 73 does not apply to this case at all. Fortunately, Law 74B2 makes the remark an irregularity ("a player should refrain from [...] making gratuitous comments during the auction and play"), and Law 23 then permits the Director to adjust the score ("Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side [...] the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.") This was not what the Law-makers intended should happen, of course; they should have widened the scope of 73F to include 74 as well as 73. But they have been saved from the consequences of their incompetence by a fluke; Law 23 was supposed to be a specific Law relating to irregularities during the auction period, but they forgot to include that specification in the Law itself, so now it handles just about everything that they have omitted to handle properly elsewhere.

No - South's first pass would already have denied sufficient stoppers and fit for diamonds to make 3NT viable. Compare and contrast an auction in which South, instead of passing at his first turn, had opened 1NT and might therefore have three aces and some hope of running his partner's long minor if it were, say, king-seventh - that is, an auction in which South might actually expect to make 3NT on a combined 15 count, with his opponents full value for doubling everything so far in sight without being assumed to be "psyching" in the least. Or, as you will, don't compare and contrast it, for to do so would detract immeasurably from the arguments you are trying to make. That is your prerogative, of course, but although Callaghan and I may be stupid, we're not as stupid as you are trying (without any justification that I can see) to imply that we are. The same goes for campboy and jallerton, of course, subject to the proviso that I don't consider at all that they may be stupid. An anecdote: Callaghan and I once had the auction 1♦ (Precision with a 15-17 no trump) - pass - 3♦ (weak) - double - pass - 3♥ - 3NT. Mirabile dictu, he didn't have some minor two-suiter with longer diamonds than clubs; he had (as anyone but you and the drunken hyenas at Bournemouth would expect him to have) king-queen-seventh of diamonds and a jack. RHO doubled again and LHO gave us both a pitying look as his partner led something against the final contract of 3NT doubled, which was cold.

To clarify: if partner had shown one long minor, and if one of us could have sufficient stoppers and fit for that minor to make 3NT viable, then 3NT was to play (and there was no "agreement otherwise"). In the auction on which the present case appears to be based, these conditions do not apply.

Of course I wouldn't bid three spades. I wouldn't bid three spades even if I'd seen the hand records, because if I did bid three spades people would realise that I'd seen the hand records.

Yes, of course. How else should I describe it? campboy and I are equally simple souls. jallerton might be a more complex soul when he plays with his soulmate, but should he and I ever play together, I hereby serve notice that 3NT is to play despite previous waffle. With Callaghan, it was always to play - he always had the "three aces" type and so did I. Maybe we should have alerted, just to let unsuspecting opponents in Bournemouth know that when we bid 3NT, it was because we hoped to make it. Must have been the way you tell 'em.