chrism

South has corrected an earlier explanation, which is the proper thing to do on realising that you may have given misinformation; she should have called the TD before doing so, but her heart was in the right place, and the call to the TD was in any case timely (it appears to have been right after South's pass, as I read the OP). East should have been offered the option of retracting his double after receiving a correct explanation of the NS agreement. After West has made a penalty double of spades, can 4♦ really be "forward-going agreeing spades"? If North has what has to be the most marginal of slam tries in spades, he will surely be delighted to take his 530 + 100 an overtrick. If he just wants to bid game, he's already there. Indeed, the best forward-going move at this point would be a redouble. So we can't make South jump over the edge of the cliff. North, however, is a different kettle of lemmings. The 4♦ bid is a clear use of UI. I agree with wank - 3♠x (down 4, I think, but I would consult on the likely outcomes).

I did not raise the possibility in this case, because I think it unreasonable to protect an opponent who has "followed suit" to a card that was not called, not played, and not even in the dummy at the time. There are certainly cases where I could be more sympathetic.

Indeed; I don't think the defenders get off the hook for the revoke; they are obliged to pay sufficient attention. However, declarer has violated the "should" in 46A: When calling a card to be played from dummy declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank of the desired card. Although 46B3(b) makes it clear that dummy must play the ♦10, this is still a deviation from correct procedure (others may differ, and the topic has been bludgeoned to death in other threads). If we judge that this was a deliberate attempt to confuse, it is a violation of 73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. By virtue of the presumed deliberate nature of the incomplete designation, we can deduce that declarer could have known that it could work to his benefit. If we further deem RHO to be "innocent" the Director awards an adjusted score according to 73F When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). In my view this is a big stretch. First, I am reluctant to consider RHO as innocent; a player who was paying proper attention would not have revoked in this case (barring exceptional circumstances such as impaired vision, where the player was reliant on cards being fully designated when played). Second, I am hard pressed to accept the hypothesis that this was "purposeful" and "an attempt to mislead". So in the end, I am treating this as a simple revoke.

This is dealt with by Law 25B: Legal and Illegal Changes of Call | Call Intended (25A is for changing unintended calls). 1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues. 2. Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues. 3. Law 16D applies to a call withdrawn or cancelled So LHO can accept the double, and the original pass is UI to the offenders, AI to the non-offending side. If not accepted, the double is cancelled, the original Pass stands, and the double is UI to the offenders, AI to the NOS. To be clear, 25A allows a player to correct "only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought." It does not permit a change of mind.

Slow play Rudeness

To complete the story - the committee ruled the contract to 6H making 7. I was not privy to their discussion, but I understand that they considered it a close decision.

[hv=pc=n&s=st653h976d8532ct7&w=skqj2hqjt53daca82&n=sa9874hdqj4cqj653&e=shak842dkt976ck94&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1hp2n(GF%20raise%20with%204+%20hearts)p3s(0-1%20spades)p4n(RKC1430)p6h(See%20narrative)p7hppp]399|300|Result: making 7[/hv] Disclaimer: I was not the table director and did not participate in the appeal; I was DIC of the event and discussed the hand at the time of the ruling, and briefly with the Appeal Committee chair after their decision. Thus, the account that I present is based partly on second-hand information. Please discuss the hypothetical case as presented here, whether or not it is precisely what actually occurred. EW were playing 2/1. All players are experienced, but neither partnership is well established. East paused a long time before the 6♥ call; NS asserted about 2 minutes and EW did not dispute this. NS called the director after the hand and expressed the opinion that the slow 6♥ suggested bidding on, and that the contract should be rolled back to 6♥ making 7. When questioned by the director, EW claimed that 6♥ showed 2 keycards with a void (clearly in spades since East had already shown shortness there with the 3♠ response to Jacoby), and on that basis the grand would be at worst on a ruffing finesse in spades. The directors considered that the slow 6♥ did not demonstrably suggest bidding on over passing. While the BIT could certainly be based on extra values or shape, it could also have been based on a weaker hand nervous of committing to a small slam in order to show the void (for example, the same hand with Kx in each minor replaced by QJ). On the basis that though there was clearly UI, it did not demonstrably suggest 7♥ over Pass, the table ruling was 7♥ making 7. NS appealed. In the appeal, NS asserted that they had asked about the 6H call during the auction and West had been unclear about the meaning (on the lines of "I don't know how I am supposed to respond"). EW disputed this. The Appeal Committee also found that while EW expressed confidence that 6♥ showed 2+void, they were uncertain how to show 1+void or 3+void in their methods.

Not paying attention is of itself a violation of etiquette (74B1). If it results in a serious error, it is probably moot whether the inattention is independently considered an additional serious error. However, perhaps a sophist could claim a chain of causality where the inattention was both a consequence of an opponent's infraction and the cause of an error ostensibly unrelated to that infraction, thus escaping a SEWoG ruling. I don't think that it is desirable to allow a player to claim "I revoked because I made the serious error of being distracted by the opponent's lead out of turn, so the revoke was consequent on the LOOT and 12C1B does not prevent me from getting relief", so I am inclined to confine "serious error" to specific errors in play, bidding or procedure rather than to their putative origins in a player's mental state.

7NT also serves well as a "STOP bidding" card, since 8-level contracts are a thing of the distant past.

Most partnerships play "Attitude, Count or Suit Preference, whichever partner needs to know" (with any or all of the encodings being upside down). There may or may not be a clear order of precedence, depending on specific situations or general principles ("always SP at trick 1 if dummy has a singleton", "always count at trick 1 in NT contracts", "attitude except when it is obviously known or irrelevant", etc) and such agreements should be disclosed. However, any partnership approaching advanced level will face many situations where they can work out what signal is most useful based on the information available, and can work out that partner is likely to understand their intention in that context. Somewhere in between, there is inevitably a grey area between "just bridge" and "partnership understanding"; I would expect a player to err on the side of disclosure in borderline cases, but never to the point of revealing specific elements of the current hand. As described, the agreement in the OP is entirely legal.

The ACBL provides quite extensive guidelines for those under its jurisdiction. After a number of examples, the directions quoted in the ACBLscore tech file conclude with this passage: Whenever there is an attempt to establish guidelines, there is a risk that some will use them in lieu of common sense or even of law. Guidelines are not laws, but are intended to form a basis for consistency. With this in mind, the following are given as guidelines concerning claims: A. The order of play of non-trump suits should be the worst possible for claimer (although play within the suit is normally from the top down). B. Declarer may never attempt to draw any trumps of which he was likely unaware, if doing so would be to his advantage. C. It is considered a normal play for declarer to take a safety check with a "high" trump. D. Declarer should not be forced to play the remainder of his trumps to his disadvantage if both opponents have shown out of the suit. (Directions - July/October, 1992)

Probably not, but while I frequently hear "let me see the spots please", for most players "let me see the diamond spots, please" is probably an unusual way of asking. I have no difficulty believing that there is no sinister intent, but UI often occurs through apparently minuscule inadvertent variation in body language or expression. I would want to try to find out whether this was a variation in phrasing for this particular West before dismissing the possibility of UI.

I agree with Robin. There is a difference between "Show me those diamond spots please" and "Please turn the trick back up for a moment" or some similar neutral phrasing. The request in the OP places makes special mention of diamonds if it was expressed as quoted, and I would argue that it could qualify as "special emphasis". In this case I agree that East, having chosen to win ♦A at trick 1, has no LA to a diamond return. However in constructions where an LA exists, the ruling should take into account that the manner of asking for a review of the trick may have conveyed UI.

I don't think my suggestion is as clearly illegal as Ed suggests. "Scheduled" does not necessarily mean "according to a schedule that was set in stone prior to the start of round 1"; if it did then many of the on-the-fly fixes for movement problems would be illegal. Examples: after a forgotten skip in a Mitchell, skipping the boards an extra table; use of a substitute board when a pair inadvertently gets a wire in a BAM; adding a bump for a pair arriving late, and an appendix table when a second pair arrives later ... So I would argue that it is in the director's powers to reschedule boards while play is in progress under some circumstances, and I see nothing that would make this case a specific exception. If the non-offending pairs are indeed unable to play the board against each other, then of course they should get Average+ (which may be more than 60% if they are having a good game, 12C2{c}), but in my experience most pairs would still rather play bridge if they can. I do explain that they have a choice, and that they are foregoing a guaranteed Average+ by choosing to play.

If time allows and the pairs to whom you gave A+ are able, you may also consider having them play the board against each other to achieve a real result instead. You shouldn't force them to if it would cause them to be unreasonably late, but in my experience most pairs who have been deprived a board in this way would rather play it than take an A+ if it is possible to do so. The practicalities vary depending on whether both offending pairs are scheduled to play that board later on (as seems to be the case in the OP, since there were two opponent pairs to whom you gave A+), and whether in the scheduled play, the offending pairs were due to sit opposite each other or in the same direction (as could happen in a Howell or arrow-switched Mitchell). However, most scoring programs will allow you to make the necessary manual edits to the schedule of boards on the fly. If you get lucky, with both pairs scheduled to play the board sitting the same way that they sat when playing it against each other, you can shortcut the process by manually assigning asymmetric results. For example, if the board was scheduled to be played by A vs X and B vs Y, but was actually played by A vs Y, enter scores of (Table-result)/Ave+ for A vs X and Ave+/(Table-result) for B vs Y. If you can fit in a play by B vs X, you can enter the score as (AY Table-result)/(BX Table-result) for A vs X and (BX Table-result)/(AY Table-result) for B vs Y. Whether this is easier than editing the movement depends on your scoring program; it is the way I use with ACBLscore whenever possible.

How do you delete a vote?

It depends on whether it is clear that over a natural 3D, 4NT is RKC for diamonds rather than for hearts or straight 4-ace Blackwood. If so, I agree; East has taken blatant advantage of UI and we should impose a 5H response leading with sufficient likelihood to 7H to make that the result (and a PP is appropriate). If EW can demonstrate that 4NT is not RKC for diamonds then East did not lie, West has no UI and cannot be made to bid 7H. However East used UI to bid 7D so we roll back to 6H and award a PP for the flagrant 7D bid.

I would consider it a violation by the same argument that I used against writing down the auction. Presumably you find the time to do this while other players are thinking about the current hand, since you are appropriately concerned not to keep them waiting. I can see no legal reason why you could not instead write down the previous board's auction and/or hand during this time instead. You might find this a distraction from the current hand, of course, but that is nobody's problem but yours, and there is no legal prohibition against using hindrances to memory :) A serious practical problem with recording hands and/or auctions during an event where the boards will be played in a subsequent round is the risk of accidentally revealing that information to other players, which would certainly put you in jeopardy of a PP. Not likely to be an issue during a KO or Swiss Team event, however.

On a related subject, I was asked a few years ago whether a player's habit of writing down the entire auction as well as the contract before the opening lead was illegal (in addition to irritating many of his opponents). I established that he never made reference to it during the hand, but then told him not to do it anyway, (1) because of the annoyance factor, but more specifically (2) because in my view the very process of recording the auction helped him commit it to memory and thus constituted an illicit aid to memory.

You are correct - you should not have asked. I hope that "changed her bid" is a terse way of saying "called the director, explained that the call was a mechanical error to which her partner had drawn attention, and was permitted by the director to change her bid" and that the director duly admonished you and administered a quarter-board procedural penalty. I fear that I hope in vain. :)

The charter of the "Simple Rulings" group is to help with Out-of-the-book rulings. As was noted in another thread, not everyone is comfortable navigating the Laws, and such people should feel welcome coming here for assistance.

Relevant circumstances that would change some part of the ruling: * If NS can prove that 3D was a misbid and their agreement is invitational jump raises * If played in a jurisdiction where preemptive jump raises in competition are not alertable * If West's BIT was actually a pause of about 10 seconds

Interesting because both sides seem to have committed infractions. You do not state the table result, but presumably 4S made otherwise there would be no discussion about the BIT. The failure to alert is misinformation, assuming that the NS agreement is preemptive jump raises in competition. Given correct information West would probably have found a legal way of showing values and East-West would have at least a fighting chance of reaching 4S. I would give NS -420 for 4S making 4. In the face of the MI, West still found a very effective way to communicate his values (assuming the BIT to be greater than the regulation skip-bid pause), which made it easy for East to find a rebid. I am sure that Pass is an LA for East and would impose a result in 3D on EW. It looks like EW +100 to me.

This is also open to problems of interpretation. For example, I have just made an insufficient bid that results in partner being barred for the rest of the auction, and in effect have one shot at guessing the final contract. At the point of guessing I am pretty clearly at a disadvantage. However, I make a lucky guess and arrive at a successful contract where the field is reaching an unsuccessful one. I could almost certainly only have arrived at this result as a consequence of the irregularity. Should the director adjust under the proposed new law? If you think the answer to that question is "yes", suppose that the field contract should actually score better if declarer finds the perfect line, but in this field almost nobody does. However I would be expected to find the optimum line since the director knows me to be a near-perfect declarer (straying into the realms of hypothetical fantasy). Have I gained an advantage? I am not greatly opposed to such a change in wording, but I am not persuaded that it will lead to fewer difficult or controversial rulings, or to more equitable ones.

Maybe something like: Law 46 – Incomplete or Erroneous Call of a Card from Dummy A. Proper Form for Designating Dummy’s Card When calling a card from dummy, declarer unambiguously designates the card to be played. The complete form is to state both the suit and the rank of the card to be played. B. Incomplete or Erroneous Call In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following interpretations apply (except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible): ...