Sven Pran

Table result (4♠ =) stands. A procedure penalty, anything from a warning to some points, given to each of the two affected players for not complying with Law 7B2. regards Sven

No, it will just add more irregularity to the situation (still with North/South as offenders). North cannot "escape" a damaging (to his side) situation by committing another irregularity that in this case possibly disturbs the auction more than has already been done. I consider the laws well thought out on these matters and see no reason to argue for a change. regards Sven

Agreed. Frankly I think this discussion has gone far to far. Please forget for a moment the question whether or not there was MI from North or South and just imagine that West had been allowed any call he would like over the double from South. What call by West can reduce the disasterous result they are in for in 2♣ doubled? East/West are not damaged by any kind of possible MI, their damage is a direct consequence of the 2♣ bid by East. Sven

Where should East-West run? In a spade contract N/S begins with Ace, King and a little spade, and in any other contract . . . . . I am not comfortable with a regulation that leaves a player facing a call on which he has no agreement in limbo whether or not to alert. The Norwegian alert rules on pass, double and redouble are fantastically simple: These calls are to be alerted if they are not "natural". And a "natural" double in this position sure is for business, not for takeout. What should be the purpose of responding to Stayman with a takeout double of an intervening bid? Let that be -- here I cannot see that alerting or not alerting makes any (significant) difference on the result. East/West are in for a bottom whatever they do? regards Sven

I think the first question is if South's activity has brought him into Law 68A territory. He has certainly started on a claim, but can a player "cancel" a claim once initiated? The way i read Law 68A the answer is no, but he is certainly entitled to complete his claim with a statement (including any alterations he might make to this on the fly) before opponents take any action. Whatever we rule so far, East and West have prematurily exposed their cards; if for no other reason as a violation of Law 11A. Had they not done so I would as Director award them at least one of the remaining tricks, but now I feel that knowledge of opponents' cards is AI to South who may then be allowed to find the winning play: Ruff a Diamond, return to the Ace of clubs, ruff a Diamond, cash the King of Clubs and South has the rest. An interesting but irrelevant question here is if South could even now base his claim on a "fact" that all opponents' remaing cards are penalty cards? Morale: Be very careful about Law 11A! regards Sven

In order to be general bridge knowledge it must be obvious not only to them, but also to their opponents! When a situation that I have never discussed with my partner occurs and I select a particular action (call) trusting that he will understand it correctly because I know that he has read the same book from where I have the idea, or because this understanding is common knowledge in the club we both attend, then this understanding is still a (special) partnership understanding and not general bridge knowledge unless I can feel sure that my opponents have a similar background. regards Sven

Norway: I have been asked how to rule when both defenders revoke in the same trick? (A heart was played from declarer, LHO discarded a small spade, RHO discarded a small club, they both still had hearts.) Both revokes became established (it must have been a spirited game). When laughter had finally ceased the players and the director began wondering exactly what law to apply and whether the WBF minute about multiple revokes on a board applies. Is this one revoke, two related revokes or two individual revokes? (In the latter case the rectification is of course two tricks if available.) I understand that they ruled a one trick revoke; I tend to agree, but we are interested in comments. regards Sven

They don't. But you are immediately in trouble if you don't record everything required in time. David's story about stating down one, feeling an agreement from opponents only to later have an objection "it was down 2" doesn't happen that way. You cannot record any result without a joint action between North and East: North registers and East confirms. Only then can you start on the next board at that table. Sven

At last an advantage for using Bridgemates :) One of the minor advantages :) Regards Sven

Sorry, I thought I made it clear: The basis for my favourite ruling is that no result has been agreed upon and cannot be decided with better probability than 50% for each of two alternatives. Both sides are at fault for this situation. To me this is sufficient for applying Law 12C1(e)(ii) for both sides. Alternatively I can apply Law 12C1© if I feel like disregarding their "at fault" status. I am surprised that this sort of happenings are common; do we live in different worlds? When I have been called to tables because of disagreement on a result my experience is that players and Director cooperate and settle the question to everybody's satisfaction within seconds, usually because players know that they have nothing to say if they have disordered their cards. I suppose that the fact we are using Bridgemate helps as well (the technology forces dicipline). Sven

OK. Status: I have two sides agreeing on the contract played but one claiming one off and the other claiming two off. No result has so far been recorded but all four players have shyffled their cards and returned them to the board, thus violating Laws 65D and 79A, possibly also Law 72B3. Neither side enjoys more credibility than the other. Consequently I consider both sides at fault for the situation. If time permits I might consider having the four players repeat the board under my supervision, I shall expect them to be able to reliably doing just that. However, in this case I shall issue a procedural penalty to each side of at least 10% of a top score for causing delay to the arrangement. My favourite ruling is to award a split score with each side receiving the score that is most unfavourable for its side. However, unless a regulation prohibits weighted scores I might also choose to ignore the fact that both sides are at fault and assign a weighted adjusted score with each of the two alternatives given the same weight. I cannot help feeling that this is a constructed case with little relevance in real life? During my 30 years of directing I have never experienced such a situation without the players being able to agree on the result with much less ado. Sven

I was puzzled by this question because I cannot remember having used the term "normal play" anywhere in this thread. However, I assume you have in mind my reference to Law 12A2, and you may then be aware that this related to when no play could be established by the players: None of them could demonstrably show the sequence in which he (allegedly) had played his cards, nor could the players agree upon any result on that board. As I indicated: all the (few) times I have met such situations it was subsequently found that they in fact had not played the board at all, and so will I rule in this situation. This is where L12A2 enters the picture. My experience is that when a board has been played at least one of the players will have his cards in sequence until a result has been formally recorded and accepted. Sven

65D is what was violated "A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to comply with the provisions of this Law jeopardizes his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke." The tricks were disturbed before the players agreed. And the very moment a player disturbs his cards he "jeopardises his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke" The first thing I do when called to a table where the "problem" is to determine the sequence in which cards have been played, is to ascertain that cards have been arranged as specified in Law 65C: Each player arranges his own cards in an orderly overlapping row in the sequence played. Any player that has failed to obey this law is told to keep mum shut; I shall only listen to those players that have, and that still have their cards in undisturbed sequence. If no player has his cards in order and the players cannot agree upon any result then I see no alternative other than to apply Law 12A2. The few times I have experienced situations like that the real reason has always turned out to be that the board had not been played (Discovered when they subsequently looked at the hand printouts) :) regards Sven

What shoould the Director have done if he had been called? Somewhere (ref WBFLC or EBL?) I have seen a rule that the Director shall stand ready to award an adjusted score, treating both sides as NON-offending. regards Sven

The clarification period (the correction period being something quite other). Of course :rolleyes: mea culpa regards Sven

Technically the duty is to call the Director and let him control the situation. Presumed defenders are, even without asking any question at all during the correction period always entitled to have absolutely all misinformation from the presumed declaring side corrected. (The correction period begins with the third pass is sequence and ends when the opening lead is faced.) That the reason for misinformation is forgetfulness, or even ignorance, is irrelevant. regards Sven

Technically Dummy should have called the Director immediately after the third pass in sequence without awaiting any question at all. In practice Dummy (or declarer as the case may be) will (if they follow correct procedure this far) point to one or more of his own calls and announce misexplanation. Sometimes defenders will make it clear that they are already aware of this and don't mind, but else the Director is of course to be called right away. regards Sven

The way I see the situation now is that the critical moment is when West bids 3♠. With correct information (2♥ is transfer to spades) in time I trust that he would never have made that bid, and as a consequence North/South is likely to end in either 3♥X or 3♠X. It was the 3♠ bid that let North/South off the hook, everyting else seems insignificant to me. regards Sven

Well, well, an entirely different situation. Correct procedure would have resulted in West (in response to his question) becoming informed that 2♥ was transfer to spades. Now, before West makes any call the Director should be summoned to the table and he would first of all offer East to change his last call. East could now change his double to PASS in which case the contract would be played by North in 3♥ undoubled. But East would probably decide not to change his call and then West would pass instead of bidding 3♠. The only question is now whether North will have the "pleasure" of playing in 3♥X or 3♠X, either contract probably resulting in a four-digit score to East/West. The result on the board should be adjusted correspondingly. regards Sven

Law 20F5: (a ) A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. ‘Mistaken explanation’ here includes failure to alert or announce as regulations require or an alert (or an announcement) that regulations do not require. (b ) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. So you see that not only must Dummy answer the question, but after the final pass (and before the opening lead has been attempted) he must on his own initiative (even without being asked!) call the director and inform opponents that in his opinion his partner has given an incorrect information. The answer to your second question is that the Director should inform dummy this, in grave situations he may impose a procedural penalty, and in any case should he judge whether the defending side has been damaged and in case award an adjusted score. Be also aware of Law 21 B! Until the end of the auction period and provided that his partner has not subsequently called, a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player by an opponent ..... This implies that the auction can continue until three passes has again been made in sequence, and it is even quite possible for the original defenders to become the declaring side! (That is why Law 41 uses the term "presumed declarer" etc.)l regards Sven

I don't think this is a legal question. "Law20 ... G. Incorrect Procedure 1. It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit." Certainly partner cannot lawfully answer this question "L73 A. Appropriate Communication between Partners 1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays." and I can see no responsibility on the opponents that requires that they answer this question. Who says the question is directed to partner? Who says the question is asked for partner's benefit? If opponents refuse to answer the question or if the player still fears that he may have revoked I consider it fully legal for him to summon the director and explain his fear. His possible revoke is in case not yet established and he cannot be denied the right to correct his revoke in time when possible. Sven

This is (in sequence) a case for Law 27 that immediately becomes a case for Law 27C when S says he wants to change his IB to 3♠. Under Law 27C The Director must proceed as follows: (To West): Do you accept the IB of 2♠? If West answers "yes" then end of story, so we assume that he answers "no" (To South): Your premature correction to 3♠ stands, but as this bid is (also) an insufficient bid I shall go back first to 27B4 which directs me to 27A and ask: (To West): Do you accept the IB of 3♠? Again: If West answers "yes" then end of story, so we assume that he answers "no" (To South): This brings me to Law 27B3 and you must substitute a legal bid or PASS, and your partner must PASS during the remainder of this auction. Also Laws 26 and 23 can become applicable. regards Sven

Sure. A change in the revoke laws of 1997, subject to zonal approval, removed from defenders the right to ask partner about a possible revoke. This change caused much confusion, and (for instance?) ACBL never implemented it. As of 2007 defenders may again ask partner about possible revoke. Sven

In what way would EW having different information cause NS to act differently? If South had given the correct information that 2♥ was transfer to 2♠ don't you think that he (South) would have bid 2♠ rather than 3♥? I indeed suspect a double-shot from West here. Sven

Law 27B4: if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows In the Norwegian translation we have assumed this to mean: if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another insufficient bid the Director rules as in 3 if the LHO does not accept the last insufficient bid as A allows We felt confident that this was the real intention of law27B4. Law 27B4 never applies unless LHO has already refused to accept the first insufficient bid, therefore (implicitly) referring to the first insufficient bid in Law 27B4 makes no sense. regards Sven