bluejak

I have deleted one post. I have deleted part of another post. I have deleted parts of further posts that quoted the deleted sections. Please can we have some decorum. It is clear that, internet or not, some posts have gone somewhat too far without putting anything helpful into the discussion.

For the sake of this forum, I think the goal should be "how should we be ruling?", nothing else.

I ask a legal question, with an invented auction, and as usual people argue over what actually happened. Why? Does it help? Please either answer the question given, or don't. Usually not, since they won't get called... But if they are called, yes, they adjust to 4♠ (possibly doubled). Do I really have to say "if they get called" every time? Of course they will not take action if they do not hear about it !!!!!!! Wrong question. The right question is: "What is least suggested by the UI?". Excuse me, it is the right question: I quoted a question from another thread, and if you go and look, that was the question asked.

Suppose partner considers deeply and passes over 4♥. It is obvious he is thinking of doubling for penalties. You have a choice between three LAs, double, clearly suggested by the UI, 4♠ and pass. You do not expect to make 4♠ but it will be a good save, if 4♥ makes. You pass. Since 4♥ is going off pass was more successful than 4♠. Obviously double is best but will be ruled back by the TDs. Do the TDs take any action? I was struck by another thread and the question "What is suggested by the UI?" Here, the answer is clearly double, which was not chosen.

I suppose it is true the practice can annoy dummy. But next hand should be able to work out which ten with very little effort since the card is on the table in front of him. :rolleyes:

Since this came up I have been noticing it. It seems to happen about once or twice a night which is more than I expected and no-one seems to react with any surprise.

Are you present at the Danish Festival in July? I shall be there, and the person who wrote to me, so perhaps we could discuss it together.

I am happy with penalising by giving a warning first time, and a PP if there is a recurrence within six months, not just the same session. I still think there is a difference between minor infractions that cause trouble per se and those where trouble is only caused by opponents who do something wrong themselves. Picking up the bidding cards is likely to cause difficulties when the player is not last to bid and I would penalise for it regularly. I would always penalise if partner has yet to call. It also annoys some opponents - me, for example. But calling for cards in a shortened form causes no such difficulty so long as opponents look at the card, and I have never known anyone who seems annoyed by it. To be honest, I am not too terribly worried about fining declarer: it just seems unfair when "everyone" else does the same thing without penalty or warning. I am far more worried about the defender who followed suit to a card not in dummy and any suggestion his card is not an MPC is abhorrent.

I have received an email! :ph34r: Hi David I have some problems understanding the exact procedure for calculating self-inflicted damage in a pairs tournament. Suppose we have the following frequency table in a 7-table tournament before the TD makes his ruling. 1 x +1430 = +6 mp 4 x +680 = +1 mp 1 x +500 = –4 mp 1 x +300 = –6 mp The TD adjusts the +300 to +680, but N/S committed a serious error, without which they Could have scored either +800 or +500, each with a probability of 50%. Now, what is the precise algorithm that I should apply? Simply create the hypothetical frequency table with the “Could” result? 1 x +1430 = +6 mp 0.5 x +800 = +4.5 mp 4 x +680 = 0 mp 1.5 x +500 = –5.5 mp Thus, N/S Could have obtained –0.5 mp instead of the Actual result of –6 mp, so the self-inflicted damage is 5.5 mp. This is the frequency table after the adjustment: 1 x +1430 = +6 mp 5 x +680 = 0 mp 1 x +500 = –6 mp Therefore, N/S score 0 mp – 5.5 mp = –5.5 mp (almost all damage self-inflicted). The other N/S pairs score 0 mp in total. This is slightly odd, because we have one N/S pair scoring a rock bottom –6 mp, and another N/S pair scoring –5.5 mp, although next-to-bottom would be –4 mp, but maybe it is acceptable. Suppose N/S Could have scored +800 without the serious error, i.e. all damage (and more) is self-inflicted. Now common practice is to let the score stand and use the original frequency table for N/S scoring. Thus, N/S score –6 mp instead of –5.5 mp in the previous example, but all of a sudden the other N/S pairs score +6 mp in total, and specifically our +500 pair goes from –6 mp to –4 mp although no N/S table result was changed from the previous example. This feels wrong, so let’s use the above method instead of common practice: “Could” frequency table: 1 x +1430 = +6 mp 1 x +800 = +4 mp 4 x +680 = –1 mp 1 x +500 = –6 mp Self-inflicted damage is now 4 mp – (–6 mp) = 10 mp. Adjustment minus self-inflicted damage is –10 mp, but obviously we are not going to give them less than their –6 mp from the Actual frequency table. Now, this is also strange, because both the +500 obtained at a different table and the +300 for our heroes amount to –6 mp. I fail to find a consistent and fair method for dealing with this. Is it simply impossible to devise such a method, or am I just missing something? :ph34r: Any views?

Anyway, my view is simple, though obviously there are other views. What is generally done and tolerated and expected is not to be penalised. The MPC was caused by RHO not bothering to follow the play to the extent of following suit to a card not in dummy. I have zero sympathy for him. No harm, no foul? But no harm is caused to anyone who plays the game properly. The play of a card is a two part action, calling for a card then moving a card, as required by Law. RHO could not be bothered to watch the card moved nor to concentrate on the game. Following suit to a card not in dummy is inexcusable. In fact, what he did was to apply a ruling, and decide without benefit of TD to apply the Law on incomplete designations, and he applied it wrong.

I don't know what it is like where you are, but around here over 90% of players sometimes make an incomplete designation, so the number of times this happens on an average duplicate night with 12 tables is probably in the region of 1200 times. Are you really going to issue 1200 PPs a night? Oh, I see, you are only going to issue a PP when RHO follows to a card not in dummy. Apart from anything else, if something happens 1200 times a night and does not get penalised 1199 times do you really think that is the correct approach, to only penalise when RHO is an idiot?

Declarer led a club to the dummy, won in dummy with an honour. He then said "ten". Dummy duly played the ♦T, dummy's only ten. RHO did not look at the card played from dummy, but assumed it was the ♣T, so "followed" with a club, though he had diamonds. Well?

The reason I put this case to you is this. When we discuss claims we start with the claim statement, and it is often presumed that we follow the claim statement as far as possible. But note that the Law does not say that. Consider a hand where declarer has a few high trumps, a couple of winners and a loser. In dummy he has ♥AK and he claims saying "I shall take the heart winners them my hand is high". Unfortunately he has forgotten a trump. The TD realises that the second round of hearts will get ruffed. If it is ruffed by LHO then a trick is given to the defence, but if by RHO it is assumed declarer will over-ruff and then, luckily for him, his hand is good. The point is that while the claim statement is a guide, we do not automatically follow it. We apply Laws 70A to 70E, which, while mentioning the statement certainly do not say it is always followed. In this case I think it is clear that declarer had failed to notice the effect of the heart blockage when he claimed. If he had played the hand out, and a heart had been returned, then I think there is little doubt he would have reconsidered, not necessarily deciding to play it as he originally planned, and nothing in Law 70 says he has to. So after a heart return he basically has two choices. He can cash the clubs from the top, resulting in anything between making and several down. He can play a club to the king, playing for a safe guaranteed one off. Now, the difference between pairs and teams becomes interesting. Surely, in game at teams, you go for the contract, so we rule on the basis he leads the clubs from the top. However, at pairs, playing for a safe one down has certainly got some appeal. So would he play from the top at pairs, or play a club to the king? In effect he has to make a decision based on what the defensive hands are - and surely that is where Law 70E1 comes in. So at pairs, if the clubs run, we give the defence one trick: if they do not run we give the defence one or more tricks, dependent on the actual distribution. What do you think of that as a ruling?

Why should the original facts be wrong? Yet again, someone from a different country is suggesting the facts known were wrong. I really think people should stop doing this unless they were present at the time. As I pointed out previously, what difference does it make anyway? An interesting problem is put forward: if it is actually different form what happened - and I really wonder why Phil thinks it is - does that mean we should not discuss it? I am sure some of Paul's posts are invented but they are reasonable things to discuss. So it does not really matter if a Norwegian thinks he knows an English post is wrong or an Englishman thinks a German post is wrong: it does not make the case of no interest.

Thanks: I shall remember that.