jallerton

Well, this case strikes me as being very similar to appeal number 7 in the 2007 EBU Appeals Booklet and the majority of commenators did not share your view. Richard Hills summed up that case very well:

Cricket has substitute fielders. It is only batters and bowlers that cannot be substituted in. And there is provision for a runner if the batter sustains an injury so that he cannot run. True, but Law 2 only permits fielding substitutes when a player has become injured or ill during the course of the game. Unlike bridge teams of 6 events, cricket substitutes are not allowed for tactical reasons, or just because a player is feeling tired.

Were N/S a regular partnership? How many boards had they played together so far that day?

That seems an odd assumption. Anyway, if you ask North-South whether the sequence has occurred before, they will tell you that it hasn't. If I have guessed the identity of the North player correctly, South would find it hard to deny that North frequently forgets the system. A sequence which has never come up sounds like a prime candidate! Are you sure that N/S play this as forcing after the double? The pair I am thinking of certainly used to play this as non-forcing after a double (a sensible arrangement, as 1NT is limited by the failure to redouble). I agree. Partner rates to have a few clubs, as the opponents have not competed in the suit, despite the take-out double. That barely leaves room for any hearts at all in partner's hand. If partner has: ♠A10xx ♥ none ♦Kxxxxx ♣xxx, game is excellent. In fact, with that shape, partner needs little more than ♠Q to give the contract some play. So whilst I agree that pass may be a logical alternative (under the Law 16B1b definition) , jumping to 5♦ may also be. Which of these actions most carefully avoids taking advantage of the UI?

The TD would also need to consider North's actions on this hand. I suspect that either: (i) 2♦ was not alerted; or (i) if 2♦ was alerted, it took a lot longer then normal for South to produce the alert card. Is 3♦ a plausible response to Checkback in an uncontested auction? Did North have logical alternatives to bidding 3♠? I can think of North hands which might bid Checkback and then retreat to 3NT when partner makes a bid which implies lack of extra spade support.

Did you misinterpret Fluffy's explanation of the play? Declarer led low from the South hand, West played low in tempo, North played the king and East hesitated before playing low from J1098x. Presumably there was no scope for extra tricks from any of the other suits (or from an endplay), and had East played low in tempo, declarer would surely have ducked the next round completely for the bridge reasons stated by Bluejak. Therefore North was damaged by the pause; it doesn't matter if the TD thinks he ought to have got it right anyway. I suppose it may be different where Fluffy plays, but in England at least, deciding how to signal is not considered to be a demonstrable bridge reason for hesitating if it might mislead declarer into thinking that you have an honour (EBU White Book, Paragraph 73.1). So assuming that the TD decides that there was no demonstrable bridge reason for the pause, I think he should adjust the score.

There have been many suggestions from various people that the wording of particular Laws could be improved. Some people have suggested that certain Laws are ambiguous and/or conflict with other Laws. How will the wording of the next Laws be determined? Do the National Bridge Organisations have any input? If a player has a suggested improvement, how should the player communciate his or her suggestion for 2017?

No, of course I was not saying that about the general case. Each case has to be treated on its merits. There are plenty of auctions where it is fairly certain what partner was thinking about. Now we need to consider the logical alternatives/carefuly avoid taking advantage criteria laid down in Laws 16B and 73C. There are plenty of other auctions where, although it is not clear what partner was thinking about, all possibiltities suggest that it would be advantageous to take action A. Then we also need to consider the logical alternatives/carefuly avoid taking advantage criteria laid down in Laws 16B and 73C. But in cases such as this one, where it is not clear what action has an increased expected matchpoint score as a result of the UI, the best way to ensure that you do "carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information" is to make the same call you would have done without the UI. The problem with varying your call, is that you will feel awkward if partner transpires to hold a hand opposite which the abnormal action you choose turns out to be the successful one. As you once remarked yourself, "one is not allowed to be clever after receiving UI".

I understand your point, but the law-makers may take the view that they have tried to set the definition of logical alternative such that an action is deemed to be one unless it is completely obvious that the action is ridiculous. There are circumstances (some of which have been mentioned upthread) where a player has obeyed one of these Laws but not the other. However, most of the time, if you are obeying Law 16B you are probably also obeying Law 73C, and vice versa. I am pleased to note your agreement that a double being merely "slow" does not make it more or less attractive to pass. I am fascinated by your suggestion that a "very slow" double must convey a message about the suitability of the hand for defending, but I disagree. [in the opening post, the double was described as "very, very slow". Does that make a difference?] Whilst the (extreme) slowness of the double might be because: [a] partner has relatively poor defence, it might equally be because: [b/c/d] partner's holding in hearts, diamonds or clubs is significantly worse than you would normally expect for a double, and that he is concerned that you make take out his take-out double into his weakness. It might even be because: [e] he is relatively light in high cards and fears a 3NT bid from you; if you were allowed to know this information (for example, temporarily imagine that partner is a passed hand) you might well decide that 3NT is unlikely to make and that the percentage action at matchpoints is to pass. In the absence of extensive partnership experience on breaches of tempo in this type of sequence, there is no reason to expect the explanation for the slowness to be [a] any more than it might be , [c], [d] or even [e]. As [a], , [c], [d] and [e] each suggest different actions may be successful, no call is suggested by the UI and hence (in Law 73 parlance) there is no call which takes any advantage of it.

Well this is a good example of a case where, whilst it could be argued that Law 16B has not been breached, Law 73C certainly has been. If Law 16B has not been breached, we can use Law 12A1 to adjust the score for a breach of Law73C, so the 6♠ bidder does not get to keep his top once the TD has given his ruling.

I think we have to look at the balance of probabilities here. Is partner more likely to have a hand with more defense, or a hand with less? If this can be determined, then I think we can decide what is suggested by the BIT. If the two possibilities are roughly even, then nothing is suggested. If one is rather more likely, it should be taken as suggesting an action. There are, of course, problems with this approach. One is that it is rather difficult to get a sample size adequate to use for calculations. The other is that players may well have an idea of which sorts of hands their partners find difficult. I agree. Sometimes we might judge that a slow pass from partner was 90% likely to have been based on thinking of bidding on and 10% likely to have been based on thinking of doubling for penalties. In such a scenario, bidding on could be demonstrably suggested by the UI and we should not be able to use the "partner might have been thinking of doubling" argument. In the present case, it is not at all clear to me which is more likely out of "more suitable for defending" and "less suitable for defending". Even if some Lamfordian simulation performed a few days later suggested that one was 55% and the other 45%, it would not matter as the results of such a simulation would not be available to a player at the table. Advice available on the ACBL website supports this view: It is interesting to note the ACBL's guidance on Law 73: So the ACBL seems to regard Laws 16B and 73C as complementary. Well in this case, 4th hand might have used the time profitably when partner was obeying the STOP warning over 2♠; a raise to 3♠ should not have been regarded as an unexpected development. Of course this does assume that 2nd hand did take the ACBL recommended 8-10 seconds before calling; I know that not everybody does. I am surprised by these arguments. Do you play double of 3♠ as "optional"? I play double as take-out, showing values and (ideally) a 3-suiter with shortness in the suit doubled. The 0436 hand quoted above looks like a completely obvious take-out double. If partner decides to pass, I'm not ashamed of my lack of defence; I do have 2 aces after all. Of course it might work out badly, particularly if partner has subsidiary club length, but that it why the opponents pre-empt! Hands which are not 3-suiters or 1-suiters are the more difficult ones to bid after this auction (and hence far more likely to cause partner to hesitate) as there is no obvious call available to show them.

I quite like the idea of ducking, although it might breach the Law about trying to do the best one can (I cannot be bothered to look up which one it is). But, as gnasher says, I don't think we are there to do the TD's job for him, but I would appeal if the TD makes a dog's dinner of it and fails to award a trick to the opponents; my personal ethics, and I know for sure gnasher's, indicates that is the right thing to do. Are you referring to Law 72A? Note that obtaining a higher score is the "chief object" and then only as qualified in the rest of that Law. If you feel so strongly enough of the opponents' entitlement to a trick that you are prepared to appeal, surely it saves a lot of hassle to let ♣K win and get on the next deal. Unless, perish the thought, you positively enjoy calling the tournament director and initiating appeals!

This hand occurred in a county league match played privately. I was South. We did not request a ruling, although it seems from the replies to this thread as though perhaps we should have done. In practice, there is less temptation to ask for a formal ruling in a match played privately when a TD has to be telephoned, rather than simply being asked to walk across the room. Obviously it is far too late to request a ruling on the board now, but do you think it is worthwhile asking for the hand to be recorded? Does the EBU share its information on recorded psyches with County Associations and vice versa?

I think it rather depends on the tone used. Some players might say something like this to a TD they know well in a manner such that they are clearly joking. In sounds as though the tone of the remark was rather different in the case Shintaro cites.

The hesitation implies that the doubler does not hold a standard take-out double. One eminent poster infers from the hesitation that his partner must hold a distributional hand not suitable for defending, and decides that because of the UI he has to change his call from 3NT to Pass. However, I have some evidence to the contrary. A few weeks ago, my partner made a slow double on the same auction (2♠-P-3♠-?). On that occasion, he held a 3334 19-count and if I had found the winning action of passing the double holding ♠Ax the opponents would quite rightly have asked questions. When partner doubles slowly in this auction we cannot tell in what way his double is flawed. It could be more or less suitable than normal for defending. Therefore I agree with:

The 2010 White Book was not sent to the proof-readers until after the last L&EC meeting, so it would have been tough for any of them to have pointed out any anomalies before that meeting! I was under the impression that the L&EC members do discuss some business by e-mail, but if that is not the case, then we just have to accept that England is a lot slower at changing anything than some other countries. Thanks, you understand what we intended. Already fixed in the next set of regulations. Paul In Scotland, regulations can be updated within 12 hours of someone suggesting an improvement!

Is it obvious to double 4♦ with the North hand? My wife points out that it could easily be the winning action to pass. We are not told the form of scoring.

I think the correct procedure for the TD is then to ask East/West how many tricks they actually want. If they specify a number then that is the agreed number of tricks per Law 69A. Yes, there may need to be an adjustment under Law 71 if the number of agreed tricks could not have been arrived at under "normal" play, but given declarer's state of mind, "normal" might well include playing misere. Hence: seems entirely reasonable.

What did East/West do or say in response to North's statement?

I don't understand why you are claiming I am wrong, as I too explained that: It's quite a simple phrase, so I am surprised that you seem to have interpreted it to mean something rather different. As Barmar correctly points out, you cannot possibly be taking any advantage of the UI if you do what you would have done anyway. Note that Law 73C does not require you to "carefully avoid taking any action which might appear to take advantage"; it merely requires you to "carefully avoid taking any advantage".

I would say that these Laws are still complementary and not self-contradictory. Let us suppose that your assessment of the reason for the hesitation is correct and that it makes bidding 3NT more likely to be the winning action. There are two possibilities: 1. You know that you would definitely have bid 3NT over an in-tempo double. Law 73C requires you "to carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information". But as you are making the same call you would have made anyway, you are not taking any advantage from the UI. It is likely that you will then automatically comply with Law 16B, although you need to consider the additional constraint as to what actions your peers might seriously consider. 2. You are not sure what you would have done over an in-tempo double. Now to comply with Law 73C, you must pass the double. If you are not sure what you have done, that probably means that you judge both pass and 3NT to be logical alternatives and hence Law 16B would also require you to select the non-demonstrably suggested action of pass.

It sounds as though Scotland is quite similar to most other countries then!

Too late, I fear. While I do have wide latitude in my editing, it does not extend to changing established regulations, especially regulations created before I was on the L&EC! Plus, the timing is poor: the White book is to be finalised in 24 hours and nine minutes, and I am not at home, and when I get home I expect just to have time to look at a long screed form a certain J Allerton - and nothing more!!! :unsure: Sorry about the "timing" but I did point out this anomaly two weeks ago to the Editor of The White Book and the Secretary of the L&EC. Notwithstanding the official deadline, I would have thought that, even at the cost of being a day or two late, it more is important to ensure that all known apparent anomalies are investigated and corrected if necessary. As I understand it, the 2010 White Book is not being printed as a book (which is a shame, as it is often a lot easier to read in this format), so there are no deadlines with printers to be met.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sqj43hqdj4cj108765&w=s875h853da875caq9&e=sk92h9642d10963ck4&s=sa106hakj107dkq2c32]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] W N E S P P 1♥ 1NT P 3♣ P 3NT P P P 3♣ was natural and invitational Table result was 3NT+2, N/S +460 The E/W agreement for 1♥ opening bid is natural, "rule of 19". The TD asked West why he did not double 1NT. He said that whilst he might have enough to defeat 1NT he was worried that doubling would persuade the opponents to run to a safer spot. The TD asked West why he did not double 3NT. He said that he was confused because the auction did not make sense. The TD asked East and West if their partnership had ever psyched a 1-level opener before. No was the reply. The TD classified the psyche as "amber". N/S appeal, on the basis that they believe it should be classified as "red". N/S claim that East has made psyches of this type before (though perhaps not with this partner) but the TD does not know of any written hand reports of any such psyches. How would you rule if on the AC?

Sorry if I used the wrong terminology. How many VPs do you assign to a team when none of their match can be played and they are in no way at fault? Now the question becomes simple. That is a matter for regulation, and any organisation that does not have such a regulation is at fault. The EBU uses the 25-0 scale for the Premier League and the final of Crockford's, which are two of England's most prestigious events. It is quite common for players to turn up late for bridge events, and when motorways are shut and railway lines become blocked it is not unknown for a journey delay to be more than the scheduled length of the first match. The fact that they are prestigious is irrelevant: the point is that the scale is used rarely, so the EBU has not bothered with general regulations, relying on specific regulations for those two events. In fact, the EBU does seem to have regulations other than the 1.5 imp/board rule that you mention. The EBU White Book suggests that the VP score for the "not at fault" participant depends on the reason for not being able to play the match. What I can't understand is why the same algorithm isn't used in the two cases. In both situations the team has been denied its opportunity to play the match through no fault of its own, and hence I suggest that they be made the same in the final version of the 2010 White Book .