axman

Before I get into things I'll mention that I started the 'puzzle' thread on rgb using a disguised version of this hand. Primarily out of curiosity's sake mind you. Well, it appears to have petered out so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. When making a ruling the TD should a. ascertain why he was summoned b. ascertain what happened c. recount what facts are agreed; what facts are disputed; and of the disputed facts what his finding of facts is and why d. state the law that applies and the effects of application In this case the story skips everything; in other words udca stated a conclusion while not providing the facts upon which such conclusion was made As such, if it is the judgment and thus the ruling that a claim occurred [not that I've seen satisfactory evidence supplied thereof] it would be germane to review L68 L68 LAW 68 - CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress (If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play.). If it does refer to subsequent tricks: After reading this I can see no other approach than giving S his L57A option to select a penalty against west's T12 card. Now clearly, as the TD did something** other than what he ought to have done, that is a whole other can of worms. **that something being essentially going off on a tangent that arrives at the same outcome that would be expected if south had been given the opportunity to exercise his L57A option.

del

Sometimes it is difficult to separate the wheat from the chaffe; so, perhaps knowing precisely what happened would be germane but I suggest that L57A has some meaning here and in particular L57A1.

I hold as the strongest belief possible that assessment of the PP is independent of its effect upon the rankings/score for a board.

BBODontBeSillyChaps L61 Irregularities in Following Suit A. Revoke Defined 1. Failure to Follow Suit At one’s turn to play, the failure to follow suit when legally able is a revoke. 2. Failure to Pay Penalty The failure to comply with a penalty to play a specified suit (or card) when legally able is a revoke. B. Right to Draw Attention During the play period a player (declarer acts for dummy) who revokes may so draw attention until his side plays to the next trick. Also, 1. Conditional Right of LHO only the LHO<52> of a player who failed to follow suit may so draw attention, provided his side has not subsequently played; and, if the play was a revoke it shall be acknowledged forthwith. 2. After the Play Period after the play period any player may draw attention to a failure to follow suit. 3. Illegal inquiry if attention was drawn other than as provided by L61B (illegally) to the failure to follow suit the director must be summoned forthwith to avoid the diminishing of rights; where attention was improperly drawn a. by his partner, or a spectator he is responsible for (L11C), the player is instructed that he must acknowledge such a revoke (see L49C2, L62C3, & L63B). b. by his opponent, or a spectator he is responsible for (L11C), the player is instructed that he need not acknowledge such a revoke at that time, but must do so at the end of the play period. 4. Unauthorized information drawing attention to a failure to follow suit when one does not have the right may make UI available or be a violation of L73B. C. Claims When play ceases because of a claim or concession by an opponent, and before acquiescence, his side may ask without penalty about a failure to follow suit for the purpose of preventing the establishment of a revoke. Discovery of any such revoke is not grounds to retract the claim or concession but may be grounds for indemnification provided by L64B. 52 L61B1 Only declarer acts for dummy. L62 Correction of a Revoke An established revoke may not be corrected except as provided by law. When a play has been canceled, retracted, or withdrawn see L16F. A. Benefit The correction of an unestablished revoke prevents its establishment. If an established revoke is corrected as provided by law, it remains established for the purpose of applying L64. B. Optional Correction A contestant may (but is not required to, except as provided by L62C) correct his unestablished revoke. C. Mandatory Correction A contestant shall correct his revoke if 1. Revoker Draws Attention revoker draws attention (see L49) to his unestablished revoke before his side has played to the next trick. or 2. Legal Inquiry attention is legally drawn to his failure to follow suit and (a) the revoke has not become established and (b) no opponent has played subsequent to acknowledgment . or 3. Illegal Inquiry by Partner his partner drew attention<53> to his failure to follow suit before his side plays to the next trick and provided that the other side has not played subsequent the revoke’s establishment. D. Indemnity If a player legally required to correct a revoke fails to do so and if the director judges that the score of the other side might have been higher<54> because of the required correction, the director shall so adjust the score considering the most favorable plausible score that could have been achieved by the other side had the correction been made. E. Procedure To correct an unestablished revoke, or, an established revoke as provided by L63B, the revoke card is retracted (see L47) and 1. The Correction a) No Subsequent Play if there was no play<55> between the revoke and its acknowledgement (nor play by the partner prior to correction) revoker selects his substitution b) Subsequent Play otherwise<56> , (there having been such subsequent** play) revoker substitutes a card where the LHO may (but is not required to) elect to require the highest or lowest legal card be substituted to correct the revoke. 2. Play Subsequent Correction after a revoke is corrected L47E governs play subsequent to the correction of the revoke. 3. Substitution Prohibited a. Play Prior to Ruling a card played<57> after the revoke was acknowledged may not be changed except to correct an illegal play. b. POOT Subsequent the Revoke a card played subsequent the revoke but not in proper rotation forfeits any option<58> to change the play and is subject to L53. c. Revoke Established by Subsequent Play a revoke established<59> via revoker’s side playing to a subsequent trick may not be corrected. 4. Revised Penalty Option if subsequent to a revoke and prior to its correction revoker’s partner had played subject to penalty option, the other side may revise its selection of penalty option, if any. The revoking side has no right to alter any previously chosen penalty. 53 L62C3 See L63B about establishment of the revoke. 54 L62D Including the effect of the resulting PC. 55 L62E1a However, a POOT by revoker’s RHO is considered to not be a play (as in ignored) with respect to this provision to correct a revoke. 56 L62E1b However, if the only subsequent play was by revoker’s RHO OOT, or himself in turn, L62E1a and not L62E1b applies. 57 L62E3a Refers only to a card played to the revoke trick or the next trick. 58 L62E3b as distinguished from a mandatory correction of an illegal play 59 L62E3c As distinguished from establishment by illegal drawing attention to the failure to follow suit. L63 Establishment of a Revoke Once established, a revoke remains established. A. Establishment by Play A revoke is established when a member of the revoking side plays or designates a play to the next trick, or, makes a claim, a concession, or, his side acquiesces to a claim, or accepts a concession. However, when an opponent claims before normal play would have established the revoke, L61C applies and if the revoke is corrected before the side acquiesces, it is not established. B. Establishment by Illegal Inquiry If a player improperly (L61B) draws attention (see L49C) to his partner’s failure to follow suit that is a revoke, the revoke is established (L62C3 may apply). See L11C if a spectator was first to draw attention to a revoke. C. Correction Prohibited Once established a revoke shall not be corrected except as provided by L62C and L67. L64 Revoke Remedies After a revoke has been verified as established the director transfers (but see L11C) tricks to the other side after the play period has ended (exception: the case of the failure to play a PC as required is not penalized if the contestant in fact followed suit); however, if the number of tricks to be transferred exceeds the number won<60> by a side subsequent an established revoke the excess tricks are not transferred. A. Penalty Until the right to penalize expires one trick is transferred for each established revoke; and for each suit in which a player revokes additional tricks are transferred as follows: 1. Won Revoke Trick For each revoke suit that the revoker won the revoke trick, if the offending side won a subsequent trick, one additional trick is transferred. 2. Lost Revoke Trick When revoker did not win the revoke trick, then for each revoke suit one additional trick is transferred for each such suit where afterward the revoker won a trick with a card that he could have legally played to the revoke trick. 60 L64 Including penalty tricks due from subsequent revokes by the other side L47 Retraction of Play When a play has been canceled, retracted, or withdrawn see L16F. Such retracted cards (L56) are penalty cards and are subject to Law 50 except when the law provides that a retracted card is returned to a contestant’s hand. A. Option to Correct a Revoke An option to correct a revoke by substituting a legal play expires once the offending side plays to a subsequent trick. B. Mandatory Retraction of Illegal Play An irregular play shall be retracted (and a legal one substituted as provided by law) if required to comply with a ruling. C. Defective Trick A card from a trick containing too many cards, or a card improperly associated with a trick but not played to it, shall be retracted in accordance with L67. D. Correction of Dummy’s Play Dummy’s card may be corrected only as provided by L46A, L46C, L47, or L67. E. Play After a Revoke Correction Upon a contestant correcting his revoke by substituting a card,<41> cards played by a side that did not revoke and subsequent the withdrawn card and prior to revoke being acknowledged are returned (except as restricted by L62E3) to their previous condition without additional penalty and each such player then substitutes in rotation a legal<42> play for his withdrawn card(s). Thereafter, play reverts to the proper contestant and continues normally; further, if the contestant’s side did not revoke during the trick all such retracted cards are AI to his side. F. Induced POOT If an opponent incorrectly informs a contestant that it was his turn and he plays before being correctly informed, subject to L53C he may return the card to its previous condition without penalty. G. Play After MI If a legal play relied on an opponent’s uncorrected MI, once the MI is corrected the play may be corrected (without penalty) only if no other card has subsequently been played by his side. To do so he retracts the card, restoring it to its previous condition, and substitutes a card in its place; otherwise it is too late to correct his play. The retracted card is AI to his side and is UI to the other side. 1. Limitation However, after the dummy’s concealed cards have been spread in whole or part, an opening lead may not be retracted without penalty unless L47F applies. 2. Too Late to Correct See L75L when it is too late to change a play based on uncorrected MI under L47G. H. Retraction Prohibited A played card may not be retracted except in accordance with L47A to 47G. 41 L47E Distinct from failure to contribute a card to the trick. 42 L47E If ownership of the revoke trick changed due the correction where the NOS had otherwise properly led to the next trick, after the non revoking side has completed play to the corrected revoke trick, play then reverts to the proper contestant as if the player had not led to the next trick. L49 Exposed Cards A. Prior to Play Period Except for withdrawn cards restored to the hand in accordance with law, once the auction is over and prior to the play period, 1. a defender’s card exposed a. deliberately is played to the first trick subject to L41E3b. b. inadvertently becomes a PC. 2. if a member of the declaring side exposes a card it shall remain faced until the opening lead and shall then be restored<43> to the hand without further penalty. B. During Play Period Except for withdrawn cards restored to the hand in accordance with law, during the play period 1. any card played to a trick that is retracted becomes a PC. 2. any card prematurely and deliberately exposed, except when claiming, is resolved as provided by L45C1. 3. a player’s accidently dropped card is resolved as provided by L45C2. C. Player Reveals Identity of Card If a player reveals<44> , such as by naming it, that he possesses a card (see the proprieties when the contestant does not possess the card.) 1. during the auction period see L24. 2. during the play period it must be played forthwith, even if subject to penalty; and see L53. 43 L49A2 If a LOOT is made, the exposure of the card may affect the penalties of L53A1. 44 L49C A player who announces on his own initiative that he has revoked is deemed to have so revealed possessing a card of the revoke suit. If the revoke has been established then for the purpose of determining the card to be played forthwith L46D applies subject to L62E as if a euphemism was used. L50 Penalty Cards When a defender has a penalty card, it is AI to his partner that there is a penalty card, but other information from the card (such as signaling or the existence of the card in the hand) is unauthorized to his partner. When selecting a choice of penalty a player shall not consult his partner. A. Location A PC remains faced on the table in front of the player to whom it belongs until it is played or no longer is a PC. B. Requirement to Play A PC shall be played at the first legal<45> opportunity, but see L52. However, if there is a choice<46> of more than one PC that can legally be played, his LHO<47> is entitled, but is not required, to specify which card shall be played. C. Lead Penalty Options When the partner of a player with a PC is to lead, the LHO has the right 1. Right To Select to require the lead of the suit, or, forbid the lead of the suit(s) of any PC until his side plays. The penalty shall continue until the lead has been lost. The PC(s) of all suits specified shall be restored to the hand and are no longer penalty cards. See L59 when the offender is unable to comply with the penalty. 2. Selection Delayed to not exercise the penalty option at that time, and the contestant may lead any legal card he chooses and all such cards of a player remain penalty cards. D. Duration of Penalty Card 1. Penalty not Exercised A PC remains a PC until it is played or its penalty option has been exercised. 2. Played PC If play of a PC has been canceled to remedy an irregularity, and another card was legally substituted, the retracted card remains a PC. E. PC Damages Other Side If the director judges that the OS gained an advantage through knowledge contained in a PC, such as by adopting a line of play suggested by an exposed card but not apparent from AI, and damage to the NOS was a consequence, he may assign an adjusted score. 45 L50B The lead penalties of L26 and L50C take precedence over the requirement to play a PC. 46 L50B When the player is void in the suit led he is required to so announce at his turn for the purpose of clarifying that there is a choice. 47 L50B Only declarer speaks for dummy. For this case, upon establishing the facts 1. instruct that no one is to speak without instruction 2. W must acknowledge [L61B3a] if he revoked; and having acknowledged the revoke this identifies [L49C2] that he had a D and thus must be instructed to play [a POOT] his smallest diamond forthwith. The revoke having been established by play [subject to penalty at the end] must not be corrected and thus the D becomes a withdrawn card [subject to L53A2b] left faced on the table. 3. S is instructed that he need not acknowledge [L61B3b] such a revoke at this time [but refraining now must still do so at the end] as the inquiry was done illegally, however, if he does so [it being unestablished] it must be corrected forthwith [creating <L47> a PC] whereby W may specify [if he chooses and without delay] [L62E1b] the correction be the highest or lowest diamond. 4. presuming S chooses to prevent establishment of his revoke whereby W then may not choose [L47E due to his side's revoke] to correct his subsequent H play. 5. E's infraction of L61B3a is assessed a half point PP 6. play proceeds

The response to the question is UI to responder's partner.

This assertion is particularly incredible as it is indeed easy to have law that makes dealing with multiple infractions rather straight forward. The constructing of law is not particularly difficult provided the myriad of existing law provisions that make it impossible to do so are first remedied.

I seem to recall that top tricks were claimed. Does that mean that all cards are played from the top?

Some data may be useful here. In one of the cases where there was a replay issue [when I was a principle], mid-session a rumor came to my attention that a pair of boards had not been duplicated and thus the set was in play for a second time in 24 hours. I tried to recognize those hands and did not. Yet, even though I did not recognize the hands I did two tricks better on each of the boards the second time around. Which goes to show that the subconscious pays much better attention than our conscious; and what we don’t consciously remember can be remembered and acted upon subconsciously.

It’s a bit curious that this morning I ran across an anecdote from 1989 concerning a similar subject. It is noticeable that the law doesn’t give much of a procedure for dealing with perceived replay of previous boards- except that such results are canceled. Maybe it ought to be formally addressed. I personally believe that the TD should not be notified until after all the spots are known. Yes, that can lend to sharp practice of obtaining a bad result and then claiming [by falsehood] that the board had been previously played and then the TD will need to decide whether the coincidence was real or cheating. But let me finish. If the board is not the same, but the partner of complainer discerns which hand complainer is referring to then the partner is in a position to know the relevant cards sitting opposite. And that fouls the comparison. I think it is better to play the hand and should it eventuate that you believe the spots to be identical then explain to the TD the concern and then he should investigate. This is the anecdote to which I originally referred: I was quite taken by the story how he recognized a hand and immediately got the TD. It would be of service to players everywhere to point out that when one feels he remembers a previous hand he should resist the temptation to draw attention to it until after it has been played. To draw attention prematurely can/will foul a legitimate hand since other players have been alerted that there is something special about the hand. To illustrate I once was in the third round of a shuffle each round Swiss teams [after the boards had been exchanged] where I picked up a hand that looked particularly familiar. The bidding was eerily familiar [i had a sick feeling when partner bid 6D]. And the dummy was eerily familiar. In fact the honors were the same while there was some difference in the spots. The limit of ‘the hand’ the day before was 11 tricks while the ‘second time around’ the limit was 12 tricks. The deals were in fact different. And it would have been worse than sad to foul the hand without justification. As for this case where the player has announced to the table what he has there can be no comparison. Since the board was preduplicated there is no way to substitute. Without knowing as to the truth of the assertion [replay of board] there is no way to judge the next course of action except to investigate the facts.

Some years ago I brought home 5H on a dummy reversal and grand coup [trumps were 5-3]. Fortunately, 14 tricks were easy in two other strains. That’s how.

If N's awareness of his own method is 'showing ♥+♣, and you expect partner to have a reasonable hand at this vulnerability).' it is not credible that he is suited to judge his best course with or without accurate descriptions of his opponents' method. To demonstrate the distinction, my U2NT promises 5+5+ in the lower two unbid including 6+hcp between those two suits; additionally the hand is unsuitable to start the bidding at the one level [less than 2QT] unless it will make game in pard's best support suit My method suggests that defending is a superior proposition; even worth an occasional speculative double.

If the tournament staff is going to play the hands without the players then the players can stay home and avoid wasting their time and money.

I think that it is readily believable that when a player exposes two cards at his turn to play that the occasion does not constitute normal play. As you do not elaborate as to the arguments supporting the TK and MS position it is difficult to assess whether they are valid. But it is notable that L49 provides in that situation for such cards to be PCs automatically. And L50 thereby provides that it is declarer [contrary to TK assertion] that controls which card is to be contributed to the trick.

I suspect that the reference to ethics resides in the notion where after 3C that he has no call that is systemic- except Pass; and because such a call after canceling 1D puts partner in the position of improperly fielding the anti-systemic call [in this case 3D] this is unfair. This is particularly true if the correction is not made with alacrity or contains mannerism since otherwise such would all but make clear that the call carries risk. It is my understanding that the WBFLC expects partner to allow for an anti systemic call [as to avoid barring pard] and I think they’re bonkers for it. My view is that someone that doesn’t correct with alacrity and absent mannerism should do the systemic thing. Personally, if I make such a mistake I eat it without making a face. Also, personally, I think pard was resulting.

Once it is realized that an ‘insufficient double’ has the characteristics of an insufficient call then a host of problems are solved without bad after taste by treating them all the same. It then remains to provide appropriate remedies as when such call is not condoned as legal.

Of great importance in making inferences from bidding is knowing the agreements to the calls made: APPEAL CASE 3 Event: Mitchell Open BAM Teams Session: First qualifying Subject: Break in Tempo (BIT) FulvioFantoni ♠9752 ♥J ♦8632 ♣AK73 Poon Hna____ Kelvin Ng ♠Q8____ ♠AJT6 ♥AQ9____ ♥876542 ♦A75____ ♦— ♣QJT65____ ♣982 ClaudioNunes ♠K43 ♥KT3 ♦KQJT94 ♣4 West North East South _________________2♦ (1) 2NT ___3♦ ___3♥ ___4♦ Pass(2) Pass 4♥ Pass Pass Dbl Pass Pass Pass (1) 10-13 HCP, 5 diamonds and a major OR 6-plus diamonds. (2) Break in tempo. notably: 2N- for instance, the agreement is not clear as to 2N due to the lack of discussion with regard to 2D= diamonds, 10-13 hcp. Due to the lack of discussion it is reasonable to arrive at a finding that 2N is natural, with D stops [theoretically want better D stops the closer to minimum values]. To put the partnership into the nine trick range against a bidding opponent and no information from partner suggests that the minimum strength for 2N needs to be in the so-called strong NT range. To summarize- it is reasonable to find 2N to promise balanced distribution, diamond stops, and 15+ hcp. 3H- EW assert that they have thought it over [whether by explicit discussion or partnership principles] that 3H promised hearts and game values. Practically speaking, that should include two quick tricks if balanced or as little as 1-1/2 quick tricks unbalanced. P[of 4D]- suggests minimum values unwilling to promise the kind of defense against 4D that would be expected from 2N; wasted values; less than satisfactory [H] support; give pard the opportunity to better define/evaluate his holdings On the above basis an analysis of the auction can be made from E viewpoint 2D- S has a decent hand, probably with excellent D 2N- pard has a hand with prospects; my D void duplicates his D values; indicated capacity of the cards 8 tricks, maybe 9 tricks, or hopefully more in H or S; prospects of a difficult to duplicate swing if he has the right cards 3D- the opponents’ D rate to be all but solid 3H- yeah, I know I should have a lot more to GF- a big stretch that can [but probably won’t] get lucky 4D- the honor strength looks to be split about even, probably favoring EW; may not make 9 tricks P- he’s leaving it up to me; he may only have one trump trick; shouldn’t have three good hearts, probably has a doubleton; eight tricks in H may need me to take a view; spades may be the best spot but too dangerous to take that view; NS may or may not be able to make 4D, so defending is the best opportunity [particularly should W has the SK] for a plus score while it will take a miracle to declare and get plus; 4D is likely to be duplicated even if the other south can’t systemically open a weak 2; I really stretched to force to game in the first place so 4DX may slip a setting trick when pard plays me to have the stuff that I promised; I took a dubious shot hoping to hit partner and didn’t so we probably dodged a bullet And that is why Pass is the only logical call. Personally, I am surprised that hearts weren’t held to 9 tricks after S plays the DK at T2; whereupon N breaks his wrist at the same time the S7 hits the table.

After reading case 3 I can see no indication that supports your assertion. The reference to 12C1c was solely with regard to adjusting the score. That it was in the same paragraph as a discussion of LA is more a testament to poor grammar than imparting a direct connection between the two. As to the AC believing that the issues were close, it should be clear that the only logical call was pass.

It has occurred to me that L36A operates without the presence of the TD much the same way that ‘A trick containing a trump is won by the player who has contributed to it the highest trump.’: 36A If offender’s LHO calls before rectification of an inadmissible double or redouble the inadmissible call and all subsequent calls are cancelled. The auction reverts to the player whose turn it was to call and proceeds as though there had been no irregularity…. As such, where S acted at E’s turn with the improper double, once the requisite calls have been cancelled the auction reverts to E as if there had been no irregularity. iow the -X-P-1N- have already been cancelled, the matter of concern being the subsequent P of E,S,W. The point being that when calls that are cancelled are considered to be cancelled as they are happening [as in double *cancelled* pass *cancelled* 1N *cancelled* the so called rotation is back to the proper player to call, namely east. And as E,S,W had passed [supposedly upon their own misunderstanding and thus not subject to recourse] the auction would thereby have ended in 1H. With the consequence of untangling who won which tricks [the matter of any condoned leads OOT being mute].

For a player with such a reputation, it might be said that it would never occur to his opponents to call the TD in the first place. Not so, you say? Well, not so, I say as well. A player ought to know before he acts such that when he has made the first touch he will complete the move post haste. Thus the necessity of holding players to the same standard… the standard certainly needs to contain justice.

Instructions were given to start the next round while a board was in play. The board is to be finished [including scoring] and then move. Here, instead of 'then move' the players commenced with a new board. This is insubordination. Well, the board is being played now, isn't it. The law specifies that it be completed and scored. Explain that the insubordination is very serious and has repercussions- one of which is a 2 board disciplinary penalty assessed both directions, and that further inconveniencing the movement will have repercussions.

The insurmountable problem lies in the fact that people are immovably wed to core beliefs that are false beliefs. For instance, of the bridge world as distinguished from TBW (the publication which I am about to cite), in October 1999 Jeff Rubens [or possibly Chris Compton] wrote that it is a universal belief of bridge players that no one should ever gain from his own side's infraction. Actually, at the time the statement was not true (I did not hold that belief) as it was not universal; and in fact I believe that the notion is down right evil. Granted, it is likely that I am alone. My beliefs are founded upon reason: the consequence of the above is that innocent players must be treated as cheats in order to achieve such aim- and to my mind, that is unfair in the most egregious way. Metrics do exist that consistently enough approximate fairness. But they can’t be enumerated in a few paragraphs, cut and pasted into WBF2008, and solve the supposed ills you want to solve. That is because the entirety of the principles in WBF2008 must first be shifted and you are unwilling to allow such a shift because doing so would conflict with your core beliefs. In other words, the difficulty in law is finding Solomon to write it over the protests of interest groups.

I suspect that Nick understates the case considerably; not that other law provisions aren't far worse. However, one merely being aware that a state of being is objectionable, it does not necessarily follow one wisely knows what to do about it.

The words imply no such thing.

1. ew have breached L73B1 and this warrants a PP of at least 1/2 board; because of aggravating factors I think it should be closer to 1 board 2. it is important to establish what AI existed [system to the auction] before contemplating an adjusted score