axman

It thereby follows that CC are exchanged at the beginning of the round with a heads-up covering curious sequences. It follows that a player’s scores should not be given to the opponents since they might notice them. Err, I mean that they be kept on a separate paper. It follows that the design of the CC ought to be some sort of amalgam of the Zone 2 style overview and the EBU A20 style details with a standardized organization of footnotes. It is unthinkable that this can be accomplished with less than both sides of an 8.5x14 paper. It follows that the declaring side at the conclusion of the auction should demonstrate that they don’t know their system as by recounting their agreements to their bidding. If nothing else their future bidding will show improvement. And, oh yes, it would seem that MI if any would get corrected so as to not disadvantage the defenders. Nah, opponents that improve are a bad thing.

It occurred to me that if the CC wasn't on the table at all, it would not interfere [be a source of mistakes] with bidding, playing the cards, or seeing the cards. Not to mention avoiding the ruckus of picking it up to inspect- and so forth. In fact, if it were suitably propped on the knee you could glance at it at a propitious moment to find out what you want to know- most of the time without causing a UI stir.

How to begin? The worst way to disclose during a hand is by questions and answers. The primary reason lies in the ramifications of L16/L73/L74/L12. questions during the hand entail communicating with partner. Answers during the hand entail communicating with partner. Which leads to inquiring: if if Q&A are the worst methods should they be permitted at all? Once disclosure during the hand is the rule, then it becomes necessary to accommodate [remedy] the occasions when a party falls short. And in such cases the practical route is via Q&A. As such, it is necessary to accommodate breaches with Q&A [but as the last resort only]. So, if not Q&A then what?. The system card. In fact, the SC is the only satisfactory method of disclosing during the hand that makes it possible to disclose without the ramifications of L16/L73/L74/L12. Experience has found that not all relevant things can be lodged the SC. And this experience suggests this is where the threshold should be for invoking Q&A ought to be [when the relevant call is missing]. Many will claim that players can’t be bothered to complete such a SC in a fair manner. Well, when the leaders tell everyone that it is ok to not be bothered it would follow that that would be the attitude they will take. So, if the leaders can’t be bothered and the players can’t be bothered….. is that really such a good state of affairs? I happen to know that people being people, that some number will not be bothered; and as such, there needs to be an appropriate remedy for they that furnish unsatisfactory SCs, and answers to questions, and improperly delay the proceedings due to biting off the wrong things. Which circles back to the fact that people that pilot jets can’t be bothered to master a tricycle. A very understandable state of affairs.

Most sanctioned bridge demands, with severe penalties if the player fails to satisfy the rule, to bid using 2 bidding systems- one of which is quite alien to him. As such, the condition exists that players already are doing what you complain about. And just what is the standard system to which I refer? The Alert Procedure. For quite some time I have had the inkling that there is a nearly universal mood that prefers UI accusations, MI accusations, ethical accusations, and the foul rulings that arise therefrom- not pronouncing judgment on the state of affairs, mind you, but observing the state of affairs. And from my observations I have given effort to understand the underlying mechanisms and constructed alternatives. It is quite clear that you desire things as they are and that your fervor will lead others to close their minds from constructive alternatives. What I had set forth above was the appropriate use of a SS. Albeit, it is the only feasible and equitable solution [read remedy] for the pair that causes ‘too much’ UI and or MI and or improper delay of contest due to ‘biting off more than they can chew fairly’.

A few comments on Standard System. The appropriate view of a standard system within the context of bridge contests includes that it is a solution to problems such as slow play, UI, and MI. In this vein it would have the characteristics of efficacy for all players- the beginner and accomplished. As L1 and L77 are presently constructed, it would be dubious to believe that a standard system could achieve the desirable outcomes that would be available with appropriate L1 and L77. On that basis, the standard system could perform three functions: 1. to penalize and remedy pairs that overly delay, improperly misinform 2. to provide pickup (sic) partnerships a known system voluntarily without discussion 3. to provide a foundation for a partnership‘s honed system It would be dubious to make a single system contest [as evidenced by the failed attempt of SAYC games or lack thereof in the ACBL]. Ultimately, the value of a standard system is realized via #1. By requiring as a matter of CoC all players know the SS [not forced to adopt it (sic)] then for the opponents of players who are using SS there will be no valid reason for asking questions during the hand. Outcome: no time spent asking or answering questions during the hand as the agreements are already fully disclosed, no UI from inferences of asking questions as well as their phrasing, no UI from the responses to questions, no MI; further benefit to the partnership being the knowledge of which page they are on. In other words, a pair that is unduly slow as by trying to remember what they forgot, figuring out how to use ‘complicated information’ from their system, creating UI thereby, and/or a pair that has too many MI episodes should be penalized by requiring them to bid according to the SS. While such measure may at first appear extreme, the crimes being remedied are heinous; and for players that take the interest and make the investment to play fairly there would be no effect. It is noteworthy that the characteristic of the SS is that it is fundamental for beginners the ‘additional’ headwork of say 80 hours to learn it [most players spend hundreds of hours learning their first system] the time investment is worth it both from a bridge skill perspective and from the moral perspective of playing fair with opponents. That is not to say that construction of a useful SS would be easy; as the details depend upon the particulars of L1 and L77.

I should think that the question that must be answered is "what happened?" Once this question has been answered it generally ought to be pretty plain what ruling the law prescribes. I will point out that in the event that dummy moves a card after being given instruction by declarer, and if declarer does not assert pretty quick that he called for a different one [whether he actually intended a different one- or not] it becomes rather dubious to believe that he incontrovertibly intended a different one. That not withstanding, once declarer subsequently contributes a card I would believe that incontrovertible no longer matters. As an aside, do not underestimate the amount of care needed in dealing with such seemingly innocuous events as the explosiveness that can be generated by this situation can be immense : Twenty years ago I was in the process of going for a huge number against a partscore. I called for ‘diamond ten’ and dummy moved the DT; after some thought RHO demanded and then LHO demanded that the small D be played instead because he claimed I said ‘diamond’. The TD was called and after hearing what was said ruled that the DT was played. At the end of the hand LHO got 8 inches from my face and accused me of cheating. This was almost as unpleasant as what happened after the TD was called. The only thing I’ll add is that both LHO and RHO knew that I was in dummy for the last time and the DT was the only winner in dummy.

prior to the play of the D3 which thereby made the plays [of the C4 and DK] to be in turn**, what was the ruling that required the cancelling of the C4? **forfeiting the right to rectification or; to which card was the DK changed <so as to invoke the provision of 47D>?

I am inclined to believe that calling the DK a change of play is a mischaracterization. Declarer played the [dummy’s] C4, then the DK, and then dummy’s LHO played the D3. I find the law at best hazy as to just what the condition is of those two cards from dummy. The D3 was a failure to follow suit to the card that was led**; whether it was a revoke has not been established. As such, should the D3 be in fact a revoke I do not find it outrageous to deal with it as the law prescribes. My personal view is that the way the law is worded is outrageous in its effects and is unsuitable as a code for sensible people. I’ll suggest that the law is untenable and being a sensible person I leave to non sensible people to sort it out. One last thing. From L53A1&2: 1. A play by a member of the non-offending side after his RHO has led or played out of turn or prematurely, and before rectification has been assessed, forfeits the right to rectification of that offence. 2. Once the right to rectification has been forfeited, the illegal play is treated as though it were in turn (except when Law 53C applies). So, both of dummy’s plays are treated as in turn. The law, whatever its wisdom appears to place the sole burden for staying out of trouble upon dummy’s LHO. One should hope that as someone who pledges to rule in accordance with law that whatever resistance you have to doing so in the end would be overcome. **ostensibly the first card played to a trick, which, by law is a card played from the hand that won the previous trick [the OL not withstanding]

I'll point out that apparently there has been [presumptively] a claim that logically there are two clubs outstanding and supposedly W shows out where the CK is the highest club outstanding. Thereby given the presumption, when the C9 is played to the trick then dummy MUST win the last trick by force- satisfying the claim statement, if not in fact... then, at least in logic.

I should like to see the text of that law.

I think there are a couple more things. [a] the player's insubordination has improperly delayed the game the TD should find a time to ask the player to see him 20 minutes after the game so that he can tell him that the director's most important function is to serve the players, which includes helping them abide by the proprieties....

Are you neglecting such things as L67, 57, & 49?

Spoken as though west is entitled to something without regard to his earning it. That is a fascinating morality. I was pointing out that west has said in effect that he had not been deceived. Matters of propriety are not simple.

Some things are not simple at all: Consider that west did not say what inference he took; he instead asked what it meant. As west has suggested he did not know what the inference meant, then how could he be deceived? And Consider that wishy-washy west merely “might well have bid 2D”. A person that might do such and such conversely might not; as such, the person doesn’t know what he would have done differently and thus the inference was not material. But what really ties things into knots concerns the L74 effects with respect to west: “I was called at the end of play by West, who wanted to know what South had been thinking about, and asked me to look at his hand.” Because of the way west has gone about using innuendo his actions touch on berating /intimidating his opponents. Not simple at all.

When a player tells the table why he put 2S on the table this is an extraneous remark forbidden by L73B1 and he must be thus punished for doing so. There is a footnote to L31B: **Later calls at LHO’s turn to call are treated as changes of call, and Law 25 applies. As there are no other exceptions thus provided- does not the footnote make clear that so-termed 'changes of call' at any other time are treated as COOT?

The primary reason that it is important to ask questions [if any] after the OL is face down and before it is faced is to avoid the problems caused by accusations of breaches of propriety that can occur- particularly when the question was posed prior to selection of the OL. In this case the question itself or its phrasing can be a code [perhaps tacitly derived] that RHO is particularly enamored with the effects expected because of the ebullient bidding of diamonds, and wants self assurance that he won’t be disappointed- just in case pard might entertain other ideas. This is L73B territory. Regardless as to whether LHO’s selection was affected, RHO could have, and would have, easily avoided any possibility of the idea had he done his asking during time the lead was face down. A player should never get this wrong- so when he does it demands a stiff PP [particularly for new players as it will save them and many others much grief in the long run].

From Responder's hand it is very clear that E-W do not have the agreement that 5S is forcing with 4 key cards. If the plan was to bid 5S after the 4KC response then the player should have done so, but he did not. He instead hesitated and did so at extreme length in contravention of L73 before calling 5S thereby communicating to his partner other than by call or play. If it were indeed system then there would only have been good tempo. Indeed it is entirely possible that responder wants the opener to hold all KC as a condition for his bidding slam as would be the case when the partnership has failed to exchange enough about the source of tricks, and the case in this situation, the ace asker does not have some independent source of tricks. As for leaving options to discover a grand. What can opener communicate by convention that could provide useful information towards counting to 13? None. So it is pointless to go after useless information.

Fouling two comparisons is not a big deal. Issuing PP to non offenders is not a big deal. So, why are you making a big deal?

The first issue is the board# in play. Just because three hands are from #x and one from #y does not necessarily mean that #y is not the one in play. L7D provides that a player that remains at the table is responsible for the conditions of play <sic> so <presumably> it is N that puts the board in play- so he needs to be asked. Once it is determined which board is in play it is obvious who has correct cards and who has incorrect cards. L17D1 is clear that all calls 'by players holding incorrect hands' are cancelled. It is not particularly clear that the incorrect cards are to be put in their proper pockets before proceeding. L17D2 appears to presume that such players will extract their cards from the proper board and look at them. Thereafter L17D2 is clear that such players having looked at their now correct hands then call after which the auction proceeds- with the further provision: If offender’s LHO has called over the cancelled call the Director shall award artificial adjusted scores when offender’s substituted call differs* from his cancelled call (offender’s LHO must repeat the previous call) or if the offender’s partner has subsequently called over the cancelled call. * For example, a substituted call differs if its meaning is much different or if it is psychic. And then there is the matter of the 'other' board and L17D3. As for the TD interrupting play unnecessarily he ought to know better; and players ought to know better than do anything during a distraction- improper as it may be , or otherwise.

The errant pair has extraneous information due to play at the wrong table which is their fault. L16C2a provides for adjusting the players’ position and play the board- there being a question as to the limitations regarding which table. I believe that it reasonable to afford that it does include moving the players to their assigned table. L16C2d provides for an adjusted score as in the case should the redo auction is not repeated. Therefore, return the errant pair to their table [1/2 to a full board PP for moving incorrectly and fouling at least one comparison] standing ready to intervene [should the auction not be repeated suggesting that the EI could not be overcome] to cancel play and adjust the score [AV-/AV+]. For the non errant pair they have extraneous information from seeing the errant pairs’ auction that I judge fouls the comparison irretrievably. L16C2d provides for an artificial score treating both sides as non offending.

If you have read the law then you ought to know that your assertion is not true. The reason is that the law defines precisely what "adjudicating as equitably as possible to both sides" means because it contains the words "The Director proceeds as follows" and what follows are the paragraphs L70B thru L70E. This does not mean that "adjudicating as equitably as possible to both sides" is scary- since it is more descriptive to term them words of terror. THis is so because while one would expect that L70 should lead to the TD apportioning the unplayed tricks it is only L70C that does so- with the effect that for most contested claims there is no provision for apportioning the unplayed tricks. Yes, that means for an OL contested claim because declarer has taken no tricks his score will be for zero tricks. This is so because for all of the things that L70BDE tells the TD to do and to not do, none of them instruct him to apportion the unplayed tricks and L68 requires that play stop upon a claim. It can be anticipated that knowlegeable people will say that this post is not helpful in making rulings but such notions ignore the very basic` fact that bridge is to be played and adjudicated in accordance with law and this post illuminates what the law requires- however distasteful it may be.

Is it only me or does it really feel like reading a BestBuy rebate receipt?

Only if the UI was from a board he was yet to play or was playing. In my opinion the most heinous crime in bridge is a third party committing an infraction about which the opponent has no power to prevent but that places such opponent under the sword of Damocles: requiring either they impale themselves upon their own sword while facing the alternative of expulsion. In my previous response in this thread I called attention to just such a heinous crime. And apparently no one has been inclined to endorse such a position. For the record if such a matter were brought to my attention I would investigate if such a remark had been made and by whom. And establishing such facts I would make it clear that post mortems that might be overheard can cause other players immense ethical problems and distress and thus are a breach of L74A2 and assess a 2 board PP. Further, when announcing the move for the next round I will ask that no board be started prior to an announcement; the announcement being: ‘Please be advised that it is highly improper to discuss boards within earshot of any player- it can unfairly affect the outcome of one or more results and can impose ethical dilemmas upon others. As such because of the ethical distress that it can cause others it is amongst the activities that L74A2 admonishes players to avoid. I point this out because one pair has just been assessed a 2 board penalty for such breach of L74A2. When you overhear post mortems you are expected to report it to the TD. ’ As for the 16C admonition to call the TD forthwith. I am reluctant to believe that it should be used to convict a player of cheating should he not satisfy the condition. I am inclined to believe that its proper purpose should be to place the TD in a position to act- firstly upon stamping out the improper behavior of the player that opened his trap. As for the disposition of the outcome of boards to be played- just how are suitable conditions to be established that do not unfairly jeopardize the recipient of the errant comments? When I examined closely the provisions of L16C a dozen years ago I was less than satisfied yet could not grasp the underlying principle to express an adequate remedy. I still am unable to do so; but am convinced it is vital to succeed in distilling that principle.

Yes, the masterpoints are reinstated. It just seems weird doing this Av+ business. We had a phantom EW10 going round and they (or their opps really) automatically get "not played" (the program knows there is no such pair and doesn't even ask you to enter "not played"). Then there is this other pair - NS5 - that was there - but was phantom for most of the evening and it just seems 100% natural to enter them as "not played" - yet I have to give some Av pluses just to get the masterpoints back in operation. I've read the supposed "illegality" of this in one or two places - but I really don't see the logic. If the board wasn't played, it wasn't played. :unsure: Nick What happens by assigning NP to the affected pairs while assigning AV- to the corresponding sick pair ['split score']? as in will you get the mp awards while retaining the first three rounds?

I am generally tough on people who aren't paying attention, but in this case I think I would allow Nigel to withdraw his double. L21A No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.