axman

Not that I have worked through the issues but it is apparent to me that The Infraction is the unnamed contestant that did not keep his trap shut. As for the other 'infraction' of the failure to report immediately I am presently reluctant to classify it as a heinous crime: I would be curious to know just what** the TD is to be able to accomplish from this forthwith report when he can not find out to which board the extraneous information refers or just who created the extraneous information. Anyway, it seems to me that the primary reason for insisting that a report be made immediately is for the purpose of immediately putting a stop to the future creation of 'the' extraneous information. ** suppose that after reporting the overhearer picks up a hand he believes the EI referred and then calls the TD to say 'I think this is it' Now the opponents have EI that there is something special about the hand- and what if they act on the inference and gain a profitable outcome?

While burn correctly relates the reasons espoused by bridge authorities for the banning in general of such methods, he does not give the correct reasoning to justify such rules. That is because there is no valid reason to ban the adoption of methods. If bridge authorities were thinking clearly they would realize that once communication between partners is limited to calls and plays together with agreements thereby attached is more than a sufficient impediment to successfully solving the 53+ nonillion possible deals. And to prevent a pair from free choice of method destroys the game for the very reason that possibilities are destroyed. This does not mean that players ought to play such methods; nor does it mean that players capable of playing such methods in a fair way should play such methods. It does mean that the bridge authority ought to vigilantly attempt to solve players’ problems by identifying methods that crop up that players are likely to have difficulty in using fairly, and to publish advice that the use of the method will carry with it a requisite standard of fair play- and a commensurate reduction of score [and other remedies] for every breach. Thus, in the normal course of events, word will get around that players having tried the method and realizing that 7 cards out of ten they are afraid that partner will act upon the signal and thus their ‘subconscious’ compels a breach of law [tipping partner off]- and thus will conclude that the system really does not work on the whole and will seek some better way.

The TD satisfies the rules or he does not. The rules are published in the conditions of contest. Without the text of the relevant rule others are not able to judge the efficacy of the the ruling. As such, the remedy for the player that considers a rule to be bad is to not enter the event.

The POOT must be retracted and is a PC [L57A]. The LOOT may??? be accepted [L53]; however, this is direct conflict with L57A which requires that the LOOT must be retracted to become a PC- it having been played prior to South’s rightful turn. As the law requires an automatic retraction of both cards there is the L57A penalty option for W to choose for S’s lead: 1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or 2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or 3. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer. If the selected penalty is not the PC it remains so. Further, if the CK is not the card that S plays legally to the trick then E has a choice of L57A penalties against N at his turn to the trick: 1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or 2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or 3. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer. There remains the PC requirements as well as potential PC lead options to future tricks.

If you will recall, it was stated that the policy in Germany is that if the previous call is not a skip then it is necessary for the next player to act in his consistent tempo to avoid an accusation of varying his tempo. It therefore follows that in order to protect ones’ side after a speed bid immediately after a skip bid the TD needs to be called to issue a PP. And is it not curious that this process will take upwards of two minutes? In so much as there is substantial empirical data supporting the notion that pausing [at least] 10 sec after each skip bid can eliminate UI problems if the players are so disposed that does not mean that it is a good idea to allow, let alone demand, that players behave like dictators- ordering opponents around. As a matter of fact, skip bid commands [sBC] are something that players get wrong incessantly [read: frequent TD calls]- there are over 3000 ways to wave the stop card around and a great many ways to react to it. Which is all neither here nor there since SBCs are illegal which makes the SBC regulation illegal- it being in conflict with L74 and L73B1&2. The two points I actually was making was [a] if the illegal regulation was taken to its conclusion it would be demonstrated to be the ludicrous abomination that it is and if players have the expectation of being treated with respect [read: treated as players rather than infants] they will respond to a regulation in the spirit that it was made: such as pause** 10 sec after every skip bid so that everyone can have a chance to catch up without creating UI. **=that is, without prompting

The proper course of action is to call the TD immediately upon the speed bid and inform him that the player infracted such and such regulation and by doing so has created an improper distraction and improper irritation in contravention of L74. This breach of regulation warrants a multiple pip PP. Further, as the player has deliberately communicated to partner other than by call or play it is proper to draw attention to the breach of L73B1.

I think declarer's intention to play the ♠2 is incontrovertible. It sounds like there are numerous issues. Declarer, two defenders, and dummy are at the table. LHO has played a card after declarer has led. Is it not possible, nay probable that declarer has seen the card that LHO has just played? I should think so. Now, consider when it is a fact; then it is therefore likely that declarer had intended the H2 be the card to be obviously played- however, declarer might well have intended the S2 under ruff the SQ, to play the S2 regardless of LHO’s card. as such, it is not certain that the H2 was intended nor is it certain the S2 was intended. And because it is possible that declarer was paying attention, even if not- it is not certain that either was intended. And to be incontrovertibly intended there must be certainty. And further because we can not be certain that declarer was paying attention it is not incontrovertible that one particular 2 was intended. To meet the standard of incontrovertible there must be some corresponding overt act that makes the intention indisputable- a statement notarized before naming, pointing a finger at the card, something overt and not contradictory in any way. Therefore, L46B3 in this case provides that declarer name the particular 2. However, we are not done yet. There are two deuces in dummy and declarer has named a rank but not a suit AND dummy has reached for the S2 thereby suggesting a play in contravention of L43A1c: Dummy must not participate in the play, nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer. The law specifies ramifications for this breach: L45 F. Dummy Indicates Card After dummy’s hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. If he does so the Director should be summoned forthwith and informed of the action. Play continues. At the end of the play the Director shall award an adjusted score if he considers dummy suggested a play to declarer and the defenders were damaged by the play suggested. As such as much as the defenders might wish to specify which deuce must be played the law specifies that it is up to declarer. And further specifies that there may be L45F repercussions. One last thought. for those who remember the Menagerie I believe there was a hand that the Hog was defending against the Rabbit where something similar took place- where the Rabbit having gotten put into this fix was bound and determined to under ruff and the Hog was bound and determined to get him to not under ruff. Why was the Hog so intent on declarer not ‘waste’ his trump? Because the under ruff was the only card that would pulverize his defense.

The score should be artificial [Av-, Av-] L12A2. The Director awards an artificial adjusted score if no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board (see C2 below).

L15B specifies that in such instance that the second play be canceled and art score awarded to the EW pair and the NS that thereby can't play the board when scheduled in 90 minutes. These players cannot earn a valid score because in the canceled auction the NS players had already seen all 52 cards it and in the otherwise scheduled play 90 minutes later this condition of the deal can't be duplicated

East's comment is clearly a claim. Comments like that are explicitly contemplated in Law 68A (my emphasis added): None of the specifications [of what constitutes a claim] provided by L68 were satisfied so there is no basis for ruling that a claim occurred. [a] E has told S to hurry up. THe facts give no indication that S was being lethargic. Further E has been rude and has given a distraction to declarer that could affect his play. This breaches L74 and a suitable PP should be assessed. E has communicated to W other than by call or play in direct contravention of L73B1. THis breach of L73B1 warrants a significant PP mitigated by an absence of a adjusted score; and subjects W to the provisions of L16. [c] as it is possible from W's point of view for S to have a stiff C it is not illogical to discard a C on the trumps [a C is a LA to Hs] [d] E telling W what to keep can be construed as a belief that W is capable of discarding a C was so strong that it was imperative to intervene. In the event of an adjusted score a weight of 90% discarding a C and 10% keeping clubs is justified.

Not really. To "restore" is, among other things: If we consider the "original state" of the cards in the board to be that immediately following a deal performed in accordance with Law 6B, then there were thirteen of them in each pocket randomly ordered and all face down. It is that state to which they should be "restored" in accordance with Law 7C. Of course when that Law was written, instead of "restores them to the pocket..." the Lawmakers should have said "replaces them face down in the pocket..." Maybe one day the Laws will be written in English - but that will not constitute a restoration, merely a revolution. This most certainly is a common usage for restore and it would do well to examine what effects there are: 1. To which original state is the target- today? last week? last year? Is it so outlandish to go back even further than a year- after all this is the.original.state. I don't think so. But since the presumed original state is the cards put in the pockets after the deal of today, then why not should the original state be the cards as they arrive in the current round. If the player each round is culpable for the imperfections of they who preceeded him then he must have a mechanism to ascertain precisely the original state of the cards to protect himself if he so chooses. i could imagine that the mechanism should fall to the TD and I can believe easily that it can take some time for the TD to visit every table after every board. On the other hand, if the player only is responsible to restoring the cards to his pocket as he found them for such a thing he needs no outside assistance and the game would proceed more quickly. And that is satisfactory reason for the presumptive original state to be the cards that arrive at the table. Which all is neither here nor there. As you have said kings and potentates and rulemakers may speak and write as they fancy without regard for what carrying out the commands will look like. Yet, if every player at the Bermuda Bowl were to protect himself by verifying every hand with the TD that he gets the correct L6B cards in the correct order prior to actually returning the cards to the pocket then after Meckwell's, Hamman's, zia's, Hellness', Helgemo's, Versace's, Lauria's.......blood has been cleaned up there might be some impetus to write the rules in ENglish. ps A reasonably entertaining vugraph Sunday.

Not according to the EBU L&EC. I put to them the possibility of a regulation to cover this. The L&EC's view is that the vital word is "restore": the cards are restored to the board if they are replaced in the same condition, so the word face down are unnecessary. Great, thanks. So long as there is official guidance from the L&EC that the law is to be interpreted in that way, that seems to be all we need (within England, at least). the LEC's assertion is faulty. The word restore cuts in more way than one. Consider the case where the board arrived boxed. To restore then requires the board to be boxed. Further consider that to restore the board requires the cards be returned in the same order.

I think you've missed a point. An opponent draws an inference from a break in tempo at his own risk, unless it is a situation where the player whose turn it is to call knows or at least can be pretty sure that such a break will lead to a false inference — for example, hesitating with a singelton (Law 73D1). Either way, if it is done unintentionally the case cannot rise to the level of "improper deception", because per Law 73D2, improper deception only exists through a tempo break or mannerism when it is done deliberately in an attempt to deceive. I have inserted the antecedent: 1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, <when variations will not work to the benefit of their side,> then unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. There are two primary avenues where variations may [unfairly] benefit one's side [a] extraneous inferences taken by partner decpetive inferences given improperly to the opponents The law provides that if there is exists a deceptive [benefit to one's side] inference [as from a variation in manner] there is an infraction. Yesterday I suffered a brain aneurism during which I asserted that the law no longer provides for the mitigation of the infraction of not being particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. The words that were not there for me yesterday are there for me today. Hopefully my brain will heal and I then will correct those things perpetrated that need correcting.

I think you've missed a point. An opponent draws an inference from a break in tempo at his own risk, unless it is a situation where the player whose turn it is to call knows or at least can be pretty sure that such a break will lead to a false inference — for example, hesitating with a singelton (Law 73D1). Either way, if it is done unintentionally the case cannot rise to the level of "improper deception", because per Law 73D2, improper deception only exists through a tempo break or mannerism when it is done deliberately in an attempt to deceive. I have inserted the antecedent: 1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, <when variations will not work to the benefit of their side,> then unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. There are two primary avenues where variations may [unfairly] benefit one's side [a] extraneous inferences taken by partner decpetive inferences given improperly to the opponents The law provides that if there is exists a deceptive [benefit to one's side] inference [as from a variation in manner] there is an infraction.

THe law provides no mitigation for the infraction of : However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Being not particularly careful is an infraction. If there are implications to be made it is that the removal of the mitigation from law suggests that there are no mitigating factors. Which is quite the opposite of what you assert. Robert Frick has a thread running this month on blml concerning what I'll describe as jury nullification. It may be of interest or not.

As the TD, I would handle this case by asking South to explain why she felt she had a difficult problem and then I would consider the plausibility of her answer. I would then read out all of Law 73D1 and Law 73F to the whole table and explain how these Laws apply (or not) to this situation. I believe that there was a time when having a valid bridge reason [for needing the time taken to consider] was a sufficient defense to an assertion of improper deception. Past tense used because there currently is a lack of such provision in the law.

The use of the STOP command conveys to partner that you consider the opponent is to take ten seconds prior to calling. This consideration is bridge information as to your judgment. The presence and absence of the STOP command is a system of communication with partner other than by call or play and is in conflict with L73B2 which describes the most heinous of bridge crimes. As described by L80B2f such regulation is illegal.

Because, given that West doesn't have very many points, his "takeout bid" is likely to be a genuine three-suiter - that is, he will have at least twelve non-hearts. For a "Michaels" bid he needs only ten non-hearts. I suspect, without performing tedious calculations, that a man who can have at most one heart is more likely to have no hearts than a man who can have at most three hearts. WHen establishing a connection to damage, much closer to the mark is whether the difference from the correct explanation is sufficient to exclude/ignore other possibilities. However, to my thinking, a necessary condition for establishing such a difference is the prior establishment of exactly what a correct explanation is. My understanding is that in this case there is an assertion of damage in the play arising from E's expalantion to N and that E's explanation has been established. And in my mind, a correct explanation is sufficient defense to an accusation of a misexplanation to N and it has not yet been established that such infraction existed if for no other reason that a corrct explanation has not yet been established.

Improper deception is improper deception with or without damage and ought to be investigated.

Are you suggesting a change of Law 68B2? Certainly. I think, with the demise of Law 25B, it is now the worst Law in the book. Actually, as horrid [and indeed it is horrid] as L68B2 it is nowhere near the worst, as L77 has always been the worst, followed closely by L1 which put together are the source of well more than 95% of the problems suffered by bridge players.

THe first assertion is not really true. A board that is played can have an outcome of a top, a bottom, or in between. Some of those outcomes can dramatically affect the standings-- so by not playing the board there is no way to find out. As for the second assertion, while absence of resolution might affect the 'enjoment' of various people differently and thus be indeterminate prior to killing a board, for some, Monday morning quarterbacking is a passionate misery.

As offender has not previously [well, I suppose he has at least in some other auction, and having so called I then suppose that his partner has no enforced pass due to this COOT] called, let us suppose that the law does not mean what it says but means something else in which case it may mean whatever we wish it to; we then might believe that L31B provides in this case that offender’s partner must pass for the remainder of the auction. So, the offending call having been canceled and the turn reverted to offender’s partner who must pass at that turn and future turns, in fact does not pass. This is among other things an act of insubordination. Of the other things is suggested a breach of L73 has occurred; to wit- silenced partner having found out that partner was so eager to open OOT with 3H has contemplated what might have been and probably will not be without an accurate picture of his hand. And some idea is so much more useful to partner than no idea at all. And thus a L16 and L23 spiel is due. As for N POOT not accepted, it is canceled and the auction reverts to E who must pass, and N must repeat that pass [L30A] at his next turn. [note that L23 has ramifications for N] As all of this dribble has taken quite some time there have been some additional information provided, namely that W selected 4H which made largely due to an abundance of honors in the insubordinate hesitator’s collection of cards. As such, W has demonstrated that by his breach of L16 a severe breach of L73B1 has occurred and has egregiously taken advantage. An adjusted score of 3H making whatever is appropriate and a one board PP is insufficient for the breach of L16, L73, and insubordination.

I am curious how a player revokes during a trump trick and manages to win it. To illuminate why I am curious here is an excerpt from a ruling at a tournament last week: 'THere's been an established revoke.' 'offender didn't win the trick, but won a trick with a card he could have played- that is a two trick transf.....' 'please read the law' 'you are wrong' 'I want the law read' 'you are wrong'.. ...'you are wrong'... ...'you are wrong'... ...'you are wrong'... Four minutes later.... 'you are wrong....L64 says.....' '...L64 says......' 'But, but, but- there is equity...' four minutes later... declarer awarded the rest. elapsed time: ten minutes I’ll leave it to you to verify what L64 says <g>. However, getting to the heart of the query: 64C When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score. There is a reference to damage for which L12 is relevant: 12B1 Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred – but see C1(:(. Note that it provides the specification for the existence of damage, and, does not quantify it- and that ought to cause much grief to somebody. To recap. If after a revoke the NOS obtains a result less than the expectation absent the revoke they have been damaged. If you haven’t surmised yet that there is difficulty then it isn’t helpful to advise that there is. Namely that the compensation for all established revokes fall within L64A and B. And- however…..there is L64C that overrides L64A&B- when? When the TD deems- deems what? The NOS is insufficiently compensated. Which begs the question: just how does the OS know that the NOS is IC [insufficiently compensated]? After all L64A&B specify proper compensation. Answer: they rely upon the TD. And the TD needs no reason to rule IC or SC. But what we do know that once IC is ruled then L12 governs: But what we don’t know is the standard of redress, compensation, removal of advantage, or whatever: Eg in the team trials last night Gittleman in a tight match and after describing his hand to a T during a 2C auction bid a grand knowing the hands were misfitting-- for a big loss. As world class players do silly things, then just how many silly things are to be imputed upon the revoking side for a score adjusted for IC? You see, or maybe you don’t. the TD merely supplies a score in place of the result, he isn’t called upon to justify. And there is no basis, no standard to which can be compared to dispute it. Anyway. Getting to one of Wayne’s assertions about what he says is equity for the hand. Just who is to say that your standard of equity is the correct one, or even the appropriate one, to use? Well, the law says that it does not matter, after all. And just a bit of food for thought, consider the following, a dangerous sequence of words that the WBF has assiduously avoided: For the opponents of a revoker, if one or more verified revokes have [a] discouraged an advantageous line of play or made unwinnable, tricks otherwise winnable absent the revoke and the number of such tricks are greater than the trick transfer afforded by L64A then upon application for indemnity the director shall instead award such tricks. The right to indemnification expires if attention is not drawn to the revoke prior to the earlier of the NOS calling to the next board or the end of the round; however, if attention was drawn to the failure to follow suit that was in fact a revoke, and the contestant did not subsequently disclose the revoke in timely a fashion, the period of time that the revoke may be adjudicated is provided by L79

I strongly dislike byes. I think it is better to conduct 3-ways of two concurrent sessions [same day to minimize expenses] 3-ways have either 0 [as is the case when each team is 1-1] or 1 survivors OR use a tie break to guarantee a survivor in the defeated bracket Minimize the number of times a team is in a 3-way

I do not find the view at all interesting. I do find it misguided for the reasons you point out. It is possible for a ME to be substantial [as was here] but irrelevant [as was here]. Notably here, there was no claim by N of damage and in light of third party sources it is further notable that there was no claim by N during the hearing after the CC. But, had** there been, there is the persuasive proposition that for however inspired the extremely agressive vul OC was, it also sowed the seeds of the insurmountable problem [eg uncertainty as to the value of the hand]/ lack of ability to recognize the existence of a problem that occurred at the 5 level. and it is this that dispels any credibility to a [hypothetical] assertion by N of damage. ** if there had been I would be curious as its basis