axman

Very wise. Of course a TD should not act as in Sven's example - that is, he should not prejudge issues by announcing that a player "has his bid". (At least, he should not do this at duplicate - at rubber bridge the practice is more or less compulsory, though repugnant.) To that extent, the general principle "don't look at a player's hand before ruling" is perfectly sound. But as the ancient Romans noted (actually the ancient Greeks, but that would be confusing), "a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid" is a fallacy, and competent or good TDs will recognise it as such. Law 27 is without doubt a complicated Law, and probably not a very sensible Law. But it is the Law, and it requires as a minimum that when the Director permits a correction under part B1, the Director must (in effect) be satisfied that, and announce to the players that, there is a strong correlation between the insufficient bidder's replacement call and the insufficient bidder's cards. Moreover, the replacement call must in the Director's opinion be consistent with the methods used by the insufficient bidder's partnership. Now, in most cases the Director simply cannot assure this without ascertaining whether or not it is true. And he simply cannot ascertain whether it is true without knowing what the insufficient bidder holds. That is: in certain cases (perhaps the majority) a Director should not allow knowledge of a player's hand to influence his ruling, and should not seek to acquire such knowledge; but in certain other cases (perhaps the minority) he cannot conscientiously act without knowledge of a player's hand. Some years ago I swore off commenting on IB rulings because it made my head hurt. After suffering from this interminable torture of this thread I have become aware of the value of swearing and have acquired this insatiable urge to cause everybody’s head to hurt- if not so much as mine then a whole lot. The function of L27 is to teach players and TDs to never ever bid insufficiently. That it will take some unknown number of centuries to accomplish this function is neither here nor there. However, once this is realized the law operates rather well… The point is that when the TD arrives at a table where the auction has stopped there having been an IB this is what he ought to do: Read L27 and L23; and ask if he needs to read L16. followed by the explanation that if the IB is not accepted then if the partner fails to pass when he should that such determination will be made after the play with the consequence that an extremely heavy book will land on some one. Then ask the LHO his choice between condoning or not the IB and require the auction to proceed- standing by to gather evidence of the use of UI that will invariably occur. As previously alluded, this should take about 20 minutes and from which the WBF pay a PP on the order of $1000 or e1000 or sf1000 or whatever inflicts the most pain for fouling 3 comparisons of boards that were not played and for improperly delaying this 15 table club game. I will leave it to others to describe why this is the best course- given if anybody should know the OS methods it would be the OS and thus there is no need to explain to them beyond reading the law the consequences of any particular call they might make prior to their making it.

The pregnant pause after 3D carries an inference of surpise that N the Ds for that call. THe suggestion by N and by S that a D lead is not automatic is suspect. A major suit lead asks for trouble. CA is suicide [s ought to have some Cs on this auction] and Cx may gobble E's whisker should he have one- and there still would be the matter of untangling the suit*. [i prefer my highest D spot in this situation.] * if anything, the UI would tend to suggest that E has some entries- say also in Ss to cash his supposed C length. A reasonable outcome after a Cx or Dx is 8 tricks. I notice that E doesn't have the cards to support the hesitation which suggests to me that the pause was a breach of L73A1. I think that a lengthy conversation in a private place is warranted and might acheive the desired outcome.

An extremely misguided notion. Much closer to the mark is that bridge is a game where the prime concern is obtaining results by fair play.

Way to cut through a lot of the bullshit that is being spouted on this thread. To resurrect some bs a bit of perspective is in order. The law provides the definition of LA in L16b1B. And there is a supposed codicil in the form of a LC minute that changes the law [without going through the actual changing] to include as LA the action that a player actually takes. When one realizes that a LA derives by law to specifically be based upon one's method, then when a player takes an action that's 'out of this world' when the player's announced agreements are the only things being considered, but also taken while UI was available- this codicil imputes upon the player's partnership method that using UI is part of their agreement . iow since passing UI back and forth is the partnership method and L73B1 specifically denotes it as the most heinous of crimes, the effect of the codicil is to convict such a player of cheating of the worst kind- despite the player satisfying L16B1b.

I would think that instead of assume the appropriate word to use is presume. The answer being that L16 requires the player to do so- as it is reasonable to presume that the player strives to satisfy L16 and to do so it is necessary to use UI.

The initial action is to request a ruling. The relevant question is just who is the grievance against- a player; or the TD that has not done something about the player?

The argument may well be the Best Argument but that does not make it a valid argument [which it is not]. Either L45 is to be satisfied or it is not [not that it is particularly well constructed- which it is not] but it is that law's provision that is the determining factor in deciding the played status of declarer's 13th card.

The fact that North alone has cards from a different board than the other players' cards suggests that North is the offender here. Most likely North has placed board 25 on top of the stack and taken her cards from it after the other three players had taken their cards from board 24 while that board was on top of the stack. However, this is immaterial. The fact is that board 24 has been destroyed, probably beyond repair although Law 17D leaves a possibility for the director on certain conditions to rule that it can be played. (These conditions do not seem to be satisfied in this case.) Board 25 can, however, indeed be played; notice that North already have 13 exposed cards, so North and South will be subject to law 24 from the beginning of the auction on this board! (The auction period on board 25 began for North/South at the moment North took her cards from that board.) L2 contains the words ' If such board is used, however, the conditions marked on it apply for that session.' If the players were playing #24 does it follow from the fact that N made the first rather than W? And that no player suggested that N BOOT, does that not suggest that the players believed that the board on top was the one in play? When a player is the first one to take a hand from a board does not mean that it is that board is the one that is in play? I have seen hundreds of occasions where one or more players have grabbed hands from the middle of a stack of boards rather than from the one that is next to be played. As much as you or I or any other large number of people might be inclined to want to believe that due to the fact that 3 players took cards from one board and a fourth took his cards from a different board that such is sufficient to find that it is the one board that is in play- but it is wrong to ignore the fact that all four acted as if they believed that it was the different board was in play and it was the different board that was one top as L7A prescribed.

In regards to this case the law is an absurdity. Is it? The relevant Law says this: Now, there seems here to have been not just one call from the player with the wrong cards, but several calls. Moreover, those wrong cards have been exposed as dummy, rendering the play of both this board and the next impossible. The Director may adjust the score and award penalties at his discretion according to his allocation of fault - absent any other considerations, North-South should receive -3 IMPs for each of the two fouled boards. However, this is a case in which the Director should exercise his powers to assign a different adjusted score if the facts warrant it. For example, if East-West have reached a cold slam missed at the other table, the adjustment should reflect this unless North would not have passed throughout with the cards from the correct board. I don't think any of this is particularly absurd. To demonstrate absurdity shall we presume an auction such as W N E S ---P- 1C-1S 2C-P-3C-3S P- P- P has occurred? The most important issue is the answer to the question 'what board is being played?' L7A says that the board in play is kept on the table until compeleted. Bd 25 is on the table with the dlr N; and N has started the auction. The evidence supports the conclusion that bd#25 is in play where ESW have taken cards from the wrong board upon which to base their bidding. per L17D1 the auction becomes W N E S -- P- Q-Q Q-P- Q-Q Q- P-Q?-? ? Q= canceled call --= place holder ? =call required by L17D2 after which auction proceeds normally presuming that the call <?> required by L17D2** is made it is absurd to me that the auction can proceed normally even though the law insists that it is normal. **= L17D2 specifies the player make his call after he inspects his proper cards, which may not necessarily be in the normal rotation Now if instead the lawmakers had paid attention to L21A and concluded that these silly players have done a lot of bidding at their own misunderstanding then a lot of things become abundantly clear. The auction has been over and the next question to answer is the ability of W to take the same card from his hand as when he originally led.

In regards to this case the law is an absurdity.

The D7 is a LOOT accepted by W. The D7 stands and play to the trick progresses as if the D7 was a proper lead. L53A. Declarer's holding is irrelevant. L47F2.

Is this ruling correct? yes Can Dummy not verify which diamond declarer is actually asking for before play proceeds? if declarer mumbled and dummy did not hear, then dummy is permitted to ask for clarification [prevent an irregulaity L42B2]. in this case dummy has heard and to do anything except put the smallest D [L46B1c] in a played position is an infraction. I have been in declarer's shoes and regretted it. And it would not occur to me to request a ruling from the TD to have it otherwise. ANd as dummy the small D gets played lightning fast just like every other card [including revokes] that declarer has called.

If I had been on the AC I would be wondering why I was there.

Lol. In the first simulation we had on the TD course, we were given a board with no instructions, and someone was sent out of the room. I counted my cards without exposing any but the top, as I always do, noticed that one was boxed and corrected it without anyone noticing, then had a look at my hand while I was waiting to be told what infraction to commit. John Pain came over and complained that I'd messed up his simulation :) Reminds me of the story of Captain Kirk's officer training. In a battle simulation Kirk saved the day, the only candidate in the history of the training to do so. It eventuates that the the computer was programed to kill off all the good guys no matter what the captain did. Kirk reprogrammed the computer. Have to admire the guy.

This L7C requirement approaches something rather curious L7C: after which he restores them to the pocket corresponding If it is given that a board arrives with one or more cards face up, then to return those cards face down at the end would be an infraction of the requirement to restore them to the condition that they arrived- face up.

The primary mission of law is to provide solutions to players' problems; including technics that avoid problems. Need it be said that specifying that cards be returned face down is such a technic? But further, such a provision ought not be construed as unilaterally indemnifying future players' carelessness as such things are 'a matter of people getting along with each other'. In other words, such a provision is not necessarily sufficient: It also is helpful for the law to admonish players to be prepared for the unexpected, such as a caution to count cards out of sight of the other players.

I think that some care is in order: L24 does not provide: When the Director determines that during the Auction Period solely because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner,... Consider this case. Were any cards visible when the board arrived? No. Subsequently were card faces visible [during the auction period]? Yes. How? A player was counting his cards and a card was face up instead of the expected face down. And it was done above the table rather than out of sight. Did the player's error cause the card to be exposed? Yes. L24 provides- When the Director determines that during the Auction Period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner,... Is the player culpable in the eyes of L24? If he was able to do his counting out of sight, or able at least to verify out of sight the cards were face down before counting- Yes. iow, a disability can be a reason that exposure is unavoidable and thus no culpability would attach. Is he alone culpable? No. Coming from someone whom last week removed from a board a hand where the top card was face down and a half dozen underneath were face up. Upon reflection several technicalities occurred to me concerning the auction period. The first question is whether the auction period has begun. There are several references in laws to auction period and auction period for a side, where only auction period for a side was specifically defined. It follows once an auction period for a side has begun that the auction period has begun. The next question concerns the fact that if a card in a board is face up and during counting is exposed, is that alone sufficient to start the auction period. I should think not because otherwise it would follow that when the top card arrives exposed the auction period has begun- prior to removing the cards. I think that such is sufficient to assert that it has not. And what of the situation that the auction period has otherwise begun? And in particular noting when the face up card having been exposed prior to the auction period by the owner, what is the status [a] if it is covered up before the auction period begins [and thus is not exposed during the auction period] and after the auction period begins [being exposed prior not excluding that it also is exposed during]. The issue being driven toward is for [a] the conditions of L24 not being met and for they are met.

I think that some care is in order: L24 does not provide: When the Director determines that during the Auction Period solely because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner,... Consider this case. Were any cards visible when the board arrived? No. Subsequently were card faces visible [during the auction period]? Yes. How? A player was counting his cards and a card was face up instead of the expected face down. And it was done above the table rather than out of sight. Did the player's error cause the card to be exposed? Yes. L24 provides- When the Director determines that during the Auction Period because of a player’s own error one or more cards of that player’s hand were in position for the face to be seen by his partner,... Is the player culpable in the eyes of L24? If he was able to do his counting out of sight, or able at least to verify out of sight the cards were face down before counting- Yes. iow, a disability can be a reason that exposure is unavoidable and thus no culpability would attach. Is he alone culpable? No. Coming from someone whom last week removed from a board a hand where the top card was face down and a half dozen underneath were face up.

S can do as he pleases. That does not mean that what he does would not breach some law such as L16. Notably, in America 4C should be control in clubs denying the SA, and seeing as how it is second round control and it is his first Q they apparently Q first or second round controls. Thus, 4C also denies the SK. As such, an inference from the pause suggests opener has a stiff S. The AI thereby suggests since there are 2 S losers that 5H may be too high and the UI suggests that there is [among other things such as I've got something extra but no method to tell you] at most one spade loser.

East has suggested that play be curtailed. This is a claim and that he retracted his suggestion does not retract the claim.

A caution is important here.This situation is presented as a hypothetical where conclusions were presented as fact- as in the player had no bridge reason to pause. It is an error to believe this is generic. It should be remembered that reasoning would necessarily change when the fact of nothing to think about changes. Determining that a bridge problem exists is different saying that no bridge problem existed. For instance, if the hands and play were provided I may, or not, conclude that the player had a legitimate reason for pause and thus not concur, or concur, with the premise presented. Consider the Abbott's defense in April's Bulletin where he chose to play a disadvantageous card from DTx Returning to the original hypothetical, please note that an adjustment would be thus due only if directly a consequene of damage. In other words, just because the finesse loses at T3 does not necessarily mean that it won't be taken at T10. Further, it could be conceivable that losing that trick to the K may make it possible to gain tricks [over not playing the Q] in the end .

You quote no law that says so because there is no such law. the legal way to not improperly mislead the opponents is to play the stiff in tempo. if you are to inform the opponents that you have improperly deceived them during the hand to be legal you must not communicate with partner in doing so. Sometime in 1992 I ceased with No Problem [as when I in fact had no problem] [a] because the presence or absence tells partner what I have and to fail to be fastidious becomes improper deception in itself [c] it too often improperly deceives [d] improper deception does not necessarily cause damage The standard of L73F is what legitimate inferences can a player derive when missing HQxx when an opponent takes pronounced time to play the H5. What other legitimate inference is there besides E holding at least one more H? If there is some other legitimate inference then there is no improper deception. THere is an improper belief by some that declarer cannot be deceived by a hesitation from E because there is no holding that E could have that he would hesitate. I point out that a Probst cheat** would hesitate with a singleton [and say no problem]. ** a PC is a fabrication by John Probst used to define personal ethical boundaries

c. imp[board score]= .5*[imp680]+ .5*[imp1430] You get VP by summing the imps of all the board scores and using the VP table

A fair point. I think, though, that the logic of some of the comments here suggests not adjusting even if there is no disclaimer, which seems a lot more controversial. Not utterly pointless- it damages the other side as well as breaches L73B1. The law does not provide permission to break law in order to avoid the consequences from breaking law.

THe facts suggest that E has fallen asleep and attempted to recover via an extraneous communication. E's falling asleep occurred at precisely the time which doing so would mislead declarer into playing a card to his disadvantage. Declarer in fact did so even after the warning that E had nothing to think about. It is notable that even if E held HQ5 he still had no legitimate thing to think about [considering a deceptive action is not legitimate] so the warning does nothing to dispel improper deception. As such the extraneous communication was meaningless and does nothing to dispel the effect of E's pause, which is not meaningless. the reason the pause was not meaningless is because to justify the pause there must be something to consider and to have something to consider at that point in time there must be at least two cards from which to select. And since the only inference thereby available is that E holds precisely the HQ and declarer was improperly misled into acting upon that inference. L73F provides for adjusting the score in precisely that circumstance when the player was thereby damaged. The fact that E made an extraneous comment does not mitigate his culpability for his failure to satisfy L73D. E's pause all but guaranteees that declarer will always get it wrong and coupled with declarer not getting it right fulfills the definition of damage. It has been asserted that because a bridge player would not hesitate holding Qx there is no deception to fall for. But that is not the standard of L73D. However, what should not be ignored is the situation where declarer caused E's hestitation- as in he was culpable. FOr instance, if declarer himself paused at length sufficient to put E to 'sleep' the responsibility [and rightly so] therefore would fall solely upon declarer for tainting E's tempo. In this case no evidence was presented that considered such an occurrence. Absent culpability of declarer an adjusted score is warranted. The players have been deprived of declarer having a fair chance so there is no way to know what would have happened, only what might have happened. Declarer has suggested reasoning for heavy weighting for the hook and it appears right to give that dominant consideration. A significant PP is also warranted.