axman

Two complaints were lodged. 1. S communicated to N during a hand via remarks. 2. S had no bridge reason not to investigate 6H (having not investigated 6H) 1. relevant agreed facts are that S made remarks ("Another thing you should remember is that 2NT is 20-22. Yes Dear, it can be 22 HCP, not 21 like they may have taught you.") after removing cards from the board. The remarks being other than by call or play are a breach of L73B1 and warrants a PP. The appropriate occasion for remarks is when a hand is not in progress. The remarks were directed to the method that S then employed hence. The straight forward inference is that the motivation was for N to be clear as to the upper limit of expected strength so that S could have confidence in N's judgment. That N made the remark about 22hcp being unlike other pairs and then opened 2N infers it probable the holding was 22hcp. Did NS act to gain advantage from the remarks, that is, did N act to gain advantage? 3D was clearly indicated by system. Systemically, N values indicate expectation of game values, potentially a few whiskers more: NT is has reasonable expectation of 9-10 tricks even with short diamond; 4H is a trick higher with a potentially ill fated suit (the remark might be construed as motivation for taking a 1 minute pause before taking a marginally more dangerous action that as the suit exists has some likely downside); 4C suggests significantly greater values than held with the inference that the hearts are robust- which the hand does not support. If anything 4H created a slight disadvantage to NS which suggests that the remark was not material to 4H. 6N preference suggests dislike for diamonds and hearts and thus would suggest no connection to the remark since the indicated capacity of the hand in NT is closer to 10 tricks. Whatever advantage N might have sought to create from the remark it does not appear material, also, it was conceivably disadvantageous because it encouraged bidding on [the 4H] when holding the lower end of game values making it 'more dangerous' for S to investigate slam. Thus, even if there is damage from the remark it was immaterial and no adjusted score is warranted. L12 2. There are two reasons to not explore 6H . This makes the assertion that there is no reason not to explore 6H dubious so there is no litigation there. 1. S has only two hearts opposite a partner that has not promised honors in a 5+ card suit 2. there are insufficient bidding steps to safely ascertain the heart situation is sturdy enough to withstand slam

Bridge Player’s Creed Bridge is a game and I will remember that its place in my life is that of a game. I will respect those who play and endeavor to be worthy of their respect. I will remember that which makes bridge so interesting is its limitation on the most human of all activities- communication. And in doing so I will always contribute my best and seek to conduct myself in a fair manner.

I used to run 54 tables (it was common to turn away half a dozen tables) in 190 to 200 minutes for 26 boards. The only occasion above my pay grade was a question over improper deception by partner of .a defender's bum concession immediately rejected by partner. In that case I made a provisional ruling subject to consultation and life went on. (consultation confirmed the ruling even though I believed the ruling incorrect) Oh, 1/3 of the field didn't play sanctioned tournament. The biggest problem was the time spent verifying the play of 5-10 PCs a session (tough to be in two places at once). The biggest source of infractions are TDs that do not explain the reasoning in their rulings (which is just about all of them except me and Al La Tuchie). Surely they justify not giving the reasoning because they don't have time. But giving the reasoning teaches and thus minimizes the creation of repeat offenses in the future.

A couple weeks ago some protracted drivel ensued during the course of several hands. My assessment was that National Champion was distracted into several IB from which a litany of irregularities emanated as well as non director calls and a bad TD ruling (when finally one was sought). It might be said that World Champion survived with some advantageous results. There were attempts to engage me in the drivel but I escaped by uttering,'That's above my pay grade.' Personally I have found no redeeming features in using force to end chit chat and it is better to allow the perpetrators to exhaust themselves. My response is to 1. keep my trap shut and 2. do nothing until it stops which includes no bidding and no playing and no calling the TD about it 3. but if the others call the director about it that's a different story. If the objective is to minimize the length of the round this seems to work best.

Decide what? The players have not presented a controversy. Is the bridge question, for a player that holds at most 1H and 1S or 2S what valid inferences are attributable to the pause preceding the play of the C9? One that I can conjure is 'what club spot can declarer hold?' (which might be attributed to a hazy recollection of events). <If such occasion, it has not yet been proved that S holds the SJ stiff.>

Who plays cards? Players. Who does not play cards? TD. L45A Each PLAYER except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him. The location of non-faced cards is found out *******WHEN******* they are played. The TD fumbling around searching for yet to be played cards Causes the location of cards to be known by improper means. Therefore it is improper for the TD to do so (in the middle of the hand).

When there is no TD ruling that may be done is it proper for the TD to unnecessarily delay play? No. Players that unnecessarily delay play should be penalized. What penalty must the TD pay when he does it?

When a player says they have a card they must play it forthwith. When not at their turn it is an irregularity, when it doesn't follow suit when able it is an irregularity- irregularities that carry stiff punishments. It is improper for the TD to cause players to commit irregularities. A player accuses another of having a card. If he has proof the TD must act. Without proof the TD must not act as his proving one way or another improperly gives information (when) the opponents are not entitled to. The proof must come from the players- ostensibly by producing the card. Cards are produced by playing them. The way to force the correction of a revoke is to get proof by asking... proof is to ask a player that has just now failed to follow suit. If the answer is no then there is no compulsion to produce the obnoxious card; if yes, the law compels correcting the revoke so the acknowledgement yes does no harm (it not being too late to correct a revoke). But the law is constructed to impose harm. 61B1 states: Right to Inquire about a Possible Revoke 1. Declarer may ask a defender who has failed to follow suit whether he has a card of the suit led. A player that has played more than a hand or two has failed to follow suit. Thus, having failed to follow suit yesterday, or last year, or last decade the law provides declarer the right today to ask. So, while the question applies to the case of the current trick, it also ascribes to leads of past tricks (including past events) People have the knack of sometimes remembering things that did not happen. The proof is seeing the card. 1. revoker playing it, say to a trick 2. revoker saying it (requiring the play) perhaps in response to the question of a player (not TD) Remedying irregularities is a complicated business. The necessary view in correcting a revoke is that only revoker may draw attention, and, revoker's LHO until LHO plays subsequent the showing out. Otherwise the compulsion to play a card regardless of the player's turn (who says he has the card) may compel penalties upon him (a wrong headed remedy). But the law does not so restrict the drawing attention.

Who called? How may I help? Someone revoked. How do you know? Both showed out and the C9 has not been played. Then how do you know there was a revoke if the C9 has not been played? Well, it hasn't. I'll put it differently, has someone shown out of clubs and then played a club? No. Then how do you know there has been a revoke? You can look. I'm not going to look without cause to look and I don't have cause. Well, I say there was a revoke. I see no proof. You’re an ass. Maybe a different approach is in order. Who has said they have a club after showing out? Nobody. That's good because if he said he had a club then he would have to play it and probably get in trouble. Now, a player who had an opponent that at sometime did not follow suit can ask if he has a card of a suit led. And the player is obliged to respond truthfully. And if the truthful answer is yes he must play the card and doing so he will probably be in trouble. And if he does not respond truthfully he will be in trouble. The law provides this right only to the players, not anyone else. So, continue the board and should a problem arise like an appearance of a mysterious club please call me back.

Just had to read TFLB. As expected, once someone does not follow suit you may ask forever about holding a card of the suit as long as you are not dummy. Seems though that when he says yes he may not know to which year you are referring.

Ah. Fond memories of how I learned the distinction. Filling in with an odd player I made clear: 'only if fleshed out ahead of time would artificial conventions apply'. We did not get this far: 1st board out of the box... 1N-P-2S-P- My tyro proved she knew how to get to 3m by being tentative with the bidding box and fixing her terrified stare upon me. 1000 to 1 she had 6 clubs in her mits. Pass. Maybe she learned that I meant what I said; and I learned that she didn't care what I said. So much can be learned from bridge.

f>> so I decided to play without any convention. so all our biddings are naturals. Events suggest that it is better to Insist we not use artificial conventions rather than I Decide to not use conventions. There is a distinction between We coming to an agreement and I unilaterally deciding I won't use artificial conventions.

How come there is no rent-a-solomon? First a little accounting. In terms of psychology it appears there are two prizes: stationary tables and play every round. Apparently the same players (excluding health accommodations) mostly lay claim to the stationary tables. This would give a prize always to those players. When there is a sitout if say it alternates between N and E then those stationeries will get an additional prize half the time there is a sitout and EW during those times get no prize at all. My sense of balance suggests that all other things being equal that NS designated sitout is most equitable. But what about when all other things are not equal? As when an election votes for a different solution? What I would do is to review the reasoning for my conclusion and suggest everyone talk about it for a week and then take the vote with full knowledge of what is important. As for 'in particular the players with disability who feel unfairly burdened.' I have an alternate view. The attitude expressed suggests those with disabilities are entitled to burden (even heavily burden) others so as to achieve their own maximum pleasure. But to me if a player needs a card holder or special light fixture to function it seems out of whack should they feel entitled to torment others with their difficulty controlling the pasteboards or figuring out the spots when such facilities are not provided. Getting along sometimes involves some give and take.

This ought to be a case of improper deception but was made a L72 case (intentional infraction): "You broke tempo deliberately…". East does have a bridge problem- which spots to play for W. The strongest holding is T96 and the least is 245. Without the T it does not matter what card E plays but because he could have the T it might matter yet with also the 9 it does (covering forces a spade trick while ducking yields a possible finesse or drop) matter. South charged that E paused to intentionally infract (communicate other than by call or play L73A1). He did not offer evidence that demonstrated improper motivation by E. He also did not assert that he was misled nor that he was damaged. Making the charge of deliberately infracting law without evidence that demonstrates the alleged intention is a frivolous claim that breaches proprieties of deportment (L74A2). Such breaches once committed cannot be undone and warrant a discouraging disciplinary penalty.

Does the law say it becomes a PC when the moon is blue? Does it say it becomes a PC when the TD says so? No. It says it becomes a PC. Period. What does That Mean? Well, consider the counterfactual case that it means it becomes a PC when the TD says so. Is that the same as: It says it becomes a PC. Period. No, and for the hypothesis we contemplate that is its effect. If the TD never gets around to saying it is a PC… did it BECOME a PC (as the law specifies)? Nope. This exercise demonstrates that a TD declaration merely clarifies that it is a PC- yet is not necessary to cause it to become one. In other words, becomes was used to denote transformation (at that point in time distinct from some future time).

Reading L49 accurately such cards automatically are PCs- not requiring prior TD ruling.

According to the statement of facts: 1. E omitted play to T5 and corrected it. 2. W won T6 and led the DA. S objected and demanded a club. W complied with the CK… and then played the DA a second later. 3. there is no basis for S to have the right to demand a club (for there to be a basis for S to demand a lead penalty a PC is a predicate and there was no PC: and the identity of the PC has an effect as to what may and may not be demanded) 4. the timing of the second DA suggests that T7 had but one card when the DA was played. I would construe this to be an infraction (not waiting for T7 to be quitted) that improperly communicates via the infraction (the location of the CA and perhaps additional information).

The law as stated does not make sense. The referenced ACBL view does not comport with the language- as indeed such card may well be officially played after it is moved, the language makes it officially played well before that moment.

The time for finding out about conditional agreements is at the beginning of the round...or sooner.

The time to query a player's judgment is not during a hand (such as during a POSTmortem). A player's skill can identify characteristics of information such as its usefulness, truthfulness, dubious nature… and may (or not) guide him as to what to do about it.

Q for queen is standard. Notably, queen sufficiently describes a systemic particular; cue does not sufficiently describe a systemic particular. Some societies have protocols for coping when multiple standards coexist- sometimes they are intuitive and that reflects upon TPTB; sometimes they are not which reflects upon TPTB.

Saying that something exists does not describe that something. A hippograph exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. The above does not describe a hippograph, merely that it exists when the condition exists. Many would say such is not particularly useful nor helpful.

The law does not define what "a side is damaged by an opponent’s use...that does not comply with the regulations governing..." is. No predicate damage, no remedy.

I suspect that Pescetom's concern is regulation that contrives infractions but are rubbish considering (lack of)remedy. For instance, the law provides remedies for insufficient calls but not calls that satisfy law but where by regulation agreement is forbidden to the call. I say to allow the market for ideas to devour the market of bad ideas- and take no prisoners.

"the lawmakers had intended to address only the situation where opponents tried to take advantage of the original infraction by the other side," I take it that the instructions are for the TDs to break the law so that the bad law won't need to be repealed?