axman

I consider W's pause for considering deception to be improper deception. However, N is not in a position to be deceived out of a profitable action. Because his hand is not conducive to an action- lacking strength to handle unsuitable responses from partner. And as it happens, any 'sensible' action if you could conjure one by N will propel the partnership to the 4 or 5 level because of S's forward going strength. As such, I fail to visualize the perpertration of damage.

This system is not much known and the player had misread "ACBL" as "ACOL". Mind you, I did not see the relevance but I did not pursue the matter! In my mind, while the remedy provided has a sense of fair minded justice, if trying to satisfy the 2008FLB the ruling given was unfair to NS. When viewing situations as given one of the things I do is to visualize a reasonable minimum holding for E and then consider whether the action W took would likely be embarrassing, such as 3SX when E might have held 8762-KJ-987-J764. in fact, I would expect W to still be embarrassed if one of the E cards were turned to a Q. so, at the risk of such embarrassment why would W choose 3S if not for some little bit that pushes the risk significantly to his favor. As much a players are loathe to admit, a seemingly innocuous variation can emit immense inferences. A brief hitch is quite sufficient to[for instance] convey I have too much to just pass, but my holdings make it too risky to tell the story I would like. And as described, this is precisely what happened at the table.

The law is rather unclear when a board has been played to completion [albeit, no result has been obtained as of yet] containing two beer cards other than to remove the superfluous one and figure out that the pack is correct. It would seem that such a board must be canceled but I am loathe to discover what passage of law so specifies. On s different matter, it is notable that declarer claimed that all the spades and hearts were high. Regarding the heart suit this means he asserts that the HA and the H2 are equals. This condition is sufficient to rule that to play the HJ under the ace is a normal line of play.

Just because the boards will produce the contract does not warrant the conclusion that the hands were the same. Without a record of the hands from yesterday and today there is no basis for a finding that those boards were the same. The hand record from a Houston game yesterday had 3 boards where grands were cold- and two of them included 7N- in different directions. And the hands were not the same.

Problems addressed by the suggested protocol: at least three... Use of unauthorized information - usually innocent. For example some players can't perform the mental gymnastics necessary to avoid taking advantage. Most players find Bridge rules hard to understand, especially those about unauthorised information. Beginners are not the only players who find it confusing. Recent threads on BLML show that some senior directors don't seem to understand it either, in its simplest manifestations. Complex alerting regulations: several pages of rules about what you should and should not alert. Local variation: each legislature has different rules. [*] Target: ordinary players, playing face-to-face, without screens. [*] Unworkable and unnecessary? Hard to tell until tried. I think cardsharp's wrong but he could be right. Unrealistic? I hope not but fear so, given general apathy, WBFLC inertia, and the falling number of players. [*] Panacea? No. Manifestly these suggestions have drawbacks as well as advantages. I feel however that the latter outweigh the former. Just to clarify the suggested protocol in relation to cardsharp's criticisms: If you tell opponents not to announce, then you may keep opponents' system card in view but you must not ask about any call until the end of the auction. Such a policy suffers the same drawback as when you don't ask about any of your opponents' alerts. In practice, I think announcing each bid may save time. For example, it eliminates the time taken by alerts and questions and it evens up the tempo. There is already quite a lot of announcing in the EBU but it does not create bedlam. A table of common announcements would reduce the noise. If you don't know the meaning of a call you have a similar problem to that you encounter with current regulations. I think you're meant to admit that you don't know but then offer to speculate (based on partnership philosophy, analogous situations, and negative inferences) if opponents so wish. There is something inherently wrong where players are compelled to create UI and then turn around and punish the partners that receive that UI. Yet this is the Orwellian World [re: 1984 by George Orwell] imposed upon bridge players. Maybe this issue is the essence of the Nigel Project. However, the composition of Nigel’s proposals suggest that they do not solve the problem of compelling players to create UI. Imo the current state of affairs is intolerable, but change that does not fix the problem is every bit the detriment as the intolerable situation itself.

In the original case, I didn't say where anyone was sitting. In fact, I was North, dummy was East. And there was no POOT. As for the "second card" being OOT, read Law 62A. Let’s rotate the players so that declarer is S. Did not W detach a card and face it on the table twice, once at his turn, and the second time subsequent the aforementioned and prior to N contributing a card subsequent the first play? L45A: Each player except dummy plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing* it on the table immediately before him. The fact that the law compels a W who knows he has revoked to so correct such unestablished revoke does not mitigate the fact that to do so requires that he play a second time. So, maybe it is worthwhile to clarify. Consider how it is different from correcting a revoke when W originally followed suit and then announces, or flashes, or faces on the table or whatever the SK. In both cases W has played two cards ahead of pard and in both cases the other side could be done in as a direct consequence [if there were no remedy available]. As when a revoke is corrected the provisions of L62 come into play does not preclude the fact that there may be other provisions of law to satisfy such as L50 and others.

A little thought experiment: Dummy says nothing. East wins the trick and continues with some card without awaiting Declarer to execute his options. Is East guilty of any irregularity? IMO absolutely not. The Director has not been called and East is not expected to know the laws about penalty cards. It is one of the Director's duties to make sure she is aware of both her duties and her rights in all situations. The irregularity: East leading prematurely when her partner has a penalty card is in this case a consequence of the Director not having been called in time. If I as Director had been called at this stage (on East's premature lead) I would simply rule that East takes back the card so led without any rectification and then let Declarer execute his options. I would also warn the players to always call the Director in penalty card situations. So back to the original problem: I shall not penalize Dummy for "rectifying" the error of not calling the Director on the revoke before further consequences of this failure become imminent (so long as Dummy's actions do not violate Law 43A1c. (Dummy must not participate in the play) However, this law actually continues with nor may he communicate anything about the play to declarer so the question still remains whether Dummy violated this last part of that law; I tend to say no in this situation) In the original case W has committed two irregularities, a revoke and a POOT. Up until W protests dummy’s action these are the only two actionable irregularities. I am reasonably confident that the facts will bear out [given the assumption that N will assert he/she was making ready to then call the TD if no one else gets in his way] that N’s comment was preparatory to summoning help, which N was entitled to do at that time as W had indeed called attention to a revoke. What is disconcerting is that the law has much to say about W’s second card in that it says several things, much without conflict while some that conflicts. Given W’s first card having been played, it then became N’s turn so therefore the second card was not at W’s turn to play. And since this OOT [additional] information comes prior to E’s turn to play to the trick L57 has some fairly gruesome things to say [and rightly so, imo]. I mention this to, if nothing else, provide some food for thought. One more observation- the drawing attention to the revoke and the irregularity of W’s correction are intertwined such that it is impractical to presume that the TD could be summoned about the first prior to the occurrence of the second. And as far as fairness is concerned it is a bit incongruous that dummy is permitted to call the TD over the first but not the second as attention had not yet been legally drawn to it. As for the correct course of action at this point, at least in part, should be that the PC lead penalties be enforced; but action against W’s “change of play” , whatever it might be, is forfeited. But, for the case when E manages to lead before dummy comments, since there had not yet been a correct ruling with regards to the revoke and subsequent correction, the right to enforce at that turn any lead penalty is forfeited, but not at future turns. And what of the case when dummy is mute while declarer is not when E acts in ignorance? The law states that E may not lead before declarer has acted on his PC option [the law states that the withdrawn card is a PC, there not being mentioned a requirement of a ruling to the effect]. It so states without stipulation requiring a ruling prior. So declarer is entitled to enforce PC options which might lead to E thereby having a PC.

I would not adjust without all the facts. I would judge that the asking post quitting the trick is not in accordance with L66A. I would judge that the subsequent facing of the card is a breach of L66C. L90A provides PPs for breaches of procdure and each defender rates 25%.

Let us say to first remedy the IB. case [a] E condones the IB so he makes a call. This call de facto condones the COOT [as well] thereby depriving W the opportunity to penalize the COOT. As I recall that was the argument for going first after the IB. Case E does not condone the IB so now N corrects. In this instance it looks to me that NS have combined to take three turns to the EW zero turns. It looks to me that EW gets the worst of it which is the right thing <sarcasm> since they broke no rules.

IMO the information provided is insufficient for ruling. There are questions as to who did what and when. And it is likely that the bidding agreements are needed. However.... From what has been said, as much as from what has not been said and by whom, I would conclude that the antics were a direct cause of improperly inducing the defender to double 5H. The direct consequence being that declarer's contract was improved immensely. Not that this is a complete summary of conclusions to be made.

Dummy claimed, so play ceased. (Note: The definition does not address Bluejak's concern as to whether the claim is "valid"). A defender disputed the claim by showing his ♠T, so the director was called. :wacko: This may be another mistake by law-makers; but it is the law :wacko:. Presumably, it will remain the law for roughly a decade, :o so directors may as well get used to it :( As a result of this thread I have spent the better part of a week reconciling the concept of deeming dummy's efforts cannot constitute a claim because he is not permitted to do so. I came to the conclusion that it cannot be reconciled. The principle of appearances delivers that if the declarer says 'dummy is high' is a claim then anyone saying it also claims and it is wrong headed to deem, or assert, or declare otherwise. It just , is. As it is possible to contemplate dummy doing such a thing it therefore remains for the law to provide a satisfactory resolution.

Do you recall the context? At this time I do not recollect. My sense was that it was a general statement rather than connected to a particular bridge hand. My sense was that it was during this year. If I had made a note of it I suspect that the note may be lost either in a crash of my email program or the fragmented remains of my primary machine which is in its death throws <sigh>. My recollections do go back many years while DWS was posting to blml for the very large number of occasions where he asserted that the proper approach was to resolve multiple irregularities in the order of occurrence; and there being so many opportunities for Endicott, Schoder, and TK to say otherwise yet they did not makes it no surprise to me that some statement has been made. While it isn't a priority should I stumble onto the documentation I'll let you know.

I searched TFLB because that was where I expected such an admonition[ to resolve irregularities in their chronological order]. Not there. The principle has been around for a great long time; nevertheless, longevity need not be a valid judge of its efficacy. I do recollect an occasion that the WBF reiterated the principle [during the last two years] that I made a mental note that such an utterance was ill considered. However, that does not prevent silliness that results from adhering to such principle: In this case I point to providing first [in accordance with the principle] for the remedy of 2N not accepted- where N must substitute a sufficient call that is not X or XX. At this point the last call in force is 3N so necessarily to substitute a bid legally it must supersede 3N. And seeing as W has not yet called after 3N the TD would thereby also be instructing N to do his substituting for 2N OOT. And since the substituting would be OOT it would seem to me that the substitution ought to be subject to the penalty for COOT. While I would not be surprised that there are situations that remedies in the order of irregularity are satisfactory I don't recollect ever coming across one.

Yes. I think a PP in MPs is warranted in that case. I am drawn by two passages [of law that is]: A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed,... and After any claim or concession, play ceases... As to the first- "Dummy is good"! It being notable that this also is precisely among the things that dummy is not permitted to do, it nevertheless also is precisely such a suggestion- so therefore a claim has occurred. As for the second, play having stopped, the brandishing of the ST is an objection to the claim's validity. Supposedly L70 provides remedy for LHO's objection and L90 provides remedy for dummy's unbecoming conduct.

A: Yes B: No C: No However, if the Director judges (IMHO Incorrectly) that North instead of exposing her cards actually played two cards to the trick then the answer to B becomes yes. Speaking to the incorrectness, or more aptly put, the correctness of such a ruling-there notably is the following provision of law that suggests strongly that the cards are played to the trick: L45C1. A defender’s card held so that it is possible for his partner to see its face must be played to the current trick (if the defender has already made a legal play to the current trick, see Law 45E).

It is the regulation that compels the breach of L73B2**. As such L80B2f prohibits such regulation. ** breach of L73B2 is the communication irrespective of use/benefit thereof

That is precisely what very often happens in Norway! It also is a system of communication to partner other than by call or play and thus is an egregious infraction of L73B2. How come? The skip bidder "informs" his LHO when the latter is allowed to call, and LHO calls. How is this communication to partner? By assigning a value to the length of pause demanded from LHO the bidder communicates to partner his judgment as to the size of problem he expects the hand will create. THe primary factor influencing this judgment is his holding. Most UI problems arise from deciding/ judging risk therefore this UI is materially tangible.

That is precisely what very often happens in Norway! It also is a system of communication to partner other than by call or play and thus is an egregious infraction of L73B2.

The problem is that once the player gives any indication that something is amiss there is the probability that the partner will draw inference. Certainly, once the TD is summoned I am confident that I would include that inference in the reasons for the call. And, if I will then so will others. And thus is the situation: Until the player gives any inkling of his suspicions, what he has are suspicions. These suspicions might eventually be born out as fact or fancy. If the hand was indeed legitimate then he is entitled to any outcome that he earns at his own risk. If not legitimate then no one is [or at least ought to be] entitled to earn any outcome. However, once the inference comes available the defenders are not in a position to earn anything because there has been a communication to the PARTNER. Actually, the law approaches being unsuitable for remedying this situation- and to the best that I am able to discern the only applicable passages lie in L16/73. From personal experience there was the occasion in a shuffle and play swiss when I held a hand in round 4 that I would have been willing to wager a large sum was identical to a hand from the same board that I held during R3 [having retained the same table and thus the same boards for those two rounds]. However, while willing to wager on my hand I was not nor would not be willing to wager any sum on the other hands sight unseen. On the first occasion I deviated from system which led to an apparently thin game. On the second occasion I duplicated my efforts to the same effect. After completion of play I informed the TD that the board was identical to the previous round. This had several effects [a] he accused me of cheating he ascertained that the other table had in fact not shuffled it (the other boards were ok) prior to play [c] the result was canceled and a substitute was played. As for my personal example I feel that [with the exception of the TD behavior] it was handled as it ought to be handled. Though in law that assertion is questionable. I am unable to find justification for correcting the shuffle once the board is played. [L6D2 specifies that the result be canceled <the board was played in the previous session/round> but does not specify a basis for correcting the shuffle]. Notably L15B specifies: B. One or More Players Have Previously Played Board If any player plays a board he has previously played, with the correct opponents or otherwise, his second score on the board is cancelled both for his side and his opponents, and the Director shall award an artificial adjusted score to the contestants deprived of the opportunity to earn a valid score. That the result be canceled but does not provide a mechanism for correcting the shuffle.

This completes the story with important information. You informed the Director about your suspicion without giving away any indication on the problem to the other players at the table, that was very good and in fact the correct procedure. Now we are in Law 6D2 territory, and at your table the correct ruling would be to replace the board with a correct one if possible or award A+ to both sides. (As I understand you there was no "correct" board.) The rest of this thread has gone into a discussion on computerized card dealing. regards Sven We were informed subsequently that the hand records matched the cards for boards 9 & 10. This suggests that the computer generated the hands legitimately as played. And merely because such an occurence is improbable, this player by not holding his tongue has destroyed probably the one opportunity in this solar system to experience the anomaly [legitimately].

There is insufficient information to make any ruling, for instance it is premature to dismiss the possibility that the hands are legitimate [the lack of instructions for duplication]. Personally I experienced the oddity of deja vu during about the third round of an American swiss where the hands are shuffled every round. I had a board that I estimated was perhaps 2 or 3 pips different from being an exact duplicate from the previous day's pairs. The auction was indeed the same but on Sunday it could take one more trick. At this point, it would seem that the astute friend could have been premature in drawing attention to his conclusion. If the hand had been indeed fouled it couldn't hurt to first complete the play; while if the interruption unnecessarily causes cancellation of the board, you perhaps see my point...

WHILE he calls "club" he is shaking his fist up and down with his thumb pointing up. Certainly, this might be presumed to be a lot of trouble for something that would be better accomplished via 'CJ'; but considering the consequences of 'club'- rather worth it.

THe hand is corrected [L13A] ascertaining that said CA belongs to no hand in this deal. play proceeds and the result stands [L21A]. The hand that belongs to the CA is sought out and corrected in the mean time.

True. The TD determined there was a 5-7 second pause. The AC did not disagree. I cannot possibly put our decision more clearly than jdonn has: That is what we decided. I am troubled by the finding that S did not create unauthorized inferences. first, where was it established that S has a consistent 5-7s tempo? As I expect, I would discover that south's tempo is all over the place in which case every call would carry unauthorized inferences. the CoC provides S [along with all the players] 10-12s to consider the ramifications of 2N prior to any further action. Specifically, that S has already been provided 10-12s to contemplate action over interference by E [which notably would likely be, if anything, 3S]. This means that S has actually taken 17s to call [the 10-12s provided by E plus the 7s subsequent] A further comment. COnsider, had E in fact not provided the full 10s pause there can be good foundation to find that taking 7s [or even more] would not convey unautorized inferences as, indeed, consideration for some of such time ought to be given for the effect of E infracting the CoC.

I'm not sure that there is even a specification that there can be no further auction once an OL is faced. However, there is a situation when the law specifies that there be an auction after the OL, the provision being found in 2008L17D2.