axman

Some 15 years ago I was summoned to the table after the players found the board contained the C3 twice. It was in the middle of the movement. It took a minute to determine that there was no S2. a few more minutes and I found that the other board on the table contained the S2 twice and no C3. Additionally, the S2 occupied the hand where the C3 belonged and vice versa [different pockets]. I remember not being comfortable with my ruling but I’ll attempt to be accurate. I determined that the boards had been fouled by the human dealing machine that made the boards at an earlier occasion**. The boards were corrected and as the first board had progressed to the play period it was cancelled and was scored as a fouled board for the other comparisons. The other board was played correctly and scored as a fouled board. ** I have some comments due to thinking more about it the last couple of days. [a] I now am all but convinced that the finding of fact [fouling during preduplication] was in error even though it was the only thing considered at the time. [1] Possible explanations being that the cards might have been recently washed and the decks comingled. Had this been the case when I was the preduplicator it would have been caught since even though I duplicate from a random deck I would have noticed a pair of identical cards during comparison with the hand record which had not happened or, if put in the wrong card in a hand then after moving it to the correct hand it would have created a 13-13-12-14 which had not happened. The other duplicator sorts the cards into suits and orders them to speed deal so he would have noticed a pair of C3s. [2] then there is the possibility that the C3 fell from one board and S2 from the other and were switched when put back. After all the backs were identical. Right, and for anybody who gives credibility that two small off suit black cards fell from different boards at the same time with the same backs I coincidently just happen to own two bridges in Brooklyn I’m just aching to sell. [3] then there is the possibility that someone noticed the identical backs and while “post morteming the hands” monkeyed with them to see what happens. And that noght a person was present with precisely such a personality and history for mischief. if indeed [3] had [which I now feel is what happened] occurred then it is likely that the point of fouling was different. [c] I seem to recall being disappointed that the deuce and trey seemed to be so inconsequential at the time and had desired to want to finish the play ;). [d] I still am not comfortable

In such a case should it be ruled properly that a claim has occurred, then I would expect it unlikely that such player would ever do it again. Nor would anyone who became aware of the ruling. Saying that something is an interpretation of law is not sufficient for it to be so, as in the case when the so called interpretation is not based in law [or is in conflict with law]. And because there are consequences from a ruling predicated on a so called interpretation that is not valid, I would think that it is something that is worthwhile to raise to the attention of others, particularly when others have cited it as authority. That players and directors have been getting it wrong for decades merely means that they have been getting it wrong for decades.

Law 68B: 2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. . . . . . Play to a subsequent trick by the OS establishes the revoke. THe DA is such a play. As for the notion that had there been no DA then L68B prevents immediate establishment of such a revoke: 68B2. Regardless of 1 preceding, if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects, no concession has occurred. Notably the revoke was established upon the concession: 63A3. A revoke becomes established: when a member of the offending side makes or agrees to a claim or concession of tricks orally or by facing his hand or in any other way. B. Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played. and L63B provides that the established revoke can't be corrected, and notably L68A in its enthusiasm to declare that no concession occurred did not include that if a revoke had occurred during the previous trick it had not been yet established.

Robin I was/am not contesting that players, when they say, ‘run the clubs’ typically intend to play clubs [even from the top]. However, I thought that it is clear that when such phase is used, it carries with it the expectation that such tricks will be won forthwith. Consequently I thought it clear that such tricks are future tricks for the current hand. Yet, the custom/ tradition of treating such a statement as an instruction TO play rather than recognize additionally that it satisfies the L68A conditions that a claim has occurred has resulted in players and TDs long being in conflict with the law. Thus, I was pointing out that with respect to L68A their 'intention' is irrelevant. As for the LC minute supporting such notion of custom and tradition I fail to find a basis** in law for it ** as in it conflicts with law; had the LC stated that such a statement constituted a claim, then there would have been no ‘need’ to comment ‘Note that the Committee does not approve of the procedure of declarer naming several cards simultaneously in this fashion.’

A data point, at my table there have been 10+ defective tricks this year.

I'll point out that the end result of DD is a single destination readily achievable [and with software very quickly]. On the other hand, so-called 'normal play' heads in an incalculable number of directions with some question as to knowing when you have arrived.

Record theauction and order of play of the cards and confirm the lead to each trick [since a LOOT accepted may have occurred]. Also make note of relevant agreements, as well as rulings and their timing, especially PCs. This record is necessary since the ruling will take some time and players that want to litigate the ruling may lose track of relevant facts in the interim. Provide for progress of the contest while deciding how to resolve the tricks subsequent the initial revoke. I suggest starting by presuming double dummy play [subject to rulings] of the doubtful tricks** and then consider if all or part of the DD is unreasonable in light of factors such as agreements and UI. Notify the players of the outcome and inform them of their right to appeal. ** the presumption for the doubtful tricks [those subsequent the initial revoke] is that no irregularities occur I have no desire to create an example.

Notably, without knowledge of the system being used I am reluctant to judge what should have good play. For instance, this auction could suggest the defense proceeds CA, C ruff, SA, club ruff after which it might be a stretch to have good play for ten tricks in hearts.

It is trick 5 where dummy holds CAKQJT. The lead is in dummy. Declarer states, 'run the clubs'. the relevant passage of law is 68A. Claim Defined Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks..... Declarer has made a statement that he is taking five club tricks. Has he claimed? I direct special emphasis to where the law has specified ANY statement.

Declarer knows what's in both his and dummy's hands, so the types of problems caused by defenders playing out of order can't occur. If declarer's LHO leads, and declarer plays a card from his hand before playing from dummy, how can he gain? Declarer may be able to gain an advantage by leading from the wrong hand. Perhaps he's in hand with no entry to dummy, but he calls a card from dummy anyway. If he did this on purpose, hoping that the opponents won't realize the mistake, it's a violation of the Law prohibiting committing infractions intentionally. If he did it by mistake (sometimes we don't realize we've messed up the communication), requiring him to lead from the correct hand is sufficient redress. And if the opponents don't notice that he led from the wrong hand, it doesn't matter what the remedy is; if they don't notice, they're obviously not going to call the TD to get the remedy. What is gained by treating players the same as much as practical? First, they are more likely by a temendous margin to not commit so many irregularities. an ancilliary benefit of there being fewer infractions is that there will be fewer opportunities to incorrectly remedy them [see the L67 thread]. ps it might be terrifying to examine the gordian knot contained in L57A, especially when juxtaposed with L60

The law was not applied in accordance with the facts: Given that this case is a TD test it follows that it the given facts are established facts and are all trhe facts. Which means: Four hearts were contributed to T1, all but S quitting. W plays HJ and then S quits his T1. W turns HJ over and plays another heart; by the condition of the test all this time no other card has been played. the following are comments about irregularities that occurred: [a] W has jumped the gun [L65A establishes the order of the proceedings] in exposing his lead to T2 by not waiting for S to quit. In and of itself this is innocuous since other wise is was his rightful turn. However, it does have the effect of frequently giving S something more to think about immediately, and then, more to think about later at his next turn to play- thereby ‘slowing down the proceedings, so to speak’ W quit his card prior to T2 being completed [ L45G,L65A] [c] W intentionally exposed his third H prior to T2 being completed [L65A, PC via L49, premature play prior to partner [L57A, L57A1,2,3], correction non plays and of multiple plays L44B, L67A L67A1,2. [d] the ancillary laws such as L16,L23,L74 have gotten too numerous to include :( [e] I’ve seen this twice at my table this year :( and similar occurrences 5 other times :( :(

Well ... the casual reader of the laws might stumble across Law 59: "A player may play any otherwise legal card if he is unable to lead or play as required to comply with a rectification, whether because he holds no card of the required suit, or because he has only cards of a suit he is prohibited from leading, or because he is obliged to follow suit." He might wrongly conclude that this precisely worded clause means what it says, and not realise that it does not apply in certain situations. While I agree that the above clause has to be disregarded where the wrong drafting of Law 57 - and do not defend it by claiming that it makes sense as it is - leads to unfairness, it is far better to get the Law right in the first place. We have had similar situations under discussion when training Directors in Norway. The logic we are asked to apply is this: At the time East eventually decides on whether or not to use his trump he has the extraneous and unauthorized information that West holds the highest outstanding card in the suit led. Although declarer has no option to request East to play his trump after west's infraction of law, the Director shall rule that East may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. (Law 16B1a) Consequently East in this case has the choice between using his trump anyway or have the result on the board subsequently adjusted to the result had he used his trump, if such adjustment gives declaring side a better result. QUOTE=pran,Nov 6 2009, 02:02 PM] No need for that. Law 57 makes sense as it is, and the offending side is still subject to UI restrictions. That will take care of the "problem" quoted. This assertion, while probably dubious, is a subject for argument. The problem [well, at least a problem] with L16 is that it tells the player what to not do while deftly avoiding instruction with respect as for what to do. The specific thing that the player is to not do ought to put the player into the deepest of quandries- the outcome being that it takes him quite some time with it. To keep this thought in mind, a function of law ought to provide solutions to problems. And a law like 16 ought to be of the last resort, not the first. The construction of L57 is such that merely some of the time does it give some proximation of balancing the scales. So, if the method of L57 is appropriate some of the time so as to avoid invoking L16, why should such construction omit the rest of the time? I believe that it ought [be fixed] to be sufficient to avoid tangling with L16 every time.

I would agree, and go further, in that it is incorrectly drafted and does not cover every situation. It says: <snip> He may: 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. <snip> It should be corrected by inserting "require or" before "forbid" in clause 3. Else we have a situation such as the following, known as the Heinz 57 coup after a player callled Heinz at a club in Birmingham who perpetrated it, drawing attention to the deficiency in the Law: [hv=n=s32&w=s9&e=s&s=s8]399|300|[/hv] This is a side suit, and declarer leads from dummy. While East is considering whether to ruff, having no idea who has the nine and who has the eight, West contributes the 9. East now correctly discards a side suit. Now declarer is unable to obtain redress from any of 1 thru 3 above, and the TD has to rely on Law 23, where I agree that even if it is implausible that West could have been aware that the infraction would benefit his side, the TD has to rule that he could have been. But far better to have Law 57 correct in the first place! I concur that 2008L57A was crafted poorly and is less than a satisfactory remedy since [as pointed out] the remedy does not appear to suit the crime; but I also feel that merely adding/changing nominally the few suggested words in that paragraph would be insufficient to yield a satisfactory passage. To expand further, shouldn’t the remedies apply to all contestants rather than to select classes of contestants? For instance, aren’t all players required to play only at their appointed turn? Yet, defenders pay dearly when they fail while declarer [when intelligent] has only upside. To demonstrate the difference in my view the following [without context] gives a fair representation of my view. As a preface, I look upon acting out of turn as a feat of fortune telling: A2. POOT a. POOT Condoned If offender’s opponent condones a POOT it is considered as if played in turn, play continues in clockwise rotation skipping any player that has contributed a card to the trick. b. POOT Not Condoned If a POOT is not condoned it is withdrawn and left faced on the table, play reverts to the rightful contestant, and, the withdrawn card shall be played at offender’s next turn even if subject to penalty** . Further if the POOT skipped the turn of offender’s partner, and the withdrawn card was 1. played at his partner’s turn to lead, offender’s RHO may require [L59] offender’s partner to [1] lead the highest or lowest card of the suit of the withdrawn card, or [2] not lead the suit, or [3] neither. 2. played other than at his partner’s turn to lead, offender’s RHO may select a suit and require [L59] offender’s partner to play at his next turn his highest or lowest card of a selected suit. c. The A2b option supersedes the requirement to discharge the play of an existing PC. ** A2b Requiring the withdrawn card to be played at offender’s next turn even if it does not follow suit may feel awkward. The POOT is considered to be offender’s next play and therefore it is played at his next turn. If it is an illegal play he is permitted to correct it according to law

Do I understand that declarer claimed 4 of the last three tricks, and, the defenders acquiesced? Quick, quick. Who are these defenders? I've just bought a ticket to Australia :) .

And what bridge reason can any player, novice or top expert, have to hesitate with a singleton? Law 73D2 is so explicit on this matter that it even specifically mentions hesitating with a singleton. And Law 73F includes the "could have known" clause. I see no reason ever to be lenient on a player that has hesitated with a singleton or to be strict against a declarer that "should have understood", there is not even any need to show intent in order to adjust the result. The only situation I shall accept is if the "offender" apparently wakes up and apologises with words to the effect: "Sorry, I had nothing to think about", we can all temporarily fall asleep. Sven A long time ago there was a period of several years during which my automatic response to an improper deceptive pause was to say, 'sorry, no problem.' After consideration, I stopped this practice and am unilaterally opposed to it. The outcome has been that I pay better attention and improper deceptions are quite rare, and to date no such damage has occurred; and should such damage occur the proper thing to do is to adjust. My views are founded upon the notion that such a disclaimer [no screens] is an improper communication to partner [L73 infraction]. In and of itself sufficient reason. Further, an improper deceptive has already breached L73 and to compound it by further breaching L73 is more than sufficient reason to say nothing during the hand.

Given that premise, it does not follow that ' then that is because of the infraction, yes? ' While, a score smaller than the expectation can be the consequence of an infraction, it might otherwise be a consequnce of poor choices of one or more players, or brilliant choices of one or more players. Law 12B1 QUOTE 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 I have been unable to parse this passage so as to be comprehensible. I am not sure that it is connected to the use of 'because'. However, the comparison of expectation to outcome [rather than to expected outcome] does have somethng to do with it. For what it is worth the expectation absent the ?infraction? was 680 while the expectation as a consequence of the ?infraction? was 800.

Good day. How may I help?

The normal meaning of slam try is that partner is <required> to cue first round controls. Absent first round controls then sign off minimally or fake a cue in a suit with a king. THerefore, when the partner denies first round control systemically he will never freely proceed beyond game. As such, a player that takes a considerable time to not cue creates the inference that his hand has at least an ace. This demonstrably suggests that instead of impossible, twelve tricks are possible; and, therefore 6S is demonstrably suggested over pass. L16 therefore provides the score be adjusted to 4S once damage is asserted and it is shown that the partner in fact hesitated to 4S.

Granted East's statement is not strictly a play, but it does indicate his intention. If you feel the fact it is not strictly a play makes a difference, then suppose he actually leads a heart, either after or simultaneously with the claim. What now? the players agree on the score and proceed to the next board

You see it as other players telling you what to do. To me it seems more like the opponents offering me the ability to think for a while without limiting my partner's options. Yes, it is telling someone to do your command, and, in a derogatory way. Derogatory certainly. Any fool can tell that a skip occurs in the bidding, that is quite an adequate cue to provide a pause without additional cues. Therefore, to Warn belittles the recipient and warner both. It is childish. I, for one, resent it. To be coerced into meekly obeying such command, the command intimidates, and does so without necessity. The body-English that accompanies the command conveys tells to the partner that frequently contain more and better information than the agreement behind the bid. The concept of the player deciding what occasions to issue a command presents its own complications. Namely, that it is a system of communicating with partner other than by call or play various inferences [such as those that cannot be conveyed by bidding systems] of the variety that L73B2 rails against. The Warning and its aftermath far from facilitating the players is a distraction that is gotten wrong way too often. The fact that most players do not obey the command speaks to their contrariness as homo sapiens and quite likely their subconscious perception of the unfairness of the rules and the way they applied, as well as the way they are applied incorrectly. And need it be brought up that treating contestants as children results in acquiring children rather than bridge players.

I do not understand why describing a takeout double as a takeout double is misleading. As to the efficacy of this agreement, it may or may not be high, but it is not the nonsense you seem to be suggesting. In many many situations players have found that protective bidding is efficacious, ie bidding on the presumption your partner will have a reasonable hand for you because the opponents have passed it out in a part score, and this situation is no different. If you hold Qxxx xx Qxxx Txx you will not double 1♥ for fear of partner just bidding too high. But when it gets raised to 2♥ and passed round to you then you know two things: there is a reasonable chance of partner providing enough high cards for you to make something, though probably poor distribution, and if you double for takeout now, he will not take you too high because he will know your hand is very poor in high cards So, as in so many positions, a takeout double has something to recommend it. As for your suggestions that only unethical players can play this efficiently, apart from my absolute dislike at such an approach, it is true in most protective situations that there are tempo problems. Tough: that is life. Next, you will suggest that the normal situation of 1 suit pass pass double should not be played in the modern style by most players because of tempo problems. A player felt that his convention might be viewed as unusual and wanted opinions about fair play. I responded with a list of information that is useful to the opponents when describing the convention. The reason that takeout is misleading is because of what it leaves out. Necessarily, for a partnership to have such a convention they need some standard range of starting hands for responder’s X, and takeout supplies no such information. Information that can be material to the opponents in the choices they make. I also recounted personal knowledge as to things that happen when such a convention is employed. And, I suggested a standard of conduct under which such a convention can be fairly employed. What you suggested is that players with such a convention that do not have good tempo are unethical. Which goes to answering the player’s question. ** As for hand evaluation [for the hand you provided], balancer does not know there is a reasonable chance; what he knows is that the is a modest chance which is not particularly close to reasonable- at the three level. Take note that when the opponents stop they also have significant expectation of having the balance of power.

The description [for all conventions] that you need to provide the opponents includes: a. promised length [distinct from the range he is capable of] b. promised strength [distinct from the range he is capable of] c. specific cards promised [not applicable here?] d. interrogations/ responses to interrogations [not applicable here?] e. Instructions [takeout] On its face, the description, takeout, of your convention is grossly misleading. The message to be received by the opponents appears to be calculated as ‘you can’t be punished by our X’ so as to entrap them into risky bidding. Personally, for a player that is unwilling to enter the auction at the 2 level, why then does he want a potential minimum pard to bid at the 3 level? I am wondering about the efficacy of such a convention, in that under what conditions is it chosen to not employ when the specified hands are held? When my opponents have employed similar conventions almost every instance the player either had available UI suggesting that it would be a good time to make his ‘takeout double’ or he created UI that his ‘takeout’ double was tenuous [including times his holdings were penalty oriented] or, not tenuous at all. I should think that such a convention ought to practiced only by partners that at least are reasonably consistent in tempo.

I'm not sure the antecedent to which you refer, so for the sake of demonstration consider UI that has numerous possible inferences- some mutually exclusive and others not necessarily mutually exclusive -and for the player his hand suggests exactly two calls that are logical within system. Inference A suggests action X and inference B suggests action Y [demonstrably so]. whether or not the inferences describe in fact some aspect of the the partner's hand/reason for thinking, one and or the other COULD describe in fact some aspect of the partner's hand/reason for thinking, AND they are present. In this situation inference A demonstrably suggest X over Y; while inference B demonstrably suggests Y over X . And a reasonable person would believe that L16 says that taking either X or Y is forbidden. And, if that reasonable person was a bridge player he would not like that state of affairs.

I am interested in the reason you feel this way. If you would put your finger on it and elaborate on the specifics I would appreciate it greatly. THank you I would be happy to try, but let me preface my attempt by saying that most of the bridge I have played in the past 15 years has been in ACBL National Championships, World Championships, and major invitational tournaments in various countries. My comments should be seen in that context and not in the context of lesser tournaments or club games (where my enjoyment of the game is almost entirely a function of social factors, where I generally don't care how well my opponents know their agreements, and where I don't think the standards or rules in this area should be the same as they are in high-level events). Here are some of the basic reasons I do not enjoy playing bridge when my opponents constantly screw up their system: 1. One of the primary pleasures I get from playing bridge involves the problem solving aspects of the game. I do not enjoy trying to solve problems that are impossible to solve because of faulty premises that my opponents have explicitly provided. 2. Just like players who constantly psych, players who constantly forget their alleged agreements randomize the results of the event. I do not enjoy it when bridge devolves into an exercise in randomness. 3. I do not enjoy calling the Director, getting into heated discussions with the Director and the opponents, being under time pressure as a result of such Director calls, going to committees, getting into heated discussions with those who serve on these committees and more heated discussions with the opponents, and not getting enough sleep to play effectively the next day as a result of such committees. 4. I believe that all partnerships have a responsibility to know their methods. I take this responsibility seriously. It irritates me when my opponents fail to do the same. I do not enjoy being irritated. Note that the results I happen to achieve due to my opponents screwing up do not come into play. Of course it is true that, in the long run, my results are certainly more likely to benefit from such screwups. However, as far as I am concerned that respresents zero consolation for ruining my enjoyment of the game. Please don't anyone bother trying to pick apart my points 1 through 4 above. I was asked to answer a question about why I feel a certain way. I make no claims that these points are or should be true for anyone other than me. Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Much appreciation for your time and effort. When I started the Fundamentals thread I had anticipated that topics such as this would eventually be discussed and tested, but the type of discussion needed as yet has been meager.

I am interested in the reason you feel this way. If you would put your finger on it and elaborate on the specifics I would appreciate it greatly. THank you