axman

There was a time when L40A1b required announcing the partnership methods before the round. Law or no law this is right thing to do and the only sensible way to do so is with the convention card- and requests for clarification (some partnerships have conditional agreements that must be ascertained in regards to their opponents' method). Everyone has the duty to schedule time to ensure the completion of their convention card before starting play. It's called fair play. And if you need 30 minutes after game time to complete your convention card there is a consequence called assigned scores and slow play.

But. Is that what you want? It sounds like you tried to figure it out. Similarly, as I aim to learn from others, I'm not inclined to try:(

Well. If we believe L11A consider this. The first sentence is advice and nothing else. The second sentence says if one side gets a bigger score than an opponent because of what the opponent did- the side is penalized when no infraction of law had occurred… as well as when an infraction of law has occurred. Now. You say that is not what L11 means. And I remind you "You may find Law 11 gobbledygook, that doesn’t mean you can ignore it." And I do not ignore what it says (since what it says is basis for what it means)- after all I did call it gobbledygook which in itself suggested I do not ignore it… even though all TDs indeed do ignore what it says every time a player gains from an opponent's action (that is not penalized via L11A).

An analyis of the case. E made an insufficient call, noticed and made motions to change it (which would be subject to L25). However, S first drew attention to the insufficient call (where L36 prescribes the remedy) and imposes a penalty that includes canceling the X, mandating a pass. While such penalty does not comport with L36 it is circumscribed by L36 (in other words L36 would have provided additional options to E); and what that means is that L36 did not compel E to name a contract (had it been properly applied). As an aside, had S not intervened and E changed his call and S then calls the TD, if the TD finds that the change was not a L25A correction then S has the option to condone or not. If not there now is an insufficient X subject to L36. Regarding L11 If the NOS acts after an irregularity and before the director has explained his ruling, such action may condone the irregularity or diminish the available redress. Which makes it clear that if the NOS doesn't get the TD involved sooner than later, they can screw themselves. But, that is not what the law book says: The right to rectification of an irregularity may be forfeited if either member of the non-offending side takes any action before summoning the Director. If a side has gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law, the Director adjusts only that side’s score by taking away any accrued advantage. The other side retains the score achieved at the table. The above can be replaced by the word gobbledygook and be more useful. This policy of using the word rectification has tied bridge into knots. When someone says 'If a side has gained' just what is it that the gain is against? As for this case, to which irregularity does it refer? The insufficient X, south's improper conduct of adjudicator, something else? After all, the insufficient X was penalized by south wasn't it?

I have an issue over the characterization 'doing the right thing' My view is that if a remedy is wanted there is a duty to summon the TD in timely fashion (aka before NOS acts). Sometimes when an opponent commits an irregularity it is a bridge mistake and my thought is that by suffering thereby there will be encouragement to avoid irregularities. By counterfactual, if the law prevents infractor from suffering from his mistake it is the law that encourages the player to infract.

Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach. Such a standard when achieved in practice has no need of questioning, yet... in terms of law is a dubious standard when applied to human foibles... as there is some lesser specification that is good enough which can be achieved with sensible effort. I would think that if one views the opponents through glasses that are slightly out of focus the human condition can be blurred sufficiently (slightly) that good enough mannerisms and perfect mannerisms become indistinguishable enough that litigation be ignored with good feeling... while bad enough mannerisms still be recognized and litigated with good feeling...Even though such a standard would be slightly different from person to person. As to the blurring by out of focus glasses 'good enough for government work' does not come to mind because of the connotation of the expectation of the lack of effort to get it right. In bridge it takes effort to (at least) try to get it right.

First, there is nothing aesthetically bad about an opponent condoning as legal a double of a bid less than 8. Additionally, it solves a lot of problems satisfactorily that the laws do badly at best. That means that L36 is stupid. Had to get that off my chest. An observation I make in this case is that after East X 1H he withdrew the X and then passed. According to L25, S at that point could object (call the TD) who would rule via L25. Instead of calling the TD what did happen was S passed. In accordance with L25 the pass was a change of call, or a correction of call without penalty, which S condoned. Whatever conflict you feel that L36 has with the other passages which resolve the facts better I am at a loss to identify. My opening comment, was it not, was that L36 is stupid.

The auction is over, the play is over. South's last pass condoned the alleged irregularities. result stands L25A5. If the auction ends before it reaches the player’s partner no substitution may occur after the end of the auction period (see Law 17D). L25B1. A substituted call not permitted by A may be accepted by the offender’s LHO. (It is accepted if LHO calls intentionally over it.) The first call is then withdrawn, the second call stands and the auction continues

When I was directing sanctioned club games (ACBL certified director) the director received $1 per full entry per session. No distinction between special games. pre covid.

This deem business is akin to a rule such as If you jaywalk you are deemed to have killed the President. Ok, the President is alive and you are deemed to have killed him. When there is a play out of turn is the skipped player told to correct his revoke?

Thank you for getting that correct. I originally :( wrote 67B1b :) I find it curious your belief that failing to play to a trick in and of itself is a revoke. Nowhere in law except here is there such a connection. For instance, when someone plays out of turn, when the non offender adds his card the law does not say that he corrects his revoke. In 1996 when a player's defective trick is remedied and he can add a card that follows suit he is not penalized for a revoke even though he could have followed suit (L61 definition of revoke) yet when he does not have such a card he is penalized for a revoke- even when at the time of the trick he already was void. This seemed wrong to me. My recollection is that in 1996 revoke was defined twice: in L61 and the definitions (as expected in L61 and as unexpected in definitions). My suspicion is that my conversation with Dan Morse trickled to the ACBLLC and then trickled to the WBFLC which resulted in a response recorded in WBF2007. I think it can be said that the alteration in regards to a revoke occurring when offender could have followed suit is satisfactory; as for the condition when he was not able (at the time) to follow suit, I think the non alteration is wrong headed.

The incongruity you point out (67B2b) labels the condition of a player being void (of the suit led) did not play a card to the trick. When remedied later via 67B2b the label is a revoke. The incongruity is that this label does not comport with the L61 enumerated definitions of revoke (which carries the condition of not following when able distinct from not playing at all). If we might believe L61 then perhaps the lawmakers know that every time someone does not play to a trick he always could have followed suit (hehehe). That was the issue that the ACBLLC would not explain to me in 1996.

You suggest that you do not comprehend that the motivation for repudiating Vanderbilt scoring is that it is unjust when it can be improved with scoring that is just (the motivation is not to get more natural bidding). In other words, it is bad policy to be motivated to repudiate VS merely to achieve a goal such as get rid of alerts (more natural bidding); after all, that is how we got alerts in the first place- disclosure was wanted and the bad policy of alerts got created when the consequence of cheating was ignored. A consequence of a just scoring table reduces the 'need' for alerts. A scoring table rooted in justice is good policy; and a consequence of a just scoring table is disclosure without (being motivated to use) alerts. And that puts motivation in a proper perspective. As to the bidding method consequences, when you say you like the idea of bidding stayman with 1C, are you overcaller or responder? And are you aiming for 4H partial or 4C game? As to your reference to Gilithin you do mean BBO Do some players really enjoy everything being in 3NT ? My initial thought is that part of the Vanderbilt genius was the sophisticated scoring table that is easy to compute. Could say more but it would be repetitious.

I'll point out part of what I implied. The suggestion was rewards in line with difficulty. The scheme makes each advance in bidding step a bit more expensive. To cash in the bonus for minor suits it is a good idea to figure out it is available before you run out of makeable contracts- which is likely when the bidding is artificial (needs unused bidding steps)- where are you going to find them when they are useful? This implies that fewer conventions (whether artificial or natural) will be useful which in turn removes an impetus to license conventions. Out of self interest players will choose conventions that work and the universe of conventions that work will turn out to be much smaller than the current lot. This alone will reduce a leaning curve and make the disclosure universe much smaller. All in all it is much better to have players choose any system because they want it rather than point a gun at them telling them what they can't. I suspect your response is knee jerk. Formulate your complex methods to paper (have your chiropractor handy): play with the nuts and bolts and form opinions. Remember that it takes 4 players to solve a hand and you can use any artificial device you choose.

Mycroft>> Expected Alerts or failures to Alert are not "extraneous information" between partners, Not so. Sometimes language needs to be adequately scrutinized: 16B1: 1. Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, The law identified 'remarks' as extraneous information. that leads to the answer to the query, 'are f2f alerts remarks?' Which is yes. So called 'unexpected' are merely a subset. Well the law could go (which would be a misnomer) 1984 and proclaim lie is truth. Mycroft>> or the game would be unplayable Which is so. The truth is that tournament players (myself not among them) not only want to cheat they are proud of it. It is how they were trained. They can't get along without alerts. That they exist suggests that Vanderbilt got something wrong nearly a century ago. That it is still wrong attests to the genius of how great his ideas were are. And as Holmes said, Eliminate the impossible (alerts) and what remains is the truth. Since 2015 a great number of forests have been clearcut in an uproar over cheating. My observation is that the answer to date has been to decapitate cheaters rather than deal with the cause of cheating. To me it makes sense that the outcome of players cheating is to be expected when everybody is trained to cheat (alerts); and thus it makes sense that alerts must go. To understand, it is a good idea to review where alerts came from. Ostensibly, alerts came about because of Vanderbilt's unfair scoring: easy to bid contracts (majors) were outlandishly rewarded while difficult to bid contracts (minors) were heavily punished. A cursory inspection makes it clear that Vanderbilt scoring has more bidding steps to find easy to make contracts and fewer bidding steps to find difficult to make contracts. In other words ignore minors creates extra bidding steps to optimize majors. This fact makes complex artificial systems not merely worthwhile but considerably so. Hence the disclosure problem that brought alerts to the surface and proliferate (and became themselves impossibly complex, unworkable systems of communication- errrr disclosure). This alone suggests that if unfortunate Vanderbilt scoring cause alerts (that must go) then Vanderbilt scoring must go. Which begs the question, if VS goes can its substitution solve the disclosure problem. I suggest that majors =20 and minors=30 and NT=40 and clubs outrank NT (7S is highest contract) will align difficulty with reward and make it the player's interest to have mostly natural system (with fewer complex conventions) to disclose/ learn. For they who want the cheating problem fixed here is something to chew on. For they who want the disclosure problem fixed here is something to chew on. Me, I'm worn out.

THe law enumerates that in face to face alerts are a system of communication other than by call or play: L16B.1. Any extraneous information from partner that might suggest a call or play is unauthorized. This includes remarks, questions, replies to questions, unexpected alerts or failures to alert, ... The only way to construe L80 so as to permit alerts is that the only permissible alerts can be behind screens (as in not available to partner).

To pass muster the alerts that may be prescribed are among those that do not conflict with law (L80). As I pointed to L73B2 which states that there is no crime greater than partners communicating by a system other than by call or play, and, alerts are a system of communication other than by call or play they do not pass muster. As it is possible (only with screens) to alert without partners communicating other than by call or play that is regulation that 40B2a3 provides for. Some may suspect that I think that alerts are bad policy (in fact I do) but as to what that law provides my opinion is that that that law got face to face right and screens wrong. My quibble is with they who are getting that law wrong.

I am thinking that if the law had been followed ...by the tournament officials... then the incident would never have happened and there would be no story. There is a ubiquitous notion that the law explicitly permits alerts in face to face; but to the contrary it actually forbids. iow had there been no alerts permitted then there would have been no disruption as described. Getting back to the ubiquitous notion. The law actually provides that disclosure may be regulated in the light that the regulation does not fracture the law; and alerts fracture L73B2- the one that says breaking it is the worst crime there is.

Bad things happen when a hand is interrupted without valid cause.

I believe the recollection would be that once started a board is to be completed. perhaps there is an exception when a board is started that one of the contestants have already played. But in any event, if an irregularity occurred, it does take time to remedy, and that interval would be seen to interrupt play of the board. As for interrupting play for improper reasons, it is not simple.

As David Burn opines, Bridge is not a very good game. In that vein a reason it is not a very good game, indeed a bad game is that its foundation does not rest on justice. For instance the rules reward greatly achievements that are pianola while punishing achievements that are difficult. As an example it is far easier to successfully arrive at a contract of 4S because there are more bidding stets to arrive safely and at 10 tricks it is easier to fulfill- than say 5C which needs more muscle (less likely to hold) and has comparatively fewer bidding steps available to arrive safely. And for this difference in difficulty the reward is punishment on the recap sheet. If the hierarchy of denominations were corrected to NT being the lowest (for instance) the 3N game would become very difficult to find with so few bidding steps and might in fact in practice more often consume so many bidding steps to go past 3N to 4N. thus the player better earns his superior score. Certainly, players being practical will more often bash 3N giving defenders a better run for their money. Combined with a correction of L77 scoring table by switching tricks scores of majors with the minors would better align scoring with justice. The easier to arrive at majors would be rewarded more in line with their lower difficulty and conversely the minors would be rewarded more in line with their higher difficulty. Again more often creating opportunities for defenders to set contracts. A consequence of the justice principle is that self interest likely will funnel players to mostly natural bidding to save bidding steps. Artificial becomes too expensive and the immense variety that today is difficult to disclose correctly turns into something manageable that players more likely will satisfy even if there were no convention licensing. I think it is justice that such a free rein will prove bidding systems successes or failures so that the market will quickly kill off the junk further reducing brain drain. The point I am making is that the reason something is done ought to be a good reason (justice) rather than trying to make something work by twisting it into something it was not (licensing for instance) meant to be.

I'm not sure what is the real issue. My thinking is that the restriction to 15 words for auction communication is a satisfactory constraint. To further constrain what might be done with those words is an unsatisfactory restraint, particularly since such restraints favor some players in order to disfavor other players. It is by judgment that lacunas in one's method of communication are resolved for better or worse. Such judgment comprises bridge and it is better that it not be restrained.

I suggest being careful: 1. there are conflicts in antecedents- too many of them 2. T6 apparently was a proper lead accepted. At which point there is no right to alter. technically saying 'no, another trump' is a LOOT to T7 and a revoke {the designation was a trump and thus played in spite of dummy moving the wrong card and it is still in time to correct it and the subsequent RHO play- I suspect without penalty under certain conditions; the RHO follow accepts T7. T6 is defective and established where declarer and defender have both revoked. As I recollect L67 is pretty messed up and I'm not in the mod to untangle. The defective trick remains established with regard those other revokes and revoke remedies even if T7 is corrected (for instance when without penalty,etc). We have finally found someone who has fun at the bridge table.

I have piles of Bulletins spanning some 3 decades. They are in Houston and will be going somewhere probably in the next 2-3 weeks. If you want them say so and come get them. use private message if you wish.

I was watching Wolff one day when the defense book rose to the occasion. I ought to use the plural. It took Wolff 7 minutes to read it.:)