PeterAlan

Sorry, I still think you are playing on a different planet. Anyone who has so little interest in the game itself to actually start checking whether the label is original or a label on top of a label and then check that is not showing sufficient interest in the bridge itself. David, the different planet's yours. All this stuff about different labels didn't originate with me; I merely responded to a scenario you posed. Let's drop it. PeterAlan

That's right, let's blame the victims, why not? Are you seriously suggesting that you check every board you play to make sure that that the label on it is not a label on top of a label, and you would notice such a label? If you did happen to notice a board had been altered in some way, are you seriously suggesting you always check with the TD rather than just following what it says on a printed label? This is a totally OTT reaction, David. I wasn't blaming anyone, merely making a mild suggestion that if you have a board in front of you where the label's obviously been altered it might be worth checking it out before playing it. Probably you'd first check the vulnerability / dealer against your scorecard rather than call the TD immediately (when I wrote my previous post I originally didn't include the words "with the director" but added them in deference to all those who constantly encourage us to call the TD). Where one label's been completely replaced by another (label on label), and the new (complete) label is for the board you're expecting there's obviously no issue. But a board where just the number has been altered on the label and nothing else has woud, I hope, raise a question in my mind, if I'm alert enough to be playing properly. PeterAlan

It seems to me that there's another moral here as well: if you get a board on your table that's had its label altered in this sort of way, then check it out with the director before playing it. Here, 12 players (3 tables) seemed to have played the board with nary a question. PeterAlan

But it never is that simple, because of UI, especially if the opponent asks for an explanation and in the light of it decides to pass. This brings me to a bugbear of mine, the host of defences to (weak) 1NT. I'm beginning to think that these should be announceable (mine is EBU-land) rather than alertable, to avoid the UI problems that the NT-opening side has, which cripples their ability to compete effectively. I can give you an example from the Corwen (which also illustrates the problems cited above with the alerting of doubles) - I'm not giving the actual hand, since it's really the regulation of the auction that is my point. And this isn't club bridge, where you can smile when the sort of technical transgressions that Helene describes take place. Neither side vulnerable. E (dealer) opens 1NT (weak), S overcalls 2C, alerted. W, who holds a 9-count with 5 hearts to AJ and 4 clubs to A, enquires, is told "Hearts and another", and decides to Pass. N bids 2D. E holds 5 spades, and E-W, having been stolen blind in similar sequences in the past, have decided that they're prepared to compete to 2S in those circumstances (let's not distract ourselves with the bridge merits or otherwise of this view). E therefore bids 2S, and N predictably screams blue murder (actually, a reaction was forseeable; the totally OTT manner of it wasn't). The TD asks for the auction to continue, which it does: Pass from S and W, double from N (not alerted), pass from E, tank followed by pass from S, pass from W. It looks as though N/S can take 9 tricks in D, so -100 will be OK, -300 won't. E asks S "You didn't alert the double, so it's take-out, right?". S: "We don't have an agreement on it". (N-S, both heavily capped, have been playing together for at least 15 years.) E: "Well, unless it's take-out, it's alertable". N: "No it isn't." E tried further enquiries about the 1NT defences in order to try and decide whether S's second suit is spades or clubs, but got nowhere. Now I'm not asking for a lot of sympathy for E-W (who can make 8 tricks in both H and NT as escapes from 2Sx), but it does seem to me that the scales are tilted heavily in N-S's favour as regards being able to know what's going on, and inhibit E-W's ability to compete effectively or punish intervention without running foul of UI constraints. It's clear, as I read the rules, that an optional double is alertable: in fact N had the spades, and S's second suit is clubs. N-S both know this, but E can't tell. PeterAlan

I couldn't agree more. In fact, it's so much worse for the purposes of playing a NT contract that I suggest the radical step of not opening it 1NT. As it happens, my partner and I take very much the opposite view to you, giving priority to describing the hand shape rather than (whatever measure of) HCP, to the extent that we will reverse on hands that others won't. From my perspective, this is an easy hand to bid: you've got 5 clubs and 4 spades, so open 1C and (1) re-bid 1S over either 1D or 1H from partner, or (2) raise a 1S response. Instead, you open with a bid that distorts both your shape and, by your admission, your HCP. This strikes me as just plain daft, but then I can only just manage whole points without halves and quarters. PeterAlan

There's nothing unusual about South's enquiry, at her turn to bid, about West's alerted call, so no UI and that's that. How do you know that there's nothing unusual about her enquiry? It may be that she usually asks about unexpected alerts, or that she hardly ever does. In the former case the enquiry is unusual; in the latter it is not. I think you're taking my remark out of context, gnasher (and ignoring the "For example" that introduced it). Putting that aside, there would still be the question of whether "unusual" should be interpreted subjectively, in relation to the specific player in question (as you did), or more objectively, in relation to (for example) some, perhaps peer, cohort of players. The former has obvious problems in establishing what is usual for the player / partnership in question; the latter would allow too much leeway. Again, the more you pick at it, the more complex you can make it all, until it becomes unworkable. I don't want to continue digging. jdeegan, your conjectures are a bit adrift of the mark, because you've been caught up in the confusion over who was who. In your terms, N was the pro, S the customer, and E-W Jeremy and his expert partner. I think you're wide of the mark, gerry, but I have the advantage of knowing who the N/S couple were and of having played them in an earlier round. N, I am quite sure, knew exactly what he was doing, whatever his reasons for doing it, and however valid they may or may not have been - I don't suppose RMB1 is very wide of the mark. And the reason he later gave for the 3C bid was correct, in that it takes a club lead to defeat 4S. PeterAlan

But it does create UI. How can you have a Law that says it does not? That's easy. You have a law that says it's authorised. You're confusing things - the enquiry creates Information, but it's the laws that decide whether this information is authorised or not, and they can in principle be changed to achieve any particular end. PeterAlan

The full hand will have been as Jeffrey posted it (and my copy has it), and this post is on that basis. To go back to the original question, I would not be inclined to overturn the TD's decision. This is not quite the same as to say that if I was ruling ab initio I would necessarily have ruled the same way, but I consider that I need a rather higher standard in order to over-rule an experienced TD's judgment with my own. Before getting to the bridge judgments, however, there are, as always with these wretched UI cases, the various legalities - a major problem being that there's always something in one law / regulation or another to support whatever point of view one wishes to advance. For example, I can argue quite easily that there is no UI at all: the Orange Book regulation 3E1 that dburn quoted reads (with my emphasis) There's nothing unusual about South's enquiry, at her turn to bid, about West's alerted call, so no UI and that's that. Aha, you say, what about Law 16B? Well, what about Law 20F1 I reply? And so we go on, with all the to-ing and fro-ing that seems to accompany all these UI cases. All it really does is to highlight that the present system is unsatisfactory (though, like democracy, it may nevertheless be better than the alternatives). But assuming UI - bridge judgments? What do we have? Ideally, one would know a little more about what N/S agree the double of one major will show in respect of the other, if indeed they do have anything more precise than the normal "4 cards, well maybe a good 3", but it seems appropriate for N to assume opening values and 4 hearts in S as the basis of his assessment. Similarly, it would be helpful to know what length (if any) is indicated by the 3C bid, or whether S is expected to regard it as merely lead-directing. N can reckon on 9 spades E/W, so that's 17 total tricks. In fact, there are 19, because of the double fits, and he appears to have been allowing for 18, based loosely on the singleton spade in his hand or whatever other adjustment, since 17 doesn't support bidding on if a double can be expected. Has this slight overbid been demonstrably suggested by the putative UI? I don't see it, if only because N has no reason to assume the double fit. If N's 3C bid could be taken as indicating 5 cards, then S with a 4-card fit there could do the same analysis, arrive at 18 total tricks, and bid 4C at the vulnerability. She hasn't done so, so N should not be drawing any positive conclusion about the clubs. PeterAlan

We're talking about Hand 22 here, aren't we bluejack? My copy clearly shows the hand in the OP as held by N (NB: the spots are marginally different). I've got the standard handprint available to all competitors - are you looking at something else? I was looking at the opening post. Ah! Now I see where all the confusion has arisen! Actually, the opening post, bluejack et al, says DEALER = West, but the hand given is North's (as is apparent from the auction and the text of the post, and in fact applied at the table). Reading it quickly, you've taken the hand as being West's as well. PeterAlan

And FWIW, assuming I'm right about the hand, E-W were vulnerable, not N/S, E dealt, and will have opened 1S without preceding passes by W or N. PeterAlan

We're talking about Hand 22 here, aren't we bluejack? My copy clearly shows the hand in the OP as held by N (NB: the spots are marginally different). I've got the standard handprint available to all competitors - are you looking at something else? PeterAlan

No he doesn't although I accept that the spacing in the auction leaves much to be desired WEst passed on Round 1, bid 3C on Round 2 and bid 4H on Round 3 Can we clear this one up? Actually, Jeremy, the text of the OP also explicitly says it was N who bid 3C and N who bid 4H, which agrees with the auction set out. Since I can identify the hand, and the hand records show the hand in the OP as held by N, let's work on the basis that your OP was correct, and that bluejack's and your subsequent references to E-W as the pair in question arose from a later erroneous transposition. PeterAlan

It seems to me (pace dburn and blackshoe) that this is, typically, wording that strictly speaking is ambiguous, but that meant to say (given the use of the word "may"): However, this still leaves the problem of the words "in place of ( c)", because they strongly suggest that if (e) is followed, in whole or in part, then ( c) does not apply at all. Perhaps this analysis belongs in the "Changes" forum, but it seems to me to be yet another instance where the wording of the Laws does not quite manage to achieve the precision that their subsequent interpretation evidently requires. Of course when the words do achieve this, they may nevertheless be held overall to mean something entirely different (Law 16B for example), but that's another story! PeterAlan

I quite agree with you, Phil, the Qs could equally well have been with S (though at least in that case you only expect to encounter the first-hand pre-empt in the reduced number of cases when S also has the cards, and not when his partner does instead!) It's all part of our learning (we're a lot less experienced). As it happens, we don't have that 4D cue in our armoury. There's no two ways about it, we don't have all the equipment or experience to deal as effectively as we might with this sort of pre-empt, we recognise that, and it's why we had no intention of trying to make an issue of the bid. We both took an unduly cautious view along the way - I'm not going to detail the auction - and I think that a 0-9 explanation might have left us being a little less so, especially as the vulnerablility was referred to in the explanation - but I'm not sure that we'd have reached the grand with a correct explanation (which is the key point regarding damage, it seems to me), and I wouldn't want to claim so. As I said, I was interested to get people's reactions to the bid, and thank you for them.

I don't know, blackshoe - in the end, we didn't ask (see below). The full hand was: [hv=d=s&v=b&n=s85hq9752dq98cq62&w=saj64hakjdat6ca93&e=skqt9732h864dk5ck&s=sht3dj7432cjt8754]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] and we didn't get to the NT grand that we needed for a decent score (after a Pass by S and a 2NT opening by partner, we'd have no trouble in establishing we've got 7 S + 3 AKs, but didn't manage this over the actual opening). My partner was a bit put out, and N seemed to be feeling more than a little awkward at the end of the hand. S said nothing at all, and we didn't have any desire to pursue the point. As it happens, N and S are a regular partnership, and experienced GMs, so can be assumed to know what they were doing and what their agreements are. They certainly chose the right moment to depart from them. I thought it would be illuminating to get a few objective views - hence the question. Many thanks to those who replied. PeterAlan

I've just been reading the thread on the Bournemouth multi, which prompts me to add this one. [hv=d=s&v=b&s=sht3dj7432cjt8754]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] S opens 2NT, explained by N as both minors, definitely 5-9 and "won't be kamikaze". The system card, such as it was, indeed gave 5-9. Would you regard this as a deviation, a psyche, a misbid, or what? PeterAlan

My Chambers (New Edition 1983) gives both "fora" and "forums" as the plural. My OED (not the recent second edition) appears to have nothing to say on the plural, but the various quotations cited to illustrate the use of "forum" contain (without editorial comment) two plural uses, one dating from 1647 and the other from 1858, and both those are "forums". "Fora" is of course the Latin plural, but I would suggest that "forums" is the natural plural in an English context, and perfectly correct. PeterAlan

Thank you, dburn and bluejak, for those additional explanations. As I mentioned, I am new to these forums, and haven't seen the previous "many discussions". I really was doing no more than picking up briefly on blackshoe's earlier comment, and have no intention of pursuing a "change" issue here. I can see their point - or most of them anyway (I'm going to continue to struggle, bluejak, with the interpretation in your third point, and also with your fourth: after all, it's the laws one has to hand, and not necessarily all the corpus of "authority" which is not so readily accessible. Moreover, the position you expound there is pretty hard to put across to someone who has been ruled against, but who regards themselves as having conformed to the law - "Ignore what it appears to say in the laws, it's this way because they said so on an EBU course I went on"). Of course, it all might have been clearer if the points been advanced on the course, which after all was about explaining where there had been changes to practice and why. Unfortunately, this wasn't the case on the day I was there, but I don't want to leave the impression that this was a dominant issue on the day. Perhaps it might be helpful if they were mentioned in the next revisions of L&E guidance. PeterAlan

Is there an arrow-switch protocol for, say, Bridgepad? If not spelled out, is there a relatively easy way to Mickey Mouse it? I want to give the information to the local director, if possible. At our EBU club (where we use Bridgemates coupled to Scorebridge scoring software) we've encountered this problem occasionally (usually because a table forgets to arrow-switch for the first board). The solution we use is not to worry about Bridgemate (Bridgepad in your case), but to switch the pairs as a correction in the scoring software after the event. PeterAlan

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I've been informed by several pundits, including David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott, that this law does not mean what it literally says, and that if a player who has UI chooses an action that is not an LA, and that action is successful, he has violated this law, even though a literal reading would say otherwise. :blink: :( I realise I'm late to these threads, but I'm very glad to see this remark, blackshoe. 18 months ago I attended an EBU refresher course for TDs on the 2007 Laws, and tried unsuccessfully to make precisely this point (that the wording of L16B1a meant that choosing an "illogical alternative" - ie something that was not a "logical alternative" (which is a term clearly-enough defined in L16B1b) - left one outside the scope of that law): I couldn't get the instructor to see what I was talking about. I don't want to hijack this thread further, but if anyone could point me to the earlier discussions, where it was evidently established that black meant white, I'd be grateful. I imagine that the rather less precise wording of L16B3 had something to do with it. It does seem a pity that a law that actually manages to achieve some precision in its wording is then held to mean something contrary to what it actually says, but there you are. PeterAlan

Having now read the thread, I essentially agree with pran's statement of the position: in particular, dummy's LHO can not be following to a card that has not been played from dummy, and is not, blackshoe, "following suit". Whilst LHO may think (s)he is playing to the trick in turn, this is not the case, and LHO must accept responsibility for and the consequences of attempting to follow to a card that is not in dummy (and which LHO should have realised is not in dummy) and that has not been played. I'm also with dburn over Law 45B: it seems absolutely clear that the first 10 words determine what constitutes the logical step of "playing" a card from dummy, and the words "after which" distinguish as subsequent the physical actions of dummy in moving the card. "Playing" in the second sentence of the law is using the word in a rather broader sense, and no party can argue that a card has not been "played" in the technical sense just because it has not been physically moved.

On a detail, and I'm not sure that it affects any later post in this thread (because I haven't read it all fully) Peachy's original post misquotes Law 46B4. It does not say "...the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card from dummy." The Law does not have the last 2 words: it reads "If declarer calls a card that is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card." This was relevant to the original context, where the putative lead from dummy was out of turn; the lead should have been from declarer's hand. It seemed to me that this meant that declarer, if (s)he had by then realised that the lead was out of turn, was free to lead a card from hand: indeed, was probably obliged to do so because the lead of a card from dummy would not be of a legal card, being out of turn.

pran, your post starts "If Declarer calls a card from Dummy ..." The question is: HAS declarer called a card from dummy? - which was the point of my remarks. Your answer does not address that question, and I don't see that further comment is necessarily superfluous.

It certainly seems clear that if a lead out of turn has taken place then declarer has no recourse under Law 53. I'm not advocating the following position (which is not trick 13 specific either), but there does seem to be at least a point worth considering, namely what constitutes a lead out of turn from dummy. More than anything, it seems to be just another bit of the laws that could be clarified. Under Laws 45B & 46B is it clear that a valid lead has taken place at all? 45B: Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card ... So if declarer had called "diamond 7" it's clearly a call for the specific card, which is in dummy, and it's therefore been led. But the call is not complete, so has there been a lead? 46B: In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, ... Now declarer could advance the argument that 46B governs the case where "the card" was indeed "to be played from dummy", but that that's not the case here (or not without somewhat circular logic). So has the diamond in fact been played? Declarer's position would be that 46B is merely there to resolve ambiguities over the card specified, but not to resolve the issue of whether a lead has taken place at all. A separate but related matter is to consider what would happen, assuming 46B is in point, if the declarer had named any other suit (without a rank; say "heart"): 46B4: If declarer calls a card which is not in dummy the call is void and declarer may designate any legal card. Is everyone now confident that the declarer is nevertheless obliged to lead from dummy in these circumstances, when the call "is void"?