Unusual problem playing with screens

[paulg]

Is this really different?

 

Paul

 

(Apologies for appearing to badger you, but I am just interested in the difference)

Yes. I don't feel badgered, but I'm not sure why you don't see how it is different. With screens his partner doesn't know there is any particular problem, all he knows is the director was called. He has no idea why, and hasn't seen what he tried to bid, and doesn't know how any other bid was alerted.

As barman says, I can see that it is a lot more difficult to cope with the UI impact without screens. That this is sufficient to not accept the change is interesting (to me at least) but perhaps reflects how tough it is to get agreement on the impact of UI.

 

One of the reasons I was interested in posing the original question was to see how people coped with infractions at the higher levels. Do you always enforce revokes, that sort of thing, and this seemed a particularly rare example.

[Finch]

One of the reasons I was interested in posing the original question was to see how people coped with infractions at the higher levels. Do you always enforce revokes, that sort of thing, and this seemed a particularly rare example.

This seems to me to be qualitatively different than whether you e.g. enforce the revoke penalty. In this case you may decide it is to your advantage to allow the change of call. In the revoke case it's never in your (bridge) interests to waive the penalty.

[Trinidad]

One of the reasons I was interested in posing the original question was to see how people coped with infractions at the higher levels. Do you always enforce revokes, that sort of thing, and this seemed a particularly rare example.

I wouldn't be able to sell it to my partner, my team mates and my fellow club members if I wouldn't try to get the best possible score on a board (as long as it is in accordance with the bridge laws). And most important of all, I wouldn't be able to sell it to myself.

 

So, no, I will not be "gentlemanly" if it is any serious competition when it comes to letting opponents off the hook after errors or infractions. When it comes to general behavior at the table, I think that I behave as a gentleman.

 

The only exception that I allow for behaving "gentlemanly" when there is an irregularity is when an opponent inadvertently drops one or more cards while sorting them. I will try to do the very best not to see those cards (though the laws do not require me or anybody to do this). My personal reason for this exception is that dropping cards is usually more related to the opponent's physical health than to his bridge ability.

 

My impression is that many high level players follow a similar reasoning: Bridge related mistakes you will have to pay for. Mistakes due to disabilities you will not have to pay for (as long as no bridge harm was done, e.g. because partner saw the card).

 

Rik

[paulg]

Breaking news!

 

The reason that North thought that you were playing a 2+ 1♣, and hence he was playing their canapé defence, is because he glanced at the convention card left on his side of the screen by the previous players.

 

Then he realises that this is not your convention card and the situation arises.

 

Naturally he realises that this is his own fault, but are you more sympathetic now?

 

Paul

[Free]

I'd ask if they play fit jumps ;)

[barmar]

Breaking news!

 

The reason that North thought that you were playing a 2+ 1♣, and hence he was playing their canapé defence, is because he glanced at the convention card left on his side of the screen by the previous players.

 

Then he realises that this is not your convention card and the situation arises.

 

Naturally he realises that this is his own fault, but are you more sympathetic now?

 

Paul

Is that really his own fault? It seems like the fault is mostly with the previous player who left his card there. Yes, he could have checked the names on the card, but who really expects that?

[paulg]

Breaking news!

 

The reason that North thought that you were playing a 2+ 1♣, and hence he was playing their canapé defence, is because he glanced at the convention card left on his side of the screen by the previous players.

 

Then he realises that this is not your convention card and the situation arises.

 

Naturally he realises that this is his own fault, but are you more sympathetic now?

 

Paul

Is that really his own fault? It seems like the fault is mostly with the previous player who left his card there. Yes, he could have checked the names on the card, but who really expects that?

Yes it is. You are sitting down for a 16-board match with screens and you should really make sure that the convention cards in view are those of the opponents.

 

Paul

[hanp]

I think the director should rule that the player can change his bid, it is not my job to have pitty on my opponent. I think the circumstances are unusual enough for the director to rule that the player can take back his bid, after all there has been no UI. If the director rules that it is my decision then I will try to win the match as best as I again, because I think that is my duty as a player.

 

Now I agree with jdonn that I hate the position the director/rules put me into.

[LH2650]

My view is that North cannot change his call. This is clearer in the 1997 Laws, where the relevant section starts with "Until LHO calls…", (and East had done so). Assuming that this still applies, (and if not, when does his period of allowed change end?), an action by North would be a call out of rotation, to be dealt with by laws 30 through 32. However, if the Director had given him proper instructions, he could not act, because he would run afoul of Law 72B1 - A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification that he is willing to accept.

 

In fact, I am far from sure that he can change is call even if East has not passed. Law 25B1 does not explicitly give him that right - in fact it calls him an "offender" if he does so. I presume that means that he has committed an irregularity, and if intentional, he is afoul of Law 72B1 again.

[blackshoe]

You are sitting down for a 16-board match with screens and you should really make sure that the convention cards in view are those of the opponents.

"Should", perhaps, but "should" is not the same as "required". Which law or regulation puts the onus on you, rather than opponents, to ensure that you have their convention card?

[paulg]

You are sitting down for a 16-board match with screens and you should really make sure that the convention cards in view are those of the opponents.

"Should", perhaps, but "should" is not the same as "required". Which law or regulation puts the onus on you, rather than opponents, to ensure that you have their convention card?

When the opponents hand you their Scottish convention card, but you decide to keep the (old) Irish card with its prominent national flag in your field of view (instead of in the bin), then it is truly your own fault.

 

p

[hanp]

Both flags have the same colors so I can understand confusing the two.

[MFA]

Breaking news!

 

The reason that North thought that you were playing a 2+ 1♣, and hence he was playing their canapé defence, is because he glanced at the convention card left on his side of the screen by the previous players.

 

Then he realises that this is not your convention card and the situation arises.

 

Naturally he realises that this is his own fault, but are you more sympathetic now?

 

Paul

I feel I would have the obligation to do everything I can to avoid this misunderstanding. If I see an opponent with a wrong convention card, I will warn him.

 

Unless I felt my opponent had been really careless and only had himself to blame for the incident, I would let him change the bid when no harm has been done.

[skjaeran]

Playing with screens I'd always allow my screenmate to change his bid, unless I was sitting after him and had made a call that might affect his choice. Since there's no UI for his partner, I don't see any reason not to allow such changes.

[CSGibson]

I'd have to be in a particularly foul mood, or really dislike my screenmate, for me not to allow the change. In this case, the opponent didn't suddenly remember something, or change his judgment about the situation, he just had bad information about our methods (not our fault, certainly). If it doesn't impact my hand, let him do what he must.

[blackshoe]

Change of call is an irregularity. Players are not permitted to allow or disallow an irregularity. That is a prerogative of the TD.

 

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of players who ignore the law whenever it suits them.

[jdonn]

Change of call is an irregularity. Players are not permitted to allow or disallow an irregularity. That is a prerogative of the TD.

 

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of players who ignore the law whenever it suits them.

Yes. A situation like this is perfect.

 

But as much as I would enjoy having this discussion for the umpteenth time, wasn't the problem presented that the director came and left it up to us whether rho could take back his bid or not?

[barmar]

Change of call is an irregularity. Players are not permitted to allow or disallow an irregularity. That is a prerogative of the TD.

 

That said, I'm sure there are plenty of players who ignore the law whenever it suits them.

But in this case the relevant law specifically says that LHO may accept the change of call. Normally the TD should be called, who will ask him if he wants to accept the change of call, but if LHO makes a call then the acceptance is implicit.

 

The TD should still be called to determine whether this was an allowable change of call in the first place.

[blackshoe]

wasn't the problem presented that the director came and left it up to us whether rho could take back his bid or not?

That was the original problem, yes. Seemed to me we'd drifted from that, but maybe not.

[dburn]

Since I was at the Camrose in the role of vugraph commentator, I was consulted by the Director about this ruling.

 

When the hand actually occurred, a diligent search of the North-South and East-West convention cards eventually enabled me to explain to the audience that [a] the North-South methods were demented; they were not as demented as North, who seemed to believe that the methods applied in a situation where they clearly did not. I had no idea at the time that North did not know against which country he was playing, but if I had, I would not have revised my opinion of North's general level of dementia other than upwards.

 

I confess that I was not sure about the basis on which the Director allowed North to change his call only with East's permission. That seems to imply a set of screen regulations with which I am not familiar. The WBF General Conditions of Contest say:

 

A call placed and released may be changed :

 

If it is illegal or inadmissible (in which case the change is obligatory), if screens are in use, as soon as either screenmate is aware of this; or

 

If it is determined by the Director to be a call inadvertently selected; or

 

Under the provisions of Law 25, but note that in order to comply with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007, revised regulations when screens are in use will be published as soon as possible.

As far as I know, no revised regulations have yet been published, and the EBU regulations for screens do not seem to me to make any specific provision for the situation that actually arose. I may be wrong on both of these counts.

 

Law 25 says that:

 

Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, without pause for thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law.

but this does not apply here, since [a] a pause to reflect upon the fact that you did not know what methods the opponents were playing is certainly a "pause for thought" within the meaning of the Act; and North clearly intended to bid 3♦ when he bid it.

 

At any rate, North was stuck with 3♦, as in my opinion he should have been whether East would allow him to be stuck with it or not (but the Director is one of the most capable on the highly capable EBU staff, and he doubtless knew something I did not about the Law and the regulations).

 

As it happened, South was 5-5 in spades and diamonds and was able to offer a forcing raise to 4♦, hastily passed by the demented North and leaving East in a bit of a pickle.

 

I spoke with East at some length during the dinner that followed the tournament, so my opinion might have been one of the two conflicting ones he is said to have received.

 

Whereas in general I am very much less sympathetic than most with the idea that certain infractions profit the offending side simply through "rub of the green", I said that in the circumstances I did not believe that his side was due any redress - he had just been desperately unlucky. His treatment of the situation as it arose on his side of the screen appeared to me tactically correct and morally irreproachable, as I would expect from this fine player and gentleman. However, as not only this East but every other competitor in the Camrose was to discover, nothing would avail against North in his might this day.

[mugsmate]

The auction continued:

4D P P P

 

Dummy held AQxxx xx AKJxx x, and was intending to bid blackwood over a 4H cuebid from partner.

 

So the opposition got incredibly lucky, that the overcaller had a hand where he wasn't just rebidding spades at some level and going for an enormous penalty.

 

The Scottish team accepted that 4D was failrly automatic, but asked for a ruling in any case, although they presented no bridge case for why they might get one. There was a hastily arranged "appeal hearing" between the director and the teams in the hotel foyer after the match, where the Scottish captain seemed to be on a "fishing expedition". I think captains should consider a bit more carefully whether and why they have a case before wasting everyone's time on frivolous appeals.

[blackshoe]

Um. If they ask for a ruling, they're entitled to a ruling. Might not be favorable to them, of course, but a ruling they shall get. And "ruling" ≠ "appeal".

 

If I've taken something out of context, sorry about that. I'm just responding to the post above mine.