40C3a

[gnasher]

Both the rules for calculating the score and the IMP table form part of the Laws. Is a player allowed to refer to the Laws during the hand, or to ask the director what a particular Law says?

[pran]

Both the rules for calculating the score and the IMP table form part of the Laws. Is a player allowed to refer to the Laws during the hand, or to ask the director what a particular Law says?

A player is definitely not allowed to look up the laws himself, this would be construed as an intentional violation of Law 40C3a (regardless of which law he actually inspected).

 

He may certainly call the Director for cause and ask whatever question he likes, but the Director should see through this question as an attempt to violate the same law.

 

If I ever were to be called, apparently for such reason, I would inform the player about Law 40C3a and warn him that any repetition would result in a procedural penalty.

[barmar]

Are players expected to have the Laws memorized in the first place? Even TDs aren't expected to remember all the laws, although it's expedient if they know the most common ones.

 

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

[pran]

Are players expected to have the Laws memorized in the first place? Even TDs aren't expected to remember all the laws, although it's expedient if they know the most common ones.

 

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

For information relevant to the ongoing game - yes. Law 40C3a offers no exception (other than as explicitly permitted by the Regulating Authority).

 

Could you provide an example of the kind of information that you have in mind?

 

No player is expected to have the laws memorized, that is one of the reasons why we have Directors.

[duschek]

Are players expected to have the Laws memorized in the first place? Even TDs aren't expected to remember all the laws, although it's expedient if they know the most common ones.

 

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

It probably depends on which law. I think players are expected to know the consequences of Law 1 by heart, for example, even if it is a law.

[bluejak]

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

Are you suggesting that you can remember which Laws you cannot remember and you think a memory aid should be allowed to remember those Laws you cannot remember, while you should not be allowed to remember those Laws you can remember? How about a memory aid to aid your memory of when you can use a memory aid?

[pran]

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

Are you suggesting that you can remember which Laws you cannot remember and you think a memory aid should be allowed to remember those Laws you cannot remember, while you should not be allowed to remember those Laws you can remember? How about a memory aid to aid your memory of when you can use a memory aid?

Very well put!

 

I loved that :lol: :D :D :D

[barmar]

Does the prohibition against memory aid really apply when the information isn't supposed to be in your memory?

Are you suggesting that you can remember which Laws you cannot remember and you think a memory aid should be allowed to remember those Laws you cannot remember, while you should not be allowed to remember those Laws you can remember? How about a memory aid to aid your memory of when you can use a memory aid?

Are we permitted logic aids in interpreting these discussions?

[helene_t]

Yes, you use any aids you fancy while posting on BBF :D

[bluejak]

What's BBF? This is IBLF on BBO: is BBF a contraction of the two?

 

Or do you need a memory aid to remember the name of the forum? :D

 

:D

 

Ok, ignore that: I have discovered BBO refer to Bridge Base Forums. :(

[dburn]

In the final of the Tollemache some years ago (enough years ago that the event was played under the 1997 Laws and not the most recent code), I was in a no-play game. My RHO ruffed a spade at trick n and I overruffed, then at trick n+2 my RHO produced the ace of spades when his partner led that suit.

 

The Director was summoned, and he instructed that play should continue with the revoke established. He did not inform me that if I were to ruff the ace of spades, the penalty would be one trick (and I would go one down after that penalty was imposed), while if I discarded my remaining loser on the ace of spades, the penalty would be two tricks (and I would make the contract after that penalty was imposed).

 

Fortunately for the London team I already knew this. I discarded my loser, I made the contract, and our team won a tournament it would not have won had I not been able to remember the Laws.

 

Is the contention here that had I not known the relevant Law in detail but had been able to recall vaguely that the penalty would be different depending on whether or not I let the ace of spades hold, I would not have been entitled to have Law 64A2 read to me? If so, that contention is in my humble and considered opinion complete and utter balderdash.

[pran]

In the final of the Tollemache some years ago (enough years ago that the event was played under the 1997 Laws and not the most recent code), I was in a no-play game. My RHO ruffed a spade at trick n and I overruffed, then at trick n+2 my RHO produced the ace of spades when his partner led that suit.

 

The Director was summoned, and he instructed that play should continue with the revoke established. He did not inform me that if I were to ruff the ace of spades, the penalty would be one trick (and I would go one down after that penalty was imposed), while if I discarded my remaining loser on the ace of spades, the penalty would be two tricks (and I would make the contract after that penalty was imposed).

 

Fortunately for the London team I already knew this. I discarded my loser, I made the contract, and our team won a tournament it would not have won had I not been able to remember the Laws.

 

Is the contention here that had I not known the relevant Law in detail but had been able to recall vaguely that the penalty would be different depending on whether or not I let the ace of spades hold, I would not have been entitled to have Law 64A2 read to me? If so, that contention is in my humble and considered opinion complete and utter balderdash.

Law 9B2: No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

 

It was a Director's error not to inform you of the conditions for the rectification to become either one or two tricks. And the fact that RHO now produced the ♠A and not for instance the ♠2 is completely irrelevant, he should have made you aware of the "wins a later trick with a spade" rule that disappeared from the laws in 2007.

 

(Law 9B2 was also changed in 2007, but only in form not in reality)

[blackshoe]

You are entitled to ask the TD, and you should not have to ask him, what the ramifications are of an established revoke, and the TD should read out to you Law 64A. You not entitled to pull a law book out of your pocket and look it up yourself. Strange, perhaps, but true.

[dburn]

You are entitled to ask the TD, and you should not have to ask him, what the ramifications are of an established revoke, and the TD should read out to you Law 64A. You not entitled to pull a law book out of your pocket and look it up yourself. Strange, perhaps, but true.

If I am allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of an established revoke, why am I not allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of going four down doubled non-vulnerable?

 

At the time, the Director (one of England's very best and an occasional poster to this forum) considered that he should not tell me the ramifications of the established revoke expressly because to do so would constitute an aid to my memory, calculation or technique. Since he didn't actually need to tell me anyway, the point was not pursued.

 

But it remains the case in my view that if a player wants to know what the Laws say about anything at all, he is entitled to know what they say, and any attempt to find out what they say cannot be considered a breach of Law 40C3a or of anything else. If as pran remarks "no player is expected to have the laws memorized", then if players are expected to abide by the Laws, they should have unrestricted access to them at all times. Anything else is so at variance with the principles of natural justice as to be completely absurd - it's not only strange, it's also false.

[peachy]

You are entitled to ask the TD, and you should not have to ask him, what the ramifications are of an established revoke, and the TD should read out to you Law 64A. You not entitled to pull a law book out of your pocket and look it up yourself. Strange, perhaps, but true.

If I am allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of an established revoke, why am I not allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of going four down doubled non-vulnerable?

 

At the time, the Director (one of England's very best and an occasional poster to this forum) considered that he should not tell me the ramifications of the established revoke expressly because to do so would constitute an aid to my memory, calculation or technique. Since he didn't actually need to tell me anyway, the point was not pursued.

 

But it remains the case in my view that if a player wants to know what the Laws say about anything at all, he is entitled to know what they say, and any attempt to find out what they say cannot be considered a breach of Law 40C3a or of anything else. If as pran remarks "no player is expected to have the laws memorized", then if players are expected to abide by the Laws, they should have unrestricted access to them at all times. Anything else is so at variance with the principles of natural justice as to be completely absurd - it's not only strange, it's also false.

Dburn makes a valid argument. In the original posted case, the person should then have called director and asked the TD "how much is 3 down doubled". His partner of course is under UI restrictions, right? Whether he asked TD or illegally (IMO) or legally consulted the scoring table?

 

Perhaps this is something new laws ,whenever they come, could consider: Move the scoring tables to an Attachment or Addendum instead of having them incorporated in the laws themselves. It is an aid memoire.

[pran]

You are entitled to ask the TD, and you should not have to ask him, what the ramifications are of an established revoke, and the TD should read out to you Law 64A. You not entitled to pull a law book out of your pocket and look it up yourself. Strange, perhaps, but true.

If I am allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of an established revoke, why am I not allowed to ask the Director what the ramifications are of going four down doubled non-vulnerable?

 

At the time, the Director (one of England's very best and an occasional poster to this forum) considered that he should not tell me the ramifications of the established revoke expressly because to do so would constitute an aid to my memory, calculation or technique. Since he didn't actually need to tell me anyway, the point was not pursued.

 

But it remains the case in my view that if a player wants to know what the Laws say about anything at all, he is entitled to know what they say, and any attempt to find out what they say cannot be considered a breach of Law 40C3a or of anything else. If as pran remarks "no player is expected to have the laws memorized", then if players are expected to abide by the Laws, they should have unrestricted access to them at all times. Anything else is so at variance with the principles of natural justice as to be completely absurd - it's not only strange, it's also false.

Dburn makes a valid argument. In the original posted case, the person should then have called director and asked the TD "how much is 3 down doubled". His partner of course is under UI restrictions, right? Whether he asked TD or illegally (IMO) or legally consulted the scoring table?

 

Perhaps this is something new laws ,whenever they come, could consider: Move the scoring tables to an Attachment or Addendum instead of having them incorporated in the laws themselves. It is an aid memoire.

Come on folks!

 

Law 9B2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification.

 

Can you not see the difference between calling the Director to an irregularity and calling him just to get some information without there being any irregularity?

 

I am extremely surprised that "one of Englands very best directors" called to a revoke failed to explain all matters in regard to rectification on that revoke, and I still maintain that this must have been a director's error. Just very fortunate that it apparently did not matter in the actual case.

[dburn]

Can you not see the difference between calling the Director to an irregularity and calling him just to get some information without there being any irregularity?

No, I can't. To me there is no difference, and to me this assertion:

 

A player is definitely not allowed to look up the laws himself, this would be construed as an intentional violation of Law 40C3a (regardless of which law he actually inspected).

 

He may certainly call the Director for cause and ask whatever question he likes, but the Director should see through this question as an attempt to violate the same law.

is nonsense. A player may or may not be allowed to "look up the Laws himself"; as far as I am concerned he can do so if he is able, because he is entitled to know them even - nay, especially - if he is not expected to memorize them. But if a player calls the Director and asks what a Law - any Law at all - says, the Director should tell him and not hold that the player is in breach of anything whatsoever. To assert otherwise is to assert that the Laws of bridge are unauthorized information to the players, and not even a Director would assert that.

[blackshoe]

Bridge is a game of memory - to the extent that some would suggest that players who forget their system should be penalized. There is a specific law prohibiting "aids to memory" during the bidding and play.

 

If there has been an irregularity, the laws provide (among other things) that players shall be told the legal ramifications of the irregularity before the bidding or play continues. If there has been no irregularity, the laws make such no entitlement.

 

It is true that players, outside of the auction and play of a particular hand, are entitled to look up things in the law book, or ask the director about them. They're also entitled to look at their private score card, their system card, any system notes they may have, and the backs of the bidding cards.

 

I do not see why any of the above should lead anyone to conclude that players are entitled, absent an irregularity, to ask the TD questions which are designed to aid their memory in pursuit of the correct bidding or play, or to look in the law book, or at their system card, or system notes or private score, or anything else that may be an aid to memory.

[dburn]

Bridge is a game of memory - to the extent that some would suggest that players who forget their system should be penalized. There is a specific law prohibiting "aids to memory" during the bidding and play.

 

If there has been an irregularity, the laws provide (among other things) that players shall be told the legal ramifications of the irregularity before the bidding or play continues. If there has been no irregularity, the laws make such no entitlement.

 

It is true that players, outside of the auction and play of a particular hand, are entitled to look up things in the law book, or ask the director about them. They're also entitled to look at their private score card, their system card, any system notes they may have, and the backs of the bidding cards.

 

I do not see why any of the above should lead anyone to conclude that players are entitled, absent an irregularity, to ask the TD questions which are designed to aid their memory in pursuit of the correct bidding or play, or to look in the law book, or at their system card, or system notes or private score, or anything else that may be an aid to memory.

Of course the Laws do not entitle you to have the ramifications of an irregularity explained to you when there has not been an irregularity. After all, how could they?

 

But just so that I can be clear about what is actually being asserted, suppose that you as a Director are called to a table and asked whether it is legal to respond one diamond to an opening bid of one heart. Having particular regard to Law 81C2:

 

The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:

2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

do you reply:

 

[a] No

I am not allowed to tell you that, because it would be an aid to your memory - why don't you bid it and find out?

[pran]

But just so that I can be clear about what is actually being asserted, suppose that you as a Director are called to a table and asked whether it is legal to respond one diamond to an opening bid of one heart. Having particular regard to Law 81C2:

 

The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:

2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

do you reply:

 

[a] No

I am not allowed to tell you that, because it would be an aid to your memory - why don't you bid it and find out?

This discussion could be more meaningful with a meaningful example. I certainly hope that no bridgeplayer having passed their first hour of lessons should ever be in doubt about a 1♦ bid following a 1♥ bid being illegal.

 

A more relevant question is what the director should answer to for instance the following question asked during the auction: "What are the scores for 4♠ doubled not vulnerable down 4 versus 4♥ vulnerable just made?"

 

I do hope you will agree that this question is improper and should not be answered?

[dburn]

But just so that I can be clear about what is actually being asserted, suppose that you as a Director are called to a table and asked whether it is legal to respond one diamond to an opening bid of one heart. Having particular regard to Law 81C2:

 

The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:

2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

do you reply:

 

[a] No

I am not allowed to tell you that, because it would be an aid to your memory - why don't you bid it and find out?

This discussion could be more meaningful with a meaningful example. I certainly hope that no bridgeplayer having passed their first hour of lessons should ever be in doubt about a 1♦ bid following a 1♥ bid being illegal.

 

A more relevant question is what the director should answer to for instance the following question asked during the auction: "What are the scores for 4♠ doubled not vulnerable down 4 versus 4♥ vulnerable just made?"

 

I do hope you will agree that this question is improper and should not be answered?

I am getting rather fed up with the tactic constantly employed by bluejak, pran and other High Priests of the Cult of the Director, who when they encounter an example that runs counter to what they believe, dismiss it as a "meaningless" or "silly" example.

 

Either a player is allowed to consult the Director (or some other source) as to what the Laws are during play, or he is not. It is not - it cannot be - the case that players are allowed to ask for information about some Laws but not others. Nor can it be the case, depsite what Cult members say, that a player is only allowed to find out what the Laws are when he (or someone at his table) has just broken them.

 

If I am allowed to ask "does an ace beat a king?" then I am allowed to ask whether down four not vulnerable scores more or less than a vulnerable four hearts. Since I believe it to be the Director's duty to advise players of their rights and responsibilities under the Laws, I believe that if a Director is called and asked whether an ace beats a king, he is bound to reply "Yes" and not "I can't tell you that because it would be a memory aid". I also believe (therefore) that if a Director is called and asked what the score would be for a particular result, he should answer correctly.

 

Of course, no player ever actually would call the Director and ask whether an ace beats a king. But that does not matter; if as the Cult continually asserts it is true of some Law X that "no player is expected to memorize Law X", then it is true of all Laws X, including those relating to the rank of the cards and the scoring table.

 

Otherwise, it really would be necessary to compile guidance for players detailing what Laws they are expected to remember and what Laws they are not expected to remember. Bluejak's burblings above miss this perfectly serious and valid point in the interests of dismissing as silly any perfectly sound and valid argument to the effect that he is wrong.

[shyams]

Without intending to side-track the ongoing discussion, can anyone confirm if the VP table in a Swiss tournament is authorised information during the play of a hand?

[dburn]

Without intending to side-track the ongoing discussion, can anyone confirm if the VP table in a Swiss tournament is authorised information during the play of a hand?

Yes. Sven can confirm that it is not, because it would be an aid to a player's calculation. I can confirm that it is, because Law 78D says that it is. I realise that this will not assist you very much, but I cannot help that.

[bluejak]

But just so that I can be clear about what is actually being asserted, suppose that you as a Director are called to a table and asked whether it is legal to respond one diamond to an opening bid of one heart. Having particular regard to Law 81C2:

 

The Director’s duties and powers normally include also the following:

2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

do you reply:

 

[a] No

I am not allowed to tell you that, because it would be an aid to your memory - why don't you bid it and find out?

Do you think that the fact that the duties "normally" [interesting word that] include advising players of their rights automatically means that you will advise players of their rights at any time, notably when this is in conflict with another Law?

 

The problem with extrapolating general Laws, as a lot of people are fond of doing, is that it does not make sense. Better is to assume that general Laws follow generally, rather than in every specific case.

[shyams]

But it remains the case in my view that if a player wants to know what the Laws say about anything at all, he is entitled to know what they say, and any attempt to find out what they say cannot be considered a breach of Law 40C3a or of anything else. If as pran remarks "no player is expected to have the laws memorized", then if players are expected to abide by the Laws, they should have unrestricted access to them at all times. Anything else is so at variance with the principles of natural justice as to be completely absurd - it's not only strange, it's also false.

Either a player is allowed to consult the Director (or some other source) as to what the Laws are during play, or he is not. It is not - it cannot be - the case that players are allowed to ask for information about some Laws but not others. Nor can it be the case, depsite what Cult members say, that a player is only allowed to find out what the Laws are when he (or someone at his table) has just broken them.

I agree 100% with the above points made by dburn.

 

I think the Laws of bridge should be authorised information at all times. And I'd hope the IMP table and scoring tables remain part of the Laws -- and are treated as authorised and available. This insistence by many TDs that sections of the law are aids to memory is really weird.

 

The existing rules are weird -- VP tables are AI but IMP tables are UI??

• 1. In Brighton Swiss pairs, I have the right to look at the VP table and compute that a 50:50 action on the last board of a match has a positive pay-off (e.g. VP payoff is 2:1 due to non linear scale, making a 50:50 action worth it).
  2. In the Spring Fours, I do not have the right to look at the IMP scale, which is also non-linear (e.g. to decide whether a redoubled overtrick is worth the risk in a knock-out match)