Easy peasy - UI

[blackshoe]

1) If a player makes a skip bid but forgets the stop-card and next hand bids in normal tempo, then the TD should lean towards jugding no UI. Atleast under Danish regulations, but I assume that this is an international rule.

 

Rash asssumption. Danish regulations are Danish, English regulations are English, North American regulations are North American. That the first two are similar is probably nothing more than coincidence. Certainly North American regulations are different - the onus here is on the LHO of the skip bidder to maintain proper tempo (the required ten seconds) regardless whether the stop card or skip bid warning is used.

[jallerton]

Ok, thanks. I wonder if anyone could explain to me if it has any real consequence that it "counts as mistaken explanation" or if it is all just hot air.

 

Well, if South judges that North has adopted Ed's suggested approach of only reminding East about the lack of announcement when North's action at that turn may be affected, then South does have UI. If South's actions are restricted by that UI, then North/South could become damaged by East's failure to comply with Law 20F5.

[pran]

Rash asssumption. Danish regulations are Danish, English regulations are English, North American regulations are North American. That the first two are similar is probably nothing more than coincidence. Certainly North American regulations are different - the onus here is on the LHO of the skip bidder to maintain proper tempo (the required ten seconds) regardless whether the stop card or skip bid warning is used.

probably nothing more than coincidence?????

 

The Norwegian translation of the Duplicate Bridge Laws is Norwegian, the Danish is Danish. That they are similar is certainly no coincidence.

Can't you imagine that the reason why our regulations are similar is simply the consequence of them being translated from the same source? (As probably is the fact also for many, if not most regulations)

[mfa1010]

Rash asssumption. Danish regulations are Danish, English regulations are English, North American regulations are North American. That the first two are similar is probably nothing more than coincidence. Certainly North American regulations are different - the onus here is on the LHO of the skip bidder to maintain proper tempo (the required ten seconds) regardless whether the stop card or skip bid warning is used.

My assumption was based on the fact that we almost always copy international regulations when we make the Danish ones. ACBL could learn from that. :P

 

Well, if South judges that North has adopted Ed's suggested approach of only reminding East about the lack of announcement when North's action at that turn may be affected, then South does have UI. If South's actions are restricted by that UI, then North/South could become damaged by East's failure to comply with Law 20F5.

Yes, NS might be damaged as you describe it. But it seems to me to be a detour first to say that the failure to announce "counts as a mistaken explanation". We would not be using that to anything. We would be adjusting directly from the fact that the infraction damaged the opponents.

[WellSpyder]

... it seems to me to be a detour first to say that the failure to announce "counts as a mistaken explanation"....

I think this phrase is probably included mainly with other announcements in mind besides the range of 1NT. For example, failing to announce a transfer would count as MI, since in the absence of an announcement the bid should be natural.

[blackshoe]

Perhaps I have misunderstood what Michael meant by "international rule". I thought he meant "a rule that applies everywhere" in much the same way that the laws apply everywhere. There aren't any such, of course, regulations being in the purview of, and limited to the jurisdiction of, the Regulating Authority. I note that the WBF is a Regulating Authority only for "its own world tournaments and events". Are WBF regulations the referent for "international regulations"?

[blackshoe]

I think this phrase is probably included mainly with other announcements in mind besides the range of 1NT. For example, failing to announce a transfer would count as MI, since in the absence of an announcement the bid should be natural.

 

I would infer from the absence of an announcement that either the call does not require an announcement*, or that the player forgot he's supposed to make an announcement, or that he wasn't paying attention, or that he's one of those who thinks announcements are "silly" and resists using them. Absent clues from his demeanor at the table, and unless I know him, I would have no idea which of these is most likely.

 

*This is not the same thing as "the call is natural". I suppose it may be possible to make this further inference, but I'm not at all sure of that.

[nige1]

I think this phrase is probably included mainly with other announcements in mind besides the range of 1NT. For example, failing to announce a transfer would count as MI, since in the absence of an announcement the bid should be natural.

I would infer from the absence of an announcement that either the call does not require an announcement*, or that the player forgot he's supposed to make an announcement, or that he wasn't paying attention, or that he's one of those who thinks announcements are "silly" and resists using them. Absent clues from his demeanor at the table, and unless I know him, I would have no idea which of these is most likely.

*This is not the same thing as "the call is natural". I suppose it may be possible to make this further inference, but I'm not at all sure of that.

IMO, it is better to treat failure to announce a transfer as misexplanation than to try to read the player's mind.

 

Blackshoe raises an interesting question: how does a director treat a player who deliberately fails to comply with a law or regulation, because he opines that it is "silly"?

[RMB1]

Blackshoe raises an interesting question: how does a director treat a player who deliberately fails to comply with a law or regulation, because he opines that it is "silly"?

Fine them for deliberate failure to comply. Repeated deliberate failure to comply should lead to increased fines and suspension.

 

Opining that the regulation is "silly" (if not done in a rude way) should be met with "Thank you for your opinion, I suggest you make it to the relevant regulating authority. Nevertheless, you implicitly accepted the regulations by entering the competition, so please follow them." (Avoiding "best behaviour" penalties by all parties.)

[pran]

IMO, it is better to treat failure to announce a transfer as misexplanation than to try to read the player's mind.

 

Blackshoe raises an interesting question: how does a director treat a player who deliberately fails to comply with a law or regulation, because he opines that it is "silly"?

I believe Law 90B8 says all that is needed.

[nige1]

IMO, it is better to treat failure to announce a transfer as misexplanation than to try to read the player's mind.

Blackshoe raises an interesting question: how does a director treat a player who deliberately fails to comply with a law or regulation, because he opines that it is "silly"?

I believe Law 90B8 says all that is needed.

failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director.

Thanks, Sven. Just the ticket. Do some RAs (e.g. ACBL) waive this law when dealing with habitual announcement and stop violations?

[blackshoe]

Yep.

[mycroft]

Some Laws of Bridge, like some laws IRL, are "rarely enforced to the absolute letter". I have described it several times as "what you did was incorrect, and here's the Law that says so. Yeah, 99 times out of 100, it's not going to be a problem, 99 times out of 100 that it could be a problem, it isn't, but the one time it does cause a problem, and did damage the opponents, you're going to be called on it and penalized." I even had an appeal where that was the gist of the TDs' argument.

 

I don't think that's different in any RA - even though what weight to give different laws/regulations differs (Nigel, frex, I haven't seen a claim where declarer put his hand back in years, and have only had once where "please show me your hand" wasn't given anything but immediate and ungrudging acceptance (and even then, it was just not ungrudging) in recent memory. If it happens often enough for you to think there's a problem (see the claim thread), then that's a Law that is enforced more strictly in the ACBL than in the EBU).

 

On this one, I keep trying to tell people that the side being protected by the Announcement is opener's; that this is In Their Own Best Interest. Doesn't help. Makes me almost want to take up WeaSel vs NT on the old Kate Buckman's plan - "but it's important for me to know if it's 15-17 or 16-18" just to see how long it would take for them to realise that I'm right. But I won't, of course.

[Zelandakh]

(2) would seem the logic answer to this question, but I am not happy about anybody asking for an announcment at each and every of the (say) five 1NT opening bids by the same side against the same opponents.

Why not? What if the opps play 10-12 w/r; 12-14 w/w; 14-16 vul; 15-17 3rd/4th? How am I meant to know after the first instance, or even the second? And even when, in theory, I know what the range is for the 5th hand I do not see why I should need to use up valuable short-term memory space to hold this information.

[bluejak]

If a player fails to announce when he is supposed to announce, that is his problem, not yours. If you need to know the range of a 1NT opening, ask. If you don't need to know, make your call in tempo. If something you do or do not do may suggest a call to partner, that's his problem, not yours. Yes, you would like not give him a problem, but sometimes you have no choice — unless you want to quit playing bridge.

 

Frankly, I think there's an awful lot of concern — probably too much — in England over the possible passing of extraneous information. It happens; live with it.

There is concern on this forum, but whether there is much concern otherwise I am not sure. I have had no rulings based on missed announcements. When my opponents fail to announce in the EBU, WBU, South Africa or the ACBL I always ask. Half the time they tell me: half the time they apologise and tell me. No-one has done anything else.

[bluejak]

(2) would seem the logic answer to this question, but I am not happy about anybody asking for an announcment at each and every of the (say) five 1NT opening bids by the same side against the same opponents.

Why not? I do not expect to have to remember no-trump ranges in an Announcement jurisdiction, and I hope and trust that any competent TD would apply a PP at the third time at the latest. Or are you suggesting that if you break the rules enough times it becomes acceptable?

[mycroft]

The people who "expect us" to remember NT ranges (ACBL here) always play always 15-17, and 15 years in still think it's a stupid regulation. I do wish that a) it wasn't clear that I know better enough that I'd be allowed to play WeaSeL vs unAnnounced NT ("but it's important to my decision whether it's 15-17, 16-18, or 15-18!"), and b) that I was still playing a system with a variable NT range that includes 15-17 VUL, so that I could bid it the way they think we "should" and wait for the screams.

 

15 years on, mind you. And you wonder why I have such little sympathy for people who don't follow this rule, even in jurisdictions where Announcements aren't as entrenched.