None left, partner?

[Vampyr]

Please consider both situations: a - the partner has a card in the suit led, and b - the partner does not have any such card.

 

My answer would be a) apply the prescribed penalty. b) apply the prescribed penalty. But unfortunately I do not write the German regulations.

[Vampyr]

Although, I could also imagine some common cases where a player might not bother asking. If the suit is played 3 times, everyone following, it has often seemed superfluous to ask when partner shows out on the 4th round. If partner doesn't ask, the only UI being transmitted is that he can count properly. While this might be considered extraneous if partner is a novice, it's not very surprising with an experienced partner.

 

But who is the person in charge of judging which situations are obvious enough that one need not ask? That is the problem with not bothering asking.

 

Anyway, the worst problem with asking, in my opinion, is that it drives the opponents spare. At least that has been my experience when playing in club games in the US; thankfully the practice has not caught on here.

[pran]

I cannot answer this, but I moved to England in 1999 and confirm that if the law was violated, it was once in a blue moon. I don't think I ever witnessed it myself.

 

 

 

?? The law stated that the revoke was established, and so it should have been treated like any other established revoke.

Except that one of the (early) "clarifications" stated that the incorrect play should be rectified, the defender not following suit thus be left with a major penalty card, and in addition a revoke penalty of one trick be applied. That "clarification" was (unless I remember completely wrong) later amended, I believe (remember this is many years ago) to the effect that the trick should stand as played. However, I do not remember we ever had a resolution on how many tricks to transfer if there was no revoke, only the illegal question. At one time I believe we had a rule to transfer one trick if there was no revoke and an additional trick if there indeed was a revoke.

 

However, there were so many to's and from's that eventually I didn't really care and neither did the players.

 

Confused?

 

We were indeed.

[bluejak]

There are no UI issues with dummy (except if the conditions in 43A2 occur), so the ethical problem doesn't really exist. The reason dummy has to be given the right to ask explicitly is because otherwise it would be considered "participating in the play".

If dummy asks "no hearts" only when surprised there are UI problems with dummy.

 

I am afraid that, under conditions of complete surprise, I have done this myself.

 

Of course if no defender ever asked his partner (illegally) you would not have any problem. Was England the only country in the world where players never violated this law?

Japan were very upset at the change, and asked England if there was any sensible solution.

 

Of course, I never suggested no-one violated the Law. What I said was that the practice of asking partner "no hearts" died out pretty much, and once it had died out, problems disappeared. That did not mean that no-one ever got anything wrong, just that it was a rarity.

 

Except that one of the (early) "clarifications" stated that the incorrect play should be rectified, the defender not following suit thus be left with a major penalty card, and in addition a revoke penalty of one trick be applied. That "clarification" was (unless I remember completely wrong) later amended, I believe (remember this is many years ago) to the effect that the trick should stand as played. However, I do not remember we ever had a resolution on how many tricks to transfer if there was no revoke, only the illegal question. At one time I believe we had a rule to transfer one trick if there was no revoke and an additional trick if there indeed was a revoke.

 

However, there were so many to's and from's that eventually I didn't really care and neither did the players.

 

Confused?

 

We were indeed.

Sure, but all this was because they messed the Law up. We did not want that awful Law, but its simple predecessor:

 

1. Defenders may not ask each other "having none" or the like.
   
2. If a defender does ask partner, and if it was a revoke, then the revoke is establshed.
   
3. Simple, easy, and fair.
   

[barmar]

If dummy asks "no hearts" only when surprised there are UI problems with dummy.

What UI is he transmitting? His hand is in full view, what else could he know that declarer doesn't?

[AlexJonson]

Declarer (South) runs a suit in North, and East fails to follow suit.

 

Declarer doesn't ask East 'having none'.

 

Declarer discards.

 

Any situations where there is a legal problem (ignoring non-legal ethical problems for the moment).

[pran]

If dummy asks "no hearts" only when surprised there are UI problems with dummy.

 

I am afraid that, under conditions of complete surprise, I have done this myself.

 

 

Japan were very upset at the change, and asked England if there was any sensible solution.

 

Of course, I never suggested no-one violated the Law. What I said was that the practice of asking partner "no hearts" died out pretty much, and once it had died out, problems disappeared. That did not mean that no-one ever got anything wrong, just that it was a rarity.

 

 

Sure, but all this was because they messed the Law up. We did not want that awful Law, but its simple predecessor:

 

1. Defenders may not ask each other "having none" or the like.
   
2. If a defender does ask partner, and if it was a revoke, then the revoke is establshed.
   
3. Simple, easy, and fair.
   

 

HUH ? Simple ? ?

 

Addition: No, the violation of Law 61B never established the revoke in progress (except for a very brief interval between two "clarifications").

 

It is true that Law 63B: When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. only found its way into the laws with the revision in 1997, but it was established as being the law very early after 1987 in response to questions on Law 61B.

 

Before that there had been a variety of different "clarifications" on Law 61B until we eventually received the final version. I don't remember when, but it was long before 1997.

 

Simple? Easy? Fair?

 

Frankly I cannot see any problem with this law as it was from 1932 until 1987 and now again from 2007.

 

That law is simple, easy and indeed fair.

[bluejak]

Establishing a revoke by an illegal question is clearly fair, and was part of the Law.

 

True, it works the current way, so long as you prefer more UI. I think more UI is not good.

 

Furthermore, how anyone can think it fair to allow more communication between partners not through calls or plays I do not understand anyway.

[pran]

Establishing a revoke by an illegal question is clearly fair, and was part of the Law.

 

True, it works the current way, so long as you prefer more UI. I think more UI is not good.

 

Furthermore, how anyone can think it fair to allow more communication between partners not through calls or plays I do not understand anyway.

I don't understand why the question "none left, partner" should be illegal in the first place, considering the following part of Law 9A3: However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

 

Then in 1987 we got the new law that forbid (specifically) a defender to attempt to prevent his partner from committing a revoke when such irregularity seemed imminent. I never understood why this prohibition could be fair or reasonable, and it is worth noting that ACBL consistently opposed this law. At last this prohibition has now been lifted.

 

Of course establishing a revoke by an illegal question can be fair, but (as I have already pointed out earlier in this thread) during the years the question "none left, partner" was illegal it never established a revoke, only required the revoke to be corrected as specified in Law 62 but still enforced penalty as if the revoke had been established.

 

Whichever way you look at it I cannot agree that the "illegal question" law in force from 1987 until 2007 was fair.

 

Apparently WBFLC now agrees with this (both as expressed by myself, and more important by ACBL).

 

UI is created during a game of bridge all the time and in many ways. Let us deal with that without such anomalities as the "illegal question" law.

[Vampyr]

Whichever way you look at it I cannot agree that the "illegal question" law in force from 1987 until 2007 was fair.

 

Apparently WBFLC now agrees with this (both as expressed by myself, and more important by ACBL).

 

 

The real problem is that when NBOs were permitted to decide for themselves, everyone was happy. It is puzzling that the WBFLC chose to change this.

[mycroft]

Everyone was happy except in high-level events, where people forgetting that the Law was applied differently caused 2-trick penalties out of nowhere in games where "the result should be determined by the players, not by the Directors" (this is also used when time penalties were applied, and a similar one used about "weird" systems).

 

And given where the "defenders allowed to ask" existed, and therefore, what teams got penalised by "oops, forgot it's different here", and to which ZO those teams' NBO belong, and how many votes they get on the WBF Executive, it's not all *that* puzzling.

[barmar]

I don't understand why the question "none left, partner" should be illegal in the first place, considering the following part of Law 9A3: However any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent another player’s committing an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43).

By the time you ask "none left", it's too late to prevent the irregularity, it has already occurred.

 

Unless you're suggesting that it's OK to prevent the establishment of the revoke once the revoke has occurred. I don't consider establishment to be an irregularity. The revoke is the irregularity, establishment is just a quality it may have.

[Vampyr]

Everyone was happy except in high-level events, where people forgetting that the Law was applied differently caused 2-trick penalties out of nowhere in games where "the result should be determined by the players, not by the Directors" (this is also used when time penalties were applied, and a similar one used about "weird" systems).

 

Is "having none?" really that prevalent at "high-level (international) events"? Is revoking really that prevalent at high-level events? Somehow I doubt the BB teams were clamouring for a change.

[pran]

By the time you ask "none left", it's too late to prevent the irregularity, it has already occurred.

 

Unless you're suggesting that it's OK to prevent the establishment of the revoke once the revoke has occurred. I don't consider establishment to be an irregularity. The revoke is the irregularity, establishment is just a quality it may have.

Quite true, except that what has already occurred is the possibility of an irregularity, not necessarily any irregularity as such.

 

And what Law 9 was understood to permit before 1987 included trying to prevent a minor irregularity from becoming a far more severe irregularity. This understanding has now been reinstated.

 

If a player apparently moves to lead a card out of turn then that is an irregularity (although minor) even before the actual lead has been made. And any player may (under Law 9) try to prevent the actual lead out of turn to be made even if it turns out that the player never had any intention of committing a lead out of turn, it just happened to seem so.

[mycroft]

Is "having none?" really that prevalent at "high-level (international) events"? Is revoking really that prevalent at high-level events? Somehow I doubt the BB teams were clamouring for a change.

When it's allowed, people do it. When it's allowed but could pass UI, they do it consistently on partner's first discard. Once you get into that habit, it's *really hard* to break, because it's so consistent. The one time partner *did*, in fact, revoke...

 

And the case I'm remembering was in the VC, not the BB.

 

(Canadians have a couple of those, too, in other sports - remembering the "sweep behind the tee line" rule (and, before a few years ago, the "4 rock" rule), and "no touch icing", ... I'll give a pass to Gridiron Football, because the changes are so great and so central that nobody really can "forget" - although I heard of someone who graduated from CFL star to NFL punt returner who "would never call for a fair catch" - probably because he was so used to "no fair catch, but No Yards".)

[Trinidad]

Quite true, except that what has already occurred is the possibility of an irregularity, not necessarily any irregularity as such.

That is a logical error. The irregularity -if one occurred- did already occur. The only thing is that we do not know yet whether it occurred. It did not possibly occur; it either did or it didn't. At the point of the question there is nothing to prevent anymore.

 

Rik

[barmar]

That is a logical error. The irregularity -if one occurred- did already occur. The only thing is that we do not know yet whether it occurred.

Schrödinger's revoke? :)

[pran]

That is a logical error. The irregularity -if one occurred- did already occur. The only thing is that we do not know yet whether it occurred. It did not possibly occur; it either did or it didn't. At the point of the question there is nothing to prevent anymore.

 

Rik

Of course there is: Preventing the revoke from becoming established. (Resulting in an exposed card rather than an established revoke.)

[barmar]

Where does it say that "becoming established" is an irregularity?

[blackshoe]

If there's an irregularity involved in a revoke becoming established, it must be in the action that causes the revoke to become established. Since all those actions are legal, I can't see an irregularity in it.

[barmar]

The closest that comes is 62A, "A player must correct his revoke if he becomes aware of the irregularity before it becomes established." But it's not an irregularity to fail to correct because you're unaware.

 

You violate 62A if partner asks, you find a card in the suit, but don't correct the revoke.