Asking about no "stop"

[blackshoe]

There seems to be a difference of opinion as to the correct ruling here. B-)

[Cascade]

I have seen a similar situation although it related to the play rather than the bidding. Where a player illegally communicated with his partner by asking to see the previous trick when the trick had already been quit. Despite my protestations both opponents turned their cards face up. As a result of which one opponent discovered that he had revoked. But now since it was not established he corrected without penalty.

 

The director, at a national event, refused to enforce any penalty for the illegal communication and showing of a card to a trick that had been quit.

[blackshoe]

I have seen a similar situation although it related to the play rather than the bidding. Where a player illegally communicated with his partner by asking to see the previous trick when the trick had already been quit. Despite my protestations both opponents turned their cards face up. As a result of which one opponent discovered that he had revoked. But now since it was not established he corrected without penalty.

 

The director, at a national event, refused to enforce any penalty for the illegal communication and showing of a card to a trick that had been quit.

This is directorial malpractice. Was there an appeal?

[Cascade]

This is directorial malpractice. Was there an appeal?

 

No just the usual crap. Didn't think this one was worth pursuing because it was just an overtrick at IMPs. This was from one of the more respected directors. I am used to the abuse.

[blackshoe]

I wouldn't suggest appealing to get a better result. I would suggest appealing to make this director aware of his error. How else are we going to ensure better directors?

[gordontd]

The path to score adjustment was succinctly explained in Campboy's post #4. If the TD finds that the conditions are met to permit a change of unintended call under Law 25A, the 2♠ bidder is permitted to change to his originally intended call. The auction continues and the hand is played out. Now the TD returns to the table at the end of the hand to consider whether Opener gained advantage through his illegal communication. If he did, the TD can and should adjust the score: either Law 23 or Law 12A1 tells the TD that he should adjust the score if the illegal commuication has caused damage; Law 12C tells the TD how to adjust in such circumstances.

I think this is quite wrong. We at the EBU asked the WBF about the impact of L73 on L25A and in response they issued the footnote to L25A - not just an interpretation but an actual law change, something that very rarely happens. This tells us that it doesn't matter what alerted the player to the unintended nature of the call, the call can be changed as long as the other requirements of L25A are met. And now you effectively say "yes, you can change it, but we're just going to change it back if you gain from it". It seems clear to me that if that was what the WBF intended they would just have told us that L73 applies to L25A cases, rather than saying "no matter how..."

[blackshoe]

I think this is quite wrong. We at the EBU asked the WBF about the impact of L73 on L25A and in response they issued the footnote to L25A - not just an interpretation but an actual law change, something that very rarely happens. This tells us that it doesn't matter what alerted the player to the unintended nature of the call, the call can be changed as long as the other requirements of L25A are met. And now you effectively say "yes, you can change it, but we're just going to change it back if you gain from it". It seems clear to me that if that was what the WBF intended they would just have told us that L73 applies to L25A cases, rather than saying "no matter how..."

Very interesting, Gordon, thanks. I've asked the rulings folks at ACBL what their position is, since we don't have that footnote in our version of the laws.

[gordontd]

Very interesting, Gordon, thanks. I've asked the rulings folks at ACBL what their position is, since we don't have that footnote in our version of the laws.

No-one has it in their printed version, as far as I know, but it's in the WBFLC minutes from 2011 and at the EBU we have it quoted on the appropriate page from where the2007 Laws can be accessed.

[pran]

Very interesting, Gordon, thanks. I've asked the rulings folks at ACBL what their position is, since we don't have that footnote in our version of the laws.

 

No-one has it in their printed version, as far as I know, but it's in the WBFLC minutes from 2011 and at the EBU we have it quoted on the appropriate page from where the2007 Laws can be accessed.

I have just alerted our Norwegian LC about "A Law change that we all have missed".

 

Thanks for your information on the EBU initiative.

[Lanor Fow]

On a recent directors course I went on they gave us nice stickers to stick in our laws book for the amendment. There is a nice gap at the end of the page where it fits.

[blackshoe]

On a recent directors course I went on they gave us nice stickers to stick in our laws book for the amendment. There is a nice gap at the end of the page where it fits.

Somebody had a nice brainstorm! :D

 

I found, in the minutes of the November 2011 meeting of the ACBLLC, the following: Item 2: The committee discussed the item from the WBFLC minutes that added the footnote. Item 3: the committee decided they agree with the WBF's interpretation.

 

I also found, poking around, in the minutes of a 2013 meeting, the comment that "the committee expects few changes in the next version of the laws". :ph34r:

[VixTD]

A similar case was considered by EBU L&E committee (2014-10-01): a player bid 6NT intending 6♠, and partner expressed surprise by a comment, and the TD allowed the bid to be corrected. The committee thought that there should have been procedural penalty for the illegal comment but that otherwise the ruling [allowing the correction and no subsequent adjustment] was correct.

I think there's an important difference between this case and the original question. The failure to use the stop card is a breach of proper procedure, and law 9 allows a player to draw attention to an irregularity. In your case there was presumably no irregularity, so opener had no business to comment on his partner's call, and the TD was quite right to penalise him.

[VixTD]

I think this is quite wrong. We at the EBU asked the WBF about the impact of L73 on L25A and in response they issued the footnote to L25A - not just an interpretation but an actual law change, something that very rarely happens. This tells us that it doesn't matter what alerted the player to the unintended nature of the call, the call can be changed as long as the other requirements of L25A are met. And now you effectively say "yes, you can change it, but we're just going to change it back if you gain from it". It seems clear to me that if that was what the WBF intended they would just have told us that L73 applies to L25A cases, rather than saying "no matter how..."

You're presuming that the 2♠ call was unintended. In that case, I agree with you, you should allow the change of call and possibly penalise partner for illegal communication. (I'm still a little uneasy about this, because of law 9A1.)

 

Suppose they intended to call 2♠, but perhaps didn't realise it was a jump.

 

Now might you make an adjustment if the question woke responder up to the fact that partner might be taking them for rather more strength than they actually have?

[RMB1]

I think there's an important difference between this case and the original question. The failure to use the stop card is a breach of proper procedure, and law 9 allows a player to draw attention to an irregularity. In your case there was presumably no irregularity, so opener had no business to comment on his partner's call, and the TD was quite right to penalise him.

 

I agree there is a difference. We cannot conclude that the committee think a procedural penalty is appropriate in the original case.

 

But given that the committee would not adjust the score when there had been illegal communication then this is support for not adjusting in the original case.

[aguahombre]

On a recent directors course I went on they gave us nice stickers to stick in our laws book for the amendment. There is a nice gap at the end of the page where it fits.

 

Somebody had a nice brainstorm! :D

 

I found, in the minutes of the November 2011 meeting of the ACBLLC, the following: Item 2: The committee discussed the item from the WBFLC minutes that added the footnote. Item 3: the committee decided they agree with the WBF's interpretation.

One more thing the ACBL should put where it fits.

[pran]

You're presuming that the 2♠ call was unintended. In that case, I agree with you, you should allow the change of call and possibly penalise partner for illegal communication. (I'm still a little uneasy about this, because of law 9A1.)

 

Suppose they intended to call 2♠, but perhaps didn't realise it was a jump.

 

Now might you make an adjustment if the question woke responder up to the fact that partner might be taking them for rather more strength than they actually have?

It is still (and essentially) a matter of TD judgement whether or not the conditions in Law 25A is met.

[jallerton]

I think this is quite wrong. We at the EBU asked the WBF about the impact of L73 on L25A and in response they issued the footnote to L25A - not just an interpretation but an actual law change, something that very rarely happens. This tells us that it doesn't matter what alerted the player to the unintended nature of the call, the call can be changed as long as the other requirements of L25A are met. And now you effectively say "yes, you can change it, but we're just going to change it back if you gain from it". It seems clear to me that if that was what the WBF intended they would just have told us that L73 applies to L25A cases, rather than saying "no matter how..."

 

Gordon: I don't think that this is a desirable way to have to rule. All I am trying to do is to follow the Laws, avec footnote, as written. Absurd though this concept (of being allowed to do something knowing that it may be adjusted against if it gains) may sound, there seems to be a precedent for this in another bridge Law (Law 27B & Law 27D).

 

The minute in question says:

 

The committee confirmed once again that if a player’s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the ‘pause for thought’ should be assessed from the moment when he first recognises his error.

It was decided to add to the Laws a footnote to Law 25A as follows:

‘A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error ’

 

The question is referred for further examination in the next review of the Laws.

 

You mention that the EBU had brought the WBFLC's specific attention to the apparent conflict between Law 25A and Law 73; presumably this was the specific reason for this item being on the agenda of that particular WBFLC meeting. Therefore it seems bizarre that neither the added footnote nor the text of the minute itself makes any reference to Law 73 or why it might not apply.

 

If this was intended to be a law change and if they wanted Law 25A to take precedence over Law 73A, Law 73B1 and Law 73C, why doesn't the footnote say something like:

 

‘Nothwithstanding Law 73, a player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error ’

 

Or, even better, they could have put an asterisk footnote to Law 73 instead saying something like "* unless expressly permitted by another Law"

 

But the failure to restrict the scope of Law 73, even when the anomaly was pointed out to the WBFLC, implies to me that this Law still exists and is potentially relevant.

 

I repeat: I'm not trying to be awkward here. Most TDs do not possess your detailed knowledge of the Laws and their history. I just think that a (sufficiently intelligent) club TD should be able to pick up a Law Book, read and understand what it says, and rule accordingly.

[jallerton]

A similar case was considered by EBU L&E committee (2014-10-01): a player bid 6NT intending 6♠, and partner expressed surprise by a comment, and the TD allowed the bid to be corrected. The committee thought that there should have been procedural penalty for the illegal comment but that otherwise the ruling [allowing the correction and no subsequent adjustment] was correct.

 

Did the EBU L&EC explain the reasoning for this?

 

If the partner's comment was considered to be an infraction, why is it not appropriate to 'assess rectification' for this infraction?

 

If the partner's comment was not considered to be an infraction, why is it appropriate to give the player a PP?

[gordontd]

Gordon: I don't think that this is a desirable way to have to rule. All I am trying to do is to follow the Laws, avec footnote, as written. Absurd though this concept (of being allowed to do something knowing that it may be adjusted against if it gains) may sound, there seems to be a precedent for this in another bridge Law (Law 27B & Law 27D).

 

That isn't quite the same in that it doesn't take away any advantage, just an advantage that couldn't have been gained without the use of an insufficient bid. Such a thing never applies to unintended calls.

 

You mention that the EBU had brought the WBFLC's specific attention to the apparent conflict between Law 25A and Law 73; presumably this was the specific reason for this item being on the agenda of that particular WBFLC meeting. Therefore it seems bizarre that neither the added footnote nor the text of the minute itself makes any reference to Law 73 or why it might not apply.

 

If this was intended to be a law change and if they wanted Law 25A to take precedence over Law 73A, Law 73B1 and Law 73C, why doesn't the footnote say something like:

 

‘Nothwithstanding Law 73, a player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error ’

 

Or, even better, they could have put an asterisk footnote to Law 73 instead saying something like "* unless expressly permitted by another Law"

 

But the failure to restrict the scope of Law 73, even when the anomaly was pointed out to the WBFLC, implies to me that this Law still exists and is potentially relevant.

 

I repeat: I'm not trying to be awkward here. Most TDs do not possess your detailed knowledge of the Laws and their history. I just think that a (sufficiently intelligent) club TD should be able to pick up a Law Book, read and understand what it says, and rule accordingly.

I agree with you that this hasn't been made as clear as it might have and I share your desire for simpler, clearer Laws, but I am not surprised that this has not yet happened. I hope there may be improvements in the next Law Book, but hope is as much as I do.

[blackshoe]

There was a comment in the minutes of one of the fairly recent meetings of the ACBLLC (in 2013, I think) to the effect that they do not expect any major changes in the next revision of the laws. So small improvements like clarifying this situation may happen, but a reorganization of the law book probably won't.

[barmar]

There was a comment in the minutes of one of the fairly recent meetings of the ACBLLC (in 2013, I think) to the effect that they do not expect any major changes in the next revision of the laws. So small improvements like clarifying this situation may happen, but a reorganization of the law book probably won't.

It's not obvious what might be meant by "major changes". It could refer to changes that substantively alter the game, like changes to the scores for doubled undertricks or the number of tricks tranferred after a revoke.

 

But you're probably right that they also meant structural changes to the way the Laws are written. So all we can expect are incremental tweaks. This is probably likely for much of the foreseeable future, not just the next revision. Major rewrites are a lot of work, there needs to be plenty of benefit to be gained for it to be worth it.

[blackshoe]

It's not obvious what might be meant by "major changes". It could refer to changes that substantively alter the game, like changes to the scores for doubled undertricks or the number of tricks tranferred after a revoke.

 

But you're probably right that they also meant structural changes to the way the Laws are written. So all we can expect are incremental tweaks. This is probably likely for much of the foreseeable future, not just the next revision. Major rewrites are a lot of work, there needs to be plenty of benefit to be gained for it to be worth it.

Oh, I agree - but I also think that "the law book would be easier to use and to understand" is worth the effort.

[mycroft]

Ah, but remember that the Law Writers understand it, as do all the people who *they* interact with. Therefore, it's easy to understand. Please note, I am including myself in this one (and, given there are three or four new TDs, some much better and more experienced *players* than I, in this area, I am being reminded of how "easy" "easy" truly isn't :-)

 

And legitimately, if major structural changes happen to the Law Book, that is a *lot* of retraining for *everybody*, including everybody who understand. I realize that shouldn't be a consideration if it will make everything easier in the long run, but from my real job, I know that it is.

[blackshoe]

You remind me of the physics prof, who when he said a particular transition from one equation to the next was "obvious" was asked by student "is it really?" The prof excused himself, left the room, and came back 20 minutes later. He said "yes, it's obvious" and continued with his lecture. :P

 

Yes, people can be stupid, especially where change is involved. B-)

 

I would put a small diagram in the front of a revised lawbook. Five boxes, one for each of the five most common problems, defining the problem ("Lead out of Turn" or whatever) and showing which law now governs, and what page it's on. In a pdf version, that last would be a hyperlink. Could be more boxes if deemed necessary or desirable, but you don't want to clutter it up too much.

 

On another note: I got a reply this morning to an inquiry I made to the "rulings" folks at ACBL. I was, in essence, asked to limit my questions to them, apparently to one per year. The complaint was "we get over 1800 emails a year, and we have over 160,000 members." They didn't comment on the question "how many of those 160,000 would ever bother to write to 'rulings?'" Hell of a way to run a railroad, ain't it? :blink: :rolleyes:

[mycroft]

Similar to: there are only 2 classes of mathematical problems: "unsolved/unsolvable" and "trivial"