Another change of played card

[barmar]

Well, I (for one) have.

And the laws cater for the possibility without introducing any ambiguity or problem regardless of whether it has occurred or not.

 

So, does anybody really have any problem with this?

It might be better if they just said that declarer designating a card from his own hand doesn't have any import.

 

In the case of defenders, there are UI implications of naming his cards. But there's no one for declarer to give UI to, so his designations should just be ignored. But I guess they went for consistency here to keep it simple.

[UdcaDenny]

I just got a message from the Committee of my club where they aggreed with TD that you can take back a played card even if LHO already have discarded. Must say Im dissappointed as I had hoped they would state that a played card is always a played card if its put on the table without being dropped. So now I have mailed a few persons in WBL to have this problem solved.

[Vampyr]

I just got a message from the Committee of my club where they aggreed with TD that you can take back a played card even if LHO already have discarded. Must say Im dissappointed as I had hoped they would state that a played card is always a played card if its put on the table without being dropped. So now I have mailed a few persons in WBL to have this problem solved.

 

Do the committee have access to a Lawbook? Perhaps you can tell them it is available online.

 

Of course this club cannot be affiliated with the NBO if they choose to play this homegrown bridge variant.

[UdcaDenny]

Do the committee have access to a Lawbook? Perhaps you can tell them it is available online.

 

Of course this club cannot be affiliated with the NBO if they choose to play this homegrown bridge variant.

I have mailed Ton Kooyman, Maurizio di Sacco and Laurie Kelso all Chief Tournament Directors for WBF and they all say

a played card cannot be changed. The answer from my club is that we follow the rules from ACBL and not WBF. Can it really

be true that they interpret the law different ?

[barmar]

Of course this club cannot be affiliated with the NBO if they choose to play this homegrown bridge variant.

AFAIK, ACBL has no rule that clubs have to follow the Laws to get a sanction. I think their main requirement is that the club pays its sanction fees.

[chrism]

I have mailed Ton Kooyman, Maurizio di Sacco and Laurie Kelso all Chief Tournament Directors for WBF and they all say

a played card cannot be changed. The answer from my club is that we follow the rules from ACBL and not WBF. Can it really

be true that they interpret the law different ?

No. The ACBL may have many idiosyncrasies, but they certainly do not promulgate this particular contravention of the Laws of bridge. I would guess that if you present evidence supporting your case from any of rulings@acbl.org, the ACBL bulletin, or any senior ACBL director (all of whom will confirm that a played card is indeed played), your club will tell you that they meant the Antarctic Contract Bridge League. For what it is worth, I am an ACBL (America, not Antarctic) TD with experience directing events at all levels up to and including National, and I am happy to confirm that your club administration is (to put it as politely as I can) obstinately and obstructively wrong, based on the facts that you present.

[gnasher]

I have never experienced a card designated other than by declarer naming a card from dummy.

I have on occasion designated a card from my own hand, for both of the reasons given by Lanor Fow and Campboy.

 

Another situation is when a disabled player can't play the cards for himself, so he has someone else playing his cards on his instructions.

[billw55]

I have mailed Ton Kooyman, Maurizio di Sacco and Laurie Kelso all Chief Tournament Directors for WBF and they all say

a played card cannot be changed. The answer from my club is that we follow the rules from ACBL and not WBF. Can it really

be true that they interpret the law different ?

No, they aren't interpreting it differently. They are ignoring it outright. Or, looked at another way, making up their own laws for their own club. This is their choice of course, but I would prefer they just be honest about it.

[blackshoe]

I think the "they" to whom denny is referring is the ACBL, not the club. As chris says, club management is "obstinately and obstructively wrong".

[pran]

I have mailed Ton Kooyman, Maurizio di Sacco and Laurie Kelso all Chief Tournament Directors for WBF and they all say

a played card cannot be changed. The answer from my club is that we follow the rules from ACBL and not WBF. Can it really

be true that they interpret the law different ?

There is no way I can imagine ACBL to have an understanding of the relevant laws here different from that of the WBF.

 

But I am fully prepared to recognize that ignorant persons at the club in question believe they have the correct understanding.

 

If anybody feels for it I suggest that they file a report with ACBL describing the matter and suggesting that the Club has all their masterpoints assignments suspended until they improve their understanding of the laws. :D :P

[blackshoe]

AFAIK, ACBL has no rule that clubs have to follow the Laws to get a sanction. I think their main requirement is that the club pays its sanction fees.

I sent an email to the ACBL's Club Department asking for comment on this. They sent me this, from chapter 4 of the "ACBL Handbook of Rules and Regulations":

 

SECTION ONE: ACBL CLUB MASTERPOINT GAME SANCTION

An ACBL club sanction grants the right to an entity to conduct bridge games at regularly scheduled times and locations and award masterpoints at those games in accordance with specific ACBL rules and regulations.

There are approximately 3,200 clubs that conduct ACBL sanctioned games. Some operate only a monthly game, while others operate as many as 21 games a week. Altogether, over 3 million tables of sanctioned games in clubs are played annually throughout ACBL territory.

Games must be conducted in accordance with both the letter and the spirit of ACBL regulations as well as the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. The success or failure of games conducted by a club is the responsibility of the club manager. The club manager is free to operate the club as he or she sees fit, as long as the operation of ACBL sanctioned games falls within the limits prescribed by ACBL.

I have bolded the pertinent bit. Perhaps it will help denny deal with his club.

 

Of course, whether the ACBL would actually do anything to a club that doesn't follow the laws is another question.

 

Note: my correspondent didn't say anything about the allegation in Barry's second sentence. :P

 

I would note, for denny and his club management, that the Law 45C4{b} in the ACBL's version of the law book is identical to the one in the WBF version.

[UdcaDenny]

There is no way I can imagine ACBL to have an understanding of the relevant laws here different from that of the WBF.

 

But I am fully prepared to recognize that ignorant persons at the club in question believe they have the correct understanding.

 

If anybody feels for it I suggest that they file a report with ACBL describing the matter and suggesting that the Club has all their masterpoints assignments suspended until they improve their understanding of the laws. :D :P

Im really thankful for all feedback and support which I hoped shud make the TD in my club change his thinking but he only got angry and answering: "It is worthless discussing these matters with you since you don't listen or read what is written. Please do NOT send me any more messages about this---I am tired of wasting time." Unfortunatly some people can never admit they are wrong and the Committee of the club feel the authoroty so I guess I have to live with it.

[UdcaDenny]

To clarify more here are the parts of the Law that TD quote to justify his action. First he calls the play an Inadvertent Designation (Law 47C) and that refers to Law 45C4(b)

Compulsory Play of Card. He means that a designated card is the same as a played card. So his ruling stems from mixing those words.

 

 

Law 47. Retraction of card played

47C. To Change an Inadvertent Designation

A played card may be withdrawn and returned to the hand without further rectification after a change of designation permitted by Law 45.C.4(b).

Law 45. Card Played

C. Compulsory Play of Card

4(b) Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought. If an opponent has, in turn, played a card that was legal before the change in designation, that opponent may withdraw the card so played, return it to his hand, and substitute another.

Comment: John's misplay was the result of a "mechanical error," (as in "What the hell is this card doing on the table") not an error in thought or judgement. Therefore, Law 47 would appear to apply here.

 

Here is what Laurie Kelso, Chief Tournamen Director for WBF kindly answers me in a mail:

 

Hello Denny

I gather from what you have written that Declarer mis-pulled a card from their own hand. If so, then this qualifies as a 'played card'. Unfortunately (at least for declarer) there is no law that permits a card played from Declarer's hand to be withdrawn (unless there has been a prior infraction by an opponent). I would guess that the director has misunderstood the meaning of Law 45C4(b). This law does allow for the change of an 'unintended designation', however the card in question was not designated - instead it was physically removed from hand and placed upon the table (i.e. played). The word 'designation' usually refers to the naming of a card or very occasionally a player might point to a card, wishing it to be played. As such Law 45C4(b) applies almost exclusively to misspoken specifications of cards faced upon the table in Dummy. Cards accidently played from any of the other three (non-dummy) hands cannot be withdrawn.

Regards

Laurie

[blackshoe]

Denny, you've reached the point of preaching to the choir, I think. Clearly your director is suffering from a severe case of cranial-rectumitis, and it seems unlikely that he'll ever admit he's wrong, though all of us here agree he is.

 

That said, tell him to read 45A, 45C2, and 45C4{a}. Also tell him to look up "designate" in a decent dictionary.

 

I think we've given you all the help we can on this. Good luck.

[barmar]

Of course, whether the ACBL would actually do anything to a club that doesn't follow the laws is another question.

Yes. A policy that only exists on paper is worth as much as the paper it's written on.

 

I don't think I've ever heard of a club being censured or losing its sanction because they don't follow the letter of the Laws. I'll bet there are hundreds of clubs that prohibit psyches, for example.

[blackshoe]

Yes. A policy that only exists on paper is worth as much as the paper it's written on.

 

I don't think I've ever heard of a club being censured or losing its sanction because they don't follow the letter of the Laws. I'll bet there are hundreds of clubs that prohibit psyches, for example.

Wouldn't surprise me any. Seems silly to me though. Good psych positions don't come up all that often. It's all about the perception, I suppose. Reality doesn't matter.

[pran]

Yes. A policy that only exists on paper is worth as much as the paper it's written on.

 

I don't think I've ever heard of a club being censured or losing its sanction because they don't follow the letter of the Laws. I'll bet there are hundreds of clubs that prohibit psyches, for example.

A general ban on psyches is of course not according to Law.

 

But Law 40 gives a club the powers to ban psyches on artificial calls (L40B2d) and to ban psyches on natural calls repeated so frequent that they become part of implied partnership understandings (L40C).

 

As a rule of the thumb I would suggest that once or possibly twice a year should be the limit.

[billw55]

Im really thankful for all feedback and support which I hoped shud make the TD in my club change his thinking but he only got angry and answering: "It is worthless discussing these matters with you since you don't listen or read what is written. Please do NOT send me any more messages about this---I am tired of wasting time." Unfortunatly some people can never admit they are wrong and the Committee of the club feel the authoroty so I guess I have to live with it.

What did you expect? We already told you to learn live with it or quit.

 

The bottom line is, at this club, these are the rules, whether written or not.

 

 

 

[blackshoe]

A general ban on psyches is of course not according to Law.

 

But Law 40 gives a club the powers to ban psyches on artificial calls (L40B2d) and to ban psyches on natural calls repeated so frequent that they become part of implied partnership understandings (L40C).

 

As a rule of the thumb I would suggest that once or possibly twice a year should be the limit.

I do not think 40C gives a club (or any other TO or RA) the right to ban psychs on natural calls. What 40C says is that repeated violations of disclosure requirements (in this case of an implicit understanding) may be penalized. That, to me, implies procedural penalties. Of course if the implicit understanding is otherwise illegal, that's another story — and a different law (40B5).

 

I also think that the laws do not define "frequent". My dictionary does: "occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession". "Many" means "a large number of:" Two is not a large number. Neither is three. I understand the human desire to attach numbers here, but that ain't the way it should work. It's a judgment call.

[barmar]

I also think that the laws do not define "frequent". My dictionary does: "occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession". "Many" means "a large number of:" Two is not a large number. Neither is three. I understand the human desire to attach numbers here, but that ain't the way it should work. It's a judgment call.

The dictionary definition of "frequent" is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it has happened enough to form an implicit partnership understanding.

[pran]

A general ban on psyches is of course not according to Law.

 

But Law 40 gives a club the powers to ban psyches on artificial calls (L40B2d) and to ban psyches on natural calls repeated so frequent that they become part of implied partnership understandings (L40C).

 

As a rule of the thumb I would suggest that once or possibly twice a year should be the limit.

I do not think 40C gives a club (or any other TO or RA) the right to ban psychs on natural calls. What 40C says is that repeated violations of disclosure requirements (in this case of an implicit understanding) may be penalized. That, to me, implies procedural penalties. Of course if the implicit understanding is otherwise illegal, that's another story — and a different law (40B5).

 

I also think that the laws do not define "frequent". My dictionary does: "occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession". "Many" means "a large number of:" Two is not a large number. Neither is three. I understand the human desire to attach numbers here, but that ain't the way it should work. It's a judgment call.

The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:

to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

This clearly include regulations supplementary to those issued by the Regulating Authority as in:

The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

 

Now we have

A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

and

A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system.[...]

which implies that unless the partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation it is not acceptable as a deviation (i.e. psyche) but must be treated as a concealed partnership understanding. (And if this implicit and concealed understanding is such as to make the call artificial then it can of course also be subject to the restriction in L40B2d.)

 

Note that the word "frequent" in this context is only relevant as one of several possible reasons for partner to be more aware of the deviation than are the opponents.

[blackshoe]

The dictionary definition of "frequent" is irrelevant. All that matters is whether it has happened enough to form an implicit partnership understanding.

Okay. Twice is, IMO, not enough.

 

@Sven: if they have an implicit understanding, you rule according to that understanding. If the TO wishes to issue a regulation to the effect that a partnership understanding that includes some normally (for the meaning of a natural call) psychic — that is, it includes a "deliberated and gross misstatement of (the other meaning's) honor strength or suit length — is not permitted, more power to them. But a regulation that simply bans psychs of a natural bid conflicts with the first sentence of Law 40C1, and is therefore illegal. I suppose the TO could make a legal regulation such as I've described, and then rule that any time you psych you have a CPU, but that too is not in accordance with the laws.

[pran]

Okay. Twice is, IMO, not enough.

 

@Sven: if they have an implicit understanding, you rule according to that understanding. If the TO wishes to issue a regulation to the effect that a partnership understanding that includes some normally (for the meaning of a natural call) psychic — that is, it includes a "deliberated and gross misstatement of (the other meaning's) honor strength or suit length — is not permitted, more power to them. But a regulation that simply bans psychs of a natural bid conflicts with the first sentence of Law 40C1, and is therefore illegal. I suppose the TO could make a legal regulation such as I've described, and then rule that any time you psych you have a CPU, but that too is not in accordance with the laws.

I believe we agree:

 

A player who misbids may of course always claim that he psyched, but it is up to the Director whether he accepts the call as a psyche or not. (The way the laws are written it must be seen as a privilege, not a right to have a misbid accepted as a psyche.)

 

In order to make this decision the Director must establish the apparent meaning of the call in question. This call can only be accepted as a psyche if its apparent meaning implies a gross deliberate misbid on the hand actually held by the player.

 

The Director must further establish whether in his opinion the partner has more reason than have the opponents to suspect that the call is indeed a misbid, and if so rule concealed partnership understanding rather than psyche. (Note that if the partner has such reason and his suspicion is not disclosed to opponents then concealed partnership understanding should be ruled even when the player does not understand the nature of the misbid.)

 

And finally, if restrictions on psyching artificial calls are in force the Director must establish whether the apparent meaning of the psyche is artificial.

[barmar]

Note that the word "frequent" in this context is only relevant as one of several possible reasons for partner to be more aware of the deviation than are the opponents.

Indeed, the word "frequent" doesn't even appear in Law 40. It just says "repeated deviations", which is even more vague. Presumably they meant repeated deviations of similar types, as it seems nonsensical to claim that if you psych a 1♠ opening one day, psych Blackwood the next day, and then psych a splinter that you've created any particular implicit understanding (except perhaps a general understanding that your bids should be taken with a grain of salt).

[RMB1]

... The word 'designation' usually refers to the naming of a card or very occasionally a player might point to a card, wishing it to be played. As such Law 45C4(b) applies almost exclusively to misspoken specifications of cards faced upon the table in Dummy. Cards accidently played from any of the other three (non-dummy) hands cannot be withdrawn.

 

(More preaching to the choir)

 

I found this in the law book (Law 63A)

A revoke becomes established:

1. when the offender or his partner leads or plays to the following trick (any such play, legal or illegal, establishes the revoke).

2. when the offender or his partner names or otherwise designates a card to be played to the following trick.

 

To me, this makes it very clear the designating and leading/playing are different in law.