Jump to content

'Your lead'


sanst

Recommended Posts

On the principle that the TD adjusts if a pair gets lucky after an IB and also adjusts if a pair gets lucky after a forced pass, I would say, yes, you do award an adjusted score. There seems to be an inconsistency here, in that 27D provides for an adjustment after an IB but not after a pass out of turn for example.

We give trainee club directors an exercise in which West has a balanced 16 count with a spade fit and East a good weak two in spades. West is dealer but East opens 2 out of turn. It's not accepted, and East repeats 2 when two passes (one of them forced) come round to him. He's left to play there and makes eight tricks, just as every other declarer does, but all the others have bid game.

 

Older versions of the laws said something about there being no further adjustment once a penalty has been paid for an infraction, and it was clearer then that that applied to this sort of situation. The penalty is West's enforced pass, and there is no further adjustment whether East guesses to bid 2 again or has a go at 4. But now the word "penalty" has largely been replaced by "rectification", I think with the intention of making it more inclusive, to embrace such things as the option of the opponents to accept an irregularity. I think the use of the word "rectification" in law 12B2 is intended to cover any application of law by the TD which seeks to make redress for an infraction, whether it actually does nor not.

 

So I think Gordon (and possibly Pran) are right, there cannot be any further adjustment here unless there's a specific law (such as law 23) permitting such adjustment. It just feels less just in this case, where the offender took it upon himself to tell the wrong defender to make a lead. This seems a bigger infraction than just opening out of turn, and less deserving of the "rub of the green".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with that. I think that a club is out of the question, and it is close between a spade and a heart. I think we should poll ten peers of West and ask them what they would lead and assign a weighted score accordingly. And no, we do not tell them about North's ill-chosen remark. If it is pairs, I would lead a heart, but at teams I would lead the ten of spades. You need far less in spades than in hearts to beat the contract.

I was not suggesting (although my post which you quote does) giving no fraction of 3NT-3, just less than 50%, because I think West is more likely to lead a heart. I was thinking it was pairs, I take your point about teams, and I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, and perhaps give more than 50% of that score. Just not 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree here on two grounds. One is that the Probst cheat could have known that exposing the jack of hearts could work to his advantage. He could have been aware, presumably, that declarer had nine trumps and that dropping the jack could gain (when partner has Qxx). There was a similar hand on here many moons ago, where declarer led the queen of trumps from South QJTxx opposite Axxxx and West played one and dropped the other of two small cards. The majority (as I recall) wanted to adjust when declarer misguessed and West had Kxx but not adjust when East had stiff K. The rectification was putting the declarer in the situation before the infraction occurred.

 

In your example, the declarer might well have started the suit from the other hand, so he was actually better off when the jack dropped. And you are mistaken in not thinking there is a restricted choice situation. If East had QJ doubleton of hearts, he would have been equally likely to drop the queen, if he only dropped one card. Declarer butchered the hand by not playing for a singleton jack now. The infraction did not cause him to go off; his own incompetence did. So I agree with no adjustment, as the non-offender was responsible for his own bad result.

A Probst cheat situation only occurs when the infraction could have been intentional (cheating is always intentional). That was not the case here. (And if you think it was, please assume that it wasn't, for the sake of the simplicity of the example.)

 

And no, the infraction is not a restricted choice situation, since Easy could also have dropped one of the x's in the suit with equal probability to the queen and jack. Restricted choice applies when the player's choice is restricted. The player didn't choose to drop the J and the drop is not restricted. It is entirely random. If you take it as given that he will drop exactly one card, any of his 13 cards is equally likely.

 

Rik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Probst cheat situation only occurs when the infraction could have been intentional (cheating is always intentional). That was not the case here. (And if you think it was, please assume that it wasn't, for the sake of the simplicity of the example.)

 

And no, the infraction is not a restricted choice situation, since Easy could also have dropped one of the x's in the suit with equal probability to the queen and jack. Restricted choice applies when the player's choice is restricted. The player didn't choose to drop the J and the drop is not restricted. It is entirely random. If you take it as given that he will drop exactly one card, any of his 13 cards is equally likely.

 

Rik

There is no requirement for a Law 23 adjustment for any suggestion of intentional cheating, and the Probst cheat is so called as we know that he was not cheating, but could have been aware. So, even if we are 100% convinced that he dropped the jack of hearts accidentally, he could have been aware that it would benefit him.

 

And I disagree also with your argument on restricted choice, which is again a bit of an oxymoron, as with a singleton honour there is no choice. All we know is that East was dealt the jack of hearts. Say we define a new game, Bridge2, where East is obliged to show you one of his trumps, if he has Jx, then on the second round, his partner's queen will pop up. If he has Jxx he has already screwed up. If he has QJx, his fingerfehler has not cost. So, we are only concerned with the situations where he has QJ doubleton or J singleton. With the former, in Bridge2, some random force will drop one of the two honours at random, or East will chooose at random. With the latter, he has to drop the jack of hearts.

 

It is EXACTLY the same as a restricted choice situation, which is really a free choice situation. So his play was so bad, that even I were adjusting, I would deny him redress, as playing for the drop was SEWoG (just joking).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not suggesting (although my post which you quote does) giving no fraction of 3NT-3, just less than 50%, because I think West is more likely to lead a heart. I was thinking it was pairs, I take your point about teams, and I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, and perhaps give more than 50% of that score. Just not 100%.

I do not know if it is teams or pairs, and posted it in the intermediate forum, but only three people replied, and two led a heart. Even the one voting for a spade seemed facetious. I would be happy with 33% of 3NT-3 and 67% of 3NT=, but I would poll some more people. My simulation suggests a spade is better, but what is relevant is what a player of the same calibre would do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the use of the word "rectification" in law 12B2 is intended to cover any application of law by the TD which seeks to make redress for an infraction, whether it actually does nor not.

If that were the case, the Law 12B2 would (or should) read "The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the application of a Law is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side." It doesn't say that. Therefore it means what it says. If there is no rectification provided by the Law, in that the non-offenders are damaged, then he should adjust the score. I argue that rectification cannot be negative, while an adjustment can. To rectify means to put or set right, not to make worse.

 

The example with the pass out of turn is complex. Any bid out of turn (as here) could damage the non-offenders. Somebody, at our club, once opened a weak two diamonds out of turn, which prevented their partner going for 1100 in their own major! Do you decide that they could have known? I think the acid test is solely whether the law provided rectification. If it did not, or what you call "rectification" is negative, then the TD adjusts under 12A1. That is even clearer. Indemnity seems a stronger word than rectification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no requirement for a Law 23 adjustment for any suggestion of intentional cheating, and the Probst cheat is so called as we know that he was not cheating, but could have been aware. So, even if we are 100% convinced that he dropped the jack of hearts accidentally, he could have been aware that it would benefit him.

You seem to believe that any time a player gains from an infraction they could have been aware that it would benefit them. I'll give you an example (from real life) that I think indicates this is not so. A defender is about to play a card that will win the trick. Accidentally they pull out the one next to it, from a different suit, but they notice before the revoke is established and correct it so that they win the trick.

 

Because the accidentally played card was an honour, it now has to be played. I have seen a situation when such a card was the only card to defeat the contract and was not the card the player would have played next. They have gained from the infraction but clearly could not have known that this might be the case, because if they had done so, all they had to do was play the card, not create a situation where the card was a penalty card that had to be played!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to believe that any time a player gains from an infraction they could have been aware that it would benefit them. I'll give you an example (from real life) that I think indicates this is not so. A defender is about to play a card that will win the trick. Accidentally they pull out the one next to it, from a different suit, but they notice before the revoke is established and correct it so that they win the trick.

 

Because the accidentally played card was an honour, it now has to be played. I have seen a situation when such a card was the only card to defeat the contract and was not the card the player would have played next. They have gained from the infraction

They have not gained from the infraction. As you observed, they are in exactly the same position as if they won the trick and led the other card to the next trick. How have they gained? The other card might well have been a hopeless defence. You are arguing that they benefited from being forced to defend correctly!

 

I do not believe that any time a player gains from an infraction they "could" have been aware, as you know. I have twice advised you that I do not think the players who had an MPC in the Double Infraction thread could have been aware, once in this thread, and once by private email, so your assertion is not valid. The Probst cheat is defined as someone who was almost certainly not cheating but could have been aware. A completely separate scenario. Out of interest, how would you rule on the QJTxx opposite Axxxx scenario?

 

Just to summarise. I believe that if a Law fails to provide rectification, in that application of that Law makes someone worse off, then the TD should award an adjusted score. In essence, you must not be able to gain from an infraction, whether or not you knew you would. If we disagree on that principle, then we have to agree to differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of Law 12B2, but I think you are misinterpreting it. Rectification is defined by the (general) law as: "Rectification is a remedy whereby a court orders a change in a written document to reflect what it ought to have said in the first place. It is an equitable remedy, which means the circumstances where it can be applied are limited."

 

By analogy, "rectification" in bridge should reflect what would have happened had the infraction not occurred. I agree that the TD cannot adjust if restoring the situation to what would have happened without the infraction is unduly severe or advantageous, but I do not think you can have "negative" rectification provided by a law. If so, it is not "rectification".

You seem to argue that it is not indemnity if it does not perfectly restore equity. How then could the circumstance described in L12B2 ever arise? If I say the rectification was unduly advantageous to the NOS and therefore we are told by L12B2 we cannot make an adjustment, you then say that the laws have not provided indemnity and so you can use L12A1.

 

I don't think indemnity requires perfect restitution. It's a word commonly used in liability insurance in which the limits of the indemnity are frequently defined, clearly recognising that it may fall short of perfect restitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to argue that it is not indemnity if it does not perfectly restore equity. How then could the circumstance described in L12B2 ever arise? If I say the rectification was unduly advantageous to the NOS and therefore we are told by L12B2 we cannot make an adjustment, you then say that the laws have not provided indemnity and so you can use L12A1.

 

I don't think indemnity requires perfect restitution. It's a word commonly used in liability insurance in which the limits of the indemnity are frequently defined, clearly recognising that it may fall short of perfect restitution.

In the case of the Double Infraction, there was no positive rectification for the non-offending side, therefore L12B2 does not apply. There are plenty of example of rectification with insufficient bids not costing, or revokes not costing, because the rectification, making the bid sufficient or transferring one trick, just restores equity. However the rectification is still positive or zero. In the example in question, the rectification was, effectively, to reduce the number of tricks taken by the declarer from 10 to 9. How can that be rectification? And surely that is a prime example of what is intended by L12A1?

 

I did not argue, nor seem to argue, that it is not indemnity if it does not perfectly restore equity. I believe that when adjusting, the TD should endeavour to restore equity as closely as possible, and should not give only 90% to the non-offenders as a 'thieving' insurance company might. I argue that a rectification which damages the non-offender is no rectification at all. For what it is worth, I am told the declarer in Double Infraction would have settled for anything that "fell short of perfect restitution". Instead, I believe he was given 100% of 4S-1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why do the laws not just say "when there is an infraction, the director shall adjust the score"?

Because, if the laws provide rectification which is greater than or equal to zero, and the NOS are then not damaged, there is no requirement for further action. When there is damage to the NOS, and someone could have known, or when the laws fail to provide rectification, the TD should act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of the Double Infraction, there was no positive rectification for the non-offending side, therefore L12B2 does not apply. There are plenty of example of rectification with insufficient bids not costing, or revokes not costing, because the rectification, making the bid sufficient or transferring one trick, just restores equity. However the rectification is still positive or zero. In the example in question, the rectification was, effectively, to reduce the number of tricks taken by the declarer from 10 to 9. How can that be rectification? And surely that is a prime example of what is intended by L12A1?

 

I did not argue, nor seem to argue, that it is not indemnity if it does not perfectly restore equity. I believe that when adjusting, the TD should endeavour to restore equity as closely as possible, and should not give only 90% to the non-offenders as a 'thieving' insurance company might. I argue that a rectification which damages the non-offender is no rectification at all. For what it is worth, I am told the declarer in Double Infraction would have settled for anything that "fell short of perfect restitution". Instead I believe he was given 100% of 4S-1.

I'll have one last try and then give up and leave you to try to get the laws changed so that they say what you think they mean. I think perhaps, from reading what you have written above, that our differences stem from you thinking that "rectification" refers to an outcome, an adjustment or restitution, whereas I think it refers to a process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, if the laws provide rectification which is greater than or equal to zero, and the NOS are then not damaged, there is no requirement for further action. When there is damage to the NOS, and someone could have known, or when the laws fail to provide rectification, the TD should act.

I think that you fail to understand the meaning of "could". It does not mean: "Lamford is able to construct/concoct a situation where the person in question could". It means "could".

 

If a player clearly randomly and accidentally drops a card out of his hand then he randomly and accidentally drops a card out of his hand. That can not be contrived as a possible attempt to cheat. (But it is, of course, an infraction.)

 

What you and I think of the restricted choice situation is essentially irrelevant. No matter how you interpret it, it illustrates that percentages may change due to an infraction. And, inevitably, there will be situations where the winning line would be the highest percentage action absent the infraction and the different, losing line will be the highest percentage action with the infraction.

A declarer who takes the highest percentage line that happens to lose (where he would have taken the winning line without the infraction) has all my sympathy, but will not get rectification.

 

Rik

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have one last try and then give up and leave you to try to get the laws changed so that they say what you think they mean. I think perhaps, from reading what you have written above, that our differences stem from you thinking that "rectification" refers to an outcome, an adjustment or restitution, whereas I think it refers to a process.

I have no desire to get the laws changed on this issue. I think they are clear and unambiguous as they stand. Again you are putting words in my mouth and speculating on what I think. I agree that rectification could be either a process or the result of that process, but I do not see how that is relevant.

 

Law 12A1 is unambiguous. That states:

"The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent."

 

It does say "may", so that is his judgement. It does require him to view that the Laws did not provide indemnity, whether that is some discounted percentage of the correct equity or otherwise. It does require the non-offender to be damaged.

 

It does not need the TD to check whether some law on penalty cards, revokes, or bids or leads out of turn has been applied and whether the rectification was enough. If the Law failed to provide indemnity, the TD may award an adjusted score. I would suggest that any TD worth his salt would then read 12B to decide whether he should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They have not gained from the infraction. As you observed, they are in exactly the same position as if they won the trick and led the other card to the next trick. How have they gained? The other card might well have been a hopeless defence. You are arguing that they benefited from being forced to defend correctly!

They have gained and their opponents have lost out, because they were forced to play a card that they would not have chosen and it happened to work to their benefit.

 

Just to summarise. I believe that if a Law fails to provide rectification, in that application of that Law makes someone worse off, then the TD should award an adjusted score. In essence, you must not be able to gain from an infraction, whether or not you knew you would. If we disagree on that principle, then we have to agree to differ.

This seems to me to contradict what you said above it.

 

Let's be clear that I do disagree with you on that principle, as I imagine do all the TDs who have seen a player whose partner was silenced, punt a lucky 3NT. I believe it's called "rub of the green". I understand that unhappiness with those sort of results has been behind the general trend towards more equity-based laws (cue Nige1), but they haven't yet created an "infractor can never gain" principle of the sort you think exists.

 

(Sorry, this came after what I said would be my last attempt, as I just noticed this post I had missed before. No more from me now.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, inevitably, there will be situations where the winning line would be the highest percentage action absent the infraction and the different, losing line will be the highest percentage action with the infraction.

Such was the case with the old thread QJTxx opposite Axxxx. Declarer leads the queen and two small cards appear. He rises and RHO shows out. This is the archetypal "Probst cheat" problem, which was doing the rounds in the Europeans at San Remo 2009. Would you adjust or not? And would you use Law 23 or some other law?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be clear that I do disagree with you on that principle, as I imagine do all the TDs who have seen a player whose partner was silenced, punt a lucky 3NT.

I would agree that this is the most common call in Standard Eustacian. However, given its frequency, is it not the case that a person who committed any infraction during the auction which caused himself to be silenced "could well have been aware that his infraction could well damage the non-offending side"? "See Law 23" is the most common phrase in all the IB and BOOT laws. There are players at SB's club who would benefit from both a visit to Specsavers and from being silenced, and SB bids 3NT and makes it opposite them all the time. It is harder to defend when you have no idea what he has. Come to think of it, I am tempted to take up Standard Eustacian, although I am aware of Law 72B1. A recent partner would have benefited from being silenced, and I would not have gone for 1100!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...