A Sticking Point

[blackshoe]

Seems to me there's a danger of setting a precedent that will lead to use of 23 when it's not really appropriate.

[lamford]

Seems to me there's a danger of setting a precedent that will lead to use of 23 when it's not really appropriate.

I think, and RMB1 also thinks I believe, that there has to be a real possibility that someone could be aware that their infraction would benefit their side for a Law 23 adjustment to be appropriate. It seems to me that this applies here, whether or not North's remark was accidental.

[Vampyr]

I think, and RMB1 also thinks I believe, that there has to be a real possibility that someone could be aware that their infraction would benefit their side for a Law 23 adjustment to be appropriate. It seems to me that this applies here, whether or not North's remark was accidental.

 

I suppose "accidental" means North was sort of thinking out loud and "deliberate" means his intention was to cheat? It is good that L23 does not require us to distinguish.

 

Anyway, we are led to the solution that South is allowed to change his call, but then it gets changed back under L23. This is a fair solution, but it doesn't, somehow, make sense. It would have been easier not to allow the change in the first place, but I am sure that Gordon is correct about the lawmakers' intentions. The reason is not clear, apart from the desire to achieve some sort of "normal bridge result" after that ship has long since sailed.

 

I think that the "equity-producing" PP is fairest if it is legal. This way the opponents do not gain from the mispull, and the OS don't gain from the remark. Of course the director needs to be very sure that it is indeed a mispull.

[Vampyr]

You are correct that I had not read carefully enough and I was talking about Law 25A - sorry. Nevertheless the point remains that there is some evidence that none of these outcomes were accidental or unintended in the law change. One possible answer to your final question is to fine a player whenever they ask a question about a call that turns out not to have been unintended.

 

Then wouldn't all such calls suddenly become unintended?

[Vampyr]

I have no idea on how the discussion went by in North London.

 

Here it is. You did participate in the discussion.

[pran]

Here it is. You did participate in the discussion.

Yes, I found it ("North London" made me unaware that it took place on this forum)

 

And I found that I wrote:

 

If declarer had requested a club lead from West then East would have picked up his Ace, and the fact that East holds this card and desired to lead it would have been UI to West. In that case the only normal lead from West would probably have been the ♣King.

 

However, the important question now is whether a club lead is still a normal lead and not as such suggested by the UI that West wanted to lead a club or the fact that East has this penalty card. I think we must agree that it is.

 

But as East in this situation must follow suit with his Ace (a fact that is AI to West), West is no longer under any obligation to lead his King once he has selected to lead a Club. West is free to lead any of his clubs because he "knows" (legally) that East must follow suit with his Ace.

 

It appears to me that I was of the same opinion then as I am now.

(The only difference is that now I referred to Ton as the source of my opinion.)

[lamford]

But as East in this situation must follow suit with his Ace (a fact that is AI to West), West is no longer under any obligation to lead his King once he has selected to lead a Club. West is free to lead any of his clubs because he "knows" (legally) that East must follow suit with his Ace.

 

It appears to me that I was of the same opinion then as I am now.

(The only difference is that now I referred to Ton as the source of my opinion.)

I and others disagree with you. The WBFLC minute states that you can lead (or play) low from KQJx in such a situation. You can, but if it damages the non-offending side then the TD adjusts under Law 50E3.

 

The minute continues:

The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.

So there is a catch-all that if you gain from leading low, the TD adjusts.

[gordontd]

Then wouldn't all such calls suddenly become unintended?

You have a pretty poor opinion of other players' honesty! Directors already have to determine whether or not they accept that a call was "unintended" within the meaning of the Law, and one of the most important parts of that is ensuring that the player understands the distinction. Why would this be any different?

[Vampyr]

You have a pretty poor opinion of other players' honesty! Directors already have to determine whether or not they accept that a call was "unintended" within the meaning of the Law, and one of the most important parts of that is ensuring that the player understands the distinction. Why would this be any different?

 

It wouldn't really, but the idea that commenting is permitted if the call turns out to be unintended is pretty whack.

[lamford]

You have a pretty poor opinion of other players' honesty! Directors already have to determine whether or not they accept that a call was "unintended" within the meaning of the Law, and one of the most important parts of that is ensuring that the player understands the distinction. Why would this be any different?

That opinion might have been caused by some pretty poor alleged behaviour by a number of high-profile top players lately.

[VixTD]

I think that the "equity-producing" PP is fairest if it is legal. This way the opponents do not gain from the mispull, and the OS don't gain from the remark. Of course the director needs to be very sure that it is indeed a mispull.

I don't know what you mean by "equity-producing PP". From your previous comments you seem to understand that issuing a PP to the offenders would change the offenders' score only - that of the non-offenders would remain at -1430, even if you fined the offenders 1530 points (or rather, however many VPs such a fine would have achieved). That's hardly an equitable outcome.

 

I also agree with Lamford.

[pran]

I and others disagree with you. The WBFLC minute states that you can lead (or play) low from KQJx in such a situation. You can, but if it damages the non-offending side then the TD adjusts under Law 50E3.

 

The minute continues:

The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.

So there is a catch-all that if you gain from leading low, the TD adjusts.

And what if the situation is different (and hypothetical): I suspect a possible endplay and play the King in order to keep the low for a later exit in order to avoid the endplay? Can the non-offending side now claim damage because I "knew" that partner would win the trick anyway, and from my play understood how to continue with a killing defense?

[Vampyr]

I don't know what you mean by "equity-producing PP".

 

I meant a PP that would give the offenders the score they should have had.

[Vampyr]

And what if the situation is different (and hypothetical): I suspect a possible endplay and play the King in order to keep the low for a later exit in order to avoid the endplay? Can the non-offending side now claim damage because I "knew" that partner would win the trick anyway, and from my play understood how to continue with a killing defense?

 

You are still gaining from the sight of partner's card. Of course the NOS are damaged.

[blackshoe]

Anyway, we are led to the solution that South is allowed to change his call, but then it gets changed back under L23. This is a fair solution, but it doesn't, somehow, make sense. It would have been easier not to allow the change in the first place, but I am sure that Gordon is correct about the lawmakers' intentions. The reason is not clear, apart from the desire to achieve some sort of "normal bridge result" after that ship has long since sailed.

 

I think that the "equity-producing" PP is fairest if it is legal. This way the opponents do not gain from the mispull, and the OS don't gain from the remark. Of course the director needs to be very sure that it is indeed a mispull.

It doesn't make sense to me either.

 

I think I said upthread that the TD's power to award a PP is not limited as to size, but that the penalty is for violations of correct procedure. Law 90 is not a tool for restoring equity.

[Vampyr]

It doesn't make sense to me either.

 

I think I said upthread that the TD's power to award a PP is not limited as to size, but that the penalty is for violations of correct procedure. Law 90 is not a tool for restoring equity.

 

Yes, obviously. But allowing the change of call and them removing it with L23 seems perverse. Maybe there is something better, but I don't know what.

[blackshoe]

Yes, obviously. But allowing the change of call and them removing it with L23 seems perverse. Maybe there is something better, but I don't know what.

I don't either, and I agree with you on using Law 23 here.

[Lanor Fow]

To my mind the footnote would be pointless if we were expected to adjust if the replacement was better than not replacing. The argument that they might not have noticed would be applicable every time.

 

I might give a PP, I wouldn't give an adjusted score.

[lamford]

To my mind the footnote would be pointless if we were expected to adjust if the replacement was better than not replacing.

Not so. The footnote clarifies that you are allowed to make a replacement call if partner's alert or announcement tells you that you have mispulled, and this is not treated as UI. However, nothing in the footnote suggests that partner can make a remark to wake you up. That is still treated just like any other remark which damages the non-offenders. Failing to adjust is an error. I would adjust and just give a warning for the remark.

[Lanor Fow]

What is the point of the footnote then, if we are always going to adjust anyway if it works out? Surely if that was the meaning, the footnote would specifically exclude infractions when allowing the change.

[weejonnie]

It's not clear - but I feel there is (or should be) a distinction between what may be regarded as 'normal bridge' (alerts / announcements) and unusual UI.

 

Whether that is the intention of the footnote, I don't know - it is very wide ranging.

 

Anyway I'll wait to see what the concensus is.

[RSliwinski]

Not so. The footnote clarifies that you are allowed to make a replacement call if partner's alert or announcement tells you that you have mispulled, and this is not treated as UI. However, nothing in the footnote suggests that partner can make a remark to wake you up. That is still treated just like any other remark which damages the non-offenders. Failing to adjust is an error. I would just and just give a warning for the remark.

Strange reading of the law.

What the footnote to 25A says is “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.”  There is no condition that the way he become aware is not by UI. Quite contrary. Law 25A is more specific than law 16 so it takes precedence over it. Of course partner's remark is illegal and should result in issuing a PP.

[lamford]

Strange reading of the law.

What the footnote to 25A says is “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.” There is no condition that the way he become aware is not by UI. Quite contrary. Law 25A is more specific than law 16 so it takes precedence over it. Of course partner's remark is illegal and should result in issuing a PP.

Not strange. It is accepted by all that the player is allowed to replace the unintended call. The adjustment is quite separate and is for the remark leading to damage to the non-offenders.

 

12B. Objectives of Score Adjustment

1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

 

The current opinion of the EBU is that for a score adjustment, there is also a requirement that the offender could [they, in practice, insert "reasonably" here] have been aware that the irregularity could well damage the non-offending side. That is clearly the case here.

[pran]

Not strange. It is accepted by all that the player is allowed to replace the unintended call. The adjustment is quite separate and is for the remark leading to damage to the non-offenders.

[...]

 

There is one single very important question to consider here: "What is the damage from the remark?"

 

Once we accept a Law 25A change of a call we admit that the replaced call was never intended and shall be treated to never having been made. No information of any kind (relevant for the auction or play) exists.

 

Are the "non-offending side" damaged because they did not receive the favourable result had the "offending side" been stuck with the unintended call?

 

I shall not be happy with an understanding that an unintended call legally replaced by the intended call under Law 25 shall still be a basis for calculating damage when the offender became aware of his mistake under questionable circumstances.

[lamford]

I shall not be happy with an understanding that an unintended call legally replaced by the intended call under Law 25 shall still be a basis for calculating damage when the offender became aware of his mistake under questionable circumstances.

I am even less happy with an understanding that an unintended call legally replaced by the intended call under Law 25 shall not be a basis for calculating damage when the offender became aware of his mistake under questionable circumstances.