Opening lead and law 47E1

[blackshoe]

Indeed that is what I am looking for. I am playing in a very inbred culture and "judgement" is nearly a synonym of "loyalty"...

 

As I am also a TD: Can I always apply 47E1 in favor of the defendents IF 47E1 CAN BE applied? This would be "objective", albeit sometimes unfair. I have no problem with unfair as these situations are always gray but you have to make it black and white. I do not trust myself so I rule objectively instead of "fairly".

I don't know how you're defining "unfair", but I get a sense your definition is different from mine. To me, "unfair" in the context of a game means "not according to the rules". If the rules say that a player gets to retract a lead or play, then it is not unfair to let him do it. In fact, it's the other way 'round - it's unfair not to let him do it.

 

If Law 47E1 applies, then the director should apply it. To do otherwise I would call unfair — and as a director I would consider it unethical to do otherwise deliberately, even if some player(s) would say "that's not fair!"

[RSliwinski]

The minute 5 of the meeting of the WBF Laws Committee held in Philadelphia PA, 8th October 2010 is relevant to the problem.

5. Asked to determine who should respond to the question “Is it my opening lead?” (see Law 20C1), the committee observed that all players at the table are responsible for ensuring that a correct reply is given. The Director may deem silence when a reply is made to constitute assent. Regulations may provide for situations when playing with screens.

[barmar]

I don't know how you're defining "unfair", but I get a sense your definition is different from mine. To me, "unfair" in the context of a game means "not according to the rules".

That's definition #1 in my dictionary.

 

#2 is "just or appropriate in the circumstances". In the context of a game, the rules themselves can be unfair by this definition, e.g. if the penalty for a minor infraction is overly severe. That's what people usually mean when they consider not enforcing the rules to be more "fair".

[blackshoe]

#2 is "just or appropriate in the circumstances". In the context of a game, the rules themselves can be unfair by this definition, e.g. if the penalty for a minor infraction is overly severe. That's what people usually mean when they consider not enforcing the rules to be more "fair".

Maybe so, but there is

Law 81B2: The Director applies and is bound by these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.

Given that law, I think a director cannot ethically fail to enforce the rules, even if he thinks they are "unfair".

[szgyula]

That's definition #1 in my dictionary.

 

#2 is "just or appropriate in the circumstances". In the context of a game, the rules themselves can be unfair by this definition, e.g. if the penalty for a minor infraction is overly severe. That's what people usually mean when they consider not enforcing the rules to be more "fair".

 

You can make a 7♠ contract without the ace -- you just need a revoke committed by the opponents. That is fair#1 but it is unfair#2.

 

In the actual 47E1 case there is some unfairness#2. An experienced and cunning player would always ask "is it my lead?" a newbie will not. That would give the experienced plazer a fair#1 but unfair#2 advantage.

 

Analogy: A friend of mine, visiting Japan won a sumo game. He read the rules carefully and found that "harite" (slapping the opponent's face with an open hand) is legal. His opponent was not aware of this and was so shocked that he lost in the end. Was this a fair victory? Yes and no.

 

One more thought: where "judgement"is involved, you can not possibly avoid being subjective. Read the topics here and you will see it often. A TD will be creative against an SB. This is unfair but fair in the long run.