SB's Revenge

[chrism]

20F1 does not preclude SB's partner from all questions during the clarification period, merely from "supplementary" ones. While the term is not defined in the Laws, normal usage would be follow-on questions from the original question or its answer. So partner is still allowed, for example, to ask about the normal minimum length for the 1S opening, whether opener's strength is limited, whether RR had other game forcing raises available ... The fact that SB "knew" that his partner would have no such questions (and that declarer would have no questions either) does not condone his shocking failure to follow correct procedure. He gets the standard PP (which would usually be a quarter of a board in the ACBL, but I understand is typically smaller in English clubs, inter alia). And because his forestalling of ChCh's clarification, depriving ChCh of his opportunity to ask questions, was the direct cause of any purported damage, he gets no redress on the board. RR gets a warning (for what good it will do) for violating the "should" - neither "shall" nor "must" - of 20F1.

[lamford]

20F1 does not preclude SB's partner from all questions during the clarification period, merely from "supplementary" ones. While the term is not defined in the Laws, normal usage would be follow-on questions from the original question or its answer. So partner is still allowed, for example, to ask about the normal minimum length for the 1S opening, whether opener's strength is limited, whether RR had other game forcing raises available ... The fact that SB "knew" that his partner would have no such questions (and that declarer would have no questions either) does not condone his shocking failure to follow correct procedure. He gets the standard PP (which would usually be a quarter of a board in the ACBL, but I understand is typically smaller in English clubs, inter alia). And because his forestalling of ChCh's clarification, depriving ChCh of his opportunity to ask questions, was the direct cause of any purported damage, he gets no redress on the board. RR gets a warning (for what good it will do) for violating the "should" - neither "shall" nor "must" - of 20F1.

Absolute nonsense. There is nothing in the Law which requires SB to say "any questions?". Merely that his partner may ask any questions before the opening lead is faced. In this case, his partner had a full ten seconds while SB asked a question and RR answered. There is no time specified as necessary to allow partner to ask any questions whether supplementary or not, and ten seconds is completely normal, probably longer than average after a simple auction.

 

And supplementary is defined as "completing or enhancing something", so any additional question by MM, East, about the auction would qualify. And I suggest you re-read the OP. SB did not forestall ChCh's clarification. He led "before ChCh could begin to say "Specifically"."

 

SB does often get PP's for addressing other players and the TD rudely (which he accepts), but here he did not do that. Giving him a PP when he has done nothing wrong would lead to a solicitor's letter seeking damages. The club is very careful to always behave correctly.

[lamford]

No, but most people at my club do lead face down and leave it for a short time anyway.

As does SB, and as he did here, while asking the question and receiving an answer. This took a "short time" - about ten seconds.

[pescetom]

A splinter can also be a void, not necessarily a singleton. This is an attempt to get redress for his own mistake - a lead in trumps is called for in this situation

A singleton is six times more likely than a void, so it is not clear to me that a trump lead is called for when opponents bid an ambiguous splinter.

[Cyberyeti]

As does SB, and as he did here, while asking the question and receiving an answer. This took a "short time" - about ten seconds.

 

This is VERY unusual, most people ask their question BEFORE leading face down, the implication is that he was leading that card regardless of the answer which undermines his argument

[lamford]

This is VERY unusual, most people ask their question BEFORE leading face down, the implication is that he was leading that card regardless of the answer which undermines his argument

I was not present, so I cannot tell the exact chronology of events, and I should not have speculated on them. But I agree, it is very likely that SB first asked the question, then received the answer, then led face down and face up in one movement, or did not lead face down at all. In any case, you can only adjust for damage so even if he did not lead face down, there is no damage to the declarer, who had no questions anyway, and if that deprived MM of any non-supplementary questions that could not possibly damage declarer. The TD report (he arrived after dummy was faced) makes no mention of a face down lead and he did not ask whether one occurred nor is one stated in the OP. SB normally leads face down.

[lamford]

A singleton is six times more likely than a void, so it is not clear to me that a trump lead is called for when opponents bid an ambiguous splinter.

I agree. But RR did not bid an "ambiguous splinter". Systemically 4♣ showed a void, which makes a trump lead more likely to be necessary. Change one of North's small red cards to a singleton club, and all leads beat it but the queen of spades will be a disaster if partner has a singleton king!

 

And I have now been asked to sit on the AC, so cannot comment further on this thread.

[chrism]

So would you argue that if OL asks questions, partner is precluded from asking any questions before the lead is faced, since all such questions would be supplementary? While the Laws certainly frequently say something other than their apparent intent, it certainly does not seem to me that the intent of the reference to 20F1 is to defer all questions by partner under these circumstances.

 

As for the original case, if partner had a full ten seconds to ask a question then indeed SB had selected a lead prior to asking, which as Cyberyeti notes undermines his argument. If not, then SB wilfully ended the clarification period prematurely by facing his lead too quickly. And I reserve my right to invent supplementary facts not in evidence as needed to support my argument.

[pescetom]

How could he possibly have anticipated that ChCh and RR would have agreed that 3NT was "any splinter"?

 

If I may be conceded a minor OT now that the issue has been thrashed, does anyone see virtue in playing 3NT as any singleton and 4m as a known void rather than 3NT as any void and 4m as a known singleton? I play it the second way round and see that as more logical (most of the time it is a singleton hence there is no ambiguity, also it seems more realistic to interrogate for a void than for a singleton although that rarely happens anyway).

[lamford]

If I may be conceded a minor OT now that the issue has been thrashed, does anyone see virtue in playing 3NT as any singleton and 4m as a known void rather than 3NT as any void and 4m as a known singleton? I play it the second way round and see that as more logical (most of the time it is a singleton hence there is no ambiguity, also it seems more realistic to interrogate for a void than for a singleton although that rarely happens anyway).

I am happy to comment on that, as it does not affect the ruling. One of my better partners plays the 4 level bids as a void, and 3NT as a singleton. When the opener is not interested in slam, he does not tip off the opponent on lead which singleton it is, which is more frequent than a void, as you say. In RR's case, it is far better to use 3NT as any singleton, as he will forget it, as we see here.

 

The other point is that 3NT as any singleton makes it much more awkward for the next player to make a lead-directing double, maybe asking for the suit below the singleton!

[lamford]

So would you argue that if OL asks questions, partner is precluded from asking any questions before the lead is faced, since all such questions would be supplementary? While the Laws certainly frequently say something other than their apparent intent, it certainly does not seem to me that the intent of the reference to 20F1 is to defer all questions by partner under these circumstances.

 

As for the original case, if partner had a full ten seconds to ask a question then indeed SB had selected a lead prior to asking, which as Cyberyeti notes undermines his argument. If not, then SB wilfully ended the clarification period prematurely by facing his lead too quickly. And I reserve my right to invent supplementary facts not in evidence as needed to support my argument.

"And I have now been asked to sit on the AC, so cannot comment further on this thread."

[blackshoe]

The reason why the opening lead shall be made face down is not (as many players believe) to avoid an opening lead from the wrong defender, but to give partner the opportunity to ask about the auction during the clarification period.

Partner and declarer.

 

Therefore it is incorrect for (presumed) Declarer (or Dummy) to say "Yes, it is your lead" (or words to that effect).

If the correct opening leader asks "is it my lead?" the correct answer is "Yes, it is your lead".

 

It is the other defender who shall say "Yes, you may face your lead" (or words to that effect), implying "I have no (more) questions".

No. Declarer is also supposed to be involved in this action. For the other defender to do as you suggest is for him to preempt the declarer's right to ask questions before the lead is faced. The other defender can say "I have no (more) questions" explicitly, at which point his partner should be looking to declarer to say the same thing. He won't, of course, but that doesn't mean it's correct for him to just face the lead without any input from declarer.

[pran]

Are we overlooking

After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction.

At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings.

Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

So (as far as can see) the only information no longer available to Declarer is a repetition of the auction. He may name any specific call made by a defender during the auction and request an explanation of that call.

:o

[blackshoe]

Are we overlooking

 

So (as far as can see) the only information no longer available to Declarer is a repetition of the auction. He may name any specific call made by a defender during the auction and request an explanation of that call.

:o

Or he could ask for an explanation of the entire auction.

[sanst]

He intends to appeal to the National Authority and then go all the way to the CAS if necessary!

For a high court judge he is badly informed. You can’t go to the CAS in a case like this. You can only ask for arbitration about a decision by an international sports union like the WBF.

[pran]

Are we overlooking

After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction.

At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings.

Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

So (as far as can see) the only information no longer available to Declarer is a repetition of the auction. He may name any specific call made by a defender during the auction and request an explanation of that call.

:o

Or he could ask for an explanation of the entire auction.

I tend to agree with you, but literally Law 20F2 appears to only allow defenders the right to have the entire auction explained after the rectification period.

Declarer may only ask for explanation of a defenders call. (Notice the singular form of 'call')

[lamford]

For a high court judge he is badly informed. You cant go to the CAS in a case like this. You can only ask for arbitration about a decision by an international sports union like the WBF.

He is entitled to go to the CAS if his appeal to the National Authority - the EBU - fails. I suggest that you would be less badly informed if you googled the appeal by Fantoni and Nunes to the CAS.

 

www.eurobridge.org/2018/01/10/4798

 

Judge: I've listened to you for an hour and I'm none the wiser.

[FE] Smith: None the wiser, perhaps, my lord but certainly better informed.

[pescetom]

He is entitled to go to the CAS if his appeal to the National Authority - the EBU - fails. I suggest that you would be less badly informed if you googled the appeal by Fantoni and Nunes to the CAS.

 

The Fantoni/Nunes appeal to CAS was against a decision of the EBL (Zone 1 of the WBF), not against a decision of the National Authority (FIGB).

F/N also took the related FIGB decision to the Regional Arbitration Court (a sort of High Court) in Italy - not sure if some equivalent of that is possible in England, SB should know.

[blackshoe]

I tend to agree with you, but literally Law 20F2 appears to only allow defenders the right to have the entire auction explained after the rectification period. Declarer may only ask for explanation of a defenders call. (Notice the singular form of 'call')

Good point, but nothing stops the declarer from asking individually for an explanation of each and every call made by the opponents. Assuming he can remember them all. B-)

[sanst]

He is entitled to go to the CAS if his appeal to the National Authority - the EBU - fails. I suggest that you would be less badly informed if you googled the appeal by Fantoni and Nunes to the CAS.

 

www.eurobridge.org/2018/01/10/4798

 

Judge: I've listened to you for an hour and I'm none the wiser.

[FE] Smith: None the wiser, perhaps, my lord but certainly better informed.

The Regulating Authority in this case is the EBU and it’s decision is final (Law 93C2). Fantoni Nunes went to the CAS about a decision by the EBL and ABCL, not the Italian Federation. Besides, that had nothing to do with a director’s decision, but was about their ban and the prohibition to pair after the lapse of that ban.

[pran]

I tend to agree with you, but literally Law 20F2 appears to only allow defenders the right to have the entire auction explained after the rectification period.

Declarer may only ask for explanation of a defenders call. (Notice the singular form of 'call')

 

Good point, but nothing stops the declarer from asking individually for an explanation of each and every call made by the opponents. Assuming he can remember them all. B-)

 

Precisely ! :P

[lamford]

The Appeal was heard during the Gold Cup Semi-Finals and I acted as a scribe only, feeling that I had discussed the hand too much. The expert panel did not agree that SB would have led the queen of spades with correct information, as this would save a guess when partner had Ax and would be disastrous if partner had a singleton king. And a low spade might well gain if partner had Jx. However they DID agree that RR's response was MI and that SB did not infract by leading immediately after it as he had no reason to suspect a correction from the right respondent.

 

However, the panel did agree that SB would probably have led a low spade half the time with the correct information and declarer's road to success was then unlikely. After winning the trump lead, he would have to play back a trump at trick two and when West switched to a heart, dummy would play low. East would win and play the queen of clubs. Declarer would duck in hand, ruffing in dummy, and then cross to the queen of hearts and lead a low diamond from the Kx towards dummy!! West is caught in a Morton's Fork and cannot defeat the contract. However, there were many pitfalls along the route here for declarer, and this path was the only winning one. The AC finally decided that the adjusted score would be 50% of 4S= and 50% of 4S-1, erring in favour of the non-offenders.

 

SB was impressed with this analysis, and could not argue that the expert panel were not his peers on this occasion, and he has accepted the AC decision as has North-South. The AC noted the incorrect procedures by RR, ChCh and possible SB in probably not leading face down, but did not regard them as sufficient to merit PPs.

 

And the AC agreed the above text, and that I am not allowed to discuss their decision.

[Zelandakh]

I think this is one of your weaker efforts Paul. There are so many reasons to rule against SB here that I cannot imagine any reputable TD thinking otherwise. There are not only the procedural points raised by CY et al but also the rather practical point that while the theoretical agreement is that it shows a void, the actual partnership agreement in practice is that it is a normal 0 or 1 splinter. I think you would have been far better served to have told the story the other way round, with RR having (incorrectly) bid 4♣ with a singleton and SB getting in the lead before ChCh could add the part about RR always forgetting after providing the correct explanation with a subsequent claim by SB of a CPU.

[lamford]

I think this is one of your weaker efforts Paul. There are so many reasons to rule against SB here that I cannot imagine any reputable TD thinking otherwise. There are not only the procedural points raised by CY et al but also the rather practical point that while the theoretical agreement is that it shows a void, the actual partnership agreement in practice is that it is a normal 0 or 1 splinter. I think you would have been far better served to have told the story the other way round, with RR having (incorrectly) bid 4♣ with a singleton and SB getting in the lead before ChCh could add the part about RR always forgetting after providing the correct explanation with a subsequent claim by SB of a CPU.

The AC comments:

a) SB stated that Law 41A and 41B do not require ANY interval between the face-down opening lead and the facing of the opening lead, and it is NOT an infraction to lead face down and then face up in one movement, as he often does. It cannot benefit the leader, as any question by his partner can only benefit the defenders, and can be asked after dummy is viewed. The leader cannot change the opening lead (except on the instruction of the TD hence the infraction by ChCh in not calling him), so there is no purpose to any interval. Questions can still be asked by the declarer after dummy has been faced, so the declarer can never be damaged by the lack of an interval.

b) SB had, prior to the hand, already reasearched trump leads when dummy has a void in a presumed nine-card fit in comparison with trump leads when dummy had a singleton which is why he asked the question. The former worked (where anything worked) 41% of the time and the latter only 17% of the time in his survey of 3,176 hands on Bridgebase. He brought all this analysis to the AC.

c) The AC polled extensively with the correct information. Nobody led the queen of spades, so that (self-serving) claim by SB was rejected. However, 4 of the 10 polled led a small trump and 6 led a heart anyway. The AC did not consider it relevant what pollees would have done with the incorrect information. None of those polled found the winning line of play after the low trump lead.

d) The NS convention card was presented: 4C/4D/4H were shown as voids, and 3NT as any SPL. RR often plays three weak twos but forgets which three suits. If he announces 2C as "weak" this would still be MI, even though he often forgets. The theoretical and actual agreement was found by OO to be as per the CC.

e) The only clear infractions were by RR and ChCh, the former in answering when he should have not done so, and the latter in not calling the TD.

 

For what it is worth, I completely and unequivocally agree with the AC decision. They did a good job, and there was a "clear and obvious error" by OO who ruled no adjustment.

[Cascade]

Just because the SB did not have to call the TD because the explanation came from the wrong player does not mean that that was not an infraction. It was an infraction for RR to explain. After that infraction SB loses some of his rights to rectification under Law 11A.