SB's Revenge

[blackshoe]

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.

SB says a lot of things. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. Almost always he's boorish, which gets annoying. Anyway he's wrong about "there is no purpose to any interval". Perhaps his claim is "the lawmakers screwed up, because we don't need a Clarification Period". Sure sounds like it, anyway. If so, he should take it up with them. Lots of things can and should happen during the Clarification Period, not just opening leader's partner asking questions.

[lamford]

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.

I do not agree that SB had an obligation to call the TD when the wrong person answered. The Laws do not say that and if that happened all the time at our club, then the TD would be called three or four times a round, and we could not have playing TDs.

[lamford]

SB says a lot of things. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. Almost always he's boorish, which gets annoying. Anyway he's wrong about "there is no purpose to any interval". Perhaps his claim is "the lawmakers screwed up, because we don't need a Clarification Period". Sure sounds like it, anyway. If so, he should take it up with them. Lots of things can and should happen during the Clarification Period, not just opening leader's partner asking questions.

SB's claim is that if the clarification period had to be a minimum time - say ten seconds - then the Lawmakers (or the RA) would have so regulated. He claims that a clarification period of 0.1 seconds, the time taken to lead face down and face up simultaneously complies completely with Laws 41A and 41B. The Lawmakers presumably didn't specify a minimum period because they were happy with a clarification period of a millisecond, as here, after the auction 1NT-(P)-3NT-All Pass.

 

I was a non-playing director recently at an Instant Matchpoint Event which I ran, and monitored the length of the clarification period on such a board (1NT-3NT). It was less than a second on average,

[sanst]

I think that it’s better not to bring in characters like SB and RR, however funny they are, in describing real life events. Just give the facts, because it’s almost impossible to ignore the bias you have created about them.

Call me thick, but I think that the AC took the wrong decision. It’s true that the Laws and local regulations may not stipulate a minimum for the clarification period, but if you ask a question but don’t take your time to consider the answer, you give the impression that the answer is unimportant for your lead. Self inflicted damage, I would decide. Hopefully the AC was not aware of the threat to go all the way in protesting by someone with a high social standing and the money to do just that.

[PeterAlan]

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.

Whilst declarer can ask questions after the opening lead is faced and dummy displayed, nevertheless Law 41B says:

 

Before the opening lead is faced, ... the presumed declarer ... may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3).

Note in particular the use of "Before". Whilst it is unusual in club bridge for a declarer to ask questions before the lead is faced and dummy tabled, he / she has that right which should not be pre-empted.

 

It is also possible for a putative defender to realise that a prior explanation of his / hers was "erroneous or incomplete" [Law 20F4(a)] in which case he /she "must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation." Such a realisation might be triggered by a question from the putative declarer whilst the opening lead is still face-down and thus before the end of the Clarification Period.

 

I submit that insta-facing of the opening lead does not permit these proper processes, and is therefore indeed an infraction as a violation of correct procedure [Law 74A3].

[blackshoe]

Pfui. SB is, as usual, full of it.

[weejonnie]

Whilst declarer can ask questions after the opening lead is faced and dummy displayed, nevertheless Law 41B says:

 

 

Note in particular the use of "Before". Whilst it is unusual in club bridge for a declarer to ask questions before the lead is faced and dummy tabled, he / she has that right which should not be pre-empted.

 

It is also possible for a putative defender to realise that a prior explanation of his / hers was "erroneous or incomplete" [Law 20F4(a)] in which case he /she "must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation." Such a realisation might be triggered by a question from the putative declarer whilst the opening lead is still face-down and thus before the end of the Clarification Period.

 

I submit that insta-facing of the opening lead does not permit these proper processes, and is therefore indeed an infraction as a violation of correct procedure [Law 74A3].

I am not sure that is the case per se - RAs can for instance insist the opening lead is made face up. Whilst I am 100% in favour of there being time for any player to seek clarification, I don't think there is a legal requirement under the definition of the clarification period, for there to be any time. I might be able to get a pp under zero tolerance/ BB@B under law 74a

 

A. Proper Attitude

1. A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.

2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause

annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of

the game.

3. Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.

 

One problem is that the declaring side can no longer refer to their convention card once the opening lead is faced. (Law 40B2). This means that if they suspect they have given a misexplanation they cannot check on it. In such circumstances, I am tempted to award a split score (especially if it seems to me that the opponents have taken the action to prevent declarer from checking the auction as a 'gamble'). I suppose I could even rule that the action of the NOS in preventing the OS from advising them of the misexplanation is their own rectifiction Law 10B.

[pescetom]

One problem is that the declaring side can no longer refer to their convention card once the opening lead is faced. (Law 40B2). This means that if they suspect they have given a misexplanation they cannot check on it.

Is there any reason the declaring side should not say "I suspect our explanation was incorrect here, please can you check on our convention card?"

[barmar]

If there can be no delay between leading face down and facing it, what makes the opening lead any different from any other lead? And what's the point of requiring the face-down lead in the first place?

 

The Laws may not stipulate a specific amount of delay, but it's implied that there should be some delay to allow for things like presumed delcarer asking questions, catching a potential lead out of turn, etc.

[pran]

If there can be no delay between leading face down and facing it, what makes the opening lead any different from any other lead? And what's the point of requiring the face-down lead in the first place?

 

The Laws may not stipulate a specific amount of delay, but it's implied that there should be some delay to allow for things like presumed delcarer asking questions, catching a potential lead out of turn, etc.

I believe most of us in Norway consider a faced opening lead before the leader has received an OK from his partner (meaning 'I have no questions') to be an irregularity although not often penalized.

 

If the laws were to establish correct procedure in detail I would suggest something like:

1: After the final Pass presumed opening leader asks whatever questions he might have (Law 20F2)

2: He then selects his opening lead and places this face down on the table in front of him.

3: His partner (and presumed declarer) now ask whatever questions they might have (Law 40B)

4: When opening leader's partner has no more questions to ask he so indicates by allowing opening leader to face his opening lead.

[pescetom]

If there can be no delay between leading face down and facing it, what makes the opening lead any different from any other lead? And what's the point of requiring the face-down lead in the first place?

 

The Laws may not stipulate a specific amount of delay, but it's implied that there should be some delay to allow for things like presumed delcarer asking questions, catching a potential lead out of turn, etc.

 

If the RA may specify that opening leads be made face up, then presumably the lawmakers do not think that the face down requirement is essential.

 

And then as often it seems written to confuse, with the clarification period that follows the auction but is part of the auction period and is only really defined in a law about the play period B-)

[barmar]

If the RA may specify that opening leads be made face up, then presumably the lawmakers do not think that the face down requirement is essential.

I'm not really sure why that provision is in there. I think it may be for special conditions, such as online bridge where the concept of face-down doesn't really exist (similarly, the exception regarding consulting your own CC is typically only exercised for special types of games, such as individuals, beginner games, or games with a prescribed CC). I wonder if there's some significance to this exception being in a footnote -- all other RA elections are in the main text of the relevant laws.

[lamford]

The Laws may not stipulate a specific amount of delay, but it's implied that there should be some delay to allow for things like presumed declarer asking questions, catching a potential lead out of turn, etc.

Unlike Boris Johnson, the declarer does not benefit at all from a delay, in that he is still able to ask any questions. It is implied by the lack of any delay being mentioned in the Laws that this is entirely at the discretion of the leader.

 

"I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating or not stating things for a reason" - Barmar

[lamford]

if you ask a question but don’t take your time to consider the answer, you give the impression that the answer is unimportant for your lead

Not so. The AC thought that the fact that SB asked the question and led immediately when he received his expected answer of "splinter" meant that he would have probably stopped and reconsidered his intended lead if he had received a different answer. And surely it does not matter who the dramatis personae are? As a fair TD you will treat every player equally, won't you?

[lamford]

I submit that insta-facing of the opening lead does not permit these proper processes, and is therefore indeed an infraction as a violation of correct procedure [Law 74A3].

Except that it was not insta-facing of the opening lead. It was done after a question and answer, on the completely normal assumption that there were no more questions, and that the answer was correct. The ONLY infractors here were RR and ChCh. In fact the normal total time to lead after this auction would be quite a bit less than the time taken here, so your use of "insta-facing", with respect, is complete drivel and seems an attempt to target SB out of pre-conceived animosity, which appears to be a shared bias from other posters.

[barmar]

"I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating or not stating things for a reason" - Barmar

So what is the reason for making the face-down lead in the first place, if it can be faced immediately?

[lamford]

So what is the reason for making the face-down lead in the first place, if it can be faced immediately?

The leader CAN wait to see if his partner has any questions if he wishes. But is not obliged to do so.

[PeterAlan]

Except that it was not insta-facing of the opening lead. It was done after a question and answer, on the completely normal assumption that there were no more questions, and that the answer was correct. The ONLY infractors here were RR and ChCh. In fact the normal total time to lead after this auction would be quite a bit less than the time taken here, so your use of "insta-facing", with respect, is complete drivel and an attempt to target SB out of pre-conceived animosity, which appears to be a shared bias from other posters.

Before his opening lead, SB, West, asked about the alerted 4♣ bid and RR, North, replied "Splinter". ChCh, South, started to correct it to "Specifically... However, SB had, quick as a flash, tabled the three of hearts before ChCh could begin to say "Specifically"...

... and also before CC could have exercised his right to ask his own questions. Such action qualifies as "insta-facing" in my book.

 

By the way, you will see (if you read it more carefully) that my earlier post related solely to how certain actions might be viewed as relating to the laws, and did not include any reference to any persons, fictional or otherwise; I find it difficult to see how you find any animus to any such person in what I said.

[pran]

So what is the reason for making the face-down lead in the first place, if it can be faced immediately?

If RHO asks any question before LHO has selected his opening lead RHO is then automatically deemed to having given LHO UI which could be relevant for selecting the opening lead.

 

That is the fundamental reason for requiring the opening lead to be made face-down and only turned face-up after RHO has finished his questions (if any).

[ahydra]

The leader CAN wait to see if his partner has any questions if he wishes. But is not obliged to do so.

 

Before the opening lead is faced, the leader’s partner and the presumed declarer (but not the presumed dummy) each may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call ...

 

The wording of Law 41B would suggest that (only) the leader's partner and the presumed declarer can decide if they want a review of the auction / an explanation of a call, or if they are happy to commence the play period. This Law does not make sense if - and indeed there is nothing in the Laws suggesting that this is the case - opening leader can deny them this right. Only once both the aforementioned players are happy to begin the play period should the opening lead be faced.

 

ahydra

[weejonnie]

The wording of Law 41B would suggest that (only) the leader's partner and the presumed declarer can decide if they want a review of the auction / an explanation of a call, or if they are happy to commence the play period. This Law does not make sense if - and indeed there is nothing in the Laws suggesting that this is the case - opening leader can deny them this right. Only once both the aforementioned players are happy to begin the play period should the opening lead be faced.

 

ahydra

I agree with you there, but Law 41B extends the right to a review until you have played your first card (from dummy if declarer), so the opening leader cannot deny either player the right (whether intentionally or otherwise) to a review (with the correct mannerisms!).

[barmar]

I agree with you there, but Law 41B extends the right to a review until you have played your first card (from dummy if declarer), so the opening leader cannot deny either player the right (whether intentionally or otherwise) to a review (with the correct mannerisms!).

But asking during the play period may suggest that the question is influenced by the lead or dummy's cards. Asking before anything is faced allows you to avoid this UI to partner and AI to declarer.

 

While the Law doesn't proscribe a particular amount of time, since the players have these rights, the implication is that opening leader can't take them away.

[pescetom]

But asking during the play period may suggest that the question is influenced by the lead or dummy's cards. Asking before anything is faced allows you to avoid this UI to partner and AI to declarer.

 

While the Law doesn't proscribe a particular amount of time, since the players have these rights, the implication is that opening leader can't take them away.

 

Makes sense to me, like a lot of the recent comments. But surely the laws could be rewritten in a more linear and rational way to eliminate most of these doubts.

[blackshoe]

But asking during the play period may suggest that the question is influenced by the lead or dummy's cards.

Generally speaking, I figure a request for a review of the bidding is influenced by the asker forgetting how the auction went.

[blackshoe]

The idea that because the laws say that a RA can in effect eliminate the Clarification period (by mandating that the opening lead be made face up) a player can choose to lead face up when the RA has not exercised that option is, it seems to me, ludicrous.