SB's Revenge

[lamford]

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.

I think you mean "prescribe", unless there is a different meaning to "proscribe" in the US. I prefer to assume that the Laws are written correctly, and if they required a pause, either the Laws or RA would have stated so. Until they do, SB will continue to insta-face, in full conformity with the Laws as written. As he says, "there is little point in MM asking any questions as the answer will just be pearls before swine".

 

And those who think that ChCh is somehow harmed by being unable to ask questions about the E-W passes should "get real".

[pran]

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.

I consider it a grave violation of Law 74 to deliberately deprive another player of his rights while the opening lead is face down by facing this lead without any delay.

The fact that "the other player" is the opening leader's partner is in this respect irrelevant.

[PeterAlan]

I prefer to assume that the Laws are written correctly ...

This is welcome.

 

... SB will continue to insta-face ...

As is your acceptance that the use of "insta-facing" is not, after all, "complete drivel".

 

And those who think that ChCh is somehow harmed by being unable to ask questions about the E-W passes should "get real".

He could well have wanted to ask what a double by E of the splinter bid would have meant (and I realise that it had not been explained as such during the auction). Yes, he can ask this later, but (where the RA follows the default face-down procedure) as I and others have said it's not for the opening leader to over-ride, in breach of Law 74A3, rights that declarer or leader's partner have under the procedures of Law 41B, which we are both taking as "written correctly".

[pran]

He could well have wanted to ask what a double by E of the splinter bid would have meant (and I realise that it had not been explained as such during the auction). Yes, he can ask this later, but (where the RA follows the default face-down procedure) as I and others have said it's not for the opening leader to over-ride, in breach of Law 74A3, rights that declarer or leader's partner have under the procedures of Law 41B2, which we are both taking as "written correctly".

Don't overlook the fact that if a question during the clarification period reveals misinformation from the declaring side during the auction then the last defender to pass may have the right to withdraw his pass and replace it with a different call, after which the auction is resumed (Law 21B)

[PeterAlan]

Don't overlook the fact that if a question during the clarification period reveals misinformation from the declaring side during the auction then the last defender to pass may have the right to withdraw his pass and replace it with a different call, after which the auction is resumed (Law 21B)

And there's also still the opportunity for opening leader's partner to summon the TD in order to correct an earlier misexplanation of theirs, but I wasn't looking to list every detail.

[lamford]

And there's also still the opportunity for opening leader's partner to summon the TD in order to correct an earlier misexplanation of theirs, but I wasn't looking to list every detail.

I suggest you reread 20F5(b), or maybe read it for the first time:

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

 

Maybe I am not looking closely enough, but I don't see "while the lead is face-down" anywhere. In any case, as I stated, if the Laws wanted a pause before the lead is faced they would have so prescribed (or maybe "proscribed" in the US). And pran's claim that this is a "grave" violation is also drivel. Which law is SB alleged to have violated by facing his lead too quickly? He follows uniform and correct procedure in leading, so complies with 74A3. Face down and face up in quick succession. As a very large number of other people do.

 

The grave violation would be for opening leader's partner to summon the TD at the time you sugggest he does, rather than at the end of play.

 

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.

 

I consider it a grave violation of Law 74 to deliberately deprive another player of his rights while the opening lead is face down by facing this lead without any delay.

The two quotes above remind me of James Eadie QC being ridiculed by Lord Sumption in the 2016 Supreme Court hearing, on Article 50, for giving "two diametrically oppposed answers to the same question". Although maybe "grave" violations are not often penalized in Norway, unless they involve necrophilia.

[PeterAlan]

I suggest you reread 20F5(b), or maybe read it for the first time:

(b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partners explanation was erroneous (see Law 75B) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is:

(i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction.

 

...

 

The grave violation would be for opening leader's partner to summon the TD at the time you sugggest he does, rather than at the end of play.

And I suggest again that you re-read what I wrote, or maybe read it fully for the first time. What I was referring to was a putative defender correcting their own misexplanation, not partner's, which I mentioned in an earlier post:

 

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 don't suppose that either of us wants to pursue this line any further, but I will be busy this weekend and not adding to this thread.

[blackshoe]

"Proscribe" means the same thing in the US as it does in England.

[Zelandakh]

I prefer to assume that the Laws are written correctly,

Excellent, so tell us what you think these mean in combination:-

 

After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down

 

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 interval between the end of the auction and the end of the auction period is designated the Clarification Period

 

If a player realizes during the auction that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation. He may elect to call the Director sooner, but he is under no obligation to do so.

 

If a player becomes aware of his own mistake, he must summon the Director before the opening lead is faced (or during the play, if discovered later), and then provide a correction. The player is also permitted to call the Director before the auction ends, but he is under no obligation to do so

 

Players of the declaring side (only) may consult their own system card during the Clarification Period.

 

Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent’s system card during the Clarification Period

 

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

 

Your position seems to be that the lawmakers chose to give Declarer certain rights and responsibilities for a limited period but it is perfectly acceptable for Opening Leader to be able to remove those rights unilaterally. This clearly makes no sense as the laws are written.

 

That is in addition to the simple truth that on this hand the supposed MI actually represents the real agreement from experience and practice, which it has been established here in many rulings is more important than the actual agreement on paper.

 

I do like your RR stories a great deal but I maintain that this is a weak one. I do think that there are certain aspects that can be pulled from it to create excellent future stories though and look forward to reading what you are able to cook up.

[lamford]

And I suggest again that you re-read what I wrote, or maybe read it fully for the first time. What I was referring to was a putative defender correcting their own misexplanation, not partner's, which I mentioned in an earlier post:

I misunderstood. The problem is the use of "their" which is plural. An admirable attempt to avoid using "his" or "her", but here creating an ambiguity. And the putative defender does not need to wait until the face-down lead, so your point had little validity.

[lamford]

Your position seems to be that the lawmakers chose to give Declarer certain rights and responsibilities for a limited period but it is perfectly acceptable for Opening Leader to be able to remove those rights unilaterally. This clearly makes no sense as the laws are written.

My position is not that. There is no requirement for a pause. Declarer does not lose any rights and cannot be damaged by the lack of pause in that he can ask any questions after the opening lead. Leading too quickly does not prevent your partner asking any questions either. And, more importantly, I have NEVER seen any penalty applied in 20 years of being on ACs for not pausing. As pran said in two posts, it is rarely punished, even though it is a "grave" violation.

 

And we have to agree to differ on whether there was MI. The TD found there was. The AC found there was. The CC showed there was.

[Zelandakh]

I misunderstood. The problem is the use of "their" which is plural. An admirable attempt to avoid using "his" or "her", but here creating an ambiguity.

"Theirs" when referring to "opening leader's partner" does not make the latter plural. It is relatively common in modern English to use such pronouns as a gender-neutral singular. This has effectively replaced the older terms based around the pronoun "one". If you are from a titled house you probably still prefer the earlier version of course...

[lamford]

"Theirs" when referring to "opening leader's partner" does not make the latter plural. It is relatively common in modern English to use such pronouns as a gender-neutral singular. This has effectively replaced the older terms based around the pronoun "one". If you are from a titled house you probably still prefer the earlier version of course...

"Of theirs" could equally refer to explanations given by both halves of the partnership. But I don't like using "one" either. Nor do I like the proposed "ze" instead of "he" or "she". And as for "zirselves", no comment. We used "she" for NS and "he" for EW in Bridge magazine, but that is a bit artificial. Here, "to correct their own explanation" would have been unambiguous. But this thread has wandered away from the main issue, and I shall not post on it again.

[pran]

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.

(I continued:

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.)

 

I consider it a grave violation of Law 74 to deliberately deprive another player of his rights while the opening lead is face down by facing this lead without any delay.

The fact that "the other player" is the opening leader's partner is in this respect irrelevant.

 

 

The two quotes above remind me of James Eadie QC being ridiculed by Lord Sumption in the 2016 Supreme Court hearing, on Article 50, for giving "two diametrically oppposed answers to the same question". Although maybe "grave" violations are not often penalized in Norway, unless they involve necrophilia.

 

So much for quoting and commenting accurately.

 

My first post referred to everyday's practice in Norway and noted that it is an irregularity although not often penalized.

 

My second post referred to the situation where such irregularity is deliberate and apparently for a questionable purpose. I feel sorry for you if you cannot see the difference.

 

The two statements are certainly not "two diametrically opposed answers to the same question".

[lamford]

My second post referred to the situation where such irregularity is deliberate and apparently for a questionable purpose. I feel sorry for you if you cannot see the difference.

I feel sorry for you if you think that SB leading immediately after getting the answer he expected is for a questionable purpose. He led BEFORE ChCh started to correct the MI. He might be omniscient but he is not psychic. And I feel sorry for you if you think that facing the lead without a pause is an irregularity, when no pause is prescribed, but as I intimated, I think this thread has gone on long enough. Like Brexit, views have become entrenched.