The Rabbit Remembers

[lamford]

Of course, if he had noticed his misinformation, he would have corrected it, but he didn't.

As SB says, it does not matter one iota why he did not correct his misinformation. He could have been aware of it, and he could have chosen to cheat by not correcting it. We don't need to assess motive with 72C. We just adjust when we decide he could have been aware that his irregularity could well damage the non-offending side.

 

While SB was thinking, RR could see that he had Qxx of clubs opposite Txx. He could have been aware that SB was considering the jack of clubs switch (were he a better player). He could have been aware that his wrong announcement would cause SB to play him for a better hand and give up on the surrounding play. Therefore we adjust.

 

Any other ruling will get overturned at some point along the L&E, Supreme Court, CAS route that a determined SB would take.

[mycroft]

Oh okay. You want to go beyond "he didn't do something he was supposed to, but maybe didn't know" to the old Law 23? The "We think you did this deliberately, but saying so would get us sued, so we'll just claim that a cheater would do it" one? The one I was told in the review of my TD exam "you might never get a case that applies"? And you're going to claim *the rabbit* could have known? I mean, apart from being laughed out of the club, have you burned yourself on any teapots lately, SB?

 

"Why yes, the best player in the room, and the one known to appeal any minor mistake, and the one known to archive everything he's told so that he can catch contradictions - that's the one that any player "could have known" at the time "oh if I give him a contradiction, he'd end up confused and make a mistake" (rather than, say, blow up at the table with "you told us it was weak NT! Chimp, is your partner lying, or were you?" or "I'll see if they miss slam, and if it turns out that rabbit lost his mind for a second, I can get the TD to give me my good score anyway", or, you know, as the EBU White Book requires, "call the TD and clarify the known misinformation")?

 

Yeah, that's a "5-dimensional chess" move. One of these days, someone is going to out-fox the SB by playing to his known skills deliberately; today is not the day.

 

And anyway, here, there's no way this could damage a *non-offending* side. It's only the SB, for whom the regulations are for other people, who could have been damaged.

[blackshoe]

I honestly don't understand why the North London Club hasn't long since asked SB to take his attitude and his game elsewhere.

[nige1]

I honestly don't understand why the North London Club hasn't long since asked SB to take his attitude and his game elsewhere.

SB's previous bad behaviour might justify expulsion. Here, however, Lamford is right: SB seems to have been an innocent victim of MI. RR and I make similar stupid mistakes. It would hurt our pride if a sympathetic TD failed to penalize our infractions.

[pran]

I suggest you reread the OP. I don't think declarer's remark to dummy after dummy has been tabled can be classed as communication.

How do you define 'communication'?

 

This was a remark from one player to his partner with the (quite likely intended) side-effect of being heard by the opponent who at that time was considering his lead to the next trick.

 

To me that looks like a very serious violation of the laws.

[barmar]

I honestly don't understand why the North London Club hasn't long since asked SB to take his attitude and his game elsewhere.

Lamford bribes the club management, as he won't have anything to post without SB's antics.

[barmar]

How do you define 'communication'?

 

This was a remark from one player to his partner with the (quite likely intended) side-effect of being heard by the opponent who at that time was considering his lead to the next trick.

 

To me that looks like a very serious violation of the laws.

I believe that Law is only concerned with communication that could influence partner's actions. You can't influence the auction once it's over. If partner is declarer, dummy's comments might be considered "participating in the play", depending on the nature of the comments.

 

However, there's another Law regarding comments that might mislead opponents. That could be relevant, but SB has stated that this isn't his complaint in this case.

[lamford]

We think you did this deliberately, but saying so would get us sued, so we'll just claim that a cheater would do it

As you know we don't say that at all, or imply it. We just say that RR, in one of his more cogent moments, could have been aware that the wrong announcement AND the failure to correct it could damage the non-offender.

 

And SB should be treated EXACTLY the same as any other player.

[lamford]

I honestly don't understand why the North London Club hasn't long since asked SB to take his attitude and his game elsewhere.

Because he is scrupulously honest and is useful on other rulings, despite his obnoxious manner. As he points out, the etiquette clauses have a plethora of "shoulds" in them, not "musts", and he elects not to follow them.

[lamford]

SB's previous bad behaviour might justify expulsion. Here, however, Lamford is right: SB seems to have been an innocent victim of MI. RR and I make similar stupid mistakes. It would hurt our pride if a sympathetic TD failed to penalize us.

SB has never breached a MUST clause, so I disagree that he is anywhere near expulsion. But I agree with the rest of the post and I would adjust here to that percentage of my pollees that switch to the jack of clubs with the correct information.

[barmar]

SB has never breached a MUST clause, so I disagree that he is anywhere near expulsion.

They're SHOULD rather than a MUST, but he has repeatedly violated 74A1 and 74A2. While the laws say that these violations are not often punished, I think a history of consistent violations would constitute sufficient reason to punish them.

[mycroft]

Remember that meter I mentioned earlier? Even *you* don't believe that one.

 

And I'm happy to follow the laws with SB. In particular, this guideline:

“should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised)

I won't often penalize SB. I figure that should be once a session or so, and I'll make sure the penalty, when I do apply it, is memorable.

 

Also, this gives clear justification to invalidating his L72C claim, which as I said last time, only applies to a non-offending player. By failing to do what he could do, and the regulations of his NBO make clear he should do, he is no longer innocent, and can whistle L72 past the graveyard. I hear there's people that would vote for him there.

[pran]

I believe that Law is only concerned with communication that could influence partner's actions. You can't influence the auction once it's over. If partner is declarer, dummy's comments might be considered "participating in the play", depending on the nature of the comments.

 

However, there's another Law regarding comments that might mislead opponents. That could be relevant, but SB has stated that this isn't his complaint in this case.

Law 73B concerns 'Inappropriate Communication between Partners'.

Law 73D2 concerns inappropriate communication between a player and his opponents, namely by forbidding a player from attempting to mislead opponents by means of ..... remark.

 

I cannot see how RR could have convinced me (as director) that possibly influencing SB to believe he had 4 (rather than only 3) spades was not his real intention with his remark.

 

This is however irrelevant: Nobody claiming damage from an irregularity doesn't change the fact that Law 81C3 instructs the Director to handle it. Not noticing this clear violation of Law 73D2 can only be described as a Director's error.

[lamford]

I cannot see how RR could have convinced me (as director) that possibly influencing SB to believe he had 4 (rather than only 3) spades was not his real intention with his remark.

RR did not mention spades in his remark, only hearts. His remark suggests that he had five hearts and that they might have had a heart fit. He does have five hearts. I cannot see how anyone would try to convince me (as director) that it suggested in any way that he had four spades. If he has five hearts he won't have four spades.

[lamford]

They're SHOULD rather than a MUST, but he has repeatedly violated 74A1 and 74A2. While the laws say that these violations are not often punished, I think a history of consistent violations would constitute sufficient reason to punish them.

And he does get (and accepts and gloats about) the occasional PP. OO gave him one for "addressing the director in a boorish manner" a while back. How this amounts to expulsion from the club is beyond me. Here RR shoud get a PP for breach of a MUST clause, and mycroft et all are trying to defend him.

[blackshoe]

Lamford bribes the club management, as he won't have anything to post without SB's antics.

LOL! :lol:

[blackshoe]

Because he is scrupulously honest and is useful on other rulings, despite his obnoxious manner. As he points out, the etiquette clauses have a plethora of "shoulds" in them, not "musts", and he elects not to follow them.

Tell SB to read the Introduction to the Laws. Failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction. He doesn't have the authority to not follow them.

[blackshoe]

They're SHOULD rather than a MUST, but he has repeatedly violated 74A1 and 74A2. While the laws say that these violations are not often punished, I think a history of consistent violations would constitute sufficient reason to punish them.

So do I.

[pran]

RR did not mention spades in his remark, only hearts. His remark suggests that he had five hearts and that they might have had a heart fit. He does have five hearts. I cannot see how anyone would try to convince me (as director) that it suggested in any way that he had four spades. If he has five hearts he won't have four spades.

Why should a player holding only ♠98 and ♥T98 ever have any reason to bid Stayman when his partner opens 1NT? RR made his remark after seeing dummy.

[Vampyr]

Why should a player holding only ♠98 and ♥T98 ever have any reason to bid Stayman when his partner opens 1NT? RR made his remark after seeing dummy.

RR briefly thought they were playing 5-card Stayman, rather than simple Stayman. Not simple enough clearly.

[Vampyr]

Tell SB to read the Introduction to the Laws. Failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction. He doesn't have the authority to not follow them.

You know he has read the Laws in full. He accepts any PP for any breach of the “should” laws provided others, as here, get PPs for breaches of the “must” laws.

[pran]

RR briefly thought they were playing 5-card Stayman, rather than simple Stayman. Not simple enough clearly.

A very questionable explanation. (Frankly I have never heard of 5-card Stayman?)

 

How does players using 5-card Stayman find 5-3 and 4-4 fits while avoiding 4-3 fits?

 

More specifically: What is the 1NT opener's answer bid after 1NT - 2♣ for each of the following alternatives when he holds:

a: 2-2 in majors

b: 2-3 or 3-2 in majors

c: 2-4 or 4-2 in majors

d: 2-5 or 5-2 in majors

e: 3-3 in majors

f: 3-4 or 4-3 in majors

g: 3-5 or 5-3 in majors

?????

[nige1]

A very questionable explanation. (Frankly I have never heard of 5-card Stayman?)

 

How does players using 5-card Stayman find 5-3 and 4-4 fits while avoiding 4-3 fits?

 

More specifically: What is the 1NT opener's answer bid after 1NT - 2♣ for each of the following alternatives when he holds:

a: 2-2 in majors

b: 2-3 or 3-2 in majors

c: 2-4 or 4-2 in majors

d: 2-5 or 5-2 in majors

e: 3-3 in majors

f: 3-4 or 4-3 in majors

g: 3-5 or 5-3 in majors

?????

I'm sure that Pran is aware that, over 1NT (and 2NT), lots of 5-card Stayman versions are available e.g. Muppet, Puppet, Crowhurst. Some Muppet variations find all 4-4, 5-3, and 3-5 major fits, right-siding them all. Over partner's 1NT opener, some play

• 2♣ = Ordinary Stayman. Some hardy souls are not averse to 4-3 fits. e.g. they venture 2♣ with, say, ♠ Q x x ♥ x x x x ♦ J x x x x ♣ x
• 2N or 3♣ = Muppet/Puppet/Crowhurst or whatever

[blackshoe]

(Frankly I have never heard of 5-card Stayman?)

Ron Klinger wrote a book on it.

[mycroft]

There's no violation of any MUST clause. The Rabbit attempted to correct the misinformation as soon as he was aware of it. Which, if it had been at the proper time, instead of with the TD at the table after the hand and SB all up in his grill, would have cleared everything up nicely for SB and he could have defended to the best of his ability.

 

Oh, I'm sorry, this *is* the best of his ability - hope RR screwed up and actually did have 15, has missed slam, and then ask the TD to cover for his failure to play bridge later. I mean, he could always have asked about the (again, known to him) misinformation before making the fatal defensive play, at a much safer time to him than in the auction.

 

This trick could only work on someone who is known not to follow the laws when it's in his best interest to do so. Which is pretty much the definition of not a "non-offending contestant". Therefore, not L72C either.

 

I trust the Rabbit not to lie, especially about something that shows him in a particularly rabbit-like light. If SB wishes to insinuate that this is not the case - that RR is lying to him, to the TD, and to the club management about when he noticed his error - well, he'd better have CAT-level proof of that, or it will be treated as any other such allegation. I note that in the white book "completely satisfied" is the level of proof required.

 

(as is "not talking to [his Watson] or on social media", but I will absolve everyone preemptively of this to preserve the conceit.)