Use of unauthorised information is a serious error

I have just been consulted on a complicated case that threw up a new question: is the illegal use of unauthorised information (Law 16B) a serious error (in the sense of Law 12C1(b))?

South dealt and opened 1♥, West overcalled 2♣, and North bid 3♠, intended as a splinter, but not alerted. East asked about 3♠ and was told it was natural and preemptive, and then passed. The auction continued to 5♥ doubled, making when West lead a ♠.

The TD found there was misinformation from the failure to alert/explain the splinter, that North/South had used unauthorised information to stop in 5♥, and East/West had used unauthorised information in leading a spade. A club lead would defeat 5♥. Without the misinformation and the use of unauthorised information by North/South, they would reach 6♥ doubled. East may have been able to show spades and attract the disadvantageous spade lead, so the TD adjusted for North/South 50% 6♥X-1, 50% 6♥X-2. We decided the spade lead against 5♥ was illegal and a serious error and was responsible for conceding 5♥X= rather than 5♥X-1.

Result	Score	NS	EW
5♥X=	+650	133	3
...
5♥X-1 / 6♥X-1	-100	15	121
6♥X-2	-300	4	132

Adjustment for NS was 50%x15 + 50%x4 = 9.5MP

The damage due to the serious error was 118MP, so adjustment for EW was (50%x121 + 50%x132) - 118 = 8.5MP

Things we know that we know

Answers to Known Unknowns

This post is in reponse to Paul's request that I lift some of the fear, uncertainty and doubt in the previous post, and give some guidance on how best to handle the known difficulties detailed in that post. I will also take the liberty of describing how the laws might be changed.

Insufficient bids — what can LHO know?

I rule on the basis that LHO is allowed to know as much about the options available to the insufficient bidder that does not reveal what the insufficient bid was intended to mean nor what is in the insufficient bidder's hand. So LHO is allowed to know whether there is a Law 27B1a correction because the TD can usually determine if the insufficient bid is incontrovertibly not artificial and can determine if the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination is (incontrovertibly) not artificial by reference to the offending side's system. But LHO is not allowed to know whether there are Law 27B1b corrections (rectification calls), nor what they are, just that there may be (other) calls that do not silence offender's partner.

This is consistent with what I did under the previous laws, and although it sometimes put a non-offending player in a difficult position, it is an approach that can be operated consistently.

How do we adjust for two non-offending sides in Law 86D?

The only approach I can recommend is AVE+ to both sides: I do not have to do anything else because Law 86D talks about the non-offending side.

The alternative approach of giving an assigned score for both sides, and so giving one non-offending side less than AVE+, is not explicitly required by the laws; and is not one that I can justify to the side who would get the bad score.

When declarer becomes dummy is dummy still dummy?

I would rule that dummy is not dummy when the opening lead is out of turn, until the options in Law 54 have been exercised. I would not rule that either player of the declaring side was in error in drawing attention to an irregularity when there is an opening lead out of turn, until dummy has been spread.

What does Law 21B2 mean for the players?

Obviously, there is no need to make a great deal of this: the outcomes is likely to be the same. The only real approach is to read the law as written, explain to the players that they can use the information from the withdrawn call; but there may be an adjustment at the end of the hand. In many circumstances, it may be more practical to tell the players nothing or to tell the players to treat the withdrawn call as unauthorised information (because that is what the TD will have to do later)!

The real answers - what the laws should say

Insufficient bids

There are a number of workable solutions to the insufficient bid law.

• Offender's partner is silenced, whatever the correction;
• Offender's partner is not silenced, whatever the correction;
• Offender's partner is not silenced if the correction is the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, regardless of the meaning of the insufficient bid or the correction;
• In any case, the insufficient bid is unauthorised information and there can be lead penalties;
• If offender's partner is silenced, Law 23 applies;
• The insufficient bid can still be accepted.

Two non-offending sides in Law 86D

In Law 86D, give any non-offending side the better of an assigned score from a favourable result and AVE+, and give any non-offending side the worse of an assigned score from an unfavourable result and AVE-.

When dummy is dummy

Dummy becomes dummy (is subject to the limitations in Law 43) when his hand is spread. If declarer starts to expose his hand after an opening lead out of turn, declarer becomes dummy and presumed dummy is not subject to the limitations in Law 43.

What does Law 21B2 mean?

I do not know what historical reasons have created Law 21B2 in its current form, but it should be changed so that Law 16D applies to the misinforming side's changed call. The withdrawn call is unauthorised information during the auction and play.

Known unknowns

Donald Rumsfeld (former United States Secretary of Defense) famously discussed the boundaries of knowledge and ignorance: There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. ...; and was, in my opinion, wrongly ridiculed. The discussion of various laws has reached the point where we can identify some "defined areas of doubt and uncertainty". These are some discussions I have contributed to.

Insufficient bids — what can LHO know?

We discussed at Brighton that we do not know what the offender's LHO is allowed to know before deciding whether to accept the insufficient bid. A colleague tried to get an answer to this question at Sanremo and got four different answers from members of the WBFLC. To continue a rant I delivered at Brighton, ...

IBLF: Aug 24 2010, 10:19 AM

Whatever the laws in general say or should say, Law 27 as it stands should be treated as a special case or should explicitly state what information should be available to which players during the process of operating the law. The law as it finally appeared in the "2007" Law Book is not operable in line with principles elsewhere in the laws, and no amount of subsequent "interpretation" by WBFLC has changed that.

It is wrong that the basis for a ruling (the meaning of the insufficient bid) is determined by the word of an offender, given away from the other players. It is wrong that the TD's judgement on which calls by offender will not silence partner is made available to the offender (but not other players) before the offender selects his call (above and beyond having Law 27B1b read to the offender). If the provisions of Law 27 are not substantially changed, then we need clear statements on how the law should operate and the exceptional way that information is made available to both sides during the operation of the law.

How do we adjust for two non-offending sides in Law 86D?

I rewrote this post as a blog entry, so I shall only quote the first line.

IBLF: Jul 20 2010, 11:26 PM

Time for me to emerge from the bushes on this topic. I don't think we know how to apply Law 86D.

When declarer becomes dummy is dummy still dummy?

IBLF: Sep 4 2010, 05:18 PM

South is supposed to be declarer, but East leads face-up, and South (also brain cramping) starts to put down her hand as dummy ---getting a few cards exposed.

1. Does North have a right to stop things, calling attention to the irregularity? He is supposed to be dummy, but is he yet?
2. Does the first card hitting the table from South constitute excercising the option to be dummy, whether intended or not?

I did not contribute to this thread but there seems to be a point when both players might be dummy and neither can draw attention to an irregulatiry. There is a more fundemental issue: dummy becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced, so even when the opening lead is out of turn dummy can not draw attention to that (or any other) irregularity. I think dummy should become dummy when his hand is spread, and should regain his rights as "not dummy" if declarer spreads his hand (Law 54A).

What does Law 21B2 mean for the players?

South has bid 2♥ and then corrected his earlier explanation (failure to alert). East changes his call because of the changed explanation and South changes his 2♥ bid. To find out the status of South's withdrawn 2♥ and the restrictions on North, we refer to Law 21B2.

IBLF: Sep 1 2010, 05:18 PM

I am completely surprised at the wording of Law 21B2.

When a player elects to change a call because of misinformation (...), his LHO may then in turn change any subsequent call he may have made, without other rectification unless at the end of the hand the Director judges his withdrawn call to have conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side in which case Law 16D applies.

So during the auction and play, 2♥ is not UI; but at the end of the hand, we now say 2♥ was UI (Law 16D) and see if RHO used UI (Law 16B) and adjust as if 2♥ had been UI.

What does the TD tell RHO? It is not illegal for you to use information from 2♥ but nevertheless if you do use information from 2♥ in a way that would be illegal if 2♥ were UI then I will adjust the score as if 2♥ had been unauthorised information.

How is this any different in practice than saying the information from the changed call is unauthorised?

Is there anywhere else in the laws that information becomes unauthorised at the end of the hand and we retrospectively apply Law 16B/D?

Irrelevant unauthorised information

I had got involved in a discussion about whether you can adjust the score when a player used an overheard remark to make a successful play on a board that was not the board that the overheard remark related to. I deleted my final post because I had got fed up with the discussion and my reaction was getting too personal and rehtorical. I know how I would rule, and I think my ruling would be lawful and what would be expected of me. The thread involved some interesting discussion of that is meant by "information". There was also discussion of "extraneous information" as opposed to "unauthorised information", which the laws do not seem to distinguish, but explains my use of UI/EI below.

This is what I deleted.

I must admit to being perplexed by this discussion. Law 16A says nothing about information being relevant, useful or useable. Law 16A3 says he may not base a call or play on (any) UI/EI.

I do not understand the problem. If the player knows the UI/EI is not relevant he does not use it. If the player knows the UI/EI is relevant he must not use it. If he thinks the UI/EI relates to a board he will never play but is not sure, he notifies the TD and the TD confirms that the UI/EI is irrelevant and allows play to continue.

I do not expect a player to be in a position of having UI/EI and deciding to use it on a board he knows it does not relate to. I expect to have been notified by the player before he use he bases a call or play on what he has heard.

If, subsequently, it is suggested that a player gained UI/EI that was irrelevant but he did base a call or play on the UI/EI, and he did not did notify the TD in advance, then Law 16A3/4 allows me to adjust on the board. There will always be some doubt as to the source and information that was overheard (especially as it seems to only be heard by one player), so as a TD, I would urge on the side of caution and not assume the UI/EI was necessarilly irrelevant. I would expect that the other players and organisers would expect the TD to adjust in such circumstances.

Do you think that Law 16A3 does not apply to irrelevant information that is not authorised?

So long, and thanks

Brighton - some days later

I feel a bit like Arthur Dent, on his return to his old life on Earth:

Slipping back into his old life had in fact been laughably easy. People had such extraordinarily short memories, including him. Eight years of crazed wanderings round the Galaxy now seemed to him not so much like a bad dream as like a film he had videotaped from the TV and now kept in the back of a cupboard without bothering to watch.

So long, and thanks for all the fish, Douglas Adams

Ten days at Brighton isn't eight years of crazed wanderings round the Galaxy, but it is more intense than life at home.

Its all coming back to haunt us

The rulings from Brighton are coming back to haunt us all over the internet. It is sad to see that bad behaviour is still a problem: I think the TDs are still finding it difficult to be both firm and fair when dealing with bad behaviour; but I am sure the bulk of the problems are not reported to us. There were also problems with WBF convention cards, foreign (including Scottish) players who were forced to fill in EBU convention cards then find the local players do not have appropriately completed convention cards; I wonder if the Scottish players offered to use SBU cards, they look close enough to EBU style.

Health-wise I survived Brighton remarkably well. Considering I could not do a couple of days work per week, six months ago: I managed 10 days of up to 12 hours work a day, with midnight to 3am drinking, posting results on the internet, or blogging. My foot survived but did need a lot of care, attention and rest.

Controlling my vegetarian/diabetic diet is difficult when eating out all the time, but there is a good range of vegetarian/ethnic resturants in Brighton. The hotel resturant provided soya milk for breakfast but on the last Sunday I accidently had milk on my cereal and suffered lactose intolerance symptoms for the week after. (You do not want to know!)

It's my birthday today: half the family went to work and I had an appointment at the orthotists to collect some new shoes! (See Best foot forward.)

Finally, but not conclusively

Brighton - Day 10

The final day of the Brighton Congress feature the Four Stars teams finals and the conclusion of the rest of the Swiss Teams. In the finals we had lots to do, including several rulings; two rulings threw up questions after they had been given, so as to introduce doubt and uncertainty.

Board 4	9 2
Dealer W	A K 8 5 2
Both Vul	8 6 5
	10 7 3
K 10 6 4		A J 8 7
Q J 3		10 9
A K 4		Q 2
A Q 6		J 9 8 5 4
	Q 5 3
	7 6 4
	J 10 9 7 3
	K 2

East played in 4♠ and lost tricks to ♠Q and ♣K, to reach this position with South on lead.

	--
	A K 8 2
	--
	7
4		J
Q J 3		10
--		--
Q		9 8 5
	--
	7 6 4
	9 7
	--

South lead a small heart, suggesting an honour but South thought he could afford to show length here; dummy played low and North had a good think before winning with ♥K. South then said "I shouldn't have put you through that" (meaning North) and then said "Sorry, I shouldn't have said that".

North is now end-played into establishing the hearts or the clubs. North returned a small heart and East (thinking South had ♥A) said he was one off. "What are you going to do?" asked South, trying to give declarer a chance to recover, but East said he would ruff the heart.

We ruled that the remark was misleading and had misled and that, without the remark, South might realise there was still a chance and discard on the heart, winning in dummy. But we ruled that conceding a trick by ruffing the heart was a serious error (within the terms of Law 12C1b). The result without the serious error would be better than the adjustment (case C ≥ B ≥ A), so the application of Law 12C1b/12C1c resulted in NS assigned 30% 4♠=, 70% 4♠-1; but EW get the table score (100% 4♠-1). The result at the other table was 4♠ making, so NS scored 8IMP and EW scored -12IMP, giving a match result of 8-10VP (on a 20VP scale).

When he heard of the ruling, the chief TD pointed out the wording in the law "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)", suggesting that Law 12C1b did not apply. "Then call it 'wild'" we said, or "In Sanremo, Ton said we could ignore the words 'unrelated to the infraction'", or ... . I don't think we were convinced either way.

Board 18	10 8 x x
Dealer E	10 x x x
NS Vul	J
	Q J 8 x
Q J x x x		A
--		A K J 8 x x
A Q 10 x x x x		K 9 8
10		K x x
	K 9 x
	Q 9 x
	x x
	A 9 x x x

I thought I hadn't got the hands quite right — corrected and intermediates added 2010-08-31.

W	N	E	S
		1♥	P
2♦	P	3♥	P
3♠*	P	4♣	P
4♦	P	4NT	P
6♦	P	P	P

3♠ was alerted and explained as a control agreeing hearts. 6♦ appeared to be using unauthorised information from the alert and giving the correct response to Blackwood was a logical alternative. After that the auction might continue ...

...	P	6♥	P
6♠	P	6NT	End

6NT by East will probably make only ten tricks. Of course, other final contracts are possible and other number of undertricks are possible, but we thought 6NT(E)-2 was an equitable result. As game had made at the other table, this ruling represented a 24IMP swing from -13IMP to +11IMP. But the table result was restored on appeal, "No logical alternative" to 6♦, so what do we know.

Mr Grumpy

Brighton - Day 9

At the beginning of the congress, or even at some earlier event, a grumpy bridge personality was addressed simply as "Grumpy", "That's Mr Grumpy to you" came the response.

I'm afraid after nine days, a certain amount of grumpiness is setting in. In the first session today, the players were hopeless at passing on the boards: either not passing them on at all or passing them in the wrong direction. I kept having to go round moving boards to the right place and answering questions about where to pass the boards; despite telling every table where to move the boards at the beginning of each round. "They didn't tell us where to move the boards" says one table: ugh! At some stage my frustration became obvious to some of the players.

There were several rulings today where members of a partnership had disagreed on the meaning of the a bid. When the bid was explained differently from the way the bid was intended, the bidder has unauthorised information which they can not legally use to get the auction back on track. Nevertheless the bidder did use the unauthorised information to arrive at a reasonable contract.

When it becomes obvious what has happened, the opponents ask for an adjusted score. Sometimes the bids that are misunderstood are ones from which it almost impossible to recover from legally. One auction featured a splinter bid that partner thought was natural, and another a control asking bid that again parther did not recognise and did not alert. The more extreme examples were transfer opening or transfer overcalls: once partner forgets the bid is a transfer the auction will spiral out of control as one player supports the transfer bid suit and the other tries to play in the suit shown by the transfer. When the opponents have misinformation and the offenders use unauthorised information, the offending side manages to avoid playing in silly contracts.

But the offenders try to wriggle out of the consequences of their misunderstanding and subsequent actions: finding specious excuses why their actions were justified. This just makes the TD more grumpy, the players should recognise that they have made an expensive mistake and the adjustment is only an inevitable consequnce.

Posting from Brighton beach

Brighton - Day 8½

Morning off on the beach with free internet.

Those doing the speedball do not have to do any setup the following morning. In fact, I did go to the playing room and take down the scoring station I have been using all week. This is a lull before the final push: 56 boards of Swiss Teams today, 56 boards of Teams Final tomorrow, a quiet dinner at a vegetarian restuarant in The Lanes and then home on Monday.

Midnight Speedball

Brighton - Day 8

For me, today's sessions were:

13:00-16:30

Final afternoon open pairs, 35 tables: I was scorer but took some rulings.

20:00-23:30

First session of the Swiss Teams, 106 teams in the main room: TD (first time for a week).

00:00-01:30

Midnight Speedball Pairs, 9 tables: I was TD i/c and scorer.

The midnight speedball events have a great atmosphere: there is time to play serious bridge as well as engaging in some banter. The pairs events (on Friday, Wednesday and Friday) usually play 26/27 boards in 90 minutes. The teams events (Swiss or KO) on the Saturdays are a bit longer because of the manual processing of assignments.

For the pairs we use Bridgemates so the results are available when the last score is finished. Tonight there was less than 0.5 match points separating first and second as the last board was being completed (fractional match points because the incomplete board was being factored). When the result was entered first and second had switched places (again) and the margin was a whole 2 match points. Lots of the players were gathered round the computer screen to watch the last result.

There was also two pairs from a family in my home city, playing as father & son and mother & daughter. Another player offered the son some jelly babies and was accused of "grooming".

One table was playing so fast they were given extra boards, just for fun. They (specifically NS) managed an extra board on 5 of the 9 rounds, so in fact NS played all the prepared 32 boards in 90 minutes.

The TDs are almost solely engaged in dealing with slow play: mainly by cagolling players, moving boards and entering missing scores. There are no real rulings: if there is a book ruling, the TD picks a likely option for the non-offending side and tells the players to get on with it; there are no penalties, except fines are always possible.

Some hand are just too difficult

Brighton - Day 7

Today saw some events coming to an end, or at least the end of the middle as Paul has it on The Beer Card blog. The Senior's Swiss Teams completed, the final midweek evening competition was the Mixed Pairs Championship, and the final of the midweek knockout teams is tomorrow afternoon. That just leaves some open pairs and speedball events, and the marathon that is the Swiss Teams.

When a TD has to produce an assigned score, he has to identify a number of potential results and weight them to reflect their probabilities. This can be easy, and it is often possible to assign the score for one result. The potential auctions are usually limited, so there are are only a small number of potential contracts.

Again, the outcome of the a contract may be obvious, especially given the double dummy analysis on the hand records. But sometimes the outcome of a contract played by imperfect players with incomplete information may be far from obvios, and in no way related to the double-dummy analysis.

This is a hand from earlier in the week. We had to an assign a result in 5♣X (by East). It is easy to make 12 tricks by playing for hearts to break with the queen onside. But you may aim for fewer tricks and allow for less favourable lie of the opponents hands.

	9
	Q 5
	A K J 9 5 3
	8 6 4 3
A		Q J 7 6 4 2
J 10 4 3		K 9 8 2
10 8		--
A K Q 10 9 7		J 5 2
	K 10 8 5 3
	A 7 6
	Q 7 6 4 2
	--

After a lead of a spade to the ace, you might play a heart immediately, you might concentrate on taking your diamond ruffs, or you may try something else; and then when you find that clubs are 4-0 you might have to change track. We decided that declarer might not make an overtrick and could go off. Eventually we assigned 5♣=.

This is a hand from today's mixed pairs. During the auction West bid spades twice and East bid clubs and showed spade support. South played in 5♥ on the lead of the ♠K, followed by ♥J to the king. Already, both the defence and declarer might have missed a chance to do better; but this is where we are.

	A
	A J 10 5 2
	10 5
	J 9 3
K Q 10 8 7 5		J 6 2
Q 8 4		7
A J 7		9 8 6 4 2
7		A K 10 5
	9
	K 9 6 3
	K Q 3
	Q 8 6 4 2

Declarer might finesse hearts on the way back or he might play the ♥A and try to take the spade ruffs. It is not clear that taking the finesse and drawing the ♥Q actually gains for declarer. Declare had gone four off after running the ♥J and we assigned 5♥-3.

On both hands however many tricks awarded (within reason) made only a small difference to the match points scored.

Trials and tribulations of a computer scorer

Brighton - Day 6

The pairs and multiple teams at Brighton are all scored using table-top scoring devices (Bridgemates). The devices communicate wirelessly with a server attached to the scoring program and the scores are read into the scoring program. All the scorer has to do is turn the system on at the beginning and print out the results at the end. The players are able to type in their (EBU) member number at the start of the session, which allows their names to be read in to the scoring program from the membership database. So the scorer does not even have to type the names in from the names slips.

Of course, it's not that simple! For almost all the events at the Brighton Congress, we do not know how many contestants there are until the event starts. So we can't select the movement for the event until after the event has started. Hopefully while the players are playing the first board: all the sections are set up on the computer, the events are combined, and details of the movements are sent out to the Bridgemates; in time for the players to enter their member numbers and the result of the first board.

Then the players make mistakes: they make mistakes with the scores that have to be corrected at the table or on the scoring computer, or they make mistakes against the laws that lead to rulings and adjusted scores. By the end of a large event, the scorer can end up with a sheaf of "score correction" forms: some a simple change of declarer, some with the back covered in three-way weighted score (something like 40% of 4H+1, 40% of 4H= and 20% of 3NT-2). When players see recap sheets at the end of the event, more mistakes come to light and a pair has to go off in search of their opponents on a given board, to get them to agree the new score (according to Law 79). The TDs inspect the travellers or frequencies and find more errors (e.g. scores obviously with the wrong declarer) and when those are corrected the final result can be displayed.

But the TDs can make mistakes as well and then the Bridgemate system has to be put right. In today's Mixed Pivot Teams, we had examples of many of the things that can go wrong with the Bridgemate system. We had set up for 60+ tables in two sections and had a range of mirrored web mitchell movements prepared in a spreadsheet preloaded in the scoring program. When the dust settled at "game time", we had two full 30-table sections and so we loaded the appropriated movements and fired up the Bridgemate system ...

... nothing happened. This computer had been used for Swiss Teams in the afternoon and the server had been disconnected. When everything had been plugged back in and the programs restarted, we found some Bridgemates would not talk to the server. These Bridgemates were mainly in a group in the far corner of the room. The problem was located: the server attached to the computer for the afternoon's open pairs was still active, and was working on the same channel we were using for the teams; so some Bridgemates were "talking" to the other server, in a world of their own. Then some of the Bridgemates had been programmed to the wrong channel and were talking to no one. Finally some Bridgemates were programmed with the wrong section/table, so they were submitting results that belonged to a different table. The Bridgemate at the proper table would not let the players input their results but mysteriously reported that the round was complete.

Bridgemates were reprogrammed, scores were deleted from the server, and new scores entered on the right Bridgemates from the player's score cards (thank heavens for pen-and-paper backup). From early in round two everything was running smoothly and round-by-round results could be produced as each move was called. Of course, there were some mistakes to be corrected but they were soon sorted out. The final result was displayed and then it was off to the bulletin office to get the results in tomorrow's bulletin and up on the EBU website; and finally off to the bar.

Robin rants on rectification

Brighton - Day 5

There were a number of claims today where players had miscounted or apparently forgotten trumps. Continuing the move towards claims fascism, we rejected all the claims for extra tricks: refusing to allow them to take finesses or draw trumps. The players said we were being harsh; perhaps, harsh but fair.

Law 27 - Is this how it is supposed to work?

There was an insufficient bid in an (uncontested) auction that started with 2♣ strong/artificial, and an ace/control showing response. The insufficient bid was 4♥ in response to 4NT asking for kings. The offender was try to respond to 4♣, Gerber for kings. The TD was satisfied that they played both Gerber and Blackwood, and both would ask for kings when there had been a control-showing response to 2♣. So the TD allowed a "rectification bid" of 5♦ also showing one king, a call that would not silence partner. I am sure this ruling is in accordance with our current interpretation/procedure, but I'm sure the opponents might think the offender was getting two chances to get over his "one king" message.

At breakfast, we discussed how to teach club TDs how to deal with insufficient bids. It really does seem best for them to able to ignore Law 27B1b and operate the laws much as they had been before 2007. If there approach turns out to be wrong, the TD can always rule "Director's Error".

Composed and posted from the stage of the Senior's Swiss Teams in the half-hour before the start of play.

A day off in the sunshine

Brighton - Day 4

Today I had a half-day off: scoring only the evening events. Instead I took a "half-day trip" through some childhood haunts and up into the South Downs (a range of hills behind Brighton - now designated a national park). A glorious day and the downs, the rivers and the Sussex villages looking pretty in the sunshine.

There is a lot going on at Brighton: today there were open events, novice events, seniors events and a club TD training course. The EBU Summer Meeting (Brighton Congress) lasts ten days from Friday evening through to the next Sunday afternoon. The first weekend is Swiss Pairs over four sessions finishing on Sunday afternoon, then the midweek events start with one session open pairs each day, an afternoon teams knock-out and non-standard events in the evenings. During the week there is a seniors congress with three sessions of pairs, followed by two sessions of teams. Away from the main hall there is the "Really Easy Congress" (workshops, seminars and bridge sessions) and four days of club TD training, including an assessment on the final day. The second weekend is Swiss Teams with the teams final all day Sunday. And not forgetting midnight "speed-ball" events at the weekend and on Wednesday.

The first "non-standard" event is the "Play With The Experts" Pairs: a simple one-session two-winner movement but you score up as if you are team mates of an international team who played the boards some time ago (as permitted by Law 6D2). There are prizes based on overall ranking, ranking in NS and EW separately, and ranking in each section. The NS and EW scores (in IMPs) are wildly different, so the overall rankings are determined by comparing scores with the average IMPs for each line; this also causes complications for artificial adjusted scores (and inevitably there was one).

I say "simple" movement: in fact we are using "web mitchell" movements that allow 26 boards to be played at any number of tables from 14 through 25. They involve the minimum of moving pairs and require two (or even three) sets of duplicated boards. Although originally two-winner movements, on subsequent days we will be using them as one-winner movements by arrow switching. We think this is the first time these movements have ever been used in this country.

The scoring program copes with the basic structure of "Play With The Experts" admirably. All I had to do was calculate the artificial adjustment and the average IMPs for each line for the overall ranking. I was still tabulating all the prizes when the hotel staff came to turn the lights out in the hall!

One player had psyched and subsequently gone for 2200. However there was a potential infraction by his opponents on the hand but the TD had ruled "result stands". The player was considering appealing the ruling and came to me to find out how much prize money he could win if he won the appeal. He quickly decided that the (modest) prize money he stood to win was far from enough compensation to exposing his result at the table to greater public notice. Another satisfied customer(?)

To irrationality and beyond

Brighton - Day 3

Not a significant ruling but it does draw attention to variations in wording in the (claim) laws. which we do not know whether it is nuanced wording or inconsistent editing.

	--
	x
	Q 9 x
	Q
?		?
--		--
J x x ?		A 7 x ?
?		2
	--
	x x
	K 10 x
	--

Declarer (shown as South), in 4♥, leads ♣Q from dummy and RHO discards ♦7, then finds ♣2 in her hand. I am called: the ♣2 is played to the trick and ♦7 is a major penalty card (to be played at the first opportunity, etc.). Declarer ruffs and quits the trick but LHO is still thinking what to play to this trick. After a bit, while LHO is still thinking, declarer says it doesn't matter. I ask him if he is claiming (because otherwise I would ask him to let LHO think in peace) and declarer says "yes, I can play a diamond to the nine" (taking advantage of the major penalty card). "What if I play the jack" says LHO, "well then obviously ..." starts declarer.

The position is different from that where declarer plays a small diamond and calls for the nine before seeing LHO's card. In a claim, declarer will not be held to lines of play that are irrational (Law 70E1). So (obviously) declarer is allowed his claim for all but one of the remaining tricks (losing ♦A).

As noted in a previous post, the test in Law 70E is different from the rest of Law 70. Law 70E1 uses the word "irrational", a word that was removed from the footnote referred to by the rest of Law 70 (and by Law 71). What is the difference between not "normal" (including "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved") and "irrational"; or was "irrational" left in Law 70E to avoid unweildy wording: "unless failure to adopt that line of play would be beyond careless-or-inferior"?.

A bit like hard work!

Brighton - Day 2

Day two at Brighton was a bit like hard work. We hardly stopped taking rulings, being consulted, delivering rulings, writing appeals forms and running appeals. We also managed other TD duties such as scoring, putting out boards, dealing with lost property and changing table cloths when players spilt their drinks.

I nearly had another Law 27 ruling but another TD beat me too it. The ruling showed what can go wrong if you don't reveal the right bits of information at the right time. North opened 2NT and South (in turn) bid 2♦. The TD arrived and South said she had made a mistake: away from the table South said her mind had been elsewhere, she either meant 2♦ as a response to 1NT, or she mistakenly thought 2♦ was the way to transfer to hearts over 2NT; either way 2♦ "was" a transfer, showing hearts.

The TD returned to the table, and said that West could accept 2♦ but if they did not South could bid 3♦ that would not silence partner. West did accept 2♦ and passed, and now North had information that 2♦ meant the same as a sufficient 3♦, that is, it showed hearts. This was information that North (and East/West) were not entitled too and had been generated by the TD.

North/South duly bid to the usual 6♥ contract and East/West felt damaged. We were forced to rule "Director's Error" (Law 82C) and awarded North/South the result at the table and East/West a percentage of NS not bidding slam. Without the information from the TD, North would have to guess what 2♦ showed and sometimes this would involve North/South having uncertainty as to level or strain.

Oops!

Serious Error, Wild or Gambling - the shudder test

I did have an unauthorised information ruling that gave a non-trivial example of the calculations in Law 12C1b (an article that now forms part of the EBU White Book).

W	N	E	S
		1NT	P
2♦	X	2♥	P
P	2♠	3♥	P
P	P

1NT was weak, South's first pass was after an agreed hesitation, 2♦ was a transfer, X showed diamonds ("lead directing"), and 3♥ was not a good bid (down 3). One TD described the "shudder test" for an action to be considered "a serious error, wild or gambling": if when you describe the action, someone physically recoils, then it can be considered SEWoG. We ruled that Pass was a logical alternative to 2♠ (and to the Double) and these actions were suggest over Pass by the hesitation. We also ruled that the 3♥ bid had contributed to EW's bad score and without it, NS would play in 2♠+1.

So the offending side, NS, got an adjusted score of 2♥-2. EW got the score for 2♥-2 less the damage due to bidding 3♥. 2♥-2 (NS +100) scored 52:54 match points, 2♠+1 (NS +140) scored 77:29 MPs, and 3♥-3 (NS +150) scored 100:6. So the damage due to the 3♥ bid was 23 MPs and so NS got 52 MPs and EW got 54 - 23 = 31 MPs.

Oh we do like to be beside the seaside

Brighton - Day 1

I hope to post each day from Brighton. For the first week my role will mostly be scoring so most of the rulings will be second hand. But I did give a ruling today and it was on my favourite new law.

A table near the scoring table called for the TD, I was not busy and nobody else looked free. 1♦ - Pass - 1♠ - 2♥ - Double - 2♦. According to my "spiel", I took the 2♦ bidder away from the table, and asked what he intended with 2♦: I was intending to make an unassuming cue-bid raise of hearts; I checked the 3♦ would be an unassuming cue-bid and told him that if he was allowed to change his bid to 3♦ that would not silence partner.

Back at the table, I explained to LHO that she could accept 2♦ and otherwise if offender replaced 2♦ with a call the showed the same (or more precise) then offender's partner could bid again. I told LHO that she could ask about the opponents' system before deciding [but I would not tell her what 2♦ meant]. LHO did not accept 2♦, offender bid 3♦, and I told the table that the bid did not silence offender's partner (LHO said she thought it probably would not).

There was some level of bemusement, and as I left the table I remarked that I had expressed my opinion of this procedure in the last couple of days. [I had written something marginally disparaging of Law 27 on bridgebase forums, earlier in the week.]

As an afterthought, I returned to the table with my law book and read some words from Law 27D: if the offending side have been advantaged from the assistance gained from the insufficient bid then the non-offending side may be entitled to an adjusted score. More bemusement.

Springold 0-3-4-6: a TD's view

Not a telephone number, as in Pennsylvania 6-5000 or 6-5-0-0-0, but a bridge hand.

In the Springold this week, a player held — Axx AQxx AKQxxx. RHO opened 3♠ and he bid 6♦: the making slam as partner held xx xxx Kxxx xxxx. His opponent was not impressed and posted this hand on the internet, even before the match was over.

The timing of the TD call is unclear, but the TD ruled result stands. We were not told whether the TD asked the player why he bid 6♦ and, if so, what was the response. A recorder form was completed: in England, reports of hands or reports of disciplinary incidents go on separate forms, completed by the TD; in ACBL recorder forms cover both reports and are (usually) completed by the players.

The law divides information available to players as authorised information and other information ("information being designated extraneous" in Law 16A3, but also referred to as "unauthorised"). Unauthorised information from partner, or from withdrawn calls, constrains a player's actions, according to Law 16B. Unauthorised information from other sourcess that may affect the result of the hand, can lead to an adjusted score. Not mentioned in Law 16, but implicit in Law 73B and Law 90, is that some information is illegally created not just illegally used. There are no increased penalties for using illegal information, but there are strong sanctions for obtaining illegal information (e.g. looking a deals in advance) or passing illegal information (e.g. finger signals).

In this case, the 6♦ bid is so extreme that there is a presumption it must be based on extraneous information. It is possible that 6♦ is a wild bid, chosen deliberately, and this possibility should not be discounted by the TD. It is possible that the player bid 6♦ intending to bid 6♣ and decided not to correct it, but there has been no suggestion of this.

No unauthorised source has been suggested for information that allowed the player to bid 6♦, although some have been hinted at. Some vocal posters on the internet want to take the unlikely nature of 6♦ as sufficient evidence that there must have been unauthorised information (from partner) and adjust under Law 16B, or that the law should be changed to allow such a ruling. This is problematic for two reasons: a player should be free to make wild bids; and since there was no obvious legal unauthorised information, to rule this way the TD is suggesting illegal obtained information (that is, cheating) and he does not have the evidence to rule that there has been cheating.

So what is the possible source for the (presumed) unauthorised information?

• Unauthorised information from partner, as described in Law 16B: nothing has been noted, certainly partner did not say "I have Kxxx in diamonds, perhaps that would be a good trump suit".
• Unathorised information from other sources, as described in Law 16C: this is perhaps the most likely except that the board had been dealt at the table (how quaint), so there was no external source for information about the board.
• The unauthorised information may be passed illegally by partner (" the gravest possible offence", according to Law 73B) but this would need direct observation.
• The information was obtained directly by the player (hardly a less grave offence): since the board was dealt at the table, this would require an interfernce with the making of the board, and again this would need direct observation to convict.

The 6♦ bid does seem an odd way to cheat: you would have thought the player would attempt a more plausible auction to what he is presumed to know is the top spot. But this sort of argument was one of the complications in the Buenos Aires incident: no one would take strange actions based on information from finger signals because it would give away the source of the information, but the strange actions are the evidence that they were using information from finger signals.

As a TD, I am sure I could do nothing in this case but let the result stand and submit a record of the hand. The committee receiving the report might find there is previous evidence about the same player/pair and investigate. They might investigate, e.g. by monitoring the player(s), based on this hand alone. Or they might wait for further evidence before investigating.

Favourable result for Law 86D

The short answer is that there is no answer to anything but the simplest case of Law 86D.

My starting points are the ruling from the Crockfords Cup Final (in Best foot forward) and a ruling from the Welsh Swiss Teams where one TD colleague (as a player) had a favourable result on a fouled board and another TD colleague (in charge of the event) consulted me on the ruling (see Cancelled board on IBLF).

In the first case, there were two non-offending side and one result and one board where no result was possible. The one result was favourable to one non-offending side and I gave that side an assigned score and the other side an artificial score (average plus). This is how we have been ruling since 2008, with a number of examples occuring a Brighton in that year and last year. But the chief TD says this is not the right approach: when there are two non-offending side one approach is to award artificial scores to both sides and the other possible approach is to award assigned scores to both sides. I am not sure which of these two approaches is thought to be the right one.

In the latter approach, the assigned scores can be based on sympathetic weightings for the result at the table where no result was obtained, so the scores for the two teams will not balance. But the weightings must be sufficiently close that the net IMPs from the assigned scores is less that 6IMP, this being the same as the net IMPs if there were to artificial scores (average plus for both sides).

In the Crockfords Cup Final case, using this approach, the side that defeated 4♠ would get +5IMP (based on 50% 4♠= and 50% 4♠-1 at the "other" table); and other side would get 0IMP (based on a sympathetic 100% 4♠-1 at the "other" table, the best they could do on the board). The net adjustment is 5IMP, which validates the sympathetic weightings as not being too generous.

In the second case, a board was fouled at three tables (in three separate matches) by having the wrong marking of dealer/vulnerability, at one of the tables a favourable result was obtained. Law 87 (Fouled Board) says the scores on a fouled board should stand but be scored separately as provided by regulation. Of course, for head-to-head comparison there is no way of scoring the board but this does not preclude the application of Law 86D. When two results have been obtained on the "same" board but can not be scored, there are lots of possibilties depending on whether there are one or two non-offending sides, and whether favourable results had been obtained on one or both boards, and by which side. In the absence of regulation, I suggested artificial adjusted scores for both sides on "the" board, ignoring the favourable result.

I was hiding behind the phrase in Law 86D "and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side", arguing that this did not apply if there were two non-offending sides (the result can not be favourable to both of them). On IBLF, someone pointed out the words "Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural ..." at the end of the introduction to the laws, which appears to weaken this case.

Summary

One result, one non-offending side

If the result was favourable for the non-offending, they get the benefit of the favourable result, based on an assigned normal result at the other table. In effect the non-offending side get the better of their one result and average plus; and the offending side get the converse score.

This is what we did in England, even before 2008; there was a regulation based on the "could have known" laws (now Law 23).

One result, both sides non-offending

• The established approach was to award both sides the better of the table result and average plus, effectively an assigned score to one side and an artificial score to the other. This approach appears too generous, disadvantaging the rest of the field.
• The simplest approach is average plus, an artificial score for both sides.
• The more equitable appoach is assigned scores to both sides, with some sympathetic weighting but a maximum net score (equal to the sum of average plus to both sides).

We need regulation to tell us which approach is to be adopted, and if there is to be choice of approach, how to choose.

Fouled board, two results

Both results stand but should be score separately, as provided in the regulations for the tournament. There could be one or two non-offending sides and they could have obtained favourable results on one or both boards. Application of any of the approaches above, would lead to separate IMP scores for the two versions of the board (based on a results not obtained at the other tables on each version of the board). In the absense of regulation, we have no way to combine these IMP scores. In my view, we should not try and the only defendable approach is to award artificial adjusted scores.

Favourable result for an offending side

The law allows assigned scores even when the offending side obtains the favourable result, but does not say when it should be done. The withdrawn WBF LC minute and the material at the EBL course in Sanremo said more. For the moment, I will not go there.

Unauthorised Panic

Unauthorised panic is a term that has been coined for a common use of unauthorised information, not always an infraction. A player makes a call that shows some suit or suits and partner misalerts or misexplained, so the player knows that partner has misunderstood the call. At this next turn to call, the player bids his suit (or one of his suit) in an attempt to wake up partner. Usually there are logical alternative to (re)bidding the suit; often bidding the suit again would not itself be a logical alternative.

I suffered an example of this recently: 1♠ – 2♦ – 3♥ – 4NT – 6♦ – 6♥ – 6NT – Pass.

3♥ was an attempt to agree ♦ but was not understood as such and not alerted (UI). 6♦ (after some thought) was unauthorised panic, a second attempt to agree ♦. The same twelve tricks are available in diamonds, spades or NT, so this was not a good score. I was the only one who noticed what had happened.

I do not know what the result would have been if opener had given the correct RKCB response with diamonds agreed, and his partner had continued bidding as if hearts were agreed. Probably the auction would have continued with the same ... 6♥ – 6NT – Pass. So no damage.

Minor penalty card (or not)

Law 50 B

A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card. Any card of honour rank, or any card exposed through deliberate play (for example in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; ...

The first sentence suggests that if two cards are played to a trick, a card below the rank of honour that remains unplayed becomes a minor penalty card. This is how we ruled for a number of years.

The second sentence suggests that if two cards are played and the unplayed card was the card originally intended to be played, then that card becomes a major penalty card (regardless of rank). To apply the second interpretation, we need to know which card was intended to be played and there may be no alternative but to ask the player (away from the table). This involves a number of awkward points: the player choosing which of two cards to designate as played needs to know that the status of the remaining card depends on which card was originally intended, the player may lie (or be suspected of lying) in answering which card was originally intended, and are the opponents entitled to know which card was originally intended or just the status of the remaining card (and, if they know the law, they may deduce which card was originally intended)? The originally interpretation avoids these issues, and (as a consequence) is still adopted by many directors.

Torquay

At the recent EBU congress in Torquay, we came across an example where the original intent was clear, and the second interpretation did not lead to these awkward issues, and a card below the rank of honour exposed as one of two cards played to a trick clearly became a major penalty card.

East, a defender, had previously discarded on a diamond trick, played ♣9 to a subsequent diamond trick, but when it reached the table a small diamond appeared beneath the ♣9. The application of Law 58 to the two cards played simultaneously meant the diamond must be played, because it was the legal play. It was clear that East did not think he had a diamond in his hand, so the director was content that the ♣9 had been the card played (exposed through deliberate play) and so was a major penalty card; without having to ask East away from the table.

In retrospect, this is really two examples. It would have been possible to make the determination that the ♣9 was originally intended, without the combination of two circumstances: the earlier revoke and the ♣9 being the original only visible card. If there had been an earlier revoke and both a diamond and a club appeared as played, it may be possible to rule that the card that should have been played to the revoke trick was not the intended card. Alternatively, if the club was played completely obscuring the diamond until the two cards were on the table and became separated, it would be possible to rule that the club was the originally intended played card.

As in many other cases, determining intent and asking questions to determine intent are things the laws should avoid.

Best foot forward

This weekend was a significant step forward: it was the first bridge event I have done without a plastic boot/cast on left foot since the Tollemache Qualifier in November 2008. Last week, I was fitted with a new pair of orthopaedic orthotic shoes and was encouraged not to wear the boot/cast. I still have many medical issues to work through but this was definitely a step in the right direction.

The blog has dried up, despite having time on my hands. I would like to post on various topics: the application of Law 86D, alerting of undiscussed doubles, red fielded misbids; and I would still like to give club TDs some practical advice on law 27. But there never seem to be the right hands to illustrate the points I want to make.

Law 86D

OK, this was a Law 86D case from this weekend.

Board 18 was (spectacularly) fouled a one table, through no players' fault, and had already been played at the other table in the match. I asked the other table if there had been an exceptional result on the board and NS said they defeated 4S that may not be bid or may be bid and made. I tooked at other results on the board and 4S was being bid and was sometimes making. So NS had got a good (if not unusual) result on the fouled board and the conditions for Law 86D were met: one of the non-offending sides had scored a favour result. (But Law 86D talks about the non-offending side, does this imply there must be only one non-offending side for an assigned adjusted score?) So I gave NS an assigned adjusted score for NS+50 score against 50% NS+50 50% NS-420 (+5IMPs); and EW an artificial adjusted score of Ave+ (+3IMPs). Is this the way the law is supposed to operate?

A WBF minute on Law 86D from 2008 was subsequently withdrawn in 2009, and there is much in the EBU White Book (and at the EBL TD Course in Sanremo). These deal with the less obvious case of giving an offending side some benefit of its favourable result on a subsequently fouled board.

Both sides revokes: WBF minute

January is a good time for breaking resolutions! This is discussion of a hypothetical problem (against the stated policy of this blog) which arose from the recent WBF LC meetings. The WBF LC minutes are reproduced in the recent EBU L&E minutes. The item I am interested concerns both sides revoking on the same hand.

7. When both sides have revoked on the same board (Laws 64B7 and 64C), each revoke is examined separately in assessing the equity when that revoke occurs.

What does it mean? Or more accurately, what does the TD do? Having examined each revoke separately and assessed the equity, what does he do with the different answers to arrive at an adjusted score?

Extreme example

	North
	irrelevant
West		A
irrelevant		--
		A K Q J 6 5 4 3
C2 lead		10 9 8 7
	--
	A
	10 9 8 7
	A K Q J 6 5 4 3

South plays in 3NT: North and West follow suit and can not win any tricks. South plays clubs from the top and East discards SA on CJ, and wins C6 with C10. East plays diamonds from the top and South discards HA on DJ, and wins D6 with D10.

South makes 8 tricks. Both sides have revoked: so we examine each revoke separately. Without East's revoke South will make 9 tricks. With East's revoke but without South's revoke, South makes 4 tricks; or 5 tricks if we apply the one trick revoke penalty for East's revoke. This gives two or three separate results: 3NT= and 3NT-5 (and 3NT-4); which one do I assign?

For what it's worth, my vote is for 3NT=, ignoring both revokes. But I don't see how this fits with the wording of the minute.