Unauthorised information problems as a player

Dealing with unauthorised information, at the table, as a player, can be very difficult. It is good for a TD to be reminded of this from time to time when playing, so we continue to treat with sympathy the ordinary player who fails to cope with unfamiliar unauthorised information problems.

Ordinary hesitation problems are not usually so difficult: usually the auction makes sense and so the logical alternatives are obvious. If you can not work out what is suggested by the unauthorised information, just bidding what you would have done without the hesitation will not be a disaster even if the TD subsequently adjusts the score. But if partner misexplains your bid, then you have unauthorised information (regardless of who has got the system right or wrong) and the auction is likely to get in to unfamiliar territory. Now it can be very difficult to determine what are logical alternatives, especially when you know why partner is bidding strangely. Now, anything you do could be a disaster: either because it is a silly contract or the TD has to adjust to some result that may be very favourable to the other side.

An example was the ruling last month where an opening Benji 2♦ was announced by partner as a weak two and raised to 5♦: opener was now in a position of trying to decide how to bid in a position that may not exist for this partnership, and also trying to decide how his peers would bid in a position where opinions may vary wildly. As a player you want to avoid a bad result, but you also want to avoid appearing to have taken advantage.

A hand from a match played privately

We played a very pleasant match half-way across the county yesterday. There was a delay at the start, so recognising me as a National TD, there was some discussion of the perennial topics such as psychic bidding and “the extended rule of 25”.

Early in the match, I was last to speak, vulnerable against not vulnerable, holding: ♠A ♥K ♦AQxxx ♣AQJxxx. The auction started 1♥ Pass 2♥, and I tried 2NT, assuming this showed a minor two-suiter. But partner did not alert and bid 3♥ (with the opponents wisely remaining silent for the rest of the auction). It seemed very likely that partner was transfering to spades opposite a natural 2NT bid, but opposite a minor two-suiter, 3♥ was probably a NT probe asking for something in hearts. So what were my logical alternatives? Possibilities were 3NT, 4♣, 4NT and 5♣. Crucially, was 3NT a logical alternative? If it was, I should bid it and it was likely to be a disaster. I decided stiff King could not what partner was looking for (I am not so sure now) and that only 5♣ fitted my hand. I was concious that 5♣ looked like “unauthorised panic” (following a call that partner has misunderstood with a call that repeats or reinforces the meaning of the earlier call) but I had convinced myself there was no alternative.

Now partner bid 5♠, so clearly he had spades and despite the unauthorised panic in 5♣, he had not woken up to the intended meaning of 2NT. But what was I allowed to think of 5♠? If was a control bid agreeing clubs, it could not be showing the Ace or a void; so it must be a spade suit. I thought that if Pass was a logical alternative, then I should pass because bidding was suggested by partner having misunderstood 2NT; unless I should interpret partner's auction as a slam try in spades, in which case 6♠ was a logical alternative that I should bid. 6♣ could still be a making contract and I wanted to avoid bidding it if that would look like “using” unauthorised information. But if I passed, and 5♠ was the last making contract, that might also look suspicious.

So I passed 5♠ and explained that I not intended 2NT as natural; the opponents seemed to say they had thought 2NT was a two-suiter. 5♠ drifted −2; partner and I muttered apologies and the opponents were content. Nobody seemed aware of the inner turmoil I had gone through during the auction.

At the end of the match, I told the auction to a team-mate; after thinking about the bridge problems, he said “and you were under some constraint”. I agreed.

Phone calls, emails, txts and faxes

Although the obvious work of a national tournament director is done running events, I also do a lot of “work” from home. I get phone calls from everyone: other National directors, other TDs, the local club, and players who have had rulings they don't understand. I get emails requesting rulings or opinions on previous rulings/appeals; and I do get the occasional text message starting “U hold ...” (polling to determine logical alternatives). But I don't get faxes.

Although my telephone number is provided by the English Bridge Union, enquiries come from throughout the British Isles: regular consults from the depths of Wales, players and TDs from Scotland, and the odd ruling from Ireland. Most correspondents are grateful and are apprecriative of the time and effort, even if I don't tell them what they wanted to hear. But recently I did spend 24 hours canvassing opinions on a ruling and then weighing the different opinions to give my ruling; neither side bothered to thank me, although I must have ruled in favour of one of them!

That ruling involved confusion between a Benjamin 2♦ and a weak two in ♦ with inevitable consequences. I had to poll those who played Benji about the logical alternatives for the player who thought 2♦ was Benji, and to poll others who wouldn't play Benji about what the unauthorised information suggested.

Other topics

• How to apply Law 31 when the bid out of rotation was conventional. The answer is in Law 29C but this law is easily overlooked when reading Laws 30 – 32.
• A dispute at trick 13: dummy is on lead and that card will win, but declarer shows his card intending to claim the last trick and the opponents want to accept declarer's card as a lead out of turn (which will lose).
• Does a careful reading of Law 12B1 mean that if the damage is entirely self-inflicted (in the sense of Law 12C1b) there should be not adjustment for either side? (Answer: Yes, but.)
• What to do when an opening two bid does not meet the EBU regulation, do we treat it as an illegal agreement or a deviation from partnership agreement.
• Discussion of a suitable format for Swiss Teams playing around 36 boards.

An Open Invitation from WBFLC

This appeared in the World Championships Bulletin No.11. I intend to respond: covering laws that have come up in this blog.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge – An open invitation

by Grattan Endicott

The WBF Laws Committee is now giving some preliminary thought to the next review of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Its first decision is to issue a worldwide invitation to players, tournament directors, and NBOs (and as it may be, other members of bridge discussion groups), to send to me any thoughts they may have as to desirable changes in the Laws.

I intend to divide suggestions received into two categories:

1. those which propose a change in the effect of the law; and
2. those which retain the current effect of the law but target an improvement in the wording and/or layout of a Law.

The broad inclination of the committee as it commences the task is to institute very few category (a) changes but to concentrate mainly on proposals in category (b). All suggestions will receive consideration and we will see what responses this invitation brings.

For ease of identification and sorting, I request:

1. That nothing reaches me before 1st December 2011, and
2. That the subject line of every email shall contain the words “Duplicate Bridge Law”, which may be followed, if desired by a Law number.

Given the likely number of suggestions that will be sent, please do not anticipate an acknowledgement of receipt unless there is something not fully understood. Do not assume that anything received hitherto will be on record — send it afresh if you wish it to have attention.

Invitation issued Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

Responses must be received no later than 31st December 2012.

Send to grandaeval@tiscali.co.uk

Application of Law 12C1(b) revisited

I have been called on a number of times recently to advise on the application of Law 12C1(b) — adjustment for non-offending side following self-inflicted damage, due to a SEWoG. I have written a spreadsheet to display the calculations (feedback welcome). As a consequence of writing the software, I now better understand the calculations and I have rewritten my article, which subsequently appeared in the EBU White Book.

Application of Law 12C1(b)

There are scores (for the non-offending side) we have to consider

1. the score for the Actual table result (including any serious error or WoGA)
2. the score for the result Before infraction (assigned by Law 12C1c)
3. the score for the result that Could have been scored, with the infraction but without serious error

The corresponding scores for the offending side are A', B', C'; at IMPs A' = −A, etc.; at match points A + A' = top, etc.

The overall damage D (= B − A) can be divided as

• Real damage: D_R = B − C
• Self-inflicted damage: D_S = C − A

There are four cases: all damage is self-inflicted, some is self-inflicted, no self-inflicted damage, or no damage at all.

• B ≤ A: no advantage, no damage, no adjustment;
• A < B ≤ C: all damage self-inflicted, no real damage D_R ≤ 0, NOS get A, OS get B';
• C ≤ A < B: no self-inflicted damage, D_S ≤ 0, balancing adjustment, NOS get B, OS get B';
• A < C < B: real damage and some self-inflicted.

In the final case, the OS get B' and the NOS get A + B − C = adjusted score − self-inflicted damage.

Examples

NS bid to 4H and EW “use UI” to compete to 4S, which is doubled. In defending 4SX, NS might revoke (a serious error) and lose a trick they would otherwise score. The result in the other room is NS +50. The expected result in 4H is making, so B (the result before the infraction) is +9 IMP for the non-offending side.

4SX-1 NS +100. Revoke

A = IMP(100-50) = +2 IMP. Without the revoke: 4SX-2 NS +300. C = IMP(300-50) = +6 IMP.

Damage D = 7 IMP; real damage D_R = 3 IMP, self-inflicted damage D_S = 4 IMP.

Offending side (team of EW) get −9 IMP, non-offending side (team of NS) get 2 + 9 − 6 = +5 IMP.

4SX-2 NS +300. Revoke

A = +6 IMP. Without the revoke: 4SX-3 NS +500. C = IMP(500-50) = +10 IMP. No real damage (D_R < 0).

Offending side get −9 IMP, non-offending side get +6 IMP (table result).

4SX-2 NS +300. No revoke

A = C = +6 IMP. No self-inflicted damage (D_S = 0). Both sides get ±9 IMP.

4SX-3 NS +500.

A = +10 IMP. No damage. Table result for both sides.

Nightmare at the club

No real directing this month, except for a “guest” appearance at the club — I managed to call the moves to time, and sort out the scoring problems. Instead I tried playing the game yesterday but that was a disaster, the only thing I did right was to give a ruling on a board the real TD had not yet played.

All dummy's cards not displayed

The ruling concerned the problem of what to do when dummy manages to hide one of their cards when displaying their hand in dummy. Inevitably this does not get discovered until half way through the play, when the card above the hidden card is played. Dummy is at fault (Law 41D requires dummy spreads his hand in front of him on the table, face up ) but there is no prescribed penalty. We have to fall back on something (Law 12A1 will do) when the defenders have been damaged, and adjust to the result that would have happened if the defenders had been able to see all dummy's cards from the outset.

This sort of ruling comes up from time to time and appears on the internet: it is now covered in the EBU County Directors' course. Perhaps it should be covered explicity in the laws. It only needs another sentence in Law 41D.

If dummy fails to display his hand as specified, and the defenders are damaged, the director shall award an adjusted score.

Confession is good for the soul

The low point of the evening was a misinformation case.

W	N	E	S
		–	1♣
(1♦)	1♥	–	2♦A
–	3♥	–	4NT
–	5♦	Q–	5♥
End

East asked about 5♦ during the auction and South said “one ace or the king of trumps”.

The end of the round was called as play started. The opening lead was a diamond, won by East's queen, and then he cashed a top spade, but when he tried to cash ♦A it was ruffed by declarer. Declarer now crossed to dummy in spades and discarded a club on dummy's ♦K. This all seemed odd to South, as the only key card North could have was ♣A. South concluded that North did not have any key cards and then remembered they played RKCB 41/30. South told the table that he had given a misexplanation of 5♦ * but play continued. Declarer was able to complete a cross-ruff, finally drawing trumps in hand (when they broke 2–2) and cashing his established spade; making 5♥.

South again said there had been a misexplanation and the defence would have cashed the first three tricks if they knew declarer had no aces. But East/West were not interested and just wanted to move for the next round. Perhaps it would have been better if North had given up when the misexplanation came to light and claimed down –1 that would have happened if the defence had cashed their three tricks.

* Should he do so now? Law 20F4 says he should; Law 43A1a suggests otherwise.

Brighton Focus - Insufficient Bids

The TDs wrote some article for Brighton Focus. Inevitably I sounded off about Law 27.

Insufficient Bids

by Robin Barker

Insufficient bids used to be easy and reasonably well understood: you could make an insufficient bid good or otherwise partner would be silenced. Of course, your Left-hand Opponent could accept the insufficient bid, and there were some restrictions on “making it good”, so the TD had to be called; and sometimes the opponents would be damaged by the insufficient bid, and the TD had to adjust the score.

But since 2008 the new laws have opened up a whole can of worms. As well as “making it good”, there are other calls that do not silence partner: these so-called “rectification” calls are anything that has the same or a more precise meaning as the insufficient bid.

But what is the meaning of your insufficient bid? Your partnership can not have an explicit agreement, so we have to ask you (away from the table) what the bid meant.

And how do we understand “same or more precise meaning”? Well, the law makers have changed their mind to allow a more liberal interpretation, and internationally some jurisdictions are even more liberal, so you may have to discuss it with the TD (away from the table).

All this leads to bobbing up and down for you, difficulty in making themselves understood for the TDs, and bewilderment for the other players at the table.

So try not to make insufficient bids and, if they happen, please listen and believe the TD while he/she sorts it out.

Four Stars Finals

Brighton 2011 – Day 10

Teams finals today and all went well except for two potential appeals, which eventually went away.

One potential appeal involved the adjustment for late arrival. The team protested that the start time of the finals had not been properly advertised. The TD in-charge confirmed the adjustment and the team considered appealing but decided not to.

The other was a ruling on the auction 1♣-(Pass)-1♠-(Double)-2♦-(3♠)-4♣-End. 1♣ was natural or balanced (in the modern style) and 1♠ was part of a transfer response scheme denying a major (again, in the modern style). Double was spades, and 2♦ was explained as reversing values but was bid on a weak NT with 5 diamonds. 4♣ was -4 and the defenders might have bid differently if 2♦ had been explained differently, but 4♠ would not make.

I ruled that the explanation of 2♦ was correct and opener had misbid, and the defending side appealed. The other side did not want to stay to attend the appeal and instead wrote extracts from their system notes on the appeals form. In the final results a change in the score on this board would not change the ranking, and so the appeal was withdrawn.

Home on Monday and back to sorting out plumbing problems, travel insurance claims, and the usual round of medical appointments.

An untested new law - do we know what it means?

Brighton 2011 – Day 9

My article on insufficient bids appears in the bulletin today, but caused litte comment. Instead, to keep this blog on topic but away from Law 27; we had a ruling on a new part of the claim laws.

Apparently, declarer claimed the rest in a spade contract, with no statements, in something like this position:

	♠ Jxx
	♥ Jxx
	♦
	♣
♠ 9		♠
♥ 10x		♥ xx
♦ 8		♦ xx
♣ AK		♣ xx
	♠ 10
	♥ x
	♦ Q6
	♣ xx

The defenders did not accept the claim and instead play continued: diamond from West, won by South; a diamond from South, ruffed by West, and over-ruffed; and now declarer could ruff a heart and did have the rest. At some point the TD was called and he used Law 70D1:

In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players’ probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim.

Although we know the background of this addition to the laws (“He claimed it on a double squeeze”) we have not had an test cases of the new law as written.

The TD ruled that the play subsequent to the claim provided sufficient evidence of how the defenders would play to award declarer the rest of the tricks. I felt that Law 70D1 should be used to extend the possible normal plays of the claimer: any line that the claim actual made subsequent to the claim should be regarded as normal. But I did not think the Law 70D1 should be used to restrict the possible normal plays by the non-claiming side. In this case there are a number of lines for the defence that result in a trick. Even if they don't lead a trump, they would still be awarded a trick if they are not made to ruff in on the second diamond.

Speedball – don't drink and post

Brighton 2011 – Day 8 Midnight

A further post from Day 7 (evening), describing conflicts between being a scorer/TD in the playing area and acting as TD in-charge, has been held over until the dust has settled. Instead I am posting at 2am from a (deserted) hotel bar — ignoring advice to not drink and post/text/email.

I had the afternoon off and after sorting out some paperwork, I just had a nap and listened to the cricket. Then there were three matches of the Swiss Teams and not much of significance in terms of rulings. In the Blue/Yellow section we had problems with names in the SwissTeamsScorer — and we weren't even using bridgemates.

My last job of the day was to run the midnight speed-ball. We only had eight tables and played 24 boards in less than an hour and a quarter. Everything was posted, tidied, and put to bed before 01:30. This included a late-play: in round 1 table 1 did not know it was three board rounds and did not play board 3. So we had a one-table, 1 board, revenge round; and it was even possible for them entre the score on the bridgemate (and two other tables were still playing the real last round). The winning margin was 4% so I was able to announce the winners (to applause) while the last round was in progress.

Trying to avoid appeals as TD in-charge

Brighton 2011 – Day 7 Evening

I stood in for the TD in-charge for some of today, while he had some time off; while continuing as scorer. I got involved in some rulings and appeals that ended up distracting from scoring and from being TD in-charge.

(2♦)-2NT–3♥–4♥–4♠-End

3♥ should have been alerted because it was transfer, and the opponents questioned whether 4♠ was affected by the failure to alert. I ruled that making a bid above 4♠ (as a slam try) was a logical alternative to 4♠ and 4♠ was suggested by the failure to alert. I produced a weighted ruling, which I thought was generous to the Offending Side, but the Offending Side thought it was “harsh” and appealed.

After the appeal was decided, they still wanted to talk to someone and I (in my role as TD in-charge) would have been in a good position to continue the discussion, if I had not been the TD giving the ruling. As it was, I had to drag the real TD in-charge off his break to talk to the appellant.

Opportunity for Law 93B1

It is very difficult to maintain the detachment that may be desirable as TD in-charge when you are also the scorer and are sat at a desk on the edge of the playing area. A player came up to me and asked about a card misplayed by dummy and I explained Law 45D. Soon after the TD who had ruled explained what had happened and asked me if she had got it wrong. In consultation, it was decided that we needed more facts: what cards had been played before attention was drawn to the card misplayed by dummy, and what would have been the outcome of the hand if the misplay had been corrected. Of course, when the TD asked more questions of the two pairs, they gave differing answers. It was decided there was insufficient evidence to find that original ruling was wrong, so there was no need to apply Law 82C.

The ruling (or the lack of correction) was appealed but the committee upheld the original ruling. It was pointed out to me after the event, that according to Law 93B1 I should have heard the appeal.

The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law or regulations. His ruling may be appealed to the committee.

I am not sure I would have been able to give them a fair hearing because of my earlier involvement — but it was an opportunity missed.

The new “Jim” for the 21st century

Brighton 2011 – Day 7 Afternoon

In days gone by, when I was trainee and before, we all got taught how to assign and score Swiss Teams events. Jim had a set way of arranging assignment cards and writing assignments, and a whole colour-coded scheme for charting the scores. Since then, we have being using computers for charting, and then assigning, and now we can do the match scores with bridgemates.

While running the Seniors Congress Swiss Teams, yesterday and today, I have been teaching various colleagues how to use the scoring program with bridgemates for Swiss Teams; based on my experiences at Bournemouth and Torquay. I get the feeling that I am establishing common practice in the running of EBU Swiss Teams with bridgemates in a way that will filter through the ranks. Sarah suggests that this makes the “Jim” for the 21^st century.

A-level results day

Brighton – Day 7 morning

Just heard that daughter E (see Junior Teach-in reminiscences) has got into UCL, to study Psychology.

She has worked very hard ... we are very proud ... blah, blah, blah, ...

Trials and Tribulations of the Brighton Midweek Scorer

Brighton 2011 – Day 6

Swiss Teams and Bridgemates

Everyone else runs Swiss Teams with Bridgemates with no trouble, but when the EBU does it there has been some trouble. At Easter we had to give up; and then at Bournemouth we had to stop and start again, but it worked from then on. The problem seems to revolve around reading players names (as EBU numbers) from the bridgemates. I tried again at the Riviera Congress in Torquay and although the names were not it the right places, everything ran OK.

So it was with some trepidation that we approached the Seniors Swiss Teams (session 1) this afternoon. There were lots of TDs to hand with different experiences of some of the previous problems, so we had every confidence. What happened was the same as Torquay, the names went in but half were in the wrong place, and some were lost. The names in the wrong place could be cut-and-pasted (as a block) to the right slots, and the remaining names typed from the name slips. It should all have appeared seamless to the players!

Dynamic Open Pairs

As the Swiss Teams finished match one, I had to run over to the afternoon's Open Pairs, to set up the movement. Just as I was about to hit the final “Yes” button, another pair turned up. Instead of one 25-table section, we were now two 13-table sections. I redid the movement, and new table numbers, boards and bridgemates were put out. Once some of the bridgemates had been successfully reconfigured we were up and running.

Then we tried to tell the bridgemates that there was a missing pair. We reread the results into the scoring program and it seemed to be picking up results from some previous session. The bridgemate controller programme got into a bit of tizz but continued to deliver the scores we wanted. We left it in its confused state and it got us through to the end of the session.

Mixed Pivot Teams

The highlight of the day was the EBU 75th Anniversary Mixed Pivot Teams. We had sixty teams and only had to have two goes at loading the correct movement before it all continued smoothly. Play runs at different speeds at different tables, and usually one round would not finish at one table before results were in for the next round from another table. This makes it almost impossible to produce clear round-by-round scores and ranking lists but we managed something. The results were out very quickly (after the last score was input) and the final results (after some more corrections) were out soon after.

All that remained was to re-sort 23 pairs at 13 tables into a workable movement for the midnight speed-ball, start the scoring system — and so to bed.

A difficult day

Brighton 2011 – Day 5

We had problems with players sat in the wrong sections, people getting upset, scorer errors, and scorer system errors; and then I ended up having to give a judgement ruling when I should have been checking the scores and printing results. All in all, not a good day.

And then the hotel Wi-Fi has been down most of the time, so even blogging has been difficult.

An easy day?

Brighton 2011 – Day 4

Midweek at Brighton can be less intense, and today started with a heartly breakfast with little talk of dodgy claims. My dietry foibles are well catered for by the hotel: soya milk (for the lactose intolerant) and veggie sausages (for the vegetarians).

I had the afternoon off and considered the beach. A fortnight ago we had been on holiday in North New South Wales, and spent a day on the beach at Lennox Head, south of Byron Bay. Although it had been winter in Australia, Brighton beach could not really compare: temperatures were similar, but Australia had more sun, sea and sand.

The mean streets – of Brighton and Hove

Pounding the streets of Sydney had done for my dodgy foot (see Best foot forward), and, instead of the beach, I pounded the streets of Brighton and Hove in search of a pharmacist who could provide extra dressings. My search of pharmacists was unsuccessful and the street-pounding had been counter-productive.

I was amused by a sign in a shop: “genuine Panama hats, from Ecuador”; and it reminded my of a sign in a shop in Coffs Harbour (NSW): “50% off bikinis” – which half?

Back to the bridge

This evening was the first session of the Seniors Pairs and the Play With The Experts Pairs. There was much to keep the TDs busy, and as the scorer I found there much work to get the scoring software to deliver the results of Play With The Experts.

Nuanced artificial adjustments

Brighton 2011 – Day 3

Dodgy claims for breakfast

The rulings started early today: a claim from yesterday appeared in the bulletin and caused much discussion over breakfast. It concerned the issue of whether a statement that “I have winners in spades and clubs” (say) means I will (try to) cash my spades and then my clubs, or whether (in adjudicating such a claim) the TD must allow that you might play on clubs before the spades. I got dragged in late in the day to advise the bulletin staff editor on a responding article to appear tomorrow.

Extending Law 12C2

I gave an artificial adjustment today that I thought extended Law 12C2 with some additional nuances; but a colleague said: “you do realise that is illegal.” A table had run out of time and I stopped them from playing the last board of a round. I had seen the (slow) play of an earlier board, and thought that both sides were to blame. But I could believe that the slowness before that had been the fault of one side only. I could have awarded 50%/50% or 40%/60% for the unplayed board but I decided on 45%/55% in favour of the side that were slow only on one board.

Law 12C2(a) offers the following adjustments:

• average minus (at most 40%): directly at fault;
• average (50%): partly at fault;
• average plus (at least 60%): no way at fault.

I thought my adjustment could be seen as extending this list:

• average semi-minus (45%): mainly at fault;
• average semi-plus (55%): slightly at fault.

I doubt it will catch on.

Junior Teach-in reminiscences

I had two separate conversations about the Junior Teach-in that E attended: the ex-juniors who were juniors then felt old when reminded that it was ten years ago (and E is now 18, awaiting A-level results).

I directed the Saturday evening pairs at that Junior Teach-in, and I have never forgotten the stress of trying to get each move called, even though there was no real pressure from anyone else. Although this evening's events at Brighton were also not “high-pressure”, there was still pressure that they run to time. Once you have fast players who want to play the next round, and slow players who want to finish the last round, the TD will always have his work cut out to keep everyone happy (or at least, not too put out).

The Longest Day

Brighton 2011 – Day 2

If your working days starts with posting assignments at 10am, it is perhaps a mistake to play Speed-ball Swiss Teams if it going to finish at 2:30am the following morning.

A low point of the speed-ball was holding a near Yarborough with ♣8xxxx. The opponents declared 7♣ and despite having all the higher clubs declarer could not do everything, lost control and was down 4. That was 7IMPs out when team mate with their big hand had doubled for take-out on 6-6-1-0 and played there for -470.

Familiar Faces and Absent Friends

Brighton 2011 – Day 1

I know there are a few of you out there who will want to keep tabs on me while I am in Brighton. The bulletin (“Brigton Focus”) is planning to have some articles from TDs, so I will try to avoid duplicating what get published there.

Always good to see so many familiar faces as we prepare for the start of Brighton: players, EBU staff and TD colleagues. But I am reminded by their absence of those who will not be here.

I made some comment on IBLF about players “with power and influence”. Hanging around the lobby while people were checking in, someone (who admitted he fell into the category) was interested to know who I meant and just asked “who?”!

A ruling

I was consulted on a ruling with some difficult practical aspects (what do you tell the playes and how?). There had been a failure to alert 2♣ and this had been pointed out: after the opening lead had been selected, but before it had been faced. RHO said that if the bid had been alerted he would have doubled, and the question was could LHO change her opening lead, and on what basis. The TD ruled that it was too late to allow RHO to double 2♣ when it had happened, and any adjustedment on that basis would have to wait until the end of the hand. LHO could change her opening lead because of the misinformation from the missing alert but could not use the information that RHO would have doubled. This is an awkward position where there are two new sources of information, one authorised and one unauthorised, both telling the player the same thing. It was often very difficult to work out if the new authorised information means there are now no logical alternatives to doing the right thing, so that the unauthorised information is irrelevant. At the table, the lead was not changed, and in fact there seemed to be nothing to play, whatever the lead.

Midnight

Mike and I played in the midnight speed-ball pairs. Our most successful achievement of the session (as playing non-TDs) was to ensure that pairs who moved early for round eight actually skipped. It was a bit of a surprise to the champion of web movements that:

1. we had 28 boards in play;
2. there was a skip, so he missed duffing up Mike and I;
3. it was a two-winner movement (how quaint).

At least the two-winner movement avoided us from having to compare our result with Sarah and Jonathan's.

Roland Bolton

Roland Bolton, a great friend and TD colleague, died earlier today. Roland had been running events for the EBU and for Surrey and other counties in the South-East for as long as I have been aware of such things. He always brought energy to organising and running events and a commitment to ensuring everything went right. When I started as a trainee director for the EBU, it was invariably with Roland as director in charge.

If he did not teach me everything I know, I nevertheless learnt a great deal from Roland. In the early days, he was very encouraging that I learn the right things to do and equally keen that I should not learn bad habits as a TD. He continued to encourage and support me as I rose through the ranks, and was pleased and proud of my promotions.

Soon before moving from the South-East, I found myself in charge of the big one-day event in Surrey; for many years this was the biggest such event in the country and Roland's piece de resistance. This was the biggest event I have been in charge of (before or since). Roland had been unavailable (hence my appointment) but when his travel plans fell through, he was brought in as a TD. I am sure there was some doubt among the players that I was really in charge, but Roland was magnaminous and allowed me to get on with it. It is a testament to Roland's mentoring that the event went without a hitch.

Since moving to the South-West, we continued to work together at national events. He remained a great friend and a support through my medical problems and redundancy. We last met at the EBU TD Panel weekend last October, where he continued to show a determination that all TDs (new and old) should know what was right and to do things the right way. He will be remembered with great fondness.

Multiple plays out of turn - there is a law for that

A busy month but not much to report here. Having met an unfamiliar position, with colleagues giving me different advice, I was surprised and pleased to find a part of a law that I was not aware of that seemed to solve the problem.

South is declarer and the lead is in dummy, nevertheless she plays ♥K from hand. Realising her mistake she calls for ♥2 from dummy, which is played, and RHO plays ♥A — now the TD is called. I thought ♥A had accepted the ♥2 and declarer was now in the position of deciding which card to play from hand; others thought that ♥K could not be un-played [withdrawn] as there had been no explicit rejection of the lead out of turn, but were unsure of the status of ♥2.

Then I found Law 53B, a part of the laws I will happily admit I have never read before.

B. Wrong Defender Plays Card to Declarer’s Irregular Lead

If the defender at the right of the hand from which declarer’s lead out of turn was made plays to the irregular lead (but see C), the lead stands and Law 57 applies.

So if RHO had played ♥A directly after the out-of-turn ♥K, that would accpt ♥K but LHO would be subject to the restrictions of Law 57A. As it is, because ♥2 had also been played before ♥A, there are no restrictions on LHO because of Law 57C: A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands, ...

So the ruling is a simple one: the ♥K is the lead, all the cards played stand played to the trick, and LHO plays to the trick without restiction. Probably, what one would have ruled without any of Laws 53 and 57 to hand.

Two bids out of rotation

An analogous position in the auction, is where North is the dealer, South opens out of turn and then North calls, sometimes one of the opponents now calls. We do not know how to deal with this: North's call must be treated as out of turn (otherwise North could deliberately call to try to cancel partner's call out of turn), and whichever call out of turn we try to deal with first leads to a mess. There is a recent topic on IBLF.

Meaning of likely in Law 69B2

Another interesting ruling from April was on the meaning of “likely” in Law 69B2. Some colleagues are hardly aware of the change of law here and still want to not give any more tricks to the side that withdraws acceptance, treating it as a withdrawn concession. This was another topic on IBLF.

Insufficient unauthorised information

Ranked masters

I had two insufficient bid rulings at the Ranked Masters: neither involved the quagmire of Law 27B1, but rulings under other parts of Law 27, and both involved unauthorised information (without explicit reference in the laws).

1NT – 1NT

I quickly established that overcaller did not see the initial 1NT, and attempt to give my spiel. But LHO was interested in accepting 1NT, as long as the initial 1NT was authorised. I guess he was worried that if he accepted the second 1NT, this would cancel the first 1NT and he would not be able to double, as that double would be based on the values opener had shown. I explained that whatever happened, the first 1NT would be authorised, but if (say) the second 1NT was replaced by Pass (under Law 27B2) then the second 1NT would not be authorised to offender's partner: who would have to pass throughout but would still have to avoid using unauthorised information as a defender.

1♥ – Pass – 1♦/2♦

Responder attempted to correct to 2♦ after attention was drawn to the insufficient bid. I established that 1♦ was not unintended (for Law 25), so LHO could accept 1♦ and embarked on my spiel. Again LHO wished to accept the insufficient bid (and bid 1♠) as permitted by Law 27C, but the question of unauthorised information from 2♦ arose. I admitted (perhaps reluctantly) that information from the 2♦ bid was unauthorised: the fact that offender was willing to correct to 2♦ might suggest extra values; but for many players correcting to 2♦ (if permitted) would be an automatic reaction, showing no more than a desire not to silence partner.

I looked for a reference to Law 16 in Law 27B2 (which explicitly references Law 23 and Law 26) and in Law 27C, but there is none. In contrast, Law 27B1 states explicitly that Law 16 does not apply.

Late night rulings

Wednesday evening was peppered with phone consultations: two interesting unauthorised informations rulings, and one ruling where there was little to do because the players had effectively ruled at the table. Inevitably, it was this last one that appeared on the internet, as Misboarding in Teams Match. The question arose during the consultation, and again in the online topic, whether we should attempt to apply Law 86D. In consultation, we had rejected Law 86D: we both took the attitude that we would not attempt to apply that law unless there was just one non-offending side. This attitude was cemented by some discussions at the EBU panel training weekend and is based on the phrase “the non-offending side” at the end of Law 86D. Online, there were those who wanted to apply Law 86D with two (equally) offending sides.

How likely is likely?

Another interesting online topic concerned the word “likely” in Law 69: How likely is likely?. I had noticed this change in wording when the new laws appeared, but this is the first real case I have seen where the change was relevant.

Updated spiel

I first produced a “spiel” for Law 27 in 2008, and revised in 2009. The EBU approach agreed at the TD meeting last year requires a further update to the spiel, which is now closer to the 2008 original. There is now no need for the TD to make a stab at whether or how Law 27B1 (a) and (b) apply, he just reads out the law.

Take offender away from the table and ask how the insufficient bid occured: this stops the player blurting something out at the table. Depending on what they say, it may now be a Law 25A case. If not, ask the meaing of the insufficient bid (if it isn't already obvious).

[Where possible in what follows, do not say “the insufficint bid” and “the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination” but name the actual bids; denoted as IB and LSB.]

To LHO:

You will have the option of accepting IB but first you should hear what happens if you do not accept.

To offender:

You have as many as three options: the first two, if applicable, will not silence partner, the third option will. We can discuss these options away from the table.

• Firstly, if IB and LSB are not artificial, then you have the option of bidding LSB and partner will not be silenced.
• Secondly, if there is a sufficient bid, or pass, or double/redouble [if admissible] which means the same as, or is more precise than, IB then you have option of making any such call and partner will not be silenced.
• Finally, you can make any other sufficient bid or pass and partner must pass for the rest of the auction.

To LHO:

Do you wish to accept IB? You can ask the opponents about their system, but you are not entitled to ask the intended meaning of the insufficient bid.

If necessary, talk to the offender away from the table, to give a decision as to which calls will or will not silence partner.

Allow offender to call, and announce whether partner is silenced.

Wait for the end of the auction and apply lead penalties if the offending side are defenders.

Ask to be called back if there is a problem (Law 23 or Law 27D, as applicable).

Matthew Hoskins

I was shocked and saddened by this news from Sussex County Contract Bridge Association

Very sadly, one of Sussex's top players, Matthew Hoskins, has died suddenly. Our thoughts are with Liz and family at this sad time.

I was only talking to Matthew on Sunday at the end of the National Swiss Teams: his team had been lying second going into the last match. Matthew has been an ever-present feature of bridge events in the the South-East and nationally, especially at Brighton, since I started directing twenty years ago. Even when opponents had done wrong, he was always pleasant and courteous to opponents and to directors; he will be missed.

Insufficient competence

I wonder if this blog should change its name to “RMB Bridge Law 27”. Some of the other new laws have their problems, but when I look back at a bridge event or a training course it is always the insufficient bids that stick in my mind.

EBU Panel TDs Meeting

There was a session advertised as “The New Laws” but the speaker always intended a title of “The New Law 27”. There was some sort of concensus on two points that are at odds with my previous practice.

1. The TD should take the offender away from the table to ask how the insufficient bid happened. The answer may not affect the ruling but:

   • it saves the offender blurting out this information at the table and creating unauthorised information;
   • it may help the TD to decide the meaning of the insufficient bid (for the purposes of Law 27B1(a) and (b));
   • it is possible that Law 25A still applies, for example if the offender thought they should not say anything once the infraction was drawn attention to.

2. The other players at the table should not be told which replacement calls by offender will not silence offender's partner (including a Law 27B1(a) correction). The TD should explain Law 27B to offender's LHO and offer the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid; but the TD will not give a ruling on the meaning or artificiality of the insufficient bid or possible corrections, only on the actual replacement call chosen by offender if the insufficient bid is not accepted.

   This continues to cause some not inconsiderable awkwardness in giving the actual rulings, especially given the convoluted language in Law 27: “not incontrovertibly not artificial”, etc. But we already have examples of the TD doing the wrong thing in prematurely divulging the intended meaning of the insufficient bid.

Does 4NT have the same or more precise meaning as 3NT?

I weighed in to a forum topic, Insufficient Bid; where the question was similar to an earlier blog post: Can 4NT be “incontrovertibly not artificial”. The auction was 3♠ –(4♥) – 3NT: so the questions were whether 4NT was “incontrovertibly not artificial” and whether calls (e.g. 4NT) had “the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than” 3NT. If the TD is convinced that a replacement bid of 4NT is to play, then 4NT will not silence opener (but he will pass). If the TD rules that 4NT will silence opener then offender can bid 4NT to play (but then Law 23 will have to be applied).

We really want to play in 3NT

I was a TD at the EBU National Swiss Teams Congress last weekend and had two insufficient bid rulings (amongst others). The first auction started with a strong, artificial 2♣ and I was called because opener and then responder had both bid 3NT. Responder told me she thought opener had bid 3♠ and she intended 3NT to play. I embarked on explaining the position to the defender who might accept the insufficient bid, without saying that 3NT was to play or what 4NT (for example) might be.

If 3NT is not artificial and 4NT is not artificial then [she] can bid 4NT without silencing partner. If [she] makes a bid that means the same as, or is more precise than, 3NT then [her] partner will not be silenced. ...

At some point, I was put out of my misery by the defender accepting the (second) 3NT bid. It was no surprise to anyone that 3NT became the final contract. It occurs to me that if the insufficient bid was replaced with Pass, I do not know if opener would be silenced (if, for instance, fourth hand doubled). Does a Pass of 3NT show the same as bidding 3NT (over an imagined 3♠)?

Let's all create unauthorised information

1♠ – (2♦) – 1NT. “I didn't see 2♦”, I am told, away from the table. Explain options to LHO: 1NT not accepted. I explain options to offender, about to ask if she wants clarification away from the table, but she says “Can I bid 2♠? It shows the same point range.” I explain that 2♠ will silence partner and she bids it anyway. LHO passes and waves at the table as if to indicate that (he thinks) the auction is over. I explain that opener is silenced (and may have unauthorised information from the question) and overcalled has unauthorised information from the gesture. Both pass anyway and I am not called back.