RMB Bridge Laws

Unauthorised information problems as a player

2011-12-19T12:00:00.004Z

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

2011-11-30T23:22:00.011Z

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.

An Open Invitation from WBFLC

2011-10-26T16:45:00.000+01:00

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:

those which propose a change in the effect of the law; and
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:

That nothing reaches me before 1st December 2011, and
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 &mdash 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

2011-10-12T13:48:00.000+01:00

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

the score for the Actual table result (including any serious error or WoGA)
the score for the result Before infraction (assigned by Law 12C1c)
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

2011-09-30T12:33:00.001+01:00

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 45D.

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 40/31. 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

2011-08-23T13:00:00.000+01:00

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

2011-08-22T21:35:00.007+01:00

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?

2011-08-21T14:01:00.007+01:00

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 in 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

2011-08-20T01:59:00.006+01:00

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

2011-08-19T18:00:00.000+01:00

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

2011-08-19T01:54:00.001+01:00

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

2011-08-18T09:50:00.004+01:00

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

2011-08-18T08:00:00.002+01:00

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

2011-08-17T23:50:00.000+01:00

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?

2011-08-16T02:29:00.003+01:00

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

2011-08-15T10:55:00.005+01:00

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

2011-08-14T13:00:00.004+01:00

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

2011-08-13T09:56:00.007+01:00

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:

we had 28 boards in play;
there was a skip, so he missed duffing up Mike and I;
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

2011-07-04T14:20:00.000+01:00

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

2011-04-30T17:13:00.008+01:00

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

2011-03-18T21:06:00.011Z

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

2011-02-05T22:24:00.004Z

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

2011-02-04T10:36:00.005Z

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

2011-02-03T16:06:00.012Z

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.

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.
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.

Use of unauthorised information is a serious error

2010-12-28T16:58:00.007Z

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

2010-10-05T11:30:00.002+01:00

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

2010-09-30T23:30:00.001+01:00

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.

Does North have a right to stop things, calling attention to the irregularity? He is supposed to be dummy, but is he yet?
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

2010-09-20T13:45:00.004+01:00

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

2010-08-25T17:00:00.004+01:00

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

2010-08-16T14:28:00.006+01:00

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

2010-08-15T02:49:00.003+01:00

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

2010-08-14T12:08:00.003+01:00

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

2010-08-14T03:05:00.000+01:00

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

2010-08-13T19:37:00.004+01:00

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

2010-08-12T14:46:00.010+01:00

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

2010-08-11T12:27:00.005+01:00

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&clubs, 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

2010-08-10T12:30:00.004+01:00

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 played 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

2010-08-09T09:16:00.007+01:00

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!

2010-08-08T02:30:00.005+01:00

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

2010-08-07T02:30:00.002+01:00

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 n obody 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

2010-08-01T22:11:00.007+01:00

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 results 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

2010-07-22T09:42:00.008+01:00

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

2010-07-20T23:48:00.007+01:00

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 &diams 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)

2010-07-20T11:54:00.006+01:00

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

2010-05-17T03:22:00.012+01:00

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

2010-01-19T18:29:00.003Z

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.

Rescued from the archives: alerting mania

2009-12-31T11:22:00.008Z

In the past, it was permitted to request one's opponents not to alert. The EBU (and others) have removed this option and from time to time people ask why. David Burn gave a long answer to "why" on RGB which I have pointed to in subsequent threads. It always takes a long time to track down the original posting, so I am copying it here (without permission).

Prologue

David Burn wrote in message news:38C7B408.92CA38A3@btinternet.com: Since I actually do know the answer to the question of why the L&E Committee of the EBU decided that players should not be given the option to ask opponents not to alert, I am prepared to tell anyone who may still be interested.

Ian Payn wrote: Go on, then...

Don Varvel wrote in message news:38C9E205.BBFA1314@ihome.com: I'm still reading too, and curious.

Alerting mania

Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
From: "David Burn"
Date: 2000/03/11
Subject: Re: alerting mania

What follows is long and not especially interesting. However, since various people have expressed an interest in it anyway, I will summarise the thinking which led the L&E Committee of the EBU to remove from players the right (which they had previously enjoyed) to request that the opponents not alert conventional calls that would otherwise require an alert. I will also attempt to show some of the reasons why EBU alerting regulations are as they are.

What is the purpose of an alert? It is to make the opponents aware that what they might expect a call to mean is not what it in fact means. To let the opponents know what your auction means is a requirement of the Laws:

Law 40B
A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organisation.

and the alert procedure in its various forms is the almost universal way of implementing the required disclosure. One could argue, in fact, that if I make a call whose meaning I believe that you, my opponent, may not reasonably be expected to understand, it would be *illegal* for our side not to alert. Therefore, you could not require our side not to alert since you cannot require us to break the Laws. However, it would be possible for the SO to incorporate in its regulations a clause saying that you do have the right to forbid alerts. The question is: why has the EBU not done this?

Now, whereas it would be theoretically possible to have a "free-wheeling" procedure under which players use their judgement about what opponents might reasonably expect a call to mean, such a procedure would not be at all satisfactory for a number of what I hope are obvious reasons. Therefore, the great majority of SOs make regulations as to what does and does not require an alert, without reference to what the opponents may reasonably be expected to understand. The approaches adopted vary from SO to SO. In England, we have a relatively simple rule that you alert anything which is not natural [for example, Stayman], and anything which though natural is "unexpectedly" forcing or not forcing as the case may be [for example, 1H (1S) 2D non-forcing]. You also alert anything which, though natural, is affected by other parts of your methods in a way that the opponents might not expect [for example, if you play that double of a 4C splinter requests a heart lead, then you should alert a pass of a 4C splinter].

This, of course, leads to some anomalies - the requirement to alert Stayman is the subject of frequent and not unjustified ridicule. However, it has long been the L&E's policy that the great majority of tournament players know the current rules (which partially cover three sides of A5 paper) and, though they may grumble about some of them, by now even the "irrational" rules have become firmly-ingrained habits which it would be folly to ask players to break. It would be possible to create exceptions to the basic rules in order to conform more closely to the intent of Law 40B - to ensure, in other words, that only genuinely unexpected calls were alertable - but this would require a far more complex and far more volatile set of regulations (such as presently exist in the ACBL, for example). It is our experience that the vast majority of players do not care what the rules actually are, as long as they are comprehensible and they don't change.

Contributors to this list and to this thread are, of course, not among that "vast majority of players", a fact which some of them would do well to bear in mind. There is a view that in certain positions, alerts do not work for the benefit of the opponents (who do not care what the auction means while it's happening, because they have no intention of bidding anyway and can find out at the end), but do work to the benefit of the alerting side (because they help to avert possible misunderstandings). Now, unlike previous defenders of the EBU position, I am not going to pretend that this is not true in a small minority of cases. Of course, there are people who will think for some time about partner's bid of 4NT and then alert it, in order to make sure that partner knows that the forthcoming bid relates to the number of aces in the hand and not the number of cards in the suit bid. Of course, there are practitioners of relay systems who ensure that their auctions stay on the straight and narrow by alerting anything to which they are going to give a conventional response and - worse - not alerting anything over which they want to bid the final contract. Such people are cheating; they are intentionally breaking the Laws:

Law 73A1
Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves.

Law 73B1
Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them.

If you suspect that your opponents are going to indulge in such practices, does it not make sense that you should be able to remove the illegal means by which they communicate, through asking them not to use it? No, it does not. You are at the bridge table to abide by the Laws, but that is the extent of your concern - the actions and the consciences of your opponents have nothing to do with you. You are not at the bridge table to enforce the Laws. That is the responsibility of the tournament director, to whose attention you should draw any irregularity that you think has been committed, and let him deal with it.

Nor are you at the bridge table to call your opponents cheats. The only reason you could have for asking the opponents not to alert is that you suspect they will use their alerts to their benefit. A lot of the "experience" to which David Stevenson alluded was of precisely that nature; this exchange used to happen with some regularity:

G:	"Don't bother to alert your bids."
H:	"Why not? Are you suggesting...?"

Of course, G was indeed suggesting that H and his partner might be a pair of cheats, but since he could not say this, he would bluster something nonsensical and the game would invariably begin in a spirit of acrimony.

This, however, was not the main difficulty. The fact of the matter is that the great majority of pairs are not cheats. Players who use complex methods that require frequent alerts are, by and large, aware of their ethical responsibilities and take care not to use information from partner's alerts. Auctions in which such information may be made available and used are in any case uncommon.

But the average player has a lot to contend with in terms of the alerting regulations anyway. Though they are, as I have said, relatively simple, they are not trivial. It is enough to expect players to know *what* they should alert. It is too much to expect players to remember *whether* they should alert at all because five minutes ago this particular opponent asked them not to. Another part of our "experience" was this common scenario:

G:	"Don't bother to alert"
	(never, incidentally, "Please do not alert", for the point is to instil a sense of inferiority and trepidation).
H:	"OK then".

One the second board of the match, H would forget and alert Stayman, or something else innocuous. G would sigh, roll his eyes to the heavens, and say in a long-suffering tone: "We did ask you...". H would be discomfited, and for the rest of the match he would be concentrating hard on breaking the habits of alerting that are second nature to the way he normally plays. This, of course, would impair his concentration on the bridge itself, with the inevitable consequences.

The simple fact of the matter was that the "Do not alert" gambit was not itself free from taint. Most of the time, its effect was not to prevent illegal communication but to intimidate - and that, in a number of cases, was precisely what its practitioners intended. Whereas the chance that illegal communication will occur is small on any given deal, the chance that a player will find himself disadvantaged by having his habitual practices disrupted - practices normally required by the Laws - is not inconsiderable.

Another part of our experience was this:

G:	"Don't bother to alert."
H:	"OK then. Three hearts."

Three hearts showed a spade pre-empt. Now, the only way for G and his partner to discover this would be to look at the convention card (or ask H's partner) - but they would have to do this even when it showed a heart pre-empt, so that vast amounts of time were being wasted while "don't alert" pairs found out that their opponents were conducting an entirely natural auction. Moreover, you would be surprised - for all of you are pure in heart - at the number of ways there are to look at an opponent's convention card in order to ensure that your partner will know that your three spades overcall is for takeout on *this* occasion. More time had to be wasted at the end of just about every auction while the "don't alert" pair found out what it meant. And, of course, the "don't alert" pair were at a considerable disadvantage when it came to avoiding the transmission of unauthorised information in a number of quite simple positions. Suppose you had:

xx AKJ10x xxx Axx

and RHO responded 2D to LHO's 1NT. Now, if that were natural and non-forcing you'd want to bid 2H, but if it were a transfer that's the last thing you'd want to do. So you'd ask, be told it was a transfer, and pass it. Now everyone at the table would know you had hearts - partner could not act on this information (though that did not usually stop him), but the opponents could. You may say that the "don't alert" pair had only themselves to blame for this, and I may agree with you - but part of our responsibility as a governing body is to prevent people from breaking the Laws if we can.

In summary, the main reasons why we do not permit pairs to prevent their opponents from alerting are:

To avoid the unpleasantness inherent in any such request by people who see it as a slur on their integrity (which, of course, it is);
To avoid players being placed in an uncomfortable and unfamiliar position through having to change firmly-ingrained habits of alerting;
To prevent the waste of time that happens when auctions have to be rehashed at the end of every hand; and
To prevent the transmission of unauthorised information that will inevitably occur during some unalerted auctions.

These reasons are not arbitrary; they are (as David Stevenson suggested) based on the considerable experience of members of the then L&E Committee, all seasoned tournament players though possessing varying levels of expertise.

We acknowledge that information may be illegally transmitted through alerts, but we do not believe that it is for the players to attempt to prevent this, any more than it is for the players to attempt to prevent any other breach of Law by their opponents. If players have reason to believe that a breach of Law has occurred, their proper course is to summon the tournament director and seek the protection that the Laws afford them.

I hope that this has been helpful. I am of course prepared to discuss the question further should this be thought of interest. I should say in conclusion that I am a member (and former Chairman) of the L&E Committee, but that although I have attempted to represent its position as fairly as I am able, none of the above should in any sense be considered an official opinion.

David Burn
London, England

Fun at the Tollemache Qualifier 2009

2009-11-30T22:58:00.009Z

The Tollemache Qualifier is an intense, gruelling event for players and TDs. I had three appeals, relating to Law 46 B (different intention is incontrovertible), Law 21 B (misinformation / "fielded misexplanation") and Law 40 B (illegal agreement).

One hand was free from ruling but was a curious lead problem; in particular the defence have to finesse the ten in dummy's A10xxx to defeat 6NT. (As I discovered on the train home, trying to make sense of the double dummy analysis on the hand records.)

Board 22	K 8 7 5 3
(Rotated)	8 7
	4
	A 10 5 4 2
J 3		Q 6 2
Q 6 5 3 2		10 9 4
7 3 2		10 6 5
K 8 7		Q J 9 3
	A 10 9
	A K J
	A K Q J 9 8
	6

Some played in 6D or 6S and some tried a grand slam. You always lead a trump against grand slams? A trump is the only lead to defeat 7D but a trump is the only lead to let through 7S.

According to the double dummy analysis, South can't make 6NT but North can. The defence must lead clubs otherwise declarer can duck a spade to establish his twelth trick. North ducks the club and the defence must continue clubs, otherwise declarer can reach this position.

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

The D8 executes a double guard squeeze, North discarding another spade.

If East leads a club it must be an honour and whether he leads the other honour or a small club at trick two, the club guard is isolated; whichever of East or West retains a club honour is caught in a simple squeeze. South throws HJ on a small club return and throws a spade on a second club honour from East.

But if South is declarer, West must lead a small club, finessing C10. East takes the finesse and can lead CQ at trick two: both defenders are able to retain a high club. This destroys the timing for the double sequeeze, as South is prematurely sequeezed out of one of his major menaces.

Easy game!

Application of Law 12

2009-11-21T15:50:00.012Z

There is still some strange wording in Law 12 covering what was previously described as the distinction between "consequent" and "subsequent" damage; "subsequent" damage could have been due to wild or gambling action by the non-offending side, by their serious error, or just "failure to play bridge". However, I think the effects are clear: for the offending side (OS) we adust if they obtain a table result better than they would have without the infraction; but the non-offending side (NOS) do not get an adjustment for damage which is self-inflicted, defined as due to a serious error or wild or gambling action (WoGA).

In practice there are four cases: all damage is self-inflicted, some is self-inflicted, no self-inflicted damage, or no damage at all. There are scores we have to consider

the score for the Actual table result (including any serious error or WoGA)
the score for the result Before infraction (assigned by Law 12C1c or Law 12C1e)
(≥ A) the score for the result that Could have been scored, with the infraction but without serious error (could be weighted?)

The overall damage can be divided as

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

Starting from C ≥ A there are four cases

C ≥ A > B: no advantage, no damage, no adjustment;
C ≥ B ≥ A: all damage self-inflicted, no real damage D_R ≤ 0 (virtual damage), NOS get A, OS get B;
B > C = A: no self-inflicted damage, D_S = 0, NOS get B, OS get B;
B > C > A: real damage and some self-inflicted.

In the final case, the OS get B and the NOS get A + B − C. The adjustment for the non-offending side can be seen as either

actual score + real damage: A + D_R = A + (B − C); or
adjusted score − self-inflicted damage: B − D_S = B − (C − A) = A + B − C.

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 4H=, NS +420. This is the normal result in 4H, so B (the result before the infraction) is 0 IMP. The type of adjustment depends on the table result.

4SX-1 NS +100. Revoke

A = IMP(100-420) = −8 IMP. Without the revoke: 4SX-2 NS +300. C = IMP(300-420) = −3 IMP.

Real damage D_R = 3 IMP, self-inflicted damage D_S = 5 IMP.

Offending side (team of EW) get 0 IMP, non-offending side (team of NS) get 0 + (−8) − (−3) = −5 IMP.

4SX-2 NS +300. Revoke

A = −3 IMP. Without the revoke: 4SX-3 NS +500. C = IMP(500-420) = +2 IMP. No real damage (D_R < 0).

Offending side get 0 IMP, non-offending side get −3 IMP (table result).

4SX-2 NS +300. No revoke

A = C = −3 IMP. No self-inflicted damage (D_S = 0). Both sides get 0 IMP.

4SX-3 NS +500.

A = +2 IMP. No damage. Table result for both sides.

Club TD approach to insufficient bids

2009-10-16T16:28:00.008+01:00

Another year, another Club TD course (Book Rulings), and more problems with Law 27. See RMB Bridge Laws: Some Law 27 examples with club TDs

The general instructions to EBU TDs is to take the offender away from the table to establist the "meaning" of the insufficient bid and to establish which bids will not silence partner ("rectification" bids). This is a lot of faff for a (playing) club TD, who does not expect to have to collect this sort of information before making a mechanical ruling, and does not expect to have to talk to players away from the table.

As last year, I used the example of 1NT-(Pass)-1S, where 1S was intended as an opening bid. The offending side's responses to 1NT are: Stayman, Transfers, 2S is something artificial related to the minors, 3suit is natural GF. On the course, we see that there is no correction under Law 27B1a and (with prompting) we need to look at 2H and 3S under Law 27B1b. The insufficient bids shows spades and opening values: does this apply to 2H/3S? 2H does not show opening values, so is not a "rectification bid". 3S does show spades and opening values, so looks like it has a more precise meaning than 1S; but would all hands that bid 3S have opened 1S? Some 3S responses to 1NT might have opened an Acol 2S — but this is probably a negative inference that the "liberal interpretation" encouraged by the WBF LC means we should ignore. So 3S is a "rectification" bid (phew!)

At club level, I think we need to simplify the approach to be taken by TDs. Short of ignoring Law 27B1b, it is difficult to see how any simplification can avoid having to talk to the offender away from the table. Even if the TD is prepared to rule on whether a call is covered by Law 27B1b at the table, the offender will not be prepared to make a "rectification" call without checking first with the TD whether or not his call will silence partner. All I can suggest is that the TD uses the spiel I suggested last year RMB Bridge Laws: Law 27: untested spiel and includes in the second option the calls he considers to be rectification calls. If the offender thinks there are other rectification calls only then will he need to have a discussion with the TD away from the the table.

Revised spiel

To offender: don't say anything about why you made the insufficient bid, it may only make things worse.
To LHO: you will have the option of accepting the insufficient bid but first you should hear what happens if you do not accept.
TD decides whether Law 27b1 applies, and whether there are rectification calls under Law 27B1b; based on the existing auction, the convention card and questions at the table about offending side's agreements.
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, as the insufficient bid and lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination are not artificial, then you have the option of making that sufficient bid and partner will not be silenced.
OR ... as the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination is artificial, then you do not have this option.
Secondly, if there is a sufficient bid, pass, double or redouble which means the same as, or is more precise than, the insufficint bid, then you have option of making any such call and partner will not be silenced.
These calls are ... OR But there are no such calls.
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 the insufficient bid? 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, determining 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 ask to be called back if there is a problem.

No postings in August or September

2009-10-01T16:15:00.005+01:00

Blog got mentioned in English Bridge.

Today is the anniversary of the surgery on my foot, see no posting in October. I have still got health problems: most obviously a boot to imobilise my left foot, which I have been wearing for eight months.

Can 4NT be "incontrovertibly not artificial" ?

2009-07-21T18:39:00.008+01:00

Another more interesting insufficient bid from Devon!

W	N	E	S
1S	2H	X	3H
X	4H	5D	P
4NT
5NT

North pointed out that 4NT was insufficient, and West said something like "oh dear, well I can make it good" and bid 5NT, someone suggested it wasn't as simple as that and the TD was called. I (the TD) decided that I should talk to West away from the table, and she told me that she intended 4NT as natural (to play). I decided that I would err on the side of allowing the auction to continue, prepared to fall back on Law 27D if the other side were damaged. So I ruled that if North did not accept 4NT, the correction to 5NT must stand (Law 27C) but would not silence partner. I thought I was ruling under Law 27B1(a) that 4NT was "incontrovertibly not artificial" but perhaps I was ruling under Law 27B1(b) that 5NT had "the same meaning as" 4NT.

5NT ended the auction and was destined to go off. I told the table to call me back and left the table.

But it's never that simple.

I returned to the table to point out that if I had ruled that 4NT or 5NT was artificial, then East would be silenced anyway. Meanwhile, West had explained that there had been a misexplanation. The first double had been explained as take-out, showing the minors, and the second double had been explained as take-out, equal length in the minors; but West had intended the second double as penalties. The misexplanation did not appear to damage North-South but I guess there was heaps of unauthorised information.

I repeated my instruction to be called back but I heard no more: I guess 5NT went off.

Insufficient bids in Torquay

2009-07-08T19:37:00.005+01:00

Good

A few natural insufficient bids passed off almost without mention of the new law. At least twice, a player had make an insufficient bid of a new suit in a competitive auction, I found myself saying

If you bid three hearts (or any other call that shows hearts) then partner can bid again, otherwise ...

Bad

There was a more complicated example:

W	N	E	S
1NT (12-14)	2C (nat)	2S *	3C
2NT

Nobody had asked about 2S, so I did: "balanced invitational or slam try". So if South had passed 2NT shows a minimum 1NT, I asked: "Yes". I ruled that 2NT was not artificial and that Pass would show the same as 2NT, so West could bid 3NT or Pass without silencing partner.

Ugly

I made the mistake (!) of hanging around for the rest of the auction.

W	N	E	S
1NT (12-14)	2C (nat)	2S *	3C
2NT/P	P	3S	End

So I intervened and reminded EW of their obligations, both thought that the explanation of 2S was (still) correct. Their card showed "Modified Lebensohl" (but this meant system on, with stolen bid doubles). East said he had made a mistake, and North asked if West was allowed to know that East had made a mistake. I answered "No" and asked NS to call me back; but the hand records showed 3S was three off, and I was not called back.

No surprises that East had a weak hand with five spades, it was more of a surprise that North had four clubs and five diamonds.

VBA code to calculate par for zero-sum butler

2009-05-31T00:52:00.006+01:00

Function par(ByVal scores As Range, Optional ByVal delta As Integer = 10)
    ' scores is the range of cells containing the scores
    ' delta  is the smallest difference between scores
    On Error GoTo par_error
        If scores.Count = 1 Then    ' dispose of trivial case
            par = scores.Value
            Exit Function
        End If
        
        Dim data
        data = scores   ' read range into array, for efficiency
        Debug.Assert IsArray(data)
        
        Dim par1 As Integer, par2 As Integer
        Dim sum1 As Integer, sum2 As Integer
        ' set initial values to bracket the par value
        par2 = 8000
        par1 = -par2
        sum2 = scores.Count
        sum1 = -sum2
        While par2 - par1 > delta
            par = delta * Fix((par1 + par2) / (2 * delta))
            
            Dim sum As Integer, i As Integer, j As Integer
            sum = 0
            ' calculate the net sum of imp scores against par
            ' imp_() is a function to calculate the IMP scale
            For i = LBound(data, 1) To UBound(data, 1)
                For j = LBound(data, 2) To UBound(data, 2)
                    sum = sum + imp_(par - data(i, j))
                Next j
            Next i
            If sum = 0 Then Exit Function
            ' if we haven't found par, adjust the bracket
            If sum < 0 Then
                par1 = par
                sum1 = sum
            Else
                par2 = par
                sum2 = sum
            End If
            ' check we haven't lost the plot!
            Debug.Assert par1 < par2 And sum1 < 0 And 0 < sum2
        Wend
        ' if we can't find a par value giving sum = 0
        ' take the par will the smallest sum ...
        If (-sum1) < sum2 Then
            par = par1
        ElseIf sum2 < (-sum1) Then
            par = par2
        ' ... splitting ties choosing par nearer zero
        ElseIf par2 > 0 Then
            par = par1
        Else
            par = par2
        End If
    Exit Function
par_error:
    MsgBox "Error in par: " & Err.Description
    par = CVErr(xlErrValue)
End Function

Butler scoring and other abuses of the IMP scale

2009-05-21T21:25:00.009+01:00

I posted some random thoughts on butler scoring on a thread IBLF and earlier I promised something here on butlering so here it is.

IMP scale

I think that when you compare a pairs score with par, the difference should be doubled before converting to IMPs. The par score should not be thought of as the result in the other room but as the average of the two results at the two tables of a match. To recover the "teams result", the diffence between one real score and the average/par score needs to be multiplied by two before converting to IMPs. If you like, the IMP score can then be divided by two to represent the actual contribution of each of the pairs in a team. (Obviously this won't affect the relative scores of different pairs.)

Calculating par

Someone else on IBLF said it was obvious that the scores for all the NS pairs should sum to zero, since this determines the par score it should be used to calculate par. Other ways of calculating par approximate to this but you might was well use this desired property as the definition. Implementation is easy, some sort of binary chop will work. You need some rule for deciding what to do when there is no zero-sum par. I suggest minimizing the absolute value of the sum of the NS scores, splitting any tie by picking closest par to zero.

Barking alternative to butler for teams of eight

Another abuse of the IMP scale is to score teams-of-eight by aggregating the four scores and converting to IMPs. This is done in the Eastern Counties League and the Berks and Bucks league. You can use forms of butlering to compare the performance of the pairs in such teams-of-eight matches, or you could use cross IMPs. I think the right form of cross IMPs is

IMP(A+B+C+D) + IMP(A-B+C-D) + IMP(A-B-C+D)

to calculate the score for pair A, with pair B sat the same way, and other pairs of the team (C, D) sat the other way. This formula can be extended if there are multiple matches (in different divisions) played at the same time with the same boards. A pair is compared with all other pairs sat the same way against all possible pairs of pairs sat the other way; with all scores from four different tables. If there are two matches (8 tables) then the three terms above become 105, and if there are three matches (12 tables) there are 495 terms. When I implemented this, I described the scoring option as "barking" (a pun on my name and anticipation of other people's reaction).

Self promotion

2009-04-20T13:17:00.004+01:00

Effective today, I have been promoted to EBU National Tournament Director — to join an illustrious list. Thank you to the various colleagues who have taught and encouraged me in my rise through the ranks, starting from the county director's course in 1990.

Inadvertent designation is an offense?

2009-03-09T12:18:00.008Z

I had a routine application of Law 45C4(b) ("... may change an unintended designation ... without pause for thought"), except that the next player had managed to play a card.

Declarer called for ♦10 from dummy and then said he meant ♣10, he said he had been looking at the dummy's clubs at the time, but RHO had followed to ♦10 with ♦7. I was content that the designation had been inadvertent and ruled that the ♦7 can be withdrawn (and must be, if RHO has a club) and that ♦7 was authorised to the LHO and unauthorised to declarer, and to call me back if the defence felt damaged.

Then I checked this in the law book, which said what I thought it said, but Law 45C4(b) ends with "see Laws 47D and 16D1". Law 16D says that withdrawn actions are authorised to non-offenders (16D1) and unauthorised to offenders (16D2). Elsewhere in the laws, there are references to Law 16D or specifically to Law 16D2, but this is the only reference to Law 16D1. I don't understand why the laws have gone out of their way to specify just Law 16D1 here.

Do the laws think there is no offending side in Law 45C4(b)?
Specifically, was information arising from ♦7 authorised to declarer?

Alerting doubles in the EBU

2009-03-06T15:00:00.015Z

The EBU has decided to keep its current regulations for alerting of doubles. There are a number of issues with the current regulations which players and TDs have to be aware of.

Undiscussed doubles

A Brighton in 2007, a player doubled the final contract after the opponents had bid three suit and partner had overcalled in the fourth. Partner decided the double was penalties, based on general bridge knowledge rather than any partnership agreement, and did not alert. The opponents felt misinformed but got no satisfaction from the TD, the AC, or the commentators in the EBU Appeals booklet.

EBU regulations say that this double was alertable unless it was takeout but elsewhere that inference from general bridge knowledge are not alertable. However, general bridge knowledge often says that doubles are penalties, either through bridge logic or as a default. Does the regulation about general bridge knowledge apply to doubles? If so, should the regulations on doubles indicate that the meaning of an unalerted double is either "takeout" or "no partnership agreement".

Lightner doubles

Doubles of the final suit (slam) contract, which ask for a lead of a suit (not trumps) are alertable. This may not have been the intention but it is agreed that this is what the regulations require. But sometimes it is unclear if a double should be Lightner, or there is no partnership agreement only general bridge knowledge. This leads to the same problem as "Undiscussed doubles".

I'll post this now, but there will be a follow-up on doubles of pass-or-correct and preference bids, and 1m-(1H)-X. I also intend to blog on the subject of butlering: my "barking method" for calculating par and a modified scale (half the imps of twice the difference scale).

Normal, irrational, likely, legal plays

2009-02-20T13:10:00.010Z

The forums (RGB, IBLF, BLML, BBO) are awash with discussions of claims, as ever. I can not resist a posting on the different classes of plays that the (current) claim laws require a TD to consider.

1997 Laws

In the 1997 laws there is

"normal" (Laws 69, 70 and 71), includes careless or inferior but not irrational (footnote 20);
"irrational" (end of Law 70E), because of the footnote I had interpreted this as the opposite of normal (probably erroneously);
"legal" (Law 71A), I think we understood this and, with the proper interpretation of Law 71, we did not need to distinguish this from "normal".

So, with my naive understanding of "irrational" in Law 70E, we only needed to understand what was or was not "normal", as in "normal play of the remaining cards" or "normal line of play".

2007 Laws

Now, in the 2007 laws there are again three different classes of plays, but now I think they are all independent.

"likely" (Law 69B), a clear change from 1997;
"normal" (Laws 70 and 71), includes careless or inferior (footnote 22);
"irrational" (Law 70E1), without this word occurring in the footnote.

The change from "normal" to "likely" in Law 69, and the removal of "irrational" from footnote 22, indicates to me that there are now three independent tests to be applied in Laws 69, 70, and 71. For now all I can do is record the different terms, we will have to await experience, case law, and interpretation to distiguish them.

Bounded rationality

It is clear in that "irrational" in the 1997 laws could not interpreted literally, leading the Ace from A10xx opposite KQ9xx was normal but also irrational. A friend, bridge partner, and mathematician who mixes with economists, introduced me to the concept of bounded rationality which is used by economists and game theorists to label some kinds of irrational behaviour from supposedly rational agents. The idea is that rational agents (e.g. humans) don't have time/effort/inclination to calculate the correct rational response in a given situation, so there is a bound on the agents' rationality which does not allow the agent to complete the calculation, and may lead them to behave irrationally.

In understanding how we describe claims ruling, it is useful to think that some normal plays (including careless or inferior) could be classed as boundedly rational while remaining strictly irrational. I don't know whether this concept would help in interpreting "irrational" in Law 70E1.

WBF LC documents on the 2007 laws

2009-01-30T19:29:00.006Z

The World Bridge Federation Laws Committee has recently produced two documents with interpretation of the new laws (or advice on interpreting the laws).

Minutes of a meeting of the WBF Laws Committee in Beijing on Friday, 10th October, 2008.
Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge by Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee.

In particular, the Committee favour a liberal approach to Law 27B, noting that there is an inclination to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. This "mildly liberal interpretation" will allow play to continue; with Law 27D being used at the end of the hand, if the offending side have gained through the insufficient bid.

This appears to mean that TDs will ignore negative inferences from potential meanings of the insufficient bid, inferences which would exclude hands from the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid, and so exclude some hands shown by a potential correction. So in the auction 1D-(1S)-1H, we would allow a correction to a double under Law 27B1(b), although some hands would not respond 1H (because they would bid a longer club, or spade, suit) but would nevertheless make a take-out double. If these negative inferences become relevant, the TD will adjust under Law 27D. As ever, we need to see more examples to see whether this liberalism will be for the best.

P.S. I have returned to work (see No posting in October), still with some medical issues to be played out. Hopefully, more bridge and directing in the coming months.

An appeal - withdrawn

2008-12-27T12:03:00.020Z

I completed this appeal form but the appeal was withdrawn because it did not affect the result of the competition.

Cross IMPs		A K Q
Teams of 8		K J 10 4
Dealer N		6 4 2
N/S vulnerable		K Q 6
	8 6 4		J 9 7 3
	A 8 5 3		7 6 2
	K 10 9 8 5 3		Q
	—		J 10 9 7 3
		10 5 2
		Q 9
		A J 7
		A 8 5 4 2

W	N	E	S
	1C^A	1H^A	2H		1C: strong club; 1H: two suits of the same colour
Pass	4H	All Pass			N asked about 1H before bidding 4H

4H made 10 tricks, on a spade lead, N/S +620. TD ruling: table result stands, N/S fined 0.5VP.

TD was first called at the end of trick two.

Director's statement of facts

When West had lead face down, East asked about 2H — told "natural, 9+". After West had won trick two, South said 2H was "9–11 balanced, no heart stop". North disagreed with the explanation, claiming that she had got the system right. The spade lead was won by the ace and, at trick two, a heart was lead to Queen and Ace.

I was recalled at the end of play, N/S making ten tricks. E/W said that with the correct explanation of 2H the lead might be different; and East might duck HQ and declarer may lead a club to dummy (when in with DA) in order to draw the remaining trumps, and would suffer a club ruff.

Adjusted Score/Procedural Penalty Awarded

Score stands (no adjustment). Standard 0.5VP Procedurary Penalty against N/S.

Details of ruling

With the correct explanation of 2H, West will lead a spade. Law 47E2(b).
On the line:
- SA,
- HQ ducked,
- HA,
- DxxQA
South will not play a club.
South should have corrected the failure to alert 2H, and the explanation of 2H, before the opening lead. Law 20F5(b)(ii).

Director's comments

I discussed the hand as a lead problem with six players; with South's explanation of 2H they still lead a spade, even when they decided N/S had had a misunderstanding. No one lead a diamond.

The problem only arose because South did not correct partner's explanation of (and apparent failure to alert) 2H. This failure is worthy of a procedural penalty.

Subsequent Issues (not on the form)

Should I have set the opening lead problem in the context of both explanation, so that it was clear that N/S were having a misunderstanding? This would have been the position if South had corrected the explanation at the right time.
Should I have awarded an adjusted score with a (small) percentage of 4H-1, corresponding to declarer playing a club to dummy at trick five (on the line in 2. above).
I should have allowed West to change the HA at trick two, under Law 47E2(a). This would have avoided the second part of the ruling, as the defence would have been able to set declarer this problem in actual play.

No posting in October

2008-11-04T20:25:00.003Z

Spent two weeks in hospital and the rest of the month at home. Newly diagnosed with diabetes and significant surgery on my foot. No TD or real bridge; but I have been watching BBO and I was consulted on one ruling from the English Premier League. Not clear when I will be back on my feet and back to work. (Bummer!)

Insufficient examples in Brighton

2008-09-11T14:36:00.006+01:00

I only had one law 27 ruling in Brighton. The auction was something like 1D-(P)-1H-(2C)-P-(2S)-2H.

I suggested that 2H and a correction to 3H were probably natural [no disent];
I gave the next player the option of accepting 2H, if not offender could bid 3H and perhaps some other calls that would not silence partner [not accepted];
I spoke to offender away from the table: "What did you mean with 2H - had you not seen 2S?", reply: "oh yes, I had seen 2S, I have no idea what I was doing";
Me: "Well I guess 2H showed hearts, would anything other than 3H show hearts?", reply: "Not really, I think I'll bid 3H";
We returned to the table, offender bid 3H.

All a bit of a non-event. Throughout all of Brighton there seemed to have been insufficient insufficient bids to really test the new law.

Law 27: untested spiel

2008-08-05T19:47:00.004+01:00

Law 27 seems more complicated that any other law including an opening lead out of turn, so perhaps I need a spiel as formulaic as the spiel for an opening lead out of turn ("you have five options, ..."). This is my first attempt, to be tested this weekend at Brighton.

To offender: don't say anything about why you made the insufficient bid, it may only make things worse.
To LHO: you will have the option of accepting the insufficient bid 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 the insufficient bid and lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination are not artificial, then you have the option of making that sufficient bid and partner will not be silenced.
Secondly, if there is a sufficient bid, pass, double or redouble which means the same as, or is more precise than, the insufficint bid, then you have option of making any such call and partner will notbe 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 the insufficient bid? You can ask the opponents about their system, but you are not entitled to ask the intended meaning of the insufficient bid.
Take offender away from the table, determine which calls will or will not silence partner. Return to the table, allow offender to call, and announce whether partner is silenced. Wait for the end of the auction and asked to be called back if there is a problem.

John Armstrong and a curious end-play

2008-08-03T19:19:00.006+01:00

John Armstrong died last month: he was a great player and a true gentleman. This is a hand John played which I saw on BBO; at John's table a curious end-play was possible.

Camrose 2008	J 10 8 2
England v Wales	7 6 3
Dealer South	A 6 2
	K J 7
A 9 7		5
A 8 5		Q J 9 4 2
10 8 5 3		Q J 9 7
Q 10 9		6 4 3
	K Q 6 4 3
	K 10
	K 4
	A 8 5 2

Closed Room

Rees(N) & Kurbalija(S) v Rosen(E) & Jones(W). N/S bid 1NT-2C-2S-4S. West lead a spade and won the spade return. Now, West lead a heart to the King, and declarer drew the remaining trump, finessed CJ and claimed 11 tricks.

Open Room

Holland(N) & Armstrong(S) v Salisbury(E) & Tedd(W). N/S bid 1S-2S-3C-3D-3S-4S. West lead a club to the Jack, won the spade return, and played a diamond to the Jack and King. Declarer drew trumps, cashed CK, CA, DA, and lead a heart to the King and Ace; claiming 10 tricks.

If at trick eight, South continues to cash black cards, he reaches this position.

	-
	7 6
	A 6
	-
-		-
A 8		Q J
10 5		Q 9
-		-
	-
	K 10
	4
	8 (lead)

If West throws a small heart, declarer throws a small diamond from dummy and ducks H10 to West; dummy wins the next diamond and has a heart to play to HK. If West throws a diamond, declarer discards a heart from dummy, and East must throw a heart honour; declarer cashes DA and leads a heart to the King and Ace, winning the last trick with H10.

This ending has elements of a double squeeze, a guard squeeze, and a strip squeeze: I don't think I've seen anything similar before.

Law 55: the player next in turn shall prevail

2008-08-01T20:50:00.002+01:00

Law 55 A includes a new stipulation that where defenders disagree about whether to accept or reject a lead out of turn by declarer "the player next in turn shall prevail"; previously we ruled that the defeneder who spoke first "spoke for the partnership".

The most common situation for a declarer to lead out of turn is when they lead from the wrong hand, and then the question arises: what does "next in turn" mean, does it mean next in turn to the lead out of turn or next in turn to where the propoer lead should be? This has already been asked on the internet, and was asked at my Club TD training course.

We think the answer is obviously next in turn to the lead out of turn, because

the player next in turn to the lead out of turn could accept the lead by playing; and
the whole of Law 55 covers a lead out of turn by declarer at both defenders' and declarer's turn to play, and the alternative interpretation does not work if it is a defender's turn to play.

Even if the correct interpretation is reasonably obvious, the law could say:

"the player next in turn to the lead out of turn shall prevail".

Some Law 27 examples with club TDs

2008-06-23T01:24:00.004+01:00

I looked at some examples of Law 27 with some club TDs this weekend. The examples were meant to illustrate ruling on the consequences of insufficient bids, not the choice of corrections under the new laws.

N:1S - E:1H - S:TD!

We weren't sure if East had meant to open 1H or if he was overcalling 1minor with 1H but we imagined that East told us (away from the table) that he meant to open 1H. The 1H insufficient bid and a correction to 2H were both natural, so a correction to 2H would not silence partner (Law 27:B.1.(a)). The only calls that show hearts are overcalls in hearts, so we looked at whether a 3H overcall would not silence partner (under Law 27:B.1.(b)):

if 3H is weak it is not contained in a 1H opening, so a weak 3H would silence parnter;
if 3H is intermediate (opening values, 6 card suit) it is more precise that a 1H opening and so would not silence partner;
if 3H is strong, then it is not contained in a 1H opening, because some strong jump overcalls would be worth an Acol 2H opening, so a strong 3H would silence partner.

E:1NT - S:1C - W:TD!

1C was (necessarily) a natural opening bid. (1NT)-2C would be Landy [both majors], so 2C is artificial, and Law 27:B.1.(a) does not apply. (1NT)-3C was poorly defined in NS system, but would be a different hand from a 1C opening and was not contained in a 1C opening. No call would not silence partner under Law 27:B.1.

S:1NT - W:Pass - N:1S - E:TD!

North told us that he intended to open 1S and NS responses to 1NT are stayman and transfers, with 2S meaning some artificial (not spades). Law 27:B.1.(a) did not apply. Law 27:B.1.(b) did apply to 3S which was natural with spades (but we failed to consider that an Acol two opening would exclude some hands from a 1S opening). The club TDs had to be prompted to consider a correction to 2H (transfer), this shows spades, but not opening values, so is not contained in the 1S opening bid and would silence partner under Law 27:B.1.(b). I wondered if North had said that 1S was a response to 1C (say), whether we would allow a 2H transfer to not silence partner.

We concluded that there was much to find out about the offending pair's system, even in apparently simple cases: do they play strong two openings, what hands are shown by a jump overcall. There are harder questions when the offending pair may not have clear agreements about what a rarely used call would actually show.

EBL recommended TD Law 27 procedure

2008-06-22T20:34:00.007+01:00

The European Bridge Laws [EBL] held a seminar on the new laws and Max Bavin gave the presentation on Law 27. The presentation was posted to the Internet on Bridge Laws Mailing List [BLML], attached to http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2008-June/040747.html [www.amsterdamned.org is no longer working, see comment - RMB 2010-08-26].

This is the section on the recommended procedure for TD to adopt in ruling on Law 27.

Recommended Tournament Director procedure
Advise the offender to say nothing at the table which might indicate what it was he thought he was doing, as to do so may create Unauthorised Information [UI] for his partner (Law 16B refers).

Advise the left hand opponent [LHO] that he may accept or reject the insufficient bid [IB], explaining that if he rejects it the offender will have the following options:-
if the offender makes the lowest legal bid in the same denomination, and if neither call is artificial, then the auction will continue without any further rectification

if the offender makes a call (any legal call) which has either an identical meaning as the IB or has a more precise meaning (such meaning being already fully contained within the scope of the IB), then the auction will continue without any further rectification

otherwise, the offender can make any legal call he wishes other than a double or redouble, but his partner will be silenced throughout.

The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director [TD]).

If the IB is rejected, the TD will need to establish what the offender was trying to do when he made it. He will almost inevitably need to do this away from the table in order that the other three players remain unaware of the reason. The TD then advises the player of his options (still away from the table) i.e. which calls, if any, will allow the auction to proceed without further rectification. If the correction is to be allowed under 27B1(b), this may well involve quite a detailed (and possibly skilled) discussion and analysis of the player’s system. The offender then selects his call at the table, and the TD advises the table as a whole whether or not partner is silenced throughout.

There may be Law 26 type lead penalties if the offending side become defenders. Please see this Law even in 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) cases.

At the end of play, the TD may need to examine whether there is any reason to adjust the score. In general terms (e.g. in the absence of Law 16B type UI), if the IB has been accepted then all should be well. Also, in general terms (e.g. in the absence of Law 23), if partner has been silenced throughout then all should be well. Note that ‘rub of the green’ or ‘just being lucky’ is perfectly acceptable when partner has been silenced throughout - Law 27D does not apply, do not even think about going there!

Now I understand the reasons for decisions in this procedure: that a practical approach is needed to ruling under Law 27. But I don't like that the meaning of the insufficient bid is to be determined by asking the offender; the law doesn't refer to the intended meaning of insufficient bid but to "possible meanings of the insufficient bid".

I also don't like that left hand opponent [LHO] does not know which replacement calls by offender will not silence offender's partner, when LHO has to choose whether or not to accept the insufficient bid. Previously, I used to determine whether the insufficient bid and the sufficient correction were conventional or not, before explaining the consequences of accepting or rejecting the insufficient bid. Now LHO has to work this out for themselves [I use "they" etc. as a gender neutral pronoun], based on questions about the opponents' system.

But this is all new territory and it is good to have a procedure that may be uniformly adopted across Europe for ruling on insufficient bids. I think we are all keen to see some real rulings and see how the law and the recommended procedure work in practice.

Introduction

2008-04-16T17:01:00.000+01:00

The purpose of this blog is comment on the new laws of bridge (2007) and to describe my experiences in operating the laws. I intend the comments on the laws to be based on practical hands, not theoretical discussion, so there will not be many postings until August 2008, when the laws become effective in England. In the meantime I may try to say something about Law 27; I may also look at how rulings I give under the current laws would be different under the new laws.

RMB Bridge Laws

Unauthorised information problems as a player

A hand from a match played privately

Phone calls, emails, txts and faxes

Other topics

An Open Invitation from WBFLC

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge – An open invitation

Application of Law 12C1(b) revisited

Application of Law 12C1(b)

Examples

4SX-1 NS +100. Revoke

4SX-2 NS +300. Revoke

4SX-2 NS +300. No revoke

4SX-3 NS +500.

Nightmare at the club

All dummy's cards not displayed

Confession is good for the soul

Brighton Focus - Insufficient Bids

Insufficient Bids

by Robin Barker

Four Stars Finals

Brighton 2011 – Day 10

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

Brighton 2011 – Day 9

Speedball – don't drink and post

Brighton 2011 – Day 8 Midnight

Trying to avoid appeals as TD in-charge

Brighton 2011 – Day 7 Evening

(2♦)-2NT–3♥–4♥–4♠-End

Opportunity for Law 93B1

The new “Jim” for the 21st century

Brighton 2011 – Day 7 Afternoon

A-level results day

Brighton – Day 7 morning

Trials and Tribulations of the Brighton Midweek Scorer

Brighton 2011 – Day 6

Swiss Teams and Bridgemates

Dynamic Open Pairs

Mixed Pivot Teams

A difficult day

Brighton 2011 – Day 5

An easy day?

Brighton 2011 – Day 4

The mean streets – of Brighton and Hove

Back to the bridge

Nuanced artificial adjustments

Brighton 2011 – Day 3

Dodgy claims for breakfast

Extending Law 12C2

Junior Teach-in reminiscences

The Longest Day

Brighton 2011 – Day 2

Familiar Faces and Absent Friends

Brighton 2011 – Day 1

A ruling

Midnight

Roland Bolton

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

Two bids out of rotation

Meaning of likely in Law 69B2

Insufficient unauthorised information

Ranked masters

Late night rulings

How likely is likely?

Updated spiel

Matthew Hoskins

Insufficient competence

EBU Panel TDs Meeting

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

We really want to play in 3NT

Let's all create unauthorised information

Use of unauthorised information is a serious error

Things we know that we know

Answers to Known Unknowns

Insufficient bids — what can LHO know?

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

When declarer becomes dummy is dummy still dummy?

What does Law 21B2 mean for the players?

The real answers - what the laws should say

Insufficient bids