Brighton Focus - Insufficient Bids

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

Insufficient Bids

by Robin Barker

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

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

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

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

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

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

Four Stars Finals

Brighton 2011 – Day 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brighton 2011 – Day 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speedball – don't drink and post

Brighton 2011 – Day 8 Midnight

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

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

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

Trying to avoid appeals as TD in-charge

Brighton 2011 – Day 7 Evening

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

(2♦)-2NT–3♥–4♥–4♠-End

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

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

Opportunity for Law 93B1

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

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

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

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

The new “Jim” for the 21st century

Brighton 2011 – Day 7 Afternoon

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

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

A-level results day

Brighton – Day 7 morning

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

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

Trials and Tribulations of the Brighton Midweek Scorer

Brighton 2011 – Day 6

Swiss Teams and Bridgemates

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

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

Dynamic Open Pairs

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

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

Mixed Pivot Teams

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

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

A difficult day

Brighton 2011 – Day 5

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

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

An easy day?

Brighton 2011 – Day 4

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

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

The mean streets – of Brighton and Hove

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

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

Back to the bridge

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

Nuanced artificial adjustments

Brighton 2011 – Day 3

Dodgy claims for breakfast

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

Extending Law 12C2

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

Law 12C2(a) offers the following adjustments:

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

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

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

I doubt it will catch on.

Junior Teach-in reminiscences

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

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

The Longest Day

Brighton 2011 – Day 2

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

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

Familiar Faces and Absent Friends

Brighton 2011 – Day 1

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

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

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

A ruling

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

Midnight

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

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

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