Too clever

Lots going on, not all of it good, and not all of it can be reported.

At the EBU AGM, I was elected to the Laws and Ethics Committee, following my work on the White Book earlier in the year. This gives me a certain privileged position (for instance, with respect of disciplinary matters) and so constrains what I can post unofficially. Thanks to all who supported my election.

Meanwhile doing some TD and some L&E-like activities:

• Referee for an appeal from a neighbouring county event.
• Mobile phone call on alerting of Pass, see “I wouldn’t have passed” on BridgeBase forums; but not easy without a Blue Book to hand.
• Started a series of Club TD training course — looking forward to insufficient bids later this month.
• Acted as an Appeals Advisor when playing at the weekend — difficult to know what to say: the players seemed to understand the law, and the judgement involved, and thought they were right.

Board 20, Dealer West

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

I declared 4♠ on the ♣K lead and ♦9 switch. I ducked to the ♦Q and ruffed the club return. Then ♠A, another club ruff, and a top spade from hand. LHO revoked with a small heart and corrected with a small spade, leaving the heart as a major penalty card.

I checked that the opponents knew the law, including possible lead restrictions, and we did not call the TD. So I played my master stroke, taking the diamond finesse immediately. This lost (not unexpectedly) but I banned a heart return hoping South would only have red cards and I would make ♦A anyway. RHO produced ♣Q and I looked as stupid as the other declarers who had been given (and taken) the opportunity to finesse twice in ♦.

Relating the hand at the tea break, a friend remarked that only a director would find that line: a friendly enough remark but not intended as a compliment!

I want two tricks: equity - and the revoke penalty!

This keeps happening.

You get a TD call for a revoke, you investigate and discover that they did not win the revoke trick but it looks as if they may have gained through revoking, but at most one trick. So you annouce that there is a one trick penalty for the revoke, unless the non-offenders would have got more than one trick if there had been no revoke. The non-offenders think this might be the case: so you go through the play as it would have been without the revoke, and (surprise, surprise) the non-offending side would have made just one more trick. So you explain that the revoke penalty has restored equity and the adjustment is one trick.

Now it kicks off! The non-offender's explain that they have been on a course, or another TD ruled differently, or it is not fair because there is no penalty for the revoke. They want two tricks, one to restore equity and one for the revoke penalty. So you explain again: the restoration of equity is instead of the revoke penalty not in addition. So now they start wondering if equity without the revoke would have been two tricks and you have to go through the possible plays without the revoke. Or they explain that it is not fair and everyone they spoke to thinks the non-offenders should get two tricks. So you explain that your ruling is one trick and they can ask another TD, if it will help; but your colleagues will not thank you for that.

I am dispairing of being able to explain this clearly and firmly so these rulings do not take ten minutes. The law is clear, and I am clear on the law, but somehow it is not being communicated to the players.

Are some TD's being taught this wrong on courses? Or is it just a matter of people hearing what they want to hear, and hoping they can get more that they are entitled?

I am sure it would be easier if we returned to when there were automatic two (three?) trick penalties for a revoke — perhaps then players would learn to follow suit.

Nightmare at the club

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

All dummy's cards not displayed

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

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

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

Confession is good for the soul

The low point of the evening was a misinformation case.

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

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

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

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

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

Updated spiel

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

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

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

To LHO:

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

To offender:

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

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

To LHO:

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

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

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

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

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

Robin rants on rectification

Brighton - Day 5

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

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

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

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

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

Unauthorised Panic

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

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

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

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

Club TD approach to insufficient bids

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.

Law 55: the player next in turn shall prevail

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

1. the player next in turn to the lead out of turn could accept the lead by playing; and
2. 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

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.