Brighton Day 3 - Learn Something New

The Brighton Hub and Pianola is proving a success — so much so that we had to provide alternatives results because everyone wanted to access the results of the Swiss Pairs as soon as the event was finished and scored. Otherwise scoring the Swiss Pairs went smoothly, and bridge in the upstairs section was free of incident. There were more awkward incidents in the downstairs sections.

Scoring the evening's Open Pairs and Open Teams had its moments — the BrigeMates went live in the wrong events and players in the teams were able to enter some names before they were fixed. The upshot was that some players appeared to be playing in both the teams and the pairs until we checked against the names slips. The recurrent theme of scoring at Brighton is doing things that don't happen (very much) at any other event. This starts with the Sunday Open Teams were the movements are special and not always obvious for the scorer.

Rulings

There was time between scoring to give some rulings and to reflect on previous rulings. I had to rule on misbid or misexplanation when there had been a two-suited double in a strong 2♣ auction. I did not expect to find much support from the system card but there it was: it was not the exact sequence at the table but the fact that they had a documented method of two-suited calls was enough for me to rule misbid not misexplanation. The problem with mixing scoring and directing is that it is difficult to have time to discuss/explain rulings with players at the end of the session because you have to sort out the scores.

I discussed yesterday's misbid ruling with a TD colleague who is here as a player. The bracketed words in yesterday's blog 'absent any unauthorized information' came back to bite me. My colleague agreed that the failure to use the stop card before 2NT was evidence that opener had misbid but it was also unauthorised information to his partner. So his partner's action in not making a slam try should have been judged as a potential use of unauthorised information, not (just) as potential evidence of a concealed partnership understanding.

We also learnt that non-forcing responses when opponents have doubled are alertable — a change in the Blue Book from the Orange Book.

Two phone rulings ... and appeals

Being on the end of a telephone means you can take rulings from anywhere in the world. Last month I had to deal with back-to-back telephone rulings from different countries, and both were appealed. Both were misinformation ruling, with the non-offending side failing to make a game try (when game was making).

1. The first ruling was from a welsh event (a different NBO, if not a different country). I contacted various TDs and players and arrived at a ruling the following morning. I gave a weighted ruling — some proportion of bidding and making game — but not enough to change the match result. The non-offenders appealed but my ruling was upheld.

2. The same day the appeal from the welsh ruling was resolved, I was rung for a ruling was from an EBU event. A couple of telephone calls to TDs and I ruled (before the end of the match): score stands. The non-offending side appealed and this time I was overturned. The AC gave a weighted ruling (some proportion of bidding and making game), which this time was enough to change the match result.

Brighton Days 9 and 10 - lost weekend

Mentioning my boot in this blog, while wearing my boot at Brighton, has allowed a few more people to put a face to the blogger. If you look on the back page of Sunday's “Brighton Focus” (the daily bulletin) you can see my face in profile: photograph by VixTD.

Saturday flew by: not much time between sessions for the scorers but we did get the evening session scores merged and determined the qualifiers for the final before midnight. Scoring in the playing area and running past midnight can mean competing with the noise from the speedball while performing the (sometimes complex) tie-break procedures to determine the qualifiers.

Scoring the finals on Sunday started with typing in the movement data; surely anyone can type in the movement for eight teams in 7 rounds, someone said later. I agreed that was easy but checking that what you have typed has no errors and will not bring the event to a shuddering halt in round 3 is harder, and takes longer. The movement data was OK and the finals went easily for 6 rounds, except for one incident of less than best behaviour at bridge. But in the last round, bluejak had two rulings at the same table between two teams in contention. We were mentally preparing for appeals and a late finish but nothing happened.

One ruling was a hesitation blackwood (bluejak suggests “BIT-wood”) auction where we ruled that a 2NT opener could pass a sign-off with 3 aces (having showen O or 3). The other ruling was a more complicated misinformation ruling and the result was a weighted score: a lot of a profitable sacrifice and a little of the table result, a making game. The first ruling was a slam swing but the second only swung one IMP because the result at the other table was a making slam.

The finals and the final tidying up was finished in time to relax over a vegetarian meal at Food for Friends: an annual event.

Today's missing link: Fours Stars “B” Final data.

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.

Things we know that we know

Answers to Known Unknowns

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

Insufficient bids — what can LHO know?

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

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

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

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

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

When declarer becomes dummy is dummy still dummy?

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

What does Law 21B2 mean for the players?

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

The real answers - what the laws should say

Insufficient bids

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

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

Two non-offending sides in Law 86D

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

When dummy is dummy

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

What does Law 21B2 mean?

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

Known unknowns

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

Insufficient bids — what can LHO know?

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

IBLF: Aug 24 2010, 10:19 AM

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

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

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

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

IBLF: Jul 20 2010, 11:26 PM

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

When declarer becomes dummy is dummy still dummy?

IBLF: Sep 4 2010, 05:18 PM

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

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

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

What does Law 21B2 mean for the players?

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

IBLF: Sep 1 2010, 05:18 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fun at the Tollemache Qualifier 2009

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!