White Book 2013

The EBU White Book 2013 is done, as far as I am concerned: just a couple of hyperlinks to be updated when the target pages are ready. I have been working on this solidly since the end of March.

Inevitably, doing such technical writing (as I did in ‘real life’) you read things in source material that you thought you had read many times before and find it does not say what you thought it said. I thought that the 2007 Laws had changed the word ‘inadvertent’ in Law 25A (change of call) to ‘unintended’, but not changed it in Law 45C4 (b) (change of card designated). But when I came to quote from Law 45C4 (b) for the White Book, I found that it too used the word ‘unintended’. (The word ‘inadvertent’ does remain in the law book in the heading of Law 47C — but I am sure that is unintended!)

It is strange I had not spotted this, as an earlier post Inadvertent designation is an offense? was confused as to which word was used in Law 45C4 (b). Re-reading that post, I see that there should have been a WBFLC ‘open invitation’ response about the reference to Law 16D1(sic) in Law 45C4 (b).

If technical editing teaches you anything, it is that you can't get everything right.

“Well, nobody's perfect”

Some Like It Hot (1959)

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.

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.

An appeal - withdrawn

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
	1CA	1HA	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

1. With the correct explanation of 2H, West will lead a spade. Law 47E2(b).
2. On the line:
   • SA,
   • HQ ducked,
   • HA,
   • DxxQA
   South will not play a club.
3. 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)

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.