Brighton Days 5 and 6 - a bit busy

Two full days of scoring - setting up in the morning and then two events in the afternoon. There is little time betwen sessions - especially with early bird evening sessions - but I did manage to sit down to eat dinner today. Both evenings, there were late rulings and appeals, so into the wee small hours finalising the results and doing internet stuff.

Law 86D reared its ugly head - apparently we are back to giving an assigned adjustment when there are two non-offending side. I still think we should only be awarding a score that reflects the good result that was obtained at the table where a result was obtained, not attempting to reflect the good result they might have been obtained at the table where a result could not be obtained (or not a result untainted by extraneous infromation). But today we awarded a score that was about the biggest swing on the board that was obtained by any team in the event - surely that can not be right!

Missing links

• Seniors Swiss Teams (after 4 rounds)
• Wednesday Night Speedball (Pairs)

Insufficient unauthorised information

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.

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?

Favourable result for Law 86D

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.

Best foot forward

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.