Brighton Day 2 - Claims and Fielded Misbids

Lots to do for scoring the Swiss Pairs: dealing with new replacement pairs after pairs withdraw, dealing with names (foreign names with prefixes 'de', 'van' were causing us particular grief), and sorting out stratification. Assignments on the web and uploading to Pianola went faster than last night. I did not quite finish in time to play in the speedball but I was there to help set up the Swiss teams scoring. (Ultimately the Swiss teams speedball was scored by hand – so we will try to recreate it on the computer on Sunday.)

Claims

Two claims caused some discussion/disagreement. On the first a player claimed 12 tricks, in a line which included throwing a loser on a trick he would have to follow suit. Nevertheless the only normal lines would drop a doubleton queen for 13 tricks and that is what he got. On another claim, declarer claimed one off as soon as he saw the bad trump break, without planning the further play. There were ways to go off but the play had to be perverse not to make. (Should 'perverse' replace 'irrational', 'not normal', 'beyond careless or inferior'?)

Fielded Misbids?

I had to rule on a misinformation/misbid auction. Dealer opened 1♣ (strong, artificial) and rebid 2NT in a competitive auction. This was explained as 23+ (1NT was available to show a weaker balanced hand). This explanation caused the defenders to misdefend 3NT when declarer turned up with only 19 HCP. Opener claimed this was misbid, he bid 2NT because he thought the auction was already at the two level. This was plausible: there had been a lot of bidding for the auction to still be at 1♠ and the player had not used the stop card before bidding 2NT. So I ruled misbid rather than misexplanation. The defenders asked me if the this misbid has been fielded – perhaps responder was worth a slam try opposite 23+ HCP. I decided the misbid was not fielded but really the 'fielded misbid' regulation seems unnecessary in this sort of auction – any meaning for 2NT is permitted, there seems no reason why they should try and conceal their agreements about strong balanced hands, and (absent any unauthorized information) why shouldn't they bid how they like.

Phone calls, emails, txts and faxes

Although the obvious work of a national tournament director is done running events, I also do a lot of “work” from home. I get phone calls from everyone: other National directors, other TDs, the local club, and players who have had rulings they don't understand. I get emails requesting rulings or opinions on previous rulings/appeals; and I do get the occasional text message starting “U hold ...” (polling to determine logical alternatives). But I don't get faxes.

Although my telephone number is provided by the English Bridge Union, enquiries come from throughout the British Isles: regular consults from the depths of Wales, players and TDs from Scotland, and the odd ruling from Ireland. Most correspondents are grateful and are apprecriative of the time and effort, even if I don't tell them what they wanted to hear. But recently I did spend 24 hours canvassing opinions on a ruling and then weighing the different opinions to give my ruling; neither side bothered to thank me, although I must have ruled in favour of one of them!

That ruling involved confusion between a Benjamin 2♦ and a weak two in ♦ with inevitable consequences. I had to poll those who played Benji about the logical alternatives for the player who thought 2♦ was Benji, and to poll others who wouldn't play Benji about what the unauthorised information suggested.

Other topics

• How to apply Law 31 when the bid out of rotation was conventional. The answer is in Law 29C but this law is easily overlooked when reading Laws 30 – 32.
• A dispute at trick 13: dummy is on lead and that card will win, but declarer shows his card intending to claim the last trick and the opponents want to accept declarer's card as a lead out of turn (which will lose).
• Does a careful reading of Law 12B1 mean that if the damage is entirely self-inflicted (in the sense of Law 12C1b) there should be not adjustment for either side? (Answer: Yes, but.)
• What to do when an opening two bid does not meet the EBU regulation, do we treat it as an illegal agreement or a deviation from partnership agreement.
• Discussion of a suitable format for Swiss Teams playing around 36 boards.

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.

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).

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.

To irrationality and beyond

Brighton - Day 3

Not a significant ruling but it does draw attention to variations in wording in the (claim) laws. which we do not know whether it is nuanced wording or inconsistent editing.

	--
	x
	Q 9 x
	Q
?		?
--		--
J x x ?		A 7 x ?
?		2
	--
	x x
	K 10 x
	--

Declarer (shown as South), in 4♥, leads ♣Q from dummy and RHO discards ♦7, then finds ♣2 in her hand. I am called: the ♣2 is played to the trick and ♦7 is a major penalty card (to be played at the first opportunity, etc.). Declarer ruffs and quits the trick but LHO is still thinking what to play to this trick. After a bit, while LHO is still thinking, declarer says it doesn't matter. I ask him if he is claiming (because otherwise I would ask him to let LHO think in peace) and declarer says "yes, I can play a diamond to the nine" (taking advantage of the major penalty card). "What if I play the jack" says LHO, "well then obviously ..." starts declarer.

The position is different from that where declarer plays a small diamond and calls for the nine before seeing LHO's card. In a claim, declarer will not be held to lines of play that are irrational (Law 70E1). So (obviously) declarer is allowed his claim for all but one of the remaining tricks (losing ♦A).

As noted in a previous post, the test in Law 70E is different from the rest of Law 70. Law 70E1 uses the word "irrational", a word that was removed from the footnote referred to by the rest of Law 70 (and by Law 71). What is the difference between not "normal" (including "play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved") and "irrational"; or was "irrational" left in Law 70E to avoid unweildy wording: "unless failure to adopt that line of play would be beyond careless-or-inferior"?.

Normal, irrational, likely, legal plays

The forums (RGB, IBLF, BLML, BBO) are awash with discussions of claims, as ever. I can not resist a posting on the different classes of plays that the (current) claim laws require a TD to consider.

1997 Laws

In the 1997 laws there is

• "normal" (Laws 69, 70 and 71), includes careless or inferior but not irrational (footnote 20);
• "irrational" (end of Law 70E), because of the footnote I had interpreted this as the opposite of normal (probably erroneously);
• "legal" (Law 71A), I think we understood this and, with the proper interpretation of Law 71, we did not need to distinguish this from "normal".

So, with my naive understanding of "irrational" in Law 70E, we only needed to understand what was or was not "normal", as in "normal play of the remaining cards" or "normal line of play".

2007 Laws

Now, in the 2007 laws there are again three different classes of plays, but now I think they are all independent.

• "likely" (Law 69B), a clear change from 1997;
• "normal" (Laws 70 and 71), includes careless or inferior (footnote 22);
• "irrational" (Law 70E1), without this word occurring in the footnote.

The change from "normal" to "likely" in Law 69, and the removal of "irrational" from footnote 22, indicates to me that there are now three independent tests to be applied in Laws 69, 70, and 71. For now all I can do is record the different terms, we will have to await experience, case law, and interpretation to distiguish them.

Bounded rationality

It is clear in that "irrational" in the 1997 laws could not interpreted literally, leading the Ace from A10xx opposite KQ9xx was normal but also irrational. A friend, bridge partner, and mathematician who mixes with economists, introduced me to the concept of bounded rationality which is used by economists and game theorists to label some kinds of irrational behaviour from supposedly rational agents. The idea is that rational agents (e.g. humans) don't have time/effort/inclination to calculate the correct rational response in a given situation, so there is a bound on the agents' rationality which does not allow the agent to complete the calculation, and may lead them to behave irrationally.

In understanding how we describe claims ruling, it is useful to think that some normal plays (including careless or inferior) could be classed as boundedly rational while remaining strictly irrational. I don't know whether this concept would help in interpreting "irrational" in Law 70E1.