Philip Madoc

The actor, Philip Madoc died last week. He lived near St Albans and knew my father. We always looked out for him in television in 1970s — “Don't tell him Pike” was the most memorable. Given his role in The Life and Times of David Lloyd George, I am reminded of the nonsense song lyric: Lloyd George Knew My Father.

Proposed additional text for Law 45D

In response to the “open invitation” from the WBFLC, I plan to post possible responses here. Comments welcome.

Law 45D

I think Law 45D is ambiguous as to what happens if the time limit expires. I am sure the trick consists of the cards placed in the played position, and I assume that if dummy led, “the suit led” (for the purposes of revoke/ownership) is deemed to be the suit of card placed in the played position (not the suit of the card named by declarer).

(An alternative would be to stipulate that any card that is either of the suit misplayed or the suit named is not a revoke.)

Proposed additional text for Law 45D

If attention is drawn after each side has played to the next trick, the trick stands as played: the card misplayed by dummy becomes the card played to the trick. If dummy led to trick then ownership of the trick and any revoke is determined with respect to the suit of the card misplayed by dummy (not the suit of the card named by declarer).

Unauthorised information problems as a player

Dealing with unauthorised information, at the table, as a player, can be very difficult. It is good for a TD to be reminded of this from time to time when playing, so we continue to treat with sympathy the ordinary player who fails to cope with unfamiliar unauthorised information problems.

Ordinary hesitation problems are not usually so difficult: usually the auction makes sense and so the logical alternatives are obvious. If you can not work out what is suggested by the unauthorised information, just bidding what you would have done without the hesitation will not be a disaster even if the TD subsequently adjusts the score. But if partner misexplains your bid, then you have unauthorised information (regardless of who has got the system right or wrong) and the auction is likely to get in to unfamiliar territory. Now it can be very difficult to determine what are logical alternatives, especially when you know why partner is bidding strangely. Now, anything you do could be a disaster: either because it is a silly contract or the TD has to adjust to some result that may be very favourable to the other side.

An example was the ruling last month where an opening Benji 2♦ was announced by partner as a weak two and raised to 5♦: opener was now in a position of trying to decide how to bid in a position that may not exist for this partnership, and also trying to decide how his peers would bid in a position where opinions may vary wildly. As a player you want to avoid a bad result, but you also want to avoid appearing to have taken advantage.

A hand from a match played privately

We played a very pleasant match half-way across the county yesterday. There was a delay at the start, so recognising me as a National TD, there was some discussion of the perennial topics such as psychic bidding and “the extended rule of 25”.

Early in the match, I was last to speak, vulnerable against not vulnerable, holding: ♠A ♥K ♦AQxxx ♣AQJxxx. The auction started 1♥ Pass 2♥, and I tried 2NT, assuming this showed a minor two-suiter. But partner did not alert and bid 3♥ (with the opponents wisely remaining silent for the rest of the auction). It seemed very likely that partner was transfering to spades opposite a natural 2NT bid, but opposite a minor two-suiter, 3♥ was probably a NT probe asking for something in hearts. So what were my logical alternatives? Possibilities were 3NT, 4♣, 4NT and 5♣. Crucially, was 3NT a logical alternative? If it was, I should bid it and it was likely to be a disaster. I decided stiff King could not what partner was looking for (I am not so sure now) and that only 5♣ fitted my hand. I was concious that 5♣ looked like “unauthorised panic” (following a call that partner has misunderstood with a call that repeats or reinforces the meaning of the earlier call) but I had convinced myself there was no alternative.

Now partner bid 5♠, so clearly he had spades and despite the unauthorised panic in 5♣, he had not woken up to the intended meaning of 2NT. But what was I allowed to think of 5♠? If was a control bid agreeing clubs, it could not be showing the Ace or a void; so it must be a spade suit. I thought that if Pass was a logical alternative, then I should pass because bidding was suggested by partner having misunderstood 2NT; unless I should interpret partner's auction as a slam try in spades, in which case 6♠ was a logical alternative that I should bid. 6♣ could still be a making contract and I wanted to avoid bidding it if that would look like “using” unauthorised information. But if I passed, and 5♠ was the last making contract, that might also look suspicious.

So I passed 5♠ and explained that I not intended 2NT as natural; the opponents seemed to say they had thought 2NT was a two-suiter. 5♠ drifted −2; partner and I muttered apologies and the opponents were content. Nobody seemed aware of the inner turmoil I had gone through during the auction.

At the end of the match, I told the auction to a team-mate; after thinking about the bridge problems, he said “and you were under some constraint”. I agreed.

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 Open Invitation from WBFLC

This appeared in the World Championships Bulletin No.11. I intend to respond: covering laws that have come up in this blog.

The Laws of Duplicate Bridge – An open invitation

by Grattan Endicott

The WBF Laws Committee is now giving some preliminary thought to the next review of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Its first decision is to issue a worldwide invitation to players, tournament directors, and NBOs (and as it may be, other members of bridge discussion groups), to send to me any thoughts they may have as to desirable changes in the Laws.

I intend to divide suggestions received into two categories:

1. those which propose a change in the effect of the law; and
2. those which retain the current effect of the law but target an improvement in the wording and/or layout of a Law.

The broad inclination of the committee as it commences the task is to institute very few category (a) changes but to concentrate mainly on proposals in category (b). All suggestions will receive consideration and we will see what responses this invitation brings.

For ease of identification and sorting, I request:

1. That nothing reaches me before 1st December 2011, and
2. That the subject line of every email shall contain the words “Duplicate Bridge Law”, which may be followed, if desired by a Law number.

Given the likely number of suggestions that will be sent, please do not anticipate an acknowledgement of receipt unless there is something not fully understood. Do not assume that anything received hitherto will be on record — send it afresh if you wish it to have attention.

Invitation issued Tuesday, October 25, 2011.

Responses must be received no later than 31st December 2012.

Send to grandaeval@tiscali.co.uk

Application of Law 12C1(b) revisited

I have been called on a number of times recently to advise on the application of Law 12C1(b) — adjustment for non-offending side following self-inflicted damage, due to a SEWoG. I have written a spreadsheet to display the calculations (feedback welcome). As a consequence of writing the software, I now better understand the calculations and I have rewritten my article, which subsequently appeared in the EBU White Book.

Application of Law 12C1(b)

There are scores (for the non-offending side) we have to consider

1. the score for the Actual table result (including any serious error or WoGA)
2. the score for the result Before infraction (assigned by Law 12C1c)
3. the score for the result that Could have been scored, with the infraction but without serious error

The corresponding scores for the offending side are A', B', C'; at IMPs A' = −A, etc.; at match points A + A' = top, etc.

The overall damage D (= B − A) can be divided as

• Real damage: D_R = B − C
• Self-inflicted damage: D_S = C − A

There are four cases: all damage is self-inflicted, some is self-inflicted, no self-inflicted damage, or no damage at all.

• B ≤ A: no advantage, no damage, no adjustment;
• A < B ≤ C: all damage self-inflicted, no real damage D_R ≤ 0, NOS get A, OS get B';
• C ≤ A < B: no self-inflicted damage, D_S ≤ 0, balancing adjustment, NOS get B, OS get B';
• A < C < B: real damage and some self-inflicted.

In the final case, the OS get B' and the NOS get A + B − C = adjusted score − self-inflicted damage.

Examples

NS bid to 4H and EW “use UI” to compete to 4S, which is doubled. In defending 4SX, NS might revoke (a serious error) and lose a trick they would otherwise score. The result in the other room is NS +50. The expected result in 4H is making, so B (the result before the infraction) is +9 IMP for the non-offending side.

4SX-1 NS +100. Revoke

A = IMP(100-50) = +2 IMP. Without the revoke: 4SX-2 NS +300. C = IMP(300-50) = +6 IMP.

Damage D = 7 IMP; real damage D_R = 3 IMP, self-inflicted damage D_S = 4 IMP.

Offending side (team of EW) get −9 IMP, non-offending side (team of NS) get 2 + 9 − 6 = +5 IMP.

4SX-2 NS +300. Revoke

A = +6 IMP. Without the revoke: 4SX-3 NS +500. C = IMP(500-50) = +10 IMP. No real damage (D_R < 0).

Offending side get −9 IMP, non-offending side get +6 IMP (table result).

4SX-2 NS +300. No revoke

A = C = +6 IMP. No self-inflicted damage (D_S = 0). Both sides get ±9 IMP.

4SX-3 NS +500.

A = +10 IMP. No damage. Table result for both sides.

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.