Brighton Day 0 - via Reading and Gatwick

Despite a broken keyboard, I hope to resume this blog for the EBU Brighton Summer Congress. The keyboard is suffering from liquids (don't ask), and some punctuation symbols (included those needed for HTML) are just not working.

My mother died three months ago and that has been hard work - emotionally and practically. In the meantime, I have been kept busy by a number of bridge events but very few laws issues. The biggest problem was caused by me inducing a firmware incompatibility in the scoring system - with hilarious consequences.

I know my family and friends follow this blog while I am Brighton as the best way of finding out what I am up to. So a big shout out to E, who is volunteering at the Olympics and is having a whale of a time; and to the rest of the family.

Last year I travelled to Brighton via Westbury on a very crowded train. Today's route is much less direct but should be on better trains - we shall see.

I want two tricks: equity - and the revoke penalty!

This keeps happening.

You get a TD call for a revoke, you investigate and discover that they did not win the revoke trick but it looks as if they may have gained through revoking, but at most one trick. So you annouce that there is a one trick penalty for the revoke, unless the non-offenders would have got more than one trick if there had been no revoke. The non-offenders think this might be the case: so you go through the play as it would have been without the revoke, and (surprise, surprise) the non-offending side would have made just one more trick. So you explain that the revoke penalty has restored equity and the adjustment is one trick.

Now it kicks off! The non-offender's explain that they have been on a course, or another TD ruled differently, or it is not fair because there is no penalty for the revoke. They want two tricks, one to restore equity and one for the revoke penalty. So you explain again: the restoration of equity is instead of the revoke penalty not in addition. So now they start wondering if equity without the revoke would have been two tricks and you have to go through the possible plays without the revoke. Or they explain that it is not fair and everyone they spoke to thinks the non-offenders should get two tricks. So you explain that your ruling is one trick and they can ask another TD, if it will help; but your colleagues will not thank you for that.

I am dispairing of being able to explain this clearly and firmly so these rulings do not take ten minutes. The law is clear, and I am clear on the law, but somehow it is not being communicated to the players.

Are some TD's being taught this wrong on courses? Or is it just a matter of people hearing what they want to hear, and hoping they can get more that they are entitled?

I am sure it would be easier if we returned to when there were automatic two (three?) trick penalties for a revoke — perhaps then players would learn to follow suit.

Real damage versus advantage for offending side

An “open invitation” response on Law 12B/C to reinforce the difference between real damage to the non-offenders and any advantage gained by an offending side.

Proposed text for Law 12B1

[New text in italics. First attempt did not work: struck through.]

The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a nonoffending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. Whereas advantage exists when, following an infraction, the offending side obtains a table result more favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred. There is an adjusted score (at least for the offending side) when they have gained an advantage, even if there is no damage There may be an advantage for the offending side, whether or not there is any damage to the nonoffending side, in which case there may still be an adjustment for the offending side — see C1(b).

Proposed additional text for Law 12C1(b)

If all the damage is self-inflicted, the non-offending side keep the score obtained in play.

Open season on Law 27

An “open invitation” response on Law 27.

Proposed text for Law 27B

1. If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call. Then the auction proceeds without further rectification but see D following.
2. If the offender attempts to replace one insufficient bid with another, then the LHO may accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. If the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid, the Director rules as in 1.

Proposed text for Law 27D

According to Law 16D, the insufficient bid and any other withdrawn calls are unauthosied to offender's partner and Law 16B applies.

Alternative text for Law 27B

If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then:

1. if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination the auction proceeds without further rectification (regardless of the meaning of the insufficient bid or the correction), but see D following.
2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and see Law 16 and Law 23.
3. if the offender attempts to substitute a double or a redouble for his insufficient bid the attempted call is cancelled. The offender must replace it as the foregoing allows.
4. if the offender attempts to replace the one insufficient bid with another, then the LHO may accept the substituted insufficient bid as A allows. If the LHO does not accept the substituted insufficient bid, the Director rules as above.

With the same revision for Law 27D.

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.