Unintended action is not an offence?

A follow up to White Book 2013 and Inadvertent designation is an offense?.

Firstly, the White Book 2013 is on the EBU web site: L&E publications. I made the last change last night: correcting the cross-reference from Law 45C4(b) to Law 25A.

I was only looking at that page because of discussion on IBLF where campboy was arguing that a player who makes an unintended call and corrects it (under Law 25A) is not an offender. This is consistent with a strict reading of Law 45C4(b), see Inadvertent designation is an offense?. It appears that a player who has made an unintended action (call or designation), and has corrected the action under the appropriate law (Law 25A or Law 45C4(b)), has not committed an infraction and is not an offending side. These are the points that support this conclusion:

• The laws do not say the unintended action as in irregularity.
• Law 25A4 explains the unauthorised infromation if the next hand has called over the unintended call. If the unintended caller was an offending side, Law 25A4 could be replaced by a reference to Law 16D.
• Law 45C4(b) refers explicitly to Law 16D1 which only applies to non-offending sides. So there cannot be an offending side in Law 45C4(b).

(Of course, there are other points that do not support the conclusion.)

This conclusion does reinforce the strict reading of Law 45C4(b) re unauthorised information:

• declarer makes an unintended designation;
• dummy plays the card designated;
• the next player plays a card;
• declarer corrects the designation to the intended designation;
• dummy's played card is restored and the intended card is played;
• the next player withdraws their card and plays a different card;
• is the card withdrawn by the defender authorised to declarer?

Law 45B4(b) refers to Law 16D1, and Law 16D1 tells us calls and plays are authorised.

This is probably not what we want.

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)

White Book editing

Meanwhile I have got involved the revision of the EBU White Book. I have attended a couple of L&E committee meetings and given my editing brief — make it shorter!

Despite this, the White Book was donated material that is currently in the Orange Book, but will not be included in its reincarnation as the Blue Book. The shortening was achieved by deleting sections that said the same thing as earlier sections for the second (or third) time; and worse: sections that said something different than earlier sections on the same subject. There were also sections on out-dated technology and out-dated methods of calculation. Finally a consistent approach to white space has improved the look and saved a few pages.

In between the deletion, there has been much re-writing, new interpretations, new regulations, and new VP scales. The VP scales based on the new WBF VP scales, but the “discrete” (integer) scales — not the “continuous” (decimal) scales in use at the European Open Championships.

A draft goes out to the proof-readers today, and it is ¾ the length of the previous version.

Two phone rulings ... and appeals

Being on the end of a telephone means you can take rulings from anywhere in the world. Last month I had to deal with back-to-back telephone rulings from different countries, and both were appealed. Both were misinformation ruling, with the non-offending side failing to make a game try (when game was making).

1. The first ruling was from a welsh event (a different NBO, if not a different country). I contacted various TDs and players and arrived at a ruling the following morning. I gave a weighted ruling — some proportion of bidding and making game — but not enough to change the match result. The non-offenders appealed but my ruling was upheld.

2. The same day the appeal from the welsh ruling was resolved, I was rung for a ruling was from an EBU event. A couple of telephone calls to TDs and I ruled (before the end of the match): score stands. The non-offending side appealed and this time I was overturned. The AC gave a weighted ruling (some proportion of bidding and making game), which this time was enough to change the match result.

The threat of going in the psyche book

At the national level, the EBU has a procedure for recording psyches: they are classified by the tournament director and a form goes back to the EBU. If a pair is thought to have developed a parthnership understanding that is not permitted or is not being properly disclosed, then the record of the pair can be investigated from the forms. The coverage of suspicious auctions is very patchy but the process of recording the hands by the tournament director can be relatively non-confrontational.

At lower levels, the procedures are usually less well defined, even if they exist. The procedure usually involve a “psyche book”, even if such a book does not actually exist. The notional purpose of the psyche book is to record psyches, but as I have discovered, its main purpose if for established players to intimidate their opponents by threating to put them in the book.

Long ago – and far away

Playing in a league match, I psyched 1♠ – presumably I was third in hand, not vulnerable against vulnerable, with not many points and not many spades (two, I think). Partner dutifly raised to 3♠ ahd we played there, drifting a few off. As soon as it became clear I had fewer spades than I was supposed to, LHO (with the big hand) started to erupt. At the end of the hand, players from other tables assembled to help with the situation and soon it felt like all the players in the teams-of-eight match were gathered round the table – except for my partner and me, who were sent to the far end of the room (in disgrace?). I am sure that there was much discussion of putting me “in the psyche book”, although given that the sponsoring organisation was the league, it probably did not have such a book. Eventually play resumed, with no adjustment, although I am sure the opponents (and some of my team) thought I had cheated.

Years ago – but not so far away

My first introduction to the local concept of the pysche book occurred when a player talked to me for advice. Apparently a hand they had bid had been recorded in the psyche book but the player only learned of this after the event, and the pair had not been given a chance to explain their actions. I looked at the hand and it did not look like a psyche and certainly nothing that looked like a concealed partnership understanding. It turned out that the TD's reasons for recording the hand had nothing to do with psyches and “recorded in the psyche book” was a bit of smoke screen.

More recently and not far away

As TD, I was asked for a bid to be recorded “in the psyche book”; since the player who asked was also a TD (and had directed at this club far more ofthen than me), I presumed he knew what he was talking about. I duly took a note of the hand on an EBU “report of hand” form. After the event, I got in touch with the powers that be, only to discover that there is not psyche book and no procedures. Again, this appeared to be sabre rattling, and totally lost of the player complained of.

Iain [M] Banks

Author Iain Banks (sometimes Iain M Banks) died today, it was not unexpected, but still sad.

My first Iain Banks book was The Bridge, which I bought in Edinburgh while working on the Festival Fringe. Although it was nearly midnight the bookshops were still open, which stuck me as very civilized. Only later did I realize that the bridge in the book is based on the Forth Bridge near Edinburgh.

After that I read the lot, from the The Wasp Factory onwards, including the science fiction — The Player of Games was a big favourite. I also really enjoyed the radio adaptation of Espadair Street and the whole family enjoyed The Crow Road on TV.

It is very sad to think there will never be another Iain Banks book.

Plans for the New Year 2013

Get a new laptop — this one still has problems with angle brackets (<, >) and (semi)colons, which makes writing HTML a bit tricky. I could type “&lt” for < in the last sentence, but the semicolon at the end still has to be cut-and-pasted. The computer is also falling apart in other ways — I had to borrow a different one for the last event of 2012 and it did not have all the right hardware drivers.

A number of county and national events coming up in the first few months of the year, in between I have to fit in a trip to Bad Honnef – Germany for the EBL Tournament Director's course.

The EBU is planning to revise the Tangerine/Orange/White books this year. The obvious areas to be addressed are regulations for alerting/announcements and permitted conventions, but they also want to ensure that the documents only contain material that is accurate and relevant. I am helping by reviewing some of the material in the write book — to see if some of the material can be reduced by a third (or a half).

Last year, I responded to the open invitation from the WBF LC and sent in suggested changes for sixteen or so laws, all from issues that had come up in this blog. In many cases I was just suggesting changes to the wording of the laws to enable the law to operate as intended (this was the sort of changes WBF LC said they were looking for); but I did suggest changes to completely change the law, so that it could operate at all (for example, law 27).

To an extent the motivation behind the blog has been satisfied by the responses to the WBF LC, and there has been less to say on the “new” (2007) laws as the years have gone by. I intend to continue to document the ups and downs of being a TD and some of technical and practical issues. I am constrained by avoiding maligning or embarassing players or TD colleagues whose actions I might describe unfavourably. The EBU TDs have a new code of conduct which requires that internet discussion does not disclose identities. The problem is that incidents that are interesting are rare, and in the small world of English bridge it is difficult for the events and the partipants not to become known.