Roland Bolton

Roland Bolton, a great friend and TD colleague, died earlier today. Roland had been running events for the EBU and for Surrey and other counties in the South-East for as long as I have been aware of such things. He always brought energy to organising and running events and a commitment to ensuring everything went right. When I started as a trainee director for the EBU, it was invariably with Roland as director in charge.

If he did not teach me everything I know, I nevertheless learnt a great deal from Roland. In the early days, he was very encouraging that I learn the right things to do and equally keen that I should not learn bad habits as a TD. He continued to encourage and support me as I rose through the ranks, and was pleased and proud of my promotions.

Soon before moving from the South-East, I found myself in charge of the big one-day event in Surrey; for many years this was the biggest such event in the country and Roland's piece de resistance. This was the biggest event I have been in charge of (before or since). Roland had been unavailable (hence my appointment) but when his travel plans fell through, he was brought in as a TD. I am sure there was some doubt among the players that I was really in charge, but Roland was magnaminous and allowed me to get on with it. It is a testament to Roland's mentoring that the event went without a hitch.

Since moving to the South-West, we continued to work together at national events. He remained a great friend and a support through my medical problems and redundancy. We last met at the EBU TD Panel weekend last October, where he continued to show a determination that all TDs (new and old) should know what was right and to do things the right way. He will be remembered with great fondness.

Multiple plays out of turn - there is a law for that

A busy month but not much to report here. Having met an unfamiliar position, with colleagues giving me different advice, I was surprised and pleased to find a part of a law that I was not aware of that seemed to solve the problem.

South is declarer and the lead is in dummy, nevertheless she plays ♥K from hand. Realising her mistake she calls for ♥2 from dummy, which is played, and RHO plays ♥A — now the TD is called. I thought ♥A had accepted the ♥2 and declarer was now in the position of deciding which card to play from hand; others thought that ♥K could not be un-played [withdrawn] as there had been no explicit rejection of the lead out of turn, but were unsure of the status of ♥2.

Then I found Law 53B, a part of the laws I will happily admit I have never read before.

B. Wrong Defender Plays Card to Declarer’s Irregular Lead

If the defender at the right of the hand from which declarer’s lead out of turn was made plays to the irregular lead (but see C), the lead stands and Law 57 applies.

So if RHO had played ♥A directly after the out-of-turn ♥K, that would accpt ♥K but LHO would be subject to the restrictions of Law 57A. As it is, because ♥2 had also been played before ♥A, there are no restrictions on LHO because of Law 57C: A defender is not subject to rectification for playing before his partner if declarer has played from both hands, ...

So the ruling is a simple one: the ♥K is the lead, all the cards played stand played to the trick, and LHO plays to the trick without restiction. Probably, what one would have ruled without any of Laws 53 and 57 to hand.

Two bids out of rotation

An analogous position in the auction, is where North is the dealer, South opens out of turn and then North calls, sometimes one of the opponents now calls. We do not know how to deal with this: North's call must be treated as out of turn (otherwise North could deliberately call to try to cancel partner's call out of turn), and whichever call out of turn we try to deal with first leads to a mess. There is a recent topic on IBLF.

Meaning of likely in Law 69B2

Another interesting ruling from April was on the meaning of “likely” in Law 69B2. Some colleagues are hardly aware of the change of law here and still want to not give any more tricks to the side that withdraws acceptance, treating it as a withdrawn concession. This was another topic on IBLF.

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.

Updated spiel

I first produced a “spiel” for Law 27 in 2008, and revised in 2009. The EBU approach agreed at the TD meeting last year requires a further update to the spiel, which is now closer to the 2008 original. There is now no need for the TD to make a stab at whether or how Law 27B1 (a) and (b) apply, he just reads out the law.

Take offender away from the table and ask how the insufficient bid occured: this stops the player blurting something out at the table. Depending on what they say, it may now be a Law 25A case. If not, ask the meaing of the insufficient bid (if it isn't already obvious).

[Where possible in what follows, do not say “the insufficint bid” and “the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination” but name the actual bids; denoted as IB and LSB.]

To LHO:

You will have the option of accepting IB but first you should hear what happens if you do not accept.

To offender:

You have as many as three options: the first two, if applicable, will not silence partner, the third option will. We can discuss these options away from the table.

• Firstly, if IB and LSB are not artificial, then you have the option of bidding LSB and partner will not be silenced.
• Secondly, if there is a sufficient bid, or pass, or double/redouble [if admissible] which means the same as, or is more precise than, IB then you have option of making any such call and partner will not be silenced.
• Finally, you can make any other sufficient bid or pass and partner must pass for the rest of the auction.

To LHO:

Do you wish to accept IB? You can ask the opponents about their system, but you are not entitled to ask the intended meaning of the insufficient bid.

If necessary, talk to the offender away from the table, to give a decision as to which calls will or will not silence partner.

Allow offender to call, and announce whether partner is silenced.

Wait for the end of the auction and apply lead penalties if the offending side are defenders.

Ask to be called back if there is a problem (Law 23 or Law 27D, as applicable).

Matthew Hoskins

I was shocked and saddened by this news from Sussex County Contract Bridge Association

Very sadly, one of Sussex's top players, Matthew Hoskins, has died suddenly. Our thoughts are with Liz and family at this sad time.

I was only talking to Matthew on Sunday at the end of the National Swiss Teams: his team had been lying second going into the last match. Matthew has been an ever-present feature of bridge events in the the South-East and nationally, especially at Brighton, since I started directing twenty years ago. Even when opponents had done wrong, he was always pleasant and courteous to opponents and to directors; he will be missed.

Insufficient competence

I wonder if this blog should change its name to “RMB Bridge Law 27”. Some of the other new laws have their problems, but when I look back at a bridge event or a training course it is always the insufficient bids that stick in my mind.

EBU Panel TDs Meeting

There was a session advertised as “The New Laws” but the speaker always intended a title of “The New Law 27”. There was some sort of concensus on two points that are at odds with my previous practice.

1. The TD should take the offender away from the table to ask how the insufficient bid happened. The answer may not affect the ruling but:

   • it saves the offender blurting out this information at the table and creating unauthorised information;
   • it may help the TD to decide the meaning of the insufficient bid (for the purposes of Law 27B1(a) and (b));
   • it is possible that Law 25A still applies, for example if the offender thought they should not say anything once the infraction was drawn attention to.

2. The other players at the table should not be told which replacement calls by offender will not silence offender's partner (including a Law 27B1(a) correction). The TD should explain Law 27B to offender's LHO and offer the opportunity to accept the insufficient bid; but the TD will not give a ruling on the meaning or artificiality of the insufficient bid or possible corrections, only on the actual replacement call chosen by offender if the insufficient bid is not accepted.

   This continues to cause some not inconsiderable awkwardness in giving the actual rulings, especially given the convoluted language in Law 27: “not incontrovertibly not artificial”, etc. But we already have examples of the TD doing the wrong thing in prematurely divulging the intended meaning of the insufficient bid.

Does 4NT have the same or more precise meaning as 3NT?

I weighed in to a forum topic, Insufficient Bid; where the question was similar to an earlier blog post: Can 4NT be “incontrovertibly not artificial”. The auction was 3♠ –(4♥) – 3NT: so the questions were whether 4NT was “incontrovertibly not artificial” and whether calls (e.g. 4NT) had “the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than” 3NT. If the TD is convinced that a replacement bid of 4NT is to play, then 4NT will not silence opener (but he will pass). If the TD rules that 4NT will silence opener then offender can bid 4NT to play (but then Law 23 will have to be applied).

We really want to play in 3NT

I was a TD at the EBU National Swiss Teams Congress last weekend and had two insufficient bid rulings (amongst others). The first auction started with a strong, artificial 2♣ and I was called because opener and then responder had both bid 3NT. Responder told me she thought opener had bid 3♠ and she intended 3NT to play. I embarked on explaining the position to the defender who might accept the insufficient bid, without saying that 3NT was to play or what 4NT (for example) might be.

If 3NT is not artificial and 4NT is not artificial then [she] can bid 4NT without silencing partner. If [she] makes a bid that means the same as, or is more precise than, 3NT then [her] partner will not be silenced. ...

At some point, I was put out of my misery by the defender accepting the (second) 3NT bid. It was no surprise to anyone that 3NT became the final contract. It occurs to me that if the insufficient bid was replaced with Pass, I do not know if opener would be silenced (if, for instance, fourth hand doubled). Does a Pass of 3NT show the same as bidding 3NT (over an imagined 3♠)?

Let's all create unauthorised information

1♠ – (2♦) – 1NT. “I didn't see 2♦”, I am told, away from the table. Explain options to LHO: 1NT not accepted. I explain options to offender, about to ask if she wants clarification away from the table, but she says “Can I bid 2♠? It shows the same point range.” I explain that 2♠ will silence partner and she bids it anyway. LHO passes and waves at the table as if to indicate that (he thinks) the auction is over. I explain that opener is silenced (and may have unauthorised information from the question) and overcalled has unauthorised information from the gesture. Both pass anyway and I am not called back.

Use of unauthorised information is a serious error

I have just been consulted on a complicated case that threw up a new question: is the illegal use of unauthorised information (Law 16B) a serious error (in the sense of Law 12C1(b))?

South dealt and opened 1♥, West overcalled 2♣, and North bid 3♠, intended as a splinter, but not alerted. East asked about 3♠ and was told it was natural and preemptive, and then passed. The auction continued to 5♥ doubled, making when West lead a ♠.

The TD found there was misinformation from the failure to alert/explain the splinter, that North/South had used unauthorised information to stop in 5♥, and East/West had used unauthorised information in leading a spade. A club lead would defeat 5♥. Without the misinformation and the use of unauthorised information by North/South, they would reach 6♥ doubled. East may have been able to show spades and attract the disadvantageous spade lead, so the TD adjusted for North/South 50% 6♥X-1, 50% 6♥X-2. We decided the spade lead against 5♥ was illegal and a serious error and was responsible for conceding 5♥X= rather than 5♥X-1.

Result	Score	NS	EW
5♥X=	+650	133	3
...
5♥X-1 / 6♥X-1	-100	15	121
6♥X-2	-300	4	132

Adjustment for NS was 50%x15 + 50%x4 = 9.5MP

The damage due to the serious error was 118MP, so adjustment for EW was (50%x121 + 50%x132) - 118 = 8.5MP