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.

Brighton Focus - Insufficient Bids

The TDs wrote some article for Brighton Focus. Inevitably I sounded off about Law 27.

Insufficient Bids

by Robin Barker

Insufficient bids used to be easy and reasonably well understood: you could make an insufficient bid good or otherwise partner would be silenced. Of course, your Left-hand Opponent could accept the insufficient bid, and there were some restrictions on “making it good”, so the TD had to be called; and sometimes the opponents would be damaged by the insufficient bid, and the TD had to adjust the score.

But since 2008 the new laws have opened up a whole can of worms. As well as “making it good”, there are other calls that do not silence partner: these so-called “rectification” calls are anything that has the same or a more precise meaning as the insufficient bid.

But what is the meaning of your insufficient bid? Your partnership can not have an explicit agreement, so we have to ask you (away from the table) what the bid meant.

And how do we understand “same or more precise meaning”? Well, the law makers have changed their mind to allow a more liberal interpretation, and internationally some jurisdictions are even more liberal, so you may have to discuss it with the TD (away from the table).

All this leads to bobbing up and down for you, difficulty in making themselves understood for the TDs, and bewilderment for the other players at the table.

So try not to make insufficient bids and, if they happen, please listen and believe the TD while he/she sorts it out.

Four Stars Finals

Brighton 2011 – Day 10

Teams finals today and all went well except for two potential appeals, which eventually went away.

One potential appeal involved the adjustment for late arrival. The team protested that the start time of the finals had not been properly advertised. The TD in-charge confirmed the adjustment and the team considered appealing but decided not to.

The other was a ruling on the auction 1♣-(Pass)-1♠-(Double)-2♦-(3♠)-4♣-End. 1♣ was natural or balanced (in the modern style) and 1♠ was part of a transfer response scheme denying a major (again, in the modern style). Double was spades, and 2♦ was explained as reversing values but was bid on a weak NT with 5 diamonds. 4♣ was -4 and the defenders might have bid differently if 2♦ had been explained differently, but 4♠ would not make.

I ruled that the explanation of 2♦ was correct and opener had misbid, and the defending side appealed. The other side did not want to stay to attend the appeal and instead wrote extracts from their system notes on the appeals form. In the final results a change in the score on this board would not change the ranking, and so the appeal was withdrawn.

Home on Monday and back to sorting out plumbing problems, travel insurance claims, and the usual round of medical appointments.

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.