Embarrassment in San Remo
David Stevenson
So I have just had a great week in Iceland, having been invited by the
Icelandic Bridge Federation as Chairman of Appeals - I did a whole one!
I then fly Icelend to Gatwick, set alarm for 0542 [yes, there really
is such a time], fly to Nice, coach to San Remo, and am in the hardest
TD course in the world.
It is a very long and sad story, but I have been trying to take this
course for *seventeen* years! Oh, well, I have finally done so!
Now recently I have been arguing on IBLF that if there is an argument
about whether a call may be changed under Law 25A [unintended call] that
the TD should never look in the player's hand, and I really cannot see
any advantage in taking him away from the table.
So in my first or second simulation, I come to the table, and the
player has opened 1C but says he meant to pass. I ask all the relevant
questions and rule he may change it to pass. Of course, I do not look
at his hand nor take him away from the table.
Imagine my chagrin when I discover the 'official' answer is to take
him away from the table and look into his hand! :(((( I just think the
people setting the test were wrong! :)))))
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
<webj...@googlemail.com> bluejak on OKB
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Raija D
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:t5w8O4TW...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
==========
I have never heard from anywhere that a TD should be looking into people's
hands. Absurd.
If they were _not_ wrong (though I agree with you they must be), then where
is the regulation or law that makes looking into the hand a) allowed or b)
legal or c) heaven forbid, mandatory. And if they were wrong, I wonder
when a correction will be forthcoming to the test answers.
Curious only as a reader/follower of laws matters, I have no personal
knowledge and of course I didn't participate.
Raija
Lorne
news:t5w8O4TW...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
>
So what did they say when you asked "in what circumstances will looking at
the hand change the ruling?"
ThoraD
>
> It is a very long and sad story, but I have been trying to take this
> course for *seventeen* years! Oh, well, I have finally done so!
>
Congratulation
> So in my first or second simulation, I come to the table, and the player
> has opened 1C but says he meant to pass. I ask all the relevant questions
> and rule he may change it to pass. Of course, I do not look at his hand
> nor take him away from the table.
>
What are the relevant questions ?
I am not being facetious, I really want to know for the next time, it
happens in the club where I am directing
TIA
ThoraD
Stu G
> "David Stevenson" <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:t5w8O4TW...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > So I have just had a great week in Iceland, having been invited by the
> > Icelandic Bridge Federation as Chairman of Appeals - I did a whole one!
>
> > I then fly Icelend to Gatwick, set alarm for 0542 [yes, there really is
> > such a time], fly to Nice, coach to San Remo, and am in the hardest TD
> > course in the world.
>
> > It is a very long and sad story, but I have been trying to take this
> > course for *seventeen* years! Oh, well, I have finally done so!
>
> > Now recently I have been arguing on IBLF that if there is an argument
> > about whether a call may be changed under Law 25A [unintended call] that
> > the TD should never look in the player's hand, and I really cannot see any
> > advantage in taking him away from the table.
>
> > So in my first or second simulation, I come to the table, and the player
> > has opened 1C but says he meant to pass. I ask all the relevant questions
> > and rule he may change it to pass. Of course, I do not look at his hand
> > nor take him away from the table.
>
> > Imagine my chagrin when I discover the 'official' answer is to take him
> > away from the table and look into his hand! :(((( I just think the
> > people setting the test were wrong! :)))))
>
> > --
> > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
> > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 ICQ: 20039682
> > Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>
> ==========
> I have never heard from anywhere that a TD should be looking into people's
> hands. Absurd.
> If they were _not_ wrong (though I agree with you they must be), then where
> is the regulation or law that makes looking into the hand a) allowed or b)
> legal or c) heaven forbid, mandatory.
Unfortunately, I cannot find any Law that says a TD must not look into
a player's hand.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
> And if they were wrong, I wonder
> when a correction will be forthcoming to the test answers.
> Curious only as a reader/follower of laws matters, I have no personal
> knowledge and of course I didn't participate.
> Raija- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hank Youngerman
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
It might be appropriate to either (a) not allow change of call or (b)
make it a higher standard, like two cards next to each other in the
bidding box. Looking into a player's mind about what they "meant" to
do is a strange exercise, and we don't allow mulligans in the play of
the hand. Yes, we do if someone accidentally drops their cards, but
not otherwise. Now, sometimes I will reach into the box for, say, the
2H card, 2S comes out, and as I'm putting it on the table I will put
them all down, immediately remove the 2S card, and point to the 2H
card, in effect saying "This is what I mean to bid." But if the law
didn't allow this "change of call" then I would of course be more
careful about putting the stack of cards on the table before removing
the 2S card. I'm sure that no one would propose the kind of
"defender's exposed card" to calls, i.e. if partner could have seen
it, the call is made. More like the "declarer's played card"
standard.
But with that said, the law now does seem to require the director to
divine what the player's intent was. If you open 2D holding:
xx
xxx
KQJxxx
xx
and then want to change to a pass (the player's card is marked,
surprise, Flannery or Mini-Roman or Multi), this is a bit much. But
if the player opens 2S with this hand and wants to change it to 2D
(I'm willing to be charitable enough to assume he doesn't play 2-under
preempts in some other partnership), this seems allowable.
But how can the director make a guess at the player's intent without
knowing the hand? Say he opens 2H and says "I meant to bid 2D." With
the hand given above, it seems quite sensible. But suppose he has:
Jxx
AKJxx
x
Qxxx
He opens 2H, then notices that one of his small clubs is in fact a
small spade and that he has a Flannery opening, which he plays. I
don't find it very believable anymore that he "meant" to bid 2D.
Raija D
"Stu G" <st...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:a5598b36-21bc-4c8e...@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
=======
In addition to that, there is also no Law where it says that hat TD should
look or must look. But AFAIK, based on prior postings by TDs (David
included) here, I understand that TD training advises not to look into a
players hand until after the hand is over. So something has changed at some
point without notice, or I am mistaken about the TD training.
Raija
David Stevenson
The most important question is "At the time your hand moved towards
the bidding box, what call did you intend ot make?"
Other questions might be "Why did you not?" and "Did you change your
mind?".
Peter Smulders
news:KnEVJ5bF...@blakjak.demon.co.uk:
> ThoraD wrote
>>Lots of Snips
>>>
>>> It is a very long and sad story, but I have been trying to
>>> take this
>>> course for *seventeen* years! Oh, well, I have finally done
>>> so!
>>>
>>
>>Congratulation
>>
>>> So in my first or second simulation, I come to the table,
>>> and the player
>>> has opened 1C but says he meant to pass. I ask all the
>>> relevant questions and rule he may change it to pass. Of
>>> course, I do not look at his hand nor take him away from the
>>> table.
>>>
>>
>>What are the relevant questions ?
>>I am not being facetious, I really want to know for the next
>>time, it happens in the club where I am directing
>
> The most important question is "At the time your hand moved
> towards
> the bidding box, what call did you intend ot make?"
>
> Other questions might be "Why did you not?" and "Did you
> change your
> mind?".
Why was this evidence not sufficient in this case? I presume the
instructor of your course gave an explanation why peeking into the
players hand was justified.
Jon Siegel
> Bridgepage:http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Don't feel bad, David. Consider this excerpt from an article about
John Maynard Keynes:
"Young John was a brilliant student but didn't immediately aspire to
either academic or public life . . . . Keynes ended up taking the
civil service exam. His lowest mark was in economics. "I evidently
knew more about Economics than my examiners," he later explained."
David Stevenson
There were written solutions. I have no idea what I did wrong
[allegedly]: I allowed the change.
Mind you, we were not given individual marks per exercise so perhaps i
got full marks on this one anyway.
Steve Willner
> ThoraD wrote
> The most important question is "At the time your hand moved towards
> the bidding box, what call did you intend ot make?"
As David knows, this is the appropriate question in most of the world
but not in the ACBL. Over here, I suppose it would be something like
"As you moved the bidding card toward the table...," but I've never seen
an official version. The difference arises because most places consider
the call "made" when the bidding card is "removed from the box with
apparent intent" or something similar, whereas in the ACBL, the call is
not made until the bidding card is "held touching or nearly touching the
table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has
been made." Before a call is made, it can be changed for any reason,
including a change of mind, though changing a call may well convey
Unauthorized Information to partner.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson wrote:
>> ThoraD wrote
>> The most important question is "At the time your hand moved towards
>>the bidding box, what call did you intend ot make?"
>
>As David knows, this is the appropriate question in most of the world
>but not in the ACBL. Over here, I suppose it would be something like
>"As you moved the bidding card toward the table...," but I've never
>seen an official version. The difference arises because most places
>consider the call "made" when the bidding card is "removed from the box
>with apparent intent" or something similar, whereas in the ACBL, the
>call is not made until the bidding card is "held touching or nearly
>touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that
>the call has been made." Before a call is made, it can be changed for
>any reason, including a change of mind, though changing a call may well
>convey Unauthorized Information to partner.
I understand that the WBF and EBL are moving towards the ACBL
regulation, so other European countries may well follow. The EBU has
decided not to yet, however.