Unusual Laws Ruling
KWSchneider
and asks RHO if he accepts the bid, to which he replies no.
LHO now tanks [knowing that a 1N overcall is the "same denomination"]
and decides to open 2D. Since CHO can no longer call 1N, I can no
longer participate in the auction [31A2b].
Recognizing this, my partner chooses to double [which I thought was a
spectacular decision], which is passed out for a top our way. This is
reversed by the director, who indicates that we cannot bid double in
this auction - and we are given a zero.
Questions
1) It seems to me that LHO tried to take advantage of the situation
[as is his right] but was given 2 bites of the apple when the result
was overturned.
2) Why precisely is the double disallowed? I see no reference in LAW
31 that precludes the use of any bid - provided that I'm banned from
the auction going forward. Both LHO and RHO attempted to artificially
manipulate the auction [opener had a FULL 1D opening].
Cheers,
Kurt
Will in New Haven
I have always understood that a double is not allowed when partner is
barred but I don't know where I read this or heard it.
My partners have not been barred often enough for this to matter. Or
often enough in general.
--
Will in New Haven
Barry Margolin
<1b6d14f8-63eb-406f...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
KWSchneider <question...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sounds to me like the TD was confusing this with an insufficient bid.
You're not allowed to replace an IB with a double or redouble, but
there's no such restriction after a bid out of rotation.
The TD messed up, I think.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
KWSchneider
> In article
> <1b6d14f8-63eb-406f-a1c4-7102c8cdc...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Barry,
This was with Jackie in Woburn during a STAC event earlier this year.
She called someone [on the West Coast I think], to get a ruling since
she had never had this come up in her 30 years of Directing. This
"senior" director ruled that a double was illegal in this sequence -
and awarded an adjusted score. So - despite my own dissatisfaction
with the ruling - I'm not convinced that the director[s] "messed-up".
I just want to fully understand the ruling and why our opponents got
two bites...
Cheers,
Kurt
David Flower
Partner benefitted from your enforced pass. The Director was wrong
when he said that partner cannot double, but, nevertheless, should
award an adjusted score under Law 23.
This Law seems to imply that it only applies if the irregularity was
deliberate. I assume that this was not the intention of the lawmakers.
(surely the 'irregularity' was the 1NT bid, not the double, and the
offender could hardly be aware that there would be a forced pass
situation when he bid 1NT
Dave Flower
David Babcock
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> I have always understood that a double is not allowed when partner is
> barred but I don't know where I read this or heard it.
I can see this as a time-saving rule-of-thumb based on the NOS' right
not to be damaged by a forced pass, but I am only speculating.
David
Travis Crump
> My LHO is dealer - CHO opens out of turn with 1N. Director is called
> and asks RHO if he accepts the bid, to which he replies no.
>
> LHO now tanks [knowing that a 1N overcall is the "same denomination"]
> and decides to open 2D. Since CHO can no longer call 1N, I can no
> longer participate in the auction [31A2b].
>
> Recognizing this, my partner chooses to double [which I thought was a
> spectacular decision], which is passed out for a top our way. This is
> reversed by the director, who indicates that we cannot bid double in
> this auction - and we are given a zero.
>
> Questions
> 1) It seems to me that LHO tried to take advantage of the situation
> [as is his right] but was given 2 bites of the apple when the result
> was overturned.
There are two scenarios: LHO felt a weak 2 was more attractive since it
was unlikely his side had the values for game given CHO strong NT or LHO
felt 2D was more attractive for legal reasons. The first seems more
ethical to me though I hesitate to call the second 'unethical'. The
first also seems more likely since 1D would constitute a one round bar
on you which would significantly muddy the waters regardless.
> 2) Why precisely is the double disallowed? I see no reference in LAW
> 31 that precludes the use of any bid - provided that I'm banned from
> the auction going forward. Both LHO and RHO attempted to artificially
> manipulate the auction [opener had a FULL 1D opening].
>
It appears to be a law 23 adjustment. Regardless of anything else law
31 wouldn't allow the director to wait til the end of the hand to adjust
; he'd prevent the double in the first place. An after the fact
adjustment due to director's error should never result in below average
scores in my opinion. But as you said 31 doesn't even seem to prevent
double so it seems likely to be law 23. Law 23 seems catch-22y to me
though, non-cheating irregularities are always inadvertant so offender
would never even know ahead of time that it was an irregularity much
less that it was likely to damage the opponents. I don't think law 23
means that it should be necessarily adjusted to 2D undoubled, I think it
should be adjusted to a 'normal' auction. So likely 2D-2N-p-3N-p-p-p or
2D-2N-p-p-p depending on the hands[perhaps even throwing in stayman or
transfers if warranted. Though perhaps a bad 15 count might warrant
2D-p-p-p.
Travis
> Cheers,
> Kurt
Adam Beneschan
Prior to 2007, correcting an insufficient bid to a double was
specifically disallowed. In the new Laws, it's specifically
disallowed unless it "incorporates" the information that the
insufficient bid would have incorporated---i.e. it doesn't provide any
additional information to partner, and doesn't bar partner. But when
the correction does bar partner, then double is disallowed.
In other cases, though, double isn't always disallowed. Say you make
an opening bid out of turn that bars your partner; then RHO opens 1NT
and you make a penalty double, passed out. Now, the fact that partner
is forced to pass probably won't damage the opponents, since in all
probability partner wasn't going to bid anyway. But if your double is
artificial by agreement, and you've just given yourself the ability to
make a penalty double that you couldn't have made unless partner was
barred, then the opponents *are* damaged and Law 23 will probably
apply.
-- Adam
Adam Beneschan
> Law 23 seems catch-22y to me
> though, non-cheating irregularities are always inadvertant so offender
> would never even know ahead of time that it was an irregularity much
> less that it was likely to damage the opponents.
I agree that it's not clear whether and how to apply the rule in a
case like this. Perhaps there should be a special rule for doubles,
i.e. that any double that is made when partner is required to pass is
illegal if the partnership methods dictate that a double is a
"takeout" or artificial double that wouldn't normally be passed.
Those are cases where we definitely want to protect the non-offenders,
and then we wouldn't have to worry about the "could have known"
stuff. This isn't too far-fetched since we already do that for
insufficient bids.
-- Adam
campboy
I do not think Law 23 applies here. Sure, you could not have made a
penalty double of a weak 2D without the original infraction, but you
have absolutely no reason to suppose that RHO is going to open 2D.
There are times when an enforced pass happens to lead to a good score
but offender could not have known; I think this is one of them.
KWSchneider
To clarify - we play a mini-1N opening of 10-12 points. LHO had no pre-
knowledge of a strong hand on his left [other than an opening one]. I
would also like to point out that BOTH LHO and RHO had a chance to
pull the "obvious" penalty double - yet chose not to, because they
assumed, apparently correctly, that they could not be hurt.
So if it made, it was a top, and if not, they would get a corrected
score. This seems horribly wrong - and unethical, in my opinion.
Cheers,
Kurt
t
> My LHO is dealer - CHO opens out of turn with 1N. Director is called
> and asks RHO if he accepts the bid, to which he replies no.
>
> LHO now tanks [knowing that a 1N overcall is the "same denomination"]
> and decides to open 2D. Since CHO can no longer call 1N, I can no
> longer participate in the auction [31A2b].
Could CHO have made a call of 2NT over 2D as this would have
essentially the same meaning as a 1NT overcall of 1D?
Tim DeLaney
>
> - Show quoted text -
Presumably, the TD could award an adjusted score on the basis of Law
23, but I think that would be a wild stretch. I wonder if the fact
that double is not specifically prohibited (as in 27B3) is an
oversight on the part of the lawmakers. Perhaps that was the opinion
of the "senior" director.
Law 10C3: When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option
after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to
select the most advantageous action.
However, it seems to me that there is an area for law makers to
consider here. I would think that LHO should not be allowed to psych
here, solely for the purpose of silencing an opponent.
I also think LHO should practice active ethics here, and make a normal
call. I wouldn't criticize stretching the boundaries of a 2D call
(Say, bidding 2D instead of 1D on Axx x KQJxxx Jxx), but something
well outside the partnership requirements (Say, xx xx Jxxxx xxxx)
ought to be avoided.
Tim
KWSchneider
Unfortunately, our 1N opening is "mini", our 1N overcall [over 1D] is
conventional, and our 2N overcall [over 2D] too strong for the mini
range - the lack of availability of all of these calls forced my
partner to be "creative" and bid double - without any manipulative
intent.
Kurt
Tim DeLaney
>
> > My LHO is dealer - CHO opens out of turn with 1N. Director is called
> > and asks RHO if he accepts the bid, to which he replies no.
>
> > LHO now tanks [knowing that a 1N overcall is the "same denomination"]
> > and decides to open 2D. Since CHO can no longer call 1N, I can no
> > longer participate in the auction [31A2b].
>
> Could CHO have made a call of 2NT over 2D as this would have
> essentially the same meaning as a 1NT overcall of 1D?
Even if it did, partner would be barred for 1 round. See 31A2(a). A
bid out of rotation is not treated the same as an insufficient bid.
Tim
Adam Beneschan
> To clarify - we play a mini-1N opening of 10-12 points. LHO had no pre-
> knowledge of a strong hand on his left [other than an opening one]. I
> would also like to point out that BOTH LHO and RHO had a chance to
> pull the "obvious" penalty double - yet chose not to, because they
> assumed, apparently correctly, that they could not be hurt.
>
> So if it made, it was a top, and if not, they would get a corrected
> score. This seems horribly wrong - and unethical, in my opinion.
Put me in the camp that is somewhat less than outraged at this
"horrible" wrong. Your partner broke the rules of the game. Your
side paid a price. Don't do it again. Next hand.
-- Adam
Travis Crump
Perhaps at some point it would be easier to just post all four hands if
possible. Personally I would expect this 2D gambit to be a long term
loser so perhaps he just got 'lucky'. Were the opponents aware of your
opening NT range[sometimes the CC can be confusing if you are playing
variable ranges]?
Travis
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I also think LHO should practice active ethics here,
Law 10C
3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option
after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is
appropriate to select the most advantageous action.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
Bertel Lund Hansen
> My LHO is dealer - CHO opens out of turn with 1N. Director is called
> and asks RHO if he accepts the bid, to which he replies no.
> LHO now tanks [knowing that a 1N overcall is the "same denomination"]
> and decides to open 2D. Since CHO can no longer call 1N, I can no
> longer participate in the auction [31A2b].
This is wrong. If partner bids 2NT (repeats the denomination),
this will only force you to pass first time.
> Recognizing this, my partner chooses to double [which I thought was a
> spectacular decision], which is passed out for a top our way. This is
> reversed by the director, who indicates that we cannot bid double in
> this auction - and we are given a zero.
This is wrong. The law says:
2. If that opponent makes a legal* bid, double or redouble,
offender may make any legal call;
"Any legal call" - not "any legal bid".
Even if I assume that there is reason to ban a double (which I
don't think there is), it is very wrong not to explain this to
your partner before he bids, and not to stay and make sure that
the game continues as it should.
> Questions
> 1) It seems to me that LHO tried to take advantage of the situation
> [as is his right] but was given 2 bites of the apple when the result
> was overturned.
It ought not to have happened.
> 2) Why precisely is the double disallowed?
It's not.
The only case for disallowing the double, is if TD feels that a
double would give TOS an unjust advantage *and that TOP knows
this*. I don't see that here.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Unfortunately, our 1N opening is "mini", our 1N overcall [over 1D] is
> conventional, and our 2N overcall [over 2D] too strong for the mini
> range -
Oh, I see. He might have bid it anyway if he thought that it
would work. In that case - if you got to bid again - you had to
assume that the bid was the strong NT and not the mini. But
obviously he didn't like the prospect of the possible confusion.
Jeff Ford
I agree with this. How could someone holding a flat 10-12 possibly
know ahead of time that their best chance at a good score was to bar
their partner?
Remember law 23 is about the irregularity which is the original bid
out of turn. It only kicks in if it's conceivable that *at that time*
offender could have known it would be a good idea to infract. The
double isn't an irregularity, and is perfectly legal as an attempt to
get a good score despite the penalty of partner being barred.
axm...@hotmail.com
Tim DeLaney wrote:
> On Jul 24, 1:51 pm, KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 1:27 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <1b6d14f8-63eb-406f-a1c4-7102c8cdc...@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > My LHO is dealer - CHO opens out of turn with 1N. Director is called
> > > > and asks RHO if he accepts the bid, to which he replies no.
> >
> > > > LHO now tanks [knowing that a 1N overcall is the "same denomination"]
> > > > and decides to open 2D. Since CHO can no longer call 1N, I can no
> > > > longer participate in the auction [31A2b].
> > > > Recognizing this, my partner chooses to double [which I thought was a
> > > > spectacular decision], which is passed out for a top our way.
> >> >This is
> > > > reversed by the director, who indicates that we cannot bid double in
> > > > this auction - and we are given a zero.
Few things are worse than bad law, such as not applying the law as
written.
> > > > Questions
> > > > 1) It seems to me that LHO tried to take advantage of the situation
> > > > [as is his right] but was given 2 bites of the apple when the result
> > > > was overturned.
> > > > 2) Why precisely is the double disallowed? I see no reference in LAW
because there is no such law
More like an inappropriate ruling.
> I wonder if the fact
> that double is not specifically prohibited (as in 27B3) is an
> oversight on the part of the lawmakers. Perhaps that was the opinion
> of the "senior" director.
It was a deliberate change of law specifically allowing any any
sufficient call. That the law is silly is an observation.
> Law 10C3: When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option
> after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to
> select the most advantageous action.
>
> However, it seems to me that there is an area for law makers to
> consider here. I would think that LHO should not be allowed to psych
> here, solely for the purpose of silencing an opponent.
Ill conceived, very ill conceived.
> I also think LHO should practice active ethics here,
Active ethics entails not making a stink after landing in his own
pile.
regards
axman
Nick France
Put me in the camp that doesn't under the "senior" director's ruling
or the sense of it. Under what law is he making the adjustment.
Let's change the facts just a little. RHO doesn't accept the bid and
LHO now passes. Now partner who has a strong notrump hand decides to
bid 3NT that makes. (I'm playing 15-17 HCP here). It turns out that
you have only 5 points and your side would never have bid 3NT.
Are we to believe that partner's gamble is nullified and your side
doesn't score 3NT making? Nothing seems different here to me. Your
partner gambled and it worked. (It wouldn't have been my choice).
This looks like a kind of what I'd call a "Wolff" ruling. I don't
like what the opponents did and I'm going to rule against them. Who
cares what the laws say.
Nick France
Adam Beneschan
The only thing "different" I see is that doubling when your methods
don't include a penalty double is a way of getting to a contract you
really couldn't otherwise get to without the irregularity (although I
suppose you could, after a reopening double). Even in the other case,
at the point where your partner is barred and you open 3NT, you know
that you *might* have been able to get to 3NT if the auction had
proceeded normally (because at that point you don't know that partner
only had 5 HCP). So 3NT is a gamble, but it's an attempt to recover
something that you *maybe* would have gotten absent the irregularity,
while doubling in a case like this is gaining something that you
couldn't have gotten without the irregularity.
I posted above that perhaps the Laws should treat double as a special
case. But perhaps there are others. Partner opens 1NT, you bid 2S,
transfer to clubs, without waiting for RHO. The bid is not accepted,
then RHO doubles. You play "systems on" over a double, but you now
bid 2C even though that would normally be Stayman. That bars partner,
right? If this is passed out and makes exactly, then you've gotten to
a spot that you couldn't have gotten to in any situation, without the
irregularity, so I think you could make a case that the opponents were
damaged and an adjustment is called for, regardless whether you "could
have known" anything at the time of the irregularity. But anyway, the
criterion I'm suggesting---that you get to a contract that would have
been virtually impossible to get to otherwise---is the difference
between the OP's example and yours that I see.
-- Adam
Derek Broughton
> My LHO is dealer - CHO opens out of turn with 1N. Director is called
> and asks RHO if he accepts the bid, to which he replies no.
>
> LHO now tanks [knowing that a 1N overcall is the "same denomination"]
> and decides to open 2D. Since CHO can no longer call 1N, I can no
> longer participate in the auction [31A2b].
>
> Recognizing this, my partner chooses to double [which I thought was a
> spectacular decision], which is passed out for a top our way. This is
> reversed by the director, who indicates that we cannot bid double in
> this auction - and we are given a zero.
>
> Questions
> 1) It seems to me that LHO tried to take advantage of the situation
> [as is his right] but was given 2 bites of the apple when the result
> was overturned.
Which is also his right. What _isn't_ right, imo, is banning that double.
> 2) Why precisely is the double disallowed? I see no reference in LAW
Me neither.
> 31 that precludes the use of any bid - provided that I'm banned from
> the auction going forward. Both LHO and RHO attempted to artificially
> manipulate the auction [opener had a FULL 1D opening].
Again, it's their right - but they need to act intelligently, too. LHO has
chosen to make a bid that his partner (in the ACBL at least) is explicitly
NOT allowed to know is different from his normal 2D bid (that is, you're not
allowed to have agreeements over insufficient bids), so he's made it hard
for your partner (and impossible for you :-) ), but he's also made it hard
for his own partner to know what the right move is. Their bad result is
explicitly a result of his own actions, and imo your auction should stand.
--
derek
Tim DeLaney
You may have noticed that I quoted Law 10C as well. But what I am
suggesting is that the actively ethical player should look beyond Law
10C.
Let me give another example. A player is legally entitled to act on
the basis of an opponent who carelessly exposes his hand. He must not
deliberately try to peek at the opponent's hand, but if the opponent
is so careless as to expose it, the player may legally act on the
information so obtained.
There is nothing in the Laws that I am aware of that obligates a
player to advise an opponent that he holds his cards carelessly, and
exposes them to view. But I think you would agree that even though no
such obligation exists, the actively ethical player should urge such
an opponent to "breast his cards".
No analogy -- including this one -- is perfect. But my point is that
an action can be perfectly legal, and yet be regarded as a little
slimy. If my LHO opened 1NT out of rotation when I held xxx xx Jxxxx
xxx, I would not make a 2D bid solely to try to take advantage of his
misstep. Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I don't think that's what
bridge is about, Law 10C notwithstanding.
Tim
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Again, it's their right - but they need to act intelligently, too. LHO has
> chosen to make a bid that his partner (in the ACBL at least) is explicitly
> NOT allowed to know is different from his normal 2D bid (that is, you're not
> allowed to have agreeements over insufficient bids), so he's made it hard
> for your partner (and impossible for you :-) ), but he's also made it hard
> for his own partner to know what the right move is. Their bad result is
> explicitly a result of his own actions, and imo your auction should stand.
I agree. Both NOSs gambled by their bidding, and they lost.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> You may have noticed that I quoted Law 10C as well. But what I am
> suggesting is that the actively ethical player should look beyond Law
> 10C.
One of these days I intend to learn to read.
> Let me give another example. A player is legally entitled to act on
> the basis of an opponent who carelessly exposes his hand.
I diagree. Law 74C5 makes it illegal. "Looking intently" covers
the act of starring with the purpose of getting to know the
opponent's cards.
> There is nothing in the Laws that I am aware of that obligates a
> player to advise an opponent that he holds his cards carelessly,
It would be impractical not to do it. One would have to look away
in an awkward position all the time.
> exposes them to view. But I think you would agree that even though no
> such obligation exists, the actively ethical player should urge such
> an opponent to "breast his cards".
I have a better example of active ethics that I perform myself.
If an opponent is making motions to bid out of turn and I can
prevent it, I do. Once I held my hand to cover his bidding box so
his partner could not see where his hand was, and then I said:
"It's not your turn". That is *preventing* an irregularity.
Once it has happened however I am under the obligation to make
the most of the options that are available.
> If my LHO opened 1NT out of rotation when I held xxx xx Jxxxx
> xxx, I would not make a 2D bid solely to try to take advantage of his
> misstep.
I might, but I certainly would not complain if my gambling
backfired.
> Maybe I'm hopelessly naive, but I don't think that's what
> bridge is about, Law 10C notwithstanding.
There's nothing naive about trying to be ethical. I do myself. We
just disagree on a certain point.
Peter Smulders
> Put me in the camp that is somewhat less than outraged at this
> "horrible" wrong. Your partner broke the rules of the game. Your
> side paid a price. Don't do it again. Next hand.
When someone breaks the rules of the game the relevant laws should be
applied. The arbitrary decision in this case is scandalous.
Sven Pran
"KWSchneider" wrote
> My LHO is dealer - CHO opens out of turn with 1N. Director is called
> and asks RHO if he accepts the bid, to which he replies no.
So much has been written, with so many errors, i don't know if i repeat some
of the corrections but here are my comments:
>
> LHO now tanks [knowing that a 1N overcall is the "same denomination"]
> and decides to open 2D. Since CHO can no longer call 1N, I can no
> longer participate in the auction [31A2b].
This is a misunderstanding of Law 31:
"offender may make any legal call". A bid of 2NT "repeats the denomination
of his bid out of rotation" so "offender's partner must pass when next it is
his turn to call" only, not for the rest of the auction.
>
> Recognizing this, my partner chooses to double [which I thought was a
> spectacular decision], which is passed out for a top our way. This is
> reversed by the director, who indicates that we cannot bid double in
> this auction - and we are given a zero.
This is a serious mistake by the Director. There is no law prohibiting a
double (or any other legal call) in this position. What the Director may
have had in mind is Law 23 which he indeed must try. However, a major
condition for this law to apply is that the "offender could have been aware
at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the
non-offending side".
This calls for a certain probability of intent (or planning ahead) by the
offender, and I can hardly see how he could be aware at the time he opened
out of turn with a bid that indeed fit his hand (which I assume was the case
here?) that this irregularity "could very well damage his opponents. (A
situation where I would as a Director seriously consider Law 23 is for
instance an opening bid out of turn on a Yarborough and the offender when
this opening bid is not accepted subsequently passing.)
The fact that the offender as a consequence of his irregularity eventually
chose a call that "could well damage the non-offending side" in the
situation that had now developed is irrelevant for law 23, the important
question is only if his opening bid out of turn "could very well cause such
damage".
So the whole case ought to be a disaster for the Director.
regards Sven
>
> Questions
> 1) It seems to me that LHO tried to take advantage of the situation
> [as is his right] but was given 2 bites of the apple when the result
> was overturned.
> 2) Why precisely is the double disallowed? I see no reference in LAW
> 31 that precludes the use of any bid - provided that I'm banned from
> the auction going forward. Both LHO and RHO attempted to artificially
> manipulate the auction [opener had a FULL 1D opening].
>
> Cheers,
> Kurt
David Flower
>
> - Show quoted text -
The phrasing of Law 23 seems strange, as the wording seems to imply
that it only applies if the irregularity was deliberate, in which case
it is an infringment of Law 73B1, which could involve penalties under
L90 or L91, especially if repeated.
My personal opinion is that Law 23 should be reworded to ensure that
it applies to cases where an offender seeks to benefit from a penalty.
Dave Flower
campboy
>
> - Show quoted text -
The current wording of Law 23 does not suggest to me that the
irregularity needs to be deliberate.
"Rewording" Law 23 as you suggest sounds like it would then conflict
with Law 10C4:
"Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification of an infraction it is
appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to
their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their
own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)." (the laws referred to are
about insufficient bids and penalty cards respectively).
David Flower
>
> - Show quoted text -
Good point. However, the phrasing of L23 is still strange.
LAW 23 - AWARENESS OF POTENTIAL DAMAGE
Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been
aware
at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the
nonoffending
side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not
completed). When the play has been completed the Director awards an
adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an
advantage
through the irregularity*.
* as, for example, by partner’s enforced pass.
'Could have been aware' is not the same as 'was aware'; it seems to
me that for all irregularities, the offender 'could have been aware',
even though they probably were not!
Dave Flower
Sven Pran
.................
>The phrasing of Law 23 seems strange, as the wording seems to imply
>that it only applies if the irregularity was deliberate, in which case
>it is an infringment of Law 73B1, which could involve penalties under
>L90 or L91, especially if repeated.
There is certainly no condition that the irregularity was deliberate, it
could very well have been accidental (and as a general rule we always assume
so unless convincing evidence to the contrary exists). However there must be
some foundation for ruling that the "offender could have been aware at the
time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending
side".
This excludes Law 23 from being applied to any irregularity where there is
absolutely no reason for the offender to having suspected the possibility of
such damage. And be aware of the important words: "At the time of his
irregularity"; later developments are irrelevant in this connection.
>My personal opinion is that Law 23 should be reworded to ensure that
>it applies to cases where an offender seeks to benefit from a penalty.
This is already catered for in Law 72B1
regards Sven
KWSchneider
Let's assume that the result was overthrown subject to Law 23 [which
as I recollect now, in fact, was the case] due to the Senior
Director's position that the DOUBLE was not allowable since it was
deemed that my partner's bid AT THAT TIME could have been known to be
damaging [he had 12 pts and 2=3=5=3 hand].
If I understand your position correctly, my partner needs to know/
suspect this at the time of the 1N bid out of turn - which, of course,
is impossible to know/suspect.
So, in your opinion - the ruling was incorrect and the reversal of the
result inappropriate?
Kurt
Sven Pran
"KWSchneider" <question...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d60a0153-1a77-44ba...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Kurt
Absolutely.
The irregularity was the opening bid out of turn, and I can hardly imagine
that the offender at the time he committed this could be aware that his bid
out of turn could damage opponents.
His LHO was then free to accept the opening bid out of turn as a correct bid
in which case it had been considered a fully legal bid with no adverse
consequences.
Instead his LHO (understandably) refused to accept the bid, resulting in
that bid being cancelled and the turn to call returned to the dealer. As the
dealer did not pass the offender now had a choice, but he was free to select
any legal call: PASS, Double or any bid ranking above 2D. If he had selected
a NT bid (the same denomination as his irregular bid) at whatever level (not
neccessarily at the lowest level legally available level!) his partner would
have had to pass once, when he selected any other (legal)call his partner
was forced to pass for the rest of the auction.
What call he selected to make at this time should be irrelevant for the
question of a Law 23 ruling. For the application of Law23 the crucial
question is only whether the opening bid out of turn (the irregularity)
could well damage opponents and he, at the time of this irregularity could
be aware of this possibility.
The actual ruling was so fundamentally wrong that I should question the
competence of the "Director".
regards Sven
Barry Margolin
<60a9f7c8-52d7-4115...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
David Flower <DavJF...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> The phrasing of Law 23 seems strange, as the wording seems to imply
> that it only applies if the irregularity was deliberate, in which case
> it is an infringment of Law 73B1, which could involve penalties under
> L90 or L91, especially if repeated.
I see what you mean. What it actually must be saying is that there are
conditions when you must take extra care not to commit certain
irregularities.
This seems like an unreasonable requirement, IMHO. First of all, you
should ALWAYS try not to commit irregularities. Second, who actually
thinks ahead about which infractions would be advantageous at a
particular time? And if they did, would anyone believe them when they
said that they then did it by mistake rather than deliberately?
The law gets around this by couching it in the phrase "could have
known", so they don't actually have to have thought about it. So even
though we know people don't actually perform these mental gymnastics,
especially when they're inattentive enough to make an infraction, we
penalize them for making such mistakes.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I see what you mean. What it actually must be saying is that there are
> conditions when you must take extra care not to commit certain
> irregularities.
I don't see that.
> This seems like an unreasonable requirement, IMHO. First of all, you
> should ALWAYS try not to commit irregularities. Second, who actually
> thinks ahead about which infractions would be advantageous at a
> particular time?
A cheater.
> And if they did, would anyone believe them when they
> said that they then did it by mistake rather than deliberately?
Maybe the first few times.
> The law gets around this by couching it in the phrase "could have
> known", so they don't actually have to have thought about it.
I think it's just there to avoid futile discussions with a
cheater in spe about what he actually knew. His claim that he
did not know, need not carry any weight the way the law is
phrased.
And just for the record:
I haven't met a player that meets this description of a cheater,
and I don't expect to do so.
> So even though we know people don't actually perform these mental gymnastics,
> especially when they're inattentive enough to make an infraction, we
> penalize them for making such mistakes.
Who is "we". It is not me.
Björn Westling
> Second, who actually
> thinks ahead about which infractions would be advantageous at a
> particular time? And if they did, would anyone believe them when they
> said that they then did it by mistake rather than deliberately?
Here are some typical situations where the infraction certainly would
be advantageous:
You hold AK xxx xxx xxxxx
Your partner has bid clubs, and you have supported him. During the
auction your LHO bids 6S, and your partner is pondering whether to bid
7C - so you double out of turn, hoping to bar your partner from
bidding the disastrous sacrifice.
You hold the following hand
A Axx Ax AKQJT98
and RHO opens in third seat with 4S. You bid 2C, and when TD comes you
change to 4N - hoping that partner will be barred.
David Flower
If I buy a ticket for the National Lottery, I 'could' win the jackpot.
It seems to me that, at the time of the irregularity, the offender
'could' be aware of almost anything.
Dave Flower
Barry Margolin
<7e967a64-3c97-4330...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
Bj�rn Westling <bhmwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Juli, 00:44, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > Second, who actually
> > thinks ahead about which infractions would be advantageous at a
> > particular time? And if they did, would anyone believe them when they
> > said that they then did it by mistake rather than deliberately?
>
> Here are some typical situations where the infraction certainly would
> be advantageous:
>
> You hold AK xxx xxx xxxxx
>
> Your partner has bid clubs, and you have supported him. During the
> auction your LHO bids 6S, and your partner is pondering whether to bid
> 7C - so you double out of turn, hoping to bar your partner from
> bidding the disastrous sacrifice.
You're not allowed to commit infractions intentionally, so this example
is prohibited by another law, and the law about not committing
infractions you could have known would be advantageous is irrelevant.
> You hold the following hand
> A Axx Ax AKQJT98
> and RHO opens in third seat with 4S. You bid 2C, and when TD comes you
> change to 4N - hoping that partner will be barred.
If you made the insufficient bid intentionally, with the plan to change
to 4N later, then you again violated the law against intentional
violations. If you didn't, how could you have been thinking about later
barring partner?
This law reminds me of real-life laws against negligence; e.g. parents
are required to be extra cautious to prevent their children from being
injured. It seems like an extreme requirement for a game, though.
judyorcarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am rather confused by all of this. An *intentional* opening out of
turn, like any intentional violation, is cheating, subject to
disciplinary action far beyond any score adjustment. If the senior
director believed the OOT opening was deliberate, his adjustment is
ridiculously inadequate. If it was accidental, then how can 23 apply?
Other than that, the knowledge that partner must pass is *authorized
information*; he is not under any obligation, legally or morally, to
"bid normally." The double with an average hand was a gamble that paid
off. The 2D opening was a gamble that didn't.
Here is what happened to me once in a club game. As dealer, I
carelessly put down the Double card instead of the Pass. The director
ruled that it was an illegal call rather than a mechanical slip, so my
partner was barred from the auction. I chose to correct the double to
1H on a singleton, rather that some number of spades on my 6-card.
The opponents were experienced players, but chose to be unsuspicious
and play 3NT rather than 4H. And found a way to go down (partner was
on lead and led a heart honor, but that didn't cost). They appealed.
Director inquired at ACBL Hq. Hq said knowledge of the forced pass-
thruout was authorized and the psyche was as legal as any other
psyche; but the director should keep an eye on me in the future. (In
fact, I would never dare to psyche with this partner unless she was
barred. Even a 3rd-seat 1S on AKQ; xxx; xxx; xxxx would backfire
100%.)
Carl
judyorcarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
Parenthetically, it's illegal in ACBL country to have agreements about
the meaning of calls after an insufficient bid. I think that's
ridiculous. No matter what the rule says, if you open 1S and hear your
partner double a 1H overcall, how can you avoid wondering why she
didn't refuse to accept? And how can you avoid making inferences the
whole remaining auction?
Carl
Steve Foster
> Tim DeLaney skrev:
>
> > I also think LHO should practice active ethics here,
>
> Law 10C
>
> 3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option
> after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is
> appropriate to select the most advantageous action.
The intent here is to make clear that it's perfectly ethical for a NOS
to select the best choice from a list presented by a TD. It's also not
an obligation - so if a sporting NOS feels they don't want to take an
[offered] advantage caused by an infraction, they're at liberty to do
so.
It is not the intent of L10C to condone deliberate misbidding by a NOS.
--
Steve Foster
For SSL Certificates, Domains, etc, visit.:
https://netshop.virtual-isp.net
Steve Foster
> Tim DeLaney skrev:
>
> > Let me give another example. A player is legally entitled to act on
> > the basis of an opponent who carelessly exposes his hand.
>
> I diagree. Law 74C5 makes it illegal. "Looking intently" covers
> the act of starring with the purpose of getting to know the
> opponent's cards.
Yes and no.
L74C5 makes it illegal for you to deliberately attempt to gain sight of
LHO/RHOs hand, but L74C5 isn't relevant if LHO/RHO wave their cards
around the table or in your face. Under those circumstances, you have
committed no infraction by seeing their cards (you weren't looking with
intent).
Bertel Lund Hansen
> around the table or in your face. Under those circumstances, you have
> committed no infraction by seeing their cards (you weren't looking with
> intent).
You can't single out their cards without looking with intent. The
waving must be close to your eyes in order for single cards to
present themselves against your will.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> > 3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option
> > after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is
> > appropriate to select the most advantageous action.
> The intent here is to make clear that it's perfectly ethical for a NOS
> to select the best choice from a list presented by a TD. It's also not
> an obligation -
Agreed.
> so if a sporting NOS feels they don't want to take an
> [offered] advantage caused by an infraction, they're at liberty to do
> so.
But "is appropriate to" is stronger than "is allowed to" or
"may".
axm...@hotmail.com
judyorcarl wrote:
> Here is what happened to me once in a club game. As dealer, I
> carelessly put down the Double card instead of the Pass. The director
> ruled that it was an illegal call rather than a mechanical slip, so my
> partner was barred from the auction. I chose to correct the double to
> 1H on a singleton, rather that some number of spades on my 6-card.
> The opponents were experienced players, but chose to be unsuspicious
> and play 3NT rather than 4H. And found a way to go down (partner was
> on lead and led a heart honor, but that didn't cost). They appealed.
> Director inquired at ACBL Hq. Hq said knowledge of the forced pass-
> thruout was authorized and the psyche was as legal as any other
> psyche; but the director should keep an eye on me in the future. (In
> fact, I would never dare to psyche with this partner unless she was
> barred. Even a 3rd-seat 1S on AKQ; xxx; xxx; xxxx would backfire
> 100%.)
>
> Carl
This story is cause of some sadness.
I am a fan of employing one's judgment. I am no fan of licensing, but
it is my understanding that the ACBL prohibits psychic controls. And
when partner must pass it is my understanding that bluffing on your
part is a controlled bluff. It thus appears that you breached the
prohibition.
It's my opinion that controlled bluffing protected via one's own
infraction is damage of the opponents. And I believe that this is the
type of damage which L23 addresses.
It is of interest upon whose authority Memphis issued the above
proclamation.
regards
axman
Bertel Lund Hansen
> ridiculous. No matter what the rule says, if you open 1S and hear your
> partner double a 1H overcall, how can you avoid wondering why she
> didn't refuse to accept?
If my partner makes a strange bid, I speculate about which kind
of hand he would do that with. That does not mean that we
(suddenly) have an agreement about the meaning.
An agreement is thought out beforehand and written on the system
card.
Chris
> judyorcarl wrote:
> > Here is what happened to me once in a club game. As dealer, I
> > carelessly put down the Double card instead of the Pass. The director
> > ruled that it was an illegal call rather than a mechanical slip, so my
> > partner was barred from the auction. I chose to correct the double to
> > 1H on a singleton, rather that some number of spades on my 6-card.
> > The opponents were experienced players, but chose to be unsuspicious
> > and play 3NT rather than 4H. And found a way to go down (partner was
> > on lead and led a heart honor, but that didn't cost). They appealed.
> > Director inquired at ACBL Hq. Hq said knowledge of the forced pass-
> > thruout was authorized and the psyche was as legal as any other
> > psyche; but the director should keep an eye on me in the future. (In
> > fact, I would never dare to psyche with this partner unless she was
> > barred. Even a 3rd-seat 1S on AKQ; xxx; xxx; xxxx would backfire
> > 100%.)
>
> > Carl
>
> This story is cause of some sadness.
>
> I am a fan of employing one's judgment. I am no fan of licensing, but
> it is my understanding that the ACBL prohibits psychic controls. And
> when partner must pass it is my understanding that bluffing on your
> part is a controlled bluff. It thus appears that you breached the
> prohibition.
On the other hand, if the ACBL forbids one to have agreements about
these kinds of situations, no call one can make is a psych, controlled
or otherwise.
By your reasoning, opening 3NT rather than 2NT with a balanced 20
count when partner is barred would be a "psych". Can you cite a
reference from somewhere other than r.g.b. that such a bid would be
considered a psych?
> It's my opinion that controlled bluffing protected via one's own
> infraction is damage of the opponents. And I believe that this is the
> type of damage which L23 addresses.
It's hardly protected....His partner led a heart.
Christopher Monsour
Björn Westling
I wonder whether they call this an "agreement":
You open 1S, LHO overcalls 1H, partner accepts the bid and bids 1S.
Most players would immediately assume that partner has a very weak
hand, but with a spade support. Not enough to bid 2S, but can afford
1S.
dranon
<unos...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>judyorcarl skrev:
>
>> ridiculous. No matter what the rule says, if you open 1S and hear your
>> partner double a 1H overcall, how can you avoid wondering why she
>> didn't refuse to accept?
>
>If my partner makes a strange bid, I speculate about which kind
>of hand he would do that with. That does not mean that we
>(suddenly) have an agreement about the meaning.
>
>An agreement is thought out beforehand and written on the system
>card.
Even an implicit one? Hardly.
campboy
> I am rather confused by all of this. An *intentional* opening out of
> turn, like any intentional violation, is cheating, subject to
> disciplinary action far beyond any score adjustment. If the senior
> director believed the OOT opening was deliberate, his adjustment is
> ridiculously inadequate. If it was accidental, then how can 23 apply?
Yes, an intentional opening out of turn is cheating, so we had better
be absolutely certain before we accuse someone of intentionally
opening out of turn. There is really no way to be certain short of a
confession, though. If we could not adjust the score except on the
basis that the infraction was deliberate, unethical players would be
able to deliberately open out of turn and there would be nothing we
could do unless they admitted it.
So law 23 says we can adjust the score without any implication about a
player's ethics. We could have done this by having a law saying that a
player cannot profit from his own infraction, but that would be
overkill -- there are plenty of situations where we know the
infraction was not deliberate because the chance of it gaining is not
high enough (like this one). So we instead say that you cannot profit
from an infraction if it is the sort of infraction a cheat might have
done deliberately -- an infraction which the player could have worked
out is likely to gain.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> >An agreement is thought out beforehand and written on the system
> >card.
> Even an implicit one? Hardly.
I believe that implicit [X's] are called "partnership
understandings".
judyorcarl
Sorry about the reference to intent. But 2 things about law 23.
1. The reference to "partner's enforced pass" surely refers to cases
where inspection of violator's hand suggests that his partner's
passing would be *desirable*. A balanced average hand facing an
unlimited hand cannot think that for a moment. (Nor could I, as dealer
with an average hand with a long major.)
2. No doubt the author had some really important purpose in the
phrase "could well," rather than "could conceivably" or "would
often." It would have been nice if he had told us.
Carl
Gordon Rainsford
> It seems to me that, at the time of the irregularity, the offender
> 'could' be aware of almost anything.
But the wording is "...could have been aware at the time of his
irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side..."
Note "could well..."
Tim DeLaney
> Tim DeLaney skrev:
>
> > I also think LHO should practice active ethics here,
>
> Law 10C
>
> after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is
> appropriate to select the most advantageous action.
>
> Bertel, Denmarkhttp://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
After reading all the other posts, another scenario occurs to me. I
am dealer NV vs V and LHO opens 2NT (20-21) out of turn.
The bidding reverts to me, and I hold: x xxx J98xxxx xx. It occurs
to me that this would be a good time to psych a 1D or 2D bid. But the
risk is that partner, while he knows that this is a great occasion to
psych, is ethically bound to treat the bid as legitimate. We could
get into serious trouble.
On reflection, the solution occurs to me. I open 1NT! No sane
partner could take this seriously, and in fact everybody at the table
realizes that it's just a way of taking advantage of the infraction.
(All of us are aware of Law 10C.) Since the psych is perfectly
transparent to all, partner will know to remove this to 2C.
We have never discussed this sort of thing, and since simple bridge
logic leads partner to the conclusion that I have psyched he is
ethically free to make any call he pleases.
Note that my bid is not totally without risk. Opener could have, say,
Axx Ax AKQT Axxx opposite a busted partner, and score 300 when he
would have gone down in 2NT. But I'll take my chances.
Have I done anything wrong?
Tim
Sven Pran
............
> I wonder whether they call this an "agreement":
> You open 1S, LHO overcalls 1H, partner accepts the bid and bids 1S.
>
> Most players would immediately assume that partner has a very weak
> hand, but with a spade support. Not enough to bid 2S, but can afford
> 1S.
This is no "agreement" nor any "partnership understanding", this is plain,
simple common bridge knowledge (unless a different meaning has explicitly
been agreed between the players).
regards Sven
Barry Margolin
Bertel Lund Hansen <unos...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
Agreed.
Elsewhere the Laws say you're supposed to try to win. So this Law cn be
seen as making clear that taking advantage of the opponent's
irregularity is an acceptable way to accomplish that. You don't have to
feel bad about winning the board this way.
Barry Margolin
<6a496114-688f-4ce3...@n11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Tim DeLaney <delaney...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 5:28�pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <unosp...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> > Tim DeLaney skrev:
> >
> > > I also think LHO should practice active ethics here,
> >
> > � � � � �Law 10C
> >
> > � � � � �3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option
> > � � � � �after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is
> > � � � � �appropriate to select the most advantageous action.
> >
> > --
> > Bertel, Denmarkhttp://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
>
> After reading all the other posts, another scenario occurs to me. I
> am dealer NV vs V and LHO opens 2NT (20-21) out of turn.
>
> The bidding reverts to me, and I hold: x xxx J98xxxx xx. It occurs
> to me that this would be a good time to psych a 1D or 2D bid. But the
> risk is that partner, while he knows that this is a great occasion to
> psych, is ethically bound to treat the bid as legitimate. We could
> get into serious trouble.
How much trouble? The BOOT is authorized information to him, even if
it's not repeated, so he knows there's a 20-count to his right. If he's
looking at a decent hand, he can easily figure out that you probably
don't have full values for your bid. And even if you do, he also knows
that your values are not well situated.
Bertel Lund Hansen
> The bidding reverts to me, and I hold: x xxx J98xxxx xx. It occurs
> to me that this would be a good time to psych a 1D or 2D bid. But the
> risk is that partner, while he knows that this is a great occasion to
> psych, is ethically bound to treat the bid as legitimate.
If partner knows this, your partnership is bordering on the line
of a partnership understanding of which the opponents should be
informed.
If partner is doing his best not to take advantage of the fact
that he knows that you have psyched - then you have crossed the
line.
But this is not relevant for the problem you want to present.
> On reflection, the solution occurs to me. I open 1NT! No sane
> partner could take this seriously, and in fact everybody at the table
> realizes that it's just a way of taking advantage of the infraction.
> (All of us are aware of Law 10C.) Since the psych is perfectly
> transparent to all, partner will know to remove this to 2C.
I'll accept that - never mind what might happen in real life.
> We have never discussed this sort of thing, and since simple bridge
> logic leads partner to the conclusion that I have psyched he is
> ethically free to make any call he pleases.
Yes.
> Note that my bid is not totally without risk. Opener could have, say,
> Axx Ax AKQT Axxx opposite a busted partner, and score 300 when he
> would have gone down in 2NT. But I'll take my chances.
> Have I done anything wrong?
No. The TD will have instructed TOP of his options, and these are
AI for both sides. Therefore you and your partner are free to
take any advantage of this that you can (that does not violate
other laws).
Tim DeLaney
I'm convinced you are correct, but somehow I wouldn't feel right
trying to take advantage of their misstep in certain ways. Maybe I'm
naive.
Tim
Bertel Lund Hansen
> > No. The TD will have instructed TOP of his options, and these are
> > AI for both sides. Therefore you and your partner are free to
> > take any advantage of this that you can (that does not violate
> > other laws).
> I'm convinced you are correct, but somehow I wouldn't feel right
> trying to take advantage of their misstep in certain ways. Maybe I'm
> naive.
I don't know which word I would use to describe your attitude,
but "naive" is not a candidate (I'm not ironic).
The lawmakers have after thorough consideration (through several
revisions) found it appropriate that we take advantage of such
happenings. They believe that this gives the most fair result for
the whole field.
Dave Flower
>
> - Show quoted text -
So how do you play:
A Q
x x
when RHO has the K as a penalty card ?
Dave Flower
Steve Willner
> To clarify - we play a mini-1N opening of 10-12 points.
> [and the hand in question had 2=3=5=3 shape]
As others have written, I don't see how out-of-turn opener could
possibly have expected the bid to work to his advantage. I'd be
expecting RHO to open 1S, and then I _want_ to have a takeout double
available. Barring partner seems like a wretched idea.
> So if it made, it was a top, and if not, they would get a corrected
> score. This seems horribly wrong - and unethical, in my opinion.
There are positions where that's what the Laws (in effect) prescribe,
but this doesn't seem to be one of them. If the facts are as stated, it
seems you got a bad ruling. That's common in the ACBL, alas.
From: gor...@gordonrainsford.com (Gordon Rainsford)
> But the wording [of Law 23] is "...could have been aware at the time of his
> irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side..."
>
> Note "could well..."
As Bob Frick (I think it was) recently pointed out on BLML, the
construction "could well" is an English idiom whose meaning may not be
obvious, especially to people whose first language is not English (or
American). If something "could" be true, that means it isn't physically
impossible, but "could well" goes beyond that. "Could well" means there
is some specific reason to believe the thing is true. To use Bob's
example, anybody alive "could" die within 24 hours, but only someone who
is already sick or injured "could well" die in that short a time frame.
In the case at hand, the out-of-turn opening "could" damage opponents --
anything can happen at the bridge table -- but (on the facts reported)
"could well" is way overboard. If opener's hand had been a flat
two-count or something, that would be different!
Bjorn gave a couple of examples where an infraction "could well" damage
opponents. Here's another: your auction is at the four level, and you
want to sign off in notrump. However, 4NT would be Blackwood. So you
make an insufficient bid, and if the opponents make you correct it,
partner will very likely be barred, and _now_ you can play in 4NT. Law
23 says you don't get away with that! Basically all forms of Alcatraz
Coup are made unprofitable, _even if they were entirely unintentional_
and even if they haven't been invented yet.
By the way, L23 isn't new. L23 itself used to be more limited, but the
general prohibition was L72B1. The consolidation and rewording in 2007
doesn't seem to change much as far as I can see; at most the conditions
for using L23 might be very slightly less restrictive now.
Steve Foster
> Steve Foster skrev:
>
> > around the table or in your face. Under those circumstances, you
> > have committed no infraction by seeing their cards (you weren't
> > looking with intent).
>
> You can't single out their cards without looking with intent.
Of course you can.
Conversely, even when you are looking at things with intent, you may
not see what's in front of you (magicians rely on this). I know I've
looked at the cards played to a trick, and failed to grok a dropped
honour before now.
> The
> waving must be close to your eyes in order for single cards to
> present themselves against your will.
For someone with poor eyesight, maybe.
Steve Foster
It's just used to add the ethical connotation that would otherwise be
absent.
Steve Foster
> On Jul 24, 5:28�pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <unosp...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> > Tim DeLaney skrev:
> >
> > > I also think LHO should practice active ethics here,
> >
> > � � � � �Law 10C
> >
> > � � � � �3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option
> > � � � � �after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is
> > � � � � �appropriate to select the most advantageous action.
> >
> > --
> > Bertel, Denmarkhttp://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
>
> After reading all the other posts, another scenario occurs to me. I
> am dealer NV vs V and LHO opens 2NT (20-21) out of turn.
>
> The bidding reverts to me, and I hold: x xxx J98xxxx xx. It occurs
> to me that this would be a good time to psych a 1D or 2D bid. But the
> risk is that partner, while he knows that this is a great occasion to
> psych, is ethically bound to treat the bid as legitimate. We could
> get into serious trouble.
>
> On reflection, the solution occurs to me. I open 1NT! No sane
> partner could take this seriously, and in fact everybody at the table
> realizes that it's just a way of taking advantage of the infraction.
> (All of us are aware of Law 10C.) Since the psych is perfectly
> transparent to all, partner will know to remove this to 2C.
Psyches cannot legally be fielded, period. Doesn't matter whether it's
obvious to all or not.
> We have never discussed this sort of thing, and since simple bridge
> logic leads partner to the conclusion that I have psyched he is
> ethically free to make any call he pleases.
No, he is not. He must assume you have your bid, and act accordingly.
If, systemically, your 1NT shows a balanced hand with some number of
hcp, that's what he must play you for (even if a withdrawn call
suggests otherwise - he ought to be able to trust you over his
opponents).
> Note that my bid is not totally without risk. Opener could have, say,
> Axx Ax AKQT Axxx opposite a busted partner, and score 300 when he
> would have gone down in 2NT. But I'll take my chances.
>
> Have I done anything wrong?
Misbidding is not illegal, no (L40C1).
Bertel Lund Hansen
> > You can't single out their cards without looking with intent.
> Of course you can.
You keep your eyes on the opponents cards with intent. Without
intent you look away real fast.
Peter Ford
I'd say for me it's somewhere inbetween; my reactions seem to be fast
enough to look away without picking out individual cards if someone
leans forward too far, but I can't avoid seeing how many picture cards
there are in the set they show me.
Peter
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I'd say for me it's somewhere inbetween; my reactions seem to be fast
> enough to look away without picking out individual cards if someone
> leans forward too far, but I can't avoid seeing how many picture cards
> there are in the set they show me.
I agree that you cannot *always* avoid picking up information
that is shoved onto you. But I want to stress the obligation to
do your utmost.
Chris
wrote:
> Peter Ford skrev:
>
> > I'd say for me it's somewhere inbetween; my reactions seem to be fast
> > enough to look away without picking out individual cards if someone
> > leans forward too far, but I can't avoid seeing how many picture cards
> > there are in the set they show me.
>
> I agree that you cannot *always* avoid picking up information
> that is shoved onto you. But I want to stress the obligation to
> do your utmost.
I would maintain that this obligation is extinguished if the opponent
is holding his cards such that the other opponent could see them.
When you call the director, you need to be able to identify which
cards should become penalty cards.
Christopher Monsour
Chris
wrote:
> Tim DeLaney wrote:
> > On Jul 24, 5:28 pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <unosp...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> > > Tim DeLaney skrev:
>
> > > > I also think LHO should practice active ethics here,
>
> > > Law 10C
>
> > > 3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option
> > > after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is
> > > appropriate to select the most advantageous action.
>
> > > --
> > > Bertel, Denmarkhttp://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
>
> > After reading all the other posts, another scenario occurs to me. I
> > am dealer NV vs V and LHO opens 2NT (20-21) out of turn.
>
> > The bidding reverts to me, and I hold: x xxx J98xxxx xx. It occurs
> > to me that this would be a good time to psych a 1D or 2D bid. But the
> > risk is that partner, while he knows that this is a great occasion to
> > psych, is ethically bound to treat the bid as legitimate. We could
> > get into serious trouble.
>
> > On reflection, the solution occurs to me. I open 1NT! No sane
> > partner could take this seriously, and in fact everybody at the table
> > realizes that it's just a way of taking advantage of the infraction.
> > (All of us are aware of Law 10C.) Since the psych is perfectly
> > transparent to all, partner will know to remove this to 2C.
>
> Psyches cannot legally be fielded, period. Doesn't matter whether it's
> obvious to all or not.
Please cite the law you base this statement. If there is no use of
unauthorized information and there is no concealed partnership
understanding (and there would be neither in this case!), there would
appear to be no contravention of any law.
Christopher Monsour
David Stevenson
>My LHO is dealer - CHO opens out of turn with 1N. Director is called
>and asks RHO if he accepts the bid, to which he replies no.
>
>and decides to open 2D. Since CHO can no longer call 1N, I can no
>longer participate in the auction [31A2b].
>
>spectacular decision], which is passed out for a top our way. This is
>reversed by the director, who indicates that we cannot bid double in
>this auction - and we are given a zero.
Difficult to find this in the Law book. I think your TD is just
making the Law up as he goes along.
But suppose it was in the Law book, for a moment. Then your partner
should be warned about this by the TD. The TD has to tell him all the
Law and all the consequences before any options are chosen.
Let me guess: the TD did not read the law out? Ok, you can send me
the dollar you owe me in the mail.
>Questions
>1) It seems to me that LHO tried to take advantage of the situation
>[as is his right] but was given 2 bites of the apple when the result
>was overturned.
True. Bad tournament direction.
>2) Why precisely is the double disallowed? I see no reference in LAW
>31 that precludes the use of any bid - provided that I'm banned from
>the auction going forward. Both LHO and RHO attempted to artificially
>manipulate the auction [opener had a FULL 1D opening].
Bad tournament direction: he is making laws up. Sure, why should your
opponents not try to gain?
============================================================
David Flower wrote
>Partner benefitted from your enforced pass. The Director was wrong
>when he said that partner cannot double, but, nevertheless, should
>award an adjusted score under Law 23.
How on earth could his partner know at the time of his irregularity
that bidding out of turn would gain?
--
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
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I would maintain that this obligation is extinguished if the opponent
> is holding his cards such that the other opponent could see them.
> When you call the director, you need to be able to identify which
> cards should become penalty cards.
Oh yes. I had the situation in mind where only one opponent could
see the hand.
David Stevenson
>KWSchneider wrote:
>> 2) Why precisely is the double disallowed? I see no reference in LAW
>> 31 that precludes the use of any bid - provided that I'm banned from
>> the auction going forward. Both LHO and RHO attempted to artificially
>> manipulate the auction [opener had a FULL 1D opening].
>It appears to be a law 23 adjustment.
Why? How would your partner know that a BOOT would gain?
> Regardless of anything else law
>31 wouldn't allow the director to wait til the end of the hand to adjust
>; he'd prevent the double in the first place. An after the fact
>adjustment due to director's error should never result in below average
>scores in my opinion.
Perhaps it would be better to follow the Law: of course it can result
in a below average score.
> But as you said 31 doesn't even seem to prevent
>double so it seems likely to be law 23. Law 23 seems catch-22y to me
>though, non-cheating irregularities are always inadvertant so offender
>would never even know ahead of time that it was an irregularity much
>less that it was likely to damage the opponents. I don't think law 23
>means that it should be necessarily adjusted to 2D undoubled, I think it
>should be adjusted to a 'normal' auction. So likely 2D-2N-p-3N-p-p-p or
>2D-2N-p-p-p depending on the hands[perhaps even throwing in stayman or
>transfers if warranted. Though perhaps a bad 15 count might warrant
>2D-p-p-p.
Still nothing here explains where Law 23 comes into it.
===================================================================
Adam Beneschan wrote
>On Jul 24, 12:41�pm, KWSchneider <questionofbala...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> To clarify - we play a mini-1N opening of 10-12 points. LHO had no pre-
>> knowledge of a strong hand on his left [other than an opening one]. I
>> would also like to point out that BOTH LHO and RHO had a chance to
>> pull the "obvious" penalty double - yet chose not to, because they
>> assumed, apparently correctly, that they could not be hurt.
>>
>> So if it made, it was a top, and if not, they would get a corrected
>> score. This seems horribly wrong - and unethical, in my opinion.
>
>Put me in the camp that is somewhat less than outraged at this
>"horrible" wrong. Your partner broke the rules of the game. Your
>side paid a price. Don't do it again. Next hand.
Let us get this straight, Adam. If you break a speed limit you have
done something wrong, and should be fined [let us say] 60 GBP. An
incompetent magistrate sentences you to twenty years gaol instead. You
would just say "Oh, well, I did something wrong, I have paid a price"?
That's ridiculous. When you do something wrong, and there is a law,
you suffer in the way that that law demands: it is not acceptable that a
completely incompetent TD makes your suffering much greater: would you
cheerfully accept a three trick penalty for a lead out of turn?
David Stevenson
>The phrasing of Law 23 seems strange, as the wording seems to imply
>that it only applies if the irregularity was deliberate, in which case
>it is an infringment of Law 73B1, which could involve penalties under
>L90 or L91, especially if repeated.
You really should read it again. It is very very clear that it
applies whether it is deliberate or not, and is one Law that is well
written from that point of view.
>My personal opinion is that Law 23 should be reworded to ensure that
>it applies to cases where an offender seeks to benefit from a penalty.
Wonderful. And we are back to Americans taking the ACBL to court. One
of the best ideas the lawmakers ever had was making a Law where they did
*not* have to decide that someone did anything wrong *deliberately* but
they could be dealt with anyway.
==============================================================
Barry Margolin wrote
>In article
><7e967a64-3c97-4330...@t13g2000yqt.googlegroups.com>,
> Bj�rn Westling <bhmwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here are some typical situations where the infraction certainly would
>> be advantageous:
>>
>> You hold AK xxx xxx xxxxx
>>
>> Your partner has bid clubs, and you have supported him. During the
>> auction your LHO bids 6S, and your partner is pondering whether to bid
>> 7C - so you double out of turn, hoping to bar your partner from
>> bidding the disastrous sacrifice.
>
>You're not allowed to commit infractions intentionally, so this example
>is prohibited by another law, and the law about not committing
>infractions you could have known would be advantageous is irrelevant.
How on earth do you know that a player did it deliberately? You are
really asking for lawsuits!
But you apply Law 23 and now you do not have to say whether it was
deliberate or not.
David Stevenson
>This was with Jackie in Woburn during a STAC event earlier this year.
>She called someone [on the West Coast I think], to get a ruling since
>she had never had this come up in her 30 years of Directing. This
>"senior" director ruled that a double was illegal in this sequence -
>and awarded an adjusted score. So - despite my own dissatisfaction
>with the ruling - I'm not convinced that the director[s] "messed-up".
>I just want to fully understand the ruling and why our opponents got
>two bites...
The ruling is wrong, and incompetent. If the TD whom she phoned told
her this then he was incompetent.
BOOTs are simple Law book things: you could not possibly pass an EBU
Club TD course if you did not understand them. Anyway, you just read
them from the book.
David Stevenson
>On Jul 24, 5:28�pm, Bertel Lund Hansen <unosp...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>> Tim DeLaney skrev:
>>
>> > I also think LHO should practice active ethics here,
>>
>> � � � � �Law 10C
>>
>> � � � � �3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option
>> � � � � �after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is
>> � � � � �appropriate to select the most advantageous action.
>>
>> --
>> Bertel, Denmarkhttp://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
>
>suggesting is that the actively ethical player should look beyond Law
>10C.
Sure. Active ethics is a personal thing. Some players will take
advantage of an opponent who shows them his cards, some will not. Some
people will let an opponent bid out of turn, some will try to stop him.
But it is a personal view, and no-one has any right to suggest someone
else should practice what they believe. Normal ethics are a
requirement, active ethics are an optional extension.
Chris
> Chris skrev:
>
> > I would maintain that this obligation is extinguished if the opponent
> > is holding his cards such that the other opponent could see them.
> > When you call the director, you need to be able to identify which
> > cards should become penalty cards.
>
> Oh yes. I had the situation in mind where only one opponent could
> see the hand.
I mentioned this because some experts have the habit, after they have
collapsed their 13 cards in a neat stack, of turning that stack
around, intentionally or not, in such a way that their partner could
rather easily see the bottom card. Then they get offended if they
notice me look at that card, which they are likely to notice as they
are usually holding it such that their partner has a better view of it
than I have!
That sort of arrogance and flouting of the rules by top players is a
real turn-off and has doubtless caused many players to quit tournament
bridge over the years.
Christopher Monsour
Bertel Lund Hansen
> I mentioned this because some experts have the habit, after they have
> collapsed their 13 cards in a neat stack, of turning that stack
> around, intentionally or not, in such a way that their partner could
> rather easily see the bottom card. Then they get offended if they
> notice me look at that card, which they are likely to notice as they
> are usually holding it such that their partner has a better view of it
> than I have!
What you describe here is horrendous.
Steve Willner
> After reading all the other posts, another scenario occurs to me. I
> am dealer NV vs V and LHO opens 2NT (20-21) out of turn.
>
> The bidding reverts to me, and I hold: x xxx J98xxxx xx. It occurs
> to me that this would be a good time to psych a 1D or 2D bid. But the
> risk is that partner, while he knows that this is a great occasion to
> psych, is ethically bound to treat the bid as legitimate.
I don't understand your reasoning for that last assertion. The legal
position is AI to all players.
> On reflection, the solution occurs to me. I open 1NT!
While I don't understand how this bid helps you, I'll keep it in mind if
the occasion should ever arise. If you think this is a good bid, I see
no reason you should be reluctant to make it.
David Stevenson
Possibly. Or paranoid! :)
Steve Willner
> Parenthetically, it's illegal in ACBL country to have agreements about
> the meaning of calls after an insufficient bid.
That was an old rule, which I believe (after much correspondence with
Memphis) went away in 1997. There are still some people there, I'm
afraid, who think the rule is still in effect. It doesn't help that
there is no official compilation of all ACBL rules that affect players.
The new rule is that you cannot *change* any agreements after an IB.
This rule came most recently out of the Laws Commission consideration of
the 2007 Laws, but as noted above, I believe it was already in effect as
of 1997. The exact language is not entirely clear (what else is new?!),
but I believe the intention is that if you have an agreement about, say,
1S-2C-x, you can't change your agreement if "2C" started out as 1C and
was replaced by 2C. However, the auction 1S-1C is an entirely different
auction, and I see nothing the new rule that forbids having an agreement
about it.
nige1
often seem unfair to one side or the other.
One problem with these laws is that they give each side *options*.
- The victim can decide whether or not to accept the illegal call (and
in some jurisdictions, can have cunning new partnership agreements in
place to take advantage of new opportunities so created).
- If the victim refuses to accept the call, the law-breaker, too, has
options (as in the case under discussion).
Legislation about these options is necessarily complex and subjective,
resulting in inconsistent and incomprehensible rulings that seem
unfair to one side or the other (as in this case)
A drastic simplification would be to remove all options for both
sides:
- You may not condone or accept an illegal call. (Condoning it would
be another infraction).
- The illegal call is is cancelled (or replaced with a pass) and is
unauthorised information to the law-breaker's partner.
Such a change could be the thin end of a wedge. Imagine if all Bridge
laws were simple enough for players to understand and for directors to
enforce!
Kieran Dyke
"nige1" <nigel....@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:abe3ae7c-0f17-415e...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Rulings about Illegal calls (calls out of turn and insufficient bids)
> often seem unfair to one side or the other.
>
> One problem with these laws is that they give each side *options*.
> - The victim can decide whether or not to accept the illegal call (and
> in some jurisdictions, can have cunning new partnership agreements in
> place to take advantage of new opportunities so created).
> - If the victim refuses to accept the call, the law-breaker, too, has
> options (as in the case under discussion).
>
> Legislation about these options is necessarily complex and subjective,
> resulting in inconsistent and incomprehensible rulings that seem
> unfair to one side or the other (as in this case)
>
> A drastic simplification would be to remove all options for both
> sides:
> - You may not condone or accept an illegal call. (Condoning it would
> be another infraction).
Two problems:
(1) It can now be advantageous, if you would like to condone the call, to
"not notice" and keep bidding. It's terrible if a player loses rights from
having called the director.
(2) It makes the insufficient psych (or psych out of turn) an effective
gambit, with opponents who can't call the bidder to account. (One version of
this is opening a strong 2NT out of turn with a yarborough. Partner is
barred, and the opponents are afraid to enter the auction into the teeth of
such an alleged moose.
Tiggrr
Stu G
> "nige1" <nigel.guth...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
Surely there would be provisions for barring partner and/or handling
subsequent calls, just as there are today after an illegal call, such
as RDBL when there was no preceding DBL, or DBL when the last bid was
by partner. These illegal calls cannot be accepted today, so the
poster's proposal is just an extension of that concept. Seems
entirely workable, although I am not too enthusiastic about changing
the rules here.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
>
> Tiggrr
>
>
>
> > - The illegal call is is cancelled (or replaced with a pass) and is
> > unauthorised information to the law-breaker's partner.
>
> > Such a change could be the thin end of a wedge. Imagine if all Bridge
> > laws were simple enough for players to understand and for directors to
> > enforce!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -