Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Law 21 in rubber bridge (call based on misinformation)
53 views
Skip to first unread message
Mark Brader
Dec 20, 2012, 1:44:02 AM12/20/12
to
Suppose that a player makes a call based on misinformation, and later
in the auction the misinformation is revealed.
South (dealer): 2H.
West: Pass.
North: Pass.
East: What is your weak 2 style?
North: He has 6-10 HCP and exactly 6 cards in hearts.
East: 2NT. [it's to play]
South: Double. [it's for penalties]
West: Pass.
North: Wait, I just remembered, I play strong 2 bids with this partner.
The actual agreement is indeed strong 2 bids. In duplicate bridge,
North calls the director at this point. Under Law 21B1(a) it is
too late for East to retract the 2NT call and substitute the pass
that he would have made with correct information. Therefore
Law 21B3 applies and the director can adjust the score after play,
using Law 12 as the basis for this adjustment.
But now suppose it's rubber bridge. It's a home game with no
arbiter available, between players who have a high standard of
ethics and want to follow the Laws strictly. But in rubber bridge,
Law 21 reads in full:
# A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of
# his own misunderstanding.
#
# Until the auction is closed, a player may, without penalty, change
# any call he may have made as a result of misinformation given him
# by an opponent, provided his partner has not subsequently called.
# If he elects to correct his call, his LHO may then, in turn and
# without penalty, change any subsequent call he may have made
This provides no guidance whatever to players as to how to proceed
after the irregularity. Rubber bridge Law 14 says that if the four
players agree on a penalty then it stands as correct, but contains
no instruction like the duplicate Law 12, as to a basis that they
might decide on.
Is there an applicable provision somewhere that I missed, or do the
rubber laws just leave the players to improvise?
--
Mark Brader "As penance, I suppose I should read the standard
Toronto again, but I've already lost as much hair as
m...@vex.net I can afford." -- Tom Kelly
My text in this article is in the public domain.
in the auction the misinformation is revealed.
South (dealer): 2H.
West: Pass.
North: Pass.
East: What is your weak 2 style?
North: He has 6-10 HCP and exactly 6 cards in hearts.
East: 2NT. [it's to play]
South: Double. [it's for penalties]
West: Pass.
North: Wait, I just remembered, I play strong 2 bids with this partner.
The actual agreement is indeed strong 2 bids. In duplicate bridge,
North calls the director at this point. Under Law 21B1(a) it is
too late for East to retract the 2NT call and substitute the pass
that he would have made with correct information. Therefore
Law 21B3 applies and the director can adjust the score after play,
using Law 12 as the basis for this adjustment.
But now suppose it's rubber bridge. It's a home game with no
arbiter available, between players who have a high standard of
ethics and want to follow the Laws strictly. But in rubber bridge,
Law 21 reads in full:
# A player has no recourse if he has made a call on the basis of
# his own misunderstanding.
#
# Until the auction is closed, a player may, without penalty, change
# any call he may have made as a result of misinformation given him
# by an opponent, provided his partner has not subsequently called.
# If he elects to correct his call, his LHO may then, in turn and
# without penalty, change any subsequent call he may have made
This provides no guidance whatever to players as to how to proceed
after the irregularity. Rubber bridge Law 14 says that if the four
players agree on a penalty then it stands as correct, but contains
no instruction like the duplicate Law 12, as to a basis that they
might decide on.
Is there an applicable provision somewhere that I missed, or do the
rubber laws just leave the players to improvise?
--
Mark Brader "As penance, I suppose I should read the standard
Toronto again, but I've already lost as much hair as
m...@vex.net I can afford." -- Tom Kelly
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Lorne
Dec 20, 2012, 7:14:12 AM12/20/12
to
East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed. It
could be construed that he contributed to the problem by asking in an
innapropriate way.
David Stevenson
Dec 20, 2012, 10:51:47 AM12/20/12
to
Lorne wrote
=============
Proprieties
1. General Principles
These Laws cannot cover every situation that might arise, nor can they
produce equity in every situation covered.
Occasionally the players themselves must redress damage. The guiding
principle: The side that commits an irregularity bears an obligation not
to gain directly from the infraction itself; however, the offending side
is entitled to profit after an infraction, as an indirect result,
through subsequent good fortune*.
=============
In effect the players need to follow this, but in effect this comes to
ruling to adjust if there was damage, ie pretty much adjusting as per
duplicate.
>I know nothing about rubber bridge laws, however I am interested in why
>East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed. It
>could be construed that he contributed to the problem by asking in an
>innapropriate way.
The new "let's blame the victim approach", eh? In what way does this
form of question affect the fact that the answer was completely wrong?
It is normal to ask casual questions. In rubber bridge there is no
binding regulation to ask "proper" questions, as in the ACBL. But if it
were bound by ACBL regulations, the ACBL stipulates that the correct
answer must be given in full even if the question is flawed.
When one side fails to follow the Laws, I find it a very worrying
trend that people look to see if the side who gained unfairly can be
allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Proprieties
1. General Principles
These Laws cannot cover every situation that might arise, nor can they
produce equity in every situation covered.
Occasionally the players themselves must redress damage. The guiding
principle: The side that commits an irregularity bears an obligation not
to gain directly from the infraction itself; however, the offending side
is entitled to profit after an infraction, as an indirect result,
through subsequent good fortune*.
=============
In effect the players need to follow this, but in effect this comes to
ruling to adjust if there was damage, ie pretty much adjusting as per
duplicate.
>I know nothing about rubber bridge laws, however I am interested in why
>East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed. It
>could be construed that he contributed to the problem by asking in an
>innapropriate way.
form of question affect the fact that the answer was completely wrong?
It is normal to ask casual questions. In rubber bridge there is no
binding regulation to ask "proper" questions, as in the ACBL. But if it
were bound by ACBL regulations, the ACBL stipulates that the correct
answer must be given in full even if the question is flawed.
When one side fails to follow the Laws, I find it a very worrying
trend that people look to see if the side who gained unfairly can be
allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
Adam Beneschan
Dec 20, 2012, 11:02:04 AM12/20/12
to
On Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:14:12 AM UTC-8, Lorne wrote:
> On 20/12/2012 06:44, Mark Brader wrote:
>
> > Suppose that a player makes a call based on misinformation, and later
> > in the auction the misinformation is revealed.
>
> > South (dealer): 2H.
> > West: Pass.
> > North: Pass.
> > East: What is your weak 2 style?
>
> > North: He has 6-10 HCP and exactly 6 cards in hearts.
>
> > East: 2NT. [it's to play]
> > South: Double. [it's for penalties]
> > West: Pass.
> > North: Wait, I just remembered, I play strong 2 bids with this partner.
> On 20/12/2012 06:44, Mark Brader wrote:
>
> > Suppose that a player makes a call based on misinformation, and later
> > in the auction the misinformation is revealed.
>
> > South (dealer): 2H.
> > West: Pass.
> > North: Pass.
> > East: What is your weak 2 style?
>
> > North: He has 6-10 HCP and exactly 6 cards in hearts.
>
> > East: 2NT. [it's to play]
> > South: Double. [it's for penalties]
> > West: Pass.
> > North: Wait, I just remembered, I play strong 2 bids with this partner.
> I know nothing about rubber bridge laws, however I am interested in why
> East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed. It
> could be construed that he contributed to the problem by asking in an
> innapropriate way.
In an ACBL game, I don't think this would be the case, since they make it clear that opponents asking questions don't have to ask the "right" question. Any question that expresses an interest in knowing what the opponents' methods are should result in the opponent explaining the bid. So one cannot claim that an opponent contributed to a MI problem by wording the question incorrectly. (Poorly worded questions *can* cause UI problems in some cases.) Of course, this isn't an ACBL game, but I think the idea is a sound one anyway.
> East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed. It
> could be construed that he contributed to the problem by asking in an
> innapropriate way.
-- Adam
Mark Brader
Dec 20, 2012, 2:54:32 PM12/20/12
to
Mark Brader:
Lorne Anderson:
and in duplicate whether strong 2's are alertable or not. The actual
event that prompted my query involved a more complex situation whose
details were irrelevant to my question about the Laws.
--
Mark Brader "Hacking for 8 years gives a guy a memory.
Toronto If you was with a woman -- I'd've noticed."
m...@vex.net PHANTOM LADY
>>> South (dealer): 2H.
>>> West: Pass.
>>> North: Pass.
>>> East: What is your weak 2 style?
>>> North: He has 6-10 HCP and exactly 6 cards in hearts.
>>> East: 2NT. [it's to play]
>>> South: Double. [it's for penalties]
>>> West: Pass.
>>> North: Wait, I just remembered, I play strong 2 bids with this partner.
David Stevenson:
>>> West: Pass.
>>> North: Pass.
>>> East: What is your weak 2 style?
>>> North: He has 6-10 HCP and exactly 6 cards in hearts.
>>> East: 2NT. [it's to play]
>>> South: Double. [it's for penalties]
>>> West: Pass.
>>> North: Wait, I just remembered, I play strong 2 bids with this partner.
> =============
> Proprieties
>
> 1. General Principles
>
> These Laws cannot cover every situation that might arise, nor can they
> produce equity in every situation covered.
>
> Occasionally the players themselves must redress damage. The guiding
> principle: The side that commits an irregularity bears an obligation not
> to gain directly from the infraction itself; however, the offending side
> is entitled to profit after an infraction, as an indirect result,
> through subsequent good fortune*.
> =============
Ah, of course. Thanks, that's what I wanted.
> Proprieties
>
> 1. General Principles
>
> These Laws cannot cover every situation that might arise, nor can they
> produce equity in every situation covered.
>
> Occasionally the players themselves must redress damage. The guiding
> principle: The side that commits an irregularity bears an obligation not
> to gain directly from the infraction itself; however, the offending side
> is entitled to profit after an infraction, as an indirect result,
> through subsequent good fortune*.
> =============
Lorne Anderson:
>> I know nothing about rubber bridge laws, however I am interested in why
>> East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed.
Because I wanted an example that would work the same way in rubber bridge
>> East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed.
and in duplicate whether strong 2's are alertable or not. The actual
event that prompted my query involved a more complex situation whose
details were irrelevant to my question about the Laws.
--
Mark Brader "Hacking for 8 years gives a guy a memory.
Toronto If you was with a woman -- I'd've noticed."
m...@vex.net PHANTOM LADY
Barry Margolin
Dec 20, 2012, 4:24:43 PM12/20/12
to
In article <692e6175-ea85-42b3...@googlegroups.com>,
The usual situation where that comes up is if they give an *incomplete*
answer, because the question was too specific. In the case of an
*incorrect* answer, it's not even relevant -- of course players are
expected to give true answers.
I think what Lorne is saying is that the form of this question may have
contributed subconsciously to North's mistake.
However, while this could explain the error, under no circumstances
should it excuse it.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
answer, because the question was too specific. In the case of an
*incorrect* answer, it's not even relevant -- of course players are
expected to give true answers.
I think what Lorne is saying is that the form of this question may have
contributed subconsciously to North's mistake.
However, while this could explain the error, under no circumstances
should it excuse it.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Mark Brader
Dec 20, 2012, 7:06:55 PM12/20/12
to
Mark Brader:
>>> It could be construed that he contributed to the problem by asking
>>> in an innapropriate way.
Barry Margolin:
ask the question in that way?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto cat>/dev/null got your tongue?
m...@vex.net -- Jutta Degener
>>>> South (dealer): 2H.
>>>> West: Pass.
>>>> North: Pass.
>>>> East: What is your weak 2 style?
>>>
>>>> North: He has 6-10 HCP and exactly 6 cards in hearts.
>>>
>>>> East: 2NT. [it's to play]
>>>> South: Double. [it's for penalties]
>>>> West: Pass.
>>>> North: Wait, I just remembered, I play strong 2 bids with this
>>>> partner.
Lorne Anderson:
>>>> West: Pass.
>>>> North: Pass.
>>>> East: What is your weak 2 style?
>>>
>>>> North: He has 6-10 HCP and exactly 6 cards in hearts.
>>>
>>>> East: 2NT. [it's to play]
>>>> South: Double. [it's for penalties]
>>>> West: Pass.
>>>> North: Wait, I just remembered, I play strong 2 bids with this
>>>> partner.
>>> I know nothing about rubber bridge laws, however I am interested in why
>>> East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed.
I've answered this in another branch of the thread.
>>> East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed.
>>> It could be construed that he contributed to the problem by asking
>>> in an innapropriate way.
> I think what Lorne is saying is that the form of this question may have
> contributed subconsciously to North's mistake.
So when North passed a forcing opening, it was because East was going to
> contributed subconsciously to North's mistake.
ask the question in that way?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto cat>/dev/null got your tongue?
m...@vex.net -- Jutta Degener
Barry Margolin
Dec 20, 2012, 11:14:41 PM12/20/12
to
In article <WM6dnbN8JeWCNU7N...@vex.net>,
passed.
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
> Mark Brader:
> >>>> South (dealer): 2H.
> >>>> West: Pass.
> >>>> North: Pass.
> >>>> East: What is your weak 2 style?
> >>>
> >>>> North: He has 6-10 HCP and exactly 6 cards in hearts.
> >>>
> >>>> East: 2NT. [it's to play]
> >>>> South: Double. [it's for penalties]
> >>>> West: Pass.
> >>>> North: Wait, I just remembered, I play strong 2 bids with this
> >>>> partner.
>
> Lorne Anderson:
> >>> I know nothing about rubber bridge laws, however I am interested in why
> >>> East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed.
>
> I've answered this in another branch of the thread.
>
> >>> It could be construed that he contributed to the problem by asking
> >>> in an innapropriate way.
>
> Barry Margolin:
> > I think what Lorne is saying is that the form of this question may have
> > contributed subconsciously to North's mistake.
>
> So when North passed a forcing opening, it was because East was going to
> ask the question in that way?
Heh, I think we both missed that the question was asked after North
> Mark Brader:
> >>>> South (dealer): 2H.
> >>>> West: Pass.
> >>>> North: Pass.
> >>>> East: What is your weak 2 style?
> >>>
> >>>> North: He has 6-10 HCP and exactly 6 cards in hearts.
> >>>
> >>>> East: 2NT. [it's to play]
> >>>> South: Double. [it's for penalties]
> >>>> West: Pass.
> >>>> North: Wait, I just remembered, I play strong 2 bids with this
> >>>> partner.
>
> Lorne Anderson:
> >>> I know nothing about rubber bridge laws, however I am interested in why
> >>> East asked about weak 2 style rather than asking what 2H showed.
>
> I've answered this in another branch of the thread.
>
> >>> It could be construed that he contributed to the problem by asking
> >>> in an innapropriate way.
>
> Barry Margolin:
> > I think what Lorne is saying is that the form of this question may have
> > contributed subconsciously to North's mistake.
>
> So when North passed a forcing opening, it was because East was going to
> ask the question in that way?
passed.
0 new messages