Your Ruling? (not a UI ruling :) )
Curt Hastings
The following came up in a
sectional stratified Swiss
(7 boards 20 VP scale).
EW are not strong players,
if it matters.
E/all
Ax
x
xxxx
AKT9xx
K9xxx QT8xx
xx ATx
A9x QJx
xxx xx
J
KQJ98xx
KTx
QJ
West North East South
---- ----- ---- -----
- - Pass 1H
Pass 2C Pass 3H 2C was game forcing
Pass 3NT Pass 4H
Pass 6H All Pass
Trick 1: Hx-x-x-8
Trick 2: HK-D9-Sx-A
When west pitched the D9 on the
second heart, east inquired "no
hearts, partner?"
[note this does not establish revoke,
since this is in North America]
West answered "none"
East now shifted to the DQ,
and the defenders took 3 tricks.
West subsequently discovered he had
another small heart, so the
score was adjusted to 11 tricks to NS,
-100.
NS asked for redress, since there
was some chance that east would have
shifted to a spade, to remove a dummy
entry before clubs could be set up.
Also, NS noted there was some chance
west had deliberately refused to correct
his revoke, since making the D9 a penalty
card would have allowed south to forbid a
diamond lead and claim the slam.
[In order to beat the slam, east has to
duck the second heart, allowing partner
to discard the D9 if a 3rd heart is played.
Then he has to not ruff the 3rd round of clubs,
so that he can ruff the 4th round with the HA
as the second diamond goes away from the south
hand, and west sheds the D9. Now he can
shift to a diamond, for down 1]
a) how do you rule as director?
b) how do you rule in committee?
[FWIW, at the other table, EW were -500 in 4Sx]
Please quote any relevant Laws.
This director never opened the Law
book, or read the laws to us.
He initially ruled no damage.
We asked for the appeal form, and
he said "You can't appeal a book
ruling." I told him that this was
in fact not correct, that we could appeal
the ruling, although the committee could
only recommend the director change his ruling.
I said "Fine, I want to appeal anyway."
His response was "I don't care if the committee
gives you +1430, I won't change my ruling."
However, he came back later and said he was
changing his ruling to
75% of time east returns DQ
25% of time east returns S
So we 75% of -600 and 25% of +830,
so losing 5.75 IMP on the board.
Since an appeal could only gain us 3 more VP,
we didn't pursue the matter any further.
c) What do you think of this director's
actions?
curt
Stephen Z. Stein
In article <3336CA...@cco.caltech.edu>, Curt Hastings
<hast...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> a) how do you rule as director?
> Please quote any relevant Laws.
Same as the ruling you got: down 1, NS -100 (a straightforward application
of Law 64, paragraph A1). Under Law 64, paragraph C, the director is
allowed to assign an adjusted score if the non-offending side is not
sufficiently compensated (Law 64C). I do not feel that this is the case.
>
> b) how do you rule in committee?
I uphold the director, of course :-).
The only basis for doing otherwise would be to rule that the diamond 9
constituted unauthorized information, and you said that this *wasn't* a UI
problem, remember?
Seriously, on committee I would rule that most Easts would return a
diamond in this position.
> This director never opened the Law
> book, or read the laws to us.
>
> He initially ruled no damage.
> We asked for the appeal form, and
> This director never opened the Law
> book, or read the laws to us.
>
> He initially ruled no damage.
> We asked for the appeal form, and
> he said "You can't appeal a book
> ruling." I told him that this was
> in fact not correct, that we could appeal
> the ruling, although the committee could
> only recommend the director change his ruling.
> I said "Fine, I want to appeal anyway."
> His response was "I don't care if the committee
> gives you +1430, I won't change my ruling."
Well, as you noted, this director was wrong in saying you couldn't appeal
(Law 92). And he seemed to be a bit abusive about it.
> However, he came back later and said he was
> changing his ruling to
>
> 75% of time east returns DQ
> 25% of time east returns S
>
> So we 75% of -600 and 25% of +830,
Or -242.5.(!?)
> c) What do you think of this director's
> actions?
Are these numbers correct? Perhaps you mean -500 and +1430 (-17.5)? Or
maybe -100 and +1430 (+332.5)? I think this is creative, but
unwarranted. The director does have the right to make this ruling (Law
64C again), but as I read this law, the score has to be more advantageous
to the non-offending side than what it got otherwise. If NS really got
-242.5, I think this is a bad ruling.
"Law 64C:
C. Director Responsible for Equity
When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to
penalty, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently
compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he (sic) shall assign an
adjusted score."
BTW, I think the comment:
> Also, NS noted there was some chance
> west had deliberately refused to correct
> his revoke, since making the D9 a penalty
> card would have allowed south to forbid a
> diamond lead and claim the slam.
reflects poorly on NS, since it contains an implication of cheating.
(well, maybe it also contains an implication that EW could be this
devious, despite not being "strong players" :-)
- Steve Stein
John David Galt
> a) how do you rule as director?
If the infraction had not occurred, I would guess the likely outcome would be
the same as the director's final ruling (75%/25%).
However, West's discard gave his partner UI, and leading a spade is a LA,
therefore East must lead a spade. You make 6.
> b) how do you rule in committee?
The same, and reprimand director for his "no matter what, I won't change my
ruling" statement. At the very least he should never be allowed to be a
director again. No judge, in any sport or any court, should be putting his
personal pride ahead of his job of pursuing the truth.
I guess that covers c) as well.
John David Galt
Sue Picus
Curt Hastings wrote:
> >
> E/all
> Ax
> x
> xxxx
> AKT9xx
> K9xxx QT8xx
> xx ATx
> A9x QJx
> xxx xx
> J
> KQJ98xx
> KTx
> QJ
>
> West North East South
> ---- ----- ---- -----
> - - Pass 1H
> Pass 2C Pass 3H 2C was game forcing
> Pass 3NT Pass 4H
> Pass 6H All Pass
>
> Trick 1: Hx-x-x-8
> Trick 2: HK-D9-Sx-A
>
>
>
>
>
> book, or read the laws to us.
>
> He initially ruled no damage.
> We asked for the appeal form, and
> he said "You can't appeal a book
> ruling." I told him that this was
> in fact not correct, that we could appeal
> the ruling, although the committee could
> only recommend the director change his ruling.
> I said "Fine, I want to appeal anyway."
> His response was "I don't care if the committee
> However, he came back later and said he was
> changing his ruling to
>
> 75% of time east returns DQ
> 25% of time east returns S
>
> So we 75% of -600 and 25% of +830,
> Since an appeal could only gain us 3 more VP,
> we didn't pursue the matter any further.
>
> actions?
that a "bad-good" player might be seduced into leading a spade to
disrupt communications if declarer had to set up clubs to make. in
practice this seems irrelevant here (if declarer has two clubs you cant
stop him, and if he has 1 club unless its the Q/J in which case he
should have played it already he cant do it). but if East had three
clubs he would have to consider guarding against declarer having
Jx/KQJ98xx/AKx/x when a spade is essential.
To sum up a spade play never seems right, but it might appear seduuctive
to someone not into cashing their side's aces.
Barry
Jeff Goldsmith
This is a good example of one of the new law changes.
Curt Hastings wrote:
> The following came up in a
> sectional stratified Swiss
> (7 boards 20 VP scale).
> EW are not strong players,
> if it matters.
>
> E/all
> Ax
> x
> xxxx
> AKT9xx
> K9xxx QT8xx
> xx ATx
> A9x QJx
> xxx xx
> J
> KQJ98xx
> KTx
> QJ
>
> West North East South
> ---- ----- ---- -----
> - - Pass 1H
> Pass 2C Pass 3H 2C was game forcing
> Pass 3NT Pass 4H
> Pass 6H All Pass
>
> Trick 1: Hx-x-x-8
> Trick 2: HK-D9-Sx-A
>
> When west pitched the D9 on the
> second heart, east inquired "no
> hearts, partner?"
>
> [note this does not establish revoke,
> since this is in North America]
>
> West answered "none"
> East now shifted to the DQ,
> and the defenders took 3 tricks.
> West subsequently discovered he had
> another small heart, so the
> score was adjusted to 11 tricks to NS,
> -100.
>
> NS asked for redress, since there
> was some chance that east would have
> shifted to a spade, to remove a dummy
> entry before clubs could be set up.
>
> Also, NS noted there was some chance
> west had deliberately refused to correct
> his revoke, since making the D9 a penalty
> card would have allowed south to forbid a
> diamond lead and claim the slam.
This is not just disingenuous by N/S, but
worthy of at least a stern comment by the
director. One NEVER suggests that the
opponents committed an infraction intentionally.
Not only is it not normally relevent for redress,
it's illegal in and unto itself. If one wants to
make a useful point, simply say that "at the time
of the infraction, West *could have known* that it
might have been in his best interest to commit
the infraction." You might still get slugged,
but at least you were trying.
> [In order to beat the slam, east has to
> duck the second heart, allowing partner
> to discard the D9 if a 3rd heart is played.
> Then he has to not ruff the 3rd round of clubs,
> so that he can ruff the 4th round with the HA
> as the second diamond goes away from the south
> hand, and west sheds the D9. Now he can
> shift to a diamond, for down 1]
>
> a) how do you rule as director?
Down 1, at least until May 26th, at which point,
I'd rule making six and tell each side that they
are able to appeal this ruling.
In the current laws, the exposure of a card due
to an irregularity is considered authorized information
for the offending side once the penalty has been paid.
The new laws (going into effect later this year in the
ACBL) change that and make (for example) the D9
unauthorized information.
> b) how do you rule in committee?
Same between now and May 25th; there is no
real option. After that, however, it's close.
Is there a logical alternative to the diamond
shift? I'm not sure. A spade shift is necessary
if declarer has J9 KQJxxxx AK10 x, but not
sufficient. (On a diamond shift, declarer falls
into a double squeeze. On a spade shift, he has
no sensible alternative to the double diamond
hook, I think. Playing for a squeeze created
by the spade shift seems a little dubious, and
it's better to play for two diamonds onside than
two diamonds in the same hand as long clubs.) I'm
not sure if there is a layout without the D10 for
example, that might make a spade shift right, but
there might be one. In any case, a diamond shift
seems obvious and normal, and by my personal
definition of logical alternative, I'd let it
stand. Certainly, to a player who has never
executed a double squeeze (E/W were "not strong
players") a shift other than a diamond doesn't
seem sensible.
By the current definition of LA, however, a non-
diamond shift is acceptable, but I refuse to apply
the "seriously consider" guideline to defense; it
just doesn't work. Here, upon thought, one can
probably conclude that a diamond has to be right
barring some very strange bidding. Yet, to discover
this, one must seriously consider alternatives.
Indeed, by the nature of defensive planning, one
must seriously consider all alternatives, so by
the "seriously consider" guideline, just about
any card on defense is acceptable.
> [FWIW, at the other table, EW were -500 in 4Sx]
>
> Please quote any relevant Laws.
> This director never opened the Law
> book, or read the laws to us.
See Law 16C2. David Stevenson's web page describes
the changes to the laws.
Editorial comment: For a long time, I've been suggesting
that Law 16C2 be changed to make information arising from
irregularities be unauthorized to the offending side. I'm
quite happy that the lawmakers finally agree. More than
once, I've encountered leads out of turn that, even once
the penalty has been paid, have been very advantageous
to the offending side due to the information about the
choice of leads. In the future, this particular ploy
won't work. Yippee. Misters Lawmakers Sirs, may I please
have my KO (final) match back that was lost on one of
these?
--Jeff
--
# "I'm a blonde; I'm a blonde: B-L-A-N-D!"
# ---
# http://muggy.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff
Tim West meads
But this is a mirage, West knows that if South has two or more clubs then
he can establish and run the suit regardless of the spade entry (double
finessing if necessary), and if South has a singleton then he would need
two outside entries to dummy to enjoy the long clubs.
However, there may be a reason to assume that a diamond switch is wrong.
South could hold Jxx,KQJ98xx,AKT,- and have insufficient entries to
finesse twice in diamonds. In fact this holding looks rather more likely
given South's bidding (were you behind in the match?).
> Also, NS noted there was some chance
> west had deliberately refused to correct
> his revoke, since making the D9 a penalty
> card would have allowed south to forbid a
> diamond lead and claim the slam.
As this would be cheating of the worst sort I would be very reluctant to
make such an accusation, or to rule on such a basis, without rather more
evidence than we have here.
> [In order to beat the slam, east has to
> duck the second heart, allowing partner
> to discard the D9 if a 3rd heart is played.
> Then he has to not ruff the 3rd round of clubs,
> so that he can ruff the 4th round with the HA
> as the second diamond goes away from the south
> hand, and west sheds the D9. Now he can
> shift to a diamond, for down 1]
Even this ingenious defence will not work. After 3 clubs South will lead
a diamond to the King (west following with the 9) then cross to SA to
discard his last diamond on the fourth club.
>
> a) how do you rule as director?
According to L64C I shall *assign* an adjusted score. The use of the
word assign means that I have to use Law 12C2 (if the word *award* was
used in 64C then I could perhaps use L12C1). 6S making is IMO "the most
favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" so
+1430 it is.
Tim west-Meads
Steve Willner
In article <333803...@gg.caltech.edu>, Jeff Goldsmith
> In the current laws, the exposure of a card due
> to an irregularity is considered authorized information
> for the offending side once the penalty has been paid.
> The new laws (going into effect later this year in the
> ACBL) change that and make (for example) the [revoke card]
> unauthorized information.
Is this correct? Withdrawn cards will indeed become UI (according to
David Stevenson's summary), but played cards?!! David?
Much more likely to be applicable is the general "could have known"
provision, which may well warrant a score adjustment in addition to
the revoke penalty. Alternatively, one might carefully consider how
to restore equity if the revoke hadn't taken place. If one judges
that the necessary defense would be beyond this pair, absent the
revoke, the score should be adjusted under the current laws.
--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@cfa.harvard.edu
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Bad news service; please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it)
Jeff Goldsmith
Steve Willner wrote:
>
> In article <333803...@gg.caltech.edu>, Jeff Goldsmith
> <je...@gg.caltech.edu> writes:
>
> > to an irregularity is considered authorized information
> > for the offending side once the penalty has been paid.
> > The new laws (going into effect later this year in the
> > unauthorized information.
>
> Is this correct? Withdrawn cards will indeed become UI (according to
> David Stevenson's summary), but played cards?!! David?
Hmmmm...good point. The revoker *didn't retract* the
revoking card. I forgot about that.
> Much more likely to be applicable is the general "could have known"
> provision, which may well warrant a score adjustment in addition to
> the revoke penalty. Alternatively, one might carefully consider how
> to restore equity if the revoke hadn't taken place. If one judges
> that the necessary defense would be beyond this pair, absent the
> revoke, the score should be adjusted under the current laws.
Should it? It's not the revoke that requires restoration
of equity, but the information about the exposed card, played
or not, that is damaging the non-offending side. There are
express laws as to whether or not this information is authorized,
and if the information is authorized, then it's available to the
offending side without (further) penalty.
I don't see how the "could have known" provision can apply---
if the revoker "could have known" that he was revoking, he'd
not do it, right? :) Seriously, in this case, the penalty for
the revoke would be more than the penalty might normally be,
because a finesse position is created by the penalty
card. Still, the player, once his attention had been called
to the revoke, must not intentionally continue to revoke.
In the new laws, score adjustment will be allowed when there
is good reason to believe that the revoke could have been
intentional, so, as you say, it might well apply to this case.
I don't think there is any redress available without the changes.
David Stevenson
Curt Hastings wrote:
>75% of time east returns DQ
>25% of time east returns S
>
>So we 75% of -600 and 25% of +830,
>so losing 5.75 IMP on the board.
>Since an appeal could only gain us 3 more VP,
>we didn't pursue the matter any further.
I think this is a good ruling. Pity it is illegal.
Split rulings of this sort may be given by ACs outside the ACBL and
TDs nowhere. They are often acceptable to the players [note here he
decides not to pursue it] and it is a pity that they are not legalised.
Since the strongest objection to split rulings comes from North
America, I am surprised that we so often hear of split rulings being
given in the ACBL, usually by ACs, occasionally by TDs. If they think
it is an acceptable idea, why not alter the Laws to permit it?
>c) What do you think of this director's
>actions?
He should be sacked.
--
David Stevenson MayDay Swiss Pairs in Liverpool!
Quango and Nanki Poo Hughes Simultaneous Pairs at end of June!
appear on the WWW !!! See my Homepage for details
Bridgepage: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/brg_menu.htm
David Stevenson
Posted + emailed
Steve Willner wrote:
>Jeff Goldsmith writes:
>> This is a good example of one of the new law changes.
>
>> In the current laws, the exposure of a card due
>> to an irregularity is considered authorized information
>> for the offending side once the penalty has been paid.
>> The new laws (going into effect later this year in the
>> ACBL) change that and make (for example) the [revoke card]
>> unauthorized information.
>
>Is this correct? Withdrawn cards will indeed become UI (according to
>David Stevenson's summary), but played cards?!! David?
Yes, it is only withdrawn actions that are changing: that is
irrelevant here.
>Much more likely to be applicable is the general "could have known"
>provision, which may well warrant a score adjustment in addition to
>the revoke penalty. Alternatively, one might carefully consider how
>to restore equity if the revoke hadn't taken place. If one judges
>that the necessary defense would be beyond this pair, absent the
>revoke, the score should be adjusted under the current laws.
The new L72B1 might be applied if the player might have committed an
infraction intentionally. Would he revoke intentionally to signal? I
very much doubt it. Having revoked, would he ignore partner's question
because he wants to signal? That is just barely credible. I think that
an adjustment under this Law [not yet applicable] should only be made in
this case if West says something incriminating!
David Stevenson
John David Galt wrote:
>> a) how do you rule as director?
>
>If the infraction had not occurred, I would guess the likely outcome would be
>the same as the director's final ruling (75%/25%).
>
>However, West's discard gave his partner UI, and leading a spade is a LA,
>therefore East must lead a spade. You make 6.
West's discard is AI not UI.
>
>> b) how do you rule in committee?
>
>The same, and reprimand director for his "no matter what, I won't change my
>ruling" statement. At the very least he should never be allowed to be a
>director again. No judge, in any sport or any court, should be putting his
>personal pride ahead of his job of pursuing the truth.
I agree with this.
>
>I guess that covers c) as well.
>
>John David Galt
--
bobby goldman
David Stevenson <da...@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Curt Hastings wrote:
>
>>75% of time east returns DQ
>>25% of time east returns S
>>
>>So we 75% of -600 and 25% of +830,
>>so losing 5.75 IMP on the board.
>>Since an appeal could only gain us 3 more VP,
>>we didn't pursue the matter any further.
>
> I think this is a good ruling. Pity it is illegal.
>
> Split rulings of this sort may be given by ACs outside the ACBL and
>TDs nowhere. They are often acceptable to the players [note here he
>decides not to pursue it] and it is a pity that they are not legalised.
>
> Since the strongest objection to split rulings comes from North
>America, I am surprised that we so often hear of split rulings being
>given in the ACBL, usually by ACs, occasionally by TDs. If they think
>it is an acceptable idea, why not alter the Laws to permit it?
For better or for worse, many members of ACBL appeals
committees retain a "Revolutionary" spirit. They have no
power over what the Lawmakers legislate. but they have a
sense of what is fair. (many other members of appeals do
not share this attitude)
Sort of like a miniature Boston Tea Party attitude
Bobby Goldman
>
>>c) What do you think of this director's
>>actions?
>
> He should be sacked.
>
Steve Willner
I wrote:
> > Much more likely to be applicable is the general "could have known"
> > provision, which may well warrant a score adjustment in addition to
> > the revoke penalty.
In article <3339C8...@gg.caltech.edu>, Jeff Goldsmith
As I understand it -- and I haven't seen the new text -- the point is
to adjust whenever an infraction gives a predictable advantage,
regardless of whether there is evidence of intent.
> > Alternatively, one might carefully consider how
> > to restore equity if the revoke hadn't taken place. If one judges
> > that the necessary defense would be beyond this pair, absent the
> > revoke, the score should be adjusted under the current laws.
> Should it? It's not the revoke that requires restoration
> of equity, but the information about the exposed card, played
> or not, that is damaging the non-offending side. There are
> express laws as to whether or not this information is authorized,
> and if the information is authorized, then it's available to the
> offending side without (further) penalty.
That's not the whole story. After any established revoke, there are
two parts to the adjustment. First transfer the appropriate number
of tricks (zero to two) to the non-offenders. Then (L64C) ask
whether the non- offenders would have done better yet if the revoke
had not occurred. If so, adjust. The typical case for a 64C
adjustment is when a revoke stops an entryless, long suit from
running, but the Law is by no means limited to this situation.
If the defenders revoke, and the contract goes down even after the
penalty, and the TD believes it would have made if the revoke hadn't
occurred, then adjust the score to the result with no revoke.
ai ching lim
>
> David Stevenson <da...@blakjak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Curt Hastings wrote:
> >
> >>75% of time east returns DQ
> >>25% of time east returns S
> >>
> >>So we 75% of -600 and 25% of +830,
> >>so losing 5.75 IMP on the board.
> >>Since an appeal could only gain us 3 more VP,
> >>we didn't pursue the matter any further.
> >
> > I think this is a good ruling. Pity it is illegal.
> >
> > Split rulings of this sort may be given by ACs outside the ACBL and
> >TDs nowhere. They are often acceptable to the players [note here he
> >decides not to pursue it] and it is a pity that they are not legalised.
> >
> > Since the strongest objection to split rulings comes from North
> >America, I am surprised that we so often hear of split rulings being
> >given in the ACBL, usually by ACs, occasionally by TDs. If they think
> >it is an acceptable idea, why not alter the Laws to permit it?
Thanks to all who responded to this thread.
I think this case points out that the Laws still
do not always deal adequately with irregularities.
Since I originated this thread, I will take the opportunity to
discourse a bit on rulings in general. First off let me state
that the job of committees is to RESTORE EQUITY.
What is equity on this hand. Since the scoring is IMPs
clearly the value of the 12th trick is much, much more than
the value of the 11th trick (which was transferred by the revoke
penalties).
I myself find the a split ruling an good solution
here. It was in fact my teammates that conducted this auction.
Although I wasn't at the table to see what kind of players
EW were, we have all seen strat C players find incredibly
bad defenses from time to time. The revoke eliminated
any possibility of that. As some posters have
pointed out, there are constructions
where a spade return is necessary. At least some
fraction of the time, NS would have been +1430.
So NS certainly are owed some adjustment in their favor.
Secondly let me state that the director's attitude towards us
could be summed up as "If you idiots bid a slam off 2 aces
against a hopeless team, you deserve any score you get, and even
if I might have adjusted for you some of the time, I won't make an
adjustment which swings 25 IMPs to you."
This brings up 2 principles.
IMHO:
*Directors and committees should not pass judgement on the
bridge played by nonoffending side, except as far as any
egregious error after the irregularity snaps the connection
between the infraction and damage.
*The magnitude of the score swing is irrelevent to the question
of whether or not the adjustment should be made.
In the last few weeks, there have been 3 cases (the
2 transfer preempts and Richard Oshlag's 2Hx case) where
the offending side used UI to escape -1700 and worse.
curt hastings
hast...@cco.caltech.edu
http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~hastings