[blackshoe]

It's not clear to me.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-17, 12:26, said:

It's not clear to me.

It was clear to the TD, AC and L&E. But, in my opinion, they were all wrong. And it is not clear that an appeal to the WBFLC would have succeeded, even if one is allowed.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2016-April-17, 03:55, said:

I think that both of you are referring to the Law 25A footnote, rather than the Law 23 footnote. The former is only in the WBFLC minutes, not in published versions, which adds to the difficulty of the TD. That minute states:

"A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error."

I see no problem with this, although I don't know whether they considered partner querying your call, and it does not stop the TD then adjusting for the remark. It is the same as the hand at a North London Club where someone gained by leading low from KQJx, even though a WBFLC minute specifically allowed him to do so (his partner had the ace as an MPC). It was agreed by most that we can then compensate the non-offenders for use of UI, or apply Law 23, it mattered not. In this case, I think we compensate the non-offenders (even SB) by applying Law 23. It is clear that anyone checking up to see if his partner has made a mispull could benefit from a remark or comment. Therefore we adjust. This does not conflict with Law 25A or its footnote in the slightest. We could instead apply Law 73. Does anyone really want to play bridge where someone can cheat by asking his partner if he really meant to make that bid and get away with it?

You are correct that I had not read carefully enough and I was talking about Law 25A - sorry. Nevertheless the point remains that there is some evidence that none of these outcomes were accidental or unintended in the law change. One possible answer to your final question is to fine a player whenever they ask a question about a call that turns out not to have been unintended.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-April-17, 13:16, said:

You are correct that I had not read carefully enough and I was talking about Law 25A - sorry. Nevertheless the point remains that there is some evidence that none of these outcomes were accidental or unintended in the law change. One possible answer to your final question is to fine a player whenever they ask a question about a call that turns out not to have been unintended.

I agree that the intention was clearly to get a "bridge result" rather than the result of a mispull. But I do not think the WBFLC intended to give carte blanche to the partner of the person making a mispull to draw his or her partner's attention to the error.

I don't think a fine is enough to deter someone from deliberately asking his partner if he or she intended to make the bid in question. But I do not know whether someone can be fined, say 5 VPs in a Swiss Pairs, which is what would be needed here to restore equity.

[campboy]

I'm coming to this thread late, but I agree with Lamford.

[blackshoe]

While the TD's power to award a procedural penalty is not limited as to size, I do not think it is right for him to determine the size of the penalty by his desire to "restore equity". That is the purview of the rectification provided in the laws. You size a PP by the gravity of the breach of procedure, and by the player's failure, if this is known, to correct a particular type of breach over time.

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-April-17, 12:20, said:

Not the case. You allow him to lead a low club, but then you adjust for the use of UI if leading a low club gains, and leading the king of clubs is a logical alternative, which it might well be from KQJx. The WBFLC minute is ineffective, because the intelligent TD "ignores" it and applies:

50E3. If the Director judges that the exposed card conveyed such information as to damage the non-offending side he shall award an adjusted score.

In the case of the underlead of KQJx, it is clear to apply 50E3. We discussed this ad nauseum when a similar incident occurred at a North London club, so there is no need to revisit it. Aardv and you were about the only two lone wolves, if one can have more than one.

I have no idea on how the discussion went by in North London.
However I can say that I became very surprised when I read a lecture by (as I remember) Ton Kooijman in connection with the 2007 bridge laws. This very much changed my understanding on the consequences of major penalty cards.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-17, 14:41, said:

While the TD's power to award a procedural penalty is not limited as to size, I do not think it is right for him to determine the size of the penalty by his desire to "restore equity".

I agree, and I would adjust under Law 23 to 6NT-2 and maybe not even give a PP at all to North. I am not sure one can give any of 6S= as it is not clear that South would have noticed her error.

[blackshoe]

It's not clear she wouldn't have either.

Why Law 23? Is that the only route to score adjustment?

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-17, 16:32, said:

It's not clear she wouldn't have either.

Why Law 23? Is that the only route to score adjustment?

I agree we should decide (in weighted-ruling territory) how likely she was to notice of her own accord. I thought it unlikely.

On the second point, 74C2 is another possibility, but that seems a bit weak. 73B1 is another Law that we can use to adjust. Law 23 just seems the easiest.

[blackshoe]

Seems to me there's a danger of setting a precedent that will lead to use of 23 when it's not really appropriate.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-April-17, 16:43, said:

Seems to me there's a danger of setting a precedent that will lead to use of 23 when it's not really appropriate.

I think, and RMB1 also thinks I believe, that there has to be a real possibility that someone could be aware that their infraction would benefit their side for a Law 23 adjustment to be appropriate. It seems to me that this applies here, whether or not North's remark was accidental.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2016-April-17, 16:46, said:

I think, and RMB1 also thinks I believe, that there has to be a real possibility that someone could be aware that their infraction would benefit their side for a Law 23 adjustment to be appropriate. It seems to me that this applies here, whether or not North's remark was accidental.

I suppose "accidental" means North was sort of thinking out loud and "deliberate" means his intention was to cheat? It is good that L23 does not require us to distinguish.

Anyway, we are led to the solution that South is allowed to change his call, but then it gets changed back under L23. This is a fair solution, but it doesn't, somehow, make sense. It would have been easier not to allow the change in the first place, but I am sure that Gordon is correct about the lawmakers' intentions. The reason is not clear, apart from the desire to achieve some sort of "normal bridge result" after that ship has long since sailed.

I think that the "equity-producing" PP is fairest if it is legal. This way the opponents do not gain from the mispull, and the OS don't gain from the remark. Of course the director needs to be very sure that it is indeed a mispull.

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2016-April-17, 13:16, said:

You are correct that I had not read carefully enough and I was talking about Law 25A - sorry. Nevertheless the point remains that there is some evidence that none of these outcomes were accidental or unintended in the law change. One possible answer to your final question is to fine a player whenever they ask a question about a call that turns out not to have been unintended.

Then wouldn't all such calls suddenly become unintended?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2016-April-17, 14:55, said:

I have no idea on how the discussion went by in North London.

Here it is. You did participate in the discussion.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-18, 02:04, said:

Here it is. You did participate in the discussion.

Yes, I found it ("North London" made me unaware that it took place on this forum)

And I found that I wrote:

If declarer had requested a club lead from West then East would have picked up his Ace, and the fact that East holds this card and desired to lead it would have been UI to West. In that case the only normal lead from West would probably have been the ♣King.

However, the important question now is whether a club lead is still a normal lead and not as such suggested by the UI that West wanted to lead a club or the fact that East has this penalty card. I think we must agree that it is.

But as East in this situation must follow suit with his Ace (a fact that is AI to West), West is no longer under any obligation to lead his King once he has selected to lead a Club. West is free to lead any of his clubs because he "knows" (legally) that East must follow suit with his Ace.


It appears to me that I was of the same opinion then as I am now.
(The only difference is that now I referred to Ton as the source of my opinion.)

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-April-18, 02:30, said:

But as East in this situation must follow suit with his Ace (a fact that is AI to West), West is no longer under any obligation to lead his King once he has selected to lead a Club. West is free to lead any of his clubs because he "knows" (legally) that East must follow suit with his Ace.

It appears to me that I was of the same opinion then as I am now.
(The only difference is that now I referred to Ton as the source of my opinion.)

I and others disagree with you. The WBFLC minute states that you can lead (or play) low from KQJx in such a situation. You can, but if it damages the non-offending side then the TD adjusts under Law 50E3.

The minute continues:
The player must convince the Director that he has not gained from the information that the player possesses the card.

So there is a catch-all that if you gain from leading low, the TD adjusts.

[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2016-April-18, 01:53, said:

Then wouldn't all such calls suddenly become unintended?

You have a pretty poor opinion of other players' honesty! Directors already have to determine whether or not they accept that a call was "unintended" within the meaning of the Law, and one of the most important parts of that is ensuring that the player understands the distinction. Why would this be any different?

[Vampyr]

gordontd, on 2016-April-18, 04:47, said:

You have a pretty poor opinion of other players' honesty! Directors already have to determine whether or not they accept that a call was "unintended" within the meaning of the Law, and one of the most important parts of that is ensuring that the player understands the distinction. Why would this be any different?

It wouldn't really, but the idea that commenting is permitted if the call turns out to be unintended is pretty whack.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2016-April-18, 04:47, said:

You have a pretty poor opinion of other players' honesty! Directors already have to determine whether or not they accept that a call was "unintended" within the meaning of the Law, and one of the most important parts of that is ensuring that the player understands the distinction. Why would this be any different?

That opinion might have been caused by some pretty poor alleged behaviour by a number of high-profile top players lately.