[lamford]

---

Table Result 4S? IMPs Opening Lead ♥T

SB caused more problems this week at the North London Club, where the facts are broadly as reported here. West led a top heart and declarer, SB, won with the ace (East playing the queen), drew trumps and played the nine of diamonds to the ten, queen and ace. East, the Chimp, a fine player, returned the jack of diamonds and SB won, crossed to a heart and played a diamond. West, RR, played the seven and East overtook with the eight. Now RR attempted to lead to the next trick, but did not expose a card before the Chimp butted in. "It is not your lead, partner; I overtook your seven with my eight." He showed that card, and then led the eight of clubs. SB covered with the nine but, after considerable thought, RR played the ten and SB was one down."

"DIRECTOOOOOOOR", bellowed SB in his usual manner. The TD arrived.

"There was a breach by the Chimp of Law 66B which states: Until a card is led to the next trick, declarer or either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own last card played." He paused for breath. "Law 9A3 does allow CC to prevent an infraction such as a LOOT, but not by showing the last card played or by making the statement that he had overtaken the seven of diamonds." "That remark conveyed UI to RR, and he would have wondered why the Chimp did not want him on lead." He paused again. "Not that RR should ever wonder why anyone would not want him on lead, mind you," he continued meanly. "The Chimp should have called the TD if RR had disputed whose lead it was."

"The effect of the exposure of the card, and perhaps more so, the remark, was to focus the Rabbit's attention on what would have happened if he had been left on lead and why the Chimp did not want him on lead. Even someone with his limited ability could then work out that South had the king of clubs - or he would have a nine count." "Without the remark and exposure, RR might well have played the ace of clubs, playing his partner for the king; or he might well have led to the next trick." He concluded: "In addition, there should be a PP on East for a breach of Law 66B, which is, effectively, a 'may not' Law". "If RR had led to the next trick, then I would have also made, in three different ways - which you will enjoy working out," SB concluded.

How would you rule?

[weejonnie]

I would rule

Home come SB suggested that Colin the Corgi doing possibly calling the director when he was not at the table? SB surely knows law 76B5. Everyone knows Charlie the Chimp is ChCh.

What was ChCh doing waking up the Rabbit - surely it was in his best interest to keep RR confused?

SB gets a DP for breach of BB@B for not calling the director politely.

As for the result - well I would poll the other two players in London of similar standard to the Rabbit (Toucan and Walrus) and see what they would do. Mind you - it is very hard to find a subset of players with Guardian Angels. If unable (very likely!) to find such players I would cop out and ask for technical advice from HH - knowing he would undoubtedly rule in favour of RR V SB.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2016-August-29, 04:37, said:

SB gets a DP for breach of BB@B for not calling the director politely.

I was surprised to learn that there is no requirement to call the director politely in BB@B. Perhaps we can get him on:
"Annoying  behaviour, embarrassing  remarks,  or any other  conduct which might interfere with the enjoyment of the game is specifically prohibited by Law 74A". However SB tries (although he does not always succeed) to stay just the right side of 74A. And BB@B does make it clear that one cannot object to the calling of the director. But I do agree that CC is wrong, but have not seen ChCh in use.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2016-August-29, 04:37, said:

What was ChCh doing waking up the Rabbit - surely it was in his best interest to keep RR confused?

Unfortunately, if he allowed the Rabbit to lead out of turn, SB could make the contract, as he stated, in one of three ways which will not detain the laws aficionados too long.

[barmar]

I think this is one of SB's biggest stretches to date.

It's perfectly normal for players to try to stop someone from playing out of turn. While the specific manner in which he did it may not have been appropriate, I don't see how it focuses RR's attention (what little he has) on any specific play. Is the contention that CC's remark suggests that he had a choice of plays, and chose to overtake so he could make the killing lead? But even a player of RR's skill should be able to figure out that South needs the ♣K for his opening bid, so there's no point in going up with the ace.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-August-29, 08:49, said:

I think this is one of SB's biggest stretches to date.

It's perfectly normal for players to try to stop someone from playing out of turn. While the specific manner in which he did it may not have been appropriate, I don't see how it focuses RR's attention (what little he has) on any specific play. Is the contention that CC's remark suggests that he had a choice of plays, and chose to overtake so he could make the killing lead? But even a player of RR's skill should be able to figure out that South needs the ♣K for his opening bid, so there's no point in going up with the ace.

I think SB believed that the Chimp prevented the lead out of turn using an illegal method. Had RR led out of turn, the contract would have made. The Chimp could have been aware that his infraction (telling RR that he had overtaken the seven of diamonds, and showing the eight) could have worked to his advantage in two ways. It would have prevented RR from leading and it would have told RR that his being on lead was fatal.

And if you think RR could work out that South had the king of clubs, you are giving him far too much credit.

[barmar]

I think it takes at least the same level of intelligence to figure out why CC wants to be on lead as to figure out that South has the ♣K. So if you don't think he's capable of the latter (which is just simple arithmetic), there's no way he's going to make the logical inferences for the former.

Certainly the Chimp knows he needs to be on lead, so preventing the lead out of turn is crucial. But I dispute that he could possibly have known that the particular method he used would help RR work out why this is necessary.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-August-29, 12:09, said:

I think it takes at least the same level of intelligence to figure out why CC wants to be on lead as to figure out that South has the ♣K. So if you don't think he's capable of the latter (which is just simple arithmetic), there's no way he's going to make the logical inferences for the former.

Certainly the Chimp knows he needs to be on lead, so preventing the lead out of turn is crucial. But I dispute that he could possibly have known that the particular method he used would help RR work out why this is necessary.

So you would impose no penalty on East for revealing the card from the previous trick, nor for the remark that he had overtaken the seven of diamonds? Doing so made sure that RR knew that he had not won the previous trick, as otherwise he might have claimed that he had and led anyway. The Chimp is allowed to prevent an infraction, but he is not allowed to break the Law to ensure that there is no infraction.

There is a strong argument that when you break two Laws to prevent an infraction, the infraction should be deemed to have occurred. The Chimp also breached 73A1 when he told RR that he had overtaken the seven of diamonds:
A. Appropriate Communication between Partners
1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays.

I wonder how everyone would rule if SB has been East?

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-August-29, 06:47, said:

I was surprised to learn that there is no requirement to call the director politely in BB@B.

Do you have something against 74B5? And if resorting to 74A, 74A1 seems more relevant than 74A2.

It may not be strictly to the laws but common practice in games I have seen has been for the player to show their winning card. Given SB's MO, one has to wonder why he did not summon the director immediately. As for how to rule if SB was East, well that would never happen as you have consistently told us that he never deviates from (his view of) proper procedure in any way.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-30, 05:43, said:

Do you have something against 74B5? And if resorting to 74A, 74A1 seems more relevant than 74A2.

It may not be strictly to the laws but common practice in games I have seen has been for the player to show their winning card. Given SB's MO, one has to wonder why he did not summon the director immediately. As for how to rule if SB was East, well that would never happen as you have consistently told us that he never deviates from (his view of) proper procedure in any way.

I referred to the EBU Best Behaviour at Bridge Code as to the absence of the requirement to call the TD politely. And a single "DIRECTOOOOOOOR", with however many "O"s, cannot be assessed as polite or otherwise, discourteous or otherwise. Loud and belligerent, maybe, but that does not seem to breach 74B5.

You are evading the issue in suggesting that SB would not commit the infractions which East did. If SB, in a careless moment, had shown his last card AND stated that he had overtaken the seven of diamonds (which also names the last card played by RR - a third breach of the Laws), how would you rule?

And, for the avoidance of doubt, it is not an infraction to wait until later before calling the TD.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-30, 05:43, said:

It may not be strictly to the is expressly against the laws but common practice in games I have seen has been for the player to show their winning card after it is is quitted. That makes it OK.

FYP

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-August-29, 16:55, said:

So you would impose no penalty on East for revealing the card from the previous trick, nor for the remark that he had overtaken the seven of diamonds?

It might be worth a PP for the improper procedure, but I don't think it creates UI that should prevent RR from playing reasonably.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-August-30, 08:41, said:

I referred to the EBU Best Behaviour at Bridge Code as to the absence of the requirement to call the TD politely. And a single "DIRECTOOOOOOOR", with however many "O"s, cannot be assessed as polite or otherwise, discourteous or otherwise. Loud and belligerent, maybe, but that does not seem to breach 74B5.

You may not find it discourteous but others are free to think otherwise.

lamford, on 2016-August-30, 08:41, said:

You are evading the issue in suggesting that SB would not commit the infractions which East did. If SB, in a careless moment, had shown his last card AND stated that he had overtaken the seven of diamonds (which also names the last card played by RR - a third breach of the Laws), how would you rule?

For a normal club player, a mild warning that that is not the correct procedure and to do it differently in the future should suffice. For SB with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the laws, fastidious attention to detail and multiple warnings, a PP might be warranted.

lamford, on 2016-August-30, 08:41, said:

And, for the avoidance of doubt, it is not an infraction to wait until later before calling the TD.

It is not an infraction but it can lead to rectification being forfeited (11A). SB was obviously well aware of that when he chose not to call the TD so he must have felt he was gaining some advantage by this.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-30, 09:50, said:

It is not an infraction but it can lead to rectification being forfeited (11A). SB was obviously well aware of that when he chose not to call the TD so he must have felt he was gaining some advantage by this.

Even if he were, that would be a legitimate advantage to gain. However, he called the director when he did as it would not have been necessary if RR had played the ace of clubs as there would have been no damage.

And, as SB would be quick to point out, rectification cannot be forfeited under Law 16 for the failure to call the TD at that time, as there is a specific footnote which states:

"3 It is not an infraction to call the Director earlier or later".

The displaying of the eight of diamonds and the remark that the Chimp had overtaken the seven of diamonds were both UI to RR, and he should have continued to lead to the next trick. I think even just giving a PP on East is quite inappropriate, and the score should be adjusted to what would have happened if RR had carefully avoided taking any advantage of the UI, by leading to the next trick anyway. The original TD ruled no adjustment, but SB has now appealed within the time allowed.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2016-August-31, 03:06, said:

The original TD ruled no adjustment, but SB has now appealed within the time allowed.

You will have to let us know if he gets his deposit back. I daresay that RR did not even consider himself in possession of meaningful UI given standard practice. If the TD had been called at the correct time he could have been reminded of his obligations for such a serious breach of procedure.

[PeterAlan]

lamford, on 2016-August-29, 16:55, said:

The Chimp also preached 73A1 ...

Amen.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-August-31, 04:14, said:

You will have to let us know if he gets his deposit back. I daresay that RR did not even consider himself in possession of meaningful UI given standard practice. If the TD had been called at the correct time he could have been reminded of his obligations for such a serious breach of procedure.

I have already quoted the relevant footnote to you that it was not an infraction for SB not to call the TD until later. I have been asked to serve on the AC, and, keen to perform my AC duties as diligently as possible, will now try to poll 10 rabbits and ask them the following questions:

a) Partner has shown the eight of diamonds from the last trick, in contravention of Law 66B.
b) You were about to lead to the next trick but partner has told you that he overtook your seven of diamonds with his eight.
c) You are deemed to be aware that both of these are UI, and you must select from LAs one not demonstrably suggested by that UI. And you must carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI.
d) Which of these two options do you perform, and which do you serious consider:
d1) Lead to the next trick anyway
d2) Cheat by allowing partner to lead to the next trick.

I shall, of course, not phrase the questions in such a leading manner, but the first two rabbits I asked replied emphatically, "d1".

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-August-31, 03:06, said:

The displaying of the eight of diamonds and the remark that the Chimp had overtaken the seven of diamonds were both UI to RR, and he should have continued to lead to the next trick. I think even just giving a PP on East is quite inappropriate, and the score should be adjusted to what would have happened if RR had carefully avoided taking any advantage of the UI, by leading to the next trick anyway. The original TD ruled no adjustment, but SB has now appealed within the time allowed.

I do not think that the requirement of Law 73C to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI can require a player to violate another law, in this case Law 44G.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2016-August-31, 05:57, said:

b) You were about to lead to the next trick but partner has told you that he overtook your seven of diamonds with his eight.

Partner first told you that it was not your lead. Didn't the OP say that this is OK?

I thought the whole issue was about whether RR was allowed to realize that he shouldn't go up with his ace when the Chimp leads a club. I didn't think there was any expectation that RR should continue to lead out of turn. The infraction took place after he was informed that it's not his lead.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2016-August-31, 08:41, said:

I do not think that the requirement of Law 73C to carefully avoid taking advantage of UI can require a player to violate another law, in this case Law 44G.

I agree. But the infraction has prevented RR from leading out of turn. That cannot be right. And it is clear that a defender is only allowed to prevent an infraction. He is not even allowed to say that he or his side won the last trick.