Help
Vampyr, on 2019-November-25, 16:18, said:
This has been discussed at considerable length in these forums.
Yeah, well, I guess the assertion must be true then.
In which situations can the defenders confer over a ruling?
#21
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,590
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2019-November-25, 19:47
Yeah, well, I guess the assertion must be true then.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2019-November-25, 21:33
blackshoe, on 2019-November-25, 19:47, said:
Yeah, well, I guess the assertion must be true then.
I think that the basis for your belief is faulty, but I do know some of the non-bridge beliefs that you have revealed in these forums, so I am not surprised.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#23
- Group: Yellows
- Posts: 6,760
- Joined: 2003-July-22
- Gender:Male
- Location:New Zealand
- Interests:Juggling, Unicycling
Posted 2019-November-26, 03:43
nige1, on 2019-November-25, 02:19, said:
Yes and the director might impose a PP on dummy.
Very unlikely in practice I would venture to suggest.
There are much more significant infractions for which penalties are not handed out when they should in my view.
To be fair to dummy on some occasions the comment might have started as an attempt to prevent an irregularity but was delivered too late.
Worse though I have had director's tell me that because I did not say that I was going to accept the lead then I must have rejected it.
Wayne Burrows
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#24
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,293
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-November-26, 08:02
Vampyr, on 2019-November-25, 19:15, said:
Accepting the lead is giving the game away.
By that logic, the experienced defender should refuse the lead - he has no reason to think that declarer will not retry legally after entering with some Queen. But I think simply playing to the lead is not going to wake up Declarer anyway, he will be much too concentrated on what card is played.
Vampyr, on 2019-November-25, 19:15, said:
It doesn’t really matter what dummy thinks about the hand; he has no right to try to play the hand from his side of the table.
Agreed, if he consciously aimed to obtain an advantage (rather than just "prevent" an infraction) then he fully deserves a PP.
#25
- 5-level belongs to me
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 9,128
- Joined: 2004-August-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Glasgow Scotland
- Interests:Poems Computers
Posted 2019-November-26, 10:02
Bridge Rules are too complex. Many are controversial, unnecessary, add no value, and should be scrapped e.g.
A more relevant example: condoning irregular behavior by a player who attempts to "prevent" an infraction. e.g.
The only justification for such rules is to make the law more sophisticated for the amusement of secretary birds.
Bridge-Law Discussion-groups (like this one) illustrate that directors disagree about ruling the simplest cases with undisputed facts, Players fare worse. Bridge rule-makers should gradually work towards a simple set of rules that players and directors can understand. Pulling the chain on unnecessary rules might be a good start.
- Prevention of pro-questions.
- Insistence that victims protect themselves from opponents' disclosure infractions..
- Denial of redress to the victim who makes a serious error in the mix-up created by law-breaking opponents.
- Bizarre "equity-restoration" kludges to allow players to recover with minimal penalty from mechanical errors (illegal or stupid bids and plays like insufficient bids).
- Denial of redress to victims who don't explain how they've been damaged.
- Almost all system regulations -- for instance alert rules.
- And other local variations,
A more relevant example: condoning irregular behavior by a player who attempts to "prevent" an infraction. e.g.
- Dummy trying to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand. Often the attempt is belated, causing resentment, or worse, as here..
- Player asking "having none", ostensibly to try to prevent a revoke., This rule provides a careless or unethical partnership with information that might help them to count the hand. It's pure evil.
The only justification for such rules is to make the law more sophisticated for the amusement of secretary birds.
Bridge-Law Discussion-groups (like this one) illustrate that directors disagree about ruling the simplest cases with undisputed facts, Players fare worse. Bridge rule-makers should gradually work towards a simple set of rules that players and directors can understand. Pulling the chain on unnecessary rules might be a good start.
#26
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,293
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-November-26, 10:39
nige1, on 2019-November-26, 10:02, said:
A more relevant example: condoning irregular behavior by a player who attempts to "prevent" an infraction. e.g.
[*]Dummy trying to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand. Often the attempt is belated, causing resentment, or worse, as here.
[*]Dummy trying to prevent declarer leading from the wrong hand. Often the attempt is belated, causing resentment, or worse, as here.
The Law doesn't condone such irregular behaviour, although it is rarely punished. The root cause here is that Dummy despite his many limitations may attempt to prevent an infraction, which is both unnecessary (except perhaps in refusing to revoke) and an obvious source of problems.
nige1, on 2019-November-26, 10:02, said:
[*]Player asking "having none", ostensibly to try to prevent a revoke., This helps careless or unethical players to count the hand
Luckily nobody does this here, nor would dream that it is legal. It was forced on WBF by ACBL as I heard it - certainly should be scrapped.
#27
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2019-November-26, 10:41
pescetom, on 2019-November-26, 08:02, said:
By that logic, the experienced defender should refuse the lead - he has no reason to think that declarer will not retry legally after entering with some Queen.
Unfortunately, Aces and Kings beat Queens.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#28
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,293
- Joined: 2014-February-18
- Gender:Male
- Location:Italy
Posted 2019-November-26, 10:44
Vampyr, on 2019-November-26, 10:41, said:
Unfortunately, Aces and Kings beat Queens.
Of course, but as I said defender has no reason to expect that entering with some Queen will not be possible.
#29
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 801
- Joined: 2012-April-11
- Gender:Male
- Location:North-east England
- Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet
Posted 2019-November-26, 11:32
nige1, on 2019-November-25, 17:12, said:
it is also question as to whether 'dummy could have known' at the time of the infraction that it might damage the NOS. Law 23 oops 72C. A good evil player might well realise that a heart ruff is threatened and declarer should play Ace and another (even if the king does not drop) to circumvent it.
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
#30
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 871
- Joined: 2009-July-29
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-November-26, 15:08
sfi, on 2019-November-25, 13:55, said:
I think I can use Law 55B2 by ruling that the lead from dummy is the "correct hand" if the defenders exercise their right to accept it.
Making declarer follow with the card they were intending to lead just seems strange and punishing - it's another situation where declarer can't gain an advantage.
Making declarer follow with the card they were intending to lead just seems strange and punishing - it's another situation where declarer can't gain an advantage.
I believe that the situation described is that dummy (lead) and declarer (play) have played to a trick (both OOT). I should think that accepting the lead requires that the played card is required to be played even if a revoke (a revoke can be corrected).
#31
- Group: Admin
- Posts: 21,410
- Joined: 2004-August-21
- Gender:Male
Posted 2019-November-27, 09:37
weejonnie, on 2019-November-26, 11:32, said:
it is also question as to whether 'dummy could have known' at the time of the infraction that it might damage the NOS.
If Lamford and SB are to be believed, whenever damage actually occurs, the offending player "could have known" that it might, so that Law licenses always adjusting.
#32
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2019-December-01, 10:21
axman, on 2019-November-26, 15:08, said:
I believe that the situation described is that dummy (lead) and declarer (play) have played to a trick (both OOT). I should think that accepting the lead requires that the played card is required to be played even if a revoke (a revoke can be corrected).
I think so too. The law is not very clear.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#33
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2019-December-01, 11:02
Vampyr, on 2019-December-01, 10:21, said:
I think so too. The law is not very clear.
Are you serious?
Law 44C said:
In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.
and is very clear!
(My enhancement)
#34
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 834
- Joined: 2014-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Deventer, The Netherlands
Posted 2019-December-02, 02:54
That is one of the more nonsensical rules in the Laws. Why would this have precedence over the prohibition of cheating? Why would that be a worse offence than being violent?
I agree with nige1 that the laws are in dire need of a thorough cleanup. There’s a discussion over here with Ton Kooijman, chair of the WBFLC, about the last part of the last sentence of 17D3. According to him only the player who passed OOT commited an infraction, the subsequent ones passed in turn. But why is the information given by these passes UI? That he can’t make clear.
I agree with nige1 that the laws are in dire need of a thorough cleanup. There’s a discussion over here with Ton Kooijman, chair of the WBFLC, about the last part of the last sentence of 17D3. According to him only the player who passed OOT commited an infraction, the subsequent ones passed in turn. But why is the information given by these passes UI? That he can’t make clear.
Joost
#35
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2019-December-02, 03:50
sanst, on 2019-December-02, 02:54, said:
That is one of the more nonsensical rules in the Laws. Why would this have precedence over the prohibition of cheating? Why would that be a worse offence than being violent?
.......
.......
Can you see any possible conflict in the laws here? I can't.
#36
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,485
- Joined: 2009-July-14
- Gender:Male
- Location:London
Posted 2019-December-02, 06:29
sanst, on 2019-December-02, 02:54, said:
That is one of the more nonsensical rules in the Laws. Why would this have precedence over the prohibition of cheating? Why would that be a worse offence than being violent?
The laws are not there to deal with cheating or violence.
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
London UK
#37
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 834
- Joined: 2014-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Deventer, The Netherlands
Posted 2019-December-02, 08:23
gordontd, on 2019-December-02, 06:29, said:
The laws are not there to deal with cheating or violence.
Law 73B2: “The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.” I do call that cheating. And I encountered more than once oral and psychological violence, which certainly is a breach of law 74A2 “A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.”
Besides, since it happens and not so rarely as to be neglectable, the Laws should deal with it.
Joost
#38
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 4,485
- Joined: 2009-July-14
- Gender:Male
- Location:London
Posted 2019-December-02, 09:00
sanst, on 2019-December-02, 08:23, said:
Law 73B2: “The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws.” I do call that cheating. And I encountered more than once oral and psychological violence, which certainly is a breach of law 74A2 “A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.”
Besides, since it happens and not so rarely as to be neglectable, the Laws should deal with it.
Besides, since it happens and not so rarely as to be neglectable, the Laws should deal with it.
I think your quote from Law 73B2 is effectively arguing my point: despite (or because of) defining it at the gravest possible offence, no sanction is provided for it.
From the Introduction to the Laws: "They are
designed to define correct procedure and to provide an
adequate remedy for when something goes wrong. They are
designed not to punish irregularities but rather to rectify
situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. "
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
London UK
#39
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,611
- Joined: 2009-September-15
- Gender:Female
- Location:London
Posted 2019-December-02, 12:47
pran, on 2019-December-01, 11:02, said:
Are you serious?
and is very clear!
(My enhancement)
and is very clear!
(My enhancement)
Whatever. It is more interesting when both dummy and declarer have played legally to the trick.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
#40
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 5,344
- Joined: 2009-September-14
- Location:Ski, Norway
Posted 2019-December-02, 15:52
Vampyr, on 2019-December-02, 12:47, said:
Whatever. It is more interesting when both dummy and declarer have played legally to the trick.
In what way?
Sample scenario(s) please.
Against South's 6♠, West leads ♥J, won by declarer's ♥A.
At trick 2, declarer nominates dummy's ♠Q. Defenders are experienced players but neither objects.
Dummy hastens to point out "You are in hand".
Coming to his senses, declarer, eschews the ♠ finesse, playing safely to make his contract. He is rewarded with an overtrick
Defenders call the director. IMO he should adjust to 6♠-1 and impose a PP for Dummy's interference in the play.