[lamford]

Scoring: IMP

West North East South
2H Dble Pass 2NT*
Pass 3C All Pass
3C= N/S +110

---

The above auction seems completely normal, and East-West defended sensibly to save the overtrick. However East, the club's equivalent of the Secretary Bird, called the director. On the previous board, South, a wealthy sponsor, had forgotten Lebensohl after a similar start to the auction after a weak Two Spades. North had gone four off in 3NT. While both North and South were counting their cards on this hand, North remarked about the previous board, "You should have bid 2NT, Lebensohl, partner, on your one count, and we would have avoided that." Nobody had bid, nor looked at their cards while this remark was made.

However, East argued that the remark was UI to South, as, although it was about a board North-South had already played, South did not have the "information" before he took his hand from the board (16A1d) and therefore could not use it. Without the remark, it was quite likely he would bid 3C rather than 2NT, and North-South would have gone two or three off in 3NT, probably doubled.

How do you rule?

[blackshoe]

Tell the Secretary Bird to get a life.

[RMB1]

Could we move this to "Changing Laws and Regulations", and suggest there that Law 161(d) has "he took his hand from the board" replaced with "he or his partner inspected the faces of their cards" (with the same reference to Law 7B2).

[lamford]

I am pleased you agree with me this time that the wording is just wrong! And yes, move it there, but I will be surprised if anyone opposes the logical change, whose wording I cannot improve.

And how do you or blackshoe react when SB insists on a ruling under the present Law? I must admit I would be tempted to rule that the Law is misworded, and make no adjustment, citing the miswording of "amongst logical alternatives" as a case where such an approach has been adopted.

[blackshoe]

Moved as requested.

[lamford]

RMB1, on Sep 27 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

Could we move this to "Changing Laws and Regulations", and suggest there that Law 161(d) has "he took his hand from the board" replaced with "he or his partner inspected the faces of their cards" (with the same reference to Law 7B2).

This is what I originally thought was sensible, but someone on another forum points out that the auction period begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board. North has therefore given advice to his partner during the auction, and he would have no hesitation in ruling in favour of the Secretary Bird.

[blackshoe]

I suppose now you want me to move it back.

[ahydra]

lamford, on Sep 28 2010, 12:12 PM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 27 2010, 10:02 AM, said:

Could we move this to "Changing Laws and Regulations", and suggest there that Law 161(d) has "he took his hand from the board" replaced with "he or his partner inspected the faces of their cards" (with the same reference to Law 7B2).

This is what I originally thought was sensible, but someone on another forum points out that the auction period begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board. North has therefore given advice to his partner during the auction, and he would have no hesitation in ruling in favour of the Secretary Bird.

Even with this point I'm not sure a TD should rule in favour of the opps but rather against NS - because there is no conclusive evidence that they would get to 3NT or whatever (forgetting agreement once surely doesn't automatically imply you'll forget it again, reminder or not). But NS still transmitted UI (hmm, there's no proof they USED it though) and so if the director thinks that's worth punishing then that's only fair.

Just my 2p.

ahydra

[NickRW]

Well - hmm - where did the occur? If it happened at my club and I was the TD and I had ruled in favour of the Secretary Bird - and the chairman got to hear about it - I would not be asked to TD again and the Secretary Bird would be sent a letter - "membership cancelled".

Even if it wasn't a club - as someone else said - get a life.

Nick

[aguahombre]

Dejavu, all over again.

Today, at the club, prior to the first hand LHO asked what to do with an invite and 4 spades after partner opens 1NT and shows 4 hearts. The hand we were sorting while he asked was exactly that

[lamford]

NickRW, on Sep 28 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

Well - hmm - where did the occur?

At a recent congress, but, more relevantly, every day at every club around the world there is a comment about the previous hand after the auction period has started on the next board. The vast majority of these comments have no relevance to the hand in question. Those that do must, sadly, be punished.

[NickRW]

lamford, on Sep 28 2010, 11:53 PM, said:

NickRW, on Sep 28 2010, 05:12 PM, said:

Well - hmm - where did the occur?

At a recent congress, but, more relevantly, every day at every club around the world there is a comment about the previous hand after the auction period has started on the next board. The vast majority of these comments have no relevance to the hand in question. Those that do must, sadly, be punished.

Well, if it was a congress - then I guess you have to follow the rule book. However, I don't follow your extrapolation to the club environment - it is a pity perhaps that there is a gulf between the law book and 'real life' - but there is - and failing to recognise this is peeing in the wind.

Every other month David has a column answering readers letters in the Mr Bridge mag - which I have to say he does very well - sort of gently informing folks who often don't know what they should and shouldn't be doing in (mostly) simple book ruling scenarios. And quite often there is a readers letter grumping about his answer to one question or another in a previous issue and stating that they wouldn't stand for such unfriendly rulings wherever it is they play. Well - that is - whether law makers and enforcers like it or not - a reality on the ground. And if you want to change it - it is no good moaning that what they are playing isn't "real bridge" - they don't care - they would quite literally rather throw you out first.

Further, the EBU (and I suppose other NBOs) want to increase the attendance at major events - but one of the main reasons ordinary players won't go there is that they don't like what they see as an unfriendly environment. And we're talking, in some cases, people who have been there and have heaps of masterpoints to prove it - but they don't want to go back.

I agree sometimes you gotta stomp on rule breakers - we had a case a couple of sessions ago. 1NT-p round to 3th seat where the lady had been paying no attention and counting the table money. She pulled out the stop card and plonked down 2♥. They were playing Benji. It was fairly clear to one and all that the lady hadn't been paying attention and thought she was opening a weak 2. 4th seat summoned the director for the night (not me) to the table and the director quite properly informed the opener about not using unauthorised information and told the other side they could call him back. So opener duly bid 2♠ (they were playing xfers - no problem). So now the lady thought she should bid 3♥ - which put opener in a pickle - eventually he decided he should bid 4♥. Well that contract duly made, but the guy in 4th seat wasn't happy - opener was 3/3 majors and felt that responders sequence showed 5=4 majors GF and that 4♥ was definitely not a logical alternative. Well - the director agreed and assigned a score. When I heard about it I thought it reasonable enough - but I can't go along with the "get a life" example in the OP. Blackshoe is going to complain, no doubt, that "everyone thinks they know what the rules should be" - but I live, mostly, in the real club world.

Nick

[lamford]

blackshoe, on Sep 28 2010, 12:59 PM, said:

I suppose now you want me to move it back.

Yes, I have been persuaded that RMB1's proposed law change is impractical, primarily because, from another forum:

"It very easy for the Director to determine the gross action of withdrawing cards from the board's slot. It is very difficult for the Director to determine, after cards have been withdrawn from the slot, whether or not a player has glimpsed one or more of her cards."

The auction period is defined by the Lawmakers who presumably considered other definitions. Any careless comment after that time could be UI.

[blackshoe]

NickRW, on Sep 28 2010, 09:30 PM, said:

Further, the EBU (and I suppose other NBOs) want to increase the attendance at major events - but one of the main reasons ordinary players won't go there is that they don't like what they see as an unfriendly environment.  And we're talking, in some cases, people who have been there and have heaps of masterpoints to prove it - but they don't want to go back.

So the answer is to change the rules to comply with what club players want? Let me see how that works. If Player A does something wrong, he wants to get away with it. But if Player B does something wrong at Player A's table, Player A wants Player B to pay. For all values of A and B. Hell of a way to run a game, if you ask me.

Quote

Blackshoe is going to complain, no doubt, that "everyone thinks they know what the rules should be" - but I live, mostly, in the real club world.

And you think I don't?


Edit: Moved back to Laws and Rulings.

This post has been edited by blackshoe: 2010-September-28, 20:58

[NickRW]

blackshoe, on Sep 29 2010, 02:56 AM, said:

NickRW, on Sep 28 2010, 09:30 PM, said:

Further, the EBU (and I suppose other NBOs) want to increase the attendance at major events - but one of the main reasons ordinary players won't go there is that they don't like what they see as an unfriendly environment.  And we're talking, in some cases, people who have been there and have heaps of masterpoints to prove it - but they don't want to go back.

So the answer is to change the rules to comply with what club players want? Let me see how that works. If Player A does something wrong, he wants to get away with it. But if Player B does something wrong at Player A's table, Player A wants Player B to pay. For all values of A and B. Hell of a way to run a game, if you ask me.

I didn't want to imply that I like it. I don't know what to do about it. I know I hate Secretary Birds being able to get advantage over irrelevancies.

Nick

[RMB1]

The practice of continuing discussion while counting cards (but before looking at their faces) is widespread, unobjectionable and not objected to. I would not rule against a pair who did so.

[lamford]

RMB1, on Sep 29 2010, 07:06 AM, said:

The practice of continuing discussion while counting cards (but before looking at their faces) is widespread, unobjectionable and not objected to.  I would not rule against a pair who did so.

My partner and I often discuss some aspect of system after the next board has started - it is not ideal, but it is widespread, and I try to say "next board, please" if I can. I can recall many occasions when opponents have said "Can we play this board, please?", so I disagree that it is not objected to.

Moreover, where a convention has been forgotten, a comment during the auction period of the next board would seem to me to be a clear aid to memory under 40C3(a) regardless of whether it is information that can be used under 16A3. So I am surprised that you would not rule against that a pair that made such a comment and it turned out to be relevant.

[blackshoe]

NickRW, on Sep 29 2010, 05:44 AM, said:

I didn't want to imply that I like it. I don't know what to do about it. I know I hate Secretary Birds being able to get advantage over irrelevancies.

I would suggest that the solution, or part of it at least, is education of the players, but it has to start when they first start playing the game, and it's way too late for that for most players.

If it's irrelevant, how will they gain advantage?

You just don't want to be Player B.

[Pict]

lamford, on Sep 29 2010, 08:29 AM, said:

RMB1, on Sep 29 2010, 07:06 AM, said:

The practice of continuing discussion while counting cards (but before looking at their faces) is widespread, unobjectionable and not objected to.  I would not rule against a pair who did so.

My partner and I often discuss some aspect of system after the next board has started - it is not ideal, but it is widespread, and I try to say "next board, please" if I can. I can recall many occasions when opponents have said "Can we play this board, please?", so I disagree that it is not objected to.

Moreover, where a convention has been forgotten, a comment during the auction period of the next board would seem to me to be a clear aid to memory under 40C3(a) regardless of whether it is information that can be used under 16A3. So I am surprised that you would not rule against that a pair that made such a comment and it turned out to be relevant.

Just for my orientation, are we back in SB mode?

The quoted post said 'while counting' but not yet looking. Are we now to get interested in the idea that that the bidding phase has started before you look at your cards?

Are we now beyond BLML?

[lamford]

Pict, on Sep 29 2010, 02:13 PM, said:

The quoted post said 'while counting' but not yet looking.  Are we now to get interested in the idea that that the bidding phase has started before you look at your cards?

Law 17A seems pretty clear: The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board.

I trust that if the player dropped the ace of spades by accident while counting the cards, you would just apply the Law - even in the most "friendly" of bridge clubs. Or for that matter if he carelessly said "that is an unusual design" when looking at it while sorting the hand, as happened recently.