[jdonn]

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 10 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

If I was east I wouldn't want it to be up to me. If that's what the laws say then I don't like the laws. Anyway if his partner hasn't seen it yet then I would let him do what he wants as long as I don't think he has gotten much relevant information from my pass. I don't want to keep him from changing his bid if he has gotten no advantage from making it simply because I can legally do so. I don't want to win that way. However I should mention that I don't think someone who wants to win that way is being unsportsmanlike. I am only worried about how I feel about it.

Of course if there were no screens everything would be different.

Why is it different without screens?

Because then his partner has seen his bid and there is a lot of UI. Here there is really no UI except for two things. The director call which doesn't give useful info, and RHO seeing my pass, which I don't expect to matter much. If I thought it mattered I wouldn't let him take his bid back.

[paulg]

jdonn, on Mar 10 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 10 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

If I was east I wouldn't want it to be up to me. If that's what the laws say then I don't like the laws. Anyway if his partner hasn't seen it yet then I would let him do what he wants as long as I don't think he has gotten much relevant information from my pass. I don't want to keep him from changing his bid if he has gotten no advantage from making it simply because I can legally do so. I don't want to win that way. However I should mention that I don't think someone who wants to win that way is being unsportsmanlike. I am only worried about how I feel about it.

Of course if there were no screens everything would be different.

Why is it different without screens?

Because then his partner has seen his bid and there is a lot of UI. Here there is really no UI except for two things. The director call which doesn't give useful info, and RHO seeing my pass, which I don't expect to matter much. If I thought it mattered I wouldn't let him take his bid back.

Without screens it is probable that the UI will already exist as North will have alerted the overcall (erroneously), bid, explained it incorrectly when asked, then called the Director asap (and hence before his partner bids) to correct the misinformation.

So now everyone knows the problem and his partner is bound by the UI rules.

He then asks to change his call.

Is this really different?

Paul

(Apologies for appearing to badger you, but I am just interested in the difference)

[RMB1]

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

He then asks to change his call.

Is this really different?

I don't think that is the way the law works.

The process is that a player substitutes a call, the TD rules it is not permitted under Law 25A, now LHO gets the option of accepting the substituted call.

The process is not that the player or TD gets to ask LHO whether he will accept a substitued call before that call has been made/named.

So, without screens, both partners will see the substituted call before LHO decides whether to accept it. This commits the player to creating more UI before the call is accepted or not.

With screens, the situation is not symmetic if East or West want to substitute a call. Do they have a right to get the tray back (before unseen LHO calls), make a substitute call, and pass the tray again, to see which call LHO will accept.

I'm not sure a player is allowed to substitute a call in the hope that LHO will accept it. Just as a player is not allowed to make an insufficient bid or a call out of rotation in the hope that LHO will accept the illegal call.

Robin

[jdonn]

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

Is this really different?

Paul

(Apologies for appearing to badger you, but I am just interested in the difference)

Yes. I don't feel badgered, but I'm not sure why you don't see how it is different. With screens his partner doesn't know there is any particular problem, all he knows is the director was called. He has no idea why, and hasn't seen what he tried to bid, and doesn't know how any other bid was alerted.

[barmar]

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 10 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 01:30 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 10 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

If I was east I wouldn't want it to be up to me. If that's what the laws say then I don't like the laws. Anyway if his partner hasn't seen it yet then I would let him do what he wants as long as I don't think he has gotten much relevant information from my pass. I don't want to keep him from changing his bid if he has gotten no advantage from making it simply because I can legally do so. I don't want to win that way. However I should mention that I don't think someone who wants to win that way is being unsportsmanlike. I am only worried about how I feel about it.

Of course if there were no screens everything would be different.

Why is it different without screens?

Because then his partner has seen his bid and there is a lot of UI. Here there is really no UI except for two things. The director call which doesn't give useful info, and RHO seeing my pass, which I don't expect to matter much. If I thought it mattered I wouldn't let him take his bid back.

Without screens it is probable that the UI will already exist as North will have alerted the overcall (erroneously), bid, explained it incorrectly when asked, then called the Director asap (and hence before his partner bids) to correct the misinformation.

So now everyone knows the problem and his partner is bound by the UI rules.

He then asks to change his call.

Is this really different?

Paul

(Apologies for appearing to badger you, but I am just interested in the difference)

While his partner is required by the UI laws NOT to take advantage of the UI, you're then in the difficult position of having to figure out whether he did or didn't do so.

Of course, there's UI whether you allow the change of call or not. But there's MORE UI if you allow it, because then his partner sees both the original and the replacement call, which provides more information about his hand. Without the change of call, the UI is just the original explanation and call.

[paulg]

jdonn, on Mar 10 2009, 08:08 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 02:21 PM, said:

Is this really different?

Paul

(Apologies for appearing to badger you, but I am just interested in the difference)

Yes. I don't feel badgered, but I'm not sure why you don't see how it is different. With screens his partner doesn't know there is any particular problem, all he knows is the director was called. He has no idea why, and hasn't seen what he tried to bid, and doesn't know how any other bid was alerted.

As barman says, I can see that it is a lot more difficult to cope with the UI impact without screens. That this is sufficient to not accept the change is interesting (to me at least) but perhaps reflects how tough it is to get agreement on the impact of UI.

One of the reasons I was interested in posing the original question was to see how people coped with infractions at the higher levels. Do you always enforce revokes, that sort of thing, and this seemed a particularly rare example.

[FrancesHinden]

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 10:54 PM, said:

One of the reasons I was interested in posing the original question was to see how people coped with infractions at the higher levels. Do you always enforce revokes, that sort of thing, and this seemed a particularly rare example.

This seems to me to be qualitatively different than whether you e.g. enforce the revoke penalty. In this case you may decide it is to your advantage to allow the change of call. In the revoke case it's never in your (bridge) interests to waive the penalty.

[Trinidad]

cardsharp, on Mar 10 2009, 05:54 PM, said:

One of the reasons I was interested in posing the original question was to see how people coped with infractions at the higher levels. Do you always enforce revokes, that sort of thing, and this seemed a particularly rare example.

I wouldn't be able to sell it to my partner, my team mates and my fellow club members if I wouldn't try to get the best possible score on a board (as long as it is in accordance with the bridge laws). And most important of all, I wouldn't be able to sell it to myself.

So, no, I will not be "gentlemanly" if it is any serious competition when it comes to letting opponents off the hook after errors or infractions. When it comes to general behavior at the table, I think that I behave as a gentleman.

The only exception that I allow for behaving "gentlemanly" when there is an irregularity is when an opponent inadvertently drops one or more cards while sorting them. I will try to do the very best not to see those cards (though the laws do not require me or anybody to do this). My personal reason for this exception is that dropping cards is usually more related to the opponent's physical health than to his bridge ability.

My impression is that many high level players follow a similar reasoning: Bridge related mistakes you will have to pay for. Mistakes due to disabilities you will not have to pay for (as long as no bridge harm was done, e.g. because partner saw the card).

Rik

[paulg]

Breaking news!

The reason that North thought that you were playing a 2+ 1♣, and hence he was playing their canapé defence, is because he glanced at the convention card left on his side of the screen by the previous players.

Then he realises that this is not your convention card and the situation arises.

Naturally he realises that this is his own fault, but are you more sympathetic now?

Paul

[Free]

I'd ask if they play fit jumps

[barmar]

cardsharp, on Mar 11 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

Breaking news!

The reason that North thought that you were playing a 2+ 1♣, and hence he was playing their canapé defence, is because he glanced at the convention card left on his side of the screen by the previous players.

Then he realises that this is not your convention card and the situation arises.

Naturally he realises that this is his own fault, but are you more sympathetic now?

Paul

Is that really his own fault? It seems like the fault is mostly with the previous player who left his card there. Yes, he could have checked the names on the card, but who really expects that?

[paulg]

barmar, on Mar 11 2009, 03:28 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 11 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

Breaking news!

The reason that North thought that you were playing a 2+ 1♣, and hence he was playing their canapé defence, is because he glanced at the convention card left on his side of the screen by the previous players.

Then he realises that this is not your convention card and the situation arises.

Naturally he realises that this is his own fault, but are you more sympathetic now?

Paul

Is that really his own fault? It seems like the fault is mostly with the previous player who left his card there. Yes, he could have checked the names on the card, but who really expects that?

Yes it is. You are sitting down for a 16-board match with screens and you should really make sure that the convention cards in view are those of the opponents.

Paul

[hanp]

I think the director should rule that the player can change his bid, it is not my job to have pitty on my opponent. I think the circumstances are unusual enough for the director to rule that the player can take back his bid, after all there has been no UI. If the director rules that it is my decision then I will try to win the match as best as I again, because I think that is my duty as a player.

Now I agree with jdonn that I hate the position the director/rules put me into.

[LH2650]

My view is that North cannot change his call. This is clearer in the 1997 Laws, where the relevant section starts with "Until LHO calls…", (and East had done so). Assuming that this still applies, (and if not, when does his period of allowed change end?), an action by North would be a call out of rotation, to be dealt with by laws 30 through 32. However, if the Director had given him proper instructions, he could not act, because he would run afoul of Law 72B1 - A player must not infringe a law intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification that he is willing to accept.

In fact, I am far from sure that he can change is call even if East has not passed. Law 25B1 does not explicitly give him that right - in fact it calls him an "offender" if he does so. I presume that means that he has committed an irregularity, and if intentional, he is afoul of Law 72B1 again.

[blackshoe]

cardsharp, on Mar 11 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

You are sitting down for a 16-board match with screens and you should really make sure that the convention cards in view are those of the opponents.

"Should", perhaps, but "should" is not the same as "required". Which law or regulation puts the onus on you, rather than opponents, to ensure that you have their convention card?

[paulg]

blackshoe, on Mar 11 2009, 07:01 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Mar 11 2009, 11:30 AM, said:

You are sitting down for a 16-board match with screens and you should really make sure that the convention cards in view are those of the opponents.

"Should", perhaps, but "should" is not the same as "required". Which law or regulation puts the onus on you, rather than opponents, to ensure that you have their convention card?

When the opponents hand you their Scottish convention card, but you decide to keep the (old) Irish card with its prominent national flag in your field of view (instead of in the bin), then it is truly your own fault.

p

[hanp]

Both flags have the same colors so I can understand confusing the two.

[MFA]

cardsharp, on Mar 11 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

Breaking news!

The reason that North thought that you were playing a 2+ 1♣, and hence he was playing their canapé defence, is because he glanced at the convention card left on his side of the screen by the previous players.

Then he realises that this is not your convention card and the situation arises.

Naturally he realises that this is his own fault, but are you more sympathetic now?

Paul

I feel I would have the obligation to do everything I can to avoid this misunderstanding. If I see an opponent with a wrong convention card, I will warn him.

Unless I felt my opponent had been really careless and only had himself to blame for the incident, I would let him change the bid when no harm has been done.

[skjaeran]

Playing with screens I'd always allow my screenmate to change his bid, unless I was sitting after him and had made a call that might affect his choice. Since there's no UI for his partner, I don't see any reason not to allow such changes.

[CSGibson]

I'd have to be in a particularly foul mood, or really dislike my screenmate, for me not to allow the change. In this case, the opponent didn't suddenly remember something, or change his judgment about the situation, he just had bad information about our methods (not our fault, certainly). If it doesn't impact my hand, let him do what he must.