[bali 2]

Law 45C1 says that a defender's card held so that it ispossible for his partner to see its face must be played. It is admitted by TDs that it is not relevant that partner was not looking.
But if the law-makers wanted this, they would have said : " so that it was or it would be possible for his partner...", instead of " it is possible ". These last words mean that the defender must be in such a position that it is possible for him to see the card. Therefore, if he is, say, looking for something in his bag on the floor, his position makes impossible for him to see the card, and so the card could be "not played "...
What is your opinion please ?
Many thanks in advance
Al. Ohana

[pran]

bali 2, on Sep 23 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

Law 45C1 says that a defender's card held so that it ispossible for his partner to see its face must be played. It is admitted by TDs that it is not relevant that partner was not looking.
But if the law-makers wanted this, they would have said : " so that it was or it would be possible for his partner...", instead of " it is possible ". These last words mean that the defender must be in such a position that it is possible for him to see the card. Therefore, if he is, say, looking for something in his bag on the floor, his position makes impossible for him to see the card, and so the card could be "not played "...
What is your opinion please ?
Many thanks in advance
Al. Ohana

1: From EBL (official) commentary to the (same) law as it was in 1992: ... it is a defender's card which he has held so that partner could possibly see its face ...

2: Instruction given to Norwegian TDs at some time (I don't remember when): When there is doubt whether or not a defender could possibly see the face of a card so held by his partner the Director should rule affirmative if declarer has seen the face so that he can name the card in question.

regards Sven

[bluejak]

I am not keen on the Norwegian interpretation, because sometimes a defender will put a card in front of him, held carefully so partner cannot possibly see it - but the players to the left or right of him might be able to see it. So the Norwegian interpretation means you are ruling it has to be played in situations where the Law clearly says otherwise.

As for the original question, the normal interpretation is that if partner could see it if he was looking it must be played. True, you can argue that technically the Law does not quite read that way but that is the way it is to be ruled.

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 23 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

I am not keen on the Norwegian interpretation, because sometimes a defender will put a card in front of him, held carefully so partner cannot possibly see it - but the players to the left or right of him might be able to see it.  So the Norwegian interpretation means you are ruling it has to be played in situations where the Law clearly says otherwise.

As for the original question, the normal interpretation is that if partner could see it if he was looking it must be played.  True, you can argue that technically the Law does not quite read that way but that is the way it is to be ruled.

I specifically wrote: When there is doubt

When a defender holds a card carefully so partner cannot possibly see it there should not be any doubt. For instance when a defender shows a card to declarer for only him to see . . . . .

Sven

[bluejak]

Sure, and declarer says that he believes th partner could see it, and his partner does. Now you have doubt. Outside Norway, the ruling is per Law book, ie the TD makes a decision as to what happened: inside Norway, since there is a doubt and a regulation to cover it, the ruling is now given against the Laws.

I do not like regulations that specifically instruct you to ignore the Law.

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 24 2009, 05:14 PM, said:

Sure, and declarer says that he believes th partner could see it, and his partner does.  Now you have doubt.  Outside Norway, the ruling is per Law book, ie the TD makes a decision as to what happened: inside Norway, since there is a doubt and a regulation to cover it, the ruling is now given against the Laws.

I do not like regulations that specifically instruct you to ignore the Law.

I just cannot follow your reasoning.

In what way have I described a procedure or ruling that ignores or is against the laws?

We are discussing a situation where the Director shall have to use Law 85; a player has allegedly exposed a card within the meaning of Law 49 and this allegation is challenged.

My statement was essentially that if the Director finds himself in the situation described in Law 85B he will then rule exposed card if, and only if North or South has seen the face of the card and can name it.

I believe that when you accuse me of ruling against the laws you should be prepared to substantiate that accusation.

And BTW.: This is not covered in any Norwegian regulation known to me, I quoted what (I believe) we were told on a training course long time ago.

Sven

[blackshoe]

pran, on Sep 23 2009, 04:48 AM, said:

2: Instruction given to Norwegian TDs at some time (I don't remember when): When there is doubt whether or not a defender could possibly see the face of a card so held by his partner the Director should rule affirmative if declarer has seen the face so that he can name the card in question.

Law 49 said:

…when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face…

The Norwegian instruction presumes that a defender's card which has been seen by declarer was in fact "in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face". However, this presumption is demonstrably false, as one can hold his card in such a way that declarer can see it, but his partner cannot. Since the presumption is false, to rule willy-nilly that such a card could possibly have been seen by the card-holder's partner is demonstrably outside the law, hence illegal.

The question whether the card could possibly, etc. is left by the laws to TD discretion. Any instruction or regulation which negates that discretion is imo illegal, as it does not conform to Law 80B2[f] because it is in conflict with Law 49.

The reference to Law 85 is interesting. That law says that the director is to determine the facts "in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect", but if he is not satisfied that he has determined the facts, he shall "make a ruling that will allow play to continue". Again, what ruling he is to make is left by the laws, to his discretion, and we are back to what I said above: a regulation or instruction which negates the TD's discretion is illegal.

I would have no problem with a recommendation that a TD rule in a particular way, so long as it is made clear that it is only a recommendation.

[richlp]

I'm confused by the confusion. IMO, Sven clearly said that if there is doubt about whether or not defender's partner could have seen the card, the doubt may be resolved by determining if declarer or dummy can name the card.

If the director determines that defender's partner could not have seen the card there is no doubt and declarer's or dummy's ability to name the card is irrelevant

[bluejak]

If he cannot immediately decide he can toss a coin and decide that way. It is just as satisfactory as the Norwegian solution, ie basing it on something irrelevant.

I think to have a rule that if the TD cannot do his job he should use some complete irrelevancy is as poor a suggestion as I can remember seeing in this forum.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 03:54 AM, said:

If he cannot immediately  decide he can toss a coin and decide that way.  It is just as satisfactory as the Norwegian solution, ie basing it on something irrelevant.

I think to have a rule that if the TD cannot do his job he should use some complete irrelevancy is as poor a suggestion as I can remember seeing in this forum.

I agree with you that a defender may hold a card in such a way that dummy and/or declarer can see it, while the card has not been played.

But calling the Norwegian solution "a complete irrelevancy" is unduly harsh and simply not true. For starters, one can easily turn it around: If neither declarer nor dummy can say what the card was then you can be fairly sure that partner couldn't have seen the card.

At the same time, (unless dummy and declarer are much taller than partner ) if both dummy and declarer can name the card, you can be fairly sure that partner could have seen it too.

I agree that "fairly sure" doesn't equal "100% sure", but neither is any other method that I can come up with. Of course, the first test is to let the player reenact what he did. If everyone agrees that this is what happened, then you can rule accordingly. Case closed. If there are other whitnesses, you can ask them. Maybe there may be another clue (e.g. declarer may have called a card from dummy, making it clear that at the time there was no doubt in his mind that the card was played).

The problem is when people don't agree and you are running out of clues. Then the TD get's into the dangerous "Who do you believe?" area. In that case, checking whether declarer and dummy can name the card will give a more reliable result than flipping a coin.

Rik

[pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 24 2009, 07:10 PM, said:

pran, on Sep 23 2009, 04:48 AM, said:

2: Instruction given to Norwegian TDs at some time (I don't remember when): When there is doubt whether or not a defender could possibly see the face of a card so held by his partner the Director should rule affirmative if declarer has seen the face so that he can name the card in question.

Law 49 said:

…when a defender’s card is in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face…

The Norwegian instruction presumes that a defender's card which has been seen by declarer was in fact "in a position in which his partner could possibly see its face". However, this presumption is demonstrably false, as one can hold his card in such a way that declarer can see it, but his partner cannot. Since the presumption is false, to rule willy-nilly that such a card could possibly have been seen by the card-holder's partner is demonstrably outside the law, hence illegal.

The question whether the card could possibly, etc. is left by the laws to TD discretion. Any instruction or regulation which negates that discretion is imo illegal, as it does not conform to Law 80B2[f] because it is in conflict with Law 49.

The reference to Law 85 is interesting. That law says that the director is to determine the facts "in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect", but if he is not satisfied that he has determined the facts, he shall "make a ruling that will allow play to continue". Again, what ruling he is to make is left by the laws, to his discretion, and we are back to what I said above: a regulation or instruction which negates the TD's discretion is illegal.

I would have no problem with a recommendation that a TD rule in a particular way, so long as it is made clear that it is only a recommendation.

I have made it clear haven't I that whether Declarer can name the card or not is only decisive if the Director is in doubt; it is not the primary criterion.

I have also made it clear haven't I that there is no such (to my knowledge) regulation in Norway? We were told this principle on a training course, and what is told the attendees on a training course is at best instructions or recommendations - pick your own word for it.

Law 85 is not only interesting, it is the law whenever the Director must rule on disputed facts. (Except when a more specific law can be found for ruling on a particular situation; Law 49 is no such specific law that eliminates the use of Law 85.)

I am still astonihed by the accusation that I deliberatly violate the laws of bridge, and expect either substantiation of the accusation or consession that the accusation was unfounded.

Sven

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on Sep 25 2009, 08:06 AM, said:

At the same time, (unless dummy and declarer are much taller than partner ) if both dummy and declarer can name the card, you can be fairly sure that partner could have seen it too.

That is just not true. Next time you are defending, take a card out of your hand, put it on the table upright so the back is towards partner. Now your LHO and RHO can almost see it - one or other probably can - and it is nowhere near being visible to partner. Move it very slightly and both opponents will have seen it and it is still nowhere near visible to partner.

It is not necessary to apply irrelevant criteria when deciding something: just decide it based on the evidence available.

[blackshoe]

pran, on Sep 25 2009, 04:24 AM, said:

I have made it clear haven't I that whether Declarer can name the card or not is only decisive if the Director is in doubt; it is not the primary criterion.

Even if the director is in doubt, nobody has any business telling him which way he must rule.

Quote

I have also made it clear haven't I that there is no such (to my knowledge) regulation in Norway? We were told this principle on a training course, and what is told the attendees on a training course is at best instructions or recommendations - pick your own word for it.

I didn't say it was a regulation. As for "instruction or recommendation", the former must be followed, the latter need not be. IOW, the former negates the TD's own judgment, the latter does not.

Quote

Law 85 is not only interesting, it is the law whenever the Director must rule on disputed facts. (Except when a more specific law can be found for ruling on a particular situation; Law 49 is no such specific law that eliminates the use of Law 85.)

I am well aware of that, Sven.

Quote

I am still astonihed by the accusation that I deliberatly violate the laws of bridge, and expect either substantiation of the accusation or consession that the accusation was unfounded.

I don't think anyone has accused you of anything. Certainly I haven't. We are discussing a Norwegian instruction (your word) to Norwegian TDs generally.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Sep 25 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

pran, on Sep 25 2009, 04:24 AM, said:

I have made it clear haven't I that whether Declarer can name the card or not is only decisive if the Director is in doubt; it is not the primary criterion.

Even if the director is in doubt, nobody has any business telling him which way he must rule.

I think you are being too dogmatic about this. It sounds like you are trying to imply they aren't supposed to train or guide directors on how to apply judgment. And since I know you are a stickler for things like this, he said "should" which is weaker than "must".

I would quote bluejak too but it's hard to argue with such immense hyperbole as "complete irrelevancy" and "as poor a suggestion as I can remember seeing in this forum" and saying they might as well flip a coin. If declarer can see the card then that is clearly evidence that it is more likely than otherwise that the defender's partner can see it. It's not proof, just evidence. I mean isn't it obvious that, if you group all situations where a defender could see his partner's card, and then all situations where a defender couldn't see his partner's card, the declarer could see the card a much higher percentage of the time in the first case than in the second? What ever happened to all the preaching about common sense?

Btw, in what way is the instruction to Norwegian directors any more arbitrary or less lawful than something like

bluejak, on Sep 23 2009, 09:29 AM, said:

you can argue that technically the Law does not quite read that way but that is the way it is to be ruled.

?

[pran]

blackshoe, on Sep 25 2009, 08:01 AM, said:

Quote

I am still astonihed by the accusation that I deliberatly violate the laws of bridge, and expect either substantiation of the accusation or consession that the accusation was unfounded.

I don't think anyone has accused you of anything. Certainly I haven't. We are discussing a Norwegian instruction (your word) to Norwegian TDs generally.

Oh yes, "someone" has (and I am pretty confident he knows that himself).

Sure, it is not you

regards Sven

[bluejak]

jdonn, on Sep 25 2009, 04:50 PM, said:

I would quote bluejak too but it's hard to argue with such immense hyperbole as "complete irrelevancy" and "as poor a suggestion as I can remember seeing in this forum" and saying they might as well flip a coin. If declarer can see the card then that is clearly evidence that it is more likely than otherwise that the defender's partner can see it. It's not proof, just evidence. I mean isn't it obvious that, if you group all situations where a defender could see his partner's card, and then all situations where a defender couldn't see his partner's card, the declarer could see the card a much higher percentage of the time in the first case than in the second? What ever happened to all the preaching about common sense?

Ok, let's try for common sense, and see what is being suggested.

If a card may be played and a TD needs to find out, I would suggest he asks the players, repeats the action of the player, finds everything out, and makes a decision. This is normal TD practice, and it is amazing to me that any other approach is suggested in another jurisdiction.

But what we were told is that in one jurisdiction if it is not clear whether it is played then you find out whether declarer has seen the card: if so you decide it has been played, even though this is not what the Law says.

You say it is more likely to be visible by partner if declarer can see it. That is, of course, true, but is still not relevant: it does not tell you whether it is visible to partner, and I find it amazing you would want to support not following normal TD practice, investigate, find out all you can and judge, but deciding by some rule that is not in line with the Laws. Surely you can see that more likely to be seen by partner is just not relevant?

TDs are expected to do their best to find out what happened, and judge matters. I still find it very difficult to believe that there is a jurisdiction where, when there is a problem, you are not advised to find out, but are expected to judge on something that does not tell you at all what the situation is.

Compare a hesitation: you are called to the table by someone who alleges that there was a hesitation. It is not immediately obvious whether there was or not. How would you feel about an instruction from your jurisdiction that if it is not obvious, rather than investigate, you assume there was a hesitation if an opponent says so? But it is a very comparable situation: there is far more likely to have been a hesitation when the opposition say there was than when they do not, but do you really believe it is relevant in any way to deciding whether there was one?

[jdonn]

Perhaps we are simply interpreting what is being said differently. I take

Quote

if there is doubt about whether the other defender could see the face of the card

to mean

Quote

if there is doubt after the director has attempted to determine all the facts, he follows this advice.

You seem to be taking it to mean

Quote

if there is doubt when the director is called to the table, he follows this advice rather than trying to determine all the facts.

Am I right about that?

If so, then yes obviously the way you are taking it would be terrible advice, but I can't believe that's how it was intended. My...gulp... common sense tells me they mean it the way I stated.

That being said, two more things.

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

Surely you can see that more likely to be seen by partner is just not relevant?

It's quite relevant. It's evidence to be considered by the director in making his decision. It's part of the director's "finds everything out" step that you yourself mention.

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

Compare a hesitation: you are called to the table by someone who alleges that there was a hesitation.  It is not immediately obvious whether there was or not.  How would you feel about an instruction from your jurisdiction that if it is not obvious, rather than investigate, you assume there was a hesitation if an opponent says so?  But it is a very comparable situation: there is far more likely to have been a hesitation when the opposition say there was  than when they do not, but do you really believe it is relevant in any way to deciding whether there was one?

This is a really bad and inapplicable analogy. In the situation under discussion, declarer can prove he saw the card by stating what card it is. You are proposing a situation where the director is basing his ruling on taking declarer's word for something he can't possibly prove. That is a very unfair comparison.

[barmar]

The guideline is not contradicting the law, it's merely a recommendation on how to apply the law. The law says you have to determine whether partner could have seen the card, and this is a suggestion for how to make that determination in cases where there's little evidence to go on.

And in practice, what else is the director supposed to do? In most cases where it's not obvious whether a card has been played (and when else would they bother calling the director?), the players are not likely to remember the exact manner in which it was held -- that's not the kind of thing people pay attention to unless they know a priori that it's going to be important.

This is kind of like the rule that says that in absense of evidence one way or the other, if you're not sure whether there's a misbid or misexplanation, you assume misexplanation.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on Sep 25 2009, 06:26 PM, said:

The guideline is not contradicting the law, it's merely a recommendation on how to apply the law.

That's not the way it was originally presented ("an instruction to TDs..").

Quote

This is kind of like the rule that says that in absense of evidence one way or the other, if you're not sure whether there's a misbid or misexplanation, you assume misexplanation.

That rule is part of the Laws, this one is not. As I said earlier, I have no problem with a recommendation that says "do it this way", as long as it's clear that it's only a recommendation. It's when it's couched as an instruction that I have a problem with it.

[pran]

bluejak, on Sep 25 2009, 03:32 PM, said:

Ok, let's try for common sense, and see what is being suggested.

If a card may be played and a TD needs to find out, I would suggest he asks the players, repeats the action of the player, finds everything out, and makes a decision.  This is normal TD practice, and it is amazing to me that any other approach is suggested in another jurisdiction.

But what we were told is that in one jurisdiction if it is not clear whether it is played then you find out whether declarer has seen the card: if so you decide it has been played, even though this is not what the Law says.

You say it is more likely to be visible by partner if declarer can see it.  That is, of course, true, but is still not relevant: it does not tell you whether it is visible to partner, and I find it amazing you would want to support not following normal TD practice, investigate, find out all you can and judge, but deciding by some rule that is not in line with the Laws.  Surely you can see that more likely to be seen by partner is just not relevant?

TDs are expected to do their best to find out what happened, and judge matters.  I still find it very difficult to believe that there is a jurisdiction where, when there is a problem, you are not advised to find out, but are expected to judge on something that does not tell you at all what the situation is.

Compare a hesitation: you are called to the table by someone who alleges that there was a hesitation.  It is not immediately obvious whether there was or not.  How would you feel about an instruction from your jurisdiction that if it is not obvious, rather than investigate, you assume there was a hesitation if an opponent says so?  But it is a very comparable situation: there is far more likely to have been a hesitation when the opposition say there was  than when they do not, but do you really believe it is relevant in any way to deciding whether there was one?

Honestly, this is a derailment of the discussion.

The question has never been whether a card has been played; it is whether the card has been held in a position (i.e. exposed) so that it must be played.

The procedure you describe is of course the standard procedure as described in Law 85 and I have never indicated that we do anything else in Norway.

What is the director to assume when the players describe a situation differently and he has no way of knowing who tells the truth? Which player shall he trust and which player shall he distrust?

I have simply referred what we long ago were told as part of our training in Norway: If declarer can name the card held by a defender the probability is that also the other defender can have seen it (and consequently that the card must be played when the question is about law 45). If declarer cannot name the card the probability is that the other defender cannot have seen it.

Frankly, I have yet to experience a situation where a defender has (accidentally?)exposed a card for his partner to see without declarer (and/or dummy) also being able to see the face of that card.

I have asked you before, and ask you again: In what way, and why, is what I have referred against the laws?

I shall accept it if you have misread or misunderstood what I have written, but I do not accept being accused for no reason of violating the laws of bridge.

Sven