[lamford]

---

IMPs converted to VPS. Lead ♠K. Table Result 6NT=

RR played in the Lockdown League recently and came up against SB, West. The North London club has two teams in one of the divisions, and they met in this fixture. RR thought that North also had spades as he had bid them, and thought that he needed to jump to 3NT to show 18-19. ChCh, North, could not think of any sensible way of investigating and jumped to 6NT. SB, West, led the king of spades, and RR, South, counted and claimed thirteen tricks. SB, of course, quickly rejected this claim, although MM, East, accepted it. RR now got flustered and accidentally clicked on a small spade from dummy at trick one, but immediately requested an Undo. "There are no undos in the play in the Lockdown League, RR," quickly chimed ChCh, North, "you are stuck with your misclick". SB suggested that he would allow it, but ChCh was adamant. "No, that would be unfair, RR, you should not take advantage of SB's generosity." RR carried on, MM playing low, but the contract was now cold of course as the blocking club disappeared on the ace of spades.

SB was unhappy, particularly as he thought ChCh had participated in the play, and pressed the CALL DIRECTOR furiously, but all that happened was that it kept sending an email to himself as he had set up the table. The EBU later ruled that MM, in following to trick one, had agreed that play continue, and this was customarily an option that declarer could select after a rejected claim. However, SB argued that all four players had to agree and he had not. How do you rule?

[KingCovert]

Fascinating situation. I know in the ACBL that dummy has the right to prevent any irregularity. So, if this is also the case in the EBU, then, it would seem that Dummy was within their rights to prevent an Undo? It seems like an illegal Undo would in fact be an irregularity? I'll leave that judgement to those that are actually educated in directorship.

[pran]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-14, 15:33, said:

Fascinating situation. I know in the ACBL that dummy has the right to prevent any irregularity. So, if this is also the case in the EBU, then, it would seem that Dummy was within their rights to prevent an Undo? It seems like an illegal Undo would in fact be an irregularity? I'll leave that judgement to those that are actually educated in directorship.

The applicable law is 42B:
Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity.
Dummy may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded.
(My enhancements)

So no, dummy was not trying to prevent an irregularity, he called attention to it.

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2020-July-15, 00:05, said:

The applicable law is 42B:
Dummy may try to prevent any irregularity.
Dummy may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded.
(My enhancements)

So no, dummy was not trying to prevent an irregularity, he called attention to it.

"Undos are not allowed" would seem to be trying to prevent declarer doing something illegal ie making an illegal undo

[pran]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-15, 03:55, said:

"Undos are not allowed" would seem to be trying to prevent declarer doing something illegal ie making an illegal undo

The purpose of "undo" would seem to me as an implementation of Laws 25A and 45C4b ?

[lamford]

pran, on 2020-July-15, 09:37, said:

The purpose of "undo" would seem to me as an implementation of Laws 25A and 45C4b ?

Yes, for a misclick rather than a change of mind. The EBU has decided to allow undos for genuine misclicks during the auction, but not in the play. The North London Club, which also runs online bridge, has decided that it will allow undos for genuine misclicks in the play, in an effort to encourage older members to play online during the pandemic. It adopts the principle that a misclick is the same as a "dropped" card, so can be corrected by the declarer or defender, but not if the defender misclicks on an honour.

So, yes, requesting an undo in the play in the Lockdown League would be an irregularity.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2020-July-15, 10:28, said:

Yes, for a misclick rather than a change of mind. The EBU has decided to allow undos for genuine misclicks during the auction, but not in the play. The North London Club, which also runs online bridge, has decided that it will allow undos for genuine misclicks in the play, in an effort to encourage older members to play online during the pandemic. It adopts the principle that a misclick is the same as a "dropped" card, so can be corrected by the declarer or defender, but not if the defender misclicks on an honour.

I can't see how one can equate a misclick of a played card to dropping a card, even assuming blindly that the player did not change idea.
Nor do I see why an undo is necessary for a genuine misclick during the auction, given that BBO offers a confirm mechanism.

[KingCovert]

pescetom, on 2020-July-15, 13:27, said:

I can't see how one can equate a misclick of a played card to dropping a card, even assuming blindly that the player did not change idea.
Nor do I see why an undo is necessary for a genuine misclick during the auction, given that BBO offers a confirm mechanism.

I personally don't utilize the confirm mechanism. And, I think many others refuse to do so as well. It's a frustration/annoyance every single time it comes up. Misclicks aren't common enough for me to warrant it, I find. In fact, I really only misclick on my phone.

I was considering talking about this in my initial post, but, does anyone else find it problematic that players are capable of creating irregularities like this? This is always something that has bothered me about the laws of bridge, they're sometimes really low quality. I think it ends up being this way out of a desire to create a positive experience or to correct irregularities, but, I think it could be argued that irregularities during play of the hand should simply never be handled until after the hand. End of story. Even if it completely botches the rest of the play.

You could simply make the law that cards that are faced due to mechanical error must stand out of fairness to the opponents, even if unintended. It is just a game, and, this avoids any issues of malicious intent. It also prevent situations like this where players can potentially (not trying to accuse anyone) selectively raise the relevant laws when it benefits them, or choose to be "generous" when it benefits them. These acts are irregularities that really shouldn't be possible, perhaps it would be okay if every table had a dedicated director, but, that's not the reality. If the mechanical error is itself an irregularity, then an adjustment after the play would be required as well. It's doubly punishing to the perpetrator, but, such is life. Again, it's just a game, try not to make mechanical errors and you'll be fine.

The reason I bring this up is because this really bugs me in one particular legal occurrence. In the ACBL, defenders are allowed to confirm with partners when they don't follow suit that they are indeed not revoking. "Having none?" is common. The problem is, players are inconsistent at asking this, and often when they're asking this they end up implying things about their holding and declarer's holding in the suit. It's simply UI. It shouldn't ever be legal to ask this question, because you cannot trust players to behave consistently. They're often unaware of the UI implications. And so, in the attempt to prevent an irregularity, you create irregularities.

I think the biggest justification that the laws are low quality is in the fact that the majority of players don't know the laws. They're too complicated, and convoluted, such that only an expert in them can properly enforce them. But, players ultimately end up having a large influence in when they are enforced, because it's players that call the director. I know it's a pipe dream, but, I'd like it if the laws were calibrated to simply accept that irregularities completely distort the hand, and should not be rectified but instead simply penalized or the result adjusted.

I'm sure many will have good counter-arguments for why I'm wrong, but, this has been a source of frustration for me in the last year. I'd be interested to hear some counter-arguments and commentary on why it is how it is.

[Vampyr]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-15, 15:15, said:

I was considering talking about this in my initial post, but, does anyone else find it problematic that players are capable of creating irregularities like this? This is always something that has bothered me about the laws of bridge, they're sometimes really low quality. I think it ends up being this way out of a desire to create a positive experience or to correct irregularities, but, I think it could be argued that irregularities during play of the hand should simply never be handled until after the hand. End of story. Even if it completely botches the rest of the play.

Most irregularities are impossible in online bridge. But in live bridge, players should not have to put up with insufficient bids, calls or plays out of turn, etc. And how do you play on after a revoke? Inany case, a volunteer playing director cannot be expected to restore equity for any hand that included an irregularity? And what is equity? Is it the same for the player who can be expected to find the entry-shifting double squeeze as it is for the player who can barely count to 13?

As for the laws being of low quality, well, read the rulings forum passim.

Quote

You could simply make the law that cards that are faced due to mechanical error must stand out of fairness to the opponents, even if unintended. It is just a game, and, this avoids any issues of malicious intent.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. A card faced due to mechanical error is a played card, online or in live bridge. Unless it is dropped or two cards are played at once.

Quote

It also prevent situations like this where players can potentially (not trying to accuse anyone) selectively raise the relevant laws when it benefits them, or choose to be "generous" when it benefits them. These acts are irregularities that really shouldn't be possible, perhaps it would be okay if every table had a dedicated director, but, that's not the reality. If the mechanical error is itself an irregularity, then an adjustment after the play would be required as well. It's doubly punishing to the perpetrator, but, such is life. Again, it's just a game, try not to make mechanical errors and you'll be fine.

People should just follow the laws. Trying to be “generous” just causes problems, but if you choose to waive something, like say “just pick it up” for a card played in error, that is your choice — but you cannot later claim damage.

Quote

The reason I bring this up is because this really bugs me in one particular legal occurrence. In the ACBL, defenders are allowed to confirm with partners when they don't follow suit that they are indeed not revoking. "Having none?" is common. The problem is, players are inconsistent at asking this, and often when they're asking this they end up implying things about their holding and declarer's holding in the suit. It's simply UI. It shouldn't ever be legal to ask this question, because you cannot trust players to behave consistently. They're often unaware of the UI implications. And so, in the attempt to prevent an irregularity, you create irregularities.

In the past, this was illegal, but you were allowed to opt out, and the ACBL (and, I think, no one else) did so.In the latest version of the vase, asking became the default and you could opt out and make it illegal. But now there is no penalty, at least not in the Laws, though I imagine an NBO could impose one. I don’t think any NBO has chosen to do that, so the world is now like the ACBL. But in the EBU and in most countries that I play in, defenders do not ask each other.

But anyway the reason for the change in the Laws is inexplicable. The ACBL were already getting their way, and I would guess that most of them do not play bridge in other countries with any frequency.

Quote

I think the biggest justification that the laws are low quality is in the fact that the majority of players don't know the laws. They're too complicated, and convoluted, such that only an expert in them can properly enforce them. But, players ultimately end up having a large influence in when they are enforced, because it's players that call the director. I know it's a pipe dream, but, I'd like it if the laws were calibrated to simply accept

The laws are not particularly complicated or convoluted. The trouble is that they are written in a dialect of Kaplanese known as Grattanese, so no one knows what they are really trying to say. And translations have even worse problems; the lawmakers decided that the laws were a literary rather than a technical work, so they will use a synonym to avoid repeating the same word, will use the passive voice, embedded clauses and more.

Quote

irregularities completely distort the hand, and should not be rectified but instead simply penalized or the result adjusted.

Another change which dismayed and disappointed many of us. I would love to see a volunteer playing director make a correct ruling on a “comparable call”. Or in fact any director who was not a keen student of the system and style of the players in question.

Quote

I'm sure many will have good counter-arguments for why I'm wrong, but, this has been a source of frustration for me in the last year. I'd be interested to hear some counter-arguments and commentary on why it is how it is.

“Why” is probably the fact that the appointed-for-life lawmakers have not played in a bridge club in decades, nor had any contact with directors other than non-playing paid directors at the national/international level. Or it could be that they are just taking the piss.

[KingCovert]

Vampyr, on 2020-July-15, 16:00, said:

Most irregularities are impossible in online bridge. But in live bridge, players should not have to put up with insufficient bids, calls or plays out of turn, etc. And how do you play on after a revoke? In any case, a volunteer playing director cannot be expected to restore equity for any hand that included an irregularity? And what is equity? Is it the same for the player who can be expected to find the entry-shifting double squeeze as it is for the player who can barely count to 13?

Yeah, unsurprisingly you raise some good counter points. I have no issue with rulings during the bidding phase as I think that all the relevant information is public and displayed. It's the play of the hand that causes a lot of issues in my mind, because, there is hidden (or yet undetermined) information and recollection issues etc. When players have the choice (this is the key word for me) to raise an issue, I think this introduces problems.

As for plays/lead out of turn, I think, to the extent that these are somewhat obvious irregularities and fundamentally break the hand, I don't see as much potential for abuse or misinterpretation of the law here. Although, when someone mindlessly follows to that lead out of turn... *sigh*. I certainly don't purport to have all the solutions (and I know you're not holding me to that standard) to the problems of the law, but, it seems that the current approach to lawmaking is fundamentally flawed.

Vampyr, on 2020-July-15, 16:00, said:

I am not sure what you are trying to say here. A card faced due to mechanical error is a played card, online or in live bridge. Unless it is dropped or two cards are played at once.

I guess, I was just simply trying to say that, it's faced, it's played, and outside of a lead/play out of turn (where there is be the ability to accept/reject or have it as a penalty card) it should be established without exception or possibility for even the director to allow correction of it. I think it simplifies the law somewhat. Or, perhaps, it simplifies the ways that players will interface with the law? Something like this. Perhaps it is not legal to do so, I'm not well educated on this, but, I have had directors allow for the correction of an accidentally faced card due to mechanical error.

Vampyr, on 2020-July-15, 16:00, said:

People should just follow the laws. Trying to be “generous” just causes problems, but if you choose to waive something, like say “just pick it up” for a card played in error, that is your choice — but you cannot later claim damage.

I agree with you whole-heartedly, but, I think the problem is that too many players are ignorant of the laws and this usually leads to more social solutions that center around what is perceived to be fair, as opposed to what is deemed to actually be fair. It's problematic.

Vampyr, on 2020-July-15, 16:00, said:

In the past, this was illegal, but you were allowed to opt out, and the ACBL (and, I think, no one else) did so.In the latest version of the vase, asking became the default and you could opt out and make it illegal. But now there is no penalty, at least not in the Laws, though I imagine an NBO could impose one. I don’t think any NBO has chosen to do that, so the world is now like the ACBL. But in the EBU and in most countries that I play in, defenders do not ask each other.

But anyway the reason for the change in the Laws is inexplicable. The ACBL were already getting their way, and I would guess that most of them do not play bridge in other countries with any frequency.

The laws are not particularly complicated or convoluted. The trouble is that they are written in a dialect of Kaplanese known as Grattanese, so no one knows what they are really trying to say. And translations have even worse problems; the lawmakers decided that the laws were a literary rather than a technical work, so they will use a synonym to avoid repeating the same word, will use the passive voice, embedded clauses and more.


Another change which dismayed and disappointed many of us. I would love to see a volunteer playing director make a correct ruling on a “comparable call”. Or in fact any director who was not a keen student of the system and style of the players in question.


“Why” is probably the fact that the appointed-for-life lawmakers have not played in a bridge club in decades, nor had any contact with directors other than non-playing paid directors at the national/international level. Or it could be that they are just taking the piss.

Interesting and disappointing to me as well. I've recently had a partner get very upset and decide to give up the game of bridge due to the nonsense surrounding how players like to police the game, and the fact that the rules allow for these inconsistent sorts of behaviours. We were playing at a really high level, so it was somewhat upsetting.

[Vampyr]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-15, 16:19, said:

Yeah, unsurprisingly you raise some good counter points. I have no issue with rulings during the bidding phase as I think that all the relevant information is public and displayed. It's the play of the hand that causes a lot of issues in my mind, because, there is hidden (or yet undetermined) information and recollection issues etc. When players have the choice (this is the key word for me) to raise an issue, I think this introduces problems.

They shouldn’t really have a choice. It is the duty of all players (dummy included) to call the director once attention is drawn to any regularity so the offending side are also to blame.

Quote

I have had directors allow for the correction of an accidentally faced card due to mechanical error.

Well, exceptions can be made if the player in question is disabled by either motor skills or eyesight. Or, of course, if the card is a revoke and the player actually has a card of the suit led. Otherwise the directors were simply wrong and I would have a word with the management.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2020-July-15, 13:27, said:

I can't see how one can equate a misclick of a played card to dropping a card, even assuming blindly that the player did not change idea.
Nor do I see why an undo is necessary for a genuine misclick during the auction, given that BBO offers a confirm mechanism.

All of the committee of the North London club thought the use of the confirm mechanism was tedious and time consuming. I would rather not play online than use it, and that is the view of many.

Trust is needed to decide on whether a bid is a misclick or not, and the laws already provide for an inadvertent call being replaced. There is no reason why the play should not closely mirror live bridge.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2020-July-15, 16:53, said:

They shouldn’t really have a choice. It is the duty of all players (dummy included) to call the director once attention is drawn to any regularity so the offending side are also to blame.

Quite a number of events online are matches set up by one of the players. There is no EBU director allocated to these, and you often cannot get a ruling until several hours later. This was board 7 of an 8-board match so they had to complete the board somehow. The Lockdown League is excellent and popular, but it inevitably requires the players at the table to play the hand without a ruling and then to request one later. If you don't accept a claim, then it seems that the only option is to play on.

ChCh goaded SB at the table by saying, "In a careless moment, I might well have claimed 13 tricks in error, but would then have immediately typed, "sorry I misclicked, it is only 12, and then ducked the opening lead."

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2020-July-16, 08:37, said:

Trust is needed to decide on whether a bid is a misclick or not, and the laws already provide for an inadvertent call being replaced. There is no reason why the play should not closely mirror live bridge.

Pescatom:

There is a good reason in this case: online play offers a confirm mechanism, unlike "live" bridge.

Vampire:

Even more reason that the play should “closely mirror” live bridge.

Sorry, pescatom, I have mistakenly edited your post instead of replying to it. So I had better address your other point.

How simple do you want the “Confirm” mechanism to be? Even the current one, ie double-clicking, is a bit error-prone.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2020-July-17, 06:07, said:

There is a good reason in this case: online play offers a confirm mechanism, unlike "live" bridge.

If all four players used a ccnfirm mechanism in the auction, and the three players used it in the play, it would add an average of 68 confirms per hand, or about 1632 confirms per 24 board session. Assuming is takes five seconds for the player to look at the screen, establish that this is the bid or play he wanted, and then click the appropriate button, that would add 136 minutes to the session; unacceptable. In addition, if every contested claim required a TD call, then that would add about 5 minutes per TD ruling as he has to go through the play and establish what happened.

For online play, I would remove the ability to confirm, and I would also remove the right to call the TD for a claim. The occasional case where the declarer is jolted into realising what possible way there is to go off are insignificant.

[KingCovert]

I guess, considering how claims are supposed to be conducted you could find an interesting ruling...

You could quite easily argue that the initial claim of 13 tricks and the requested undo strongly suggests a line of play. Declarer failed to provide a line of play when claiming, and in the absence of a state line of play, it may well be up to the review board to determine what line of play they feel Declarer intended when claiming 13 tricks. Upon further consideration, it actually seems rather unreasonable to me to award 6NT=.

I think our thought process is being somewhat polluted by how we know claims to be treated on BBO, as opposed to how claims are supposed to be treated under the law. It's my understanding that a line of play is required? Am I correct?

Quote

ChCh goaded SB at the table by saying, "In a careless moment, I might well have claimed 13 tricks in error, but would then have immediately typed, "sorry I misclicked, it is only 12, and then ducked the opening lead."

Given the consecutive failures by Declarer, I think such a description is not only unbelievable, but, I'd say leans towards dishonest. I'd be shocked if either RR or ChCh dared to issue an objection to a ruling that was 6NT-1.

[blackshoe]

KingCovert, on 2020-July-17, 10:43, said:

You could quite easily argue that the initial claim of 13 tricks and the requested undo strongly suggests a line of play. Declarer failed to provide a line of play when claiming, and in the absence of a state line of play, it may well be up to the review board to determine what line of play they feel Declarer intended when claiming 13 tricks.

In the absence of a stated line the question is not "what line do we feel declarer intended?" but "Is there a normal line that fails?" Also that determination is to be made by reason, not feeling.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2020-July-17, 09:44, said:

If all four players used a ccnfirm mechanism in the auction, and the three players used it in the play, it would add an average of 68 confirms per hand, or about 1632 confirms per 24 board session. Assuming is takes five seconds for the player to look at the screen, establish that this is the bid or play he wanted, and then click the appropriate button, that would add 136 minutes to the session; unacceptable. In addition, if every contested claim required a TD call, then that would add about 5 minutes per TD ruling as he has to go through the play and establish what happened.

For online play, I would remove the ability to confirm, and I would also remove the right to call the TD for a claim. The occasional case where the declarer is jolted into realising what possible way there is to go off are insignificant.

I confirm every bid and play, and finish hands and sessions in the normal amount of time. Also, if the event has a director, there is no reason not to call him or her for a claim.

Quit suggesting solutions looking for a problem.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2020-July-17, 22:05, said:

I confirm every bid and play, and finish hands and sessions in the normal amount of time. Also, if the event has a director, there is no reason not to call him or her for a claim.

Only tournaments have a TD. Matches generally don't. And everyone I have asked think that confirming every play is a waste of time. Those that use it confirm without even looking at the bid or play.

[blackshoe]

Quote

Law80B2{a}: If there is no appointed Director the players should designate a person to perform his functions.

Failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction of law.