[barmar]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-06, 00:02, said:

Very interesting but am still not sure what intent has to do with applying bridge laws. There is no mention of intent that I can see in the laws, there is no premeditated or negligent extraneous information, and I imagine, for a good a reason.

The Laws mostly avoid dealing with intentional cheating, they mainly address procedural irregularities. Intentional cheating is handled at the community/organizational level (shunning, removing masterpoints, cancelling wins, etc.), not by the TD on individual hands.

[jillybean]

 barmar, on 2015-January-06, 10:45, said:

The Laws mostly avoid dealing with intentional cheating, they mainly address procedural irregularities. Intentional cheating is handled at the community/organizational level (shunning, removing masterpoints, cancelling wins, etc.), not by the TD on individual hands.

Thank you. It appears that we (as players and directors) should be concerned with the infraction and not so much on the intent.

[Vampyr]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-06, 08:25, said:

Have you played much bridge in NA?

Yes.

 jillybean, on 2015-January-06, 09:06, said:

Please explain how intent influences rulings. I understand intent would be important when deciding to apply penalties but I don't understand how it applies to the laws in regards to restoring equity.

Ignoring potential cheating, the main times intent matters are:

• When the "wrong" bidding card has been pulled out
  
• when an insufficient bid is made (bizzare, but there you are)
  
• When there is a question of a psyche or misbid (should IMO be treated the same, but they are not)

[Bbradley62]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-03, 09:35, said:

the question was inappropriate to which North responded with the usual "why? everyone asks those questions"

 jillybean, on 2015-January-06, 00:02, said:

The response I got when I brought attention to the infraction was "everyone does it"...

It's not clear to me (as someone who wasn't there but has read this whole thread) exactly what infraction North thinks "everyone does": ask out of turn or ask about a specific bid.

I agree with Sfi's post #63 above: I would ask whether North was aware that it was not his lead. If he wasn't, then there is no mind reading necessary, and he should just be asked to pay more attention (or confirm that it's his lead before asking questions) on future hands. If he was aware, and he has 1800 MP, then he deserves a penalty.

Editted to specify which one of Sfi's posts I was agreeing with.

This post has been edited by Bbradley62: 2015-January-06, 15:46

[blackshoe]

 Bbradley62, on 2015-January-06, 15:16, said:

It's not clear to me (as someone who wasn't there but has read this whole thread) exactly what infraction North thinks "everyone does": ask out of turn or ask about a specific bid.

I agree with Sfi's post above: I would ask whether North was aware that it was not his lead. If he wasn't, then there is no mind reading necessary, and he should just be asked to pay more attention (or confirm that it's his lead before asking questions) on future hands. If he was aware, and he has 1800 MP, then he deserves a penalty.

It has occurred to me reading this thread that perhaps what north meant was "everybody asks" what he asked; he was probably not aware that he was asking at an inappropriate time.

[Bbradley62]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-06, 15:40, said:

It has occurred to me reading this thread that perhaps what north meant was "everybody asks" what he asked; he was probably not aware that he was asking at an inappropriate time.

While that is "probably" true, the director shouldn't go with "probably" and should bother to ask the question.

[Bbradley62]

Jillybean: It's about time to tell us... how did your director rule?

[jillybean]

The director did not get back with a ruling until several rounds later so I do not know what was said to the other pairs here.
The board was adjusted to 6♥=, tied for top. The director said it had not been an easy decision and generated a lot of discussion.

Of course I m happy with the result but I would not have objected if table result stood as I was not sure that there was a LA, hence my post.

The board was played 22 times. 2x 6H=, 9 x4H+2, 2x 6H-2, I'll list the rest if its relevant.

[Bbradley62]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-06, 16:45, said:

The board was played 22 times. 2x 6H=, 9 x4H+2, 2x 6H-2, I'll list the rest if its relevant.

Since I think your title asks the relevant question: was South on lead all 4 times that 6♥ was played? North is not going to lead a club if he is on lead.

[Vampyr]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-06, 16:45, said:

The board was adjusted to 6♥=, tied for top. The director said it had not been an easy decision and generated a lot of discussion.

The director seems to have got it wrong but anyway -- what penalties, if any, were assessed?

[blackshoe]

 Bbradley62, on 2015-January-06, 15:43, said:

While that is "probably" true, the director shouldn't go with "probably" and should bother to ask the question.

Of course.

[Trinidad]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-06, 11:59, said:

Thank you. It appears that we (as players and directors) should be concerned with the infraction and not so much on the intent.

Apart from flat out attempts to tell partner to lead clubs (which is not merely dealt with by the TD or the Laws), there are various gradations of intent. Some specific examples for this case:
1) Innocent mistake: North thought he was on lead and asked the question at what would have been the appropriate time. No intent at all. No penalty, no warning, you might grumble that he should look at the auction.
2) Ignorance: North does not know when questions should be asked. You educate North, tell him why there is an appropriate time and a not so appropriate time, and warn him that the next time he will get a PP.
3) I don't care: North knew the rules and knew he wasn't on lead. He didn't want to convey a message about the club suit, he just wanted to know what 5♣ meant. He doesn't care much about the rules since everyone breaks them any way. Time for a penalty.
4) Taking over partner's job. North wants his partner to know what 5♣ means before he leads, but that @#%$@ partner always forgets to ask. North knows that this is against the Laws, but everyone does it. Penalty.
5) North thinks that 5♣ might have been alertable (rightly or wrongly). He wants the opponents to rectify their potential infraction before partner's lead. North intent was to try and play the game according to the Laws. You tell me what the TD should do.

Figuring out which of these five it is requires hardly any mind reading at all. The TD simply asks North why he asked the question and listens and observes North. If North "incriminates" himself (3 or 4) he believes North. If North claims 1, 2, or 5, the TD asks North a slightly uncomfortable follow-up question. The usual reaction for someone who made an unintentional mistake (1) is apologetic. Someone who doesn't know the rules (2) will be bewildered and might ask for a clarification. The usual reaction for someone who tries to get away with something (3 or 4) is denial, defense, or even offense. Someone who feels that he did the right thing, but is misunderstood (5) will try to explain his action. You ask one extra question to test your first conclusion and the "mind has been read".

Rik

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2015-January-06, 21:40, said:

5) North thinks that 5♣ might have been alertable (rightly or wrongly). He wants the opponents to rectify their potential infraction before partner's lead. North intent was to try and play the game according to the Laws. You tell me what the TD should do.

I'll tell you what North should do - and it's not "ask a question". If North thinks there may have been an infraction, and wants clarification on that point, he should call the director. Nothing else. So in order to enforce what "play the game according to the Laws" means in this context, the TD should explain it to North, and issue him a PP in the form of a warning. And make sure that next time North does this, he gets a MP penalty.

[jillybean]

 Trinidad, on 2015-January-06, 21:40, said:

Apart from flat out attempts to tell partner to lead clubs (which is not merely dealt with by the TD or the Laws), there are various gradations of intent. Some specific examples for this case:
1) Innocent mistake: North thought he was on lead and asked the question at what would have been the appropriate time. No intent at all. No penalty, no warning, you might grumble that he should look at the auction.

If this is anyone other than a newbie, I give them a penalty for not paying attention to the game.

74 B 1. paying insufficient attention to the game.

BTW, are penalties routinely handed out in the Netherlands or do players abide by the laws?

[Bbradley62]

 blackshoe, on 2015-January-06, 22:22, said:

 Trinidad, on 2015-January-06, 21:40, said:

5) North thinks that 5♣ might have been alertable (rightly or wrongly). He wants the opponents to rectify their potential infraction before partner's lead. North intent was to try and play the game according to the Laws. You tell me what the TD should do.

I'll tell you what North should do - and it's not "ask a question". If North thinks there may have been an infraction, and wants clarification on that point, he should call the director. Nothing else. So in order to enforce what "play the game according to the Laws" means in this context, the TD should explain it to North, and issue him a PP in the form of a warning. And make sure that next time North does this, he gets a MP penalty.

Whatever North does, whether it's ask a question or call the director, should be done after South selects a lead and places it face-down on the table. If either of these exposes an infraction, the director can take care of things before South's lead is exposed.

[jillybean]

 jillybean, on 2015-January-06, 16:45, said:

The director did not get back with a ruling until several rounds later so I do not know what was said to the other pairs here.
The board was adjusted to 6♥=, tied for top. The director said it had not been an easy decision and generated a lot of discussion.

 Vampyr, on 2015-January-06, 18:25, said:

The director seems to have got it wrong but anyway -- what penalties, if any, were assessed?

I am sure there were no penalties applied. I assume a PP would result in a score adjustment on the board in question?
Since penalties are not used in the games I play in, I do not know what they look like.

As far as a DP for my comment, the opponents didn't mention it.

[jillybean]

 Bbradley62, on 2015-January-06, 17:08, said:

Since I think your title asks the relevant question: was South on lead all 4 times that 6♥ was played? North is not going to lead a club if he is on lead.

The hands were rotated N to S when posted



200   20.5 0.5 6♥ W -2
200   20.5 0.5 6♥ W -2
100   18.5 2.5 5♥ W -1
100   18.5 2.5 6♥ W -1
  620 16.5 4.5 4♥ E
  620 16.5 4.5 4♥ E
  650 13.5 7.5 4♥ W 1
  650 13.5 7.5 4♥ W 1
  650 13.5 7.5 4♥ W 1
  650 13.5 7.5 4♥ E 1
  680 7 14 4♥ W 2
  680 7 14 4♥ W 2
  680 7 14 4♥ W 2
  680 7 14 4♥ W 2
  680 7 14 4♥ W 2
  680 7 14 4♥ W 2
  680 7 14 4♥ E 2
  680 7 14 4♥ W 2
  680 7 14 4♥ W 2
  710 2 19 4♥ W 3
  1430 0.5 20.5 6♥ W
  1430 0.5 20.5 6♥ E

[Bbradley62]

So, four players in your seat played 6♥ and, after the director's ruling, you were the only one who made it.

IIRC, you specified that RHO has 1800MP, but haven't told us much about LHO (who was on lead). Three other players were on lead to 6♥ holding ♣A; if they are your LHO's peers, we might ask them what card they led, and whether they considered others.

[jillybean]

 Bbradley62, on 2015-January-07, 10:03, said:

So, four players in your seat played 6♥ and, after the director's ruling, you were the only one who made it.

IIRC, you specified that RHO has 1800MP, but haven't told us much about LHO (who was on lead). Three other players were on lead to 6♥ holding ♣A; if they are your LHO's peers, we might ask them what card they led, and whether they considered others.

It was suggested RHO (1800) who comitted 2 infractions was just learning the game, I stated the MP count in response to that post.

LHO has 550MP. Of course I don't know if the directors asked peers if they would consider other leads, I wasn't involved in the decision.

[barmar]

IMO, the infraction of asking the question before partner has selected a lead is a very minor one. The player could have asked the same question at their last turn to bid. Bridge authorities generally recommend against asking questions if the answer won't affect your bidding, but there's no law against it (except "asking solely for partner's benefit"). If there's any UI, it's essentially the same in both cases.