[pran]

pran, on 2019-October-03, 12:49, said:

Law 20F2 said:

Are we overlooking
After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to play may request an explanation of the opposing auction.
At his turn to play from his hand or from dummy declarer may request an explanation of a defender’s call or card play understandings.
Explanations should be given on a like basis to 1 and by the partner of the player whose action is explained.

So (as far as can see) the only information no longer available to Declarer is a repetition of the auction. He may name any specific call made by a defender during the auction and request an explanation of that call.

blackshoe, on 2019-October-03, 19:20, said:

Or he could ask for an explanation of the entire auction.

I tend to agree with you, but literally Law 20F2 appears to only allow defenders the right to have the entire auction explained after the rectification period.
Declarer may only ask for explanation of a defenders call. (Notice the singular form of 'call')

[lamford]

sanst, on 2019-October-04, 01:12, said:

For a high court judge he is badly informed. You can’t go to the CAS in a case like this. You can only ask for arbitration about a decision by an international sports union like the WBF.

He is entitled to go to the CAS if his appeal to the National Authority - the EBU - fails. I suggest that you would be less badly informed if you googled the appeal by Fantoni and Nunes to the CAS.

www.eurobridge.org/2018/01/10/4798

Judge: I've listened to you for an hour and I'm none the wiser.
[FE] Smith: None the wiser, perhaps, my lord but certainly better informed.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2019-October-04, 03:55, said:

He is entitled to go to the CAS if his appeal to the National Authority - the EBU - fails. I suggest that you would be less badly informed if you googled the appeal by Fantoni and Nunes to the CAS.

The Fantoni/Nunes appeal to CAS was against a decision of the EBL (Zone 1 of the WBF), not against a decision of the National Authority (FIGB).
F/N also took the related FIGB decision to the Regional Arbitration Court (a sort of High Court) in Italy - not sure if some equivalent of that is possible in England, SB should know.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2019-October-04, 01:24, said:

I tend to agree with you, but literally Law 20F2 appears to only allow defenders the right to have the entire auction explained after the rectification period. Declarer may only ask for explanation of a defenders call. (Notice the singular form of 'call')

Good point, but nothing stops the declarer from asking individually for an explanation of each and every call made by the opponents. Assuming he can remember them all.

[sanst]

lamford, on 2019-October-04, 03:55, said:

He is entitled to go to the CAS if his appeal to the National Authority - the EBU - fails. I suggest that you would be less badly informed if you googled the appeal by Fantoni and Nunes to the CAS.

www.eurobridge.org/2018/01/10/4798

Judge: I've listened to you for an hour and I'm none the wiser.
[FE] Smith: None the wiser, perhaps, my lord but certainly better informed.

The Regulating Authority in this case is the EBU and it’s decision is final (Law 93C2). Fantoni Nunes went to the CAS about a decision by the EBL and ABCL, not the Italian Federation. Besides, that had nothing to do with a director’s decision, but was about their ban and the prohibition to pair after the lapse of that ban.

[pran]

pran, on 2019-October-04, 01:24, said:

I tend to agree with you, but literally Law 20F2 appears to only allow defenders the right to have the entire auction explained after the rectification period.
Declarer may only ask for explanation of a defenders call. (Notice the singular form of 'call')

blackshoe, on 2019-October-04, 08:28, said:

Good point, but nothing stops the declarer from asking individually for an explanation of each and every call made by the opponents. Assuming he can remember them all.

Precisely !

[lamford]

The Appeal was heard during the Gold Cup Semi-Finals and I acted as a scribe only, feeling that I had discussed the hand too much. The expert panel did not agree that SB would have led the queen of spades with correct information, as this would save a guess when partner had Ax and would be disastrous if partner had a singleton king. And a low spade might well gain if partner had Jx. However they DID agree that RR's response was MI and that SB did not infract by leading immediately after it as he had no reason to suspect a correction from the right respondent.

However, the panel did agree that SB would probably have led a low spade half the time with the correct information and declarer's road to success was then unlikely. After winning the trump lead, he would have to play back a trump at trick two and when West switched to a heart, dummy would play low. East would win and play the queen of clubs. Declarer would duck in hand, ruffing in dummy, and then cross to the queen of hearts and lead a low diamond from the Kx towards dummy!! West is caught in a Morton's Fork and cannot defeat the contract. However, there were many pitfalls along the route here for declarer, and this path was the only winning one. The AC finally decided that the adjusted score would be 50% of 4S= and 50% of 4S-1, erring in favour of the non-offenders.

SB was impressed with this analysis, and could not argue that the expert panel were not his peers on this occasion, and he has accepted the AC decision as has North-South. The AC noted the incorrect procedures by RR, ChCh and possible SB in probably not leading face down, but did not regard them as sufficient to merit PPs.

And the AC agreed the above text, and that I am not allowed to discuss their decision.

[Zelandakh]

I think this is one of your weaker efforts Paul. There are so many reasons to rule against SB here that I cannot imagine any reputable TD thinking otherwise. There are not only the procedural points raised by CY et al but also the rather practical point that while the theoretical agreement is that it shows a void, the actual partnership agreement in practice is that it is a normal 0 or 1 splinter. I think you would have been far better served to have told the story the other way round, with RR having (incorrectly) bid 4♣ with a singleton and SB getting in the lead before ChCh could add the part about RR always forgetting after providing the correct explanation with a subsequent claim by SB of a CPU.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2019-October-17, 10:28, said:

I think this is one of your weaker efforts Paul. There are so many reasons to rule against SB here that I cannot imagine any reputable TD thinking otherwise. There are not only the procedural points raised by CY et al but also the rather practical point that while the theoretical agreement is that it shows a void, the actual partnership agreement in practice is that it is a normal 0 or 1 splinter. I think you would have been far better served to have told the story the other way round, with RR having (incorrectly) bid 4♣ with a singleton and SB getting in the lead before ChCh could add the part about RR always forgetting after providing the correct explanation with a subsequent claim by SB of a CPU.

The AC comments:
a) SB stated that Law 41A and 41B do not require ANY interval between the face-down opening lead and the facing of the opening lead, and it is NOT an infraction to lead face down and then face up in one movement, as he often does. It cannot benefit the leader, as any question by his partner can only benefit the defenders, and can be asked after dummy is viewed. The leader cannot change the opening lead (except on the instruction of the TD hence the infraction by ChCh in not calling him), so there is no purpose to any interval. Questions can still be asked by the declarer after dummy has been faced, so the declarer can never be damaged by the lack of an interval.
b) SB had, prior to the hand, already reasearched trump leads when dummy has a void in a presumed nine-card fit in comparison with trump leads when dummy had a singleton which is why he asked the question. The former worked (where anything worked) 41% of the time and the latter only 17% of the time in his survey of 3,176 hands on Bridgebase. He brought all this analysis to the AC.
c) The AC polled extensively with the correct information. Nobody led the queen of spades, so that (self-serving) claim by SB was rejected. However, 4 of the 10 polled led a small trump and 6 led a heart anyway. The AC did not consider it relevant what pollees would have done with the incorrect information. None of those polled found the winning line of play after the low trump lead.
d) The NS convention card was presented: 4C/4D/4H were shown as voids, and 3NT as any SPL. RR often plays three weak twos but forgets which three suits. If he announces 2C as "weak" this would still be MI, even though he often forgets. The theoretical and actual agreement was found by OO to be as per the CC.
e) The only clear infractions were by RR and ChCh, the former in answering when he should have not done so, and the latter in not calling the TD.

For what it is worth, I completely and unequivocally agree with the AC decision. They did a good job, and there was a "clear and obvious error" by OO who ruled no adjustment.

[Cascade]

Just because the SB did not have to call the TD because the explanation came from the wrong player does not mean that that was not an infraction. It was an infraction for RR to explain. After that infraction SB loses some of his rights to rectification under Law 11A.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2019-October-21, 07:17, said:

The AC comments:
a) SB stated that Law 41A and 41B do not require ANY interval between the face-down opening lead and the facing of the opening lead, and it is NOT an infraction to lead face down and then face up in one movement, as he often does. It cannot benefit the leader, as any question by his partner can only benefit the defenders, and can be asked after dummy is viewed. The leader cannot change the opening lead (except on the instruction of the TD hence the infraction by ChCh in not calling him), so there is no purpose to any interval. Questions can still be asked by the declarer after dummy has been faced, so the declarer can never be damaged by the lack of an interval.

SB says a lot of things. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. Almost always he's boorish, which gets annoying. Anyway he's wrong about "there is no purpose to any interval". Perhaps his claim is "the lawmakers screwed up, because we don't need a Clarification Period". Sure sounds like it, anyway. If so, he should take it up with them. Lots of things can and should happen during the Clarification Period, not just opening leader's partner asking questions.

[lamford]

Cascade, on 2019-October-21, 11:34, said:

Just because the SB did not have to call the TD because the explanation came from the wrong player does not mean that that was not an infraction. It was an infraction for RR to explain. After that infraction SB loses some of his rights to rectification under Law 11A.

I do not agree that SB had an obligation to call the TD when the wrong person answered. The Laws do not say that and if that happened all the time at our club, then the TD would be called three or four times a round, and we could not have playing TDs.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-October-21, 12:13, said:

SB says a lot of things. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. Almost always he's boorish, which gets annoying. Anyway he's wrong about "there is no purpose to any interval". Perhaps his claim is "the lawmakers screwed up, because we don't need a Clarification Period". Sure sounds like it, anyway. If so, he should take it up with them. Lots of things can and should happen during the Clarification Period, not just opening leader's partner asking questions.

SB's claim is that if the clarification period had to be a minimum time - say ten seconds - then the Lawmakers (or the RA) would have so regulated. He claims that a clarification period of 0.1 seconds, the time taken to lead face down and face up simultaneously complies completely with Laws 41A and 41B. The Lawmakers presumably didn't specify a minimum period because they were happy with a clarification period of a millisecond, as here, after the auction 1NT-(P)-3NT-All Pass.

I was a non-playing director recently at an Instant Matchpoint Event which I ran, and monitored the length of the clarification period on such a board (1NT-3NT). It was less than a second on average,

[sanst]

I think that it’s better not to bring in characters like SB and RR, however funny they are, in describing real life events. Just give the facts, because it’s almost impossible to ignore the bias you have created about them.
Call me thick, but I think that the AC took the wrong decision. It’s true that the Laws and local regulations may not stipulate a minimum for the clarification period, but if you ask a question but don’t take your time to consider the answer, you give the impression that the answer is unimportant for your lead. Self inflicted damage, I would decide. Hopefully the AC was not aware of the threat to go all the way in protesting by someone with a high social standing and the money to do just that.

[PeterAlan]

lamford, on 2019-October-21, 07:17, said:

The AC comments:
a) SB stated that Law 41A and 41B do not require ANY interval between the face-down opening lead and the facing of the opening lead, and it is NOT an infraction to lead face down and then face up in one movement, as he often does. It cannot benefit the leader, as any question by his partner can only benefit the defenders, and can be asked after dummy is viewed. The leader cannot change the opening lead (except on the instruction of the TD hence the infraction by ChCh in not calling him), so there is no purpose to any interval. Questions can still be asked by the declarer after dummy has been faced, so the declarer can never be damaged by the lack of an interval.

Whilst declarer can ask questions after the opening lead is faced and dummy displayed, nevertheless Law 41B says:

Law 41B said:

Before the opening lead is faced, ... the presumed declarer ... may require a review of the auction, or request explanation of an opponent’s call (see Law 20F2 and 20F3).

Note in particular the use of "Before". Whilst it is unusual in club bridge for a declarer to ask questions before the lead is faced and dummy tabled, he / she has that right which should not be pre-empted.

It is also possible for a putative defender to realise that a prior explanation of his / hers was "erroneous or incomplete" [Law 20F4(a)] in which case he /she "must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation." Such a realisation might be triggered by a question from the putative declarer whilst the opening lead is still face-down and thus before the end of the Clarification Period.

I submit that insta-facing of the opening lead does not permit these proper processes, and is therefore indeed an infraction as a violation of correct procedure [Law 74A3].

[blackshoe]

Pfui. SB is, as usual, full of it.

[weejonnie]

PeterAlan, on 2019-October-21, 16:26, said:

Whilst declarer can ask questions after the opening lead is faced and dummy displayed, nevertheless Law 41B says:


Note in particular the use of "Before". Whilst it is unusual in club bridge for a declarer to ask questions before the lead is faced and dummy tabled, he / she has that right which should not be pre-empted.

It is also possible for a putative defender to realise that a prior explanation of his / hers was "erroneous or incomplete" [Law 20F4(a)] in which case he /she "must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation." Such a realisation might be triggered by a question from the putative declarer whilst the opening lead is still face-down and thus before the end of the Clarification Period.

I submit that insta-facing of the opening lead does not permit these proper processes, and is therefore indeed an infraction as a violation of correct procedure [Law 74A3].

I am not sure that is the case per se - RAs can for instance insist the opening lead is made face up. Whilst I am 100% in favour of there being time for any player to seek clarification, I don't think there is a legal requirement under the definition of the clarification period, for there to be any time. I might be able to get a pp under zero tolerance/ BB@B under law 74a

A. Proper Attitude
1. A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times.
2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause
annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of
the game.
3. Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.

One problem is that the declaring side can no longer refer to their convention card once the opening lead is faced. (Law 40B2). This means that if they suspect they have given a misexplanation they cannot check on it. In such circumstances, I am tempted to award a split score (especially if it seems to me that the opponents have taken the action to prevent declarer from checking the auction as a 'gamble'). I suppose I could even rule that the action of the NOS in preventing the OS from advising them of the misexplanation is their own rectifiction Law 10B.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2019-October-22, 04:14, said:

One problem is that the declaring side can no longer refer to their convention card once the opening lead is faced. (Law 40B2). This means that if they suspect they have given a misexplanation they cannot check on it.

Is there any reason the declaring side should not say "I suspect our explanation was incorrect here, please can you check on our convention card?"

[barmar]

If there can be no delay between leading face down and facing it, what makes the opening lead any different from any other lead? And what's the point of requiring the face-down lead in the first place?

The Laws may not stipulate a specific amount of delay, but it's implied that there should be some delay to allow for things like presumed delcarer asking questions, catching a potential lead out of turn, etc.

[pran]

barmar, on 2019-October-22, 08:46, said:

If there can be no delay between leading face down and facing it, what makes the opening lead any different from any other lead? And what's the point of requiring the face-down lead in the first place?

The Laws may not stipulate a specific amount of delay, but it's implied that there should be some delay to allow for things like presumed delcarer asking questions, catching a potential lead out of turn, etc.

I believe most of us in Norway consider a faced opening lead before the leader has received an OK from his partner (meaning 'I have no questions') to be an irregularity although not often penalized.

If the laws were to establish correct procedure in detail I would suggest something like:
1: After the final Pass presumed opening leader asks whatever questions he might have (Law 20F2)
2: He then selects his opening lead and places this face down on the table in front of him.
3: His partner (and presumed declarer) now ask whatever questions they might have (Law 40B)
4: When opening leader's partner has no more questions to ask he so indicates by allowing opening leader to face his opening lead.