[blackshoe]

TylerE, on 2019-October-31, 12:50, said:

It's not clear at all to me that any law has been violated (other than the LOOT). The EBU reg quoted doesn't proscribe any penalties, and "should" is not "must" or even "shall".

It is, nevertheless, an infraction to fail to do what one "should" do.

[helene_t]

I think the decision to give a PP should depend on the severity of the infraction itself, not on what consequences it happened to have on this board.

I suppose the level of experience of declarer could be relevant, though.

So a PP is probably a bit harsh. Maybe make it a general rule to give a warning. And then a PP the second time a seasoned player does it, or the 3rd time a novice does it? Or some such?

[blackshoe]

There is, iirc, guidance on the question Helene raises in the White Book, but I don't know if it covers this specific case. I do think a warning is appropriate for a first offense, particularly in a club, but I also think the director needs to follow through and give a PP in MPs or IMPs if it happens again. Otherwise, the threat of PPs will be ineffective.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-31, 09:50, said:

You are misunderstanding what “could have known” really means.

And I don’t think that there are many experienced players who habitually remove their bidding cards prematurely. It also seems that there was ample time for the declaring side to notice that the wrong player had led face down.

I am not sure whom I would require to make the opening lead, but I would not apply lead restrictions.

Good to learn that both you and the other EBU County Director at the North London Club who I consulted would take the same decision as I did.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2019-October-31, 07:19, said:

Again, the auction does not matter much, but I think it was probably 1S-(Pass)-1NT-(Pass)-2C-(Pass)-2S-All Pass. The person who opened 1S removed his bidding cards before the opening lead, but none of the three others did. The player to declarer's left, seeing just the 2S bid and no other bids, led out of turn, face down and face up after getting an "ok" from his partner who never asks any questions. I was called, and established that the opening bidder's cards had been removed prematurely, and I ruled that the opening lead now stood, and the correct declarer played second to the first trick after seeing dummy. The relevant EBU bidding box regulation is

"At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after which they should be returned to their boxes."

Was I right to deny rectification for the OLOOT, and was I right that the original declarer should remain?

Remarkably, two "simple rulings" in one evening at the North London Club, but neither was that simple to me!

I think you were right. Law 47E

1. A lead out of turn (or play of a card) is retracted without further rectification if the player
was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play (see Law 16C).
A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances and Law 63A1 does
not apply.

I don't think that the opponent 'informed' the player that it was his lead. In those circumstances the card cannot be retracted as none of the other exclusions in law 47 Apply and becomes an OLOOT under 47F (assuming you mean 'on the declarer's right') (I also assume that declarer decided to accept the lead and play the hand from your comments).

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2019-October-31, 09:50, said:

You are misunderstanding what “could have known” really means.

I have long maintained that SB interprets "could well have been aware that it would damage the opponents" much too broadly. He thinks this criteria is met if you could imagine any possible sequence of events where this would happen. IMHO, that makes this qualification useless -- if the damage actually occurs, you probably could have imagined it (Lamford manages to do so whenever he comes up with his stories). The loose interpretation essentially means that any time an irregularity leads to damage we would be justified in penalizing the infraction, because they could have foreseen it.

I believe that to meet this criteria, it's not just enough that you could imagine a scenario, there also has to be a reasonable expectation it could occur. I "could well be aware" that if I buy a lottery ticket I'll win the jackpot, but I don't think that this is what the Lawmakers intended.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2019-November-02, 10:58, said:

I have long maintained that SB interprets "could well have been aware that it would damage the opponents" much too broadly. He thinks this criteria is met if you could imagine any possible sequence of events where this would happen. IMHO, that makes this qualification useless -- if the damage actually occurs, you probably could have imagined it (Lamford manages to do so whenever he comes up with his stories). The loose interpretation essentially means that any time an irregularity leads to damage we would be justified in penalizing the infraction, because they could have foreseen it.

I believe that to meet this criteria, it's not just enough that you could imagine a scenario, there also has to be a reasonable expectation it could occur. I "could well be aware" that if I buy a lottery ticket I'll win the jackpot, but I don't think that this is what the Lawmakers intended.

The problems comes from the misprint in the US Laws, which have wrongly included the word "well" in the first sentence of Law 72C. "If the Director determines that an offender could well have been aware at the time of his irregularity" <snip> The correct version is without the word "well" in the Laws (deleted as shown), and it is hoped that when this misprint is corrected in the next US version, the interpretation at that side of the pond will be the same as SB.

[pran]

lamford, on 2019-November-04, 04:01, said:

The problems comes from the misprint in the US Laws, which have wrongly included the word "well" in the first sentence of Law 72C. "If the Director determines that an offender could well have been aware at the time of his irregularity" <snip> The correct version is without the word "well" in the Laws (deleted as shown), and it is hoped that when this misprint is corrected in the next US version, the interpretation at that side of the pond will be the same as SB.

I wonder, there must certainly be more than just a faint (e.g. theoretical or hypothetical) possibility that "an offender could have been aware" before invoking Law 72C?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2019-November-04, 04:38, said:

I wonder, there must certainly be more than just a faint (e.g. theoretical or hypothetical) possibility that "an offender could have been aware" before invoking Law 72C?

I think that the criterion is to compare the action with that of a “Probst cheat”.

[pran]

pran, on 2019-November-04, 04:38, said:

I wonder, there must certainly be more than just a faint (e.g. theoretical or hypothetical) possibility that "an offender could have been aware" before invoking Law 72C?

Vampyr, on 2019-November-04, 06:00, said:

I think that the criterion is to compare the action with that of a “Probst cheat”.

Please excuse my ignorance, bur what exactly is a "Probst cheat"?

[lamford]

pran, on 2019-November-04, 08:08, said:

Please excuse my ignorance, bur what exactly is a "Probst cheat"?

John Probst, founder of the North London Club (appropriately) is doing well, despite two strokes and loss of vision. We all wish him a good recovery. He created the example of ChCh, who had Kxx under ATxxx in dummy, and declarer with QJ9xx led the queen. ChCh played low, and "accidentally" dropped the other low card, making it now percentage for declarer to rise with the ace. This was much discussed by the late Max Bavin and others at WBFLC gatherings and the consensus was that the hypothetical ChCh "could have been aware" that his "infraction" of dropping a small card, causing SB to rise with the ace unsuccessfully, could well work to his advantage. They would all adjust.

In this case, it does not require much imagination to realise that removing the bidding cards immediately, when the last bid of the hand was made by partner, who had left the bidding cards there, but the first bid of the suit by your side was made by you, could cause a lead out of turn. And particularly if the leader was RR, partnering his brother BB, the Brainless Bunny, or similar.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2019-November-04, 09:08, said:

In this case, it does not require much imagination to realise that removing the bidding cards immediately, when the last bid of the hand was made by partner, who had left the bidding cards there, but the first bid of the suit by your side was made by you, could cause a lead out of turn. And particularly if the leader was RR, partnering his brother BB, the Brainless Bunny, or similar.

Even if I do imagine that it would cause the wrong defender to try to lead, I would also imagine one of the other two players catching it before the face-down lead is exposed. So for the damage to materialize, it requires several errors: the wrong defender tries to lead, and they either fail to lead face down, they insta-face the lead, or none of the other 3 players says "It's not your lead". This is too much of a coincidence for me to imagine damage occurring.

[StevenG]

barmar, on 2019-November-04, 09:37, said:

Even if I do imagine that it would cause the wrong defender to try to lead, I would also imagine one of the other two players catching it before the face-down lead is exposed. So for the damage to materialize, it requires several errors: the wrong defender tries to lead, and they either fail to lead face down, they insta-face the lead, or none of the other 3 players says "It's not your lead". This is too much of a coincidence for me to imagine damage occurring.

I've done it as a defender. The bidding cards weren't picked up but untidy, with the opening bid obscured.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2019-November-04, 09:37, said:

Even if I do imagine that it would cause the wrong defender to try to lead, I would also imagine one of the other two players catching it before the face-down lead is exposed. So for the damage to materialize, it requires several errors: the wrong defender tries to lead, and they either fail to lead face down, they insta-face the lead, or none of the other 3 players says "It's not your lead". This is too much of a coincidence for me to imagine damage occurring.

You diplomatically omitted quite a few other coincidences, such as the wrong defender not remembering the auction, not noticing that one hand had disappeared, not asking for it to be restored, not asking what the auction was, not calling the Director, assuming for some reason that there had been a transfer rather than a raise, his partner being similarly impaired, etc.

lamford, on 2019-November-04, 09:08, said:

John Probst, founder of the North London Club (appropriately) is doing well, despite two strokes and loss of vision. We all wish him a good recovery. He created the example of ChCh, who had Kxx under ATxxx in dummy, and declarer with QJ9xx led the queen. ChCh played low, and "accidentally" dropped the other low card, making it now percentage for declarer to rise with the ace.

Thanks for that, and best of luck to him. I confess I assumed it had something to do with payment of the preludes instead

[lamford]

barmar, on 2019-November-04, 09:37, said:

Even if I do imagine that it would cause the wrong defender to try to lead, I would also imagine one of the other two players catching it before the face-down lead is exposed. So for the damage to materialize, it requires several errors: the wrong defender tries to lead, and they either fail to lead face down, they insta-face the lead, or none of the other 3 players says "It's not your lead". This is too much of a coincidence for me to imagine damage occurring.

The fact that it did occur at the table means that you could have been aware it would occur. I agree that it is too far-fetched to say that you could well have been aware it would occur, but that is not the test in the UK, only in the US. 'Could well have been aware' would require more than pran's "faint chance". 'Could have been aware' does not.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2019-November-04, 04:01, said:

The problems comes from the misprint in the US Laws, which have wrongly included the word "well" in the first sentence of Law 72C. "If the Director determines that an offender could well have been aware at the time of his irregularity" <snip> The correct version is without the word "well" in the Laws (deleted as shown), and it is hoped that when this misprint is corrected in the next US version, the interpretation at that side of the pond will be the same as SB.

My first reaction to this was "What? First time I've heard of this." So I looked at the WBF version of the law book, from their website, and my (pdf) copy of the ACBL version. Then I looked at my hard copy of the ACBL version. All three are identical. None of them have the word "well" in that position in the sentence you (partially) quoted. The word does appear later in the sentence, in all three versions I checked. That part of the sentence is "that it could well damage the non-offending side". Not entirely sure how to parse that.

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2019-November-04, 17:56, said:

My first reaction to this was "What? First time I've heard of this." So I looked at the WBF version of the law book, from their website, and my (pdf) copy of the ACBL version. Then I looked at my hard copy of the ACBL version. All three are identical. None of them have the word "well" in that position in the sentence you (partially) quoted. The word does appear later in the sentence, in all three versions I checked. That part of the sentence is "that it could well damage the non-offending side". Not entirely sure how to parse that.

How very odd. I jumped to the conclusion that barmar had it right when he wrote:

barmar, on 2019-November-02, 10:58, said:

I have long maintained that SB interprets "could well have been aware that it would damage the opponents" much too broadly.

Not having easy access to the ACBL version, I foolishly thought there was a misprint rather than an error by the normally reliable barmar.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2019-November-06, 04:56, said:

How very odd. I jumped to the conclusion that barmar had it right when he wrote:

You give me too much credit, my quote was from memory -- I thought I'd seen the phrase countless times in past discussions.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2019-November-04, 15:20, said:

The fact that it did occur at the table means that you could have been aware it would occur.

People win the lottery. Is it really likely enough that they "could have been aware it would occur"?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2019-November-06, 10:55, said:

People win the lottery. Is it really likely enough that they "could have been aware it would occur"?

If you buy a lottery ticket, you are aware that you could win (but not "could well win"), or otherwise you would not buy one. Now if you don't ...

Reminds me of a joke from a Jewish friend:

Itzik had never won the lottery. He addressed God directly: “Lord, please remember how my entire life is devoted to You and to doing good for my fellow man. Please heed my call and make me a winner.” When next week’s winners were announced again he wasn’t among them. This time Itzik was bereft and addressed God again: “Lord, I don’t understand why you haven’t answered my prayer. Don’t you understand how much good I can do if you make me a winner? What on earth can I have done wrong to again be a loser?”

A booming voice from heaven replied: “Itzik, BUY A TICKET!!”