[gordontd]

nige1, on 2016-January-17, 11:30, said:

Directors rarely seem to take such considerations into account.

Rarely? Once again Nigel's exaggeration undermines whatever validity his main argument might have had.

[helene_t]

barmar, on 2016-January-15, 09:55, said:

We've all been playing for long times, has anyone ever experienced a situation like this?

I remember one hand where South (who happened to be dealer) had a pass card left over from the previous board, and the other three assumed she had played it in this current auction. When W passed, S did not object - maybe S thought that W must have been dealer since W started the auction. When everyone except for S started picking up thier hands, S noticed. We allowed S to open and took it from their, calling the director would have made little sense as the director was not someone who would have known how to handle such a situation.

Fortunately, nobody had started the post-mortem or displayed their hand in the meantime so it was not a big deal.

It has also happened quite a few time that someone half asleep failed to open an 18-count or such, in that case it has never been a discussion we just entered it as a passout. Of course if someone reaches for the stop card but accidentally picks a pass card she is allowed to restore it, but in that case it has always been noted immediately.

[pran]

helene_t, on 2016-January-22, 09:59, said:

I remember one hand where South (who happened to be dealer) had a pass card left over from the previous board, and the other three assumed she had played it in this current auction. When W passed, S did not object - maybe S thought that W must have been dealer since W started the auction. When everyone except for S started picking up thier hands, S noticed. We allowed S to open and took it from their, calling the director would have made little sense as the director was not someone who would have known how to handle such a situation.

This an (at least 30 years) old question which, to my knowledge has never been fully resolved.

One theory is that a player is fully responsible for the conditions at his seat once he has taken his hand from the board (whether or not he has actually looked at any of his cards). Under this theory South has passed, end of story.

Another theory is that the left-over call shall be treated under Law 25A, i.e. the call is unintended and may be withdrawn with no rectification provided partner has not subsequently called.

Which of these theories, or maybe even a third theory should apply? I don't know. But I believe most such situations are resolved with a laugh and "let us play bridge".

[helene_t]

pran, on 2016-January-22, 10:32, said:

This an (at least 30 years) old question which, to my knowledge has never been fully resolved.

One theory is that a player is fully responsible for the conditions at his seat once he has taken his hand from the board (whether or not he has actually looked at any of his cards). Under this theory South has passed, end of story.

Another theory is that the left-over call shall be treated under Law 25A, i.e. the call is unintended and may be withdrawn with no rectification provided partner has not subsequently called.

Which of these theories, or maybe even a third theory should apply? I don't know. But I believe most such situations are resolved with a laugh and "let us play bridge".

Interesting. I thought that it should be treated as if W opened out of turn and that North accepted it by passing so S now gets a chance to open in 4th seat. But what you said makes sense.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2016-January-25, 05:03, said:

Interesting. I thought that it should be treated as if W opened out of turn and that North accepted it by passing so S now gets a chance to open in 4th seat. But what you said makes sense.

This makes sense too, although it must be noted that if the error is noticed before North has called, West will not be penalised for passing out of turn.

[pran]

helene_t, on 2016-January-25, 05:03, said:

Interesting. I thought that it should be treated as if W opened out of turn and that North accepted it by passing so S now gets a chance to open in 4th seat. But what you said makes sense.

Vampyr, on 2016-January-25, 06:59, said:

This makes sense too, although it must be noted that if the error is noticed before North has called, West will not be penalised for passing out of turn.

As far as West is concerned he has made his call in turn following a call apparently made by South in his turn as the dealer.
There is no way any kind of charge can be made against West in this situation.
(Whether or not North subsequently calls is irrelevant.)

[nige1]

nige1, on 2016-January-17, 11:30, said:

Directors rarely seem to take such considerations into account... In practice, rather than open themselves to accusations of bias, directors seem to rule "slip of the hand" in cases like this.

gordontd, on 2016-January-17, 22:45, said:

Rarely? Once again Nigel's exaggeration undermines whatever validity his main argument might have had.

If directors do take such considerations into account, it rarely seems to affect their rulings. In my experience, when my opponents claim "slip of the hand", the director asks them some standard questions, then rules in their favour (even with bidding-cards in different sections of the box).

Such rules penalize honest players, who are aware that their mistake was a slip of the mind.

[blackshoe]

So all your opponents are dishonest, Nigel? Sucks to be you, I guess.

[Zelandakh]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-25, 10:52, said:

So all your opponents are dishonest, Nigel? Sucks to be you, I guess.

He is saying that those opponents that are dishonest gain an advantage from it and that that is not a good foundation for competitive rulings. It is a little like "walking" in cricket. Once upon a time it was seen as the gentlemanly thing to do and almost everyone did. After some started not doing so and gaining an advantage from that, and particularly as cricket developed into a big-money sport rather than a mere pastime, the practise all but died out. Bridge also seems to have gone past the stage of being a game for ladies and gentlemen and perhaps the rules should be updated to reflect that.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-25, 10:52, said:

So all your opponents are dishonest, Nigel? Sucks to be you, I guess.

I think this is a little harsh. People are just as adept at fooling themselves as they are at fooling others (in order to do the latter well, it helps to do the former, to avoid subconscious tells). Whatever the original reason for the incorrect bid, by the time the TD has arrived they will often have convinced themselves that it was a mispull. They're deluded, not dishonest.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2016-January-25, 10:52, said:

So all your opponents are dishonest, Nigel? Sucks to be you, I guess.

Groundhog day No, as I've often explained that is not my view. I can't read opponents' minds. I guess some of my opponents are unaware of their intentions and judging by their behaviour away from the Bridge-table, the majority are capable of rationalization.

A worry, however, is that Bridge-rules appear to go out of their way to penalize honesty and reward infraction. Might this exasperate players to the critical point, where they feel that if you can't beat 'em, then you might as well join 'em? This might explain, for example, why so many players, at all levels, seem to flout UI laws. An equally plausible explanation would be that the rules are so sophisticated that players find them incomprehensible. I confess I struggle to understand them. If Blackshoe's experience is different, I envy him.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2016-January-25, 18:32, said:

A worry, however, is that Bridge-rules appear to go out of their way to penalize honesty and reward infraction.

They start from the assumption that players are honest. It's kind of like the "innocent unless proven guilty" policy in real courts of law. This frustrates people who think that guilty people get off on technicalities too much. But it relates to Blackstone's formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

But maybe that shouldn't apply because this is a competition: if a guilty player goes free, his innocent opponents suffer.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2016-January-26, 09:44, said:

But maybe that shouldn't apply because this is a competition: if a guilty player goes free, his innocent opponents suffer.

Precisely.

[pran]

barmar, on 2016-January-26, 09:44, said:

But maybe that shouldn't apply because this is a competition: if a guilty player goes free, his innocent opponents suffer.

nige1, on 2016-January-26, 19:52, said:

Precisely.

And that is why the laws now use the word "rectification" instead of "penalty".

[barmar]

pran, on 2016-January-27, 02:25, said:

And that is why the laws now use the word "rectification" instead of "penalty".

Good point. I searched through the laws, and the word "penalty" is only used in reference to procedural penalties, disciplinary penalties, and (most often) penalty cards. The latter is a traditional, set phrase that we're not likely to get rid of. (Reminds me of a recent letter to the Bulletin, where someone suggested we replace the word "dummy", because it sounds like a pejorative -- that's not likely to happen, either.)

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2016-January-28, 11:29, said:

Good point. I searched through the laws, and the word "penalty" is only used in reference to procedural penalties, disciplinary penalties, and (most often) penalty cards. The latter is a traditional, set phrase that we're not likely to get rid of. (Reminds me of a recent letter to the Bulletin, where someone suggested we replace the word "dummy", because it sounds like a pejorative -- that's not likely to happen, either.)

At least it's better than the French!

[nige1]

pran, on 2016-January-27, 02:25, said:

And that is why the laws now use the word "rectification" instead of "penalty".

Yes, that's part of the problem -- the laws fail to deter law-breakers -- and provide little incentive for victims to report them.

For example, a player succumbs to the temptation to use UI. Directors won't proactively "police" infractions, even when experts are fleecing less experienced players. Suppose, however, that the victims aren't bunnies, know the law, are still in contention, notice the infraction, work out that it damaged them, and are prepared to put up with the hassle of reporting it. Suppose, also, that the director believes the victims' version of events and rules against the law-breaker.

Even after all that, the law-breaker will rarely finish worse off than had he abided by the law, in the first place.

SEWOG and "weighting" laws further increase the reward for deliberate or careless law-breakers and reduce the incentive to report them.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2016-January-28, 18:27, said:

Yes, that's part of the problem -- the laws fail to deter law-breakers -- and provide little incentive for victims to report them.

Don't blame the laws. They provide for procedural penalties against players who knowingly break the laws. There's even a law that specifically says that you're not allowed to violate a law just because you're willing to accept the prescribed rectification.

The problem is with directors who are loathe to apply procedural penalties.

[blackshoe]

Hear, hear!

[nige1]

barmar, on 2016-January-29, 10:07, said:

Don't blame the laws. They provide for procedural penalties against players who knowingly break the laws. There's even a law that specifically says that you're not allowed to violate a law just because you're willing to accept the prescribed rectification.

The problem is with directors who are loathe to apply procedural penalties.

Some directors have never imposed a procedural penalty (except a verbal admonition). In practice, TDs rarely impose procedural or disciplinary penalties against ordinary players; and almost never against top players. Understandably, players violently resent them and TDs dislike the avoidable hassle (including the threat of law-suits).

Thus the imposition of PPs by TDs is spasmodic and inconsistent . Unfortunately, however, the laws are consistent in another way: There's no deterrent to such behaviour by TDs.

Rather than waiting for leopards to change their spots, law-makers should change the basic rules to include adequate automatic deterrence.