[mycroft]

A collection of (what I can remember, both "happening last week" and "my history") firsts For Me. One of the joys of this game (both playing and directing) is that "I've Never Seen This One" never goes away.

I spent an awful lot of time this week nose deep in the Lawbook. While almost all of these were "I know there's a Law about this, what is it?" (the other thread being an exception), it was still strange to hit so many "first for me" rulings:

• First time I've had both sides revoke on the same hand. One player, twice in the same suit (which I have seen before). I mean, I know the rule, but I still had to read it Just To Make Sure.
  
• Not really the first time, but the first in a long while - a lead during the auction. Which when I explained he was still in the auction and needed to make a call, tried three times to lead yet another card. A different one each time. I eventually took him away from the table, which broke whatever bad track his mind had pushed him down. "Oh, you mean I can pass?" "Yes, or bid." "Okay."
  
• First time, however, that I've had that one *and* dropped cards in the auction twice, one that was a problem (a Jack) and one that was not (the ♦5).
  
• A result of the above, I've pencilled in a new entry into the index for the first time in many years - "exposed card during auction". The index wants me to look for "Card, Visible, during auction" and that's not what I look for. I was able to find it the second time, though!
  
• Surprisingly, it's the first time in a long time I haven't had a "home run" on OLooTs (with or without the "see dummy before playing", which for me is so rare I don't count it). Didn't get the "refuse the lead of the suit". (Unfortunately, I did get the "but he doesn't have to play the 4 on the forced heart lead?" I really do not understand why that happens. My spiel explicitly states "[force or forbid] If you take either of those two options, the card goes back into [player's] hand." Maybe there's a better way to phrase that?)
  
• Had to find the "if the Director determines the pair has no fixed agreement..." section for someone else. Yes, that ruling comes up a lot, but usually I don't have to worry about pulling the actual legal text.
  
• Had two rulings about "failure to Alert" that ended up being "well, yes, but that's not Alertable". One that was a little bit of a surprise to me (after 1NT-(bid), "card-showing" doubles are also not Alertable), one that simply was a surprise to three top-flight players, one of whom plays (and plays Precision) every big event for decades. Given that was "over an Artificial 1♣, [do not Alert] any meaning for 2♣", and they didn't believe me even after reading the document, I am a little boggled. Okay, yes, I do complain that top players "know how Bridge is Played, so it doesn't matter what the rules Actually Say", but it has been 5 years and several BW threads. Even europeans who never play ACBL know this.
  
• Two, count 'em, two *top flight* players explaining their bids *during the auction*, both out of frustration. Thankfully, except for the "that's really not on", there was no damage from either.
  
• I also got dropped in the soup for setup, layout and for other management decisions. Having said that, I was prepared for that, as it was "training". Learned a lot - frequently by not doing it right!

In other words, an enjoyable and worthwhile tournament. I hope the players had as much fun.

[mycroft]

Reading over old threads for a link reminded me of another - unfortunately not a first, but definitely amusing.

I have mentioned several times that I had a partner for many years (we don't get time to play recently, unfortunately) who is blind in his left eye. So, of course, I handed him the last board of the set, when the late table finally finished it - on his left. A couple seconds later, I clued in, and went over to the other side...

[jillybean]

Thanks for sharing this. Interesting calls and it sounds as if you were all over the place, AX and BCD sections.

To help us very green newbies, could you please edit your OP and add the relevant law numbers to the calls.
I would like to read the laws.

Thanks !

[mycroft]

Heh, I could, but newbies should find them :-)

64B(something), 24 (Note the equivalences in 50), index, 54AB (and C - didn't mention that one), D leading to 50D2 (and the "but why" of the last sentence) or D3, 74D, lotsa 16, regulations and, well, training. Oh and situational awareness.

And mostly not AX and BCD - I was in the teams room more often than not, so it was "Bracket 1" and "bridge players".

[jillybean]

Gee, thanks.

[jillybean]

• First time I've had both sides revoke on the same hand. One player, twice in the same suit (which I have seen before). I mean, I know the rule, but I still had to read it Just To Make Sure.
  
  64B No Automatic Trick Adjustment
  2. It is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, the first revoke having been established.
  
  Really! Couldn't this be used to their advantage by unethical, conniving, brilliant bridge players?
  
  
  
• Not really the first time, but the first in a long while - a lead during the auction. Which when I explained he was still in the auction and needed to make a call, tried three times to lead yet another card. A different one each time. I eventually took him away from the table, which broke whatever bad track his mind had pushed him down. "Oh, you mean I can pass?" "Yes, or bid." "Okay."
  
  I assume he was in pass out seat and hope all 3 cards were led face down? If they were penalty cards, declarer can choose which card is led.
  Did this really happen in Bracket 1?
  
  
  
• First time, however, that I've had that one *and* dropped cards in the auction twice, one that was a problem (a Jack) and one that was not (the ♦5).
  Oh! So the cards were dropped from different hands, otherwise they both become penalty cards. The partner of the player who dropped the Jack must pass at next turn and if they become defenders, you have to deal with potential use of UI.
  
  
  
  
• A result of the above, I've pencilled in a new entry into the index for the first time in many years - "exposed card during auction". The index wants me to look for "Card, Visible, during auction" and that's not what I look for. I was able to find it the second time, though!
  
  
• Surprisingly, it's the first time in a long time I haven't had a "home run" on OLooTs (with or without the "see dummy before playing", which for me is so rare I don't count it). Didn't get the "refuse the lead of the suit". (Unfortunately, I did get the "but he doesn't have to play the 4 on the forced heart lead?" I really do not understand why that happens. My spiel explicitly states "[force or forbid] If you take either of those two options, the card goes back into [player's] hand." Maybe there's a better way to phrase that?)
  
  I think this part is often missing and so players think they can force the play of the 4, or more effective, the play of the K over the A
  
  
• Had to find the "if the Director determines the pair has no fixed agreement..." section for someone else. Yes, that ruling comes up a lot, but usually I don't have to worry about pulling the actual legal text.
  
  I don't have a 74D, do you mean 75D, which refers back to 21B?
  
  
  
• Had two rulings about "failure to Alert" that ended up being "well, yes, but that's not Alertable". One that was a little bit of a surprise to me (after 1NT-(bid), "card-showing" doubles are also not Alertable), one that simply was a surprise to three top-flight players, one of whom plays (and plays Precision) every big event for decades. Given that was "over an Artificial 1♣, [do not Alert] any meaning for 2♣", and they didn't believe me even after reading the document, I am a little boggled. Okay, yes, I do complain that top players "know how Bridge is Played, so it doesn't matter what the rules Actually Say", but it has been 5 years and several BW threads. Even europeans who never play ACBL know this.
  
  None alerts anything in my game so that's not a problem.
  
  
  
• Two, count 'em, two *top flight* players explaining their bids *during the auction*, both out of frustration. Thankfully, except for the "that's really not on", there was no damage from either.
  
  So, a slap on the hand.
  
  
• I also got dropped in the soup for setup, layout and for other management decisions. Having said that, I was prepared for that, as it was "training". Learned a lot - frequently by not doing it right!

I am learning a lot by error, just setting up 2 x 8,9,10 table sections. Players have had long walks to pass boards at times.

[mycroft]

 jillybean, on 2024-August-21, 20:56, said:

[list][*]First time I've had both sides revoke on the same hand. One player, twice in the same suit (which I have seen before). I mean, I know the rule, but I still had to read it Just To Make Sure.

64B No Automatic Trick Adjustment
2. It is a subsequent revoke in the same suit by the same player, the first revoke having been established.

Really! Couldn't this be used to their advantage by unethical, conniving, brilliant bridge players?

Yes, but no. Remember that equity is restored on each revoke, including those not subject to automatic adjustment.

And that means that we decide if the second revoke cost the NOS from the situation where the first revoke happened and the adjustment was done. If they *then* would have scored X, but because of the second revoke, they scored X-1, we give them X.

But really 99+% of the (rare) time this happens, it's just that the club is *still* in with the spades, and the player still doesn't realize it's there, not anything nefarious.

Quote

[*]Not really the first time, but the first in a long while - a lead during the auction. Which when I explained he was still in the auction and needed to make a call, tried three times to lead yet another card. A different one each time. I eventually took him away from the table, which broke whatever bad track his mind had pushed him down. "Oh, you mean I can pass?" "Yes, or bid." "Okay."

I assume he was in pass out seat and hope all 3 cards were led face down? If they were penalty cards, declarer can choose which card is led.
Did this really happen in Bracket 1?

No, it was no pass. It did in fact pass out after, but it looked like a live auction and things easily could have continued.

No, it wasn't bracket 1. This was the Open swiss, though; and it wasn't anything nefarious, just 80-year-old brain temporarily slipping a gear. I've seen it before, I will again; the goal is to figure out how to get things engaged again.

There's a player here subject to epileptic seizures; when they happen they look just like this (but last longer - 15 minutes or so). So I've got an idea how to deal with it.

Quote

[*]First time, however, that I've had that one *and* dropped cards in the auction twice, one that was a problem (a Jack) and one that was not (the ♦5).
Oh! So the cards were dropped from different hands, otherwise they both become penalty cards. The partner of the player who dropped the Jack must pass at next turn and if they become defenders, you have to deal with potential use of UI.

Not only different hands, but different boards on different days. Just that I had one that was a dropped 5 and one that was a dropped Jack (and one that was played, see above).

Quote

[*]Had to find the "if the Director determines the pair has no fixed agreement..." section for someone else. Yes, that ruling comes up a lot, but usually I don't have to worry about pulling the actual legal text.

I don't have a 74D, do you mean 75D, which refers back to 21B?

Yes, finger error. But not 75D2, "which refers back", but 75D3 "no agreed meaning".

Quote

[*]Two, count 'em, two *top flight* players explaining their bids *during the auction*, both out of frustration. Thankfully, except for the "that's really not on", there was no damage from either.

So, a slap on the hand.

One didn't matter, and I'm 100% sure there was no provocation. I mean, they even told me there wasn't.

The other - Lose 10 on a partscore hand seemed like enough. Especially when, as the offender said to me when I came back after deciding there was no use of UI to get to 5♥x-2 , "we went for 2000 on the next board".

So, sure. But also a director's note or two.

Quote

I am learning a lot by error, just setting up 2 x 8,9,10 table sections. Players have had long walks to pass boards at times.

Never done that. Definitely not. Nope. Nor have I ever had A7 next to B8 just in case someone decides to jump sections, nor have I ever had two tables in two sections playing the same boards at the same time all day (not relaying). Nor many many other things you can look forward to doing wrong - and probably many many more than you ever will do wrong (remember, make something foolproof, and nature...)

[mycroft]

And, in proof that the Rule of Coincidence isn't a thing, we have a tournament the following week, where an equally experienced Precision pair is all up in arms that (1♣)-2♣ wasn't Alerted - and by G-d, the opponents (who never play against Precision, I am guessing) should *know* what's Alertable! - only to find out that they, too, haven't read the Alert Procedure in the 4 years it's been in force. And are willing to throw around "firing offence" for "this, I can mathematically prove, cannot change the result of the event in any way. We will not reconsider the ruling."

A reminder that this was put in because nobody who didn't *play* a strong club knew what was Alertable in the previous ruleset (or could understand why, when told), and all the Precision pairs who are now saying that they are entitled to opponents being perfect (except when they screw up to our advantage, of course) in their disclosure and agreements would complain that they didn't Alert properly before, and how are we supposed to know, and... When the average "Correct Bidding Lessons" player played against Precision twice a year, there was no Pre-Alert that the opponents are playing a strong club so they could review/remind their defence, and and and. So much so that those of us who played this "knew" that a 2♣ overcall, if you wanted to know what it meant, you had to ask, because you *couldn't* rely on them to Alert properly. Or don't ask, because you couldn't rely on the opponents to have the same opinion, and you didn't want to clear it up :-) (or both. Yeah, they wanted both.) If I could figure this out playing Precision in one of four partnerships off and on for 10 years, the people who play it in their main partnership for 20 that "didn't" figure it out - well, I am not convinced "surprise" is the relevant emotion here. Frustration, sure. But not surprise.

So, the committee said "you play Artificial, or 'could be short', minor openings? Okay, then, you know that the opponents may have odd agreements, and you know you needed to ask because they didn't understand the old Alerting. So, now 'nothing' is Alertable in these cases. If you want to know, you have to ask. If you want to keep them in the dark, you can - but there's no automatic misinformation from 'mis-Alerting'." Oh, and "you need to Pre-Alert these calls so that the opponents get a chance to discuss/remind themselves of their defences before the round starts. That should minimize the 'one thinks natural, one thinks majors' problem" (from both sides. You don't get your good results from "surprise! Strong club!" either. But you don't want to win that way, do you? :-).

And, because bridge is what it is, and the Other Site is what *it* is, "Who cares about the regulations, we know how bridge *should be* played", so serious, Flight A players just don't bother to *read* the "hey, look, Alerting has changed *a lot*, you should check and see so you're in compliance" new procedures - or maybe, to their credit, looked to see what changed in *their* requirements while glossing over what changed in their opponents' requirements - for *four years*. I'm not sure if that rises to "firing offence", but it sure rises to "you weren't misinformed. It's not Alertable. You want to know? You need to ask. Next hand, please."(**) levels to me.

And, of course, there are this "this is ludicrous. Of course there should be something that's Alertable, and of course it should be [what makes sense to us who play this 200 sessions a year], who made this stupid decision - and that's a stupid reason?" people. Who also, obviously, hadn't RTFR in four years (or my handy "changes you need to know" pamphlet)(*). The time to discuss that isn't now, it was when the people "who made this stupid decision" posted a preliminary chart to the *same place you're reading now* and said "any comments"? That same lack-of-Alert was in there (the phrasing is now better. I can take credit for pointing it out, but maybe not the sole credit for having it split into two rules. But it was right there). Funny, in 450+ comments, that section wasn't mentioned *once*. Clearly it wasn't a problem at the time. (in the "release to the world" BW article, Jeff Ford says this in response to a semi-relevant question:

Quote

The point is that once you are playing Quasi-Natural [m: or Artificial, implied in context but not stated] openings, you need to ask if you care what your opponent's cue bids mean.

Again, wasn't an issue at the time, it seems.)

(*) Now, if they'd read the bit about "yes, responses to Blackwood and Gerber are now [Delayed] Alertable", and got in the habit of doing it, and showing the weaker players that yes, it is required, so *they'd* start doing it, I'd be much happier. I *hate* "what's 4NT?" and "what's 5♦?" during the auction - and definitely "what's 5♦?" before the last pass when partner's on lead. Which somebody *did* in fact ask in the check thread, as a "this looks like an omission. Was it deliberate?" question.
(**)Yes, I know that there were other issues alleged that would complicate getting that response. No, I will not comment on that. It would have been *my* response, however.