[pescetom]

MP

---

F2F without screens.
EW are a decent pair, NS eternal intermediates.

East's bid of 2♣ was alerted but nobody asked for the explanation, which is taken for granted locally.
As is the fact that the bidding from 4♣ onwards is a control-bid sequence, not alertable in any case.
At the end of the auction North asks politely "Could you please explain your bidding?".
"1♠ 5+", "2♣ GF, may not have clubs",
"3♠ 6+, solid suit or close", "4♣ 1st or 2nd level control",
4♦ idem", "4♥ idem",
"4NT even keycards", "5♣ control",
"5♠ negative, denies ♦ or ♥ control", "6♠ signoff".
When they have finished South asks East "So 4♦ could be the Ace, but also just the King?".
"Yes, or a singleton or void for that matter".

North leads ♦T and South takes the A.
West easily makes the remaining 12 tricks and the score is entered.
East sees from his phone that all other tables made +1 on a ♥ lead, and calls the Director.
"North had a natural hearts lead and would not have chosen diamonds without the question by his partner", he argues.

If you interrogate South away from the table, she will say that she asked about diamonds because she couldn't understand why it was being bid as a control in first round when she held the Ace.
If you interrogate North away from the table, he will say that he chose diamonds on a toss up between the red suits and that he gave no importance to the question by his partner.

How do you proceed and rule?

[PeterAlan]

Why is S asking questions before N has selected his (face down) lead (see the sequencing determined by Laws 41A & B)? And N then has UI. Take it from there.

[pescetom]

PeterAlan, on 2023-January-22, 16:58, said:

Why is S asking questions before N has selected his (face down) lead (see the sequencing determined by Laws 41A & B)? And N then has UI. Take it from there.

Well that's pretty effective as a legal spoiler I agree
Although there are also some other legal issues, including a possible historical first for 20G1 (and if we can't apply it even here, then why was it added in the first place?).
Maybe there are more questions to be asked too.
Can we skip the poll this time?
In any case we have to rule (at club level).

[PeterAlan]

Surely it's a matter of Law 16B1, isnt it? S's question, asked when it shouldn't have been, creates unauthorised information for N. E (dummy) is quite entitled to raise the matter under 16B3.

E's use of his phone is a separate matter, and might depend on local rules (and scoring technology).

[sanst]

pescetom, on 2023-January-23, 09:29, said:

Well that's pretty effective as a legal spoiler I agree
Although there are also some other legal issues, including a possible historical first for 20G1 (and if we can't apply it even here, then why was it added in the first place?).
Maybe there are more questions to be asked too.
Can we skip the poll this time?
In any case we have to rule (at club level).

I don’t think 20G1 should play a role in the ruling, unless you have some proof that the question was asked with the SOLE purpose to benefit the partner, which might be near to impossible. But this is an obvious case of UI, maybe intentional, and a clear infraction of Law 41. Use Law 16B1a and rule +1 and a stiff warning to S and N or even a penalty. A poll is not necessary since the other N’s, who are probably of about the same strength, choose a hearts lead and N considered it too. And I don’t give a *** for their ‘explanations’, which smell of coffee housing, although maybe unintentional.

[pescetom]

sanst, on 2023-January-23, 09:57, said:

I don’t think 20G1 should play a role in the ruling, unless you have some proof that the question was asked with the SOLE purpose to benefit the partner, which might be near to impossible.

Sadly I agree: but to my eyes this suggests that this 2017 law was misguided and should either be reformulated in some "might have been aware" format and without the "sole purpose" criterium or scrapped. It's hard to imagine a more clear cut case of a question to benefit partner than this, barring an actual confession.

[PeterAlan]

pescetom, on 2023-January-23, 10:11, said:

Sadly I agree: but to my eyes this suggests that this 2017 law was misguided and should either be reformulated in some "might have been aware" format and without the "sole purpose" criterium or scrapped. It's hard to imagine a more clear cut case of a question to benefit partner than this, barring an actual confession.

That would be covered by Law 73B.

[pescetom]

PeterAlan, on 2023-January-23, 09:53, said:

Surely it's a matter of Law 16B1, isnt it? S's question, asked when it shouldn't have been, creates unauthorised information for N. E (dummy) is quite entitled to raise the matter under 16B3.

I agree 16B1 is the core infraction and the basis of adjustment to +1, although I think some other infractions should not pass scot free either.
E called TD after the score was entered and confirmed, so I would have thought he is fully entitled to raise any matter under 42B3.

PeterAlan, on 2023-January-23, 09:53, said:

E's use of his phone is a separate matter, and might depend on local rules (and scoring technology).

Like most others at the table he is running the national federation's scoring app on his phone, which is necessary for at least one person at the table and authorized (from a technical point of view at least) for all. The legal implications of this are an interesting question, especially as national tournament rules forbid the use of phones at the table and have not yet been amended. But let's leave this for a specific thread.

[mycroft]

I am so happy that travellers have been removed by automated scoring systems. Yes, the option still remains, but why turn it on? Especially when it causes issues like this one? (the fact that some tables will slow down spending 20-30 seconds trying to figure out whether they should have bid game, or back-counting tables to find out who went for 1100, or... is the big reason, of course).

But having said that, as all are saying, "South asked a question before North's opening lead asking about a specific suit bid, he got that suit led, it led to a lower score that otherwise, UI given, UI 'not carefully avoided', award the overtrick" seems obvious. I'm wondering about a weighted score, but "Reveley" is raising his head above the parapet, and I think it applies.

I'm *sure* that North didn't "take his partner's question into account". They never do. Not consciously, at least. But that's why Law 73 says "carefully avoid", not "pay no attention to" or "do what you would always do". That's why Law 16 talks about "a Logical Alternative not suggested by the UI", not "reasonable call or play". I'm not going to get on North's case about it, just explain the Law and why it's written the way it is.

South, if you weren't trying to get a diamond lead, why didn't you ask about 4♣? or 4♥? Or just "what does first or second round control mean?" Oh because you weren't looking at those Aces, I guess? And you didn't think it could influence your partner to lead a diamond? At least it was LHO that showed the control, and you weren't "wondering" about a control that would set the contract if led through.

I'm sorry, there's a reason the question/clarification pattern is the way it is, and if you've been used to playing fast and loose with it, here's where you see the downside. Know that there I'm sure were other times the inappropriately timed question "helped" your defence, but the opponents didn't notice. By the way, if you don't stop playing it lazy, next time there's an issue, it will be a procedural penalty on top of the adjusted score, and a forward of the case to conduct and ethics.

"Next hand please".

[sanst]

mycroft, on 2023-January-24, 20:52, said:

I am so happy that travellers have been removed by automated scoring systems. Yes, the option still remains, but why turn it on? Especially when it causes issues like this one?

You would prefer that the players don’t see the results till these are published afterwards? Changes are that they don’t remember exactly whet happened or accept the result and let NS get away with it. Besides, it would lead to a revolt amongst the members of our club
You make clear that this was a grave infraction of S, since he didn’t ask about 4♣. A stiff penalty is asked for. These ‘eternal intermediates’ as pescetom calls them quite often are very good at ‘accidental cheating’, like telling their partners that they should alert a call or asking questions at the wrong, but convenient - to them - moment. And I’ve no idea what to do about it, unless it’s so obvious as in this case. Calling the director causes anger amongst these players and they might choose to leave the club ‘en masse’, which is something most clubs over here - and AFAIK it’s the same in many other countries - can’t afford. You’re then the nuisance and might probably be asked to quit.

[axman]

sanst, on 2023-January-25, 02:58, said:

You would prefer that the players don’t see the results till these are published afterwards? Changes are that they don’t remember exactly whet happened or accept the result and let NS get away with it. Besides, it would lead to a revolt amongst the members of our club
You make clear that this was a grave infraction of S, since he didn’t ask about 4♣. A stiff penalty is asked for. These ‘eternal intermediates’ as pescetom calls them quite often are very good at ‘accidental cheating’, like telling their partners that they should alert a call or asking questions at the wrong, but convenient - to them - moment. And I’ve no idea what to do about it, unless it’s so obvious as in this case. Calling the director causes anger amongst these players and they might choose to leave the club ‘en masse’, which is something most clubs over here - and AFAIK it’s the same in many other countries - can’t afford. You’re then the nuisance and might probably be asked to quit.

Two observations to chew on.

1. S question was a serious infraction yet the TD was not summoned. The lack of summons infers was that there was no sense of improper communication; or possibly it was sensed that there was improper communication suggesting a D lead and W would not dislike solving his diamond problem at T1 (for all W knows the E clubs may be doubleton).

2. P>> East sees from his phone that all other tables made +1 on a ♥ lead, and calls the Director.

The presentation infers that the motivation for a ruling was the scores at the other tables rather than recognizing the inference from the timing of S question.

And there are inferences that can be drawn from the timing of summoning the TD: If S question indeed was a communication to lead a diamond, and a diamond was led, it would be known to the declaring side before looking at the scores. This suggests that the improper question did not so communicate, and not having communicated there was no connection to the lead.

Ps

P>> "North had a natural hearts lead and would not have chosen diamonds without the question by his partner", he argues.

Making such claims does not make it so. I am now curious as to the reasoning that it is anti bridge to lead a D; and so clear to led a H.

[mycroft]

sanst, on 2023-January-25, 02:58, said:

You would prefer that the players don’t see the results till these are published afterwards? Changes are that they don’t remember exactly whet happened or accept the result and let NS get away with it.

Seeing the score arrived at at their table is not the same as seeing all the previous scores, and figuring out who did what, and yelling at their partner about bidding game, and...

Also, players who play the hand later get a better read on the score, and if needed for "let NS get away with it", what if it happened on the first or second playthrough rather than halfway through?

Quote

Besides, it would lead to a revolt amongst the members of our club

I was surprised at how little frustration there was. Well, I guess because at tournaments we used pickup slips so they were "used to" not seeing the travellers. Plus the "get out 15 minutes earlier" was a nice exchange.

Quote

You make clear that this was a grave infraction of S, since he didn’t ask about 4♣.

Not really what I was saying. What should be asked, of course, is "please explain 'first and second round controls'." (As an aside, as they are still known over here as "Italian Style cue-bidding", I'm "surprised" South doesn't understand. Yes, they could be new. Yes, they may not be good enough to understand control cuebidding at all, never mind second round controls first. Yes, they could be "4NT says 'we might have slam, partner', and 4♣ is better because we can stop in 4♠!" players. As I said, aside). But having not asked the right question, and using a specific call to frame the question on, it's convenient that they picked the one the had the ace in, isn't it?

Quote

Calling the director causes anger amongst these players and they might choose to leave the club ‘en masse’, which is something most clubs over here - and AFAIK it’s the same in many other countries - can’t afford. You’re then the nuisance and might probably be asked to quit.

Well, blame the teachers for not killing the "calling the director is like calling the police" - and the A players for letting their righteous indignation show. And the director for not explaining "I'm sure you didn't think about this, but imagine...wouldn't that [cheater] do the same as you did, in all innocence? So, the Laws are written so that we don't have to judge intent. Here's how you avoid even the implication of shady behaviour in future."

I am the first to point out that a slavish dedication to the Laws and regulations, and serious crackdown on any perceived impropriety, leads to a 20 table loose game becoming a very strong, very Lawful, 6 table game. Check my history, I have _many_ posts about it. But those aren't the only two choices.

I also note that my seniors have made it clear that my major "thing to work on" is "you need more experience with the weaker players." So, it's a hard job (especially when you are not a weaker player yourself), and it takes patience and care, and is a skill different from the other TD skills. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.

axman, on 2023-January-25, 06:03, said:

1. S question was a serious infraction yet the TD was not summoned. The lack of summons infers was that there was no sense of improper communication; or possibly it was sensed that there was improper communication suggesting a D lead and W would not dislike solving his diamond problem at T1 (for all W knows the E clubs may be doubleton).

Well, yeah, I would absolutely expect that when the diamond lead caught the A, the director would be called at that point. But hey, it might have been that "cashing their Ace" was the only way to let the slam make, so why not wait?

Quote

2. P>> East sees from his phone that all other tables made +1 on a ♥ lead, and calls the Director.
The presentation infers that the motivation for a ruling was the scores at the other tables rather than recognizing the inference from the timing of S question.

Well, sure, the motivation for the ruling is they think they were damaged, and seeing the other scores pointed out how clear it was. After all, "cashing their Ace" didn't in fact let the slam make, in fact they have 13 tops except on a diamond lead. And if the NOS aren't good enough bridge players to work that out without seeing other tables' scores, well then they aren't great bridge players (or don't know the Laws well themselves). Does that mean they're not entitled to a ruling?

Quote

And there are inferences that can be drawn from the timing of summoning the TD: If S question indeed was a communication to lead a diamond, and a diamond was led, it would be known to the declaring side before looking at the scores. This suggests that the improper question did not so communicate, and not having communicated there was no connection to the lead.

Or the NOS have no clue how UI gets transmitted and used either, or what their legal rights are (see sanst above, "enforcing the Laws, or even calling the Director when this kind of 'accidental cheating' occurs will drive all the players out of the game." So it isn't done. So nobody notices what, frankly, they do themselves, until it's so obvious).

Quote

P>> "North had a natural hearts lead and would not have chosen diamonds without the question by his partner", he argues.

Making such claims does not make it so. I am now curious as to the reasoning that it is anti bridge to lead a D; and so clear to led a H.

Well, "everybody else led a heart" is a pretty good reasoning. I will admit that I don't buy it either, but it's there. Having said that, a heart is *a* natural lead, and when partner tells you illegally to lead a diamond, it basically becomes *the* natural, not illegal, lead.

[pescetom]

A quick reply to these specific points:

axman, on 2023-January-25, 06:03, said:

1. S question was a serious infraction yet the TD was not summoned. The lack of summons infers was that there was no sense of improper communication; or possibly it was sensed that there was improper communication suggesting a D lead and W would not dislike solving his diamond problem at T1 (for all W knows the E clubs may be doubleton).

Basically I would quote mycroft. I don't think we can infer anything certain about when or how E picked up each element of the chain dubious question -> UI diamonds -> diamonds lead -> actual damage or when he pinned them together. He's good enough to notice things like N not doubling diamonds, but people ask dumb questions for dumb reasons all the time, and it's only human to look at the traveller and see if partner could have done better. I don't see that it matters.

axman, on 2023-January-25, 06:03, said:

2. P>> East sees from his phone that all other tables made +1 on a ♥ lead, and calls the Director.

The presentation infers that the motivation for a ruling was the scores at the other tables rather than recognizing the inference from the timing of S question.

I see no reason to make such an inference from the presentation: East did recognise and complain about the question as the cause of presumed damage, read the line after the one you quote. The motivation for adjusting the score was the damage that occurred after the Law 16 infraction.

axman, on 2023-January-25, 06:03, said:

Ps
P>> "North had a natural hearts lead and would not have chosen diamonds without the question by his partner", he argues.

Making such claims does not make it so. I am now curious as to the reasoning that it is anti bridge to lead a D; and so clear to led a H.

It's an interesting bridge question and West may be over certain here, even though only a tiny fraction at national level chose diamonds.
But irrelevant to our ruling I would have thought, as both hearts=LA and UI=diamonds seem clear.

[weejonnie]

It seems a simple case of applying Law 73C1: you don't need 'explanations' or rationale or anything like that.

The comments suggest South is interested in diamonds: I mean the law is clear on that point (Law 20F3) - North must carefully avoid making use of that information so must not lead a diamond unless there is no logical alternative. (A singleton diamond for instance would probably be good enough.

Isn't it marvelous - for months there were hardly any Laws threads on BBO - now we are back to F2F the incidence is increasing.

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2023-February-08, 13:15, said:

Isn't it marvelous - for months there were hardly any Laws threads on BBO - now we are back to F2F the incidence is increasing.

Indeed. Although this particular incident could occur much the same on BBO or on RB without virtual screens.