[lamford]

 bluejak, on 2012-February-25, 14:33, said:

Apart from the double PP for refusing to answer, the thing about this case is that it is a good example of how impossible it is to answer cases like this on paper [ok, on a screen]. But if I had to rule I would base my ruling on who North and South are, what North said when I asked him why he bid 2NT not 3NT, an so forth. One of the theories that has been propounded here and elsewhere by certain people with great regularity is that you cannot read minds thus certain rulings are impossible to be given fairly. This is a good example of why they are wrong: I would feel very confident after asking questions that I knew what had happened and rule accordingly.

While I agree that one should be obliged to answer questions from the TD, I could find nothing in the Laws which states this. The nearest I could find was a PP for:
"8. failure to comply promptly with tournament regulations or with instructions of the Director."
So, if the TD instructs the player to answer, then a PP can be given, but this goes against the right to silence enshrined in English (and much international) law for many centuries. Yes, I know that it is a game, not a court case, but the principle is there.

I thought it was clear from the options in the OP that it was a hypothetical case, and I expect this type of problem will occur a lot. Mr and Mrs Below-Average will just answer "it seemed the right thing to do at the time" when asked why they opened 1NT or responded 2NT. A CPU is the furthest thing from their mind, and in any case the opponents would do nothing different if they were aware of the CPU. Even if South had his no-trump range wrong, his correct 16B action is to Pass 2NT, because the Law is misworded. I am sure that the only LA for someone playing a 15-17 no-trump is Pass, and I would argue that selecting the LA that is chosen by 100% of peers is carefully avoiding taking advantage of any UI. Under the current Laws.

So, regardless of what South said, I would rule no adjustment. To the contract anyway. I sent the suggested adjustment to the Laws to the WBFLC, on Grattan's request for such suggestions on another forum.

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2012-February-27, 06:02, said:

I am sure that the only LA for someone playing a 15-17 no-trump is Pass, and I would argue that selecting the LA that is chosen by 100% of peers is carefully avoiding taking advantage of any UI. Under the current Laws.

Since law 73C says nothing about LAs or peers, I don't see how that follows. Passing is not carefully avoiding taking advantage, firstly because without the UI the player would have bid 3NT and passing instead is to his advantage, and secondly because of the regulation I quoted upthread telling us how 73C is to be interpreted in this case.

[blackshoe]

"This case"? There are three cases here.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2012-February-27, 06:02, said:

So, if the TD instructs the player to answer, then a PP can be given, but this goes against the right to silence enshrined in English (and much international) law for many centuries. Yes, I know that it is a game, not a court case, but the principle is there.

No, the principle is utterly irrelevant. When you enter a bridge competition you do so voluntarily, and you voluntarily agree to abide by the rules specified by the organisers. Those rules may well be different from the rules that apply in a court of law.

If you don't like the rules you are free to not participate. If you enter and then refuse to obey the rules, the organisers are entitled to apply the penalties specified in the rules, or to remove you from the event.

[campboy]

 blackshoe, on 2012-February-27, 09:22, said:

"This case"? There are three cases here.

I should have kept the preceding sentence to what I quoted for clarity. I was responding to the part of Lamford's post about the case where "South had his NT range wrong".

[phil_20686]

I really dont understand how anybody can consider an adjustment here.

South opened 1N, showing 15-17. There is zero evidence that he did not intend his bid as showing 15-17. North has a hand that many would bid game on, but it is hardly outside the realm of possibility to invite, and if south was not a strong declarer it would be fairly routine to invite. It would be even more routine in a field playing a weak nt, as south will normally pass after 1x-1n with 15-16.

I just do not understand why anyone is considering a ruling, did south make some kind of comment when it was announced? People open strong NT's on 13 and 14 counts routinely because:
(1) they were bored.
(2) they have had a bad board and want to make it up by being aggressive
(3) they have poor hand evaluation.

I just don't understand why anybody things that south did not intend to open a strong nt. Just seems like a normal board to me.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2012-February-27, 10:38, said:

No, the principle is utterly irrelevant. When you enter a bridge competition you do so voluntarily, and you voluntarily agree to abide by the rules specified by the organisers. Those rules may well be different from the rules that apply in a court of law.

If you don't like the rules you are free to not participate. If you enter and then refuse to obey the rules, the organisers are entitled to apply the penalties specified in the rules, or to remove you from the event.

When you buy a car, you voluntarily agree to abide by the rules specified by the government. However, there have been plenty of cases where someone has replied to a request from a speeding camera operator to name the driver and provided what is called a "PACE defence" (essentially the owner says he will not reply as he has not been cautioned), and so far there has not been a single successful prosecution when the owner has elected to be silent. I know, for I was that driver ... The fact that you enter a bridge tournament voluntarily is irrelevant. And any rules and regulations can be overruled by the law of the land. The Court of Arbitration in Sport would be the ultimate authority, now that bridge has been deemed a sport. I am sure that taking something that far would be OTT.

[lamford]

 phil_20686, on 2012-March-02, 12:25, said:

I really dont understand how anybody can consider an adjustment here.

South opened 1N, showing 15-17. There is zero evidence that he did not intend his bid as showing 15-17. North has a hand that many would bid game on, but it is hardly outside the realm of possibility to invite, and if south was not a strong declarer it would be fairly routine to invite. It would be even more routine in a field playing a weak nt, as south will normally pass after 1x-1n with 15-16.

I just do not understand why anyone is considering a ruling, did south make some kind of comment when it was announced? People open strong NT's on 13 and 14 counts routinely because:
(1) they were bored.
(2) they have had a bad board and want to make it up by being aggressive
(3) they have poor hand evaluation.

I just don't understand why anybody things that south did not intend to open a strong nt. Just seems like a normal board to me.

I completely agree with you. People do not believe in the rule of coincidence.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2012-February-24, 12:16, said:

If as a result of partner’s explanation a player realises he has forgotten the partnership agreement (my emphasis)

The player stated, in one scenario, that it was not as a result of partner's explanation but he remembered himself just after he bid. I cannot see any justification in Law for assuming this is not so. Indeed the TD has to make a judgement using 85A:
1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.
So, like a referee in football, he uses his judgement, rather than, as Trinidad opined, always assuming that the player's version is not correct.

[blackshoe]

 lamford, on 2012-March-05, 09:14, said:

I am sure that taking something that far would be OTT.

That's some understatement there, Paul.

[Trinidad]

 lamford, on 2012-March-05, 09:23, said:

So, like a referee in football, he uses his judgement, rather than, as Trinidad opined, always assuming that the player's version is not correct.

Get real. Trinidad never opined that you should always assume that the player's version is incorrect. So, stop trying to sell this kind of nonsense.

I will give my opinion right here: Trinidad opines that it is reasonable to assume that the player's version is correct, if the player's version is reasonable.

In this case, my judgement told me that no one would open the South hand a 15-17 NT, unless he miscounted. Therefore, player's version 1 was unreasonable. It is far more likely that South thought he was playing a weak NT. Feel free to disagree with my judgement.

My judgement also says that it is unlikely (but certainly not impossible) that South realized he was playing a 15-17 NT, just before North announced. Again, it is far more likely that South thought he was playing a weak NT. Again, feel free...

In short, if a player comes up with a story that is reasonable, than I will believe him. If a player comes up with a story that is hard to believe, I will not believe him if there is another, more plausible explanation for what happened.

In my opinion that is a reasonable way of trusting the players without being utterly naive.

Rik

[aguahombre]

 lamford, on 2012-March-05, 09:15, said:

People do not believe in the rule of coincidence.

Is there a "rule" of coincidence? This hand represents quite well why some people would like to see one.

[lamford]

 Trinidad, on 2012-March-05, 10:36, said:

My judgement also says that it is unlikely (but certainly not impossible) that South realized he was playing a 15-17 NT, just before North announced. Again, it is far more likely that South thought he was playing a weak NT. Again, feel free...

That was the scenario with which I was disagreeing. You wrote: "b) "That may well be true, but I obviously can't verify that, so tough luck." which sounded pretty final. As a TD I would find it very difficult to establish whether the player is telling the truth, and the Laws do NOT specify that the duty of proof is on the player who claims that he remembered before the announcement. Perhaps they should. I agree that in practice TDs adopt the approach of your original post.

"Trinidad opines that it is reasonable to assume that the player's version is correct, if the player's version is reasonable", is the right approach, I think. And I think that the player's version that he remembered just after opening 1NT, in one scenario, is eminently reasonable.

[fmsh]

a), b), or c) do not matter. North had noticed his partner’s reaction to the range announcement. Was it like “oops” or just a flinch does not really matter. There must have been a “tell” from South that stopped North from bidding 3NT. UI used by North is obvious. Thus adjusted score: 3NS-1.

[Vampyr]

 lamford, on 2012-March-05, 09:23, said:

The player stated, in one scenario, that it was not as a result of partner's explanation but he remembered himself just after he bid. I cannot see any justification in Law for assuming this is not so. Indeed the TD has to make a judgement using 85A:
1. In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect.
So, like a referee in football, he uses his judgement, rather than, as Trinidad opined, always assuming that the player's version is not correct.

It is normal practice that a player is not "allowed" to remember his agreement if partner's announcement provided the same information.

[Trinidad]

 Vampyr, on 2012-March-05, 23:25, said:

It is normal practice that a player is not "allowed" to remember his agreement if partner's announcement provided the same information.

Exactly. And this normal practice enables the TD to give the ruling that is most likely correct without accusing the player of lying. "We always rule like this. Otherwise people might come up with this all the time. I am certainly not saying that you would do that, but there are people out there who will. Therefore, we decide like this in all cases. Tough luck."

Those last two words I used already in my first post. I think they show that we sympathize with the player, rather than accuse him of lying.

Rik

[Zelandakh]

 lamford, on 2012-March-05, 09:14, said:

However, there have been plenty of cases where someone has replied to a request from a speeding camera operator to name the driver and provided what is called a "PACE defence" (essentially the owner says he will not reply as he has not been cautioned), and so far there has not been a single successful prosecution when the owner has elected to be silent.

This is actually untrue. The PACE defence has not worked since a ECHR ruling in 2007. Please do not try this if you are caught speeding, it will not work! On the other hand the Hamilton defence, where you claim that you cannot identify who the driver is despite due diligence in making every effort to identify them, is still available.

[lamford]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-March-06, 05:07, said:

This is actually untrue. The PACE defence has not worked since a ECHR ruling in 2007. Please do not try this if you are caught speeding, it will not work! On the other hand the Hamilton defence, where you claim that you cannot identify who the driver is despite due diligence in making every effort to identify them, is still available.

Yes, you are right, as I see from the site www.pepipoo.com. My case pre-dated the ECHR decision against O'Halloran and Francis, so the defence was valid at the time. I note also that:

•Most recently the change in the law that results in the penalty for failing to identify the driver increasing to 6 points

is presumably an attempt to combat the Hamilton defence, as if the court does not believe the owner then 6 points can be awarded. And I presume the Huhne defence is to be avoided as well!

Still, since the Judges' Rules in 1912, a defendant has a right to silence, but since I think 1994 adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances. Certainly as a TD in this case, I would consider doing so if South answered "no comment".

And as an aside, on the speeding matter, asking for details of the service record and repairs to the camera, via an FOI request, is a good idea. They often do not get round to supplying it, and the case may then be thrown out.

[lamford]

 fmsh, on 2012-March-05, 23:02, said:

a), b), or c) do not matter. North had noticed his partner’s reaction to the range announcement. Was it like “oops” or just a flinch does not really matter. There must have been a “tell” from South that stopped North from bidding 3NT. UI used by North is obvious. Thus adjusted score: 3NS-1.

If there had been any UI to North, I would have included it in the OP.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

Why did North only invite with 10HCP, if they do play 15-17?
Even a weak player got taught, that with 10HCP vs. a 15-17NT, he has to bid 3NT.

a) if he did upgrade, than he is dead min, i.e. declining the invite is clear cut.
b) the annoucement woke him up, South cant prove the opposite, hence, he has a max.,
he accepts the invite, -1
c) you need to be there to decide, if this is a) or b), in the end, you try to rule
against the possible offender, most likely set the score to -1, and let the commitee
decide.

With kind regards
Marlowe