weejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:
- Prevention of pro-questions. It is up to every player to find out at their turn the information they need. If they get mollycoddled by partner then they will never develop. (Why haven't they been taught when and how they may ask questions?).
IMO, The TD needs mind-reading skills to enforce this unnecessary law
weejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:
- Insistence that victims protect themselves from opponents' disclosure infractions..This is normally qualified - in other words IF you are an experienced player AND asking the question does not provide UI AND it will not wake up the opponents then you are expected to protect yourself in cases of apparent obvious misinformation
IMO, it's still unfair and unnecessary.
weejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:
- Denial of redress to the victim who makes a serious error in the mix-up created by law-breaking opponents.
This is against the laws - the extremely serious error must be unrelated to the infraction. (Directors also look favourably at the non-offenders since they know that they are in a situation that won't occur at other tables).
Whether the serious error is consequent or merely subsequent to the infraction is often controversial. Anyway such denial of redress seems unfair and unnecessary.
weejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:
- Bizarre "equity-restoration" kludges to allow a player to recover with minimal inconvenience to him from a mechanical error (illegal or stupid bid/play like insufficient bid).
A mechanical error (making a call you did not intend by pulling out the wrong card from the bidding box) is fully protected if spotted in time(although there may be a procedural penalty if they find out their error due to UI from partner). There is no redress for a stupid play or bid. There IS potential redress if you can in fact recover from an insufficient bid/ call out of turn without providing your partner with additional information. This is basically under the ethos of trying to get a sensible result at the table rather than dishing out tops and bottoms (the removal of the best result at all possible, worst result likely has helped and the use of weighted rulings helps) - if you can't your partner is silenced for one or more rounds and lead penalties may apply (and if the information of the withdrawn call helps the offenders the director will rule back to what would likely have happened if the infraction had not taken place) (If the partner makes use of the withdrawn call and it is NOT comparable then rectification happens anyway). That seems a reasonable interpretation in that it gives the offenders a chance to recover if possible - and penalises them if not.
IMO the laws that cater for and allow players to recover from "mechanical errors" are unfair and unnecessary. They cause avoidable controversy and resentment. They reward those who claim that their "slip of the mind" was a "slip of the hand". Similarly, the laws that minimize inconvenience to players who make illegal bids/plays are too sophisticated -- especially the law about insufficient bids.
weejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:
- Denial of redress to victims who don't explain how they've been damaged. This is certainly not in the laws. It is up to the director to assess if the victims have been damaged. "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non‐offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists
when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred." Normally a director will ask question to ascertain how players think they have been damaged - answers will typically be "If I had known this I might have....". Directors will also try and work out the progress of the hand after a revoke to see if damage is more than one or two tricks. (Usually defenders/ declarer can spot when a running suit isn't as a result of the revoke) - at least they should!
I like WeeJonnie's interpretation of the Law but top gurus like Sven Pran seem to interpret/apply it differently:
pran, on 2019-October-27, 01:53, said:
If a player cannot indicate how he feels damaged then the Director should rule that there is no damage.
weejonnie, on 2019-November-27, 06:55, said:
- Almost all system regulations -- for instance alert rules. These are designed so that the other side can be made aware of any unusual partnership agreements - as is required by law 20. If you don't have alerts then you would have to ask at every call whether the call was natural or not. Of course having two identical convention cards fully completed would assist - and a TD can impose a procedural penalty if they are not. (for various reasons).
It would be simpler and fairer if players announced what their partners' calls meant (without the need to ask or alert). Apparently, In Italy and Norway, this is now the norm for most opening bids. So progress is possible. Eliminating alert regulations would simplify the law (especially for peripatetic players).
Thank you, WeeJonnie, for your polite, detailed and reasoned criticism. In the past, (e.g. In the Bridge Laws Mailing List) suggestions were dismissed as "bullshit". Nowadays, IMO, Bridge players are becoming more aware and vocal about perceived legal failings. Some of these short-comings result from the WBF concept of "equity" i.e.
restoration of the status-quo. As Vampyr points out, in many cases, "that bird has flown". Simplicity, deterrence, and a more common-sense idea of fairness are sacrificed to this so-called "Equity".
Help
Against South's game, West leads ♥9 to East's ♥A and declarer's ♥Q. East returns ♥T, declarer plays ♥K, and West ruffs.
East says nothing because West can't be revoking.
Judging that ♥T might be Mckenny for the higher ranking minor, West underleads ♦A to Easts ♦K. East returns a ♥ to promote West's ♠J and defeat the contract.