Home EBU TDs

Mistaken Explanation or Mistaken Play

From an On-Line game played privately.
West leads a Spade, East discards 9H.
South - West Chat 'What does that mean?'
West - South 'It shows interest in Hearts.'
Declarer goes one-off: East had no interest in H.
South not happy: claims misled, alternative line of play etc

The Captains agreed the result of the board should stand.
And posted the match result. (It was a Club on-line League)
South still unhappy. Asked for a ruling; which is when the matter came to me.

This raises a number of issues, not all of which are covered in the SkyBlue Book.

1) Who should answer questions about discards?
Partner of Discarder as in F2F, or Discarder (analagous to self-alerting)?
2) It appears from the SkyBlue Book that South is too late to appeal the Captains' decision.
Is that right? (technically and is it fair?)
3) East thought the discard system was count.
West believed he had explained the discard correctly, although he 'knows' East has mis-carded.
There appears to be no carding equivalent to Law 75.

and not specifically related to this incident
4) I presume an self alerting bidder continues to answer questions about his bids after the auction has ended.
Eg. Leader wants to know more before playing a card.

Comments

  • edited May 2020

    This is my thinking which I worked through largely for the practice
    I look forwarded to being corrected if I am wrong....

    Who should answer questions about discards?

    • Best done by Private Chat to the player who made the discard.

    Is it too late to appeal the Captains' decision?

    • The SKy-Blue book (3.4) mentions a 20 minute period for rulings and scoring errors, and in (2.4) states the same
    • time limit for appeals.
    • But SBB 3.5 mentions WB 5.2.1 and WB 5.2 states that the time limits in 5.2.1 apply unless tournament organiser
      has stated otherwise.

    • So your player might be in time to appeal depending on the Competition Regulations set by the organiser

    Can a player appeal their Captain's decision?

    • Law 92 D 2 states that a player may not appeal unless his captain concurs in making the appeal...

    There appears to be no carding equivalent to Law 75.

    • I think Law 75 applies to explanations of carding systems as well as bidding ones,
    • In this case West gave what he believed was their agreement, and claims East just forgot the agreement
    • If the appeal is valid and in time I'd suggest you need to look for evidence of their agreement (convention card,
      email history?).

    • If they actually had no agreement, or had agreed Count, then that is what West should have said, and by not doing
      so gave misinformation. If this misinformation damaged N/S then they are entitled to an adjusted score if they
      appealed in time.

    Yes a self-alerting bidder should continue to answer questions about their bidding, even during the play

    Peter Bushby Suffolk

  • The Captains agreed the result of the board should stand.

    There is no appeal of a ruling agreed by the two captains in a match played privately.
    The SkyBlueBook (in 3.5) defers to General Regulations – Rulings & Appeals
    in Matches Played Privately Online (which was also released on Thursday).

    4 When a ruling of the first instance is required
    If a ruling of the first instance is required, one of the procedures outlined below should be followed:
    a) Captains agree upon an outcome.

    and

    7 Appeals Procedures
    A ruling made under the provisions of Section 4 (b), (c) or (d) above may be appealed by either captain

    So captains can not appeal against a ruling they agreed under 4(a).

    Players cannot appeal the captains' decision because the captains have to concur in the appeal (in law)

  • Regarding Mike’s first paragraph.

    MikeK: “From an On-Line game played privately.West leads a Spade, East discards 9H. South - West Chat 'What does that mean?' West - South 'It shows interest in Hearts.' Declarer goes one-off: East had no interest in H. South not happy: claims misled, alternative line of play etc”

    My understanding is Discards are for information and not an instruction.
    I agree the correct information regarding Discards should be given when asked.
    However, if East has very little in his hand, then it seems reasonable he should try to mislead Declarer (and his own partner) if he thinks partner may have the Qh (say), to defeat the contract by trying to get declarer to take a finesse the wrong way.
    So on the assumption West correctly explained their discarding method, I see no reason for an appeal. (The opposite may apply if West deliberately misled Declarer)
  • My first thought was to apply Law 75, but oddly, it applies only to the bidding, not to the play (even though Law 40, the law concerning disclosure of agreements, applies to the play in addition to the bidding).

    So I think the relevant laws here are Law 40B3a, which requires the meaning of the play to be disclosed, and Law 20F2 to allow declarer to ask the question. My reading of Laws 20F2 and 40B2a is that the Regulating Authority (e.g. the EBU, or BBO) defines how convention cards and alerts work; thus it's reasonable for BBO or EBU to request self-alerting rather than alerting partner's calls; however, questions are always submitted to the partner of the player who made the action. So I think you need to ask the partner of the defender who discarded.

    Law 40B3a is misworded; it apparently requires the meaning of the play to be disclosed, rather than the agreed meaning of the play. So on a literal reading of it, the score should be adjusted. This looks like a typo/thinko in the Laws to me, rather than an actual requirement. Assuming it were corrected to be consistent with the other laws about agreement disclosure, then we need to determine whether the agreed meaning has been correctly disclosed or not. For disclosure of calls, Law 21B1b means that the Director should by default rule against the side who explained the call unless they can prove that the explanation was correct; however, this applies only to calls, and there's no such presumption for explanation of plays (maybe there should be?). So I think the relevant law here is Law 85A1, which implies that the Director should make a "balance of probabilities" assessment as to whether or not the explanation was correct. This might involve looking at discards on other hands, looking at the defenders' system card, etc..

    (In theory, system cards should probably mention something about how often signals are honest, and how often they're randomized to mislead declarer; most partnerships will falsecard under certain circumstances. But I don't think I've ever seen that.)

  • Thanks for the responses.
    Particularly for ais523's analysis of the principles involved.
    That was roughly where I went as well, but the wording of 40B3a does appear wrong.

    The specifics of this case are of less concern.
    (The explanation was probably correct, there was no Damage, and the appeal was too late.)

  • All that West did wrong was not add 'but most discards do not carry a message, they are just cards we can afford to discard'' - West may have regarded this as general bridge knowledge.

    I think it is best to ask opponents about their signals and discards early on, and make your own deductions, rather than ask about specific discards when they occur.

  • I have encountered a few pairs who, when asked about their discards, offer that they often false-card when they think it is more likely to mislead declarer than partner.

Sign In or Register to comment.