[RMB1]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-December-18, 09:56, said:

eg the LoL on your left has been counting her points for about 30 seconds and still hasn't got there so you choose to psyche in 3rd seat, it is unfair both on you and your new opps if you have to repeat this as you wouldn't have done it against them.

I think a break in tempo by the original opponents which gives information to the pair that remain at the table becomes extraneous/unauthorised as in Law 16C, because the source of the information are not the oppoenents on this board. The player who receives the information should inform the TD.
.

[mycroft]

It may be unfair. It is, however, the Law. It's just as unfair as when the LOL is still counting her points in fourth seat when the auction gets to me with 7 spades and it happens to be Board 5.

I quoted the Law above. It may be an ass, but it's the Law. It's just one of those things you get to eat when you psych. I bet it will never happen again in the OP's lifetime.

[ArtK78]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-December-18, 09:26, said:

They may not even be guilty of that, from the OP it looks like they asked "are you pair X" and were told "yes".

That is an interesting point, but I don't know if it lets the pair off the hook.

The correct question to ask is not "Are you pair X?" but rather, "What is your pair number?" If you ask "Are you pair X" the opps will almost always say yes even when it is not correct. But if you ask "What is your pair number?" you are much more likely to get the correct answer.

I call this the Billy Landow safety play. One time many years ago, Billy Landow, a well known local player who died some time back, came to my table in a Sectional pair game. I asked him what his pair number was. Rather than answer the question, he insisted that he was in the right place (Billy was one of those people who was often wrong, but never in doubt). I insisted right back at him that he tell me what his pair number was. Needless to say, he was in the wrong place.

[ggwhiz]

RMB1, on 2013-December-18, 10:17, said:

I think a break in tempo by the original opponents which gives information to the pair that remain at the table becomes extraneous/unauthorised as in Law 16C, because the source of the information are not the oppoenents on this board. The player who receives the information should inform the TD.

In my experience TD's exercise discretion in the spirit of the game when needed, even when they shouldn't. Any legitimate reason to throw the board out will be considered and in some events I've had a ruling of "shuffle and deal". It would be nice if that kind of discretion was codified in the laws.

Recently on a bridge winners post a Director was called to the table when South opened at North's turn to bid. He rotated the board 180 degrees and left. It was a team match where the board had not been played at the other table yet and everyone laughed and carried on.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2013-December-18, 03:03, said:

"Repeat the auction" must include repeate also all alerts and explanations given in the original auction. If a call is repeated with a different meaning it is not the same call.

So I do not see any reason for the worries indicated here. The "innocent" pair will either be awarded A+ because of a changed auction or find themselves in essentially the same situation as before.

(The Laws of Bridge include no provisions for varying your agreements according to who are your opponents unless they have essentially different agreements/understandings.)

I agree with the first part of this, but that parenthetical is irrelevant, since a psych is not a matter of agreement.

[hrothgar]

paulg, on 2013-December-17, 16:58, said:

The Director tells us to try and play the board, but if the auction is different then the board will be cancelled. I don't know the new pair, which means that they will be considerably weaker than my friends, and they play a penalty double of a strong notrump.

Is it acceptable for me to pass this time in third seat, with my 1-point hand, causing the board to be cancelled?

I don't think that you get to vary your methods based on the opponent's choice of defense...

[campboy]

ggwhiz, on 2013-December-18, 12:12, said:

Recently on a bridge winners post a Director was called to the table when South opened at North's turn to bid. He rotated the board 180 degrees and left. It was a team match where the board had not been played at the other table yet and everyone laughed and carried on.

I think he should have redealt the board completely instead, to avoid "South could have known" issues.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2013-December-18, 12:55, said:

I agree with the first part of this, but that parenthetical is irrelevant, since a psych is not a matter of agreement.

Did you happen to read my previous post where I commented a similar assertion:

pran, on 2013-December-18, 09:14, said:

Quite true, but completely irrelevant.

A psyche must be alerted and explained according to the agreement/understanding relevant to the psyche as it is made as if it were genuine and not a psyche.

(Which of course means that the psyche must be repeated exactly as it was made originally.)

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2013-December-18, 03:03, said:

(The Laws of Bridge include no provisions for varying your agreements according to who are your opponents unless they have essentially different agreements/understandings.)

It seems that this is a matter of regulation; the EBU permits this.

gnasher, on 2013-December-18, 04:34, said:

The Law says "differs in any way". Either a more specific meaning or a less specific meaning would costitute such a difference. Your suggestion would be better, of course.

Very true.

barmar, on 2013-December-18, 09:32, said:

No it isn't. The law says you must repeat your calls from the original auction, so failing to do so is an infraction.

OK, when I posted I didn't have my Lawbook to hand.

Quote

There's another law that says you're not allowed to violate a law intentionally, even if you're willing to pay the penalty.

Yes, I know, but I thought... well, it's pretty convoluted what I thought, so it is irrelevant.

ArtK78, on 2013-December-18, 10:33, said:

The correct question to ask is not "Are you pair X?" but rather, "What is your pair number?" If you ask "Are you pair X" the opps will almost always say yes even when it is not correct. But if you ask "What is your pair number?" you are much more likely to get the correct answer.

This is true. My regular partner always says "yes". He is making progress, though, with answering "I don't know".

ggwhiz, on 2013-December-18, 12:12, said:

In my experience TD's exercise discretion in the spirit of the game when needed, even when they shouldn't. Any legitimate reason to throw the board out will be considered and in some events I've had a ruling of "shuffle and deal". It would be nice if that kind of discretion was codified in the laws.

Recently on a bridge winners post a Director was called to the table when South opened at North's turn to bid. He rotated the board 180 degrees and left. It was a team match where the board had not been played at the other table yet and everyone laughed and carried on.

But this is a pairs game, and there may well be other sections playing, besides the fact that even in just one section it is a bit unfair on all of the other pairs since this one board will not match the hand records.

[szgyula]

I honestly do not see the point. Open 1NT (psych), wait for the bid and claim that it has a different meaning. Board cancelled, end of story.16A2 explicitly states that "Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents...". Thus, the 1NT itself is different.

The TD just made a shortcut, which is de jure wrong but arrives at the same outcome faster.

[pran]

szgyula, on 2013-December-19, 02:20, said:

I honestly do not see the point. Open 1NT (psych), wait for the bid and claim that it has a different meaning. Board cancelled, end of story.16A2 explicitly states that "Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents...". Thus, the 1NT itself is different.

The TD just made a shortcut, which is de jure wrong but arrives at the same outcome faster.

A player who deliberately changes his call in the second auction is "at fault" for this auction to be cancelled and TD having to award an artificial adjusted score. So he shall receive A-.

The fact that he was not at fault for the incorrectly seated opponents in the first auction is immaterial in this respect.

(He will of course be off the hook if his opponents in the second auction do not make exactly the same calls as his opponents in the first auction did.)

[paulg]

hrothgar, on 2013-December-18, 13:44, said:

I don't think that you get to vary your methods based on the opponent's choice of defense...

True, but of course a psych is not a method. I believe we all vary our psychs based on our opponents and their methods. Why should this be different here (except because the Law says so)?

[pran]

paulg, on 2013-December-19, 03:51, said:

True, but of course a psych is not a method. I believe we all vary our psychs based on our opponents and their methods. Why should this be different here (except because the Law says so)?

The reason why the Laws say so is that the board is considered playable if, and only if the auction is repeated unchanged (to the smallest detail) with the correct players at the table.

If a player meets a different (however minute) auction on the second "try" the board is spoiled.

[gnasher]

Taken literally, it's a nonsensical rule. The set of hands on which one player will take a given action is different from the set of hands on which any other player will take the same action. For any sequence containing at least one call from each side, the meaning of the sequence will differ at least slightly. It would be better if the rule said "differs significantly" rather than "differs in any way".

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-December-19, 05:56, said:

Taken literally, it's a nonsensical rule. The set of hands on which one player will take a given action is different from the set of hands on which any other player will take the same action. For any sequence containing at least one call from each side, the meaning of the sequence will differ at least slightly. It would be better if the rule said "differs significantly" rather than "differs in any way".

As it comes to my mind there are two places where the laws use the term "differs". The other one is Law 87 on fouled boards.

Neither law offers the director any option to judge if a difference is significant, and that is the way it must be. It is impossible to rule in advance what difference is insignificant.

The story told by the three of Clubs in "Right through the pack" shows how 3NT was set because South held ♣A 9 7 2 and West held ♣J 10 6 3, while it would have been won had the ♣2 been in West and ♣3 been in South.

[hrothgar]

paulg, on 2013-December-19, 03:51, said:

True, but of course a psych is not a method. I believe we all vary our psychs based on our opponents and their methods. Why should this be different here (except because the Law says so)?

I have long asserted that psyches can and should be described systemically.

Bridge players back in the 1930s didn't have concepts like mixed strategies available to them.
The lacked the basic vocabulary to describe what they were doing, so they adopted the construct of a psyche.

I see no reason why we should limit ourselves in the same manner.

[blackshoe]

I have enough trouble remembering my systemic agreements as it is. I will not be saddled with remembering and describing all the possible psychs my partnership might make. Not to mention deviations.

[barmar]

I've always interpreted the phrase "If any call differs in any way" to refer just to the calls; i.e. if you see the same bidding cards on the table, the auctions are the same and the hand proceeds.

I suppose the qualifier "in any way" is what makes people think this refers to the meanings as well -- they wouldn't need to say that if they just meant the literal calls. But in other laws where the meaning of calls is relevant (e.g. rectifying an insufficient bid) the law is explicit about it.

What if a player forgets to use the Stop card in one of the auctions -- would you throw out the board?

[pran]

barmar, on 2013-December-19, 14:33, said:

I've always interpreted the phrase "If any call differs in any way" to refer just to the calls; i.e. if you see the same bidding cards on the table, the auctions are the same and the hand proceeds.

I suppose the qualifier "in any way" is what makes people think this refers to the meanings as well -- they wouldn't need to say that if they just meant the literal calls. But in other laws where the meaning of calls is relevant (e.g. rectifying an insufficient bid) the law is explicit about it.

What if a player forgets to use the Stop card in one of the auctions -- would you throw out the board?

Probably not.

But there might be a more serious situation if his partner alerted one time and not the other.

[mycroft]

barmar, on 2013-December-19, 14:33, said:

I've always interpreted the phrase "If any call differs in any way" to refer just to the calls; i.e. if you see the same bidding cards on the table, the auctions are the same and the hand proceeds.

I disagree.

1NT[12-14]-X[penalty]-2♣[random rescue]... the first time.
1NT[14-16]-X[one-suit]-2♣[Stayman, ignore the double]... the second time.

First, the opponents have a *huge* advantage (how big is opener's hand? how big is doubler's?) Second, this is a totally different auction, never mind that the same cards are on the table.

Oh and at the other table, when that comes:

1NT[12-14]-X[good one-suiter, will run after we punch out at most one stopper]-2♣[same rescue as before]...

First, should that 2♣ rescue be forced after a double that shows a very different hand? But the calls are the same. Second, now it's the declaring side that has an advantage (even though it may be "800 instead of 1400" :-)

Quote

I suppose the qualifier "in any way" is what makes people think this refers to the meanings as well -- they wouldn't need to say that if they just meant the literal calls. But in other laws where the meaning of calls is relevant (e.g. rectifying an insufficient bid) the law is explicit about it.

I can't read it any other way. Maybe we should be consistent about it ("* a call made with a considerably different meaning is considered a different call" or the like).

Quote

What if a player forgets to use the Stop card in one of the auctions -- would you throw out the board?

Not if the meaning of the call was the same. I realize that to different people "weak jump overcall" is "at all different" from "someone else's weak jump overcall", but I think we have to be somewhat logical about it.

Now if you're asking if "with the Stop card, it's strong, without it it's weak", then :-)