[Vampyr]

 campboy, on 2015-November-10, 03:05, said:

I think the previous rule was better precisely because club TDs often do forget Law 64C. The vast majority of 64C cases in the current laws involve a defender winning a later trick with a card he shouldn't have (and conversely, most situations where this happens now require 64C).

And 64C is harder. The average volunteer playing director is not an expert player and may have no way to accurately determine "equity".

[pran]

 campboy, on 2015-November-10, 03:05, said:

I think the previous rule was better precisely because club TDs often do forget Law 64C. The vast majority of 64C cases in the current laws involve a defender winning a later trick with a card he shouldn't have (and conversely, most situations where this happens now require 64C).

The alleged fact that some directors forget laws is no excuse for adding an unnecessary and complicating law. This I believe is exactly why WBFLC removed that part of Law 64 just a few law generations after they had added it to the laws.

(If anything in the laws was consistently ignored by Directors it was the duty to look into the future after a revoke for the possibility that the offender would win a trick with a card he shouldn't have. And remember that it was the duty of the Director to inform the offending side of their possibility to avoid this second trick penalty by carefully letting the offender's partner rather than the offender win such a later trick.)

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-November-10, 03:36, said:

The alleged fact that some directors forget laws is no excuse for adding an unnecessary and complicating law. This I believe is exactly why WBFLC removed that part of Law 64 just a few law generations after they had added it to the laws.

(If anything in the laws was consistently ignored by Directors it was the duty to look into the future after a revoke for the possibility that the offender would win a trick with a card he shouldn't have. And remember that it was the duty of the Director to inform the offending side of their possibility to avoid this second trick penalty by carefully letting the offender's partner rather than the offender win such a later trick.)

While I agree that the TD should "explain all matters related to rectification" (wording from memory), I don't think that extends to giving tips on how to make the best of a bad job. You would not suggest to someone with a barred partner that their opening bid could well be the final contract, so they should open 3NT with a balanced 18-count.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2015-November-10, 05:36, said:

While I agree that the TD should "explain all matters related to rectification" (wording from memory), I don't think that extends to giving tips on how to make the best of a bad job. You would not suggest to someone with a barred partner that their opening bid could well be the final contract, so they should open 3NT with a balanced 18-count.

You (as Director) should not elaborate on the consequences of the Laws, like by suggesting certain lines of bidding or play.

But unless:
- you make it clear to a player, before he chooses how to call, that his partner will have to pass for the rest of the auction,
or
- you explain to both sides all the consequences of a(n established) revoke
without actually suggesting anything about how to call or play on,
you might easily find yourself having to face a Director's error ruling.

So yes, under the previous law 64 you must make the consequence of the offender winning a later trick with a card he should not have at the time perfectly clear to both sides, but then leave it to the players themselves figuring out how to use this information.

[lamford]

 pran, on 2015-November-10, 06:37, said:

You (as Director) should not elaborate on the consequences of the Laws, like by suggesting certain lines of bidding or play.

But unless:
- you make it clear to a player, before he chooses how to call, that his partner will have to pass for the rest of the auction,
or
- you explain to both sides all the consequences of a(n established) revoke
without actually suggesting anything about how to call or play on,
you might easily find yourself having to face a Director's error ruling.

So yes, under the previous law 64 you must make the consequence of the offender winning a later trick with a card he should not have at the time perfectly clear to both sides, but then leave it to the players themselves figuring out how to use this information.

What you actually wrote was that the TD should inform a player "to avoid this second trick penalty by carefully letting the offender's partner rather than the offender win such a later trick." That was the part they should have to work out for themselves. At least under the old Laws.

[barmar]

While those were his words, I'll be charitable and assume he was a little sloppy and meant that you have to clearly warn the player "if you win a trick with a card you could have played legally when you revoked, that trick will be transferred". There's a fine line between clearly explaining all the ramifications and suggesting strategy. One might even conclude that if the player can't figure out the obvious strategy, you probably didn't explain it well enough, although there are some pretty clueless players who somehow find it difficult to make these inferences.

I'll sometimes give the lesson after the hand. For instance, at the club last week a relatively inexperienced player opened the bidding out of turn, and when I didn't accept it his partner was barred. We ended up passing it out, and I told him afterward that a common strategy is to gamble on 3NT. That wouldn't have worked well for them this time (I think it was a part-score hand), but there isn't really any way to know.

[pran]

 barmar, on 2015-November-10, 10:18, said:

While those were his words, I'll be charitable and assume he was a little sloppy and meant that you have to clearly warn the player "if you win a trick with a card you could have played legally when you revoked, that trick will be transferred". There's a fine line between clearly explaining all the ramifications and suggesting strategy. One might even conclude that if the player can't figure out the obvious strategy, you probably didn't explain it well enough, although there are some pretty clueless players who somehow find it difficult to make these inferences.

I'll sometimes give the lesson after the hand. For instance, at the club last week a relatively inexperienced player opened the bidding out of turn, and when I didn't accept it his partner was barred. We ended up passing it out, and I told him afterward that a common strategy is to gamble on 3NT. That wouldn't have worked well for them this time (I think it was a part-score hand), but there isn't really any way to know.

Thanks.

(You are correct with your assumption)

regards Sven