Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Wayne Burrows
1 2 3 4 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... 53 54 55 56
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Here are the numbers I calculated for the probabilities of the shortest and longest suit in a deal along with the expectations for a set of 36 boards. These are calculated by enumerating every possible deal distribution of the four hands.

Edit: The formating is not great. There are three columns. The first is the shortest or longest suit length. The second the probability for that to occur. And the third the expected number of observations in 36 deals.

Shortest Suit
0 0.183766327185981 6.615587779
1 0.609953117478578 21.95831223
2 0.205349135658091 7.392568884
3 0.000931419678402 0.033531108

Longest Suit
4 0.029294467790575 1.05460084
5 0.402336782879488 14.48412418
6 0.422075366416970 15.19471319
7 0.126442683507554 4.551936606
8 0.018305168324270 0.65898606
9 0.001478216977968 0.053215811
10 0.000065845019157 0.002370421
11 0.000001456285650 5.24263E-05
12 0.000000012774529 4.59883E-07
13 0.000000000025196 9.07056E-10

Kit's experimental number for hands with a void of 1000/6455 seems a bit low.

His number of no singleton or void 1000/4750 seems about right.

I repeated Kit's experiment to find a void with the mdealer program using the script:

shape(north, any 0xxx) or
shape(east, any 0xxx) or
shape(west, any 0xxx) or
shape(south, any 0xxx)

And for 1000000 void hands it dealt 5444328 hands which is

1000000/5444328 = 0.183677398 which approximately agrees with my number.

Similarly for no singleton or void I got

1000000/4846935 = 0.20631595 which compares favourably with the total for the shortest suits of 2 and 3 above which is

0.206280555336493

The dealer code was

not (shape(north, any 0xxx) or
shape(north, any 1xxx) or
shape(east, any 0xxx) or
shape(east, any 1xxx) or
shape(south, any 0xxx) or
shape(south, any 1xxx) or
shape(west, any 0xxx) or
shape(west, any 1xxx))
April 25, 2018
Wayne Burrows edited this comment April 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A good reason is that a question to another and an answer from the other is an indirect form of communication. That is imparting information to your partner and doing so unlawfully. If partner needs to know then they have the present ability to ask and find out for themselves.
April 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my view “sole purpose” is a very poor choice of words by the drafters of the laws. Although asking when you are about to be dummy is likely to make this question for no other reasonable purpose.
April 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is the expected number of suits of each length for each player in a deal.

0 0.051163792
1 0.32024744
2 0.823493417
3 1.14531843
4 0.954432025
5 0.498767703
6 0.166255901
7 0.035266403
8 0.004667612
9 0.000370445
10 1.64642E-05
11 3.64074E-07
12 3.19363E-09
13 6.29908E-12

Multiplying by 36 gives the expected number in a set of 36 deals.

0 1.841896517
1 11.52890783
2 29.64576299
3 41.23146348
4 34.3595529
5 17.95563732
6 5.98521244
7 1.269590518
8 0.168034039
9 0.013336035
10 0.000592713
11 1.31067E-05
12 1.14971E-07
13 2.26767E-10

The numbers for 7+ suits is 0.040321292 per deal and 1.451566526
per 36 deals.
April 25, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“5.10655% of all hands contain at least one void. So if we raise (1-.0510655) to the 4th power and subtract that number from 1, we get 18.91418% of all deals contain a void. Since each deal is independent, the mean for a 36 deal hand record is .1891418 * 36 or about 6.8 deals with at least one void per hand record.”

This is not true.

The four hands are not independent. The method you use only works for independent trials.
April 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not completely clear what you are asking. You and I live in a place where 2 is not so commonly played as a weak two. There is a difference in the explanation of 3 in the absence of a natural 2 than a 3Maj opening that is probably not in the absence of a weak two.

The law is not written well. I refer to 20F1. It explains that a player may request but does not explicitly say what if any answer should be given. It does say that a questioner is entitled to know about relevant calls not made and about inferences from the choice of action.

Frequently I will explain there are subtle inferences in a particular auction. Yesterday in a Stayman auction where we play 2C can be a relay and so need 2NT as a relay after 1NT 2C - 2S 2NT to continue the relay, I explained voluntarily at the end of the auction that the auction 1NT 2C - 2D 2NT had a subtle inference that partner would not have have only four hearts. He would either have both majors or only spades.

You can give the information by enumerating all of the possibilities for the bid actually made or you can effectively give the same information in terms of relevant calls not made.

What you must do is give all of the information. You can't fairly and reasonably play this game if you let an opponent play partner for a hand that you or your partner cannot hold because of your system.
April 24, 2018
Wayne Burrows edited this comment April 24, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am surprised by some of the responses above.

Bridge is a game of information. If you do not give information to the opponents when asked then you are deliberately flouting the law.
April 23, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Again this is the problem.

How is anyone going to prove that another person knew they revoked? That is what others are implicitly asking if they allow a player to put their hand away after revoking without automatic sanction for concealing a revoke.

We have one player failing to follow suit which is the fundamental basis of the play and another player is duped by that action. Surely we do not want the onus on the player who has been duped to prove that the other player knew he had revoked.

That just encourages players to revoke and try and get away with it.
April 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That is the heart of the problem. Ultimately I think the laws should correct this potential issue.

Objectively there is no difference between a person who folds his hand knowingly or unknowingly. The former is against the law I would have hoped uncontroversially but apparently not here. The latter, I still believe is arguably is still contrary to the concealment rule.

Certainly showing your hand removes doubt that you concealed anything if a problem arises later. Maybe that is active ethics.

Countless times I have played a trick got bad news and conceded the contract. If in this situation it was okay for a player who had revoked to stay silent and hide their hand then I think there is a problem with the laws. I think that problem exists whether the concealment is deliberate or not.

The game is about winning tricks not about whether you can get away with concealing a revoke that allowed you to unlawfully win a trick.

I wrote upthread

“I am pointing out the problem. Obviously an accidental revoke can occur when a player is unaware that they have revoked and then they can put their cards away unknowingly.

However to an outside observer there is nothing different in your actions when you know you have revoked and put your cards away without exposing that revoke.”

At the very least in this situation the onus of the proof should be on the revoker to prove that there was no knowledge of a revoke.
April 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think there is a difference between mentioning your revoke and not showing cards that potentially reveal your revoke.

You do not have to draw attention to your revoke but you are not allowed to hide it either. Folding your cards and accepting a claim or concession is hiding the revoke.
April 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ray

“Your interpretation of “conceal” in 72B3 begs the question, namely is there an obligation to reveal your side's infraction. 72B2 is meaningless under your interpretation of 72B3, as the failure to draw attention to an infraction is concealing it.”

The point I believe you are missing is that:

1. You are not obliged to “draw attention” to your infraction.

2. “draw attention” is different than not concealing.

3. You are not allowed to conceal a card you should have played on a revoke trick.

Therefore show your hand but stay mum and leave it up to your opponent to notice you have revoked. Then you have taken proper advantage of L72B2 and complied with L72B3.

So to answer your question you are not required to reveal your side's infraction but you are also not entitled to conceal the card you should have played to the revoke trick. These are completely different things.

In my case playing against two world champions. In a hopeless 6H contract after trumps were 4=1 offside. I played my side suit to my king and the player with four trumps ruffed revealing a 5=0 side suit break. Strangely at the time this player turned and looked at me as he ruffed as he had done when I discovered the trump break. Later in the hand I had to play the side suit again to retain control. The player ruffed a second time and I immediately claimed down two. He had a natural trump trick as well (actually he started with two natural trump tricks).

The next day it was brought to my attention that he had revoked. I had not looked at that hand on the hand record previously.

I subsequently talked to the player and asked what happened on the hand. He claimed he could not even remember the hand.

It certainly seems that this player concealed his revoke and possibly his partner was complicit in that concealing.

As I wrote earlier it is possible that someone would put their hand back in the board and be unaware of the revoke and that could be innocent but there is no way to distinguish between that and someone who was deliberately concealing their revoke.
April 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I do not think that is true Ed. I am not sure which law you think says I must own up to a revoke.

In terms of conceal. I can show my hand and if the opponents do not notice that is their problem. In that case there is no sense in which I have concealed the revoke from the opponents. If I do not show my hand there is a prima facie case that I am concealing the revoke.

The opponents do not have a right to inspect my hand. The only way they can see the hand is if I show them. It would be a strange interpretation in my view if it was expected that every time a person claimed or conceded that they needed to ask to check whether a player had revoked.

As a minimum the onus is I believe rightly on the revoker to make sure that the revoke is not illegally concealed from the opponents.
April 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Something in my pocket is concealed from view. Similarly something back in the pocket of a bridge board is concealed. As far as I am aware that is the normal meaning of the word conceal - hide from view.
April 16, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Minor quibble with your description and questions. If you want us to bid over 4 then please explain what 4 showed.
April 15, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
That which has not been revealed has been concealed. The issue is not whether something has been concealed but whether it is lawful to do so.
April 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Firstly in the hand where I was involved the player did commit a second revoke - yes I know I have not said that previously and it is not part of the opening post in this thread.

Secondly by not showing your hand after having revoked you are concealing the second revoke. The example of mixing cards could apply in some similar situation but I think is more an example of where there is disagreement or potential disagreement about tricks won or lost.

Conceal in the Oxford English Dictionary means “Not allow to be seen; hide.”

To “Not allow to be seen” is precisely what a person who accepts a claim or concession is doing when they do not show their hand.

The example in the law is “concealing a card involved in a revoke”.

One conceals that card by not showing it.
April 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Of course it happens in many spectator sports. There are frequent cries from the sideline of “Ref”. Sometimes referees act on the attention drawn to the infraction on the field.
April 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Having read L72B2 and this thread and contemplated a very similar situation that happen to me recently I note the following.

“In general there is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one’s own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2).”

I note that there is no “general” requirement to call attention to one's own irregularity. That does not preclude their being a specific obligation in some situations.

There is a difference between an insufficient bid, or a call or play out of turn and an infraction like a revoke or non-disclosure of agreements.

The former happen in plain sight and it could be said that there is an obligation on all to notice but only on the opponents to draw attention to it. The latter an opponent may have no way of knowing that the infraction occurred. In those situations the side infracting is not allowed to conceal the infraction.

L72B3 “A player may not attempt to conceal an infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely.”

Conceal is to keep secret. If I am not allowed to conceal then I have an active responsibility to make known or at the very least expose my hand so that the secret is not kept from the opponents.
April 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It is very difficult to determine whether the revoke “did not affect the number of tricks scored by declarer”.

You may compare the number of tricks scored to double dummy or some normal play but you can not accurately compare it to an unknown number of tricks had the hand been allowed to be played without the revoke. At best you can speculate.
April 14, 2018
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Mike, it's really pretty simple. We have a few players that like to think they are morally superior for revealing revokes.”

Your language is interesting.

I would consider “not revealing” to be “concealing” which is specifically not allowed.
April 14, 2018
1 2 3 4 ... 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... 53 54 55 56
.

Bottom Home Top