Leaderboard

These are established revokes. Since the defender did not win the trick on which they first revoked, one trick will be transferred to the declaring side at the conclusion of the hand since the defence wins a subsequent trick. (64A1) The second and third revokes in hearts do not attract additional automatic trick penalties - it's only one trick total at the end of the hand. (64B2) The director looks to reconstruct the hand without any of the revokes - how many tricks would declarer have won if the defence had followed suit. The director also needs to consider what would have happened if only the first revoke had happened, and then what would have happened if only the first two revokes had happened. Sometimes it's a later revoke that really helps the defence. Much of the time doing this is straightforward, but even if it isn't that's part of what the director is expected to do. Not unless the director really cannot work out what would have likely happened without the revokes, and awarding A+/A- should be the director's last resort.

Usually, the issue is either: "waited until it was good to take it" blocking the suit or transportation, or "suit (usually trumps) breaks X-Y, need to find a different line of play" that doesn't work as well The first one is obvious; usually, declarer will make it *very clear* if the second applies. In fact, she'll be complaining about it *before* you even get to the point where you mention the trick transfer. I disagree with "put the NOS up to the challenge" in general because once the hand's over, it's *over*, and getting back into that mindset is hard, and leads to misplays that they absolutely wouldn't have made at the table. Anybody who's tried to do a bidding poll knows this; anyone who has attempted to lead an offender to their comparative call, especially in the auction 1m-(1♠)-1♥, knows this. Whether we should put the offenders into that trap, it's unfair to punish the NOS that way, even if the director sees a line obvious to him that the Flight C declarer would "never find". This feels like "how dare you give me, a Flight A player, a worse score than *that player* would ever find at the table, just because I did something wrong?" Not saying that Axman would ever say that; he really does want to ensure a fair result. But others *do*, and definitely would prefer if the Laws were the way axman wants (partly because the C players, confused enough with the whole TD thing, would misplay; partly because after the hand, especially knowing in advance that they will be asked, the stronger player definitely *would* find the "obvious" double-dummy line, and also the reasoning why it is obvious). I'm not saying double-dummy; neither do the laws. I'm saying "the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated" (64C1). My comment on "it's rare, but it matters" about the *second and subsequent* revokes is 64C2a, by the way.

Yes, when you signon click Casual Under "Play or Watch Bridge" and then Take me to an interesting table under "Help me find a game - Watch" An upvote for mycroft's creative reply

I agree with your conclusion. But I am much more concerned about "did the poll give *that pair's* agreement on two-suited Preempt (or preemptive overcalls in general) style, or were the pollees allowed/expected to use their default?" than "class of player". I'm also concerned that even if it was given, how many of the pollees didn't read it. Because if I'm expecting that 5D will go 500 (or 800! - x xx Kxxxx Qxxxx), I'm bidding 3. If I'm expecting my style of Unusual 2NT (knowing that I'm almost always outbid with the minors, there has to be a reason why I'm saying something and telling declarer how to play the hand), then 5 should be -1 at worst, and if they don't take their tricks in time, or partner has Kx or A/Ax, it might make - and if it doesn't make, 4M will. So if I'm playing with my regular partners, 5D. If I'm playing with random Calgary player, 3D. If I'm playing with this partner, with their agreements...?

How do I know "docbean" isn't a second account of "melbob", who happens to currently be my RHO? What if we're practising, and discussing our defence to (say) Polish Club, and we don't want our next week's opponents to hear all the discussion? What if partner's involved in a lawsuit, and the other side is going to say that "if you can play bridge, you're obviously able to work" - even if it's just pushing cards? What if we're allowing kibitzer conversation to table, and therefore want to approve all the kibitzers who show up? Or what if we're pushing cards while having an informal C&E, or at least a "pooling of knowledge"? What if the kibitzer's a streamer, and our opponents (or our teammates!) just happen to join the stream and start sniping? What if it's your RL stalker kibitzing and polluting the kibitzer channel with comments about your play, your looks, or your politics? Or, as happened many years ago to an "online pro" (who really wasn't as good as he claimed he was to clients), one starts getting a kibitzer crowd showing up at the table every time explicitly to laugh at one's mistakes? There are lots of reasons why one would want to limit kibitzers, that are actually valid. Most (at least non-serious) games allow them. Enjoy what you have.

If we take a finesse and it loses, they'll clear hearts and then we'll be down every time the ♣K is offside. I think I'd just play clubs from the top. If the opponents clear hearts we then have a guaranteed 9 tricks and free shot at 10 by taking the diamond then spade finesses into the safe hand.