Jeremy69A

I may be blind but I can't see the vulnerability on the hand. In a club game in my area 1. Most would open 1♦ 2. Some but not many would bid 4♥ having passed originally 3. Most would pass 4♠ It maybe the standard in the game described is different but based on what has been said I think the hesitation suggests bidding on if the vulnerability is anything but unfavourable and I would not allow this choice.

That he was a boy. I don't think Blackadder was into the rights of man!

In the event if a TD conducts a poll and reports the result to the appeal committee you seem to be suggesting that they may not overturn it. It was not ignored. It was however only a part of the evidence. And, of course if you change your mind then we all quake. Feel free. The alternatives will then be a. live with it b. invoke the help of Fred to rid us of this turbulent moderator(of course he may agree with you). c. start up shop elsewhere. The plus of doing this would be to rid us of the current moderators and the minus would be to move from a forum area which has all the authority of BBO thus should not be undertaken lightly. I've read all the thread. Many of you will have worked out I was one of this appeal committee. I don't mind anyone knowing this(or thinking I and the rest of the committee are wrong, muddleheaded, insane etc etc) and although I disagree with some of the views I have no problem with any of the posts save mild exasperation with the one I've quoted above but as it is roughly par for the course I should comment then ignore and move on. There is a line in Blackadder when the wise woman gives some possible solutions to the problem of Blackadder being in love with his boy servant(who is really a girl but ,of course at this point he doesn't know that). She suggests killing her or himself or if that doesn't find favour the rest of the world. It's clear which camp Blackshoe would fall into! :)

No. It was only a pious hope together with helping to form a view as to the size of the PP. I agree with Robin's comment that poor players often don't think of bidding 5♣ unless they expect to make it but at least a part of the reason for this is to cater for partner forgetting earlier in the auction. It is similar to holding a decent hand with 4♥ and hearing partner wade in with 2♣ hearts and another over 1NT. If you bid lots of hearts you will find partner has a single suiter in clubs after all, not that they advertise the possibility.

I don't think he can. In England the club can opt out of following the Orange Book regulations but very few do. If they did decide to to so so then it is for the club committee or owner to decide what is being done. It would be normal behaviour to publish it if you decided on something different to the mainstream. Not all club owners are normal!

For North to bid only 3♣is more than a bit surprising and I would be sharpening my PP axe as well as adjusting the score. For North to bid only 3♣is more than a bit surprising and I would be sharpening my PP axe as well as adjusting the score. masters of understatement. There is a high frequency of Ghestem misbids the most typical being a jump to 3♣ with a load of clubs. I find players more often seek to cater for a misbid of this convention than almost any other. In this particular case I would be investigating the number that arose from 5♣x -7 as well as the PP. In a perfect world(which probably wouldn't include Ghestem at all) I would log on to the EBU database to find out how often this had happened before in this partnership and tailor my penalty to the number of occurrences. It might also include writing out 100 times "To bid only 3♣ opposite a hand that has shown a two suiter with clubs makes me guilty of unfair play" If the bad bidding police are in town they could then have a go at South not for forgetting his own convention but imagining that this hand is suitable to show both majors

Thank you. Good move. Thank you. I'm not sure there is much else you can do but in my view rather like policemen are held to higher standards so ought moderators and in IMO they should refrain from starting posts about disputes which may lead to disciplinary action in clubs or at a higher level especially if those posts have identifiable information. As David does not accept that he has done anything wrong we may all be banging our heads against a brick wall!

It's not common for moderators in any forum to lock threads because they don't like the replies or perhaps people arguing with them but it seems to happen here(although don't get me wrong the locking of the thread today was on balance a good move but second best to removing it. However Well, I may not be an expert and am happy to concede there will be others who know more than me but I have helped to run a (non bridge related) forum so have some limited idea. The terse posting indicating that the whole world is wrong except one or more moderators does not, IMO, represent good practice nor does locking the thread because one moderator is "not inclined to discuss it further" see below Always a good idea to suggest someone is being less than truthful with no evidence. I sent you a further report(just testing) about 6 hours ago. If you haven't got this then there maybe something wrong with the system(or perhaps my mendacity knows no bounds). Well as you don't want to discuss it any more............................... The (now) locked thread shows many things including the opinion of some but not all that the original posting of this topic and also the previous one in October was not a great idea. You disagree that this is so or at least there is a problem. Fair enough but I think the way you have gone about this has not done a lot to improve the standing of the moderation process of this board.

I think it is normal to play the cards on a club evening if dummy asks and as Pran says the TD sometimes will sit in and do this if available. I have one partner who seriously objects(no real idea why) so it is not a great idea to do this when playing with him. It is tempting to withdraw privileges(or ask if declarer has lost the use of their arms) when no-one ask and declarer expects and tuts if you don't play the chosen card. :)

You are declarer(South) in 4♠. [hv=pc=n&s=sq4hq87da84ckqj94&w=st53hj32dq765ca65&n=skj9762ha95dkjc83&e=sa8hkt64dt932ct72]399|300[/hv] You win the opening lead of the ♦5 and play trumps with East winning the second one. East plays a ♦back, you win in dummy and play a ♣ to the Jack and Ace The trick is quitted and LHO switches to a ♥ which you run losing to the hand on the right. Whilst this trick is going on declarer looks puzzled. East now says "When I played my low club and quitted the trick I think I picked up dummies remaining low club and added it to the cards in front of me." South now says "But that isn’t fair. I led the Club to get some discards but when West led the heart I suddenly realized that there were no clubs in dummy so I ran the heart in the hope the King was with West otherwise I would have risen with the Ace and taken some discards. I didn't realise dummy was a trick short" How would you rule? Law 67 only seems to cover you adding one of your own cards to a trick not one of the other sides! Opinions welcome and it is real life not something made up! :D

It means for the whole of the rest of the auction. The WBF want suggestions for the next law book so I guess this should be one of them. I would certainly find it useful. Nor in mine, at least now! The index referred me which is probably what I meant. :blink:

Law 19A says he can't do this and refers you to Law 36. The relevant part(36B2) says the double is cancelled, says the offender must now make a legal call, the auction continues and his partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. If the director thumbed through the laws from start to finish he probably would have spent under 10 minutes to get to Law 19. Was he incapable of using the index which has the entry: Doubles, Inadmissible? :blink:

Possible, of course but the most popular defences I've seen are a. ignore it (95%) b. Defend differently if it is 2+. (5% That fits well with EBU alert rules which are alert if it could be 2 or fewer else not. If, however I differentiated according to whether it was 3- or 4+ then I would make damn sure I asked at the start of the round. I agree, however, that making a brief statement about methods before the round starts is a good idea. Most opponents then respond in kind. Very occasionally you sit down, say hello, say you are playing 5 card majors, short club and Strong NT and are met with silence. You venture to enquire and it is surprising how often what they play is not at all mainstream. :D

I see what you mean. He certainly confused me! The WBF card is allowed in a few more EBU events than it used to be and is covered by this on the EBU Website: Official WBF Cards for international use Please note that the WBF cards are only for use in International events, trials etc. They may be used in Level 5 events but their use is not permitted in EBU events below this level. The programs to create the official WBF card can all be found by clicking here. Also on that page are blank WBF cards in Word and Excel format, together with links to information about Brown Sticker bids, the Guide to completion of the card etc. Links from this page also go to the latest versions of WBF Systems Policy, the WBF Alerting Policy and the WBF Policy on Psychic Bidding. The sign of the devil that used to be found here has now been removed. :D

I think you are in error, Mr B. Try this link http://www.ebu.co.uk/lawsandethics/misc/conventioncards.htm and you will find all the EBU cards you could ever want(but no proscribed ones)!

The advice above about what to alert is exactly correct. I'm puzzled at why a possible 3 card minor should catch anyone out. Would their bidding agreements change? Would they defend differently? Are just whining for the sake of it? I think I can guess the answer however I agree with the advice above. I think whatever you are playing a brief announcement of your basic system along the lines of "Good Evening. We play Strong NT,5 card Majors and better minor" is a good idea and one that has become more common in England in the last 3 or 4 years. As an aside that gets one of the following response types 1. Thanks 2. Thanks. We are playing Benji Acol, 12-14 3. Partner how could you play a spade? The defence of a cretin if I may say so without giving offence. 4. Completely ignored because they are deaf 5. Completely ignored or muttered thank you with no reciprocation and then you find out that they play Croatian Spade with inverted major suit transfer raises and have no convention card. Calling the director in such circumstances is marginally less effective than trying to whittle a rowing boat out of a giant sequoia with a blunt penknife. :D

I think you misunderstand me. I completely agree the board is scored as it was played i.e. the normal North sitting South for this board and when this is drawn to the attention of the director which often it never will be the director will say "play the next board the right way round please".

I think we are going to need to fill in a psyche form. What sort of amnesia is it when the author can't remember his own words? ;)

As you are pretending to not know what this is let me help. It is a regulation that says that if you want to agree to open a strong and artificial bid such as 1♣ or 2♣ then in EBU/WBU land you must satisfy one of the following criteria: a. 16+ HCP b. Rule of 25 c. 8+ clear cut tricks(definition available) and the points normally associated with a one level opening.

I don't agree with this. When you sit down and play you pick out cards from the first board. If you started as North and there is the largest N behind you you could ever wish to see but the second board is placed carelessly on the table so you are picking up the South cards then for the purposes of this board you are South. It will be scored as so and on the bridgemate or traveller you will enter that you have played 7NT by South.Law 3 says that the director(not the organisers) designates a direction to be North but not what happens if North and South are reversed. IMO you won't find a director on Planet Earth who, if his attention were drawn to this, would say anything other than "get the next board right please"

If I were convinced of my own argument I would bid 4♠ but I would not be surprised to have it ruled back to 3♠. I confess I would not have bid 3♣ on the first round.

I like your suggestion and will try it. It may also ease Jeffrey's kindly concerns about me. :)

I've been experimenting with throwing the card on the floor with the comment "I won't be needing that then". Some think that might be an offence under zero tolerance or whatever the local name for this is. :lol:

Like Pigtrader I have been following this thread with interest. I was the appeal chairman. 1. We would all have liked to ask EW some questions to clarify what was said and why neither of them checked about 4H. They chose not to attend. 2. Both of the pair concerned are experienced and have played in tournaments for a long time but I am quite prepare to believe they haven't come across this method before. Judging by the part of the auction that took place before the disputed call they hadn't spent much time discussing such sequences. Those who don't either play the Multi nor spend time discussing any defence to it often have a problem with sequences such as 2♦No 2♥ 3♥ and the like. 3. At the time we all thought the explanation had been quite clear. EW by their presence might have been able to persuade us that it was not that clear. Whilst I think the Bluejak interpretation is wrong and his objections overstated I now think there is more ambiguity than I did at midnight on Saturday. 4. To me the phrase he "asks me to transfer to my suit has only one interpretation and the number of posters who think it has a second astounds me. In the end it probably comes down to an explanation being given that most would accept to be clear and if the other side stick fingers in their ears and just refuse to listen or understand then that is their own lookout(not that I am suggesting this pair did) 5. It is still my view that the side bidding 4H made a reasonable(but not perfect) effort to explain. Maybe it could have been improved and some suggestions on here might help if they see/read this thread. EW are sufficiently experienced to do some checking and I think they were the architects of their own misfortune. 6. Although it is true that the Tollemache has weaker counties it is the premier county event and the players in it, in my view, should be judged according to that standard even accepting some are clearly better then others. 7. Whatever one thinks of no alerts above 3NT and there are downsides as well as upsides if you KNOW that it is not alerted whatever it means except by misguided souls like Gnasher who say "Don''t care what your rules are I'll do as I want and believe best" then you have, in my view, an additional obligation to do some checking. This is just common sense.

The ruling had two parts a. the action(s) taken by EW b. the clarity of the explanation