DaveB

I hold my hand up and apologise and accept that I was totally wrong with the above assertion.

Please correct me if I am wrong as I have no pretensions to being an expert in this area. The fact that Adobe has withdrawn support from Flash does NOT mean that it has stopped functioning. As long as the players were using a browser version that had not had flash support withdrawn BBO could continue offering the "old" version rather than imposing their "one size fits all" policy.

I would like to support the original poster. I too was forced to move yesterday to the "new improved" (joke!!) non flash version and the experience was simply horrible!! And no that was not down to my internet connection. I understand that flash is no longer supported but why replace a really good interface with the current abomination?

Ok - then I guess I want to know the answer to the question - Does the software define the claim laws ie if declarer accepts a claim that IS the result of the board according too BBO laws (even if the result is impossible to achieve if the hand had been played out) OR Does the software not cope adequately with the situation and the result should be adjusted by some manual intervention. The 2 responders so far appear not to agree on this point. In any event it would appear to me to be an improvement (closer reflect face to face bridge) if a claim could be rejected by the partner of the claimer. I would guess that it would not be a major programing effort to achieve this. I am also lead to believe that this is the way it is handled on some other sites.

[hv=pc=n&s=shdcj85&w=sq6hdc6&n=shqdc97&e=s8htd7c]399|300[/hv] From a recent team match, South was declaring 5♦X. In the above position North lead 7♣. East ruffed with 7♦ and claimed 2 tricks. (Possibly meaning 2 more in addition to this trump trick). West wished to contest the claim ie wanted 3 tricks but had no mechanism to do so. By the time he had typed his objection Declarer had accepted the claim. In accordance with L68B2 if a defender attempts to concede one or more tricks and his partner immediately objects no concession has occurred. I therefor believe that for a defensive claim there should have to be acceptance by Declarer AND THE OTHER DEFENDER. I would welcome opinions on this suggestion

Here you go http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws-and-ethics/bidding-box-regs

Thank you very for the responses. They were more or less in line with my thoughts. There are 2 areas where I have definitely learned something. (A) The regulation has changed from when I last looked at it. (B) Do not trust the EBU web site as they are still showing the old regulation!!!! A couple of more details that I did not include in the original posting:- I was sitting South as a playing director so I was trying desperately to work out what my rights as a player and obligations as a TD were. I wanted to ensure that the board could be played if that was ethically/legally possible. Fortunately the opposition came to my rescue and asked North if he has missed the alert (phew!!). Just as well since the only players remotely competent to consult with were my partner and current opponents. Not sure about this regulation though. There were several pairs in the room for whom it would be distinctly unreasonable to determine that North's alert/explanation would imply that the alert of 1D had been missed. Would/should the ruling be different for those pairs? Has the South player any rights to intervene if the opposition do nothing? - Call a Director? As a playing Director should I intervene to save the board? Any way - thanks again.

From a Local Club event - so bidding boxes but not screens. EBU regulations. The bidding started as follows W N E S 1C P 1D 2D 1C was announced as could be 2 Clubs P North was heavily engaged in conversation with his opponents and not paying much attention 1D was alerted by West and explained as 4 or more Hearts 2D was alerted by North and explained as at least 5-5 in Hearts and Spades It was obvious to the other 3 players that North was unaware of the alert and explanation of the 1D bid. As director what do you do in the following scenarios (A) No one says anything and N-S go on to a disastrous result (B) South asks North if he is aware of the alert of 1D © South calls the Director. South will confirm that the alert and explanation were done in a normal manner.

Well we can agree on that, but what the player needs here is a *ruling* (that his 1C was not inadvertent) so that he can appeal later if necessary. Are you claiming there is a difference between leaving the table to talk to a Director and summoning the Director and asking to speak to him away from the table? The reference to *a* player is surely to ALL players at the table. If does not make sense for it to depend on exactly which player shouted "Director". For it to refer specifically to the summoner it should refer to *the* player.

Thanks for the responses. I was not aware of L81C2 so useful to add to my armoury. However in this case it appears to me that a judgement ruling as to whether the 1C is inadvertent or not is required. Such a ruling is surely appealable. L92A states "A contestant may appeal for a review of any ruling ** made at his table ** ... So do you really have any option??? May be true in general but how many scenarios can you imagine where the Dealer goes from the table to consult the Director after a single bid? A Laws knowledgeable player would be likely to have UI where many players would not. I am actually not convinced that UI laws are applicable. L9B© "Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled." L16A1© "It is information ... arising from the legal procedures ..."

The following is from a Club game under EBU jurisdiction. Case 1 You are called to the table where the only call is Dealer's 1C. The player asks if he can change his bid. You take the player away from the table and ask why he bid 1C. He shrugs and says he has no idea. Do you agree that the bid is NOT unintended? (If it matters to you he had a hand with 6 good Spades and a singleton Club) Case 2 As above except that the player approaches you away from the table. You determine that in your opinion the bid is not unintended. So do you (a) go to the table and rule that the bid is intended and so cannot be changed, or (b) go to the table and rule that the bidding should just continue, or © tell the player to return to the table and just carry on The bidding now carries on as follows - 1C 1N P P//2S Is there Unauthorised Information here (to Dealer's partner) (1) If you have ruled at the table that there is a call that cannot be changed as in Case 1 or Case 2(a) (2) If you have just let play continue as in Case 2(a) or Case 2(b) Thanks for any opinions.

I am not sure it is as simple as that. Consider L9B1c - Summoning the Director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled. With no Director call, the cards are returned to the board and Declarer is entitled to the score for both the last two tricks. Also (maybe) L12B3 - The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non-offending side ..... Here there is no damage (to a non-offender) so no adjustment.

[hv=pc=n&s=sjhtdc&w=shd98c&n=shd62c&e=sthd3c]399|300[/hv] The above 2 card ending was reached at our local duplicate. West was on lead with ♠ as trumps. On the ♦ lead, East ruffed (!!!!). South overruffed and cashed his ♥ South noticed the revoke so summoned the Director. I applied L62D - substituting the 3♦ for the 10♠ on trick 12, thereby transferring one trick from the NON offending side to the OFFENDING side. Do you think this ruling was correct?

Not sure that that is the right question either. Take an auction 1♠ Pass 3♠ Pass where 3♠ is invitational and slow. Now Pass MIGHT be the suggested action and 4♠ MIGHT be the suggested action, but you have to do something. The appropriate question is DOES the UI suggest an action NOT MIGHT it suggest an action.

Rumbled :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I was indeed South - hence I KNOW definitively what the hesitation was about. I found the situation over 5♠ exceedingly complex. Why had partner not agreed ♠ over 2♠? What would a Pass over 5♦ have shown? What would a double of 5♦ have shown? Would either of the 2 above followed by 5♠ be more or less encouraging than the direct 5♠ Was it possible 5♠ was a cue bid hoping I could show the A♣ At the end of a long tournament thought processes were not quick. By contrast I believe the decisions once you have decided what is going on are utterly trivial. My belief is that your interpretation of the procedure to be followed after UI is wrong. Firstly you determine if there was UI and if so what did it suggest. If the UI has more than possible reason - in this case partner was unsure of the meaning of 5♠ OR partner was thinking of bidding 6♠ or 6 Diamonds, then the director should weigh the evidence available - which will be the hands, the auction, the players' statements and the players' credibility and the result of any polls and form a view of what UI had actually been transmitted. You simply cannot say there was UI transmitted - it MIGHT have suggested bidding so treat it as if it did. This is going back to the regime of "If it hesitates, shoot it"

Well in my opinion South has a totally obvious pass over a competitive 5♠ bid as North will have only 3 card support on the vast majority of occasions. Equally he has a totally obvious 6♦ bid over an invitational or forcing 5♠ bid. In what was a highly unusual auction which was unlikely to be tempo sensitive (even if that was not how it turned out) and with potentially large number of imps resting on getting it right it appears highly likely that South would consider carefully the meaning of 5♠. I gave the auction to a partner of mine and his unprompted reaction was "What the hell is 5♠!"

For those of you who think that North bidding 5♠ and then 6♠ is absurd and clear evidence of skulduggery, let me pose the following question:- Suppose your estimate for the probability of 6♠ making is in the range of 25 to 50 percent and that you expect 6♥ to be going one off (at best) - your vul opponents not being total lunatics, then what should you bid (1) after 5♦ (2) after 6♥

I most certainly WOULD want to be in 6♠ opposite that hand. West is certain to hold 1 or zero ♠ on the auction. If it is zero 6♥ is almost certainly making and if one then it is 50-50 on it being a singleton honour.

Director ruling was result stands. South statement was that his hesitation was determining the meaning of the 5♠ bid. Once he had decided it was non forcing he passed. Hence the decision to bid 6♠ could not demonstrably have been suggested as required by L16B. Also in an auction as murky as this, a hesitation is to be expected so conveys little or no information. South had already expressed an interest in 6♦ with the 4♥ bid.

[hv=pc=n&s=sat953ha8dkj852c6&w=sqhkqjt7dcakt7542&n=skj74h92dat9643cq&e=s862h6543dq7cj983&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1s2s3d3h4h5d5spp6h6sppp]399|300[/hv] Governing Body - English Bridge Union 1♠ - at least 4♠ 2♠ - Michaels - at least 5♥ plus at least 5 of a minor 3♦ - natural and forcing 3♥ - I am macho 4♥ - Cue - ♦ slam interest 5♦ - Cue ♥ slam interest South Pass was slow Result 6♠ making 12 E-W appeal on the basis that North's 6♠ was based upon UI from South's slow pass. What is your verdict?

OK - a bit more information as it may be relevant. The event was a local inter-club team of 8 competition. So the players would have been selected to represent their club. They were NOT novices and knew sufficient to summon the director after misinformation. They may however have been inexperienced enough to find the incident "disconcerting". On the first round of Hearts West discards a Diamond.

[hv=pc=n&s=sajthakqj94dcaq52&n=sq53ht83da842c843&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=pp2d3dd3h4hp5dp5hp5sp6hppp]266|200[/hv] 2♦ 23+ or game force 3♦ alerted and explained as at least 5-5 in the Majors Director is first called after dummy is faced with South complaining that there has been misinformation and that they would never have been in 6♥. Director ruled that play should continue and that he should be called back at the end of the hand if N/S feel that they may have been damaged. Shortly thereafter the Director is called back to the table when Declarer has made 11 tricks. Investigation reveals that A♦ won the first trick (throwing a ♣), followed by the Q♠ covered by the K♠ and won with A♠ Thereafter ♥ were played from the top and ultimately lost the last 2 tricks. All that was required to make the contract was to cross to dummy with one of the ♥ entries and play East for K♣ So how do you rule?

My vote is for 2♥ - though I would have opened it 4♥ in the first place. At this form of scoring there is no need to push for close games. My partner ALWAYS puts down Jxx x xxxx KQxxx and even 2♥ is not proof against a 4-1 break. Saying you want to be in 4♥ opposite xxx x AKQxx xxxx or Qxx x AKxx xxxxx is plain silly because neither hand is a 1N response in any sensible version of Acol.

Well, with (most) non minimum hands with 5 clubs and 4 hearts you have a reverse of 2H. With minimum hands you have a pass. So double to show 4H is VERY rarely required. In the mean time X to show flawed NT solves this very common situation. It does not deny 4H so you may very well be able to get back to hearts if that is where you belong. After all you may have to bid your 5C and 4H hand after it is partner who bids 1S.

When playing a 4 card major and weak no trump system,it is normal to play double as a flawed No Trump rebid in this type of auction.