mrdct

"Alert X, don't alert Y" type regulations are a recipe for disaster as the SBs out there will argue, "bid Z isn't listed in the regulations as alertable so I'm not going to alert it". The BBO rule is very clear, simple to apply and well backed-up by the general disclosure requirements in the laws.

How much more "detail" do you think is required? I think the BBO rules are perfectly adequate in describing the approach one should take to alerting. Navigating to BBO's alerting regulations is even easier in the flash version. Simply click "Help", select "The Rules of this Site" and then scroll down to "Guidelines for Alerts". The wording is slightly different to what is contained in the windows version, but still comes down to the unambiguous rule of "if in doubt - alert" (paraphrased) which is a pretty easy rule to apply and the rule one would generally apply when playing with screens.

That may well be true in some jurisdictions, but when it comes to explaining bids if and when asked, Law 20F1 (which applies where ever you are) requires disclosure "... about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding". In my country, our regulations require alerts where "the call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect". The only thing an opponent can reasonably infer from a bid being alerted is that it potentially carries an unexpected meaning. If they choose not to ask and it's not something I was required to pre-alert under my NBO's alerting regulations, they do so entirely at their own risk. Also, I don't think there would be a single bid in bridge where only two "styles" were in use in the game. I can think of at least three common meanings of 1♥:1♠.

In all jurisdictions it is extremely rare to get in trouble for alerting something that turns out to be non-alertable; but it is quite common to get into trouble for failing alert something that is alertable. I think the best advice is that apart from things that your NBO explicitly deems as self-alerting or non-alertable, if you are in any doubt you should err on the side of alerting.

The meaning of the term "constructive" came up in a contentious ruling at the recent APBF Championships, albeit in the Ladies Series, where there were profound differences in opinion as to what "constructive" meant. Bridge World defines it as "(of a bid) indicating definite values". Bridge Guys define it as "a description applied to a bid that suggests game prospects but is not forcing. The partner will take further action more often than not". Personally, I've always interpreted constructive as meaning, "I have some values and a hand which may well be suitable for game and is definately interested in competing strongly if we have a fit and which is not suitable to take a preemptive action at this point". We have already been told that this was a club game where SAYC and 2/1 are the only systems played, so a precision-style 2♣ would be entirely unfamiliar to just about everyone, so a vague explanation of "constructive" is manifestly inadequate and probably misleading.

Using the Windows version: Click to Play or Watch Bridge! All Tournaments Tournament Rules Page 2 "Tournament Guidelines" These regulations certainly apply to all tournaments and teams matches unless there are specific "Tournament Rules" uploaded to a particular tournament. In the case of ACBL-sanctioned tournaments, the alerting rules are slightly different, but would still clearly make the OP's 1♠ bid alertable: I would love to hear from some of the "no" voters as to the rationale for reaching such a conclusion.

The alerting regulations are clearly set out in the BBO Tournament Guidelines: Notwithstanding the foregoing, I'm not aware of any bridge jurisdiction where this 1♠ bid would not be alertable.

There is a comma after "... card will be played" so under normal grammatical construction the "or" you refer to splits the Law 68C requirements into three separate options. Yes it does. I am telling my opponents that the defence that they are now forced to embark on will result in me winning the rest of the tricks.

I'm going to buck the trend here and say that Mike Flader (who I wouldn't know from a bar of soap) isn't necessarily wrong here. The selective quote from Law 68C used by several people in this thread is misleading and you need to look at the entirety of Law 68C, if not the entirety of Law 68. To comply with Law 68C you have three choices: state the order in which cards will be played; state the line of play; or state the defence through which the claimer proposed to win the tricks claimed. One of the more fun things to do as declarer is to claim on a squeeze or end-play where your claim statement might be something like, "you are end-played" as you face your hand. I haven't indicated the order in which cards will be played or stated the line of play as these will be dependent on what the defender does next; but I have stated the defence through which I'm going to win the rest of tricks. Accordingly, Mike Flanders is correct that it is not a "requirement" to state a line of play when claiming.

In this case, the precision player chose to add to his "no" response the additional information that it is "constructive". Once he chose to elaborate on his "no" response, he is surely obliged to fully explain what 2♣ means. Similar to the ACBL, in my country after any enquiry about a bid a "full explanation" must be given even if it wasn't explicitly requested which I think is a good regulation*. This is not, however, a requirement under WBF regulations (which I guess are the de facto regulations for the Venezuelan NBO) so the precision player might get away with just saying "no" but would certainly not be OK once he starts giving an incomplete description of the bid. Notwithstanding the possible absence of explicit guidance as to how thoroughly one must explain one's bid, Law 40B deals with "Special Partnership Understandings" which "may not be readily understood and anticipated by significant number of players in the tournament" and provides the remedy of an adjusted score where "a side that is damaged as a consequence of its opponents’ failure to provide disclosure of the meaning of a call or play". So whether this event is played in Caracas, New York, Paris or Timbuktu the explanation of "no it's constructive" is inadequate disclosure and as the TD I would be making it very clear to the precison pair that if they want to play an unfamiliar system they need to be particularly careful to be accurate and thorough with their alerts and explanations. *A big advantage is that it reduce potential UI from a questioner asking specific questions about sub-features of the bid which may convey to partner that he is not interested in some other features of the bid.

If the auction included any artificial bids, it's reasonable for both declaring side players to assume that enquiries had been made on the other side of the screen. The ACBL don't actually stipulate that the "2b confirmation" be in writing, so I presume at the end of the auction if either of the declaring side are in any doubt they simply pipe-up and say something like "did you describe 4♠ as exclusion or a just a cue?". As for the "2a confirmation", I guess the guy on lead just slips a note under the screen with whatever question he wants to ask his opponent on the other side of the screen. This probably throws up some UI issues though as his partner now has UI that his partner has some doubt about the explanations given on his side of the screen.

The vugraph records seem to indicate that Cayne actually cashed the ♠A and ♠J before the claim, pitching ♣s from dummy, with the operator stating: "director called now since Jimmy played AJ6 of spades and W claimed last two tricks for down one Jimmy is stating that he didnt do that and claimed two" I guess Cayne must have argued that it would beyond "careless or inferior" to play a 3rd round of ♠ when east showed-out when he cashed the ♠A. However, doubtful points invariably get resolved against the claimer and it looks like the TD determined the facts on the basis that Cayne did indeed believe all of his ♠s were cashing. On the info available here, I think the TD and AC probably got this right. I think this thread belongs in Laws Forum.

Depends on the screen regulations in force. Under WBF regulations it would not be allowed, but I think under ACBL regulations it is allowed.

We need a copy of the Venezuelan alerting regulations. In some places the pair playing precision would be required to pre-alert the meaning of the 2♣ opening. The term "constructive" no doubt means different things to different people. For someone who has never seen precision before they may well thing "constructive" is akin to "strong" or GF. I generally rule on the basis that it is the responsibility of the person explaining a bid to make sure they do so clearly and unambiguously. In this case the precision pair know they are playing unfamiliar methods, so I think they owe an even greater duty of care to ensure that their opponents know exactly what's going on. I'm going to wind the auction back to the 2♣ bidder's LHO and let him have his bid back. In the event that LHO takes an action other than "pass", I'll inform opener that his partner's previous pass is UI. I will caution non-precision pair to in future ask what bids mean, not whether they show X or Y.

Most screen regulations don't allow for any communication across the screen unless the TD permits it, so the simple solution is call the TD who will presumably simply get south to explain the auction to east through the aperture. I can't imagine east-west ever being damaged by north not being around to explain his side's bids to east as west will always be basing his opening lead on what south told him and east is about to see north's hand on the table and would've got the north-south explanations from the closed hand. If north's hand doesn't happen to coincide with south's explations, east-west will be fully protected. I think it's quite rude to leave the table without at the very least seeking permission from your opponents and I would probably give north a firm "talking to" but probably not a procedural penalty if he hasn't been given a warning before.

Yep - edited my post accordingly. I think west has shown his style of competitive bidding on the previous round when he took no action. He later backed in when the opps had (based on his information) found a fit, but I think it is reasonable to assume he would continue passing if south had shown an artificial GF given his earlier reluctance to bid. If east had been told 2♦ was an artificial GF that surely would've reduced his propensity to double 3NT. East's double may well be careless or inferior, but I don't think it could be classed as a SEWoG.

I agree with the director's second ruling of 3♦=. A good way to look at this is to place a screen across the table in which case south would've told west he had a GF and then when the tray went to the other side north would pass what he thought was a natural and NF 2♦ bid and east isn't going to balance with his 8-count with ♦QJxx.

I think plenty of them do for a variety of reasons: - they feel they are supporting youth bridge by giving a younger play a leg-up; - they might be able to get a younger pro at a more affordable rate; - for clients not aspiring to winning national events, but just want to be competitive in whatever flight/strata they play in, a younger pro is probably going to suit better as they are more likley to below the masterpoint cut-offs; - some of these "20 year old pros" are bloodly good bridge players. I only ever played professionally when I was in my early 20s and still at university. I wasn't a particularly good bridge player in open competition at the time (nor am I now) but I was doing OK in youth events having made a few state and national teams. My client was happy as all she wanted was to win a duplicate every now and then and not have her partner yelling at her but get a few constructive comments after the session. The $100 or so per week I'd pull from a couple of club duplicates was more than enough to put petrol in my car and pay for the week's beer and pizza.

This is another "must", "should", "shall", "may" situation: Law 9A: "... may draw attention to an irregularity ..." (failure to do it is not wrong). Law 9B: "... the Director should be summoned at once ..." (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised). If my opponents "break the rules" on matters of no consequence to my quiet enjoyment of the game, I am under no obligation to draw attention to the irregularity or call the Director. I may be putting at risk some of my rights for rectification, but I'm doing so with eyes wide open. If I'm having difficulty seeing my screenmate's alerts and/or understanding his explanations (verbal or written) I'll first ask him to be more clear and only if that doesn't work would I consider calling the director to ask him to clarify correct procedure for my screenmate. I once played in a match in World Championship where for the first couple of boards my screenmate didn't alert anything where there had clearly been a few alertable calls. I simple wrote on the notepad, "pls alert anything artificial" and for the rest of the match everything was fine and I didn't need to waste the TD's time or rub my screenmate up the wrong way.

I'm sure Australia isn't alone in that government funding of Olympic sports is generally much higher than non-Olympic sports and obviously a lot higher than the ziltch that non-recognised sports like bridge get. I would expect the main beneficiaries to be the elite representative players who would have access to far more funding to compete in overseas tournaments, but with more money available to NBOs generally I'm sure there will be benefits for all bridge players. Personally, I don't think bridge fits into "Citius, Altius, Fortius" concept and shouldn't be in the Olympics, but there are plenty of borderline "sports" in the Olympics already, particularly those where winners are determined by subjective judging. I think that official recognition as a sport would be quite useful for marketing and development of bridge and the obvious advantages in places where governments either fund or give tax relief to sports.

I think I'll be OK for a couple of reasons: The Law 7C reference to shuffling the cards before returning them to the board is a "should" not a "must". Under Law 9A4 there is no obligation on me to draw attention to an infraction by my own side.

Yes Yes Yes Wouldn't have been in my considerations My opponent at the other table may know Yes In my entire bridge career, I have only once seen a player (a quintessential SB-type) call the TD because their hand arrived sorted and it pissed me off incredibly as the TD lazily decided to scrub the board. It was actually a really interesting hand that I was denied the opportunity to bid and play. Stop being such conspiracy theorists and just play each hand on its merits. If there was any potential grey area with my actions on a sorted hand that I received, I'd tell my opponents at the end of the board that my hand arrived sorted and if they think I may have used EI feel free to get the TD to look at it. Sure to win some ethical brownie points and certainly keep the conscience clear if that was remotely an issue. I'm pretty sure nobody at my local bridge club follows this forum, so as a scientific experiment when I play tomorrow night (as playing director) I am going to sort my hand after every board and see if anyone notices and/or calls me. We pretty much always play a Howell movement so I'll get a reasonable sample size. It's a mixed standard club of generally beginner-standard retirees at the senior citizens centre, but usually get two or three of our life masters along so probably typical rural duplicate. I'm betting that "zero" is a pretty strong favourite for the number of TD calls I receive on this issue.

True, but many hands are claimed at trick 1 or 2 and there are several reasons why a hand may arrive sorted, so I'm at a loss to understand how a person could conclude that a board was passed-in at the previous table just because his hand arrived sorted so I don't think there is necessarily any 'accidental UI' that you need to be calling the director about. Coming back to the OP and what South may ethically or unethically do over 4♥, it doesn't really look like a hand likely to have been passed-in at other tables given that east apppears to have opened in 4th seat without length in ♠ and then has competed to game after a simple negative double by his passed-hand partner. We are also told the scoring is IMPs, so what's to be gained by doubling anyway?

The deficiency in the current laws and regulations is that whilst it is quite explicit that it is the responsibility of the alerting party to ensure that his screenmate is aware of the alert, the laws and regulations are silent as to the extent to which a similar obligation exisits for the party providing an explanation to ensure that his screenmate has understood the explanation. In the absence of other evidence, if the alerter says he said "X" and his screenmate says he heard "Y", I am going to take those representations on face value and conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that whilst the alerter did say "X" he wasn't very clear and his screenmate heard "Y". Giving an unclear explanation is tantamount to giving a misexplanation, so if the unclear explanation gave rise to damage, I will rule against the person who gave the unclear explanation. I will certainly caution both parties to follow the correct procedure of written Q&A, but the laws guide us that these sorts of transgressions are not ordinarily subject to penalty.

I'm with you in terms of getting bridge into the Olympic Games being a silly objective, but I think it's manisfestly unfair that a passtime like archery, which has a way lower participation rate than bridge, gets hundreds of thousands of dollars thrown at it when bridge gets nothing.