mrdct

Did the TD ascertain what the systemic meaning of 5♣ is after the artificial 3♣ bid? I would probably assume 5♣ shows first round control and slam interest.

Whilst declarer did not specify a line he expressed a firmly held belief that LHO was holding the same number of spades as he was, so unless he sees LHO pitch a ♠ he is going to assume the ♠5 is a loser. Accordingly, a line finishing with the ♣ loser in dummy rather than the ♠ loser in hand is perfectly consistent with declarer's concession. Giving declarer some credit, I'm sure he doesn't think there are 14 spades in the deck but has just made an additon error of either 6+6+2=13 or 6+2=7. Let he who has never made an arithmetic error at the bridge table cast the first stone. If he'd claimed one down at trick one before testing spades that would be extremely odd and I'd first like to ask South what he has been smoking and why he hasn't been sharing it. But in this fairly unlikely hypothetical situation, I guess the most plausible reason for the claim is that he has tried to count his tricks, reached 12 and concluded he's one down. To reach the conclusion of only 12 tricks, he's either thought 6+2+3+2=12 or perhaps he's miscounted the spades and thinks he's got 5+2+3+2=12. In any case I think there would still exist lines predicated on confusion as to where his tricks are coming from that would see him finishing in dummy with a ♣ loser. These line would obviously be "careless or inferior" but they are rational insofar as they can be rationalised by declarer based on his evident mistaken assumptions. I rule one down.

I think there is a plausible third line to consider, bearing in mind that declarer believes this deck to contain 14 ♠s. This would be to attempt to fool the opponents into thinking that there is squeeze on and hope that both will let go of ♣. Basically cash the ♠AKQJ10, pitching two ♣s and a ♥, at which point you "know" your LHO holds the 5 1/2♠ so you cash your winners finishing in dummy and hope and pray that the ♣6 has managed to get good - which of course it hasn't. The theme being that if he doesn't know that the ♠5 is good he probably won't have much idea about whether the ♣6 is good. The lines to go down in 7NT are certainly careless and inferior but would not be considered irrational. Accordingly, I rule 7NT-1. As for the other questions: a. Yes I would appeal arguing that everybody cashes their winners from the top so there is no possible way of going down. Well worth a try and I doubt I'd lose my deposit. b. Kind of depends on what the event is, who my opponents were and how the TD rationalised his ruling. I'd probably just have a chat to an appeals advisor and only appeal if encouraged to do so. c. Yes, that ruling is quite silly and appears to be just rubbing declarer's nose in his own ineptitude. d. Yes.

5D looks a completely normal bid to me, but I have a personal rule that I always compete to at least the 5-level when I have values in my suits. I would quiz South a bit about his general style and approach with 6-5s and if he's a well known pro corroborate that with any historical data available as to how he treats such hands. West is going to get the book thrown at him. I would bring a formal disciplinary charge against him which in my jurisdiction would almost certainly result in a suspension.

Well this clarifies a few things, although we need to also ask South what the range of his "unusual NT" is as if it's wide ranging and he's minimum the 4♣ bid will be more defensible. So clearly now north-south have "no agreement" so there was unambiguously a misexplanation of 2NT by North and with the associated non-alert South is in possession of UI that he partner thinks the agreement is "natural 10-12". The UI suggests to South that his partner is playing him for a hand far better suited for NT than he is actually holding and does suggest not sitting the double. However, South is also in possession of AI that LHO has made a freebid of 3♠ and RHO has made a penalty double of 3NT. South's hand is particularly ill-suited for NT and I still don't think in these circumstances pass is a logical alternative (particularly if a 6-count is minimum or sub-minimum in South's mind).

To decide whether or not 3NTx may have been ripped by North if South had passed, we really need to know a bit more about the players. Although largely self-serving so of limited value, the TD could also enquire of North as to what was running through his mind when 3NT got doubled. I think against decent opponents and a partner with a track-record of system-forgets, running from 3NTx looks like quite a likely action from North.

To rule properly we probably need to ascertain what the NS agreement was for the 2NT bid. Also, what sort of 1NT opening? are NS playing (could be relevant)? I've not personally come across any partnerships that play 1♣:(Dbl):2NT as both minors, so I'm inclined to think it's either "no agreement" (in which case there has been a misexplanation) or "natural 10-12 bal" (in which case there has been a misbid or psyche by south together with potential UI from north to south via the non-alert). If it's a "misexplanation" situation, EW would be entitled to an adjustment based on some alternative action had they been given the correct explanation of "no agreement". Looking at these hands, if 2NT had been described as "no agreement" or "undiscussed" it's not really clear to me which actions, if any, taken by EW would be any different so I'm probably going to let the table result stand. Irrespective of the non-alert and the explanation given for the 2NT bid, East is looking at ♠AKx opposite a vulnerable freebid of 3♠ and 17hcp together with South running from 3NTx, so he can pretty much rule-out South holding 10-12 bal. I guess West could potentially bid 4♠ immediately over an "undiscussed" 2NT, but it seems like South is intent on backing in with 5♣ anyway so it is still for EW to judge to compete to 5♠ which they failed to in practice on an auction where arguably it was easier to do so. If it's a misbid/psyche with UI, we need to consider if south had any logical alternatives to the 4♣ and/or 5♣ bids. If he hasn't intentionally psyched, South has UI that his partner thinks he's 10-12 bal so when 3NT gets hit, it is certainly a lot easier to run when he's got no ♠ stopper, 6hcp and is ill-suited for NT. However, if 2NT had been described as "undiscussed" or "weak both minors" I think he's virtually automatic to run to 4♣ so I don't think pass is a logical alternative. In any case, if South passes North is quite likely to run to 4♣ himself and South will probably still compete to 5♣ leaving East with essentially the same 5-level judgement to make. So in this scenario I will probably let the result stand also. If you were to appeal, what would the grounds be?

My local club ran an individual last month as part of the annual Christmas Party using ScoreBridge and BridgePads and it worked perfectly - even when we decided to truncate the movement by a couple of rounds when the catering arrived a bit earlier than we had ordered. Previous attempts to run and score individuals at the club manually had always been a major hassle with questionable accuracy; but with the electronic scoring units it's really easy. We are now looking at adding some Swiss Pairs events to the calendar. To that end, say we have 16 pairs and want to play 4 matches of 7 boards (the minimum in Australia to issue masterpoints for match wins in addition to placing) with a reasonably well-seeded field would there be merit in starting with 1v2, 3v4, 5v6, etc? My thinking is that by starting with the top seeds playing each other, we are more likely to have everyone playing opps of comparable standard for all four matches; but in every seeded swiss pairs or swiss teams event that I've played in the draw for round 1 has always been 1 v 1+n/2, etc.

Why does the black player get an extra stone?

Don't we need to ascertain what north-south's systemic agreements are first, particularly their rules for forcing pass situations? I would almost certainly allow the 5♠ bid for several reasons: - I am extremely reluctant to ever defend holding a 6-5 with a known 10 card fit; - If South's pass is forcing, I'm not allowed to pass; - If South's pass is not forcing and partner couldn't find a double, 5♥ feels like it's cold and on a total trick basis the unfavourable sacrifice look to be a good shot and might even make given that we probably don't have wastage in ♥ and could set up my ♦ suit.

North clearly has UI from his partner's misexplanation of the 2♠ opening and must make the correct conventional response to whatever their partnership agreement is for a 2NT response to the "semi-forcing 2♠" opening. In the absence of evidence as to the specific partnership agreement, I would assume the agreement to be "progress naturally" in which case I would expect that the only bids we would allow North to make would be 3♠ (extra length) or 3NT (solid suit). In both cases, however, South will get an authorised "wake-up call" due to partner not showing his minor and would surely make a slam try just as he did after the potentially dodgey 4♠ bid. Accordingly, I'm going to let the table result stand unless there is some other conventional response to 2NT which would get NS off the rails. I'm also going to give North a stern talking to about acting on UI and possibly a PP. btw, did 6♠ make?

Well there is actually, Law 74B1 "... a player should refrain from ... paying insufficient attention to the game".

For the player concerned that's quite plausible.

[hv=pc=n&s=s9hdtc&w=shk3dc&n=sthqdc&e=sh5d5c]399|300[/hv] Matchpoint pairs - Australia. South is declaring in 4♠ with 9 tricks taken already. With the lead in dummy, she called for the ♥Q and simultaneously played the ♦10 from her hand whilst stating "I'm going to ruff the ♥ and then dummy is good". The ♦10 was fully released from her hand and placed face-up on the table as she was making her claim statement and it seems that she made a mechanical error thinking she was playing the ♠9 but she didn't didn't attempt to correct it until after West had played his ♥K. South is a fairly weak player for whom it is by no means certain that she would've known if the ♥Q was high or not and cross-ruffing in a two-card ending has been mucked-up in the past. Do we let her have the last two tricks or do we treat the ♦10 as a played card?

Not really because in the event that North-South become the declaring side, North could then get South to restate the explanation of 2♥ and provide a correction or clarification if necessary.

Pragmaticly, accepting a claim of the remaining tricks is the same thing as conceding the rest of the trick so I think one would make a reasonable arguement that Law 71 could apply; but even within the constraints of Law 69B, if the TD's attention is drawn to an impossible claim or concession by any party it would seem perfectly appropriate for him to look at the hand and invite the pair who accepted the claim to withdraw their acceptance and then rescore the board. As for the ways in which players would want to win, personally all I ever want is to play in a fair contest where everyone is trying their best and playing in accordance with the laws and the proprieties of the game. I most certainly would not want to win an event based on my own incorrect claim and perhaps the "persuasion" ought to be directed at the person who declared 7♦ who, like his opponents, seems to have either not counted the number of missing trumps or wasn't looking at the pips properly. If the scenario was the pair coming second persuading another pair to appeal a 50/50 TD ruling I think that would be douche-bagesque, but if it's simply highlighting an unambiguous injustice such as 7♦ making on a bad claim with an unavoidable trump loser I don't see anything remotely wrong with it.

Law 71 is completely silent as to the manner in which the TD's attention might be drawn to a potentially erroneous concession and gives the TD no discretion but to cancel an impossible concession and rescore the board if it's within the correction period. It is completely normal for a pair not involved at the table in question to see an impossible score on the travelling scoresheet and draw the TD's attention to it. Usually this is for things like 4♥ by North instead of West or a result scored with the wrong vulnerability, but can also be impossible results like, in this case, 7♦ making with an unavoidable trump loser. Nothing in the Laws would prevent this and an analogous situation would be where at the end of session when chatting about the hands it becomes evident that a board was played in a fouled state at my friend's table but was as per the hand record at my table. In such a situation, I would most certainly encourage my friend to inform the TD, even though I had no direct involvement with the board being played in a fouled state.

Routinely, players in a duplicate session can and should draw the TD's attention to potential scoring irregularities either on the travelling scoresheet or the bridgemate display if enabled. If I see an impossible score on a traveller, whether or not it's to my advantage, I place a question mark next to it and/or draw the TD's attention to it during a break or at the end of the session. I have never encountered a situation where the TD has not appreciated players highlighting potential scoring irregularities on a traveller and there is certainly nothing in the Laws to restrict a player from doing so.

I regularly use a Dell Mini 9 and a Dell Latitude 2100 and both are fine.

Does it cut down on conversation at meal times? Nah, it's a pretty big room and the bridge table sits in the corner out of the way.

Screens generally extend about a foot (30cm) from the NW and SE corners of the table so if tables are boxed, in order to maintain the same width walking coridors, you need to have the tables spaced to a larger footprint. So by applying a bit of Pytharagous, with 30cm extensions boxed tables will need to be 42.4cm further apart to maintain the same walking coridors. From the look of the photo from Bulletin 4, space doesn't really seem to be much of an issue so perhaps they decided to not box the tables to make moving around the room easier and to reduce the chance of the movement being fouled by people with a poor sense of direction. imho, however, boxing the tables is best practice and should also be employed where practical. I like screens so much I have one permanently set up in my living room and play all of my home games with screens.

The links page on ecatsbridge has a few sources for live scores, one of which seems to be taking a live bridgemate feed and has very timely information.

Yes one can. In an event played pursuant to the WBF System Policy, a "short spade" system would almost certainly be caught by the concept of "may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament". And that makes it less natural how? By regulation. A key part of the test of whether or not something is natural is whether or not it is readily understood and anticipated. A "short spade" would not satisfy that test but a "short club" would (in most places). The Laws, in fact, go a little bit further with the definition of natural by tying it in to the "opinion of the regulating authority". Some regulating authorities do better than others in having a sensible and tight set of regulations defining the concept of natural.

I've just been reading bulletin #4 which has the draw for the Rosenblum qualifying and it seems quite odd that with a field of 145 teams they have split them up into 15 pools of 9 and one pool of 10. On the face of it, this generates byes for 135 teams in what already appears to be an unbelievably light playing schedule of just 48 boards per day (assuming 16-board matches based on the session length of 140 minutes). Obviously 145 is a difficult number to deal with to reduce the field to 64 teams, but surely something better could've been worked out to not give byes to so many teams. Unless, of course, the 9-team pools are going to have triangles or run successive American Whilst movements, but that sounds like a logistical nightmare. I wonder what movement they are going to use in the ladies event to spend three days reducing a field of 31 teams to 32! Also, are the session times in the bulletin correct? The first session is 110 minutes (10:30-12:20) but the second and third sessions are 140 minutes.

You are missing my point Ron. In bridge, "natural" is defined, albeit poorly, in laws and regulations which generally come down to whether or not a particular treatment is readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players. Where you and I learnt our bridge, opening a suit with less than four cards would've been unequivocally un-natural and it would've been most improper for a pair playing "better minor" not to at least pre-alert their alien methods or go a step futher and alert whenever these strange 1♣ and 1♦ openings crop up as any self-respecting bridge player at that place and time would not in their wildest imaginations expect to come across someone opening a suit with less than four cards in it.