mrdct

Not true. Play ceases when the claim is made (law 68D) at which point the cloak of silence is lifted from dummy and he is free to speak (law 42). Helping inexperienced opponents interpret a claim is entirely appropriate once play has ceased, but I don't think dummy should interject in the middle of declarer's claim statement and should limit his involvement to scenarios where the claim has been made and the opponents are unsure about it. Online bridge is more-or-less the same in repsect of dummy's rights and limitations so I would have no difficulty with dummy helping the opponents understand the claim. The playing on after a claim is rejected is a necessary peculiarity of online bridge, but such play doesn't form part of the "official" play of the hand under the laws of bridge and is merely a mechanism to equitably resolve disputed claims without a director by giving the non-claimers a double-dummy defence and is often faster than declarer typing out a detailed explanation of his claim. While declarer is getting on with playing out a disputed claim online, I see nothing wrong with dummy chiming-in with a helpful comment or two to expedite matters.

For a few reasons: 1. The trailing team can concede "with honour" (i.e. not formally giving up). 2. The leading team is appropriately rewarded for outclassing their opponents by getting some extra rest or getting to catch an earlier flight home. 3. In some cases it could increase the interest in a blow-out match as the leading team strives to rack-up enough imps to invoke the mercy rule. 4. The concept has proven effective in other sports such as baseball. 5. Time and money saver for tournament convenors. 6. It could minimise unsporting concessions (i.e. concessions where there trailing team is in fact within striking distance but wants to confer some sort of advantage on their opponents because they are friends with them or other more sinister reasons).

I think about 5-6 imps per remaining board is a reasonable threshold - somewhere around the 80 to 100 mark for a 16-board segment. I've only ever conceded a KO match once when my team was down about 50 imps with 14 boards to play in a 42 board match (played in 3 segments) which was perhaps a tad defeatist, but it was against the number one seed and we had only just scrapped into the eight-team KO phase and it meant going home at 9:00pm instead of 11:00pm. I would be supportive of some sort of mercy rule to be written into conditions of contests which mandates a concession going into the final segment if the margin is greater than x-imps per board.

Have a look at the format of the Yeh Bros Cup which works quite well for a field of 24 teams, so 23 shouldn't be much of a problem. Basically the field plays 10 rounds of swiss over the first two days to qualify the top 16 teams to the KO stage. In the KO stage, the top 8 team form the top bracket and the next 8 teams form the lower bracket. The top bracket plays double KO (losers move to the lower bracket) and the lower bracket plays single KO. Accordingly, at the 3rd round of the KO, the upper bracket has two undefeated teams and the lower bracket has six surviving teams who then play two triangles, the winners of which join the loser from the round 3 upper bracket match for a further triangle to decide the finalist to play-off against the single undefeated team from the upper bracket. The diagram here explains it all.

Is there a difference between being "strenuously bent" and just "bent"? Bent or otherwise, if the reason you are looking at your opponents is to pick-up some sort of read or tell, you are cheating.

In Australia you would most definately be required to alert 1NT if it came up in the 2nd segment as the alerting regulations here require you to alert anything that your opponents may not expect that isn't otherwise self-alerting. Your opponents can't possibly be expected to know that you have changed your methods during the break. Irrespective of jurisdiction I would suggest that you need to somehow inform your opponents under the general principle of full disclosure which could be achieved by simply telling them at the start of the segment, but given the low frequency of the auction I think it would probably be best to just alert it if it comes up.

I don't know how much more "intently" one can get than bending down and peering through the screen aperture so the scenario in the OP is clearly not on. Players who purposefully watch their opponents' mannerisms with the intent of gathering extra clues on how to play the hand are scumbags and should go away and play a different game.

Any communication across the two sides of the screen during the play of the hand is highly improper. Moreover, I think it's quite unethical to try to deliberately observe the mannerisms of your opponents with or without screens anyway. The relevant Australian regulation (which I presume is similar in other jurisdictions):

If declarer believes that there are no trumps outstanding, which is clearly evident from the play and the admission by delcarer, it would not be irrational to ruff a ♥, so sorry sweetheart - one more trick for the defence. The rules are pretty clear that if you are missing a trump and don't know about it, you will be deemed to lose a trick to it if a trick can be lost by normal play.

I didn't realise the remark was erroneous until declarer made his "real" claim after I made a seemingly safe switch to dummy's ♠AK tight to contain the overtricks rather than continue ♥ (my suit). I did call the director as soon I realised that declarer's hand was not consistent with his comment.

I had a situation on the weekend where I lead my long suit (which I'd opened and received a weak raise from partner) against 3NT with partner's ace picking up dummy's stiff J and then partner duly continued the suit with a highish pip that declarer didn't cover. I then went into quite a long tank (probably more than a minute) as I tried to fully assess declarer's prospects and what our best chance of defeating the contract was just in case there was any need for me to overtake the current pip and/or switch to another suit. Declarer then made the comment "you don't need to worry about anything" after which I assumed he had 9 top tricks and proceeded to severely misdefend the hand to let it make when it was quite simple to beat it. Having regard to the definition of a claim in Law 68A: Could declarer's comment be construed as a "suggestion that play be curtailed" in which case the play (i.e. my misdefence) subsequent to the claim is voided? The TD ruled (some 15 hours later) that the comment wasn't a claim and allowed the table result to stand but cautioned declarer not to make such comments in future. The Appeals Advisor recommended against appealing (so I didn't) but did recommend that the incident be reported to the Recorder. Since this incident, I've been contemplating adopting an approach when similar comments are made by the opps to say, "I'll take that as a claim" and then face my hand and say, do you agree with the claim partner? In fairness to declarer, his comment was predicated on an assumption that I held 6 cards in the suit I made a weak-jump overcall in and that he could safely take a finesse in dummy's long suit into the safe hand; but as it turns out I bid it on a 5-card suit (partner holding 4 and the K of dummy's long suit).

Operator tells would really be no different to kibitzer tells so I don't think it's fair to conclude that BBO vugraph increases the risk of a player cheating in this manner as they are probably equally as likely to cheat by getting a read off kibitzers if that is how they choose to play the game. There are existing controls in the laws and regulations around kibitzer behaviour which operators should also be following (except the one about looking at more than one hand of course) which I think are adequate.

BBO vugraph is so ubiquitous now that it is extremely unlikely that any players in the European Championships would not have played many times already on vugraph so I really don't expect it would be a new experience for anyone. I think the potential anxiety that players may develop is more to do with playing Italy than playing on vugraph. If the operator is competent there shouldn't be any tells. In any case, in the thousands of boards that I've operated I can't recall any player intentionaly looking at me to get a read on what's going on. If I did see such behaviour, I would go straight to the recorder after the match.

I had this auction at the club duplicate the other night: 1NT:(1♥):1NT: Is it legal to have a partnership agreement to play 1NT as lebensohl after a 1-level insufficient overcall?

Nothing extraordinary about that hand - roll the contract back to 5♠.

I take your point about KO matches where monetary deposits do make more sense in the last segment, but I have to say that in Australia I think the scoreboard penalty for appeals without merit is far more effective and equitable. I copped a 1VP fine at our last nationals for an appeal without merit (totally unjustified of course as my appeal had substantial merit) which was a huge penalty as I was playing on a team knocking on the door of a qualifying position for the KO stage and we needed every VP we could get. Not that I'm made of money, but when it's already costing me a pretty penny to play in the nationals once I take account of travel, accommodation, entry fees, time off work, etc, I couldn't care less about losing a US$40 deposit, but losing a VP that might cost me making it through to the KO stage is a major disincentive to making a frivilous appeal. Under the Australian system, appeals become a little bit like poker pot odds where you need to weight-up the risk of a 1VP fine against a potential gain of, say, 5VPs. Like other jurisdictions, Australia has "appeals advisors" available at the major events who can add some certainty to the process as if you appeal when advised not to you will be fined and, conversely, if you lose an appeal after an appeals advisors told you that your appeal had a reasonable chance of success you cannot be fined. So in my jurisdiction at least the wise thing to do is consult with an appeals advisor and try to convince him to tick the box on the form saying that he believes that there is a reasonable chance of success and if you can't get him to do that, accept the TD's ruling as you are destined to lose your appeal and lose a VP.

What was the entire auction and what was RHO's hand? Depending who may or not be limited and what controls may or not have been shown, RHO could quite easily have a hand where pass is not a logical alternative so I'll defer my vote until I see the additional information. My preliminary thoughts, however, are that your opponents probably benefited from the long tank as an immediate 5♠ would almost certainly be passed by RHO unless he held something extraordinary and I'm likely to give the benefit of any doubt to the non-offending side. That being said, unless RHO is a known self-serving habitual liar, I'm often inclined to place a fair bit of weight on the honesty of bridge players so I will look him in the eye and ask him whether he realised his error before or after his partner went into the tank. I will also ask him if the question of why is partner taking so long entered his mind.

The relevant Australian regulation is: 3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. a. The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: •Responder’s first round jump shift on weak hands. •A non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid (whether or not after intervention). •A pass which forces partner to take action (e.g. SWINE). b. The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: •A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a stopper in the overcalled suit. •A jump raise of opener’s one-level bid which may be weak or pre-emptive. •A single raise of partner’s suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. 1♦ - 2♦ forcing. •The rebid in a canapé sequence where the second suit may be longer than the first. •A 1♥ opening which denies holding 4+ spades. On that basis 3♦ possibly should have been alerted as a "non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid" but it seems that NS may not necessarily have had that agreement and south simply choose to pass based on the AI "table feel" from EW's huddles.

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sq2hdaqj10942cj762&w=sak5haj1096d75cq53&e=sj1093hkq2dk3ca1098&s=s8764h87543d86ck4]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] The auction was: South:West:North:East 2♥(1):pass(2):3♦(3):pass(4) pass(5):dbl :pass:3NT all pass (1) Not alerted. Described on card as "6♥ 5-9hcp can be 5♥ & weaker at fav vul". (2) Picked up NS convention card, studied it in detail, huddled and then passed. (3) Not alerted and not documented in NS's convention card or notes. (4) Huddled and then passed. (5) Huddled (was trying to decide if 3♦ was forcing and took advantage of the AI of EW's huddles to conclude that this was EW's hand). Immediately after south passed east says "If I'd known 3♦ was non-forcing I would have bid" and calls the director. The director firstly admonished east for making the verbal comment that she did and instructed west to be careful not to take advantage of this or any other UI. The director then ruled that the auction continue and EW duly bid and made 3NT with a couple of overtricks. NS called the director back to the table to argue that passing out 3♦ was a logical alternative for west. EW made a counter argument that if they had known 2♥ could be so bad and that 3♦ was non-forcing they would've easily bid to 3NT. How would you rule?

It is sometimes difficult to properly fulfil one's disclosure obligations when "judgement" and "hand evaluation" become intertwined with your "special partnership understandings" that are typically recorded on the convention card in terms of high card points and suit length and described as such when asked but are always subject to judgement which I think goes without saying. With single-suited and two-suited preemptive bids, even a mere novice would know that extra distribution improves the hand and crappy suits and the majority of values out side of the suits devalues the hand. Do I need to explain basic principles of hand evaluation to my opponents everytime my partner preempts?

Ask yourself which hand is more likely give rise to a profitable sacrifice when you hit a fit and less likley to go for a number when you don't: [hv=d=s&v=b&s=sq2hkd65432c65432]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] or [hv=d=s&v=b&s=sq2hkd65432c65432]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] If I have 2NT available as "both minors" at all vul in first seat I wouldn't even dream of using it with the first hand in a million years but would seriously consider it with the second hand. Sure, I've added a few extra pips to the OP's hand, but if the decision on whether or not it's a psyche is purely based on hcp, it's essentially the same hand if you aren't allowed to give weight to distribution and suit texture. Are player's allowed to employ hand evaluation skills in the EBU or are the rules there purely based on A=4, K=3, etc?

Sorry, but I just can't see how you can reasonably draw the inferences you have drawn from the tank with ♣108x. 8 tricks is the name of the game in 2NT on a combined 20 count with two flat hands, so it seems a lot safer to me to take advantage of the lucky ♦J switch and unblock the ♦10 and combine your chances of ♥ blockage, ♣K onside, ♠K onside or an endplay. Table result stands.

Of of the possible ♣ holdings for east, 108x is probably as plausible holding for the BIT as any as there could be merit in any of the three cards. For declarer to attempt to read anything into the BIT is completely at his own peril. With honour third or honour fourth, I'd probably expect LHO to play low at the speed of light so if anything the BIT would make me think the honours are offside and I might think about trying for an endplay (which looks problematic on the layout). What did declarer claim the pause lead him to conclude and how did it adversely affect his play? With some values expected to be on my left, I would think that with or without a BIT the best plan is to play low to the 9 and if that loses to the J or 10, low to Q next time. Can you post the full hand and how the play went?

My understanding of the ban on encrypted signals is that it is illegal to encrypt based on information known to both defenders and not known to declarer. In the opening leading methods described, the basis of the encryption is only known to the person who lead. Both declarer and the other defender have just as much chance to work out what's going on. I believe the Italian methods are completely legal.

I agree - that would be ideal - but it just isnt going to happen in our lifetimes. I think there is a world market for about five computers — Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board of International Business Machines), 1943.