AlexJonson

I didn't think 4H was close, which no doubt means I could go a few off on this or a slightly worse hand. This is not snap we are playing.

I would think that if it is the heinous dummy that is causing the problem, either defender could call the TD if they feel themselves innocent practitioners of legitimate thought. They might tell the TD that they were 'upset' and might need a later adjustment. It would of course be a matter of TD judgement how upset they were. Sometimes we refer to chess, and there was a famously reported incident from the 1930s(?) Player A complains his oppo's smoking is putting him off. The arbiter persuades B to not smoke at the table. Later A calls the arbiter because he can sense that B wants to smoke, and it is putting him off. While I am aware of and accustomed to the rules restricting dummy, I'm very surprised at how emotional poeple feel about it: 'Dummmy must not ...' - was this not aimed against dummy suggesting plays to the declarer, rather than making (doubtless unacceptable) comments to the defenders about their pace of play, the cut of their jackets, or whatever.

Defence is good and the suits aren't, so I would double.

I'll be happy to be contradicted. I have always assumed that playing in tempo means that you have a normal, personal tempo and pretty much follow it unless you have a Bridge reason.. (fancy language for needing to think). Of course you may also fall asleep etc, trivial alternative to avoid trivial posts (some hope). If you deviate from your normal tempo, you are at risk of breaching the Laws, but may have a good reason or an accidental reason. The TD will decide, if the issue is raised. Of course the 'needing to think' may have other consequences, but I think that is a different discussion.

As usual I'm not so sure at this point in the discussion. When I read the Laws they do not mention adequate time on the clock (whatever that means in Bridge). They do mention slow play to disconcert the opponent. Can dummy draw attention to this? I hope so.

Cyberyeti I understand everything that you said and the posts and their point. I was, perhaps inadvisably, suggesting that you do not ever join in discussion of cheating, Probst or otherwise, with posters (or anyone else in my opinion, publicly, unless it's serious and intended). I apologise if I offended you. There are several very well informed posters who talk about cheating en passant. I think they ought (IMHO) to just stop doing it. This is a slight deviation from Antrax post, but of course you can see from what I say, that of course I am not accusing Antrax of anything.

You know, I'd be delighted to ditch almost all the concern about tempo, so I'm defintitely with you. I just didn't realise the current Laws plus local regulations looked like that.

I think this is an excellent reply, and manages not to mention the word 'cheating'. Personally I think it is mostly undesirable to accuse fellow posters of cheating, whether or not prefixed by 'Probst'.

I personally think the slow 3D demonstrably suggests bidding 3NT with a maximum. I would not have bid 3NT in this situation. Now it seems I should have bid 3NT and left it to the TD, not for the first time. I will learn eventually.

East will have considered pass and 4S over 4H - he could not have done otherwise. Pass was an option. Was it a logical alternative in the terms of the Laws of Bridge? Probably not. Perhaps a lucky escape for EW.

Sorry, I need to think about the hand seems appropriate.

Thanks Blackshoe The only Laws expert to post.

Lovely piece of nonsense, Campboy. 'Never came up', pointless ambiguity and literalness. Discussed, agreed, but never came up. And as to the substance of the matter? Is there a potential issue of fielding?

See below. The OP statement pasted below says there was an agreement about the 3D bid. I am frankly astonished that you contest this, and surprised you talk aout correcting a false statement by me. 'You believe that the system file says that 3♦ is natural, to play. You are about 90% confident of this as you were reading it only yesterday at breakfast. It has never come up before, and you know that partner may or may not have remembered, although he's generally pretty good - everything in the file was discussed, although some of it a few years ago (and this agreement is vintage July 2008, as are all your 2-suited overcall agreements). The alternative meaning for 3♦ would have been a game try in clubs.' I think the bit about the 'alternative agreement..' introduces the fielding question.

A fun hand. I'll make a wild guess that 1NT is a bid out of turn.

The OP says 3D has come up before but some time ago - the norm perhaps for almost all agreements(?). Did you not notice that Campboy, you are usually very precise. So if screens are irrelevant then why do I ignore my 90% certainty about our agreement, or why do I field it. Yes, common sense... maybe. So we have 100% abandoned 'fielding misbids' as a concept, in the EBU?

Fielding is a bit out of fashion, I suppose - fine by me, themes wax and wane. But if screens scrub all clean, let's all have them, and reduce the load on TDs.

You/partner made some deductions at your own risk from opponents behaviour. Well done. Quite legal I believe. I'm just interested in whether I can make similar deductions about partner's tendency to forget. Is that or is that not extraneous (I don't know, but I would like to know).

While I understand this, logic would suggest that I must have had some kind of extraneous information in order to conclude that a wheel had come off, otherwise where did my conclusion come from.

Perhaps we could just accept that Bridge is a game requiring thought, then we could get rid of stop cards and not worry about 90+% -at least- of cases of UI. I think it would be horrible to have random players waving stop cards.

Interesting that you can base your actions on a probability that partner has forgotten the system (or you have). I remember trying that on a much larger probability on these forums, but I forgot my screens. Mmm

Apologies and commiserations.

Just in case you imagined this was anything to do with me (and you may not) the post gwnn refers to was from Pooltuna.

Let's not go too far. This kind of situation is difficult. Math has some arguments.