joostb1

No. But psychic bids that the system protects, are not allowed. E.g. You play 2♣ as strong, forcing partner to bid 2♦, but you have a weak two in diamonds and pass. That's not allowed. In this case, partner can bid 2NT, either strong or weak, but forcing you to bid your minor suit. This N will then bid spades.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa92h84dj62ct8642&n=sjt876543h762d7c7&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] This is a theoretical case, as published in the magazine of the Dutch union. The 2♠ bid is alerted and explained as 5-card ♠ plus a 4+ minor suit. NS, both young and enthousiastic, have this agreement, but N decided that he wanted 'to do something' with his 8-card spades. For argument's sake, let's asume that he might also have opened muli 2♦. What do you do if EW call you, because they feel cheated, also because they didn't know that N could bid vul with only 1 HCP?

In Dutch as well.

Blackshoe has given an answer that covers everything, so I won't comment on the ruling. But, why do you call this a "trick used by your opponents"? Do you have any proof that N did see the 4♣ bid and still made the insufficient 3NT bid knowingly? If not, and actually in all circumstances, it would be wise to refrain from accusing any player of using 'tricks', since this is a blatant violation of law 74A2 "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player". You should also refrain from trying to get a changed ruling, most certainly when you obviously are mistaken about the laws yourself. You could ask the TD on which laws he based his ruling, you might even say that you have the idea that the laws state something different, but you certainly should not argue "that South had unauthorized information about his partner having no interest in slam, and therefore South should answer the North's Blackwood inquiry". If had been the TD in this case, I would possibly have given you a PP.

[hv=pc=n&s=sjha832dt83caj854&w=saq874hqt97d954cq&n=s962hk6dj76ckt632&e=skt53hj54dakq2c97&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d2c2sp3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] North starts with a small club for the ace of south, who continues with a club, trumped by the declarer. The declarer plays a small spade for East´s king and says `two´. The dummy picks up the two of diamonds, south plays the three and the declarer the ace of spades. The dummy asks ´No diamonds, partner?´ and the declarer says ´I called for spades´. The TD is called and the declarer explains that he thought that the dummy had the two of spades instead of the three. He continues explaining that he was drawing the trumps and that he would never play the two of diamonds with ace, king and queen on the table, let alone at this moment. Do you allow the withdrawal of diamond two and three and let the dummy play the three of spades? Please asume that the declarer hasn't played the ace of spades yet. This is about the question wether this is an unintended designation and the application of law 45C4b.

In contrast with EBU andd ACBL the Dutch bridge union rules still make it possible for you to forbid the opponents to alert.

I'm afraid that someone has to tell West that it might be wiser to stop playing bridge at this level. Hopefully he won't shoot the messenger. But the good result on this board, which the director should have let stand, doesn't prove that he still can play well. Continuing can only lead to more disappointments and unpleasant decisions by directors. West is probably no fool and knows that he is making mistakes. Furthermore, we all know that a time will come when our abilities will let us down. Emotionally tough, but you have to accept the inevitable. Why some of the respondents think fit to comment on East's bidding, is totally incomprehensible to me. Your opinion as a director is called for, not a lesson in bridge. It's a mistake more directors make ("I won't bid that way, so yo shouldn't either and I shall therefore rule against you").

A straightforward answer. But what can you do? If you have reason to believe that your partner hasn't heard or seen the alert, the alerter should also have noticed that, since the ACBL procedure, like many others, states "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ALERTER ... TO ENSURE THAT THE OPPONENTS ARE AWARE THAT AN ALERT HAS BEEN MADE". Should you just go on in the knowledge that the bidding on your side will go off the rails, because your bid will be misunderstood by your partner and there will be probably an UI case because of your alerting your partners response which will wake him? Or should you call the director and point out that your opponent didn't ensure that the opponents were aware that an alert had been made?

Your Dutch is quite good, although there are some minor mistakes. But I'm afraid that Norwegians understand it as good as the average Englishman.

What is ODR? It's not in the list of abbreviations.

So east also assumed that S had only 13 pt. Any reason for that? Does he know that S has a habit of opening 1SA with a hand with considerably less that 15 points? Not returning diamonds is a serious error and it's East's responsibility that NS made 6S. If his reasoning was right (in which case S had only 13 points) and returning clubs was the only way to get the contract down, then he would have had a valid case had he played diamonds instead.

The basic question is "What agreements, if any, have EW about 2NT?" Up till now I have not seen any proof of an explicit or implicit understanding. which means that there is no misinformation and therefore also no infraction. What E meant, is totally irrelevant for the case and it's a waste of time to speculate about it. I completely agree with the TD, table result stands.

Although NS can guess something has gone wrong with the bidding of EW, I don't think you can blame them for not getting in 4♥. So I correct the score to 4♥= for NS. Besides I would seriously consider a PP for EW. At this level you should know your system. I would suggest to the original poster not to reply to or discuss every single answer he gets. You asked your question and it would be wise to see what replies you get.

I don't think you should use terms like rubbish if someone explains what the reasoning is behind this law. David certainly doesn't deserve to be addressed so. Why don't you give an outline for a change of this law which doesn't have such disadvantages as the current one has in your view?

The hardware is Dutch, at least in design, and probably produced somewhere in Asia. Not that that will make much of a difference.;)

It was a question at a TD exam. Given were the hands of N and S: [hv=pc=n&s=d52hdc&n=dkj6hdc]133|200[/hv] In a comment on law 46B the Laws Committee of the Dutch Bridge Union, in agreement with an EBL rule, states about this situation that, since it's obvious that the declarer can't choose between K and J (he never contemplated playing the 6), each of the defenders can designate which of these two shall be played. So the correct answer, as far as the exam was concerned, is clear. But there are some Dutch TD's who have a different view on this. One of these, who for years wrote the laws page in the Dutch union's magazine, is of the opinion that the offending side should get an adjusted score based on the actual lay-out of the play and the opponents an artificial score of G=.

The matter was discussed in Sao Paulo in September 2009 (WBF LC minute Brazil 2009 - 1 and WBF LC minute Brazil 2009 - 2) and after a lengthy discussion it was determined: " a) that Law 21B1 applies in respect of a call that has been made; the Director is required to judge whether the call “could well have been influenced by misinformation given to the player”. Unless he judges that in possession of the correct information (only) the player could well have made a different call no change of call under Law 21B1 is allowed nor is an adjusted score under Law 21B3. (b) that when under Law 20F4 an explanation is corrected before the auction has closed the Director is pointed to Law 21B. This law does not indicate how the Director should then proceed* but it was agreed that the player may use both the misexplanation and the correct information. [*Secretary’s note: in these circumstances a 1998 minute indicates that the Regulating Authority may give guidance.]"

There's a problem with this poll: you can't choose two options. I would restore the result, provided there is enough evidence to do so, but that would not let the team that left without reporting their score of the hook and I give them a PP.

The explanation should be very, very convincing before I would decide otherwise, like "someone tried to strangle me and threw a cup of hot tea over me at the same time, so I was a wee bit distracted".

Muiderberg means 5M/4+m. The 4+ can be a long suit. Playing in Holland today (MP's) I got KJTxx-10x-KQTxxx, which many players opened 2S. Actually, I think E is remarkably honest. After the explanation of his bid by W, he could have passed 3D, had S and N not bid and explained afterwards that he thought his hand might be more useful in diamonds, ruffing possible both in spades and hearts and having at least an equal fit in diamonds to that in hearts (you aren't allowed to call a bid 'Muiderberg' if the M isn't exactly a five card suit). I don't see the truth of South's reasoning that EW 'for certain' can't have a diamond fit. Nothing in the bidding up till then, combined with the hands he has, excludes W from holding five or more diamonds. South's bidding certainly doesn't fall in the SEWOG category, but I'm not sure that the damage to NS is due to EW's infraction.

You're a lousy director if you take decisions without knowing the facts. For all we know W may have had a trump.

I'm just wondering how anybody can make a decision with so much information missing. What's the contract and what cards did W and E hold? That's absolutely necessary information.

Here is another one. A beginner has 7 hearts and opens 3H, but has 19 HCP. His LHO, who happens to be the director, thinks this is a preempt, bids too and gets into some impossible contract and has a terrible score. He then calls his opponent a cheat, says that he is an unethical player and changes the result on the game in G+/G-. The flabbergasted opponent afterwards consults his teacher whether this was all right, since he was rather shocked by being called names. A despot? Surely.

Supposing you play in the strongest line, most certainly will. You will meet some of the best Dutch players, but probably also some not so strong ones. Hope you enjoy this tournament and the (cheese) city where it is held. I'm not playing, but I would have appreciated meeting you. I've read so many of your outpourings over the years that it's strange to realise that I can't put a face to your name.

Prealerts are required when you play thus, if only because your opponents should have a chance to discuss their defense. I would recommend to alert all your 1NT opening bids. The alerting rules in Holland are quite simple to explain, but sometimes hard to apply. You should alert any conventional bid up till 3NT and each bid which might confuse your opponents. In Holland a 15-17 1NT is standard, so anything else is alertable. The need to alert is dependent on the quality of your opponents. Experienced strong players are of course less easily confused.