Xiaolongnu

OP here. 2D means 10-14 4441 distribution. They play Precision. Regulation says psyche of artificial opening calls are illegal. I tried to simplify all of this by saying start off by assuming there was an infraction, asking mainly to discuss what the adjustment should be, or whether there should be no adjustment as the self-inflicted damage is too severe. Also, a precise calculation backed by law references is wished for.

[hv=pc=n&s=sk762ha3dk432ck63&w=s53hqjt9dqj65ca87&n=sa84h654da987cqt2&e=sqjt9hk872dtcj954&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=pp2dp2hppdr3d3h4ddppp]399|300[/hv] Table result: 4!dX-3 NS -500. After play ends, NS called the Director and said opponents psyched illegally. The TD (myself) explicitly clarified with the RA that local regulations forbid this type of psyche, take it as there was an infraction. Please advise thanks.

[hv=pc=n&s=skj9653hkt74d5cqj&w=sqt72h65dakq4c763&n=sa84ha9dt86cakt42&e=shqj832dj9732c985&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n2d4h4sdrppp]399|300|2♦ was DONT, diamonds and a major. 4♥ was, you guessed it, explained as hearts. Table result, 4SXX-8 NS +4000. [/hv] At the end of the play, West called the Director and claimed that he would not have bid 4!s had he known that 4!h was Texas to spades.

To answer both of you, maybe it is the bidding boxes that we use here, it happens a lot. A higher bid was intended but somehow the bid exactly one step lower comes out. Happened to me a lot too. Anyway I was there, this dispute has to be tie broken by me for this discussion to be valid so please take it as there was agreement by all including me that it happened in this sense.

This very technical case happened in my club tonight. The hand is not important. The bidding was 1D - 1H - 2C - 2S - 3D - 4C - After the opp passed,tthe partner who is opener considered his action,and asked the 4C bidder whether he made a mistake in the bidding. Immediately,without pause for thought from the recognition of his error, the 4C bidder said the bidding cards were stuck together. There was no dispute in this sense that the call was unintended. Is the change authorized? Law references please. The Director authorized it as unintended call. The bidding from 4C/4D went on 5D pass. It was made. [hv=pc=n&s=sakt98ht962d93c63&w=sq532ha7543dktca9&n=sj64hqjdq82cj8752&e=s7hk8daj7654ckqt4&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1dp1hp2cp2sp3dp4dp5dppp]399|300|At the point of 4♦, initially 4♣ was erroneously bid in a way that agreement was established was equivalent to box getting knocked over. After North passed, at East's turn, East asked West whether he definitely meant to bid 4♣ or something of that idea. The Director allowed the change and the bidding continued. Table result was -400. Hand record gives 12 tricks. [/hv]

Under what circumstances could a played card be changed? In the following simplified scenario, dummy had A8 of spade and East had Jx. Declarer led the 9 from hand and West followed with an irrelevant x. Declarer called for the 8 from dummy and East meant to play the jack but pulled out the x instead. Is this a played card or an unintended designation?

Every now and then we have the situation where a 14-12 was found out only nearing the end of the play. Sometimes, players complain that Ave+ is not good enough for them especially where the superficially "correct" contract was going down 4 or something. Any advice on this? What I mean is, does the law give us any power to redress this? Should the law give us such powers? The only seemingly applicable reference is L12C2a which uses the somewhat vague word "at least" so many percent of a top.

OP here. The Director was called at the end of play. The Director ruled result stand. The case went to appeal and the AC adjusted the result to 6H+1 by South. Is this "no infraction result stand" ruling a point on law or a point on bridge? Is it appealable? Could the club COC allow such an appeal to happen?

The hand is not very important. Suffice to say that South has all key cards and enough tricks except the ace of trump. After some bidding, South bid 4NT for 0314. The response was 5C and after East passed but before South bid, and by agreed facts without pause for thought, North said she had taken out the wrong bidding card. The Director was not summoned. The players continued on their own and South bid and made 7H. Ruling please. In particular,I have the following to ask. 1. Is the rectification to be written off on the grounds that they did not summon the Director promptly, by L11A and some similar law? 2. Is the 5C bid considered unintended and hence the information of partner having an ace authorized? 3. Did NS use UI? Or has the UI become indemnified by either of these. 4. Suppose the matter went to appeal. Is this under L93 where it is a matter of law and the AC may not interfere? Does club COC change this?

South claimed, "I overtake the club - no, I mean - " and before he could finish correcting his words, East called the Director and demanded that he plays according to the line of play he just mentioned. Which law or laws apply here?

Ok OP here and I am honestly getting a little lost. So am I to believe that whenever there is one board played the "wrong way" that board is scrapped A6060 and repaired, and with more than one board something else could be done depending on whether you trust the small value chi-squared statistics (pran knows what I am talking about, or is it the t statistics), and whether your country does, and as a last resort you might have to take the responsibility yourself. So am I to believe that for this particular case of one board I made the correct ruling and deserve a cookie for it? (:

Something that I have never really understood about fouled boards, scoring them, and PairsScorer's method. The north cards were misplaced in the South pocket and vice versa. The EW cards were ok. The fault was discovered after one and only one pair played the board again. 1. Is this a fouled board? 2. Either way, what is the correct ruling? Logically speaking the pair who played it the "wrong" way should get A6060 but the fouled board scoring function in PairsScorer does NOT do it this way, it awards them the equivalent of A5050 instead. 3. And most importantly, what IS the correct ruling? My understanding is that it should be A6060 to the pair who were forced to play it the wrong way and enough PP's to at least make up the diff to the people who messed it up, in a fair way. This however contradicts the PairsScorer method. Am I to believe that the PairsScorer method is just there to calculate the scores ASSUMING THE DIRECTOR HAS ALREADY DECIDED to split into two fraternities separately?

Thanks everyone for your opinions. As Director I have thought through all of these and my conclusion is, considering the offender is a club granny who is impossible to educate in the matters of legal and illegal psyches, the best practical solution seems to be to give her a lecture on a recommended use of the dynamic NT which clearly is also the best for her masterpoint victory interests.

I am sure I am missing something from OP here cos I agree that you can't be fair without being lawful at the same time. You can't be lenient and fair at the same time for example. But I might guess OP might be trying to say that as a matter of discretion he has already made the "ruling" decisions and what he needs is advice on the "adjustment" decisions.

♠QJ98xxxx ♥Axx ♦Jx ♣- Singapore, club players, full of greying grannies so frail and delicate that any amount of agitation will make them scream or panic or cry. In other words, tread carefully please. With this hand, first seat opens 2C which is meant as a misguided version of the Romex dynamic 1NT. This is a system often used by my club and most of them meant it as 18-21 any hand. This pair is known to take it even further and include hands of 13 hcp and extreme distribution routinely. In addition, the person bidding this hand is a well known overbidder herself. They have alerted this part properly. Still I wonder whether they are taking it too far this time round. When asked, the club player in question said that she was genuinely evaluating her hand as 18 points. On the slightest further questioning she vehemently declared that she was not psyching because "No! Psyches are unethical." Note that urban legends in the clubs in my country has led to a lot of players thinking that psyches of ALL sorts are unethical. Of course it is not true but as someone said, it is tried tested proven that it is impossible to educate club players that using the stop sign as a means of communication is unlawful. The point is she is saying she is definitely treating her hand as 18. So is this a psyche, deviation or misbid? It is gross enough, says my panel of analysts and I agree, but is it deliberate because it is not unintended, or is it not deliberate because she is swearing that she didn't mean it? Take it from me that she was not lying about her intention. Of course as bridge teacher I will tell them that 4S is a good idea or 1S if they really feel like it, but first as Director, how?