Xiaolongnu

The player's perspective. Your hand is Q KJ109 AQ943 1083, fourth seat in south (effectively). The bidding goes, WNES, (1S) X (3D) P (P) 3H (3S) 4H (P) P (4S) to u. [hv=pc=n&s=sqhkjt9daq943ct83&w=sakj52hq5d8752c75&n=s873ha643dt6caqj2&e=st964h872dkjck964&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1sd3dpp3h3s4hpp4sppp]399|300[/hv] Table result, down 2 NS +200. Before the lead came down, dummy admitted that declarer should have alerted 3♦ as Reverse Bergen 6-9. South called the Director and requested to insert a double of the 4♠ at the end.

Thanks so much for the replies everyone (: First some clarification. I was writing the story in shorthand, as blackshoe has pointed out, I did do the necessary. When I said the player told the Director, I meant the player told the Director without letting the others know, I have also not skipped the choice to accept and etc, only skipped narrating it (: It appears that the consensus is that this ruling is overly exceedingly lenient even by the spirit of being patient with the elderly and infirmed. For professional events, I wouldn't even have needed to discuss this in the first place. The hidden point of what I am consulting is a more philosophical question of what really is the job of a Director? My humble opinion is that a Director's job is to take care of the players, just like how a disciplinary master's job (at the end of the day) is to take care of the students, and train them in skills academic and leadership alike, not, as often misquoted, to enforce the rules and to punish the students. For this reason and comparison, directing, just like being the headmaster, is often a thankless job, only because the cane that one holds gives a bad name. So the next question I have is, to what extent are we required to be Secretary Birds? Or, do our powers of interpretation and discretion extend to allow us to second guess the players based on what we know of them, personally or the field at large? To do so, of course, comes with a great risk of being biased. This isn't really a problem of law, it is common sense, flexibility and practical considerations.

I meant is 1NT acceptable as a replacement call without further rectification sorry.

North opens 1♣, Pass, South 1♦, overcall 1♠, North did not see the overcall and IB'ed 1♠. North told the Director that she did not notice the 1♠ overcall and meant to show real 4 card spade. It is not certain whether this sequence demands a more distributional hand since the field routinely mess up their walshness, whatever their agreement might have been. In whatever system they might be playing however, it is clear that 27B1a does not apply. The Director considered a lenient interpretation of 27B1b in that both bids showed what could reasonably be known as a spade suit, and ruled as such. The Director was fully aware that this might have been exceedingly lenient and meant to be such, he has always been exceedingly lenient in technicalities to these club players, on grounds of compassion and empathy, and in an effort of making bridge more of an enjoyable pastime and less of a petty struggle. Is this ruling appropriately lenient, a little too lenient or unacceptably exceedingly lenient, in the context of this field, and in bridge in general? Edit: Sorry, apparently I have stupidly missed out the crucial point. The Director considered 1NT to be an acceptable replacement call under 27B1b and offered North a choice to bid that without further rectification. The logic is that since 1NT showed a spade stop, that is similar to a spade suit, which was the intended meaning of the IB. Fully aware that a spade stop is different from a spade suit, but as I said, the field is one that you would want to encourage bridge as a fun pastime rather than a petty struggle. Do you agree with the Director, namely, me? The question I am really asking is whether this is too excessively lenient in spite of the fact that we should be less strict on "the elderly, infirmed and inexperienced" for which most in the field satisfy at least two out of three. Edit 2: Changed satisfy two out of three to satisfy at least two out of three, to gain some sympathy for the extent to which I am thrown in.

Club game setting. Friday night semi social game at the local club or similar idea. Face it, we all have our favourite and not so favourite fellow bridge players. Obviously, most of us would not mind our friends (in real life) kibbing us while we play, but get unnerved and / or irritated when the not so favourite ones sit and stare at our table. This is especially true when the Force sensitive part of our instincts (Star Wars reference) tells us that this person who is already on his own a source of irritation, is there precisely to spoil our day, or similarly sporting some wrongful intent. Which in turn is very likely. What are the players' options, especially when there is no clear cut violation of any subset of 76? As a matter of common sense, it is only fair (?) that the players are allowed to choose their kibbers, or to be exact, to choose out those that unnerve them, in particular, to ban a particularly hated one.

When someone revoke ruffs with the ace of trump, established, found out, etc, is that trick really going to be considered lost? Along with one more subsequent trick if any? The law is clear, but, could someone explain the logic of this? Someone is in a grand slam missing the ace of trumps. On no normal line of play, wrong, on no possible line of play, could declarer make 7, but when such a revoke happens, even with losing another subsequent trick he still makes 7. I mean, isn't this absolutely impossible a result?

Where is the law reference or system policy or protocol that says that playing precision, a super short diamond opening is allowed? Explicitly, 1♣ any 16+, identifying the system as precisionoid. 1♦ promises light to minimum opening hand, to be exact, an average hand to less than two kings above average strength, any distribution that has no 5 card M or the appropriate 1NT. The original problem is someone is playing a Stayman opening where the 1♣ opening is stayman, 1d no 4M. I reduced the minor openings to subdivisions of the precisionoid weak minor, in an effort to prove that the system is not hum. The challenge I received was that the stayman opening promises either length in one or the other major suit. So how do I prove that the precision diamond is not hum system?

[hv=pc=n&s=sat54hqj754dqjtcq&w=s9h3dak542cakj654&n=sq87hk986d9763ct9&e=skj632hat2d8c8732&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1h2n3hpp5cppp]399|300|Long hesitation before east's second pass. Table result +1, as double dummy would have. [/hv] Is Pass or anything along the line an LA for West?

When is the next version of the Windows client coming up? I love the client and I hate the online version.

Bringing up this topic again cos today I just had this word used on me while making a ruling. I vaguely recalled (with the memory of a bridge player) that this word "ridiculous" was discussed here before, so I thought I would post and revive this. I explained a matter of fact and law, which happened to be proper screen alerting procedures, but that is irrelevant really. Player: But this is ridiculous! I mean, sorry, but... I wasn't particularly offended actually, but I did shoot him a look at the sound of the word ridiculous and he continued with the sorry immediately. Is this considered swearing at me, or was it just an interjection? Note that I do not believe in penalizing swear words automatically, cos, unfortunately, we are all guilty of interjecting a swear word or two when we are under pressure sometimes. It is just, a reflex action. I judged that it was an interjection in the end.

Views in response to the OP: With all due respect, I think it is totally illogical and against common sense to not notify the players that they are being warned, penalized, etc, for slow play. It would serve as an excellent reminder that they "better wake up their idea" instead of continuing to blunder on. Whether or not rules of all sorts enforce it, unless the Director has stated clearly somewhere in space and time that the players will not be warned, otherwise the spirit of the law demands it, I think. Views about noise, etc: I totally understand your pain. Seems like they asked for it. More so if they are demonstrably suggested to have been the ones unwilling to listen to the briefing in the first place. Zero sympathy for them. When in doubt, still zero sympathy. Side issue about appeals of penalty: "Disciplinary penalties may be appealed by any player at the table or by the captain of one of the teams present. Only in extreme circumstances would it be expected that a penalty be changed when the opposition appeal. An Appeals Committee cannot overturn the TD in the matter of issuing a disciplinary penalty, but can recommend that the TD changes it. The clause in Law 91A that refers to the TD’s decision being final and thus not appealable only applies to when the TD suspends a player for all or part of the current session." White Book, Law 91. I have a question, so are DP's appealable or not? What about late penalties, which are somewhere between DP's and PP's? Edit: Assume of course there are no overwriting conditions, assume the TO follows the White Book and assume the CoC does not have any otherwise stated treatment for appeal of penalty.

Well I shall confess to the sin of not knowing my Pairs Scorer well enough, thanks for the tip. So I did it manually in an equivalent way. Thanks seniors.

I am somewhat quizzical about this, actually. The rationale behind alerting is to warn your opponents of a bid or call that has a potentially highly unexpected meaning. Generally, alertable doubles come from systems like 1♣ (1♦) X = 4 card heart 6+ unlimited, for example. On one hand, a penalty double on its own is no way unexpected. On the other hand, a penalty double at a low level is indeed unexpected. However, what about blatantly obvious (I think it is blatantly obvious anyway) sequences like 1♣ - 2♣! (2♥) X = penalty, where 2♣ is inverted minor, strong hand, and obviously 2♥ looks like it is asking for a beating. I mean, I can't see any natural logical reason for the X in this situation to be meaning "I have good defence and a trump stack. I am doubling them with absolute certainty." and that is precisely the precise definition of a (pure) penalty double. I think it looks like the only logical possibility given the bidding, isn't it? Isn't it bridge common sense that such a double "should", primarily at least, be for penalty? Opinions and discussion are most welcome. Edit: I should rephrase with a more exact word, a penalty double on its own is not HIGHLY UNUSUAL. It is most certainly unexpected in situations implied by the OP, at least by popular demand.

Chill guys. I totally understand the whole picture. The score of 2 vs 5 stands as it is the first time they played the board. Clearly, 2 and 5 both must not play the board "again" during their rightful "time slot" but instead their result against each other stands and the opps get Ave+. This was what I understood L15 to mean, and after clarification, I see that I am right. I only brought this up because my scorer wanted to dispute that the rightful result of 2 vs 5 should be scrapped and given Ave- instead. The Director, me, was just wondering whether the 2 vs 5 result could be salvaged by the spirit of the law and not waste the effort of the players in playing the board.

At a club game a week ago my ruling was challenged. I don't see ANY other way that the law could be (mis)interpreted but could you all just please confirm with your views. In Round 2 of a Hesitation Mitchell, the sitting pair at Table 2, Pair 2 was supposed to play boards 13-16 against pair 5. Neither of them checked the boards and they ended up playing 17 instead. We are in L15 territory. The mistake was discovered after the board was completed with a valid result, 3NT=w, was produced. A. Players Have Not Previously Played Board If players play a board not designated for them to play in the current round (but see C): The Director normally allows the score to stand if none of the four players have previously played the board. The Director may require both pairs to play the correct board against one another later. The Director ruled that the result stands, as neither pair has played the board before. According to the movement, 17 was meant to be played 2 against 6 in round 3 and 10 against 5 in round 5. The Director adjusted the score to round 3, NS 3NT=w, EW Ave+, and round 5 NS Ave+ EW 3NT=w. As a matter of equity the Director considered a PP to Pairs 2 and 5, but decided to be lenient and wrote it off. The Scorer challenged that the result should be a plain Ave+ to NOS and Ave- to OS. He claims that ruling this way would not be fair to the other contestants. The Director explained that this does not do justice to the fact that the result of board 17 2 vs 5 was in fact legal and justified, no doubt against the movement. In layman terms, the Director explained that as a matter of logic, the players may have done it at the wrong place and wrong time, but they did the right thing, and their "effort" should not be "wasted". The Director also quoted the spirit of the law and emphasized that we try to not scrap any boards that could be salvaged or made legal. Finally, the Director explained that giving averages all round was not only slip short, but gives pair 2 an overly bad result (besides the point) while Pair 5 gets an overly good result (the more pressing issue, someone cannot be getting a good result cos he screwed up). I think another reason why the Scorer was not convinced is that he is not very familiar with the concept of split scores, so it appears that on the score board of 2 vs 6, 2 appears to have a higher MP score than 6, but only because of their own merit in good defence (holding declarer to 9 tricks instead of 11). He also failed to appreciate the fact that it is how much a pair gains, and not how much the other pair loses, that matters in the final result. Any other points that I ought to bring in to convince him (and his peers) about the ruling? Edit: Disclaimer, what the Director said to the scorer is not very formal bridge law language, I was just trying to explain in simplified layman terms to help convince him in the logic behind the ruling and that the ruling is "fair". Of course the formal bridge language is stated in L15 and L12 regarding how an innocent side gets Ave+ for the board.

So when declarer claims to have dropped a card, is it "played" because it has physically been played under the definition of being maintained in a way that it is played, or is it "not played" because it is a mechanical mistake of pulling out the wrong card, which seems more similar to dropping the card by accident then?

Local club game at a not so strong field, essentially a social game at a private club. Declarer calls a card from dummy, for example, small heart, RHO covers, declarer plays the small from hand, then immediately wants to change to the ace claiming that he pulled out the wrong card. When could he change and when could he not? Which laws apply or do not apply among the 45 to 48 range? I was not directing but the Director is not very well versed so I helped him with the ruling. I temporarized saying that the manner of playing matters, then eventually decided that it was more likely intended than not. What is the correct ruling and what are some ways that I could judge whatever I need to judge? This problem actually happens very often so I suppose there should be a canonical way to deal with it. Is there "unintended play" in the first place? I do not think so.

Is it even important to go to such fine details and mention that falsecards are usually on in this class of situations and off in this class of situations? I have never had a good sense of sympathy of players who try to "make use of and abuse" concepts like UI and MI to their advantage, often involving setting traps where opps will be led on to give UI or might explain wrongly. I like to call this a "reverse L23 situation" where one tempts the opponent to commit an infraction knowing full well that if the infraction is found guilty it would be to the opponent's advantage. Edit: Just to clarify, what I meant is, for example, NS tempts EW to commit an infraction knowing full well that the Director will (be required to) rule for NS, rule against EW. Nothing to explicitly do with rulings, just expressing my disapproval for sort of poor sportsmanship, dunno what word is appropriate here. Here the defenders have answered what signals they supposedly play honestly, and indemnified themselves further by saying great frequency of falsecards. Isn't that enough already? Players, or rather, PAIRS who like defence more than declarer play, like my partner and I, know very well that we should only signal WHEN IT MATTERS, otherwise give neutral, opposite or just generally confusing signals, esp in situations where partner is going to be able to work it out anyway. Isn't this just sort of general bridge knowledge and common sense? If we think that defenders are in the wrong, what is the next thing that we are going to allow? For declarer to ask RHO "from your judgment, is your partner falsecarding?" and RHO has to answer honestly? In that case there is no more bridge already. I believe strongly that whatever the wording of the law might be, the spirit of the law should not demand that players declare their systems to such a self damaging extent. After all, in bridge we always talk about what happens in percentage. Giving the answer that is true in percentage, I think it is already good enough. Bridge should not be a game where people have to watch their words carefully, just like how it is impossible to define every word in Algebra. A bit estoric, this analogy, but highly appropriate. Debate is welcome.

Could he tell whether a 6 is high or low, perhaps not? (: What's with leading and self-misleading questions? Logically it should not be allowed, rigourously which law is that? 74?

Thank you Sir. I get the rough idea and just tried it out. Worked beautifully. Haha.

Actually, I was just playing with my Pairs Scorer. On second thought, would a Web Mitchell serve the same purpose in a simplified way?

I have a technical problem here. I am not very good with pairs scorer algorithms. Assuming I get the terminology right, I need to set up a double howell movement for about 24 tables, 2 sets of 12. A double mitchell movement might work as well. The algorithm is explicitly as follows. n=24 tables in all. Two howell cycles, code word "Green" and "Blue" for example. Each cycle will contain n/2=12 tables. There are supposed to be two identical movements happening at the same time. There will be two sets of identically duplicated boards. In the end they will be scored together. I hope everyone understands my pseudocode here, really not very good with computers yet. How to set up the Pairs Scorer to moniter such a movement? Also, please correct my technical terms. Many thanks (: Under extreme pressure. The biggest event that I am taking charge so far. (This shows how little of the world I have seen but yeah :P) Thanks guys.

Result stands I think. The logic I am basing on is the fact that in 40 as well as in many other threads in this forum, the law is roughly explained as "opponents are only entitled to know our system and agreements, not our bids and plays". Specifically, in 40, "When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players." What is the agreed signal? Count. Correct. What is the frequency of falsecards? High. Correct. That sounds like an accurate account of the system to me. Explicit or implicit. The rest is under judgment. I think it is just bridge.

I am some sort of a jack of all trades. Maybe queen would be a better word for us bridge players since we have an additional step response to king and a superhuman to the ace. Enough of euphemisms. Chess: I know the game, I know the theory, I could play reasonably well, not as good as my bridge, which is not very good. About 80% of my bridge. Good with rooks. Reasonable with queens. Bad with bishops. Typical of those who also play Chinese Chess. Chinese Chess: I know the game too, around 70% of my bridge. Good with combinations. Scrabble: I am as good at Scrabble as I am at bridge. Othello: Know a bit, don't like it. Go: Know the basics but that's all. Way less than 1 dan. (1 dan is I think roughly the same rank as someone who has just started winning green points in the EBU system. Not sure whether it is a good comparison, someone advise this? I seem to draw a rough line that green points = 1 dan, gold points = 1 dan professional.) Magic: Played before, rather good but do not know the high level, Director level rules. Also do not really have good, in other words expensive cards. It is the sort of game that while you are a student you have no money to collect the cards, when you are working you have no time to play. The paradox of life. One of the main reasons why I converted to bridge. Mahjong: The four player game, not the solitaire tile matching game. My MJ was better than my bridge. In fact most of these games started off better than my bridge but I chose bridge in the end by several twists of fate, friendships and shhh...the power of love (: haha. I like it very much too.

People who deliberately misapply, overapply and extrapolateapply the Asian concept of "respect for elders" often to their own benefit. Especially in bridge. Especially against young Directors. Specifically older people (here older means by a number of decades) who demand that young people respect and bow down to them, taking it for granted, when they not only do not know their stuff but neither are they very worth respect as a person. In bridge I have a few. 1. People who come to me when I am directing (these often happen to be those people mentioned above) when I am setting up, which is the busiest time, asking me where could I get a seat that is a sitting pair, not switching or at most switching only one time instead of every other round, near the window because of whatever reason, NS because it is their lucky direction, cool enough but not directly under the aircon, then best of all complaining that they do not want Pair 13 the unlucky number which is one of the only three sitting pairs (the Director table being one of them) such that the last sitting pair has been comfortably seated there since the club opened that night. Please, I can't possibly ask them to move away right? And for the record, my master, the Director who trained me, is 70+ this year and I have never had such nonsense from her. 2. Players treating Directors / caddies like maids to order, for water / drinks, to babysit children, and so on. With a bad attitude and tone, oh, because they are older and therefore we should respect them. Sure. You are so worth my respect. Of course I must respect you. 3. When I play with weaker players tutoring them, I explain something, they argue back, without thinking, as a reflex of defending themselves. I have already asserted firmly with 100% certainty and they still need to argue back. Some people simply do not understand the difference between textbook and judgment situations.