ehhh

As an extension of this topic, the problem I have with claiming arises when one partner erroneously concedes. The other partner has NO option to refute the concession other than calling the TD if the opponent accepts the concession. There needs to be the option that both partners agree to the concession before it is issued!

For me this suggestion is a no brainer. The lobby is TOO busy with flooders, misdirected table chat and personal chat. If these were controlled/directed properly, the lobby chat would be more meaningful and effective.

One list of friends previously was adequate when BBO was more linear. Now BBO is more multifaceted. To alleviate a long awkward list of all friends it would be easier to manage your friends if you could sort them; for example, members of your club on one list and casual members on another.

Recently this hand came up in an ACBL speedball tourny. ♠AKQx ♥AKx ♦xxx ♣xxx Does this constitute as a 1NT opener? It's balanced and has the req'd hpt count and by the Open Chart satisfies the definition for NT. However, I always thot that you needed stoppers in at least three of the suits or is that just a teaching guideline?

With the number of players now using BBO to it's expected to cause BBO headaches. I'm confident the techies at BBO have their hands full working diligently to resolve the issue. NTL, I want to voice my frustration. If you aren't online when your favourite tournies appear for registration you're likely to miss out. Today, Fri. 11th, April, for example Aptesienne, a regular established tourney that normally starts at ~3:25 est, opened for registration at ~1:40 est and within 1 minute 1/3 of the 160 available seats were filled. To make matters even more frustrating this number of seats is a fraction of what it use to be (most, if not all, 'free' tournies have been reduced) and in the last 2 days the tournament, after waiting ~ 2hours, 'suffered an err' and was dropped, canc, or whatever by the system. It seems the old faithfulls are suffering at the expense of trying to accommodate the many new tournies and players. It's commendable BBO is busting their butt to accommodate all but it ought to realize it's limitation and NOT accept new tournies beyond the platform's capacity to handle them. While we're under house arrest BBO serves an important outlet for the bridge community. Kudos!

There are teaching guidelines and there are directing guidelines. There are good reasons for NOT bypassing a 4 card major. Nothing says you can't! You can't legislate against bad bridge!

Sorry been awhile and 4got the diagram :rolleyes: Given the hands and opening bidding, how do you get to 4♥ using 2/1? What would the auction be if you were using full SAYC? Is one system easier to get to 4♥ than the other? Please, discus hands from an advanced player's perspective. [hv=pc=n&s=sajt62hkq9dqcj875&w=sq853h865d983ca62&n=shajt73dat7642c94&e=sk974h42dkj5ckqt3&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp]399|300[/hv]

White vs red, what sort of hand would you hold to pysche a 1 spade opener?

[hv=pc=n&s=s982hq863dt3caqt3&w=sj7653hat752d8c97&n=sahkj4da9764c6542&e=skqt4h9dkqj52ckj8&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1dd1hp2hpp2sppp]399|300[/hv] Before bidding 2H's N asks about the X and is told it is takeout. Dummy comes down on a H lead and N immediately calls the Director. Complaining E doesn't have a T/O X and that they make these misleading X's all the time. "Shouldn't they be alerting their X's," he asks? How would you handle/rule this call?

[hv=pc=n&s=saj85ht96dkq852c5&w=st3hkdat74cakq943&n=sk962h874dj96cj76&e=sq74haqj532d3ct82]399|300[/hv] Both vulnerable the dealer North passes to you. Evaluating the hand with 9 hcpts, a six card ♥ suit, and a singleton ♦ this hand may be too strong for a weak 2♥ opener yet too weak for a 1♥ opener. What is your preference and opinion?

You've signed up for a tournament ... how do you get assigned to a table and direction? Is there an order or is it random?

Although true, at the club level DD can be used in rulings. Duplicate Decisions is a version of the official Laws of Duplicate Bridge written in everyday English. Its purpose is to help club directors understand the Laws and make good rulings. This book can be used at the club level in place of the official law book. Duplicate Decisions can be used to make most of the rulings that will come up during a typical club game. The ideal way to use this publication is to tab the most common rulings. Occasionally Duplicate Decisions will refer the director to the official Laws book. In those cases, the director will have to do some research before making a ruling.

Am I missing something here? Why has no reference to LAW 69 come up?

Fluffy has hit the solution on the head. If more LOL and LOM would call the D whenever they encounter these characters then the D could take more affirmative action. There is a limit/session set in the ACBL. This applies to all perceived irregularities encountered at the table.

It certainly is UI and if there is damage from this UI the bd can be adjusted. How you would ever prove that is beyond me. Sounds more like a PP is in order much in the same manner as if dummy was guilty od directing the play.

This was a response to a similar question posed to the ACBL rules dept. Law 64B5 says there is no rectification (the “book penalty” of one or two tricks) for a revoke if the non-offending side has made a call on the subsequent deal. Law 64B6 says the same is true if the round has ended. But, Law 64C says that even those revokes not subject to the “book penalty” need to be dealt with to restore equity. This is not always possible after the cards have been mixed and returned to the board. When a revoke by the opponents is discovered by a player who is counting out the previous hand, after the start of the next round or hand, he should notify the Director and briefly state the basics of his claim. The Director can look for an appropriate time to get the players together and go over the play, but should not interrupt the flow of the game to do so. These are difficult situations, since the Director first must determine, from sometimes different memories of the cardplay, whether a revoke actually occurred. There are going to be times where there is no way to tell which side is correct. However, the side that may have revoked does need to cooperate in the investigation! Invoking the right to remain silent tends to convince the Director that the claim of a revoke is accurate! If the Director is satisfied that there was a revoke, then he adjusts the trick score to what was likely without the revoke, the one or two trick automatic penalty in Law 64A does not apply. The revoke section of the Laws covers what happens if a revoke is discovered or suspected later on, as I've explained. Because of the nature of revokes, this is spelled out: it is a fairly common event for a player to discover a revoke after the cards are returned to the board by counting out the hand from memory. As you say, the Laws don't say a lot about other infractions discovered later. Law 11A does indicate that infractions discovered later are unlikely to be rectified, since the non-offenders have taken action instead of calling the Director, and may have gained by doing so. But Law 81C3 gives the Director the ultimate judgment to “rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner,” at least until the correction period expires. So the ultimate answer to your question is that while putting the cards back in the board makes it more difficult to prove an irregularity, there really is no such time limit except for the expiry of the correction period. For revokes especially, Directors should try to get whatever information is available and decide as best they can.

As bonnie said to Clyde, "You done good". :rolleyes:

This is paramount to prematurely opening a traveller so the consequences are technically the same. This more often than not results in A- for N/S and A+ for E/W as E/W seldom get to view it before the irregularity is pointed out. However, in a club game directors are often more lenient. Getting a result is better for the field than an adjusted score so giving the pairs the opportunity to play out the board is more desirable with the conditions that if either pair feels the auction or the play was uncomfortable for them then the board would be adjusted. With bridge mates, unlike travellers, both parties usually get to see the results. Thus both pair are equally responsible for the irregularity and the adjustment would be A- for both pairs. This often acts as a good control to achieving a fair result. :rolleyes:

What is it about indies that individuals feel the need to play individually? Is it simply distrust?

Revokes are missed more times than one images - sort of an iceberg thing. Here is my suggestion: Not being a very good counter and a better visual player such as yourself, I make it a habit, when cards are turned down at the end of the hand, to ask for them to be faced. This way it helps me with my weak counting issue as well as spotting inadvertent revokes.

Is CRASH a general convention chart defense?

I'm having trouble understanding the lack of discussion re: full disclosure and the reg requiring both players having identical convection cards. Can having 'no agreement' even applies here?

thanxs all for replying i've really screwed up the hands the commentary is accurate i've edit the hands i appreciate all the imput To adj to 6♠'s making don 't you have to assume the defense will err as no end play is there and the squeeze is a hit and miss?

E/W get to 6♠'s on this hand: ...................North ...................♠XXX ...................♥ATXX ...................♦JTXX ...................♣JX West.......................East ♠AKX......................♠QJTXX ♥JX.........................♥KXX ♦AKQXXXX............♦ ♣T...........................♣QXXXX ...................South ...................♠XX ...................♥QXXX ...................♦XX ...................♣AKXXX E wins the trump lead in hand. Plays a ♠ to the ♠K in dummy. He next plays a small ♦ from dummy ruffing it in his hand. This establishes the ♦'s. Now he draws the trump ending up in the dummy. (however; S revokes on the draw of trump which isn't discovered till later) E now embarks on running the ♦'s: A then K etc intending on pitching losers; but, S ruff the ♦ K. The Director is called and the revoke is ruled established. The hand is allowed to be played out with instructions to call the Director back at the end of the hand. On return the Director awards a 1 trick adjustment and the contract is scored as 6♠'s down 3 unless E/W feel they were damaged by more than 1 trick. E/W state that they were damaged as S would not have been able to stop the ♦ run. Had the revoke not taken place and the ♦;s ran out, this is the likely the 4 card end position: ...................North ...................♠ ...................♥ATX ...................♦ ...................♣X West........................East ♠..............................♠Q ♥JX.........................♥KX ♦X............................♦ ♣X...........................♣Q ...................South ...................♠ ...................♥QX ...................♦ ...................♣AK Now E plays the last ♦! It is agreed that E deserves more than the 1 trick adjustment. The question is: as an equible ruling should the adjustment be 6♠'s making or 6 ♠'s down 1? All 4 players are life masters.

We are contemplating investing in wireless scoring. We are not a big club running 2 games a week; but, often with 2 sections. We would appreciate reading about your feelings/experiences re: wireless scoring either from a player's point of view or from a director's point of view. Wireless scoring and an automatic dealer cost about the same to implement. Would a club's membership derive more benefit from wireless scoring or from an automatic dealer?