robdixon87

Have you heard of BriAn? https://www.brianbridge.net/brian/main.html My old university club uses this - works very nicely. It also has the advantage that players input scores as they go, so there’s an instant result at the end.

We play a 1♦ response to 1♣ as 8+ unlimited positive (with 1♥ as super-negative 0-4, and 1♠+ as semi-positive shape relay). Now opener relays 1♥ with 19+ (or a freak that wants to take control) to ask for responder’s shape, and otherwise bids 1♠+ to show their own shape and a limited strong hand. So the only time we relay opposite an unlimited hand is when opener is 19+ and responder is 8+. NB we don’t do this when responder is a passed hand, now we play 1♦ response is any semi-positive (with 1♥ FG relay asking for shape), 1♥ super-negative as before, and 1♠+ as a limited positive shape relay.

Not sure how useful this is, but there here is some documented evidence of an appeal against a slow play penalty: http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/appeals/ebu-appeals-2012.pdf It is appeal number 12.048, on page 44.

Another interesting one that also turned up near the end of a long Swiss Teams evening at my local club. South has decided to double East in their final contract, but accidentally puts the stop card down instead of a double. West and North both pass, and then East notices what has happened. As soon as South sees what is in front of them they realise it is the wrong thing! Seeing as the stop card is not anything to do with the Laws, is this just a regular pass out of turn by West which has been accepted by North? Or can the stop be replaced with a double treating it as an 'unintended call (even though it's not really a call)'? The two susequent passes suggest that actually three people at the table have mistaken the stop card for a double. I suppose it doesn't matter so much as if it is an accepted pass out of rotation, then East will pass (and we get the situation where three passes after a bid doesn't end the auction - hurrah!) and South might manage to put the correct card down this time. Just interested on what others think, or if you've seen this before.

So I came across an interesting one at the club tonight. Board 19, Dealer S. When I arrive at the table, both North and South have pass cards in front of them on the table, East and West have nothing. It then transpires that North's pass was put down first. South's pass was not simultaneous, but South claims they did not see what North had done when they put their pass down. What options do you give to whom, and in what order, and do any further options depend on previous options being chosen by a non-offender? Typically, this turned up right at the end of the evening (at about 11.20pm or so) and the end of a hellish evening running a Swiss Teams of 21 (so yes, a triangle and all) where people seemed to be incapable of following simple instructions and someone decided to throw a 'suprise' wine and nibbles in the break for someone's birthday...

Did anyone else see the thread title and get excited that it might be to do with something like an Erdos number, or was that just me?...

Do you mean a DP? I thought PPs were for violations of procedure e.g. a PP I gave on another board (which also had a contract adjustment attached to it) tonight was for 2NT-3♥ announced as 'transfer to ♠'?

Hi all, So, I had a fun time directing and (attempting to) play at my local club tonight - I think I was called approximately 15 times in 24 boards (16 tables). I knew towards the end that I was potentially facing EIGHT judgement rulings to decide on over a large glass of wine and a hand copy... Luckily(!), I was only asked for five rulings. Some were easier than others, and I wanted to pose this one to this forum: [hv=pc=n&n=s4hkj853d6cqt8532&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1c(16+%2C%20artificial)p1s(5-7%2C%20balanced)2s(%21h%20and%20a%20minor)ppd(t/o)3c3d3sp]133|200[/hv] What action do you now take? At the table, North bid 4♥ (which made) because 'my partner had not understood my 2♠ bid'. I tried to explain how that was a gross abuse of UI from partner's non-alert of 2♠, but didn't really have time to do so with lots of other rulings impending. The ruling I made was that the 4♥ bid is cancelled on the basis that pass is a LA to 4♥, and 4♥ is demonstrably suggested by the UI. So the adjusted score was 3♠-5 by North. East has a fistful of spades, and knows partner has at least 2, but double of 2♠ is takeout (as it is presumed natural due to no alert). If the 4♥ is cancelled, East said that double is now business, but they probably would not double as that gives N/S a chance to run. What I am now pondering is whether even the 3♣ bid is suggested by the UI, knowing that partner may well pass out 2♠x. Even though N does have a 6th ♣, it does feel very much like bidding your hand twice and trying to wriggle out of partner's misunderstanding. So, my question is whether I should include some percentage of 2♠x-4 in the adjusted score (or even make that the adjusted score)? In the event, 3♠-5 was worth 90% of the matchpoints for E/W, so they were quite content, but I'm wondering what others think? I can fill in the other hands if it helps. I'm from England, so this is under EBU regulations.

Or just make 2♦ your club positive, since you are no longer using it to show diamonds ;-)

We have 16-23 (4441) shapes as a strong option in our multi 2♦ opener. I like this because you don't have to lie about being balanced or pretending to have a 5 card suit. The bidding does start a bit higher for these hands than opening 1♣, but you convey very exact information quickly. Before we played multi, we played a Roman 2♦, which is simply just 16+ (4441). It didn't turn up terribly often, but was incredibly useful. I think that's part of the reason we have it in our multi now... In either case, you can deal with the strong (4441) hands using 2♦, much better alternatives to the classical Precision 2♦!!