weejonnie

It could be e.g. blackwood playing DOPE or DOPI then an insufficient reply showing one ace could be corrected to a double showing one ace.

Does 10C4 apply here? 4. Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C). So the rectification is that the bidding reverts to South, who may make any call subject to 16B.

I don't know whether a PD would be comparable in this case. Assuming the Heart overcall shows a natural heart suit (at least 4), the penalty double (assuming it is so) a desire to punish a 2 heart contract by the opponents e.g. on cards and AQJ stiff in hearts. Note that the caller's partner cannot make use of the fact that the 2H call was withdrawn to deduce that the double is a penalty double. If it not comparable the caller would be only too delighted that partner has to pass i.e. not be able to escape from the contract. If a normal penalty here is not penalty we now, of course start looking at 23C. I don't think the TD can tell you (the opponent) what CCs the offender has available. However you can ask (it is your turn to call at the moment). Whether that will be successful or not I don;t know. One could argue that the correct explanation from partner about the meaning of the original (insufficient bid) is "No partnership agreement" - which suggests that if partner DOES make an insufficient bid then you must alert it! If I remember correctly haven't there been discussions as whether the TD should even find out whether a replacement call is comparable, before it is made. Once it is made the the TD DOES have to find out whether it is a comparable call or not since he has to make the ruling whether partner is barred from bidding - and this does not need the opponents to ask.

In the first situation, there has been no breach of the law, so the director cannot adjust the score. In the second situation, there is a breach of law 74A2, but the director cannot adjust the score - only issue a disciplinary penalty. 2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. PROVIDING The deliberate hesitation has not affected the decisions of the other side. In which case an adjusted score can be made. Law 74D2 and Law 74E2.

EW were told that the laws said they could correct the inadmissable double and this would be cost-free, when in fact the call made could/ should have barred their partner from bidding. Had EW been given the correct information then they might have bid 3NT instead of 2NT, knowing that their partner would be barred for the rest of the auction. Law 36 2. the offender must substitute a legal call, the auction continues, and the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. Thus we have a director error and law 82 applies C. Director’s Error If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non‐offending for that purpose. There is no reason why a side cannot benefit from this. See law 10C4 4. Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C). Since any doubtful action must be given in favour of each side then: (e.g. if EW made 2NT at the other table) If EW can make 3NT and they might have bid it then they should get the score for 3NT and thus (400 - 120) = 280 - or +7 imps If EW might bid 3NT and might fail then NS should be given the score for 3NT -1 (+50) and thus (120 + 50) = 170 or +5 imps The net result is EW gain 2 imps - which we halve to 1? ( I am assuming there is no way that the final contract would be doubled/ redoubled of course and that there are no other possible final contracts!)

EBU Whitebook - AUG 2018 version 1.4.1 (in part) Players are required to disclose their agreements, both explicit and implicit. If a player believes, from partnership experience, that partner may have deviated from the system this must be disclosed to the opponents. If a player properly discloses this possibility, the player will not be penalised for fielding it, although there may be a penalty for playing an illegal method. 1.4.2.1 Red Psyche The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher – may provide evidence of an undisclosed, and therefore illegal, understanding. If so, then the partnership is said to have ‘fielded’ the psyche. The TD will judge actions objectively by the standards of a player’s peers; that is to say intent will not be taken into account. As the judgement by the TD will be objective, some players may be understandably upset that their actions are ruled to be fielding. If a player psyches and their partner takes action that appears to allow for it then the TD will treat it as fielding. A partnership’s actions on one board may be sufficient for the TD to find that it has a concealed partnership understanding (CPU) and the score will be adjusted in principle (see §1.4.4). This is classified as a red psyche. 1.4.5.1 A misbid is fielded when the actions of the partner of the player who misbid suggest a different partnership understanding than the apparent agreement. There is no longer an automatic adjustment for a fielded misbid. Instead, the TD will determine what the likely partnership understanding is and rule on possible misinformation on that basis. It is also possible that the partner was able to field the misbid because of unauthorised information from the player who misbid and the TD will investigate to see if there should be an unauthorised information ruling. ... There is an automatic 25% (increased from 10%) penalty for a fielded psyche (60%-15%)

Is there misinformation though - if the description was "Hearts + a minor" then that is accurate (although not complete). Here the player relied on his own presumption as to the specific suit lengths promised, as opposed to finding them out (which he couldhave done). I would say he falls into this category.

LAW 21 ‐ MISINFORMATION A. Call or Play Based on Players Own Misunderstanding No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding. Of course this is not necessarily the whole story however in England strong players are expected to protect themselves if they can do so without waking up the opponents or passing UI. (Some directors apply this guideline without remembering the qualifications - in this case it seems that asking for further clarification would not fall foul of those two restrictions).

What a novel suggestion! Even club players can get a bit upset with a claim ruling. Called last week, declarer claimed the last 5 tricks with one trump left in the hand and had forgotton that the Ace of clubs was out. (no other claim statement). Ruling: play trump and then a club: defence take 4 (Ace of clubs and three diamonds) of last 5 tricks. The laws are pretty clear on this matter - declarer can't even say "I would have forced out the Ace of clubs first" - even though it was 'blatently obvious' , since he did not know it was still out. If you were that player aren't you going to be a bit upset at losing three tricks? This has often been discussed: NOT applying the full rigour of the laws early on in a player's career is counter-productive. (Obviously some allowance for UI has to be made under a supervised novice session, since the whol point of the session is to give players knowledge).

We would have to be called by someone at the table - the fact that we should be called is irrelevant: in 99% of the cases the declarer apologises and makes the lead from the right hand and that ends the matter. In 1% of the cases declarer is trying to create an extra entry to dummy (or his hand).

You can't: Law 42 says "Subject to the restrictions in Law 43" and Law 43 says "Except as Law 42 allows". Although EBU doctrine is that dummy must be aware that declarer must be about to commit an irregularity before he can forestall him, this does not appear to be inculcated in the laws - unless it is agreed that stating (before declarer makes any movement) "you are in your hand/ dummy" is participating in the play or communicating anything about the play to declarer AND is not a try to prevent an irregularity. We could get metaphysical here and ask "If dummy is not aware of an intent to commit an irregularity, can he try and prevent it?" (noise in the woods).

I am often a player-director at the club (and when I am not, another player is). I would say that the club has to rely on the integrity of the director. The director is bound by law 16D as a player (UI from extraneous sources), which allows him to play the board if, as director, he feels that the UI does not prevent him playing it (If he remembers something from the board during play that will affect play then he can forestall it). I would suggest that the club (if not already) should have the director answerable to the committee for any complaints - there should already be an appeals process set up, if there are any needed for adjudications. If the club feels that I (or another director) has been ruling unfairly against the stronger pairs (and of course all the club knows who they are) then I would expect the players to appeal, and any pattern of discrimination detected. Naturally I will do my best to avoid acquiring UI: I am not called often and I have trained forgettery, but often you can't avoid seeing dummy and know who is playing the contract and what trumps are likely to be. (Obviously you don' know whether they are in an optimum contract or not!) In my brief career as director, I can only think of a very few hands where my knowledge prevented me from playing the hand. (On one of them we played it for fun and I would have got a bottom!). At this moment in time, I have in my possession two DUP (hand record) files for events to be played next Tuesday (the hands are duplicated at another club and the records sent to me in advance). I also have at home the scoring software that would allow me to read them in and review them (there are also copies of the hands in the cases containing the boards, but those are with another player - usually the other director.) The only thing stopping me reading them is myself. For playing and directing, I get the evening free. This undoubtadly falls foul of minimum-wage legislation as £2.50 for 3 + hours work is not remunerative (and I have to check/ upload the results when I get home).

It seems to me that though dummy CAN object to declarer's claim or concession, he can't do anything to increase the number of tricks that declarer can claim - other than through law 71 (and the barrier is very high - ANY normal play of the cards).

regarding dummy, Law 68D covers this D. Suspension of Play After any claim or concession, play is suspended. 1. If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies. 2. If it is doubted by any player (dummy included); either (a) the Director may immediately be summoned and no action should be taken pending his arrival, Law 70 applies; or (b) upon the request of the non‐claiming or non‐conceding side, play may continue subject to the following: (i) all four players must concur; otherwise the Director is summoned, who then proceeds as in (a) above. (ii) the prior claim or concession is void and not subject to adjudication. Laws 16 and 50 do not apply, and the score subsequently obtained shall stand. From what you say Dummy has cast doubt on the concession (2) and 2(a) has been applied so the director is summoned - and will apply law 70A A. General Objective In ruling on a contested claim or concession, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows. ... and finally Law 71 LAW 71 ‐ CONCESSION CANCELLED A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession: A. if a player conceded a trick his side had, in fact, won; or B. if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. I would therefore expect the concession (of two tricks) to stand since playing a small spade by you is a 'normal play'. Please note that you have no UI from declarer's statement and can do what you please. (Note that if a defender concedes tricks and his partner objects then neither a concession nor claim has been made (68B1). This protection is not afforded to declarer).

Last Tuesday I had a case where a player passed after his partner had called. I explained that the call could be accepted, in which case the auction would continue without further rectification (but if his LHO and partner passed then the calls would be cancelled to allow his RHO to call) or, if rejected he would have to repeat his pass. The call was accepted and as I left the table I noticed that his RHO (not LHO) had made the next call! By the time I turned, however, the player had passed again (legitimising the COOT). Having explained the reason for my return, I allowed the auction to continue without further rectification.

Could be interesting if declarer forbids the club, and then a diamond, and then a heart! - if South persists. (Actually I can't think off-hand anywhere that would stop this - the cards are no longer penalty cards. I mean - if you demand a suit is led and it can't be then the penalty lapses and if you forbid a suit from being led and the defender only has the suit then the penalty lapses, but not under the above circumstances.)

The trouble about combining averages is that it can give misleading results - see this link TBH I think any reasonable and consistent method would be OK - you just put it in the CoC.

"I called the Director more quickly and loudly than I think I ever have before" Just to remind you that calling the director in an inappropriate manner is a breach of etiquette. This could lead on to a breach of law 74A (failing to maintain an courteous attitude at all times).

Well they know that once I tell them that 1NT is forcing. And I am not using UI as an excuse to not tell them everything they are entitled to know, I am pointing out that if you start telling them information that they are not entitled to know then you could give UI to your partner.

I don't think that opponents are entitled to know HOW you will find out what the hand-types are. They are entitled to know what you do know. (Including potentially surprising negative inferences - which come under 'relevant calls not made') Example: Over a major, I alert a 1NT response. Correct and sufficient response to a question is: Forcing, shows a weak hand in a lower suit or a hand of any strength with at least 3-card trump support. Since that is all I know about the hand. What I do NOT say is "forces a 2 club response unless partner is very distributional" - since that is going to potentially convey UI to my partner (if he has forgotton the system). Although many bridge players have a laudable inclination to go over and beyond what is required, they do so at their own risk.

FWIW a warning IS a procedural penalty - we don't have to dock them Matchpoints - and many a more experienced pair don't understand responsibilities under 73C or 16B. As to what to do. Well the correct procedure at the table has already been discussed (allow play to continue and ask to be called back if damage due to UI) - however I think the TD should sit down on his haunches and point out that information can only be communicated by the legal calls and plays, and that, no matter how desirous they might be of helping, players should call the director whenever an irregularity occurs and let the matter be sorted in his capable hands.

If he says that "I thought that I had opened 1NT instead of 1 Spade" then that may also convey UI to his partner - that he has misbid. (His partner has bid so he can't correct the mistake.) The problem that directors have is that even though West may have understood his own error on his own account (having a 'senior moment' and then recovering from it), it is impossible to prove that this wasn't because of the UI. Such statements tend to be dismissed as 'self-serving'. Had East kept quiet then if West had realised his error there would be no real problem (South might be given his last call back if he would have done something different, if West calls the director and corrects his misexplanation, although of course he need not until the end of the clarification period) In the words of the ballad " Whisht! lads, haad yor gobs," - be quiet lads, keep your mouths closed: (appropriate as I live in Co Durham and play at Durham BC).

Well it is and it isn't. When West announces - "Transfer to Hearts", then that is automatically UI for East. East should of course keep quiet. Since there is UI then NS are quite within their rights to call the TD. This call does not remove the UI, indeed the TD will impress on EW the importance of not making use of it. When East blurts out "How can that be a transfer" then that communicates UI for West. The UI around is completely independent of NS realisation that this could not be an announceable transfer. Basically, if East said nothing and NS said nothing, the auction should start off with no UI and I suspect that EW would reach 4H as follows: - West : 1 Spade East : 2 Diamonds West : 2 Hearts East : 3 or 4 hearts West 4 hearts (or pass over 4 hearts) Because EW have ended up in a worse contract NS have not been damaged - nevertheless EW have been guilty of a breach of law 73C. The law states that if a player has belief that an opponent has in their possession UI then they should either reserve their rights or call the director (I summarise). NS have applied this law.

Our club uses Scorebridge - whilst it can run wireless software there is no need for you to have that facility. It costs $50.00 See here which will cover 5 tables - not sure how that compares with your expected price range. As we use a club version, not sure as to limits, but I suspect that you will be able to printout movement cards. I found a 3-Round circulation teams for 4 teams and for 3 teams there are several options. For 4 tables at pairs there are 11 options! Although some are basically equivalent, but you can play 6 or 7 rounds - meaning 18,21,24 or 28 boards. Basically - you keep a list of players, select the movement, add the players and then enter the scores. It comes with a free trial period I think. Score a 2-, 3-, or 4-table team event using standard methods. : Score our regular modified Howell movement. I suppose I'd need to enter the rotation. - you can enter free-format results Score from the travelers (ie, knows that 4S making 5 vulnerable is 650). - Yep Generate various reports in addition to a standard recap form. - not sure which ones you need: produces automatically a ranking list with %ges Run on Windows. - Yes Be fairly easy to use for someone who will only use it once a month or so. - Once you get the hang of it, it is pretty intuitive. You can practice creating dummy events and deleting them as there is no fee for any session. Disclaimer: I am not commercially involved with Scorebridge in any way.

It is not merely a question of 'UI' demonstrably suggests an action (Law 16B) - it is carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI. (73C). Bidding a gratuitous 3NT is not IMHO carefully avoiding making use of the UI. It is telling partner to shut up. Even though I don't think there is damage - since 4♥ appears to make, I am applying a PP as per 73C2. (Breach of a 'must not' condition - a serious matter indeed.)