weejonnie

If the claim is "S must have UI somehow or couldn't have made 5♦ bid" I am throwing it out in about -7 seconds. The law states:(16B) 3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action suggested by such information, he should summon the Director when play ends5. IMHO this is not a substantial reason.

I am inclined to allow the claim if trumps are 2-2 or Q opposite XXX, under the argument that "Drawing Trumps" does mean playing trumps from the top. Otherwise, if trumps are 3-1 or 4-0 I rule that declarer first cashes the top trump over the Queen.

Is it? Law 16A (d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

That is my 1st impression as well - the GDPR doesn't prevent usage of data, only that there must be awareness by the data subject of how the data is used and be willing to apply their rights to have the data sent to them, corrected and, in some cases, removed. "Legitimate Interests as a bridge RA", would almost certainly include the right to record things such as psyches (which the EBU, and many clubs, do anyway) and activities subject to penalties at the bridge table. What it wouldn't include would be selling the database of members to,say, an insurance company, for marketing purposes (without the active consent of the members whose details are in the database), as that would be an unusual action.

The fact that the room contract was 4H is totally irrelevant. OF COURSE EW have been damaged since the UI has prevented them from profitting from South's 2♥ call. Nothing more to be said: (So I'll say it) In my book (as a weak NT bidder, who plays checkback) 1D : 1H 1N : 2H is not forcing. it shows typically 6-7 points and a 5-card heart suit (a hand that would transfer over a strong 1NT opening bid, and then pass the response). South's pause (as is usual) is showing extra values but is unsure how to legally tell North - so he illegally tells North. North is clearly in breach of 16B and 73C.

I am certainly recording this as (potentially) a Concealed partnership agreement. Under EBU rules is would almost certainly be regarded as a 'red' psych (automatic AV+, AV- -10%). But the rules do not require proof of fielding, just that the player could have fielded the psych. Not sure how this would be regarded in Australia. From EBU white book "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." "The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself – 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."

I can think of several things: he could have wanted you to bid Blackwood. He must have a pretty good hand to raise 1S to 4S having passed (4=5=3=1?) (I am assuming 5C is some sort of slam try in spades and 1C was natural). He hasn't cue-bid hearts (assuming that is what a 5H bid would mean), and I don't know whether he would have shown a Diamond King, if he had one. He could be interested in a slam but (not surprisingly) short of controls - other than AK of spades. Suppose West had bid 5 Spades in tempo - that would surely suggest signing off. (otherwise the 5C call has become slam forcing). If you do make a forward bid then that is not 'carefully avoiding' making use of the BIT. A hand such as AKXX QXXXXX XXX X is certainly not out of the question.

My 2 penworth - is that you base the adjusted score on what would South (and North) do if he had received the correct information "No partnership agreement" - this is required by EBU regulations. In that case it seems that South won't do anything, since it appears that East very likely has spades and opponents are about to play in a transfer. So I'll rule the final contract as 2H -4 by East. (or whatever you think it will make). (You can't really make use of what happened at the other tables since I would wager that at none of them did the auction go 1N X 2H (Alerted as undiscussed) ...) I do understand why West did not lead a heart - partner bids 2H and then a 2NT overcall (natural) would put me off from leading from a tenace position.

Bridge is not regarded as a sport in the EU. According to the ECJ - does that mean the CAS can't rule? (I like this bit After tax authorities rejected the application, the EBU took them to a UK court, which said bridge was a game of chance rather than a sport. Which was exactly the reason why darts players were prosecuted in the early days of the sport.)

Are we saying that the defender played 6♥ at an earlier trick and then led 6♥ at a later trick? It is not quite clear (the card in the lap could be from an earlier deal for instance). Presumably we are going to award AV-, AV-. If that is surprising, it is worthwhile pointing out that the defender would not have led the card for the rest of the hand had the other side not pointed out that it was in her lap. they should have called the director for him to ascertain the correct position of the card. (This can be dangerous - in America a player faced the loss of 30,000 matchpoints for not getting the director to find out the correct position of a misplaced card.)

If you have a partnership agreement to open light in 3rd (not psych) then I think that 3♠ would be acceptable - after all you have a 7+ losers - and partner can raise to 4 with a reasonable opening. In which case you would not need to bid 4♠ over 4♥ having limited your hand. On the bidding suggested P - P - 1♠ - X - 2♠ - 2NT - P - 3NT - P - 4♥ - P - P - ? then I think you do have to take some action. Your LHO might be fooling around on purpose to try and talk you out of your game, and then panicked when partner raised to 3NT. (Hence it is not obvious that partner has psyched) If you don't save at favourable vulnerabilty with a hand with hardly any defensive strength then this does look like an attempt at fielding (I wouldn't call it cheating as you are staying within the correct procedures, and it will be up to the TD to decide whether you have an implicit undisclosed partnership agreement) On the OPs general point - if it is apparent that partner has psyched then you can take that into account. I don't think there are any rules about this (certaily not in the laws) - but if you feel that it is obvious to your opponents (given the bidding) that your partner is the one that has psyched and not one of them, then you can allow for it. I suppose you could ask one of them if they have a partnership agreement not to psych under any circumstances...

To be honest, I can't see how they can. The Laws are very specific on this point, 'suggest' is too mild, 'demand' is probably better - the Laws give the RAs powers in certain specific areas, but only providing the regulations are not in conflict with the laws themselves. Would be interesting if someone did psych and then appealed quoting the laws. If the organisation are relying on law 40B1 "(b) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as ‘special partnership understandings’. A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament." then they are missing the point of 40B1a 1. (a) An agreement between partners, whether explicit or implicit, is a partnership understanding. Which means that the RA (as does the EBU) can forbid players agreeing to psych in certain situations e.g. to always open 1 Spade 3rd in hand at favourable vulnerability, but by definition a psych is not an agreement. The director, of course must apply the laws in the lawbook (taking into account the procedures defined by the RA) A. Director’s Duty It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. Yes - (in the EBU) you don't have to prove intent. If you action appears to be allowing for partner having psyched then you will be penalised - the hand is regarded as unplayable and an artificial score is applied - 60%, 40% and THEN a 10% penalty is imposed - meaning that the side adjudicated as having psyched get a maximum of 30%. The OP seems to be allowing for the fact that partner has psyched by only raising to 2 Spades with AKJXX trump support. Although the law doesn't apply the same rules to responses as to law 16B, nevertheless it is a useful similarity. (If you believe that your partner has psyched then you may not select a call demonstrably suggested by the psych if there is a logical alternative)

There are four players at the table. One (the OP) is definitely not psyching. That leaves three: so the a priori odds are 2:1 in favour of one of the opponents not having their bid - after, all players are fallible. I can even imagine circumstances where your partner might have shaved off a spade for his opening bid, or LHO (With QTX) is trying for a NT game and is protecting his spade fragment. West could even be psyching to keep you out of your spade game. The only get out would be in law 40B - although the conditions aren't really met (opponents haven't enquired) - would alerting the call and then saying that partner has a tendency to psych in these positions meet it? Of course you may then be playing an illegal agreement "1♠ shows either spades and a hand with opening values (but may be weaker than 1st and 2nd position) or a weak hand without spades" 5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an 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. Is the fact that psyching in third position is very common "generally known to bridge players"? The only way to know that partner is psyching is if he does an action that is inexplicable in any other way - usually when he runs after being supported by partner and doubled for penalties. Finally: from the EBU white book "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." "The actions of the psycher’s partner following a psyche – and, possibly, further actions by the psycher himself – 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." (Obviously how each RA handles the consequence of psyching is up to them - they can't forbid a natural psych, though, only a conventional one)

I suppose it is no different from playing duplicate where every single contract is 3NT making 9 tricks, but pairs A and B cannot play two boards through no fault of their own - and get AV+, AV+, and so win each section. http://www.bridgewebs.com/cgi-bin/bwol/bw.cgi?pid=display_rank&msec=1&event=20180430_1&wd=1&club=durham The thing is: you have increased the total matchpoints available from 100% to (100+n)%. Normaly this is hidden in the randomness of results.

The problem is probably over-exaggerated. Teams A and B only had 62 boards to score imps, while team C had 64. Team A scored 6 imps on the two boards - and could not score any more. Team B scored 6 imps on the two boards - and could not score any more. Team C could have scored 48 imps on the two boards. (OK very unlikely, but even a non-vulnerable game Vs part score is 6 imps). If team A felt they were losing after 30 boards there is nothing they could have done about it. If team B felt they were losing after 30 boards there is nothing they could have done about it. If team C felt they were losing after 30 boards they might decide to try something to pull back the victory. Am I missing something? Anyway it is written in the laws (Law 86) what to do (unless the EBU have stipulated otherwise)

The laws do not forbid it - the RA might as they have the power to do so (but not natural psychic calls) under law 40B2.(a)iv - the EBU USED to forbid them. (If you want to play 2♣ as possibly being a weak diamond hand then the EBU won't mind - no need to psych - providing full disclosure is made.)

You can open 2♣ with any genuinely strong (your meaning) hand in the EBU, the only minor restriction is that it must have 16+ points or 12+ points and 5+ controls, if you intend the call to include a 5+ card club suit - and you must mention the fact that the hand may not be basing its trrick-taking ability on high cards. As I mentioned, SB is only complaining about the use of the word 'strong'.

You can - but your partner won't be very happy when they have 12 points and find out that 6NT fails by 3 tricks. Opening that hand as a strong two invites trouble at the table, whereas opening the original hand as a strong bid merely invites trouble at the Appeals Committee. A weak/ beginner player would have difficulty working out what a clear-cut trick was anyway. Remember that the Blue book does say "(1) A ‘Benji’ 2♣ or 2♦ opening (or any other opening with a similar meaning) which may have ‘eight playing tricks’ in any suit must by agreement satisfy (a) above. An agreement to make such a bid on a hand with many playing tricks but limited high card strength must be clearly disclosed. I do so: Playing a multi 2♦ when asked I will say "... or could be 8+ playing tricks in an unspecified suit. The hand may not be strong unless the suit is diamonds". Is it too difficult to get other players to say the same - or are electronic devices stultifying speech? So; the problem is not that North-South had an illegal agreement to open 2♣ on such a hand (they don't). It is that they haven't been taught what 'strong' means in a (EBU) bridge context. For all South's hand shape - he required North to hold club tricks to make his slam - had EW held North's clubs then THEY would have scored the slam - something ot think about.

In the EBU this convention is fully acceptable at Level 4 (standard tournament). ANY strong hand is allowed and a hand showing 5 or more cards in a specified suit of any strength is also allowed. It is defined in the Blue Book 7C1 (a) Any meaning or meanings as long as they all show a strong hand (16+ HCP, or 12+ HCP with at least 5 controls), and/or (b) At most one from the following four options: ... (ii) One or more meanings which all show at least five cards in the same one specified suit ... (You would announce a strong 2♣ if its ONLY meaning was a hand with a club suit - by stating the strength. You alert anything else (all calls from 2!c to 2NT must either be announced or alerted, depending on meaning.)

The problem is: North's interpretation of the word "Strong" is not in accordance with the Regulatory Organisation;s definition of the word "Strong". (The hand would have met ER25 - the rules in force before August 1st, since it has 10 clear-cut tricks). The hand only has two defensive tricks (or even only one) - it does not have 15 points, nor 5 controls (regrettably voids are not construed as controls in the EBU definition). You can have an agreement to open such a hand with 2♣ providing full disclosure is made (any game-forcing hand or 23-24 balanced I believe is the Acol definition) - the only criterium is that the hand must be 'strong' if the suit is clubs. So: legally - SB is correct if the club is adhering to the EBU Blue Book: NS have used an illegal convention (and it would be illegal at level 4 - who on earth uses Level 3 these days?) - or rather their description of the call "strong" is incorrect. This gives MI to SB. However, I am sure that the club can specify the allowed meanings for all calls and I would weasel my way out and say (truthfully or otherwise) "For beginners' evenings we follow the 'Bridge for All' protocol and not the EBU Blue book." - A Solomonic solution. I would advise South of the problem in the bar, later and, since it was SB, rule that EW weren;t damaged by the MI. I will quote Frances Hinden (EBU) "Where a hand is a true freak (such as with a double void or a 12-card suit), TDs should accept that few pairs would have agreements on how to bid it." To quote Terry Pratchett "Sometimes people are so concerned whether something is legal or illegal, they forget to decide whether it is right or wrong."

I would beg to differ - the EBU's rules are basically anything that isn't natural - thus you would alert 2♣ over 1♣ and then explain (if asked). In the ACBL you would not alert because it is agreed that the bid is conventional - however to find out WHICH suit(s) it shows you have to ask. You can pick up some good scores by not having 1♣ - 2♣ as showing the majors.

Actually not quite correct - But the exception is pretty rare.(EBU Blue Book 2017) A Stayman 2♣ bid is announced, but only in response to a natural 1NT opening where there has been no intervention; and only where it is used to ask for a four card major. Opener says “Stayman”. After such a 2♣ response a standard 2♦ rebid by opener is not alerted. Unusual replies such as the opener bidding 2NT or higher or 2♠ showing spades but not denying hearts should be alerted. Stayman is announced whether or not it shows a four card major. Simple rules for announcing 1) Never announce your own bids 2) When the auction is competitive no bids are announced. 3) Only a player's first bid will ever be announced.

Well instead of using the gerund, is very hair-splitting. I mean how can you not be a cheat if you are accused of cheating? "If he had half a brain"... No one I believe (other than SB here) has ever accused RR of thinking. - see Winning Bridge in The Menagerie.

Personally I think that it is often a case or laziness or ignorance of the laws. Declarer sees a winning line e.g. cashing a top honour from 2 when missing JXXX and personally thinks it is 'blindingly obvious' that that is the correct way to proceed. Unfortunately for him the bar ("any doubtful point") is very high and directors (maybe in trying to show off their knowledge of the laws) are often only too eager to disallow.

We'll assume as usual that OO (or whoever is directing) issues a DP for breach of bridge etiquette (failing to call director in a polite manner), a DP for breach of BB@B/ Zero Tolerance a DP for accusing another player of cheating - so even if I rule in his favour he is getting -ve matchpoints. Yes there is UI (as specifically stated in Law 20 IIRC- ChCh should have asked about the auction as a whole, not individual calls) Isn't this similar to someone asking whether a 5 Heart response to 4NT shows or denies the Queen of Trumps - it being ruled that this is a perfectly legitimate question and Declarer should not take any inferences from it. Anyway (a) A player may not choose a call or play that is demonstrably suggested over another by unauthorized information if the other call or play is a logical alternative. Couldn't West have A of diamonds and wondering why SB cue bid. If SB was cue-bidding a 2nd round control then RR should switch to a diamond. Therefore: not demonstrably suggested over leading a diamond. (b) A logical alternative is an action that a significant proportion of the class of players in question, using the methods of the partnership, would seriously consider, and some might select. Irrelevant, but presumably all RRs would do the same, so again - no adjustment.