weejonnie

I voted against running the club to the 9 since it is logical to unblock clubs (a habit engrained in us from the first few play lessons) and failure to do so is catering for a 4% chance. I would regard taking an action that is only 4% worse than another action is merely careless or inferior, not 'not normal'.

We use Bridgewebs - and I try and get both sets of results (we play two sessions) up by 11.00pm. All players, of course, have seen the results on the computer at the club. Our community centre is basically in the same position- just got WiFi working. And then come in the queries and mis-scores . . . Fortunately I have a (non wi-fi) copy of Scorebridge at home.

For a player of HHs ability, not to play the Ace over the King is not a 'normal' play. Law 70D D. Director’s Considerations 1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. SO the director can accept from the claimer a revised statement that he will capture the King with an Ace. Not only that - there is no doubt whatsoever that HH will make this play so 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. Is applied - and equity means the claim is allowed.

I have seen lots of hands (far more than 5000 I suspect) and wouldn't be able to recognise the conditions for a 'suicide seesaw squeeze' for instance. The safety play for dealing with a 4-0 trump split missing the jack is well known - but it is not intuitive for a beginner. In fact some might say "what is a safety play?" As I've said - we have to look at the class of player. HH, Papa and CC would always get it right. RR's Guardian Angel would definitely get it right and Karapet would definitely take a precaution for a safety play. - > To these people not taking the safety play is abnormal. On the other side, TT and WW are quite capable of missing it. ChCh is nearly an average player so he might miss it. SB fails to make a safety play in "Wining Bridge in the Menagerie" so I would rule against him.

But, you see, your statement is now making the play less obvious by pointing out that the player has to consider unblocking/ refusing to take a free finesse - and therefore more likely that the player in playing the Queen has done something careless rather than something abnormal. I have commented on this hand on Bridgewinners. The problem is: there is no definition of 'normal' or to what extent/ when does 'careless or inferior' morph into 'not normal'. (Obviously we have the same problem with UI cases where 'class of player' is specifically mentioned.) Looking at the problem in another light: WW/ TT would play the Queen, HH would run the club to his hand, RR wouldn't spot the Queen of clubs anyway. I would rule in favour of CC/ Papa as well - and obviously for Karapet.

I think it is for someone who has only "played nearly 50 hands" - which I believe VM used to describe OO's bridge-playing history. Later, in the bar, HH spoke to OO. "You were unlucky OO. Unlucky in that you were playing the hand and not me. Had I made such a claim it would have been allowed as for ME not to take the standard safety play would be abnormal."

I do agree that 1) Unless there is any valid reason (MI for example), the first card has been led. (as per Blackshoe) 2) Since the first card has been led, the second card is NOT a lead to the first trick. Thus it becomes a penalty card (fifth card to the trick) - unless anyone wants to declare it as a lead to the 2nd trick - in which case law 57 applies. LAW 57 - PREMATURE LEAD OR PLAY A. Premature Play or Lead to Next Trick When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options. He may: 1. require offender’s partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or 2. require offender’s partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or 3. require offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer, or 4. forbid offender’s partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer.

It all comes down to whether failing to run the club round to the ten is not 'normal' ('includes careless or inferior' - although no one has yet defined what 'careless or inferior' really is. Technically it is IMHO any play that does not involve an infraction e.g. a revoke, leading from wrong hand etc). The use of the word 'irrational' (never used in this law of course) gave scope for discussion.) As Declarer I can see 3 spades 2 hearts, 2 diamonds and 6 clubs = 13 tricks. I think it is only careless to not cater for a 5-0 club split since it seems logical to plan to unblock the Queen, Win the red suit tricks in dummy, and cash three spades, leaving South with 5 'winning' clubs. (Note West has to discard the Q[d] on the third spade). So I will rule 1 down - I won't even allow declarer to finesse the Hearts. Next time declarer will say "Running the club to the J9, unblock the Queen, Cash the two Ace Kings in Dummy and then 3 spades ending in my hand: then playing clubs from the top." Note that this is quite a long required explanation, which requires several technical plays - thus plenty of scope for declarer to do something else.

True - but directors are taught how the laws are applied and where in the laws is the appropriate instruction. Just ask any player what his rights are as declarer if RHO (instead of LHO) faces a card when LHO has one face down as opening lead. (Or get any non-director to discuss the implications of UI). Even now, I bet some directors don't know what to do if called when a card is exposed before the first call in an auction. For a player it is a SEP (Someone Else's problem)

Declarer and defenders also get a PP. Breach of Law 9. (see my general remarks below)

I still wish the orange TD card was still around - it seems to have vanished.

I alert the bid as well - to advise opponents that we have ways of showing excellent support. After all, opponents are entitled to know what I know. Maybe I don't have to but 'active ethics' seems to be a buzz word these days.

No doubt the indecision IS UI - all it suggests is that West does not know whether or not to accept the LOOT. And it is quite probable that East just got impatient. The next question is: Does East's Statement "We accept your lead out of turn" provide UI to West - again it is quite clear that the tone of the question can convey UI. Since the remark 'demonstrably suggests' accepting the lead out of turn and not accepting is presumably a logical alternative - West is obviously considering it, then West gets to make his decision: if he accepts and if NS are damaged then the director adjusts.

Well I can't define 'could have known', but I can spot it when I see it! I suppose technically RR 'could have known', just like a boulder 'could roll uphill' if all the atoms in it moved in the same direction at the same time. However being pragmatic we should draw the line somewhere. In Jure Non Remota Causa Sed Proxima Spectatur.

I could add a lot more - but this site is generally about Bridge. I do not know enough to know whether Obamacare is/ was a bad thing. I DO know that the State does have responsibilities to those that through no fault of their own need medical treatment. Equally it has no responsibility to help those that refuse to accept the rules of the State - one of which I believe is that you must not try and overthrow the Government - including POTUS,. (At least that is what is on my Visa application when I travel over there). Another is : people entering the USA illegally have no right to remain there. However: what is The State? The quote Margaret Thatcher's statement "There is no such thing as society" has to be taken in context. The State is the embodiment of the wishes of the people that comprise society. You need a society where people care and, to be honest, as people earn more money they become less caring. A 'conservative' in the UK is probably more centrist than a Republican in the USA. I know Americans put great store on self-reliance, however such striving for betterment must not mean that those who need help can be wilfully disregarded. The USA really does have to review it's healthcare systems and decide how to make them affordable. Throwing extra money per se does not work. If organisations know extra money is available they will try and get it - the easiest way is to increase fees for the supply of drugs and medical care, rather than providing better and more cost-effective treatments. You have to run healthcare as a business. By which I mean that you look for value for money in your expenses and aim to provide your customer with great service. When I am over in the USA, I am always struck by how polite and cherful everyone is who serves me. Yes it may be a facade or the result of training - but it improves my day. Most countries have healthcare systems that are both public and private. I pay a monthly 'tax' on my earnings to help pay for services provided by the state - usually those that are too large to be planned, developed and administered by smaller organisations. No doubt you, too,know your tax dollars are at work, hopefully for the benefit of all Americans, however in the USA (as well in the UK) there are pressure groups and lobbyists demanding 'special treatment'. The trouble is: very few people want their money to be taken away from them in increasing amounts for the benefit of others. In the UK the Government borrows ££billions keeping the UK population in a standard of living which, to be frank, they do not deserve. In America, I believe the amount is $$trillions. Whilst Mr Trump may be managing to get companies to bring money back to the USA and also increasing pressure to increase wages for Americans - and thereby stimulating the economy, he must surely know that reducing the tax take is basically just for keeping his supporters happy - which bring me back to the phrase 'bread and circuses'.

1st rule of bridge - don't lead trumps against a slam. (In fact you should hardly ever lead trumps at all - it gives away a tempo and finesses off partner's honour, if he has one.) Since West could have doubled for a diamond lead (presumably) you are down to a heart or the King of Clubs - A heart may disrupt communication, the King of clubs may set up a winner if declarer can't get rid of it.

And dummy is a pro that has counted the hands whilst his partner is a client who doesn't . . .

We've had a lot of discussion on this subject. Obviously if dummy is last to play then the position is obvious. As you say, otherwise we have several situations: 1) Dummy knows the lowest correct card that will win the trick - and declarer knows the same. --> No problem 2) Dummy knows the lowest correct card that will win the trick - but declarer thinks a higher one is needed. --> How do we reconcile with 'dummy must not participate in the play'? 3) Dummy thinks that a certain card is needed to win the trick - but declarer knows a lower one is needed. --> At least declarer can forestall dummy. 4) Declarer thinks that a card will win the trick but in fact there is a higher one still out. --> Has he actually called for a card I suppose dummy would have to say "I don't know which is the lowest card that will win the trick"

'esewogian' is misspelt - there is no 'w' in it.

The actual word is 'must' (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed) - which presumably means that the lawmakers expect a PP to be issued whenever he fails to do so. "If a player realizes during the auction that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must summon the Director before the end of the Clarification Period and correct the misexplanation. He may elect to call the Director sooner, but he is under no obligation to do so. (For a correction during the play period, see Law 75B2.)"

If the 2 ♦ call COULD have meant diamonds or COULD have meant hearts then a call showing either of these would be OK - I think.

Well I suppose it seems a reasonable gamble at teams to try for a low-count 3NT - if the clubs run you are going to be pretty close to it - partner could have 4 or even 5 clubs for their opening bid (I know this is unusual but players DO sometimes hold the denomination they bid). NB the North hand is not known to be a weak no trump. It could be quite distributional - or even 18-19 balanced. Other than that, I think you have it right. It depends on methods of course (as you say), but giving a default opinion on a forum (with a caveat) seems a sensible thing to do. For instance: The Ghestem call might only be made on intermediate hands, for instance, when 4 ♠ looks to be less likely.

Because it has the same purpose (forcing a response from partner to describe a feature of his hand)? I would also suspect that any jump response (unconditionally game forcing and taking control of the auction) would be comparable. Possibly a 5NT call (if used to ask partner to bid 6 with a minimum and 7 with a maximum) would also be comparable. NB : opener's partner cannot pass because he thinks partner will not have a comparable call. The fact that partner made a call out of turn is authorised. the fact that partner made a 2♣ call out of turn is unauthorised.

Well ESEoG - no W now.

Yep - there are a few At this event including hand 4 where one of the players was yours truly ;)