weejonnie

NB - the fact that 3NT is not a 'logical alternative' is now irrelevant providing there are calls that are 'logical alternatives' That does not affect IMHO the ruling that 3NT should be allowed since the pause by RR does not indicate that 3NT is demonstrably suggested over any other call. All we know about RR's hand is that he does not have an obvious pass (Mind you with RR even a hand with an obvious pass might take some time to be bid, if his mind drifted off to the stock market etc). 14HCP opposite a hand that is too weak if balanced <12HCP or too weak to make a weak 2 bid is not normally going to be in game.

The curse of modern democracy is 'bread and circuses' - politicians give the populace something that is nice and isn't affordable in the medium to long term - and then scream blue murder when a politician from another party realises this and, for the overall benefit of the country, has to take it away. I am not American, however Obamacare seems to have fit this scenario perfectly. If Americans want 'free' healthcare then they are going to have to pay a lot more for it. The demand for 'better health' is infinite - regrettably the resources to provide it aren't. In the UK we have a situation where many people require long-term care, for dementia. The costs and resources required are very large. However when one political party put forward a possible solution (a charge against the assets owned by the person) it was screamed down as a 'dementia tax'. In effect people were encouraged to vote for a system that allows other people to hand down their houses to their offspring. A similar situation occurred with 'Student fees' - a promise to let students have their university education 'free' instead of paying $12000 a year. This would cost $140,000,000,000 - and people voted for this party because it would benefit their own children, not realising that their, and their children's taxes would have to increase astronomically to pay for it. What I would mention, as a viewer from afar, is that a) the anti-Trump faction in Washington seem to leak tons of information that they think would be embarrassing to the President and b) They haven't leaked anything about Trump and Russia (other than bigging up a social gathering with many world leaders as a 'secret second meeting'). The conclusion inevitably (as in the 'dog that didn't bark in the night') is that there is nothing there.

The new laws state: (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. The old law .. the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. Although the old law is now only going to be in force for a few weeks - the word 'could' always caused me problems, since one could usually produce a hand such that any 'logical alternative' could be a winning action. The new wording seems more direct. ♠ - ♥ KQXXXX ♦ XXXX ♣ QXXX After 3 passes partner opens 1NT (12-14) and you transfer (2♦) into your heart suit. LHO now bids 2♠ (remember he passed 1st time round) Partner now trances and then passes. This pass COULD show good spades and partner wanted to double - but was worried. - so Double cannot be selected This pass COULD show good heart values, but partner decided he didn't want to bid to the 3 level opposite a passed partner - so 3♥ cannot be selected Alternatively the pass COULD show that partner didn't have a clear raise to 3♥ - in which case pass cannot be selected Under the new law, however, it would seem that all three options are available.

True - but, with all due respect, does that matter? The purpose of each bid is to get partner to complete a transfer into hearts and is thus 'comparable'.

But the new law says that you make your adjustment on the assumption that the insufficient bid had not occurred, not that the NOS have been damaged because the call could not take place (after all - they could have accepted it).

You may like to look at This PDF

As I mentioned - but Law 16C2 (information from withdrawn calls) is specifically excluded. Each case is obviously different but here the 1NT caller is merely going to complete the transfer. If the 1NT caller bases his action on the fact that the 2♦ call suggests that partner does NOT have his 4♦ bid, and the NOS are therefore damaged then an adjusted score will be made. (it is hard to see how, in this case, such a situation could arise, as the 4♦ caller has obviously assumed captaincy.)

(Assuming the 2♦ call wasn't accepted...) A call that replaces a withdrawn call is a comparable call, if it: 1. has the same or similar meaning as that attributable to the withdrawn call, or 2. defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or 3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call. I see no reason at all why a 4♦ call showing 6+ hearts and game values should not be regarded as a subset of 2♦ (5+ hearts, any values) Furthermore both 2♦ and 4♦ have the same purpose - a transfer bid to get partner to declare the contract. Although I would be wondering why the player didn't bid 4♦ in the first place. It is very unlikely that in this scenario (The 1NT caller being limited and constrained) the UI would affect the position, and any restriction of information from the withdrawn call does not apply, you should always be aware of: - 27D. Non-offending Side Damaged If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred. (The last line is a very slight addition to law 23C)

I don't think it would. When East held the 7-6 hand he had no information about the other three hands. In this deal West knows that East knows that West has both red suits. (absent UI). Although the point is moot - law 81C -Director's powers 3. to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. So this would allow the director to amend the ruling - although the comma after 'manner' means in theory that he has to do it within the correction period, rather than just become aware of the error

Well we can't force on EW bidding conventions that they do not play. However, given the correct informaton South is more likely to double. This is actually a losing decision! East having passed (as always seems to happen in these problems), the call cannot be natural (To West) But what does West do? It turns out that unless you force him to make a call such as 6 Clubs (pick a slam partner), whatever he does is going to be a winning decision. I just cannot see any losing LA. Even if he bids 6 Diamonds or 6 Hearts as a call assuming the CLub bid is a cue, his partner has enough for him to make it. Conclusion: NS not damaged. (I do not think that bidding 5 Spades warrants an adjustment - first of all it is not a serious error (under the meaning of the act). If it was a serious error it is related to the infraction and IMHO it is not a 'wild' or 'gambling' action. (Especially under the new laws, which explain how 'gambling' is meant to be taken.) - A club shortage in partner's hand suggests at least one useful card in the red suits for the raise. (Change the K of H to the A of H and the 10 C to the 10D and 5S makes!))

There are certainly cases where the decision as to what partner's UI is problematic. If a player can argue that they thought partner's BIT was showing one thing, and the TD/ AC concludes it was something else - and in those cases I would not be awarding PPs. Then we have cases of unauthorised panic and deliberately setting a final contract to prevent the auction going off the rails - these are definitely ones where a PP is required. Last night at the club a player turned over their card, and then showed it again and asked for the others to be shown. I politely declined. "Well this is a friendly club". Players obey law 65 - why not law 66?

There is probably going to be more than this than is shown - but here's my tuppence worth. 1) It appears that there is no Misleading Information as the description of the call matches the partnership agreement. (H + m) - Law 21. 2) West has made a call, showing H+m and East has given the correct explanation - which is not what West was expecting. Thus West has Unauthorised Information. This is not an offence. 3) West should be interpeting the 3♣ call as if East had said "Hearts + Spades" - and then bid 3 Clubs. This probably shows 6 clubs but some players may not open a pre-empt with a 7-card suit if the hand is too weak or has a 4-card major. (Are there any notes about partnership understanding. 4) If you have reason to believe that a player has unauthorised information then you can ask them if they agree that this is the position. If they do then there is no need to call the director, if they don't then they should call the director. (16B2). Since the director will only adjust the score if they feel that the NOS has been damaged then they will normally let play continue and ask to be called back if such damage occurs. Note that even if NS get a good score from the UI, they might be entitled to a better one; however, it is up to them to call the TD - not the Director's duty to review the hand unless asked. (16B3) This is the reason why the director call does not happen immediately! At the point in time there is no damage. In fact if the director interferes then EW might get a better score than if he doesn't - an ethical partnership will often end up in a 'silly contract' - often doubled and get -1100 or worse. 5) if you believe that a player has actually made use of the unauthorised information then you call the director when play ends (it is not an offence to do so earlier or later) - 16B3 6) The director may make a procedural penalty for use of UI (Law 73C2 in the 2017 laws specifically notes this and is (IMHO) an indication that this usage should be penalised more often than previously.) The English Bridge Union basically allows a director to impose any penalty they feel appropriate for abuse of UI up to and including disqualification. 7) The tendency to rebid one's shown suit when in receipt of UI is often called "unauthorised panic" - 8) East (on hearing West's 3 Spade call) must interpret it (or try to interpret it) based on partnership understanding. If the bid is 'impossible' then this may be a valid indication that West has misbid - one cannot impose on EW an agreeement that they don't have e.g. 3 Spades must show a maximum 2-suited hand in H & C with a spade shortage - although if East has UI from body language "he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." In short: 'judgement calls' are complex - directors will usually consult one another, experienced players and try and find out by polling whether the offenders had any 'Logical Alternatives' to the action they took at the table. (A Logical Alternative is basically a call that some players would consider and actually be made without the unauthorised information

Maybe we should look at the 2017 definition? Artificial call 1. A bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than (or in addition to) a willingness to play in the denomination named or last named. 2. A pass that promises more than a specified amount of strength. 3. A pass that promises or denies values other than in the last suit named. -------- Under this definition then it is clear that 2♣ or 2♦ showing the suit (but asking partner to bid a 4-card major) is an artificial call (unless it is agreed to make the call as well without a 4-card Major). It would also appear that any asking call is NOT artificial - as it does not convey any information - it asks for it. Does this make Moscito a natural system?

As long as no one has a problem with only playing 1 board on the last round then that's fine by me - just wondering if I was missing something.

I am not sure where this should go - but since it involves Direction, this seems as good a place as anywhere. When you play swiss teams/ pairs, it seems pretty standard for there to be 7-boards a round (so you play 4 rounds). Is there a good reason for doing so since, unless you share boards between two tables or put 7 boards on each table, you would get a funny 2-board movements. 12: 34: 56: 71: 23: 45: 67 da capo - meaning everyone plays 3 sets of 2 + one out of the last two boards. As a newbie to running Swiss events, could someone explain the correct way how these boards are handled?

Probably not - since the call is forcing (asking for partner's 4-card major)

Normally you can ask the Director to record the psych - just in case the person who makes the call has a history of doing so - and therefore his spartner might be well aware of the tendency to psych and not tell you about the implicit agreement between them. Recording psychs is in no way an accusation of cheating. Natural psychs themselves are explicitly allowed in the laws 40C1 but regulating authorities "may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls" 40b2av - thus for many years the EBU did not allow the psyching of a multi-2D call or 'the partnerships strongest bid'. Nowadays anything goes in the EBU. In general look at law 40 for a full rundown of partnership agreements and allowancs for deviating from them. It is the longest law in the new rules.

The WBF have now published the amended Law 26 http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/RevisedLaw26B.pdf

1) There is no reason for you not to double legally, you have no UI or anything like that. 2) You are fully entitled to know what the opponents' agreements are (including any relevant calls that were not made). You are not entitled to know that they are having a bidding misunderstanding (you can deduce this at your own risk). 3) Opponents do not have to explain to you what their own bids mean. I assume East explains West's call as weak and West explains East's call as weak. 4) You are fully entitled to know that East and West have no partnership agreement as to the strength of the calls. (i.e. West should have said "I don't know' when asked about East's hand) 5) Based on that, it seems unlikely that you would double. The problem is whether we could find a suitable sample of players who would double on your hand, given that you are told that EW are both weak, to ascertain what would happen with them when given the correct information. 6) I don't think that your bid is Wild or Gambling - but you should be prepared to explain that you expected partner to have a very strong overcall and were doubling to confuse the opponents, hoping that they might misplay the hand as a result. (Other TDs may disagree - TDs are always encouraged to consult - and you have the right to appeal (which you should have been told, if the ruling is against you)) 7) I am therefore predisposed to remove the double, and score the contract as 4♠

Wild or Gambling - but not a 'Serious Error - unrelated to the infraction' within the meaning of the 2007 laws. Under the 2017 laws you are probably even more protected as it is "an extremely serious error - unrelated to the infraction" and a 'Gambling Action' is defined as one which is taken in the anticipation that if the action isn't successful then a ruling will be made anyway in your favour. There is now no 'Wild' option.

Being low down in the pecking order I haven't received anything - but can someone in the know confirm that 26B1 has now been abolished and there is nothing to replace it - i.e. declarer now has NO OPTION to demand the lead of ANY suit?

ADKQSRuff Spade, Disc Club on KD, ruff club. - notlong.

Can's South change his lead at trick two? 62C1(2017)

Even if you cannot explain the meaning of partner’s call, you should still alert (or announce) it if you believe that is required. 4 A 6 If there is no alert and no announcement, opponents can assume that the call does not fall within an alertable or announceable category, through either explicit or implicit understanding. See also 2D2 (EBU Blue book). "I think it is natural but am not sure" - means you cannot explain partner's call. (Is that any better than "I am taking it as natural"?) So if you think it is natural but are not sure then I think you should alert, as you would if you think the call is conventional but it might be natural.

Even if it is a baby claim the declarer is surely expected to make a statement as to how he will make the rest of the tricks, including the order of playing cards. Unless BBO is different, the director sorts out claims as equitably as possible, but any doubtful points are adjudicated against the claimer. So is not trumping a loser "careless or inferior"? (NB the word 'irrational' doesn't apply in this situation). There are only three spades out - declarer (e.g. East plays the 4 then Jack) might think the last spade is good and not ruff it. There is no, AFAICS definition of 'normal (including careless or inferior)' compared with 'abnormal' - if 'abnormal' is the equivalent of a 'serious error' e.g revoking or throwing winners on winners then you would have to allow not trumping as being careless (maybe there was a squeeze or the spades might have broken if declarer hasn't a count of the hand). Regrettably you cannot rely on declarer, at the time of the claim, being aware of the situation, since the very fact that the claim was disputed might have led him into the correct line. The only true solution is for the claimer/ conceder to make a comprehensive statement when they claim/ concede. If they don't do it then they must expect to have tricks awarded to the opposing side, even if of very low probability.