weejonnie

Well in the 2017 laws for instance you are not allowed to show dummy your hand.

But law 42B3 implies that Dummy remains dummy "after the play of the hand is concluded". If the intention of the lawmakers was that Dummy would cease being dummy at that point then they should have stated "A player ceases being dummy, and may therefore draw attention to any irregularity, after the play of the hand is concluded."

Definition: Declarer's partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced. (Although of course after an OLOOT there is presumably a presumptive declarer and presumptive dummy). Note that the auction period for the next hand might have already started e.g. when a player removes their hand for the incorrect board. To help you - law 42B3: Dummy may draw attention to any irregularity, but only after play of the hand is concluded.

I don't think there is really a problem - after all you could have forbidden a Diamond return or requested east to make their natural lead, or just won with the Ace and cashed out, or even won the Diamond return with the Ace. If it helps assuage your guilt then law 10C3 is applicable.

The Griffins does - or at least a Monster Points committee, which came to the same thing (HH is technical assistant: although he is usually not given the names of the offenders, to avoid prejudice, sometimes he needs them to ascertain their abilities/ foibles). Naturally I would find out from the Toucan what happened in the other room - however the basic premise of this discussion is at fault - RR is an enthusiastic user of conventions and I cannot believe he would not use the 2NT overcall: both as Unusual and Roman at the same time. However, the only possible law to consider seems to be 16C (current)/ 16D (new) - (UI/ Extraneous Information from other sources): there is no concrete evidence, but I would observe that ChCh knew the Toucan was North and if The Toucan could see the Chimp then the Chimp must have been in front of the Toucan - and hence able to see that there were cards on the table in front of him. I would also note that if the Chimp was in front of the Toucan then he was probably behind South, the declarer, so, unless he was familiar with the backside of the declarer, "could not see who was declarer".

I would hope so - it is one of the most fundamental changes in the laws (both in definition and application) - along with claims procedure. (I wonder how many EBU members now know the 5 choices after a OLOOT - they were specifically described in the December quiz in the EBU magazine.)

Rather like the change in laws to making claims - it is a sop to expediency. I sometimes wonder about 7C - it is clear that once a hand has been returned to the board then it cannot be removed (other than by request of the director) - however does it mean that, afer play has been completed then the hands should be shufflied and then returned to the board without passing them between players.

Board 1 "Director please" "How may I help" "West has opened the auction when it was my turn." (To West) "OK, you have two options: you may accept the call, in which case the auction proceeds as usual, or you may refuse to accept the call, in which case it is withdrawn and the auction reverts to you. East may call what he likes at his turn, but mustn't make use of the fact that West has called out of turn and when the auction reaches West then he will either make a comparable call (one with the same, similar or more precise meaning, or with the same purpose), in which case the auction procedes (but you are protected should you be damaged as a result of the inadmissable call) or will be free to make any call, in which case East will have to pass at his next turn and there may be lead penalties." "How do I know whether West will have available a comparable call, since there will be three calls before it is his turn?" "You don't." "I refuse to accept the call." OK - I can't see any alternative but for the director to remain at the table since he is going to have to find out whether West has a comparable call in a few minutes (and his presence may encourage East to not take advantage of the UI). It is then that he is going to have to take West away to see whether he has a comparable call available. (I used 'precise' because I think that is more understandable than "defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call, or") Note that the 'compelled to pass' is now always only for one round for partner after a BOOT (but not for an IB - why not?) With regard to law 16, the director is going to have to watch out if the partner makes a call that enables their partner to make a comparable call, when an alternative may not.

Well, first of all we should look at some wordings and definitions. Irregularity — a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. Infraction — a player’s breach of Law or of Lawful regulation. LAW 9 - PROCEDURE FOLLOWING AN IRREGULARITY A. Drawing Attention to an Irregularity 1. Unless prohibited by Law, any player may draw attention to an irregularity during the auction period, whether or not it is his turn to call. The player IS in breach of a lawful regulation (the RA instruction on stop-card procedure) so the director (as a player) can draw attention to the fact that his partner has made an error in the stop card "You're only supposed to use the stop card if making a skip bid" - however asking "Did you intend to make that call?" is not drawing attention to the irregularity and, furthermore, is asking a question solely for the benefit of his partner. (Law 20G1) - the actual bid made is not, usually, an irregularity. If his partner, as a result of the question, realises he has made an inadvertent call then he can correct it, off course, but he should call the director before doing so (who presumably could still impose a penalty for use of UI). So, ultimately, if the director (as player) draws attention to the irregularity then as director, he should impose the sanction the RA requires for the irregularity. (This is probably a warning TBH)

If you read the proposed law it says "e.g. asking bid" - it doesn't qualify it e.g. "a call requesting the same information" (as I agree it should)

Would be interesting if any scenarios have been run through. For instance - suppose the IB is an asking bid about partner's club holding and the comparable call is an asking bid about partner's spade holding? Presumably this is OK - although the withdrawn call shows that the IBer was interested in a different suit. (Obviously we can adjust if we feel the contract wouldn't have been reached had the IB not taken place or partner took advantage of the UI.) Personally, I like the extension of the comparable call to include "the same purpose" as opposed to "the same meaning" - and extending it to BOOTS, as it gives the OS a better chance to play bridge rather than, as in the current laws, almost certainly awarding the NOS a top/ imps after a BOOT.

Since declarer said he would give up a club then he has to give up a club. It would seem normal (includes careless or inferior) to give it up at the first opportunity. Otherwise the general concensus is that if declarer thinks the other 3 cards in his hand are equal (all winners) then it does not matter in which order he plays (and your statement about down 4 is accurate). In August, or when the new rules come into force, you will have the opportunity of saying 'Play on please' and if your partner and declarer/ dummy agree then you can continue. HOWEVER you will lose the director's ability to rule under law 70 (which as can be seen from the topic, should be much more favourable to you.) (IMHO no defender should really request the new option however I assume the new law has been drawn up aas a matter of expediency because this is what often happens in real life.)

But the NOS are entitled to a blindfold and cigarette. Agreed?

Well a lot depends on the quality of the 'poor bloody infantry' - the directors at the clubs - to understand and apply law 16. The current laws are very strict, forcing a pass in such circumstances leaves no chance for any UI problems (as is the case for IBs of course, although some intelligence is needed). As I have said before: sometimes an irregularity results in a result that appears to be unduly harsh (and of course the director has no leeway in the matter). The ACBL moved away from one form of harshness by embracing weighted scores (which seem to have been so successful that they are going to be the standard remedy), so it seems reasonable to allow 'comparable calls' if the tendency for the laws is to try and embrace fairness for both sides. If it turns out that the directors cannot work out how to enforce this adjustment - well there is always 2027.

Well of COURSE I know what to do when partner bids with 25-27 point hands - they come up every week at the club. However the problem with UI is not whether the call you make is 'correct' it is whether the BIT makes it demonstrably suggested over another LA. The fact that other players will consider a pass a LA even though it turns out to be (non-intuitively) the anti-percentage line, makes the raise to 4NT contra-indicated.

IIRC the purpose of the laws is to restore equity, not punish infractions. I may be wrong . . .

I would have thought that having to guess the final contract with no input from your partner was a pretty strong punishment. You can expect to score much worse than AV- for an infraction that doesn't even rate a PP. (OK law 23 can still be applied.) WRT the current proposal - Directors are now going to have to potentially rule on two aspects: was the offender's partner making use of UI in their own call and was the offender's response a comparable call? (And does loaw 72C apply?)

It is a major change - instead of giving the NOS no chance to take advantage of the UI through a draconian penalty, it gives them the chance to (almost) take part in the auction as if the irregularity had not occurred. Of course this will mean that the Director will have to be at the table for a longer period since they have no means of knowing whether the person who calls out of turn has a comparable call until several calls are made. This will impact on a playing director.

It will be up to the poor TD, as usual, to explain the situation. At least he can advise the NOS (amongst other things) that they have the right to an adjusted score either if the offender's partner has used the UI (following a COOT) OR the OS has reached a contract they wouldn't have done absent the Comparable Call One good thing - "3. has the same purpose (e.g. an asking bid or a relay) as that attributable to the withdrawn call." presumably now officially allows Stayman 2♣ to be replaced by a Puppet Stayman 3♣ after an IB. I note that the laws do not say that you have to be asking after the same thing. No doubt somewhere near a North London bridge club someone is reading the new laws with eager anticipation

The hesitation suggests South did not have an obvious 3NT call on the auction. For example: - He could have been wondering whether to just rebid 2NT on a lousy 25 points. (If such a call was available) He could have been wondering whether to bid 4NT on 28 points (If such a call was available) He could have been wondering whether to XX and hope North could make 2♦ XX + n He could have a good suit and a diamond stop and wondering whether to bid his good suit So I would say that there is nothing demonstrably suggested by the call - so no adjustment.

Unless things have changed, from what I have seen I would argue that the procedure after a call out of turn is a very significant alteration. Also the potential delay in advising opponents that you have given a misexplanation. With regards to claims - although the principle is that the non-claiming side can suggest that play resume (and all four players have to agree), I would worry in case some inexperienced players might be led into volunteeering to play on and not realise they may lose the protection the TD would give. "I claim the rest" (no claim statement) "Are you sure?" (contested claim) "Would you both like me to play on then?" (oops! I forgot to make a statement - honeyed voice) "Yes please." (suckered)

The old law 23 is somewhere in part of law 72. The key thing about the new law 23 is its application in the most significant proposed changes to the laws. Personally I think it is a good thing as it enables those who commit the irregularity a better chance for a reasonable result without disadvantaging the NOS - although of course Law 16 raises its ugly head. (Obiter - I don't really like the main change around 68 - 71. You can imagine the scenario. "Play on please" "I'm willing, but are you sure we can? We'd better call the director" ...)

All I want is a few definitions into such difficult words as "weak", "intermediate", "strong", "gross" and by how much you can vary the strength of a call or the length of a suit whilst still remaining within the same "system".

Subject to the proviso, of course, that the regulations cannot breach the laws of bridge e.g. psychs. But if they want to allow players to open at the 1 level with 5 HCP then that's fine. In England, a club could, for instance, ask that only a 1NT call NOT of strength 12 - 14 be announced.

How to lose a pair of potential bridge players - 101. If I may add - when at school, I had been playing bridge (rubber) for some time so, when the opportunity arose at the first duplicate I attended (a teams event between schools), I claimed 150 honours! The TD very kindly explained that the scoring in rubber and duplicate were different and honours didn't count.