weejonnie

Mrs Guggenheim would ALWAYS draw trumps first BUT there is a good chance she would play the clubs the wrong way - so she is -1. The Unlucky Expert would always make the contract. Futile Willie would be one off in 6 Hearts Mr Smug would always make the contract. BUT The Unlucky expert would have played the ♠2 on trick 1 in tempo as a suit preference signal (however no one else would notice it) Mr Smug and Futile Willie would have played the ♠2 NOT in tempo and the other would would have switched to a club. Partnering either of the above, the unlucky expert would have switched to a non-club as an ethical thing to do.

I think there is plenty of scope under law 47 for the Director to allow West to pick up the cards. The interesting thing is that if he does then law 16D applies and East is fully entitled to make use of the information of the cards in West's hand. Ever wanted to play double dummy in real life?

But the MEANING of West's lead differs - if you lead a small spade and it is 4th highest if you've a reasonable hand and from the weaker major if you've a weak hand. The 'Key' is the strength of West's hand and it is available to East - but not South.

The contract is 3NT by South on the highly complex system : 1NT : P: 3NT All pass West leads a small spade, East wins and switches suit. South assumes West has led from length and makes a play that fails, when it turns out that West has led from two small. S) "That was a funny lead?" W) "Well I had a very weak hand so played for my partner's suit" S) "Why did you switch suit?" E) "Well as I had 11 points, I knew that my partner had a weak hand and so was trying to find my good suit." S) "Director Please - EW are playing encrypted leads. East has made a play based on information which was not available to me." Your ruling? For help here is the Blue Book Reference 7 F 2 Encrypted carding No partnership understanding is permitted whereby the meaning of a lead, signal or discard is based in principle on information not available to declarer, so no form of ‘encrypted’ carding is permitted.

So this means you can field misbids (providing AI fully duplicates UI) - but if partner often forgets then you have to tell the opponents. Suppose the bidding goes (as above) W... N....E S 1H 3C(A) P P! P East was expecting a response from South since he'd looked at the convention card and seen (Ghestem - and a description) on it - and therefore would have another chance to make a call. Have EW been damaged? Would EW be held to account for not protecting themselves? How could South have disclosed the propensity of his partner to forget conventions if not asked? Is NS supposed to mark their convention card. "** Warning *** North often forgets conventions?" How would I rule? (EW had 4 Spades on but a 3 Spade bid by East would have been supporting hearts - West didn't want to bid Spades as it looked as if there was bad distribution around (Spades 4-5-4-0)) Is a suitable ruling NS were playing 1H : 3C as Either Clubs or Spades and Diamonds? (Which I believe is illegal at level 4 BB 7E2)

Am just trying to get round this. "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." - EBU white book 1.4.1 Suppose a pair is playing Ghestem (what else!) and after a 1 Heart bid, partner bids 3 Clubs, ostensibly showing spades and diamonds. The player alerts Holding 5-5 in the two suits and a void club, the player suspects that partner has misbid and intends to act on that assumption. a) What does he say if asked? b) Does he do anything if not asked?

Last week I was dummy when a director call was made. As the TD was playing I volunteered to go over (it was an insufficient bid, for what it was worth). Came back to find the cards back in the dockets and was told the score - only on the next round to have the director call the table as my hand had magically grown to 15 cards in my absence. Fortunately we had prepared hands with records and as I am well known for my absolute honesty, the TD asked me to look at the record and correct it. (We were playing blocks of three so the hands were all in a row on the record.

If partner knows you may upgrade 14HCP to be equivalent to 15 then you MUST announce it as 14-17. Failure to do so is a concealed partnership understanding. Note that I said 'equivalent' - some players, believe it or not, actually count the high card points that a hand has shown and if, for example they deduce you must have a King to make it up to a bare 15, when in fact you only have the Queen , then it could prejudice their defence - and I would be all in favour of awarding an adjusted score (or at least recording the hand).

General bridge knowledge is something that would be an agreement without discussing with a new partner. I fail to see how a response on 3 card suit at the 2 level at the first opportunity as being potentially a forcing diamond raise would fall into this category.

A natural bid is "A bid of a suit which shows that suit (3+ cards) and does not show any other suit;" - 4C1 BB So if 2♣ could be a 2 card suit then it must be alerted. If it guarantees 3♣ then it is natural - now the words are "potentially unexpected meaning". In this case it is "potentially a forcing diamond raise". - And so alertable. Since the auction 1♦ 2♣ 2♦ 3♦ is forcing (presumably)then an alert for the 3♦ bid is probably correct as for many it may not be forcing. "I think both opps just assumed this was normal bridge so there was no need to alert. " Yet again players hiding behind the 'It's just bridge' to try and obfuscate opponents. If ANYONE says that to me then they're getting a DP. Deliberate breach of law 20.F

There is no reason at all why you can't pass 4H. There is no bridge law as far as I am aware that says that you are bound to get a good score and the opponents a bad one if they have a misunderstanding (although many people seem to think so!) Suppose partner hadn't alerted your bid and bid 4H - would you have passed? That is the position you are in. (Your opponents of course are fully entitled to know what your bid means - not what you hold). Of course, the question arises - has partner fielded your misbid? 'Holding a good heart holding' and hearing you bid at the 4 level, shouldn't he be thinking of possible slams?

Which makes a mockery of Law 42b2 - since that would mean that dummy must continually ask declarer if they are about to lead from the wrong hand or if they are intending to revoke when it is declarer's turn to play a card - but before he does play a card. I am sure that 95%+ directors will use the generally accepted meaning. The question is : when is the irregularity committed? If you look at the laws and the definition of when declarer has led (card face up close to the table or similar) then it is apparent that dummy can prevent declarer being in this position by forestalling him when dummy sees that declarer is about to commit the irregularity.

Don't forget that West might have bid if told that 2♥ was weak. EW can make 7NT of course. I don't think that 3♣ doubled is on - given that West thinks the double is possibly for takeout/ cards - East can't risk a substantial minor-suit fit on his hand and cross ruff. I think EW are probably getting to 6NT, but they may end up in 3NT, given that they have no discussion on what the double means. (I assume EW made all 13 when they played it). So I'm giving it: 75% +1020 25% +520

I think the phrase 'self-serving' is the politest I can come up with. North knows they have a 10-card spade fit and that the hearts are breaking (if not 2-2 then 3-2). North has based his calls on his (limited) defensive assets (JX QTX) and balanced hand. Those haven't changed. If West could have a 3-card heart suit then presumably they would be playing in a worse fit than with a 4-card suit. And why jump to 4♠ when the 2NT is 'invitational' only?

Paragraph 1: The law says "The director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." (9B1a) : the word "should" has a meaning 'failure to do so may jeopardise the infractor's right but not often punished' - so it is probably OK - at their own risk (Directors can get very touchy if they aren't called at the correct moment and the NOS subsequently want redress). If you are unsure of your rights then, if an irregularity occurs it is going to be best to call the TD - for your own protection. Some players use the 'threat' of calling a TD to browbeat opponents or talk them out of the due rectification to which they are entitled. The word 'threat' is in quotes because calling the TD (politely) is never a sanction. Others will try the opposite - suggest that the TD needn't be called because they 'know the law' - possibly with the same ultimate ends. The TD is there to impartially administer the law and restore equity at the table. If they get annoyed because they are playing a hand then they probably aren't cut out to be directors anyway. (As an aside, aggressive players using such language could readily fall foul of 'zero tolerance' or 'best behaviour at Bridge' or whatever scheme your RA uses to encourage civility and you are quite within your rights to call the director under such circumstances - you have the right to have an enjoyable evening (finishing on 38% regrettably is not grounds for obtaining an adjusted score.)) Paragraph 2: Correct - if you have no agreement then say you don't have an agreement. That is all the opponent's are entitled to (but see below). OK partner may in practice obtain UI but in theory he should know you don't have an agreement as well. Paragraph 3: "We don't have an agreement in this case but in the sequence...., ... would mean ...." is probably the best you can do. As soon as you start saying "I took it as..." partner is going to get UI. I know it is natural to try and help opponents, however they can always call the TD (who can send you away and ask your partner what the partnership agreement is (if there is one)). Of course it also helps to have fully completed convention cards - something that, in my club at least, are sorely lacking. (Check - but certainly in England if there is no agreement then the bid should be alerted.)

OK I rule he had no bridge reason - and a 6 minute tank +- 30 seconds would give me ample grounds to award a PP - if only for inconveniencing other players + another for unduly slow play - and probably a note to the LEC about the incident expressing my disapproval. As for the ruling - I think I would have to rule it 3NT+4, depending on what East said they would have done over a prompt pass since an in-tempo pass of the XX would suggest SB was happy to play in 3♦XX. (The legal auction suggests bad splits and in fact it is only because partner's hand fits like a glove that 6NT makes. (remove those intermediates to South and 6N is going off). Maybe a bit of a weighted 6NT as EW are NOS, but not much (25%?). Remember that EW have had the slightly unusual (legal) auction that may not have been repeated elsewhere.

1) Yes 2) No - what do you call a 9-card suit? Trumps! 3) DP for calling a player a 'moron' 4) DP for calling a player an 'imbecile'

Only if you could prove that you had to have a glass of wine - otherwise dummy is 'needlessly leaving the table' - a breach of 74C8. Maybe you could pretend you have a condition like the snooker player Bill Werbeniuk had. See here

Yes - but I would decide that this was one of the minority of occasions when a PP wouldn't be given. I would also give SB a PP for trying to breach 10A (determine rectification). AND one for breach of 74A2 (enjoyment of the game). - note the word 'carefully' there.

What would North have done with ♠876 ♥QJ874 ♦QJ4 ♣43 He would have passed - so the UI is that he has values, but not enough to take action. It is unlikely he has values in spades as he would have passed quicker. I think I would have to find out (if possible) if North has a reputation for taking time for making calls - some people are naturally quick and others slow. (As a matter of course, South can do what he wants at the table, the director will make a record and then come back if requested.) So now we have a BIT (I assume double is for takeout) So we look at 73C and 16B1 C. Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. B. Extraneous Information from Partner 1. (a) After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by a remark, a question, a reply to a question, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, or mannerism, the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably[/b1] have been suggested over another by the extraneous information So the LAs seem to be - Pass, X, 4♠, 5♦, 4NT The UI suggests values so X, 4♠, 5♦, 4NT are suggested over the pass. (This is subject to discussion, some of these may turn out not to be LAs - but 73C still applies) Note that if very few players would pass then Pass stops being an LA and any bid is acceptable. Ergo - THOSE calls are contra indicted. South can bid 6♦, 5♠, 5♥ or some such as they definitely aren't LAs If you feel very strongly about this your best argument to avoid a PP would say that you felt that at matchpoints pass was not a LA - good luck with that!

If this is a problem e.g. you know dummy will be away for a while - you could call the director who would give permission. Law 7B3 3. During play each player retains possession of his own cards, not permitting them to be mixed with those of any other player. No player shall touch any cards other than his own (but declarer may play dummy’s cards in accordance with Law 45) during or after play except by permission of the Director. ( “shall” do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not)) I live in the real world and under the circumstances would probably 'wink' at it, if there was no attempt being made to affect the dummy. To be honest I can't imagine anyone calling the director or drawing the attention to the irregularity under such circumstances. Declarer will be only too happy for the assistance and the defenders aren't going to risk a PP.

Again not sure what is happening - however LAW 39 - CALL AFTER THE FINAL PASS A. Calls Cancelled All calls after the final pass of the auction are cancelled. B. Pass by Defender or Any Call by Declaring Side If offender’s LHO calls before rectification or if the infraction is a pass by a defender or any call by the future declarer or dummy there is no further rectification. C. Other Action by Defender If offender’s LHO has not called subsequent to the infraction and the infraction is a bid, double or redouble by a defender the lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply. So even if declarer is trying to continue after the final pass and makes a call nothing happens (and it would appear that if they did make a call then the defender has a 'free shot' to make a call to help the side without penalty.)

One last thing - your partner MUST call the director before correcting the explanation. (Law 20.F5) (b) The player must call the Director and inform his opponents that, in his opinion, his partner’s explanation was erroneous (see Law 75) but only at his first legal opportunity, which is ... (i) for a defender, at the end of the play. (ii) for declarer or dummy, after the final pass of the auction. As the Director can give the opponents the option of having their last pass back - obviously they won't in this case One more last thing - again it doesn't matter in this case but try and avoid using the words "I took it....", especially in a 'live auction'.

I would agree - your intent (when the cards were removed from the box) was to open 1NT. The problem arises when your partner announces "12 - 14". It will be very difficult to persuade a director that you realised your mistake between putting the card on the table and partner's announcement. Suppose partner (having announced 12 - 14) makes a quantitative 2NT raise. You have an obvious (and ethical) 3NT call if you realised that you had opened 12-14 with 15 points before the announcement - and an equally obvious pass (to a director) if the director suspects that you intended to open a 15-17 NT and have woken up due to partner's announcement.

"So "small" should be deemed to call for the lowest card. This is law, not regulation or custom, and not just in the EBU. B-) " I was trying to remember whether the rule was in the EBU white book or the law book when I was writing that B-) - I subsequently checked (however left the error in).