weejonnie

Actually The UI does not affect RRs right's! (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. (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. Deciding whether to become declarer or dummy is not a 'call or play' under the laws of bridge.

Is the alert only given if the jump overcall is weak - or is the strength of the overcall have to be given irresepctive? To my mind this comes out as no rectification since South got the correct description of the partnership agreement so there is no MI but no doubt someone will say 'South should have been advised "We have no agreement, but amongst the options are a weak jump overcall and an intermediate jump overcall."' The next question arises from my first. If only weak jump overcalls have to be alerted then East has UI - from the failure of West to alert. This IMHO demonstrably suggests passing as East has a much weaker hand than he expects West to think he has. It does look, however, that a heart contract may make as many or more tricks than a spade contract to NS have't been damaged by the UI either. Obvious polling would be needed to see how the final contract ends up - it could be 4H -1, 3H, 3S for instance if pass is not allowed and something such as 3H was decided to be the LA.

I agree with you there, but Law 41B extends the right to a review until you have played your first card (from dummy if declarer), so the opening leader cannot deny either player the right (whether intentionally or otherwise) to a review (with the correct mannerisms!).

I am not sure that is the case per se - RAs can for instance insist the opening lead is made face up. Whilst I am 100% in favour of there being time for any player to seek clarification, I don't think there is a legal requirement under the definition of the clarification period, for there to be any time. I might be able to get a pp under zero tolerance/ BB@B under law 74a A. Proper Attitude 1. A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times. 2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game. 3. Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing. One problem is that the declaring side can no longer refer to their convention card once the opening lead is faced. (Law 40B2). This means that if they suspect they have given a misexplanation they cannot check on it. In such circumstances, I am tempted to award a split score (especially if it seems to me that the opponents have taken the action to prevent declarer from checking the auction as a 'gamble'). I suppose I could even rule that the action of the NOS in preventing the OS from advising them of the misexplanation is their own rectifiction Law 10B.

9 Pass (Forcing) Pass 1♠ Pass 4♣ (Exclusion)? In the EBU a forcing pass by agreement on the first round is not allowed - so the problem does not arise. (Blue Book 7A2 and 9A2)

I agree with VixTD. Not a psychic call. EW need to ensure that their convention card (EBU20b) is completed noting that light 3rd in hand openings are possible. Would be hard for a TD to do other than draw them to that fact (especially if they don't have a CC - which can happen in clubs.)

East advised the director before the play was commenced that he would not have passed - that is usually an indication that he would have bid 3♥ given the chance. North Southj may be more experienced - but they are not experienced.

Dummy has QJT9 and declarer has a singleton Ace. Declarer leads the Queen from dummy and declarer discards. LHO now follows with the King. Declarer "Oops! I pulled out the wrong card - I have the Ace, singleton moreover". LHO can change their card of course. Declarer can now try and ruff out the King instead of playing a ruffing finesse - or take another line, perhaps finessing in another suit. (From V Mollo) Of course if the offenders obey the rule of law then they cannot make use of this information but a declarer who would deliberately stoop to such an action is unlikely to be one who would not take advantage of the UI. I am pretty sure there is an example in a TD course where a player revokes and this changes the odds significantly on whether an outstanding honour card will fall. Although this may just count as theory.

Director of course rules under 72C - the "could have been aware"... rule and awards an adjusted score.

Note that the other penalty card (the trump) will be picked up if declarer insists on (or forbids) a specific suit. If he doesn't then RHO has to lead the penalty card and it remains on the table. Whilst the penalty cards are on the table information about them is authorised to the OS as well as the NOS - but if the OS gain from the information then the score is adjusted. Law 50E draws a fine line - in effect it allows players to make their normal leads etc without having to carefully avoid making use of the information i.e. having to choose a logical alternative if one exists. (73C/16B)

Play stands - law 21A "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." SB is an experienced player (of at least 50 years) and should know that a splinter can be either a singleton or a void.

I didn't say I wouldn't rule -1: I said it was a very hard thing to do - since the law does say that the TD has to be equitable to both sides. This is the effect of the 'any doubtful point', (similar to the dreaded 'could have known' law 72C (which I applied yesterday and might have resulterd in a change of the winners of an event)), rather than 'any reasonably doubtful point'. In forums (here and elsewhere) TDs and players delight in trying to concoct the most unlikely plays that result in declarer making the least tricks. And the worst point - we cannot use discretion to award a weighted decision. We decide how the hand WOULD have been played out, rather than how the hand MIGHT have been played out. With the laws now encouraging weighted decisions in judgement cases arising from UI and MI, should they now extend it to claims?

The law says: "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." It is very hard to have to rule that 6NT is going off when the declarer has 6 diamonds, 3 hearts, 2 spades and 3 clubs to cash. Is that equitable????

Of course in EBULand we could have the situation of there being a mismatch in the next round as a result of the fouled board. Great fun, as we may have to amend the VPs in round 5 etc....

I think we would need to see the hands - but if dummy, for instance, came down with KQT in clubs and a club was returned into the QT then I would be wondering why the player went for a singleton club rather than a doubleton (when holding up is usually the correct play). Maybe the correct announcement is "could be two, but partner has been known to call 1♣ with one". That is just one avenue of investigation. Otherwise I agree with the ruling - an agreement is between two players in partnership, not an undertaking to the opponents.

Note the wording of the 'require to follow suit' overrides all other laws. Dummy of course has the specific duty to ensure that dummy follows suit. (This was new in the 2017 laws).

Well it would other than for law 44C C. Requirement to Follow Suit In playing to a trick, each player must follow suit if possible. This obligation takes precedence over all other requirements of these Laws.

Just using the word "play" automatically indicates the lowest card of the suit - Law 46 "2. If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated." But only because dummy ensures that dummy follows suit. Otherwise 5. would apply. "5. If declarer indicates a play without designating either a suit or a rank (as by saying ‘play anything’ or words of like meaning) either defender may designate the play from dummy."

Your RA probably has guidelines for this sort of situation. In the EBU all results would be cancelled since they haven't played half the boards. (White book 2.44) I use EBUscore (which is very similar). I THINK you can delete the results that have been obtained and then go into 'properties' and mark the pair as missing. This still shows some scores as not been entered, though, so I don't know how it would affect submission to the EBU if that is your RA.

I suppose the original explanation should be "Denies spades but partner has been known to forget certain aspects of the system" - but we'll leave it as "Denies spades". After the 1NT response we would have to poll to see if there is any logical alternative to 2 Spades (that being the 'aunauthorised panic' response). Why not 2 Diamonds, for instance? However it is quite plausible for a weak hand with a long suit to want to play in that suit rather than No trumps. So lets move on from there. As East, partner's 2 Spade bid is presumably anti system. (West is also unlimited remember - so this bid is presumably forcing). The question is: what could it mean? The UI (West's original long pause) suggests that West doesn't have a clear bid of 1 Spade. Again we are going to have to find out. If there is no indication as to what the bid means, or everyone says that it means West has forgotton the system then we allow 3 Spades. Finally we have to find out whether there is any alternative to the raise to 4 Spades and if East's pause suggests that 4 spades is going to be better than 3 spades, given West's hand. "In a contemplative fashion, And a tranquil frame of mind, Free from every kind of passion, Some solution let us find. Let us grasp the situation, Solve the complicated plot — Quiet, calm deliberation Disentangles every knot." WSG

Yep - we don't announce in a competitive auction either. In fact in the EBU very few bids are announceable. Only bids are announceable. Only announce your partner's bids, not your own It is only your first bid that might be announceable. Once both sides have made a 'non-pass' no bids are announceable

Had a case on Sunday where the 2♣ response was announced as Stayman and I was called because the opponent thought that Stayman promised a 4-card major (promissory) whereas the person who bid it hadn't a 4-card major at all. (They didn't ask). More interesting is the fact that the 1NT bidder thought that they played promissory Stayman, but the Stayman bidder thought they didn't (or forgot - as he plays non-promissory with other partners). Had there been a requirement to state "Promissory Stayman" or "Non Promissory Stayman", I would have had more work to do than just quote from the Blue Book)

EBU bidding regulations are provided in "The Blue Book" Link to Blue Book All calls (that are not announceable) that are not natural by agreement or have a potential unexpected meaning below 3NT (together with suit calls above 3NT in the first round of the auction and lead directing doubles (that do not suggestthe suit being doubled is led)) are alertable. So Michaels, UCB, UNT and cue-bid raises are alertable. Opponents have the right to assume that a call that is not alerted is natural by agreement -however players are also expected to protect themselves if a call that could well be non-natural isn't alerted when it should be. (Provided they can do ths without giving UI or waking the opponents up) All conventions should be on the system card. Even if they have a reognised name, a brief description of what the call means must be provided. The EBU 20b card is the recommended one to complete Word version On the card there is specidic areas for "2NT" - both in direct and protective position, as well as cue bids. I would expect to see something like 2NT Direct: Unusual :5+ 5+ in lowest two suits 6-11 points Protective: 18-20 (pseudo) Balanced, conventional responses same as 2NT opening bid Cue Bid: Michaels: over Minor - Majors, Over Major = other Major + unspec. minor 6-11 If you need to remove any words then the words to remove are "Unusual" and "Michaels"

Not a mathematician but it seem sensible to take the average of the first three scores (660 600 110) = 460 and give the pairs +200 +140 -350 Then take the average of the last group (+150 +120 -100 -200 -200 -200 -300 -300) = -130 Giving +280 +250 +30 -70 -70 -70 -170 -170 non-playing pair get 0 Alternatively we could work out the par score on each version of the hand and award NS/EW how they did compared to the par contract.

The ACBL rules mentioned above do cause a minor problem. A 'slow' player takes out a pass card: the 'fast' player sees it coming and makes a call. The 'slow' player sees this call and puts back the pass card, replacing it with a bid. Does this mean that the call made by the 'fast' player is made at the same time i.e. subsequent to the call by the slow player or before? Anyway - IMHO in the EBU the use of the STOP card is part of the regulations of the RA and so is AI - it is nothing to do with making a call. Indeed the RA is clear that pulling the STOP card out of turn is not per se causing a COOT (although in that case UI is available).