weejonnie

Pretty standard isn't it. The 1NT partner has announced a heart suit and the 1NT bidder has stated that he wishes to play in Diamonds (perhaps he has bid an off-centre 1NT over-call with 6 diamonds and 1 heart). As I understand it, in EBU land this is called 'unauthorised panic' ‘Unauthorised panic’ It is noted that players who make an artificial bid which partner misunderstands and describes differently have a habit of immediately bidding their longest suit at the lowest level. This is illegal, and clever arguments as to why it was the ‘obvious call anyway’ should be treated with scepticism. Similarly, when a player overcalls with a natural 2NT which partner describes as artificial, and partner then bids 3 or 3 which is presumably systemically Stayman or a transfer there is an unfortunate and illegal instinct always to rebid 3NT. Arguments as to why this is the ‘obvious call’ should be discounted.

You can lose two tricks. Ruff a club with ♥A and then play ♥9 ditching the ♠A. Now that would not be 'normal' play. So from 1st principles. 1) Declarer cannot break the Agreement - under 69A -only the opponents 2) Declarer cannot withdraw the concession (71 header) and the opponents are under no obligation to do anything - although they can object to the concession on the grounds that declarer is likely to make all three tricks(79.2 means they are under no obligation to do so as declarer can lose a trick). However Declarer can call the Director and ask him to cancel the concession. 3) The Director can cancel a concession if Declarer has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play. (Up to Director to make a judgement, in conjunction with others) 71.2 Note that if the Director does think that a trick could be lost by any normal play he cannot cancel the concession - so, if a trick could be lost by any 'normal' play, in the second scenario the Defenders (once they agreed that they were entitled to the trick) are lumbered with the trick. (There are various minor points like - this is not rectification for an irregularity etc)

This comes under law 16.C (Ai and UI). The director has various options a) adjust players position at the table b) order the board redealt if the competition allows it c) allow completion of the board ready to award an adjusted score if UI could have affected the result d) award an artificial adjusted score. The exact percentage allocation is interesting - but if NS are awarded 40% (for a contestant directly at fault), it would seem very difficult to award 40% also (for the same reason) to EW. So the director can't rule the info gleaned is inconsequential but he CAN allow play of the board to continue. However it is going to be very difficult because of the UI. (And why would EW want to play anyway if they are guaranteed 60% or more for the board when their equity is only 50%?) (A few weeks ago at a game played in two rooms, the boards coming from one room to another were put on the wrong table and at the same time the correct set of boards were placed on another table. The 'director' awarded the NS pairs who played the wrong boards 4 (count them) average -minus scores for the 4 boards that they couldn't play.)

Under level 4 (which is the default level) any defence to 1NT is permitted by the EBU (Blue book page 24 7E1B). At level 2 (novice/ no fear) there are specific rules. This does not of course remove the requirement to explain your agreements in full.

Compare this case to a hand in one of David Bird's St Titus books where the Abbot's partner takes a while to select a lead and the Abbot then returns the suit saying (in the post mortem) that he had no option but to return the suit as he knew from the pause before the lead that partner could not hold a singleton. I hope I'd rule that, as a beginner, the pause before leading did not convey UI to partner. I would then take the opportunity to advise the beginners of UI in bridge and how to avoid it. If I felt that SB was trying to take advantage of opponent's inexperience then I might ask him why he hadn't called the director when he became aware of the BIT.

Why, oh why, do players not use the stop card? Is it too hard to pull that extra little piece out of the box? West, of course, should have paused after the skip bid - If East had any LA to 'pass' then this should be looked at - whether or not the card was shown. So it can be argued that it was West's actions that caused the confusion. However the law (21A) is quite clear. No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding. (I might remind South of his obligation to use a stop card, but not issue a PP unless he repeated it)

The question comes down to this. Is 4♠ demonstrably suggested by the BIT? (And is the pass forcing after a free bid?) The BIT suggests that partner has a 'flawed' TOD (which he has) and therefore is relatively weak in Spades. It also suggests good defensive values. Both these inferences would seem to suggest that 4♠ is not suggested by the pause. That, at least, is the argument I would put forward at appeal.

It all comes down to whether NS have an agreement as to what North's bid means in this situation. If they have an agreement then fine. If they do not then South has to assume that North's bid shows diamonds since the failure to alert suggests that he hasn't.

Assuming that when South rebids 4♥ then North should call the director and explain that he has failed to alert 3♦ as a transfer. As far as I can see North has no UI - his knowledge of the fact that 3♦ was a transfer comes from the bids that South has made. Of course the TD should check convention cards to make sure that this is indeed NS agreement. South has AI (North has a strong balanced hand) that is strongly indicative that 4♦ is not a strong natural suit. However 4♦ must be a forward move and if South has any logical alternative bid to signing off (which is demonstrably suggested by the UI) then he is required to make it.

True - but you have to raise their awareness - and the only way of doing that is to get an independent person to confirm that what they are doing is wrong.

Shouldn't that have been only 1 trick - the revoke card didn't win a trick (unless the TD was restoring equity)?

With the amusing result that EW only made one trick holding AKQ of trumps!

73D2 A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture . . . or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure. Said procedure being a breach of law 74 B2 - As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from making gratuitous comments during the auction or play. (As well as 74C3 - indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick that has not been completed)

the first thing to do is politely to ask your opponents if they would agree that the bid was made after an appreciable pause (avoid the word 'hesitation') or very quickly. Pretty sure they will do that. Then advise them that you'd like to call the Director. Call the Director - who will presumably ask you to play the hand out and call him back if you feel there has been any damage. Hopefully that once they realise that the Director CAN be called on break of tempo they will start appreciating the position. I don't like to say so but if you don't call the director in these sort of cases (and remind him of 73C) then a) the unethical players have already won.

This is a concession - 68B1 (part of) A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons the hand. Now 71 kicks in "A concession must stand once made except if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal (careless or inferior) play of the remaining cards. - the time limit is OK (correction period). Since playing a club leads to the loss of both tricks and would be regarded as 'careless' then the concession stands. That being said - can EW claim recourse under 73D2 (A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark) and 73F (COULD have known at the time of the action that the action could work to his benefit) - note the word 'COULD' - it does not mean DID. If North could (he is a strong player) have known that his statement to east could work to his benefit (by preventing east from finding the right defence) then an adjusted score can be made. Certainly in terms of Equity I would like to apply this. The TD should of course impose a procedural penalty on NS due to breach of bridge etiquette (inconveniences other contestants by making gratuitous remarks)

Alert the 2♥ as transfer but tell the opponents that partner frequently forgets. That way they know as much as you do. if you don't do that then you have to play the sequence shown (unless you agree with partner that the sequence means that they have forgotton the transfer - nothing wrong with that - but you would have to advise the opponents of the agreement when the 2♥ bid is made) as showing game-going values in spades. - which means you have to respond to it as such. Mind you, partner should be passing 2♠ - or giving preference to 3♦ anyway since they have (as they think) shown hearts and yet you want to play in spades. Why can't you hold ♠KQJTX ♥ ♦AJ7654 ♣Q3 Once you get a few bottoms in 4♠ doubled when adjusted by the TD your partner might get the hint.

It's funny but the other day I had, as North, a hand very similar to the above - the only difference is that South had: ♠65432 ♥AQ ♦T532 ♣A8 and after my pass of the X of 2NT he redoubled and we made 8 tricks - losing a diamond and 4 spades. On the actual hand it is 100% certain that North cannot bid 3♦. He knows that South knows that he has a 2-suited hand for the minors and he can leave the final decision to South. His hand is fully up to the requirements of an unusual no trump so he has no reason (other than the UI) for pulling it.

Law 71C allows the director to cancel a concession (during the correction period 79C when the director can re-apply 69B) - so dummy can speak then.

In the EBU casebooks there is a case where a young expert aggressive player did a certain action and a poll was taken disallowing the action. On appeal the action was allowed. See http://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/appeals/ebu-appeals-2011.pdf case 11.012 for the comments.

"West thought that he was opening a substandard weak 2". Therefore West should make his next call as though East has responded 2NT to a weak 2. If this is a forcing response then the question becomes: Is pass demonstrably suggested by the UI? The answer is obviously Yes as West is basically panicking (hoping not to be doubled). So the next step is: are there any logical alternatives? Answer 'Yes' - the correct response to 2 Diamonds: 2NT. Now I don't know what the system response is but I cannot see East doing anything else but launching the Old Blackwood and ending up in <some silly 5-level contract - doubled or redoubled> Even 3NT (X or XX) can go more than 3 down (losing 6 Spades, a diamond and a club as EW will surely finesse the Diamond as the only chance of getting a plus score)

Suppose your partner is on lead with a couple of cards left to play and tries to concede the remaining tricks. Now suppose you actually hold a trick if he leads one of his cards (but not the other one) and you immediately object (as you are entitled to do so under law 68). Then a) No concession has occurred b) Unauthorised information may exist so the Director is called immediately c) Play continues Any problems? No? Well unfortunately partner now knows that you believe that the defence can win one (or) more trick - this is unauthorised information. So When a player has available to him unauthorised information... he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorised information. Therefore your partner cannot choose the lead that could take an extra trick! Thus even if you forestall partner's concession it would appear that the concession is to all intents and purposes irrevocable. Is this fair?

I can't imagine 3♦ would be allowed - the TD will do a poll on the hand that is not mis-sorted, not one that is. Would 21A apply (A player has no recourse if he makes a call on his own misunderstanding?)

I wish people would remember the golden rule of bridge. "Bridge is NOT about points. Bridge is about TRICKS" Apply that adage with a bit of common sense and you'll do far better than just implementing an algorithm. The only problem is that you have to think a bit.

So this explains why the average grade for the NGS is below 49. (One point - if we play in the same direction as a pair - is the SOpp the strength of the pair or the average strength of the two players? I have a grade of 62.12 and a partnership grade of 59.02 with my usual partner. Yet his grading is 54.87 making an average grade 58.495)

As a player from the North of England, where congresses and Swiss Green Point events are not available every weekend, I have gradually amassed (over 30 years!) the rank of a 5* master (30K black <10 green). This is a relatively low rank - however the NGS would seem to give, I hope) a fairly reasonable estimate of grade - (I'm 61.66 AC) - and play in two clubs of SOpp rank 54 and 53.5 - which means that the clubs are relatively strong. Relatively infrequent players like myself appreciate this sop to our self esteem - I realise that I will never make Grandmaster - or even Premier Master rank. My impression of the system is that it is self correcting - the only way to improve a grade on a regular basis is to become a better bridge player! The discussions above all seem to relate to infrequent occurences and the effect of a bad session is not really significant (you lose/ gain about 8% of the difference between your result and your expected result - so even a 10% swing only results in a 0.8 drop in ranking. The key is consistency. I think the only way to 'game' the system would be to play with someone who is under-ranked - this could be because they had an atypical session the previous week (scoring 45% rather than 55% for instance) or they could be a rapid improver always having an ability above their calculated grade. There is an unethical method - you pay some opponents to chuck you tops OR you arrange for your partner to play with someone else and do very badly. I don't worry about playing with weaker players or new partners - it is amazing how many partnerships score badly on some hands due to one member forgetting a convention. Playing with a new partner - you keep it simple and usually you outperform expectations. The only concern I have is the thought that newcomers enter with an (overrated) ranking of 50% - this should no doubt be 40%. If a club has a feeder system bringing on new players then they will reap a benefit as the stronger players do better against them.