timjand

Playing Acol weak NT. I presume most would open 1C after a pass from South. Sitting E would you respond 1D or 1S? If the bidding went 1C - 1D 1H - 2S (because 1S is 4th suit forcing) what should W bid? I think this is a good argument for playing 1S as natural! Tim

I moved to a new area just over a year ago and was looking for partners. I had the philosophy that I was happy to play with anyone at least once. Of course I had some rather random sessions but got to know the club and had the opportunity to meet other people and keep an ear open for who might be looking for a partner from time to time. Most people play the best they can and I also make mistakes so I don't feel hard done by if someone finds me a partner who is less able than myself. Just as I hope that those better than me have some tolerance of my mistakes if I partner them. The key I believe is not to get stuck with someone you don't want to play with long-term though inertia or politeness. I've learned to say, "happy to play with you from time to time, but I don't want to commit to every week." Tim

Level 4: 7 A 3 Strength of Opening One-level Bids A one-level opening bid in a suit, whether forcing or not, must by agreement show 8+ HCP and, in first and second position, follow the Rule of 18. Natural 1NT opening bids must show 9+ HCP. Tim

EBU Blue Book defines 3 levels for normal use: Level 2 (?novice), Level 4 (?Normal), Level 5 (?Advanced). If playing at an EBU club which has not specified a level, is there a level which is deemed to be in operation? Came up because a hand was opened 1S in first seat which satisfies Rule of 18 but not Rule of 19. Tim

This is what I thought too. Though it seems harsh. Imagine this incident at the little known EBU club the Eccentrics. After a bidding mishap declarer has arrived in 6NT holding: AKQJT9876543 K - - His partner's highest card is a 6. Inexplicably, the lead is the 2S. "The rest are mine," states an ecstatic declarer, facing his hand, but forgetting the heart loser. The director is called. "I'm sorry, but I have to rule that you play the KH at trick 2. Score will be 11 down." Tim :-)

EBU pairs event. Contract is in no trumps. At trick 11, a defender leads a spade. Declarer has a winning spade, Ace of hearts and Queen of diamonds. Believing all three cards are winners, he claims the rest. However the QD is not a winner. Worse, if he leads the QD at trick 12, he loses two more tricks. Since he believes all three cards are winners, should you rule that he may play them in any order thus losing two tricks? Or is "normal play" (Law 70) that he would play the Ace first, similar to the supposition that suits are "normally" led from the top down? Tim

If play continues, could someone clarify whether the claimant's cards are faced during play? Or does this depend on whether they are faced as part of the claim? Tim

I've been reading the new laws. The new claims law 68D(b) says that the non-claiming side may request that play continues subject to the agreement of all four players. I'm puzzled by this. I realise that "play them out" is common practice but it is not altogether fair since a declarer asked to play on may have been informed of something they had forgotten, eg an outstanding trump or an unfavourable split, and therefore gain an advantage. So it is fairer if the non-claiming side do NOT agree but I can imagine this causing issues in terms of social pressure "why did you not let me play them out", the kind of pressure which a clear law is designed to prevent. Have I misunderstood?

So I am sure I am understanding ... let us assume that E/W had chatted before the event and agreed that if an opponent's opening bid promised two or fewer cards in the suit, that overcalling with that suit is natural. But W forgot. Would that change everything? Tim

Agreed S is allowed to know this; however I remain a little puzzled about why E should alert a bid that as far as E knows is natural. I guess this hinges on whether most players who play UCB also play it over a short club or other artificial bids. I have never played it like that, but perhaps I am unusual. Well, he had that opportunity. Further, if E didn't consider 2C natural then E would bid. So there isn't a plausible scenario in which E both alerts 2C and passes. What are you saying is the infraction? East's failure to alert, or West's bid of 3D? I think I understand that W should bid 2d rather than 3d because of UI. It's not clear though that this would have a different outcome. GordonTD says that there could be redress for E not alerting 2C *even if he believes that it is agreed to be natural*. I would value clarification here. I had understood that a misbid was not in itself illegal, for example. Or is it because E/W seem to be playing different systems, is that the problem here? Tim

Not available in this sequence. Similar to after weak NT open from N, say. Tim

Is that on the basis that many would play it as a cue bid, even though at this point N/S have not shown clubs? I admit, it would not have occurred to me that it might be a cue bid in this sequence. Though we know that W intended it as such. Tim

I've got no reason to suppose that he was influenced by his club holding. I probably should not have mentioned it, sorry. Tim

Note I am posting this for my own education and interest. Why should E alert 2c if he believes it to be natural and there is no agreement otherwise? Tim

I get an error trying to insert an image but this is the hand: https://fygckw-ch3301.files.1drv.com/y4mf-712BhZI2uwBxQAB8TOJXsspjiJM6IAlI8Ck7fYKcsS5Rm0ITSPvb40x5XYBU3l-TAdSBa2b5xD7iHwx8M5Gfic46cwcO9PypdvUU__Vyf0k2cbisJ4S7fRHjewxo3w0ksqNqh8-0l_uL7tCtTqKGkAk8pC87czsZGFyDMabWbgb-Cq0F2jEp18NGq4wZ061yvUINlkSFdiF3uF0AhiDQ Tim

EBU county match. W is dealer. All red. P-1C*-1D-X 2C-P-P-X 3D-4H-end. *alerted as could be 2 clubs or more [hv=d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1c(2%20or%20more%20clubs)1dd2cppd3d4hppp]133|100[/hv] 4H went down 4 for -400 (though 8 tricks can be made on optimum play). At the end of play W says her 2C, which was not alerted, is UCB showing a good raise in diamonds. N/S complain to the director. South says that had he known of the misunderstanding he would have passed 2C, which is likely to be -5. E/W is not a regular partnership. UCB is on their card, but the answer to the question "is a cue bid over a short club UCB" is "never discussed." E, who holds Kx in clubs, says he was sure at the time that 2C was natural. N, who holds a 7-card club suit, no doubt guessed that something was amiss. Has there been an infraction? Is there damage to N/S? If there is, what is appropriate rectification? At other tables, incidentally, 50% of the N/S pairs end up in a heart contract, most going down. E/W can make 4S or 4D. N/S can make 4C.

Thanks! So just to wrap this up, is it OK for the about-to-be dummy to point out that the face-down lead is from the wrong hand? Tim

Thanks Gordon, but are you agreeing that the face-down lead from the wrong hand is not really an irregularity, or if it is, a very minor one? Tim

EBU law 41A: "the defender on presumed declarer's left makes the opening lead face down". I'm slightly puzzled by the way the law continues: "The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity". The most common reason for the lead to be withdrawn is because the wrong defender has led - which after all is the whole point of leading face down. Personally I have never regarded the making and withdrawing of a face-down lead in this case as an irregularity worth calling the Director for. However the law does not explicitly state what should happen if the wrong defender has led face down. Note that as far as I can tell the card is not "played" until it is faced so maybe we are meant to treat it more as a kind of statement of intent to lead than as an actual lead - except in the specific case where the right defender has led face down and now wants to change their mind (maybe after partner has clarified the meaning of bids). In which case it is Director time. Second part of this query, is it OK for the about-to-be dummy to inform the face-down leader that the lead is not in their hand? Again, I would presume yes since they are not yet dummy? Tim

EBU match. A player finds a bid in the bidding box and withdraws it briefly, without setting it on the table, then realises it is not his turn to bid and replaces it. Nobody saw what the bid would have been. EBU Bidding Box rules says "A call is considered to have been made when it has been removed from the bidding box with apparent intent." If the director is called, should the ruling be that this is a call out of rotation and that whatever bid was going to be made, is made and adjudicated accordingly? Or could it be considered merely UI for partner? Tim

Very helpful, thanks. Tim

4 pairs in each team. Let's say team A has pairs A1-A4, team B has pairs B1-B4. Each board is played 4 times, EW A1 vs NS B1, EW A2 vs NS B2, NS A3 vs EW B3, NS A4 vs EW B4. The result for each board is calculated by aggregating the score across all 4 times it was played and converting to IMPs. So let's say 3NT is bid and made exactly at all four tables, the result is zero. If one pair played in 2NT+1, non-vuln, then the result would be +-250, or 6 IMPs. The pairs rotate after 6 boards so each pair on team A plays each pair on team B over the 24 boards. Tim

After an EBU teams match has been scored, it is discovered the next day that some boards where played in the wrong direction. Specifically, teams of 8 match, 24 boards, played in 4 rounds of 6 boards each. In round 2 at one table, the E/W pair plays the N/S hands and vice versa. You could argue that since both pairs (teams) are equally to blame, and since there is no inherent advantage to either side (depending on luck as to which side has the better cards), that the scores could stand. On the other hand, IMP scoring in this case makes little sense with three pairs playing in the same direction. Would it be fair then to scratch those boards and score as an 18 board match? Though this seems harsh on pairs that got good scores at other tables played in the correct direction. Other possibilities? Tim

12-14 NT and presumably 5c is zero aces. Tim

Here's another incident I found interesting, I'd be grateful for help understanding the law. EBU match. 1NT - P - 2C* - P 2D* - P - 4NT - P 5C - X - 5NT - P all pass 2C is stayman, 2D no 4-cd major After 5C from N, E enquired what 4NT meant. Answer: "I don't know" Before the first lead, E asked dummy what 5NT meant. Answer: "4NT was intended as quantitative, but after partner obviously took it as Blackwood, 5NT was asking for Kings". Not pursued as even if there was an infraction, there was no damage, since the contract made +1 and the worst case was that N/S talked themselves out of a slam. Still, let's say 11 tricks were made. Could you argue that N should bid after 5NT on the grounds that he thinks it is a Blackwood continuation? Or that S should do something different after 5C? 5C is a very unlikely bid after a quantitative raise so is S allowed to realise that the bid has been misunderstood? Or can N/S bid what they like considering they aren't clear on this detail of their system? Tim