timjand

Thanks for the clarifications :-) Tim

EBU club. Have read the White Book section but I still find this confusing. For example: 1NT - 2D* - P - 2S 2D by E is alerted and explained as Astro showing Spades and another suit. However E has forgotten the system and has 5 diamonds. Let's presume that E is well-behaved and does not flinch or give any indication that the 2D is a misbid. Would it be an infraction for E now to bid 3D having been "woken up" by partner's explanation? Holding, for example, only 2 spades? Of course there is a risk that W may now bid 3S or even 4S, but E may hope that W may be weak and pass? Tim

Hmm, that is what seems unacceptable to me (but I am not making the laws). Would you nevertheless adjust the score if the enquiry resulted in a better outcome? Or is it like the (annoying to me) "Having none, partner"? Tim

Thanks, but can you clarify. Let's assume that 3C has a bad outcome, say because it is weak and encourages partner to pass when in fact 5C is on. Would you adjust the score to 3C+2 on the grounds that without the illegal intervention the partnership would not find 5C? In which case I'm not really clear why it is a good idea to allow the change of call in the first place. Tim

EBU, UK Bidding goes 1D - 3C (overcall, no stop card). At this point, the partner of the 3C bidder says, "Did you mean to stop?" The 3C bidder then says, "No, I intended to bid 2C". He says he simply pulled out the wrong card and did not notice until his partner's remark. Now, law 25A and the footnote says that an unintended call can be changed until your partner calls, "no matter how he may become aware of the error." The white book clarifies, for example stating that if you notice an unintended call because, for example, your partner alerts a bid that is alertable, it is OK to change it. Eg 1D - 2D (Alert) - Oh, I meant to bid 2C. However in this instance I have difficulty with it since the "Did you mean to stop?" remark is clearly itself an infraction. It would also seem to open the door to all sorts of "partner did you mean to do that" interventions which would be absolutely unacceptable. Is it correct to rule that the 3C bid stands and partner must bid as if it were a jump overcall? Tim

Not from that POV, no. Well, maybe if 4D is an impossible bid, but if it is an occasional partnership and you play transfers I would think your partner should assume the natural meaning of a good heart fit and a diamond control. But with a weak hand he can bid 4H. No. You don't have any unauthorised information so you can make any call. Including, I guess, 4S. This is something I'm not clear about. If they were not informed about the missing alert before the play, and therefore missed a good lead, or defended wrongly, then definitely. Otherwise ... the bit that troubles me is passing 4S. If you've shown a heart fit, 4S cannot be to play. But there does come a point when bids can only be explained by a misunderstanding in which case the pass is OK, but I'm not clear exactly what that point is. Tim

Thanks, this has been a helpful discussion. Tim

It would be helpful to consider both cases. Tim

Just checking my understanding of the rules (EBU club in the UK). Bidding: 1NT - p - 2D* - 2S - 2H 2D is announced as a transfer. E, who opened 1NT, says he did not see the 2S from N. If the insufficient bid is not accepted by S, is it OK to replace 2H with 3H without any bidding restriction on W? 3H has a more precise meaning, since 2H is automatic and means nothing. However it is useful to W who now knows E can tolerate hearts. W bids 4H which makes. Most other tables bid successfully to 4H. Tim

Thanks all for your responses. Tim

Fixed :-) Tim

Bidding: 1H - P - 3S* - P 4S - P - 5H - P all pass *not alerted N is on lead and leads face down without asking questions. Before the card is faced, his partner enquires about the meaning of 3S and is told that it is a splinter agreeing hearts and showing a singleton or void in spades. Director is called as N wants to change his lead. He is an experienced player. On further questioning, he says that he thought 3S was a splinter, despite the lack of an alert, but the 4S response caused him to doubt it. Should he be allowed to change his lead? The query here is that while he is in receipt of misinformation (no alert), it is hard to see what else 3S could be. Nobody at the club plays precision or any unusual system. Or does the failure to alert mean that he is automatically entitled to a change of lead, irrespective of whether or not he understood the bid? Tim (in the UK, EBU club)

Thanks all for your contributions. Tim

Actually there is another twist here. Would you invoke 64C (Director responsible for equity) since you can argue that the defenders were also at fault, for not spotting the insufficient number of cards on the table? Tim

64B3 refers to "playing any card faced on the table". So a hidden card in dummy (ie one that is completely covered by other cards) is considered faced? What if it had in fact been on the floor rather than hidden on the table? Update: ah it also says, "belonging to a hand faced on the table" so that is the key statement here I guess? Tim

At a club, declarer ruffs from dummy. Several tricks later, it turns out that a card in dummy is hidden behind another card, and is of the suit that was ruffed. All four players should have seen that there were only 12 cards in dummy. However the revoke law says that you cannot revoke if a card of that suit is "faced" and if the card is hidden, it is not really faced. Should this be treated as "missing card" (law 14B) which states that "failure to have played it may constitute a revoke"? Tim

I've found this so common that I would constantly be reporting it. I'm not sure about the redeals either. Isn't that giving an advantage to the leaver, since the hand will never be completed? It seems unfair on the non-offending side who may have played well to get the advantageous position. This particular player apparently did not speak English, anyway did not reply when I asked the reason for the undo request. I certainly agree with this. Tim

I am not a new user exactly, but have played a bit recently after a long break. I am finding the behaviour frustrating. It seems commonplace for players simply to disappear if they are in a bad contract. The further implication is that if you click "Help me find a table", you often land in one of those vacated seats, in the midst of a hopeless contract. Another time I was playing and declarer led a card to which I followed. Then he put up an undo request. I felt that as I had already played to the trick that was not possible, so I declined. He then repeats the undo request multiple times. Finally, his partner who is the host boots me from the table. Not so much table hopping as table hopped! Tim