sanst

Our regional TD could become very angry when you put the boards in a stack on the table. It occurred more than once that someone pushed his played hand back in the board, but one of the cards was put in the board underneath it. Or somebody pulled his cards out of the board but also took a card from the lower board. Although the backsides of the cards were different from board to board, none of the other players seem to have noticed the difference. And counting is very difficult, certainly in this country where 'rithmetic has gone down the drains for many years - yes, I know, it’s the complaint of an old man, but it’s backed up by research.

Doesn’t matter. These are almost certainly not all peers of EW, nor do they have the same agreements. Organizing a correct poll - with those who are polled not having previous knowledge of the board - is really difficult.

How would you prove that a player noticed the irregularity? “Sorry, never saw that I had the same card as one on the table.” In case of an ace that’s unlikely, but even then, you can’t prove it. That’s certainly the case if it’s a small card. I don’t think it’s realistic to change the law, just hope that most players will act in accordance with your philosophy. Most of us aren’t ChCh’s. Besides, usually somebody draws attention to an irregularity - and all forget to call the TD :D.

It’s totally irrelevant whether you would bid 3, 4 or 5♦ as W. If there ever was a pollable situation, this is one. Firstly you ask a bunch of peers of W what they would bid, secondly you ask them what they would bid after 3♦-3NT, given the methods and agreements of EW. It’s rather important to know what these are about a 2NT overcall, certainly the strength of such a call. If they pass after 3NT, I would also want to know why. As I read Law 16C2 the information that W received UI is unauthorized for E, since it arose from his own withdrawn action.

This is the part that’s almost impossible to explain. Let’s look at your example. Your agreement about 2♣ is transfer to diamonds, but for the sake of argument let’s suppose your partner alerts and explains as both majors. That’s information you’re not allowed to use. Your agreement about the 2♠ answer is maybe not discussed or showing a hand with good spades. I’m not familiar with the alerting regulation in Vancouver, so I can’t say for certain whether you should or shouldn’t alert, but when asked about that bid, you should give the agreement, not that your partner prefers spades over hearts. Even worse, you’re not allowed to use that information. You have to go on as if your partner did explain your bid correctly and act accordingly. Only when the auction is over and you or your partner is the declarer, you call the director and tell that your partner’s explanation was incorrect, otherwise wait till the game is over. Of course it is asking a lot to do so, but it’s what Law 16B1a requires you to do. Communication between partners is only permitted if it’s done by cards, either bidding cards or playing cards, and the alert card is neither, nor is the explanation.

The alert is UI for the partner, since it’s solely for the opps. It’s the same with an explanation. You hear it, but you’re not allowed to use it. But it’s your obligation to correct your partner’s alert or explanation if necessary and at the right moment. You’re certainly not allowed to change your call because your partner has alerted a call that shouldn’t be alerted or not alerted when that was necessary - sorry about all the ‘alerts’. In this case W has refused the transfer, so E should assume that West’s spades are better than his/her diamonds. The spades call might be forcing, but that’s dependent on the agreements of EW. if you’re a half decent player as a directorI would expect you to have discussed this.

I gather you want two sets of rules, one for the ‘serious’ matches and one for the social game. But the way the game is played is identical in both cases, a bid has to be higher than the previous, you have to play at your turn, you have to follow suit etc etc. Suppose you get your way, assuming you keep the rules how the game is played correctly. You would still need a method how to handle what the Laws call irregularities. If the players at the table solve these between themselves, there’s no problem as long you make clear that that is their own responsibility. There’s absolutely no necessity for the average player to know more of the laws than how the game is played and the obligation to call a director if they think that there is something wrong. That’s not essentially different from any other sport. Look at world’s most populair sport, association football, aka soccer. Just read the part about a free kick on Wikipedia and tell me that the average player knows all of this. I’m quite certain that’s not the case. You want to keep Law 16. That would be very impractical for the social club game, since the use of UI is probably the most frequent irregularity there. Only, most don’t notice it and the director is hardly ever called. That happens far more at the more ambitious clubs and tournaments. I agree with you that the Laws could be simpler. I absolutely loathe the concept of the comparable call. Just get on with the game and let the director afterwards decide whether there’s a disadvantage for the NOS and if so, give an AS. The same could be done with an opening lead face up or a revoke. But it would make the director’s life far more difficult, since you would always have to decide what would have been the most likely outcome, given the level of the players and the actual play. And what about the discussions which will result from these literally arbitrary decisions. You would still have to explain to the players what made you decide as you did. For what it’s worth: AFAIK there are far less irregularities at the top than at your club. Hardly any IB’s or revokes and all those technical mistakes for which the director is called. There are cases of UI, but more often MI because there’s a difference between the explanation on both sides of the screen. Sometimes a stupidly, like touching the wrong card, which did cost, if I remember correctly, Italy the gold medal by the narrowest of margins somewhere in the first decade of this century. I still would like to know where you draw the line between social and competitive play. At least over here there are many clubs where the best players are more ambitious, also playing regional and national competitions, but the rest just playing for fun. And there are hardly any problems, although there might be some friction if these have to play against each other. Lastly, as a club you’re completely free to join the national organization or not. In the last case you can have your own rules. Oddly enough, most of the non-affiliated clubs in Holland stick to the Laws and national regulations about alerting and BSC/HUM. So there must be something in it, even for these clubs.

You have these rules because there’s no real difference between the way the game is played at a club or at the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup. A face up lead that is taken back, because the partner should lead, conveys a whole lot of information. You’re planning to lead a king from KQJxx against 3NT, but your partner helpfully puts his ace on the table. No need to lead the king, a small card will do, partner wins the trick with the ace and returns a small card of the same suit. Result 3NT-1, other pairs did lead the king, resulting in 3NT made. Dummy, knowing that you’re prone to forget that a seven or so has become the highest in a suit, ‘helpfully’ plays it, because (s)he strongly suspects that you won’t. Besides, where and at what level would you draw the line between simplified rules and the complete set? Please remember that the Laws are the result of decades of problems arising at bridge and discussing how to solve these. Throw half of these out and endless discussions will arise even at the lowest level. Just think about the the automatic trick adjustment at a revoke, that often leads to remarks like “There was no damage, so why a trick extra?” But was there no damage? The director should decide that, like in the old days. That was time consuming and quite often beyond the average club director, the reason it was changed. And, however simple the Laws are, there will always be Secretary Birds.

It’s a pity that you don’t read Dutch. We have both a booklet explaining how to handle the most common irregularities and an app, android and Ios, that does the same, guiding the director with a decision tree. You answer yes or no to the questions and the app tells you what the decision should be. Of course it can’t solve the comparable call problem or a claim, but it’s quite handy. Free for all at the site of the union (bridge.nl), but unfortunately for you only in Dutch.

If you really follow the WBF alerting policy, this 1Nt overcall shouldn’t be alerted, assuming it’s natural. Of course ‘natural’ should be defined, but it’s not, so it’s anybody’s guess whether this is 1NT natural or not. I would say it is, but who am I to say so? From the WBF Alerting Policy:

Most players over here know hardly anything more than the basic rules of the game, or even not that. They play a game they call bridge at a club that's a bridge club and where the laws of duplicate bridge are more or less being followed. Nothing serious just a pastime for mainly elderly people. I think your remark is patronizing and these players don't deserve that.

Some of you make clear that the Laws should be observed no matter what. I'm considered a stickler for the rules and regulations, but notwithstanding I'm not above an 'pragmatic' approach, certainly not when the players involved are not the best, to put it mildly. Looking at the membership of the Dutch Bridge Union NBB, with 70.000+ members, you see a huge majority of at best mediocre players and a small contingent of good to absolute top players, including the winners of the last Bermuda Bowl and European Championships. The 'Meesterklassse', the major league of the national competition, is probably the absolute top in international bridge, comparable to the Premier League in English football, aka soccer. This is reflected in the quality of the directors. I can assure you that to qualify as a full director you have to pass a rather tough exam where you might face some of the best TD's in the world, including Ton Kooijman, chairman of the WBFLC. But the greater majority of the TD's in clubs are not fully qualified.They can handle the matches in MP's - all other forms are loathed by most average club players - and the most frequent technical irregularities. Almost all are playing in the matches they direct and are, as everybody else involved with the organization of the game in clubs, unpaid volunteers. On top of that their average age is something like 75+. To illustrate the way things are handled, I can tell you that I recently had a serious row with the director at my club about a claim. My RHO claimed the last five tricks without stating a line of play or even showing his cards. I called the director - not a popular move, I can tell you - and that worthy tried to solve the situation by ordering us to play on, which I refused. It was solved by the director with 'not played'. :rolleyes: My point is that you just can't expect these directors to handle complex or even more difficult situations. Until recently it was not very clear how to input an AAS of 60/60 in the program. It involved a split score, which was unknown to most of the directors and the computer operators. In the latest version of the program this has been remedied, but the meeting I referred to was somewhere in the early years of this century. Not played is a solution these directors understand, the players understand and is easy to handle in the program. So I don't mind using that in some cases where the Laws prescribe Avg+/Avg+ and the like. Of course I wouldn't do that in regional or national matches and tournaments or at more serious events.

Yes and no. Yes, there’s the Bridge-It software, which is available for 295 euro plus extra costs for support and updates, no, the program is not available in North America. Actually, it seems to be only available in the low countries, probably because the only language it speaks is Dutch.

I’m wondering whether this might be a brown sticker, a psychic bid that’s protected by the system. Does this pair have a bid available for a weak hand with diamonds? The classic example of a such a protected bid is 2♣, explained as ‘strong’, which compels the partner to answer 2♦. The ‘strong’ opener passes with his weak hand with diamonds. Red flags should go up and the TD, this one at least, should smell a rat.

There’s no regulation. It was discussed in a meeting of TD’s, including union officials, years back. Not this situation, but what to do when, due to a mixup of a board, usually a13A1 situation, three or four tables can’t play a board in a round. Four tables, the table involved, the two tables that played the board the last time - you need both players to ‘correct the discrepancy - and the TD’s table. The general feeling was, that to give so many AAS’s is beyond ‘restoring equity’ and use ‘not played’ instead. This is a quite normal situation at many clubs, that don’t use duplicating machines, don’t have hand records and a playing TD. In the higher echelons this is not a problem. There duplimates and the like are used, there are hand records and quite often a non playing TD. But in the level of the average ‘social’ club the players don’t understand the Avg+/Avg+ score and don’t like it if they understand. And, it’s much simpler for the TD, who find it more often than not difficult to input it into the scoring program.