sanst

I don’t see why E won’t bid 3NT knowing that 2NT was clubs and diamonds. The weak point in this hand are the diamonds, not the clubs or hearts. NS agree that 2NT shows a two suiter, but not which suit besides the diamonds. So E has MI. To find out whether there is damage caused by this or the damage is self inflicted, you should poll. Assuming that 1♠ doesn’t give more information than 4+ spades, 6+ HCP, the 3NT looks a wild gamble to me, and W not bidding 4♥ doesn’t look very smart either. I think I might have started with ♦J as well. N deserves a serious warning, probably a PP.

Please, stop treating the other members of this forum like nitwits. We can read and are not completely brainless. Law 23 is ambiguous, whatever you think. When two EBL directors can’t agree about the comparability of a specific call, and these are highly experienced and trained in the application of the laws, who can - but pran - state with certainty that a certain call is comparable? I ‘m wondering how ACs handle these cases. I haven’t seen a case that has been put before the Dutch national AC, but there are not so many appeals to that body.

The subset is not difficult to understand. But the real problems arise from to things: - what was the intended meaning of the IB, about which players can be rather vague - how to apply the condition “the same or a similar meaning”. In the commentary there is the example of 2NT - 2♣, where the IB can be replaced by 3♣, even if the 2♣ is classic Stayman and 3♣ puppet Stayman.

So everyone who has a problem with this law, including all those partaking in this discussion, is incompetent? Thanks My point is not just the impossibility of applying this law, but also the time consuming aspect thereof. The revoke laws were changed a long time ago because of this. It took to much time to establish what would have happened without the revoke and deciding upon an AS when such a common irregularity occurred, especially for not so experienced directors, that the WBFLC came with the transfer of tricks. IBs and COOTs are also quite common and a simple, for all directors usable solution is necessary.

Let’s please get rid of Law 23A and B ASAP. However well intended these are, it’s impossible to apply these if taken literally. Every TD has to use his own interpretation, resulting in endless and useless discussions. It’s our job to let the play continue as equitably as possible, not to decide how many angels can sit on a pin. In the case of a IB, you should decide whether it was a mispull, if not give the LHO the chance to accept the IB and, if it’s not accepted, let the culprit make a legal call, including a double or redouble. Afterwards, if the opponents claim to have been damaged, you can give an AS if necessary. Now you have to take the player away from the table, find out how she or he plans to continue, decide whether it’s a comparable call or not - which is (almost) impossible - go back to the table, give the LHO the opportunity to accept the IB and tell the table that the player has or hasn’t a call that allows the partner not to pass. Usually you have to explain all that more than once, since it’s hard to follow for most not so experienced players. It’s time consuming and in the end you still have to decide whether an AS is necessary.

Maybe you’re right. But I would be seriously upset if the TD was called because I waited till my partner is ready. And, were I called as a TD, I would probably advise the players not to make a nuisance of themselves.

If this TD was an umpire at tennis Rafael Nadal would never have made it to the top of the field. :D In my view it’s bad form to put a new board on the table and take the cards from it while one of the players is still busy with the former board. I also think it’s impolite to start the auction before all four have sorted and seen their hands. My own partner picks up her cards one by one and even if my RHO starts the auction I wait till she is ready. Nobody has ever complained about that, but if they call the TD and he decides as the one in this case did, I will call the director every time there is a - however slight - hesitation on the side of my opponents.

Not quite, A PP of 10% is far to low :D Looking at the case, there are quite some infractions. It starts with the open lead, then RR plays prematurely from the dummy, next chances that play and finally ChCh is the first to draw attention to an infraction. The infraction did thus illegally come to OO’s attention, but nevertheless he has to act upon it (Law 81C3) and he has to decide that the 2 is played. So far, so good. But, ChCh could have been aware that playing the queen, as he should have done - it was not his right to change the play of RR - might result in a disaster. He knew that MM had still two cards higher that the ten and five spades, that RR had a spade honour, probably the king, and that there was a good change that both SB and RR had started with two spades each. This, I think, is a Law 72C case and an AS of 3NT-3 is called for, EW making a diamond, five spades and a club trick. No need for a PP, but a warning will do.

I fully agree with you. We should at least know how NS claim to be damaged and also what the EW defense is.

Looks like a lucky bid to me. How on earth could E know that the spades would split 3-3 and the diamonds and clubs run? You’re lucky that you didn’t call the TD. You actually would more or less have accused this pair of some form of cheating without any proof. That deserves a serious PP. We all have these days that everything goes wrong, but don’t let that get on your nerves. This Tuesday my RHO passes with 12HCP and the LHO did the same with 13HCP... She had a king hidden somewhere. Usually this results in a bad result but not now, all EW pairs were down -1 or -2 :angry: :angry: .

I think that it’s better not to bring in characters like SB and RR, however funny they are, in describing real life events. Just give the facts, because it’s almost impossible to ignore the bias you have created about them. Call me thick, but I think that the AC took the wrong decision. It’s true that the Laws and local regulations may not stipulate a minimum for the clarification period, but if you ask a question but don’t take your time to consider the answer, you give the impression that the answer is unimportant for your lead. Self inflicted damage, I would decide. Hopefully the AC was not aware of the threat to go all the way in protesting by someone with a high social standing and the money to do just that.

Usually they don’t understand the auction at all. 2NT* (not necessarily balanced and therefore alerted)-3♣* (puppet stayman)-3♦* (4-card(s) M)-4♦ (both M, not alerted but I will warn before the OL less experienced opps that it’s not what they might think) get their heads spinning and quite often irritates them. “We play normal bridge!” or something like that.

Rather than discussing the number of angels dancing on a pin I prefer the main rule of the Dutch regulation “Alert when you have reason to believe that your opponents might not be aware of the meaning of a call”. Still, you’re not allowed to alert calls over 3NT with the exception etc., or doubles unless the main rule applies. Overalerting - probably not in the OED - is not considered a serious infraction, but the use of the UI of course is. Problem: many weaker players hate an auction with a lot of alerting, like Puppet Stayman.

As pran wrote, it’s dependent on the jurisdiction. Here, Netherlands, you shouldn’t alert any call above 3NT, with the exception of bids in the first round of the auction reckoned from the opening call. If the auction is (pass)-pass-(pass)-2NT-(pass)-4♣, this last call should be alerted, but not the answer. So this statement is in part correct.

It would help if you gave the facts. Or is this a rhetorical question? In that case, it happened so it’s possible.

First of all, the TD made a serious error by letting E speak at the table and looking at the hand is also not good. Secondly, bidding 3♥ on this hand, with a 1NT on your left, is begging for trouble. That 4♥x - would W really have raised? - gives a good score, might be clear afterwards, but during the auction you can’t know whether the result will be -2, -3 or -4, -4 being quite likely. But, if E was seriously considering 3♥, why didn’t he ask about the 2NT? Actually, I think EW were lucky that E didn’t make the call. I don’t see that 4♥ is likely and an opening lead with hearts might have resulted is all kinds of discarding problems when the diamonds were cashed. A spade lead makes sure that the result is 3NT= and not one up.

A psych is a gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length. This case doesn’t meet that criterion. Actually, I think it’s an obvious call in this situation, 3rd seat, nv, both majors and a good 2nd bid. It might be alertable, if you’re in the habit of making calls like this, but that’s dependent on the local regulations.

The first sentence of the OP: “RR was late for the duplicate this week, getting new bifocals which he was not yet used to, and he complained a little that he was having some difficulty differentiating pips.”

RR told beforehand that he had problems differentiating the pips, he said that he meant the nine of clubs, so his intention was clearly not to play the nine of spades - he might not have seen which spade it was - and as a director you should take in account physical limitations of the players. Here RR has such a limitation, so I will allow him to do as intended. What would those who allow the play f the nine of spades have decided if RR had said “the eight”? In that case you would allow the club to be played?

The Regulating Authority in this case is the EBU and it’s decision is final (Law 93C2). Fantoni Nunes went to the CAS about a decision by the EBL and ABCL, not the Italian Federation. Besides, that had nothing to do with a director’s decision, but was about their ban and the prohibition to pair after the lapse of that ban.

For a high court judge he is badly informed. You can’t go to the CAS in a case like this. You can only ask for arbitration about a decision by an international sports union like the WBF.

What exactly is the difference between the speed of light and quick as a flash? And SB did commit a few infractions, some maybe minor ones, but essential in this situation. He should have called the director when RR answered his question, since it was ChCh duty to do so. He is not known not to call for directional assistance, so why not now. He should have asked ChCh whether the explanation given was correct, certainly since he knows RR and his memory lapses. He should have waited for his partner’s approval before facing his lead. Last, but not least, he should not have put the lead face up on the table. Besides it would not have made much difference. A splinter can also be a void, not necessarily a singleton. This is an attempt to get redress for his own mistake - a lead in trumps is called for in this situation - from the TD. And if he really want to take the case to the CAS, he has to put a considerable sum on the table.(see Arbitration costs CAS).

Don’t be so pedantic. We all make mistakes.

It seems that the auction in Norway takes a very long time. :)

There was no skip bid after 3NT by W. This situation didn’t come up after a full round of the auction. I agree with Tramticket that a poll is necessary. Would I have been S, I would have introduced my clubs too, because I’ve no tricks in the defense. But I wouldn’t have doubled 2♠, which would have required more HCP’s and preferably two hearts.