sanst

When you have a poll, you don’t ask the players about the Laws, but about their bid or play in a given situation. So, I don’t understand your point.

The declarer should have noticed that he had 5 clubs and the dummy just one. That makes it rather likely that the clubs are not “good” already when the dummy is tabled. The declarer obviously didn’t notice that, or thought that both the nine and ten had been played in the first trick. On top of that he didn’t notice that the diamonds were good. At the moment of the claim he had 14 potential tricks, but made a wrong and rather stupid claim. Whether he would notice the bad break of the clubs is irrelevant, but a claim that is faulty, is relevant and therefore you should decide against him.

There are no conditions given; the RA can decide without restrictions that players can use a memory aid and what that aid is.

That’s not what the law says. It’s unconditional.

And I’m astonished that you don’t seem to know Law 40B2d.

Of course you can. Why would you allow to make notes and then forbid to look at these? How would you enforce a prohibition?

You’re allowed to use memory aids if the RA has given permission (Law 40B2d). The Dutch union has done so. You’re allowed to write down contract, declarer and opening lead - information that should be entered into the Bridgemate at the start of the play. You’re also allowed to consult a defense against BSC’s, including multi 2♦, during the action. Hardly any player is aware of these provisions.

Over 10 secs ‘excessive’? What about Bauke Muller, a Dutch player who won the Bermuda Bowl twice, who is known, not to say notorious, for his long pauses, up to twenty minutes?

I don’t think that the Laws are perfect. They are not. Those instances where you are supposed to be a mind reader, like unintended call or designation and the incontrovertible intention, are impossible to handle. Dropping these provisions seems to be the obvious solution, but what then about your 1♠ bid where the 1NT card came out too? What about a tremor which causes you to click just next to the intended spot on the screen? The comparable call is also far too difficult and it would be much easier to drop that, let the auction continue and award an AS when the NOS is damaged and give a PP if there’s use of AI. With some others we have proposed that to the WBFLC, but they have decided against it. I’m sure a new attempt will be made when the next revision of the Laws comes up. And does anybody knows what to do with Law 57D?

So you have a new and better lawbook ready.

What I’ve missed in this topic, is the fact that in these cases one of the players who left, has not been feeling well for sometime. Mostly they hang on till it’s impossible to continue, but their play has been bellow par for quite some boards. Therefore I think it’s wise to cancel there results if they played less than half the boards.

Even if the Laws are changed, “play” is illogical. Or would it mean “small” in every circumstance? Since you state that the current laws aren’t very good or logical, I presume that you have a proposal ready for improvement. Not just “Law 44C is illogical” but a better version of that law. Have you and did you submit it to the Italian federation? Or are you on of these people that complain about the laws, but have not the slightest inkling how much thought, discussions and work has gone into making these to what they are now?

Totally OT: that doesn’t surprise me. It looks quite old fashioned since it doesn’t add anything, but was deemed necessary in the days that the laws were just some rules about the game, not a set of legal niceties that are endlessly discussed on internet fora (forums?). Literally it implies that to revoke is the gravest possible offence, but it is not. That qualification has been given to “exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws”. I know players who state that that isn’t right either; they think a breach of Law 74A, especially the use of physical or psychological force, insults and abuse, deserves that stamp.

I’m baffled that you think that law 46 should be ignored. You don’t seem to understand that the dummy doesn’t decide anything, but is actually an automaton acting upon the instructions of the declarer. And if the declarer fails to give clear and complete instructions, law 46B gives the answer, especially 46B5. I would think that “Play” is part of the collection of “‘Play anything’ or words of like meaning”. If that’s not the case, please explain.

You should designate at least the rank in some way, like “high” or “low”, otherwise the defenders can decide for you. Given the chance, I do, calling the TD if the declarer or dummy protests. Doesn’t make you popular, though. But what is wrong with playing according to the laws?

The Dutch Bridge Union (NBB) delegates the power of the RA to the organizer or the club in case of internal tournaments. You can prohibit the use of all partnership understandings indicated by the WBF, EBL and NBB. Law 40B gives you the right to forbid all special partnership understandings or allow just a few common ones.

These are unfamiliar waters for me, but that seems to be the case for EW as well. Firstly I should like to know what the actual agreements are. Is E making up something or has W forgotten the meaning of 1♠? What helps me in a case like this, is to assume that screens are in use. W, who thinks to have bid spades, doesn’t know what E has said and sees the tray returned with 1NT and puts 2♠ down. Looks probable to me and will even allow E to come to the conclusion that W has forgotten the agreement, for what else can 2♠ mean? Now I come to the hesitation of W, which is UI to E. I would think that pass is a LA with the minimum values in this hand. If I have to organize a poll, I would ask what to do with east’s hand without the “denying spades” bit. Without a poll the AS will be 2♠+2. If have have been called before about EW messing up and not knowing their system, I would seriously consider a PP and oblige them to use a very basic system for the rest of the tournament.

That’s about the situation in Holland. The regulations are based on the WBF Alerting Policy and there’s no announcing. All conventional bids should be alerted, including Stayman and Jacoby Transfers, but also all calls with an unexpected meaning. The strange result is that 1NT - 2♣/♦/♥ should always be alerted.

You’re right. It was a bit late. I don’t think your comment was necessary and rather pedantic.

The Dutch regulation says: “A call is considered to have been made when the bidding card(s) are taken out of the bidding box with the apparent intent to make a call herewith.” Note the plural between brackets. The only time you make a (legal) call with two cards is when you put the stop card on the table. This is one of the reason that Inthink that the stop card is part of the call.

Pran is right: it’s a Law 33 case. The stop isn’t a call as such, but part of the call. If not, it would be extraneous information, but, since it’s legal procedure, it’s part of the game and therefore not extraneous. That makes it AI. The TD was wrong here, it wasn’t a POOT, but a subsequent call. Anyway, it probably didn’t make any difference in this case. Maybe W had not bid game, but 3♠, which makes. No way of telling now. This problem is due to the unregulated position of the stop card. It’s not in the Laws, though in the Dutch lawbook there’s an appendix about bidding boxes which makes it part of the Laws over here, but it’s nowadays a standard part of the game. Does anyone know whether the WBFLC has published anything about it?

Even if you are, I don’t think you’re allowed to forbid psychs.

It’s far from a serious error. I don’t think bidding on is wise. You have no distribution, your partner can’t have much if anything at all and it’s doubtful whether 2NT will make, but the same goes for 2[diamonds.. As for the weighing, your guess is as good as mine. You can poll, you might even look at the travellers to see what’s done at the other tables.

Read the posts #12 and #13. These are not inexperienced players. Besides, intermediate certainly doesn’t mean inexperienced or novice.

You indeed do exceed your power. Where do the Laws permit a ban on natural psychs? But you can request the players not to psych, given the nature of the event and any decent player would comply.