sanst

What law does this RA apply to forbid and penalize psychs?

But North’s hand and the NS agreements are essential to make a judgement. I, for one, don’t assume that the players’ system is about the same as mine or that “everybody plays it that way”. Directing on that assumption is basically wrong.

It states nowhere that this was a training or that the players are novices. Intermediate in my book means that they are neither experienced or good, nor inexperienced or bad players, just somewhere in between. Anyway, this was not a psych, so it’s no use discussing it.

Yes, but 7NT, 5♦, 6♣ or even a IB is. The way you put this, makes it a nonsensical question, a question that doesn’t make sense.

The obvious reason is that, since the infraction didn’t take place at the other tables, you shouldn’t assume that the outcome at this table is comparable to that at the other tables. OTOH, when deciding on weighing factors you can look at the table results to see what the peers have done. If in this case everyone makes 3NT+2 it’s obvious that you shouldn’t decide on an AS of 5♦=.

An RA is not allowed to forbid psychic bids. In this case S tells that the bid isn’t a psych, but shows a minimal hearts support. There is no proof to the contrary, so the TD should assume misinformation and act accordingly. I would probably decide on a weighed score with 3NT+1 and +2 and 5♦= as parameters.

Once you play electronically at a lower or even low level, there’s no need for the players to go to a venue, since you can stay at home or wherever you want. It’s a cold or rainy day, you don’t go to the club, and the same goes when you’re feeling a bit low etc etc. I foresee the end of the physical bridge club, where you go not only to play but also to meet. My generation (70+) will probably die in the harness, cards in the hand, but younger people, certainly the generation of my grandchildren, are used to play on screen. It’s happening right now, the internet bridge club of the Dutch union, StepBridge, is by far the largest club in the country with thousand if not ten thousands of members and stil growing, whereas the ‘normal’ clubs are struggling and even disappearing. I don’t want to sound pompous, but I thought it strange already in the nineties that at top level the game was not played on screen. I find it even stranger that it’s still played conventionally with all the precautions necessary to prevent cheating, not always successfully as we have seen the last years. Besides, a digital Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup would probably be a lot cheaper when it’s played, under strict conditions, without traveling to all the corners of the world.

Maybe - probably? - I’m too old, but I hope that we will for a lot ng time to come play the game sitting with four people at a table and with cards. Bridge is basically a social game, that’s played for the fun of it and I don’t get that enjoyment sitting alone looking at a screen. It might be necessary for top level tournaments to go electronic and maybe my grandchildren will think it normal, but I wouldn’t like it.

That’s true, but it allows the auction to run it’s normal course. The partner of the NT opener usually decides the contract. In this case, after the 1♦ opening, there is, as far as I can see, no call available for the offender that doesn’t silence the opener. So the probable outcome is 3NT, which might or might not be a good result, but is a gamble, anyway. That is the situation the lawmakers tried to avoid.

What if the opener passes? The offender can again put 1NT on the table and partner isn’t restricted. Well, that isn’t the question here, I know, but it could save you from a problem.

What if you’re the only director available, especially when it’s clear that the player involved didn’t see the card on the table properly? Don’t you take the disabilities of your opponents in account?

Under which circumstances would you allow a call. In this case the player wasn’t looking at the bidding cards, wasn’t even aware that he had pulled out a card till his LHO made his call. IMO this meets lamford’s “a player is shocked to see the card in front of her, and never reached for it or expected it to come out”.

I once was called by a player who had put a card on the table but was not aware of doing so. He had been thinking about his call with his hand on the cards in the box, an obnoxious habit, but he’s not the only one, and had pulled out a card unconsciously, he claimed. He became aware of that when his LHO put a pass card on the table and warned his partner not to do anything. After his explanation and a look at his hand I ruled that this was a 25A case, about the first time - the obvious mispulls not counting - that I allowed a change of call under this law, but also gave a serious warning about having his hand on the bidding box when contemplating his next call. This week at a friendly game my RHO put 4♥ on the table, but my LHO had already made that call. The RHO has very bad eyesight and thought her partner had called 3♥. In such a case I won’t call the TD - who would have been me, anyway - but allow a change to “pass”. That’s a case which doesn’t fulfill your conditions, but I expect any decent person to allow the change of call.

I don’t think so. The TD’s partner was the culprit that didn’t pay attention. If you, out of necessity, have to direct at your own table - a most undesirable situation - your decision should be absolutely above board. Decide against your side if there’s any doubt. You might even appeal if you think your decision was debatable, so someone else can take a look at it.

AFAIK these movements are based on Mitchell movements. Before WW2 the so-called Scheveningen movements were introduced at a tournament in that seaside resort. These have evolved to the movements that are used at most Dutch clubs, the Multiplex movements of thne Dutch bridge union. Standard at MP’s you play 5, 6 or seven rounds of four boards each with everybody moving to another table between rounds. When there are more pairs than double the number of tables, boards are exchanged between tables.

I just don’t like Law 7D. IMNSHO all players should be responsible. Everyone can see which board is placed on the table and in which direction, and every player should pay sufficient attention to the game (Law 74B1). Not paying enough attention, because somebody else should, is a gross violation of proper conduct. You’re there with four and you’re equals, or at least should be. As I’ve written before, what if a pair refuses to be stationary during the session because they don’t want the responsibility and the more severe penalties? In Holland in pairs it’s usual that the boards remain at the table and all players go to other tables, so the problem doesn’t arise here most of the time. But that situation is not explicitly covered by the Laws.

Let me get this right: there was a LOOT earlier in the play. It seems that that happened before the current trick. Somewhat later the dummy called the director, but the play hadn’t finished. Well, you can’t turn back the clock, which is covered biyLaw 11A, so there’s no rectification. Even if the OS has gained through the infraction, you’re not allowed to take that advantage away. What you didn’t make clear in the post is, whether the dummy was the first to draw attention to the irregularity. If so, you might give a PP, but a warning is more than enough in this case. This infraction didn’t influence the outcome, since the play had already continued.

Of course I know as much about NS’s system as the others, but up till 2♥ I can’t blame them. S doubles and plans to bid ♦, showing a strong hand, N has to good a hand to bid 1♥ and puts 2♥ on the table, probably showing 4+♥ en 8+HCP. I can imagne S being in trouble because of the non alert of the 1♦, but I’m not going to blame her for not asking. That can never be considered a serious error. Passing, however, is and likewise not knowing what 2♥ is. Are NS weak players or beginners, then the TD’s decision is okay, otherwise I would let the result stand. EW deserve a PP for not alerting and something more than just a warning.

That’s not true. If a bid is not alerted, you should asume it’s natural. Asking questions might give UI. Don’t blame the NOS for the irregularities of the OS.

“We haven’t discussed it” is all you should say. The rest is your interpretation, which might help your opponents to understand your call, but is UI to partner. Besdes, it’s not allowed by Law 75D2.

E=W?

AFAIK there were many TD’s who thought the decision - you can replace the low spade for a club - faulty. It’s clear that the WBFLC has a problem with the wording of this law. That shouldn’t amaze us, since what they want - to establish that the card named was never intended - requires to check the brain process of the leader, which is, luckily, impossible. It would therefore be preferable to drop this law, since it’s rarely allowed to change the play. I think you’re right about the law as it’s now, so even less chance of a change of designation. One more argument for dropping this law.

Blackshoe gives the appropriate laws and the 50/50 was not right. Sadly, many inexperienced TD’s think the best solution to a problem is an AAS. What should have happened, is that the auction continued, S bidding according to his explanation, so with ‘knowing’ that N has a first control in spades. And N has to assume that S bids as if he, N, has strong spades. E, OTOH, is allowed to make use of the knowlegde that N has strong spades. Without the hands it’s impossible to decide what would have been the outcome, but it looks it would have been some diamonds or hearts contract, which would have gone down the drain, maybe doubled.

What case law? I’m certain that there are players who would play for the drop. Admittedly, these are not the best in the field, but you can’t exclude the possibility.

It’s nowhere in the laws and therefore dependent on the jurisdiction. The numbers I gave, are those from the Dutch union. But weejonnie’s are probably EBU’s.