sanst

Altough such a leading question is an nfraction, asking about a call shouldn't be answered by telling an opponent to look at the CC. The law requires you to give a full explanation and nowhere in the laws CC's are mentioned, let alone that they require the players to look at them.

A few questions. Do NS have a call that shows both majors after 1NT? And would that be 2♣? What would a double by N have meant? What was the score? .

What UI has S? None as far as I can see. So he is not restricted. Actually, After 3♠ I think 4♠ is too modest a call with the hand of N, stop or no stop. I think a hand like this calls for a cue. So both N and S have behaved very ethical, even to the extent of damaging themselves. It doesn't take a magician to bid and make a slam.

From the definitions: "Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named". Since there is certainly the possibility that S will become the declarer in 3NT(x), he has shown the willingness to play in the denomination named. By this definition it's no artificial call and hence not alertable. That it's a fielded psyche, fielded by a player who has to pass, is utter nonsense.

Although it's not possible, at least for me, to completely ignore the actual layout once I know it, I might consider leading the ace of clubs which could well be the suit which my partner holds. After that I would play the king of diamonds. But SB's remark about the non alert of 3NT with his not asked for explanation - another infraction - might lead to the rejection of that lead. He certainly tries to put W on the wrong footing, implying that he has solid clubs. This IS an infraction which should be remedied by Law 23. The longer I think about it, the more I'm inclined to go for some weighted score with 3NT= and 3NT-3.Or do you think the lead of ♣A is only for the likes of Zia (or Fischer-Schwartz)?

About the awareness of N: one of the weakest members who is obviously in such awe of his partner, that he even doesn't notice when it's his turn to call. His whole being is probably aware of just one thing: the ogre opposite with his acid dripping fangs. Joost

To answer the question whether N could have been aware that his COOT could damage the non offending side: I don't see how. This situation is taken care of in detail by the laws and you use Law 23 in clear cut cases. Otherwise any infraction would call for the application of 23. Lamford doesn't think that SB behaved appallingly, but he certainly did. Not only to the director, in football this behaviour would have earned him a red card, but also to his partner. I actually would have sent him packing if only for the remark about the course wherein the TD failed. But his remark about the non alert is also a really appalling offense. He should know that no call in this situation is alertable, because his partner is barred. Any call he makes can make him declarer. But his remark may easily lead EW to think that he has a solid minor and little outside. Since his hand doesn't come near to that, he clearly tries to put his opponents on the wrong foot. That certainly falls in the 23 category. From wat I know about him, SB would, had he been E or W, called for the TD and told him that S must have had prior knowledge of the hand. There is no reason to correct the score, assuming SB had no prior knowledge of the hand. But his behaviour not only calls for a couple of PP's, but also for him to be suspended for the rest of the session. Sven is right when he states that Law 74 is the most important one in the book. No matter what, you should always be courteous to your partner, your opps and the TD. You might ask the TD on which laws his ruling is based, you can ask him why he didn't consider Law A, B or C, but you shouldn't call him inadequate. Once you have decided to play in a session where he is the TD, you must accept his authority. If necessary, you can appeal, which is more than in most other sports. And I'm fully confident that the Court of Arbitration in Sport would uphold my decision. Joost

In such a situation I wouldn't dream of going back on my word. Once you've told your opponents that you let the matter rest, you should let it rest. That has nothing to do with rules and regulations, but, in my book, is a matter of common decency. A man a man, a word a word. Joost

Poor South. I've taught my students that the zeroeth law of bridge is "Trust your partner". This South trusted his partner and now you want to punish him. You're a cruel man ;)

This case comes from a Dutch TD's mailing list and the use of 47E1 was given after consulting with Ton Kooijman and another EBL TD. I posted it, because most of the participants used 54.I don't think that hearts are a logical start for W. It takes probably too long to develop a trick in that suit, whereas spades offer a far better chance. And I do think that, whatever law you apply, this is a clear Law 23 case. I would have a very serious conversation with N and quite probably give him a PP.

Law 47E1: A lead out of turn (or play of a card) may be retracted without further rectification if the player was mistakenly informed by an opponent that it was his turn to lead or play. A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances.The conditions in this law where met: E led because he was mistakenly informed by N. So there is no 'simple' LOOT. Putting down his hand by S is arguably accepting, which this law forbids. E and S should pick up their cards, W leads and both the lead of E and what he has seen of the hand of the dummy is AI for him and UI for NS.

Sorry about confusing te issue, but E put his card face down on the table and then turned it face up, as is normal when your partner doesn't have a question. I don't think that E is an offender for exposing his lead. Law 47E seems to say so. Has anybody considered the last sentence of Law 47E1: "A lead or play may not be accepted by his LHO in these circumstances."

Face up.

[hv=pc=n&s=s653hqjda54cqt987&w=sqt9h9876d876ca43&n=sk4hakt2dkqjt9cj2&e=saj872h543d32ck65&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1np2np3nppp]399|300[/hv] The bidding over, North turns to East and says 'Your lead'. East puts ♠2 open on the table and South starts to expose his hand, but at card #8 says 'This ain't right, I'm the declarer and West should lead'. The director is called. What should be his decission?

The cards were probably identical, but South SAID something different.

OT: Barmar has explained why this is not good bridge, at least not in a Acol based system. I'm sorry to say that, although this pair often comes on top in your club, that doesn't prove that they are very good. When my partner and I started to play gridge at a club, we were in a couple of months one of the strongest pairs. What that was worth we found out when we went to another club with some real good players, who competed at top level in Holland. But there we really learned to play bridge. Joost

If you read the minute, you'll see that both sides were deemed to be at fault. That's no wonder, because there were faults made by both sides, Declarer A walked out, player B thought that the match was over and left. The facts were not agreed on. From what I have read, I can only conclude that the Committee's decision is the most reasonable, but I would like to read the answer to gnasher's questions. I'm afraid that this is incomprehensible to me. Still? What mechanism? What abuse? The circumstances given in the OP seem rare enough to me to be called 'special', but it seems that for you disasters and the like are necessary for circumstances to be special. Joost

Why don't you start a discussion, since you seem to think that there is something to discuss. It's an obvious breach of Law74A1 and 2. The White Book states how to score in par. 2.4. I don't think that this comes under the jurisdiction of the EBL, but even if it were, I don't see what the connection is between par. 18 and Captain Purple's actions. And what do you mean by your remark about the legal status of the handshake? Would that also have that standing in a EBU event?

First of all, I'm wondering what happened to make a player walk out. That the opps didn't allow the claim to stand, can't be a reason for that, unless the player has a very short fuse and is used to always getting his way. That would make him (or her) an overspoiled child, and who wants to play with such one? If you play without a director present you must be able to call one if the need arises, not when there is a break in the play, otherwise you can't comply with Law 9B1a. So here Beige is in the wrong. But then the behaviour of the Purple team and it's captain. That captain did everything he shouldn't have done, like trying to persuade the others to comply with the claim, but not what he should have done: get the player who walked out back and let the match continue. He could then also have tried to get whatever bad feelings there were out of the way. That the Beige team concluded that the match was over, because one of the opps had left and his captain was not trying to get him back, seems logical to me. That that player didn't say anything of going back to the Beige player leaving the building, is one more example of bad behaviour. Since the national authority has decided that there should be a replay, I don't think it's up to me to comment on that. They probably had far more information about what happened and will have taken notice of the opinions and facts given by those involved. In general, it's one of the worst things that can happen to you as a TD. It's happened to me twice and in both cases I found that there was a reason for it which made it understandable that the player walked out. But that was only some time after it had happened. In one case the player had just learned that he had incurable cancer and had come to play to have some distraction. His partner, who was much weaker than him, made some silly mistakes and he just couldn't take it anymore. In the other case a male player was making all kind of crude, sexist comments to his lady partner, who, after having asked more than once to stop with that, ran out of the room crying and got off before anybody could catch her. The culprit was banned for life by the club. These two cases have learned me, that you shouldn't condemn the player that walks (or run) out straightaway. But if a player walks without good cause, it should be held against him and his team. If possible, I would give the team the opportunity to find a replacement, so that the match can go on, but there will be a penalty. If there is no replacement possible, then you would have to give an artificial score on all boards that couldn't be played (or scored in a teams match), plus a penalty in MP's, IMP's or VP's. Joost

I'm also wondering about the way NS would reach 4♠. My gut feeling is, that their argument is based on knowledge about the actual hands. If W gets the ♠Q and S the ♥2, the bidding would probably be the same but 4♠ a disastrous contract. The result should stand, but W deserves a free lesson, maybe even a PP, for not calling attention to the MI. And both EW should be told in no uncertain terms that they should agree about calls like this. I know TD's who would give a PP just for this.

I'm wondering why pass is so popular. North didn't know what their agreement was, but seemingly 'take out' was somewhere in his mind. Maybe he concluded from the hesitation that south wanted to double for penalties and north took the ethical road by bidding 5♥. It's quite easy arguing with knowledge of all hands, but N, with no psychic capabilities, was looking at just his own hand. If he had passed and 4♠ had gone one or more off, and 5♥ not making either, EW would probably also have called the director. And I'm wondering how many of those who think that 'pass' is the right call for N would then have argued that he should have bid 5♥.

Assuming it's a preempt and some form of Blackwood, yes, it's a psych. But I would congratulate my opps if they did it and have a good score with a very well placed psych, that might also have ended in a complete disaster.

There is also 40B2d: 'The RA may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls'.

It's clearly stated (law 50B) that the minor PC becomes a major PC when there are two or more PC's. I's a major PC and remains so, since there's nowhere in the laws a clause that says that a major PC can become a minor PC.

It looks like there was a BIT, otherwise there's nothing to argue about. If so, it's not your partner who shouldn't take advantage of the UI, but you. That leaves the questions which LA's you have and which are more attractive because of the UI. I think that the LA's are, pass, X and 6♦. The BIT indicates that your partner was thinking of bidding on and that must have been either X or 6♦. That means that you can't choose one of these, so pass is the only option you legally have.Actually, what the LA's are, should be established by having a poll.