sanst

It certainly is a badly worded law, but it was made with the idea that it was undesirable that the IB'er gambled some bid in a situation like 2NT-(p)-2♣, because his partner was barred during the rest of the auction. Not only was it quite often a lucky gamble, but it also forced the IB'er to bid game or even slam, and doing so barring the opps from bidding too. There's always Law 23 to take away any undue advantage, but in all the whole process has little to do with bridge as a mind sport.

From the he WBFLC minutes of October 10th 2008: "Law 27B – Mr. Endicott’s statement on interpretation was adopted and agreed viz:– The Committee has noted an increasing inclination among a number of Regulating Authorities to allow artificial correction of some insufficient bids even in cases where the set of possible hands is not a strict subset of the set of hands consistent with the insufficient bid. The Committee favours this approach and recommends to Regulating Authorities that, insofar as they wish, mildly liberal interpretations of Law 27B be permitted with play then being allowed to continue. At the end of the hand Law 27D may then be applied if the Director judges that the outcome could well have been different without assistance gained through the insufficient bid (and in consequence the non‐offending side has been damaged)." Based on that the replacement of 2♣ with 3♣ should be allowed, even if the HCP range is different. The extra information it conveys is minimal and there is still Law 27D. As far as I know 27B1b was specifically written to make these corrections possible.

Olivier Beauvillain is the TD I referred to. For what purpose you gave the names? I suppose you asumed that these would mean anything to us. I think it unwise to use this forum for naming and shaming, but that's up to the individual users and the moderators. I don't doubt that you gave the facts as they happened according to you. But we can't know what the others involved have to say. And yes, it's a lot better if the AC is composed of players with no interrest, directly or nidirectly, in the outcome. Joost

You're making a very serious allegation in public about a EBL assistant chief tournament director without much proof. If a decission goes against you and the AC supports the TD, there is not much you can do, but accusing those concerned in public won't help you anyway. These oviously thought that it was not the obvious decision you thought it was. I gather you won, so be happy with that. Joost

Since NLM is not possible, I choose double because it's the most versatile. I've defensive values, so partner can pass, bid 3NT - probably not very wise given the vulnerability - or anything else, hopefully not diamonds. Pass is no LA for me with this hand.

EW should have drawn attention to the hesitation when it occurred and NS should have called the director at that moment, because they claim there was no break in tempo. N is a inexperienced player who always thinks before bidding. That might be so, but only the director can find out whether that's true or not, and that there was UI because of that. Many inexperienced players do think a lot, but no one can make out what they were thinking about. In this case N might have been trying to find out what al the bids in the auction signify without even considering his own next bid. For arguments sake let's assume there was UI. What options does S have? I would say pass, but S states clearly that's not a LA for him. So there remain 4H, double and, in MP's, 3NT. A poll could give an indication of the likelihood of the LA's, but it might be pretty hard to find players of 'the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership'. I would give a weighed score of 40% 4H=, 40% 3Sx= and 20% 3NT-4. AFAIK the concept of Reveley rulings is not used in Holland, and I wouldn't about Spain. Is it EBU specific or is it based on the laws and/or WBFLC minutes?

I don't think this should be in the Simple Rulings forum, since it's far from simple. But I don't think you're allowed to make a remark before partner has played. You're allowed to ask your partner about a revoke, but you can't ask about one if there hasn't been one yet. You're not telepathic I hope, so you can't know what your partner is thinking about. You just assume that it's about a discard, forgetting his last spade, but maybe it's about something totally different, like forgotten lights, the great sex last night or the sick but constantly barking dog of the neighbours. You state that you know that your partner has the last spade, but you can't be absolutely certain. South might have that last spade hiding between his clubs and your partner might have played the two by mistake. Yes, such coincidence is highly unlikely but not impossible.

Please, look at west's hand. Passing 3♦ with that hand is lunatic.

As Blackshoe has written, we don't know enough about the EW system to decide what would have happened if E hadn't pulled the stop card. I can imagine almost anything from 3♥ to 6 or even 7 NT, since all keycards are there... Passing 3♦ has nothing to do with bridge and is the wrong way to teach W a lesson to use that for an AS. In post #17 the OP'er makes clear that this isn't about this particular board, but about the opponents who he doesn't like, to say the least. He also thinks the TD not up to her duties and has a problem with the club that has a infinite tolerance policy. Why bother to play there at all, I would ask. London has more than one club and this one doesn't seem to be the place to be. The situation he describes is problematic for any TD who is called to the table and some can handle this better than others. But it's not something that you can learn, either you're able to solve it, or chances are that it develops into a full blown word fight or even worse. For both the complaints about the opps and the TD the poster should turn to the club management, not to this forum. Without in any way doubting him or his description of what happened, only a TD who was present can say anything sensible about that.

I would probably have opened both hands at the 2-level, the first even with 1♥. But then, I'm living in a country where Muiderberg (5M and 4+m) is almost standard. But when I've passed in the first seat, why would I bid now with a passed partner?

There is an agreement for a 3NT over a Jacoby 2NT: 15-18 balanced (see post #6). So, there is still hope for the Spurs, my favorite English team about sixty years back. Didn't know a thing about football then and that hasn't changed since. Just liked the name...

More important is what you thought the bid showed. According to your post it shows systematically 15-18 balanced and with your hand I would consider a simple raise to 4H an underbid. Depending on your methods you could have cued or whatever to find out whether a slam is possible. To find out what is a LA the TD should poll, if possible. But to me, although we don't have the hands and don't know your methods, it's quite likely you would have ended in 5H or 5NT or even in slam. If, and that's a big if, you concluded from the non-alert that your partner was 12-14, you have made use of UI, which most certainly is a serious infraction. In cases like this it's a a good idea to put a virtual screen across the table, so that you don't see partner's alerts and don't hear whatever is asked and answered. What would you have done in that situation?

So, the player in the pass out seat has, without making a call, put the bidding cards back in the box, as has everybody else, the lead is face-down on the table and that player says "Hold on, I'm going to bid". You are going to allow that? I think something like law 45C4a is also needed for calls.

Sorry, didn't notice that, just the 'Netherlands' on the left.

These are not the relevant regulations. AFAIK there is no regulation about this situation in Holland, so the TD has to make his or her own decission. I would decide that the advancer has passed and let the bidding go on and warn about the use of UI. Besides, though the White Book gives information about what to do in the pass out seat, that doesn't apply to this and you can't conclude from that that the advancer has not yet passed. It' simply not covered by the quote you gave. So, in England it also up to the TD. And yes, picking up cards as a way of passing is against the laws.

That's a highly inadequate answer. At least you should tell what strength, forcing or not, wether it says something about major suits etc. Further info from opener could mean anything and everything, from shoe size to what he had for breakfast. All right, it would have something to do with the cards he holds.

First and foremost: you ask for a ruling but no director can make one without hearing both sides. So, whatever is posted here, is based on the facts as given by you. You stated that: South's double shows diamonds that it was a psych and was made to muddy the waters. That was succesful as EW therefore didn't reach a NT contract. For argument's sake I asume the first point to be NS's agreement, though some kind of confirmation would be nice. But the second and third point don't sound true to me. I rather think that South forgot the agreement and thought it showed the majors. I can't imagine anybody bidding like that with the purpose you stated and holding the hand you gave in post #4. But, wether it was a misbid or a psych, neither is an infraction. That EW didn't bid NT is due to E, whose hand holds five diamonds, including the ace. If that isn't good enough, what is? East could have bid 1NT, but decided to support the clubs, though these might be short. West, for some reason, thought that was a 5+ card and raised it with a rather poor hand. So, whatever damage EW suffered, if any, it was self-inflicted.

I'm just wondering about the jurisdiction where this happened and wether there was a CC. If there should have been a CC, EW are certainly to blame and there would not be a discussion about asking or not about the 1♦ bid. Why was it alerted, anyway?

[hv=pc=n&s=skj853hakj6dkcat3&w=saq6h3daq87642c87&n=s742ht98djtckj952&e=st9hq7542d953cq64&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1dppd2dpp2s3dpp3h4ddppp]399|300[/hv]N leads ♠7, via ♠K for declarer's ace, who plays the queen and the 6, ♦3 in E and ♦K from S. Declarer turns to S, says he wants to speak with her about this action later on. N interferes and then the declarer asks S what 2♠ means if it isn't natural. She answers 'strong". Next the declarer asks N wether it can be a doubleton and tells him that he should have alerted the bid. Then, and not before, he calls the playing director, who seems to have heard him, but doesn't come to the table. Now the initiative moves to N who states that everybody knows how things are, that they should play on and the director would come later. The declarer agrees and after the play the director is told about the 2♠ bid, but not about the revoke. He decides that the result stands (4♦x -1). Only much later W realises that the director is not told about the revoke. He now wants the result corrected. What should be the decision? If the director heard but didn't answer the call, I would decide it's a director's error, and treat both sides as non offending. In that case, would you give EW 4♦x made? If the director had come, the revoke would have been corrected, so W would only have lost two clubs and a heart. Or would you change it to 4♦x +1, since the offending side has played in the next trick. Can EW keep their score, or would you change that too? Would it also be a director's error if he didn't investigate properly? Those questions about the 2♠ bid could (or should?) have made him aware that there was something strange about it.

I'm with pran on this. It's up to director at the table to decide wether this is a psyche, but to me it doesn't look like one. More important to me is the question wether we should discuss this at all. Psyches are explicitly allowed (law 40C1), so a ban is in contradiction with the laws. If someone wants to play a game based the Laws of duplicate bridge, but decide to make some changes to these, it's fine with me, but let's not spend time on that.

That's utter nonsense. Because quite a few people partake in these discussions, which proves that these are popular, they generate a disproportionate ammount of traffic. So, a topic should generate hardly any debate at all, to be of interest. I thought that a forum is a place for debates, the more the merrier. But it's obvious, we are taking up to much bandwith, gigabytes and/or time. If you want us to stop having debates, please say so and we might collectively decide to leave and you'll have a very quiet, but hardly interresting forum. Joost

I certainly don't want you to quit. I've an inkling about the amount of work moderating and maintaining this forum must be and I'm grateful for that. Losing both you and lamford would be really too bad. Joost

I do agree with that. Joost

You would still have the option to go to Tesco, Waitrose or Asda, or your local corner shop or Italian icemaker. There are far less sensible - at least most of the time - bridge laws forums. Joost It's of course rather provincial to name just UK supermarkets, but most of you wouldn't know say AH (Dutch) and i'm not acquainted with US equivalents.

Your first point is a very sensible one. Now whe have to look in the law book, the national rules about alerting, HUMs and BSCs and some more, the WBFLC minutes and have to figure out which of these are still valid. Your #2 has been done by a Dutch TD, but I find it easier to use the law book. Maybe because I'm used to it, but I've heard likewise from other TDs. Nobody can disagree with the third point. And please, don't make silly, but obfuscating mistakes when translating the text. Your fourth point is like asking for tax reform. Everybody thinks that a wise move, but is certain that some exceptions have to be maintained to prevent blatant inequity. But everybody also disagrees about what should be maintained. The same is true of the last two points. OTOH, if your suggestions become reality, we would be faced with a most serious problem. The raison d'être of this forum would cease to exist. What are we going to discuss about? What are we going to do with all that extra time?