sanst

That’s dependent on what the members find acceptable. If there’s some serious competition the director is called more often for infractions that in a less competitive environment are hardly noticed and quite often aren’t noticed at all. In a ‘serious’ club you might go beyond warnings, but in those clubs where the game is played more or less purely for fun, I wouldn’t dream of doing that. In my experience a warning is usually sufficient, although in some cases a private talk with the player(s) involved is called for. Only in regional and national matches, but then we’re talking really serious bridge, you rarely have to give PP’s.

Again, was there damage and how? When training for director, much stress was laid on the basic rules for a director: Is there an infraction? Is there damage? Is the damage caused by the infraction? Only when all three wuestions are answered by “yes”, you can act and give redress. Otherwise you might penalize a pair if there was an infraction like not alerting but without damage, but you should be reluctant to do so. Just a friendly warning is usually the best way to act. Don’t you ever forget that the players are playing for fun mostly and are certainly not interested in the finer points of the Laws. They just want to play bridge. A bridge club isn’t a court of law and a director should not act like a hanging judge.

That there was MI and very probably use of the UI, is obvious. But no director could act opun the given information, because an essential element is missing: were EW damaged and, if so, how?

The Dutch Bridge Union has published a 40 page guide for players. It’s mostly about how to play and bid, and what to do when there’s an infraction. The role of the TD is explained and there are examples to illustrate the text. Quite useful, but too many have it unread in the bookcase. There’s also a movie, on Youtube, with all the common infractions - no revokes or use of UI - you see at the table. Actually I’ve lost count somewhere in the middle, but at least twenty in just one board. And I’m sure that many players don’t see anything wrong here. Unfortunately it’s in Dutch, unfortunately for those who don’t understand the language that is, because it’s quite funny. There’s also a guide for TD’s with flow charts about the most common irregularities. Useful for those directors who don’t have followed the full course, and those are in the majority over here. Some don’t have any formal training at all.

Why didn’t SB call the director at this moment? Impossible answer, two aces and the queen as answer to simple Blackwood. Only after RR’s, admittedly rather stupid, question did ChCh give the right answer. I would have decided against NS because of the infraction (MI by S), of which he could have been aware that it could work to his benefit. But any player must be able to count to thirteen. RR should have realized that SB couldn’t have more than one spade and that covering the jack was totally wrong. And that on top of his idiotic question. This is an example of self inflicted damage. Therefor my ruling would be NS 6♠-1, EW 6♠=.

In The Netherlands the double isn’t alertable and it’s the same in the WBF Alerting Policy. Besides, is a call alertable if there’s no agreement about it? And what would you know if explained as ‘no agreement’? I really don’t see any reason for redress. E could have asked and could have bid hearts anyway. And EW could have called the director at the end of the auction if they thought that the double should have been alerted. But the OP nowhere states that they did ask or called a director.

I don’t think that the alertability makes any difference. What would E or W have done if the double was alerted? There’s nowhere to run. Maybe NS have an agreement about a double in this situation, maybe S hoped that N would come to the conclusion that it was for penalties. The OP didn’t state that there was a pause or anything that might have conveyed UI. I don’t see any reason for adjustment, but would reprimand NS for non alerting is this was alertable. I know, it’s speculative and not for the TD to rule upon, but I’ve the idea that EW would like to blame NS for a disastrous result. But the 3♦ bid after a pass by E was at least rather optimistic, with nine losers. In the third seat a lot is forgivable, but you know that it might end in a disaster once in a while. Just put the cards back in the board, apoligize to your partner, congratulate the opps and move to the next board.

We can only hope that those who are responsible for formulating these laws, will ask for these lists. I’ve no idea whether there is anything going on at the WBFLC.

There’s a lot of online bridge going on, so there should be a whole bunch of problems specific for this game. Would there be anyone recording these to be used when formulating the Laws of Online Bridge? There’s a WBF Code of Laws for Electronic Bridge, dating from 2001, but that has little, if anything to do with online bridge. I suppose these were written for the matches between bridge programs, but I’m not sure.

Thanks. I did use pran’s example, which is as clear as can be, although he doesn’t seem to think so. In that example, not in the OP, E deliberately made an alertable call with a intention that contradicts it’s systematic meaning. He was going to pass whatever W bid and has excluded a hearts answer from W by systematically stating that he had a singleton or void in that suit. It’s a psych, since it is a deliberate and gross deviation of the system, and it’s protected by the system since W has to call and won’t bid hearts. FWIIW, I think that the ACBL ‘clarification’ is obscuring the issue instead of clarifying it.

On second thought, it’s illegal, at least over here, since it’s a protected psych. Partner is forced to answer, but you have ruled out hearts.

That is not illegal, but it’s far more likely that E forgot the agreement, was informed about that by the alert and explanation from W - which without any doubt is UI - and after some thinking decided to pass the 4NT. If he had deliberately decided to bid as you describe, there would be no reason to think after the 4NT bid. If I as director had to decide between your scenario, assuming that E told me so, and use of UI, I go for the latter. As TD you sometimes decide against a player who then is sad or mad at you because he really, really, REALLY didn’t use UI but became aware of his mistake completely on his own.

The discussion on my part is not about what the director should do and when. It’s about what players do at the table. The bidding was 1♠-3NT-4NT-pass. Let’s say for argument’s sake that E bid a natural 3NT, but W alerted and explained correctly as spade fit, void or singleton in hearts. Up to this point nobody but E knows that something has gone wrong. That becomes clear because E passes after a forcing 4NT. Most experienced players know that it’s no use calling the director then, because they would have to continue anyway. Nobody here would do anything else, we all know that the director can’t change the auction. Only after the play the opponents will call the director if they feel damaged. In this case they would probably argue that E should have answered the RKCB bid and the EW most likely would have ended in 6♠, doubled by N, which would have gone off two tricks. Only then the director has a role to play. You wil probably answer that the TD should have been called earlier, but there are many situations when something should or shouldn’t have been done, but is or isn’t done anyway. A prime minister shouldn’t lie and if he does he should be send packing, but ours did lie and wasn’t sent away, even worse, it looks like he can start a new term in office soon.

I’ve been reading this thread again and came to the conclusion that a lot depends on the meaning of the 4NT bid. East forgot the systematic meaning of 3NT and it doesn’t matter whether it was till W alerted and explained the bid or for a ‘ohnosecond’. The director should not accept any story about remembering the meaning by E on his own. E must keep thinking that W knows that he wanted to play 3NT. What is the EW agreement about 4NT in a NT contract, Blackwood or quantitative? If it’s Blackwood the pass is a blatant use of UI and should be treated as such. If quantitative I think pass is logical, but a poll might be necessary. There is a strange ambiguity in the Laws. You’re not allowed to wake up by alerts and explanations of your partner and should stick to your mistake, but explain the agreements correctly. I’ve never figured out how to do this without causing confusion for the opponents. In this case E should probably have explained 4NT as RKCB with spades and then have passed, not as damage control, but as the logical answer to 4NT quantitative.

Even if there was MI, I don’t see how EW were damaged by it. Even SB didn’t mention that. So, result stands.

From the OP I gather that EW are no regular pair, but choose to use a complex system. Here, W assumes that the double shows diamonds, but there's obviously no agreement about that, The 2♥ is explained as "natural and forcing, I think" (E), "I have shown 5♥s & 5♣s." (W) and "I saw the double as 1♦. Over that, 2♥ would show 6+♠s." (W after the claim). Small wonder that NS couldn't make heads nor tails from the auction. I think this all adds up to MI and I would rule accordingly. Since it's unclear what the right explanation would have been, I would reluctantly decide for A+/A-, but also decide that EW should use a system that they both know well enough. I certainly can't blame NS: their line of play is nowhere near a serious error. I think it's not unreasonable to demand that both players of a pair explain the auction 1♣ - x - 2♥ without contradiction, unless they are almost complete novices. If you can't, you're playing a system that you don't understand, which IMO is a serious offense against the spirit of the Laws and the game, if not the letter of it.

It seems that EW discovered that both of them made some rather serious mistakes and are trying to get redress. This is MP’s in which case I don’t understand East’s double. If you believe N showing both majors, you have a perfect hand for 3NT, following Hamman’s rule. And why shouldn’t you believe him, S and their CC? But W too was, to say the least, quite timid. The double should show points, so with this hand 3♣ doesn’t give partner in indication of your strength. Did EW explain how they would have reached 7NT or 7♠ with the knowledge of North’s mistake? We have no indication the North makes a habit of this kind of mistakes, so I would rule result stands.

This is a perfect illustration of the complexity of the Laws. What is a seemingly straightforward situation, as Blackshoe explained, quite often has some exception. Luckily, the situation sfi mentions, is probably quite rare. In the example you gave, S would have to pass again before E makes a call, W and N also pass and no one draws attention to the infringements. Don’t spend to much time considering these regulations, but concentrate on the most common irregularities. In F2F bridge these are calls and play out of turn, especially the open lead OOT, revokes, restoring hands where a card of one player has accidentally been moved to another hand - always time consuming if there’s no hand diagram -, missing cards - you’ll usually will find these on the floor, in an other board that’s on the table or in the hand of another player - disagreements about tricks made and lost, misinformation, including non alerting, use of unauthorized information and contested claims, These last three are far more difficult to handle than the others, which you usually can solve by following the laws book, but these don’t occur in online bridge :) Good luck!

Who isn’t? But the next step might prove to be more difficult: get the online bridge software makers to follow these. There’s more than just BBO out there, like Stepbridge (Dutch union and very popular in the days of covid), funbridge, 247bridge etc, and I’m not so sure that these will follow the new laws.

Why not? There are no specific laws for online bridge and doing so, you can’t be accused of asking for the benefit of your partner. Playing against SB such a consideration should certainly play a role.

I’m afraid I find your post incomprehensible. Why don’t you use the hand editor, the spade symbol with the red lines? I’ve actually no idea who bid what, who you and your partner are and who bid 1♦ and 2♦. That last call was a raise of partner’s 1♦ and Michael’s at the samen time. And what do you mean by “Does anything alerting”?

South actions don’t look like those of of a “good and experienced” player to me.

Het tried to find out EW’s agreement, didn’t get an useful answer and decided to bid 2♥. Not a smart move, I give you that. What he should have done, is call the director. That he didn’t, is a mistake, but not as bad as East’s inability to remember the agreement and, by the looks of it, not telling S that he beter look at the CC. It might surprise you, but quite some pairs don’t have an agreement about reverse bidding, especially the not so good and downright lousy players. If S belongs to this class, W should have made sure that S got the right information afterwards. He didn’t do that and just let the TD decide about the legality of the bidding after a undisputed BIT and MI. So, don’t blame S without knowing the facts. S is not the offender here.

South certainly shouldn’t have told the director what (s)he should decide. But that doesn’t make him or her the culprit in this case. An important question to be answered is what S would have done with the right explanation - that S didn’t look at the CC isn’t important. Would S have bid 2♥ without MI at this vulnerability? I wouldn’t, -2 vul is far worse than 2♦ +3. But we don’t know that the TD did ask S about this. Too little information makes it impossible to give an opinion about this case. Given the TD’s decision I think EW were quite lucky.

You’re right, I used an old one, thanks to Google. Besides, the Dutch union usually follows the WBF and hasn’t changed the regulations accordingly, and I know these. But there’s a provision, “by partnership agreement”, and it’s quite unclear that in the case at hand there was any agreement about opening a hand like East’s. Probably not. And it’s still my opinion that the damage to NS is due to the bidding of North.