sanst

Ton Kooijman answered that on behalf of the WBFLC in the commentary to the 2017 Laws: “In bridge it is normal to make mistakes; it’s just part of the game. When considering the damage related to an infraction a player should not be punished for making such a mistake, unless it is considered to be really unacceptable.” When considering whether an action constitutes an extremely serious error should be judged according to the calibre of the player (WBFLC minutes Beijing 10th Oct. 2008). Your example comes nowhere near the ESE criterion for an average player.

Weejonie wrote that the EBU doesn’t consider it an extremely serious error if: “• Playing for a layout that detailed analysis would show is impossible, such as for an opponent to have a 14-card hand. It is common in misinformation cases for a player to ‘tunnel vision’: if they know from misinformation that there is a certain layout, they will not change that view during the play. It is sometimes possible to work out from the sight of dummy or the first few tricks that there must have been either misinformation or a misbid during the auction. Many people, including experienced players, do not correctly draw that conclusion if they have been misinformed, even if it would be considered obvious when given as an academic exercise away from the table." Don’t try to put the blame on the NOS. If you explain your double as penalties and afterwards it is ‘no agreement’, there is misinformation and you’re responsible for the result if an opponent comes to the wrong conclusion. Besides, how many players you think don’t keep count of the HCP’s during the play? My guess: a considerable majority. It’s hard enough to keep track of all the cards played in the four suits.

That’s true, but irrelevant. S could have made 2♥X+1, thanks to a misdefence. The MI led to a line of play that wasn’t an extremely serious error, so NS are entitled to the result that would have been reached without the MI. What to do about the misclick is not covered by the Laws.

There was a misexplanation, so you have to rule in favour of the NOS. S has a not completely idiotic story about the way he was damaged, so I would decide 2♥X+1. Whether a misclick counts as an extremely serious error I leave to the pundits of directing online bridge, but I don’t think it would count as such when compared to the examples given by the WBFLC.

Has this anything to do with bridge laws? Or is it a discussion about certain computer algorithms? You just again proved my point that online bridge is a game that has little to do with serious bridge as a competitive game. FWIIW: it’s completely idiotic to let the result stand.

If SB had been sitting S and ChCh had bid 2♥ as W, he would have called the TD complaining about this bid on this hand. :D Anyway, another example why I don’t think online bridge is a fit alternative for the real game. ChCh would, given the description of his character, use a phone connection to communicate with his partner.

I consider it a quite serious issue. One of the reasons why you can’t play on after a claim, is that the declarer might find out that there’s still a trump out or how to finesse, especially against less experienced players. If this is common practice in online bridge, it’s an argument more to stay clear of it if you want to play a serious game of bridge.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with the claim.

In this case it’s totally uninteresting whether there’s a line of play allowing EW to take all remaining tricks. The director should decide whether there’s one that’s not completely idiotic that loses one or more tricks to NS. There is one and the declarer has even shown that his plan is to follow that line. The second spade will be trumped by N. So NS will win one more trick and the score will be 4♥-1.

No. There’s a line of play which works, but not mentioning anything about the outstanding trumps is killing for the claim.

No. The total number of players is more or less stable, some 117.000, even slightly rising, but that’s mainly due to many joining the online club already pre-corona. I don’t know anything about non-affiliated bridge clubs. You’re sure it’s not a prison you’re writing about? ;) There are some ideas about playing with tablets in clubs, players being separated by plexiglass and sufficient distance between the tables. Online combined with f2f does sound rather good to me, giving the best of both worlds in these circumstances. Hopefully the screens can be removed in the not too far future.

That’s about the same as the NBB says about Stepbridge. I think it’s a good initiative to make online bridge available for the clubs, but the majority of the clubs is not interested and of those clubs which use it, some 30% of the members partake. Have you any proof for this? I don’t believe that the social aspect of bridge will eventually disappear. I certainly hope that we will return to a society where we can interact in a normal human way, including body language. And the way that youngsters behave around here, quite often ignoring social distancing, makes clear that they too need physical contact. Besides, humankind is doomed to extinction without it :D That’s true, but there you have to make sure that unauthorized forms of communication are completely impossible. Somebody should be watching the players closely. Even the cheating by some top players hasn’t resulted in the change to online bridge in international championships.

This is exactly why I don’t like online bridge and don’t consider it fit for a serious match or tournament. It’s fine for training and for quite a lot of players for amusement, but that’s it. Just to mention another problem: at Stepbridge, the official Dutch online bridge club, you have to alert and explain yourself, just like playing with screens. But there’s no review afterwards, so it’s hard for the opponents to discover that there was a wrong explanation. You also have to inform the opponents when you make a call that’s not discussed, what you think, expect or hope that your partner will make of it. Actually, I don’t think there’s much to do for the WBFLC. It’s impossible to prevent cheating, so don’t treat it as a serious game.

No bridge, no infractions. On line bridge is not for me, so I’m reading, even bridge books. Hopefully we can play again sometime in the summer.

Could be an indication that there’s something badly wrong with him. Dementia is becoming an issue in bridge clubs over here, at least there’re discussions about how to handle it. Rarely I’ve seen a topic changing as much as this one.

Since we are completely OT, I think it’s high time we discuss when to use number or figure. Please, don’t restrict yourself to natural numbers, complex, rational, real are far more interesting.

America isn’t England, hasn’t been for almost 250 years. It’s a miracle that the languages don’t differ much more. Dutch Dutch and South African Dutch, better known as Afrikaans, have grown far more apart in a slightly shorter time span. I know, totally and completely OT.

The TD should also consider whether west’s ace of spades has influenced the auction. If so, an AS is quite probable. Taking all into account I don’t think that this a simple “ Straightforward "Read from the Law book" ruling”.

:lol: :lol:

It’s a penalty card according to law 49 since it was not exposed in the normal line of play. Otherwise I completely agree with you. It’s nonsense to read the laws as pran does. W is the culprit here and the NOS should be treated as non offending. The solution to apply law 12A1 if they are damaged is making things unnecessarily complicated. The law states that the director has discretionary powers and IMO he should use these in this case in a way that’s in accordance with the statement in the Preface to the laws “the increased discretion given to Tournament Directors, the attempts to rectify a situation rather than to penalise”.

Why you insist that “run the clubs” constitutes a claim, is incomprehensible to me. It isn’t a claim and nobody but you thinks so. It doesn’t say so in the laws and besides, it’s not a statement ‘claiming’ a specific number of tricks. It’s not proper procedure but it’s understandable. At least in the jurisdiction I’m in you can stop the dummy when you notice that the suit doesn’t break. It’s considered not to be a normal line of play to continue the suit if it doesn’t run and the declarer makes clear that he has noticed this.

So, we don’t know enough about the methods of NS to give a reasonable opinion. OT: I’m glad that N is not my partner. An overcall should show values in the suit and also be lead directing, at least that’s what I’ve been taught. At this vulnerability it’s begging for problems.

Rik argued correctly that polling doesn’t necessarily give a reliable or useful result. The assumption is, that the players polled Are of comparable strength as the players involved Have no prior knowledge of the hands and the results, Understand the methods and agreements used. It can be quite hard to find those who meet these criteria. Ever tried to organize a poll when weak players were involved? Or players between who there was a considerable difference in strength? Is there a better way to come to a decision? I rather doubt it, but prefer this situation to the one that we had before.

A few, probably not so satisfactory answers. I wasn’t present and have only information provided by E, asking a couple of TD’s whether the director’s decision to let the result stand was right. Somehow, incomprehensible but true, N managed to give his partner not the hearts ruff. He probably thought, after seeing the dummy, that W was short in hearts. Still, continuing the suit can hardly be wrong if that’s the case. What the agreement about the pass of E was, is also unknown. I gather that it wasn’t alerted nor asked. Maybe E passed since he didn’t like the idea of ending in 3♦ - S hadn’t introduced his diamonds at that point, so he decided to leave the decision to W. E was asked about the agreement about the 2♠ and explained it correctly. Since I haven’t any information from NS, it’s impossible to know how the answer was given was.

[hv=pc=n&s=s85h8dkjt873cqt76&w=skqj764hqj932d4c4&n=sa932hak76da62cj3&e=stht54dq95cak9852&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1npp2s(5%2BS%2F4%2Bm)dp3d3sdppp]399|300[/hv] The 2♠-bid was correctly explained as 5+♠ + 4+minor. EW can introduce both majors with 2♣. The meaning of N first double is unclear but probably TO, the second is penalty. EW made 3♠x, NS are not happy and call the TD. They claim that if N had known that W had a hand like this, he would have started hearts and S would have trumped the third heart. The TD decides to let the result stand, NS got the right explanation and are not entitled to know that W deliberately deviated from the system. It’s clear that E was surprised by the bidding of W, but why he did pass 2♠ instead of asking the minor is unknown to me. Also unknown is why S didn’t introduce his diamonds in the first round. And W had a strange remark about his bidding. He didn’t bid 2♣ “because my hand is to strong”. Why he didn’t bid 3♥ but instead rebid the spades is also not clear, but he obviously prefered these over his hearts. Some obviously atrocious bidding has been going on, but that’s not the question. The question is whether we believe E that he was very surprised by west’s hand as he claimed. In his defense I must add that he is the one who asked advice about the TD’s decision because NS kept grumbling.