sanst

Not an irregularity, there are already more than enough of these. An error, a lucky deviation of the system or just a mistake, who will tell? Not punishable by law, anyway. ;)

Somewhere about eleven irregularities, I think. And a lot of despairing people :D What the TD should have done, is what jhenrikj wrote: since the IB was prematurely replaced with 2NT, that should have been N’s bid, which would have silenced S. N would have had to play that and go off least one trick. In this case both sides should be considered not offending and this calls for a split score: 2NT-1 for EW and I’m tempted to allow S to bid 3NT, resulting in -2. But that’s probably not exactly what the Laws mean by “non offending”. So I would let the 5♣= stand.

The problem with a poll among those who have played the hand, is that they quite often remember the board and it’s outcome, certainly when a slam that can or cannot be made is involved. Here the four players who were polled choose 5♠ and pass just once as a maybe, In the AC’s poll most players pass or consider passing. I think that proves my point.

I think your qualification of the appeal could also be used to describe your post.

Ton has still plenty of hair left, at least when I last saw him. More than me, anyway. BTW, it’s Kooijman with a “j”. Yes, Dutch is a strange language and we love to keep it that way.

One of the most frequent problems is different explanations from the two sides of the screen. As you can imagine that can put the opponents totally on the wrong footing on the different sides. Just try to imagine what will happen if an overcall is explained as natural on one side and as Ghestem on the other. Maybe funny to see, but not so for the players.

So you ignored part of the laws, i.e. to answer the question whether UI was used, to enforce a local regulation. Maybe effective, but not legal.

The regulations are clear enough (every jump bid should be preceded by the stop card or you should say “stop”, and leave it on the table for 10 secs after you have made the call, the LHO should anyway wait for ten secs before making his call), but these are just not followed. Most players don’t care, at least not enough to call the TD, and you would probably be considered a fanatical kind of SB if you do. You might even be refused membership of some clubs or asked to leave. And frankly, I don’t think the average director at a club, who is usually playing too, would be pleased if called, provided there’s no UI problem.

I don’t know about the rest of the world, but I do know that over here more often than not the stop card is used as a obligatory and symbolic gesture, not a serious reminder for the LHO to take her or his time. You see auctions like 1♠-2♠-4♠ and there are three passes on the table before the stop card has been removed from the box. I don’t see much use in it as the players don’t observe the 10 secs and give at least the impression that they are thinking. In the example given it’s unlikely that the LHO has something to think about and the same goes for the 2♠ bidder, who has a hand with 9 HCP at most.

That’s fine. And, if you bid game without jump, keep the cards in your hand with a weakish hand and put these on the table to indicate a possible slam. :P

Now that we are OT: it depends on the hand. If I have a small singleton spades I open AKxx AKxx Axxx x 1♣ and after my partner’s 1♠ my bid will be 2♥. If I have A or K of spades, I would answer 2NT. Anyway, the 4441 is the weak point of most simple natural systems.

Reverse bidding is also possible with a 4441 distribution and I would strongly advise to reserve reverse bidding to strong hands. But it’s not a matter of general bridge knowledge, at least not among weaker players in general. I’m intrigued by Peter Allan’s remark about the non strong - is that English? - reverse bidding of him and his partner. Is it alertable with a weak hand. In Peter Allan’s case certainly, since there’s an agreement and it’s unusual. But weaker players quite often have no agreement about it, are not even aware of the fact that you should have a good hand and seem to think it bad luck if a wheel comes off. I wouldn’t bother about it.

Is it probable that declarer would play an extra round of trumps? I don’t think so. In my experience most half decent players keep count of the trumps, whereas they might sometimes miscount the other suits. Only less than half decent players play unnecessarily trumps because they loose count, but these don’t claim and quite often react angrily if you claim. So, I think the level of the player involved should be taken into consideration. I’ve watched and directed matches at a quite high level in Holland and noticed that these players claim by simply putting the cards on the table, saying something like “the rest” or “one trick to you” and nobody making a fuss because they know what the line of play will be. Problems may arise with those who are somewhere between half decent and more than decent, but I don’t like to treat them as nitwits.

I don’t know the actual agreements of this pair, but nowadays standard in Holland 5 hearts are possible and at least two in any suit. Strength anything from 0 hcp. For those who learned bridge in the last century and haven’t changed to a more modern system a 1NT won’t have a five card major. For more experienced players, but I don’t think these are, 3♦ would be GF showing 5+♥, 4+♦ and a slam try. At least that’s not unusual over here.

I don’t know the players involved, so I can’t answer the question. But if you ask the players, you can be sure that the answer will be “3♦ of course!”

[hv=pc=n&s=s53hk62dqt8742c74&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1n(15-17)2c(nat.)2d(nat.)p2hp3dppp]133|200[/hv] S bids 2♦, natural according to the agreements, but alerted by N and explained as transfer. Now S ‘corrects’ this to 3♦. Let’s assume that there was no other indication by S that N made a mistake and that the players don’t play this as forcing. I know, it’s a lot to ask, but these aren’t experienced players. EW call the TD and claim that S should have passed 2♥, which would end in -2, whereas 3♦ is made. The TD decides that S legally knows, because of the 2♥, that N has forgotten their agreement and therefore allows the 3♦. I wouldn’t, but would you?

No, most certainly not. What would be the reason? That you can sit on the same chair during the session? And what exactly means that responsibility? That you are awarded A- as a bonus if there’s an irregularity like the one described in the OP, where your opponents only get A= or A+? Are bridge laws based on Orwell’s Animal Farm: “All players are equal, but some are more equal than the others”? Maybe even more important: what are proper conditions of play and how can you be responsible for it, since that includes the behaviour of the other contestants at the table. Does dat not include the auction, since the play only starts once the auction is over. So you can’t be responsible for putting the right board on the table; that’s done before the auction starts. The laws should give the RA the liberty to proscribe the procedure, but also make all players responsible for maintaining it.

That’s exactly the problem. I didn’t refer to the header, I gave the text which makes one pair more responsible than the other. I find that unacceptable especially since there’s no other ‘reason’ than the fact that they are stationary, which is the effect of the movement used. For me, the lesser responsibility is no reason to give anything else than A-/A- in the situation as described in the OP.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what this has to do with my post. Nowhere I refer to the header or it’s text, and “conditions of play” are part of the text of 7D. More importantly, my main problem is the “Any contestant remaining at a table throughout a session” (my emphasis) and I want that part changed to “All contestants”, making all in equal measure responsible.

As I’ve written before, I find it essentially wrong to make N (NS for that matter) more responsible than EW. E has to check, which means he or she should give as much attention as N. Actually, I think E should make sure all players agree to the data being entered. If that carries a lesser responsibility, I would demand to sit always EW and be happy to let NS take the flak for input mistakes. Law 7D should be changed so that all players are made “responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table”.

In many sports there are changes possible in the way the game or whatever you want to call it is played. Youngsters at football play in a field about a quarter of the size of that of the adults etcetera. But the rules about infractions are the same for all.

AFAIK no sport has rules that differ dependent on the level of players. Besides, what would be the point where the changes take place? Playing on my club I have a set rules that allow some infractions, but when I meet some of the same players at a regional of national event we have to deal with a prohibition? Usually at clubs over here all kinds of infractions are made without the director being called. A change of call or play by the declarer is hardly ever a problem, some even ‘solve’ a revoke by changing the played card a few tricks back without anybody protesting. I’ve even encountered players who didn’t think it odd to open the auction with a double “because I’ve no 5 card”. These are the kind of players who consider calling a director as more or less an accusation of cheating. I don’t care, if they have a nice afternoon or evening of a game they call bridge, it’s okay with me, but at my table and at the level I’m usually playing we stick more rigidly to the Laws. It works, so why change it? The players I wrote about would still play the game their way, without director, however simplified the Laws are for their sake.

It certainly is what the Laws imply:

RR should have thought about that during the first trick, or better, should have thought about what to do if hearts were played by the declarer. He hasn’t much more to consider with this hand. I would decide in favour of SB and MM. Anyway, RR didn’t have at that particular moment a bridge reason to think. His reason to think was his failing memory.

Maybe they are, but aren’t these part of the game? What I’m trying to make clear that you’re one step ahead and that a discussion about the principles of online bridge laws is necessary before you start making the rules.