euclidz

Thanks but I am not sure if I am any clearer. From my reading of these examples it seems to come down to making a judgement call on what was in the mind of Declarer / what Declarer's intent was and if the line of play is obvious then we can presume that the stated play was mouth moving in a different direction than brain. If you take Board 4 for example where Declarer plays K♠ and calls for A♠ from dummy then changes to small the decision seems to be that clearly no sane person could have intended to put his Ace and his King so it must have been a slip of the tongue rather than intent. And, if that is the case, in the example I gave, I should have investigated why Declarer stated 6♦ rather than 10♦ and if that was because he was thinking about his next play i.e. the play after the 10♦ and his mouth moved with that thought rather than his intended play, I should have allowed the change?

In this case, with dummy having just 10♦ and 6♦ Declarer stated "6♦" which was clearly and obviously, to all at the table, to be a stupid (losing) choice. I concluded that Declarer made that call carelessly rather than tripping over his tongue and having stated his choice he realised it to be the wrong/bad/losing choice and then wanted to correct it albeit correct it within seconds. The question is . . . is he allowed to make that correction i.e. can he change his choice, substitute his first (careless) choice with a second (considered) choice before dummy touches the card?

Dummy holds 10♦ and 6♦, Declarer calls for the 6♦ then, before Dummy picks up the 6♦ says, “Sorry, 10♦.” Is the 6♦ played as soon as Declarer names it or is he allowed change an ‘unintended’ call? LAW 45: CARD PLAYED B. Play of Card from Dummy Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card. C 4(b) Until his partner has played a card a player may change an unintended designation if he does so without pause for thought.

Thanks

I know from posts on here about a particular hand that others have been able to look up that hand i.e. they have been able to find the hand I played - how is that done? I would like to look at the playing history of a 'username' - how do I do that?

Nope . . . . just tried that as host and couldn't do it

Oh, OK then that maybe the answer.

When I started this post I presumed that there was either a setting that could be set or altered to enable that feature or some other reason / feature / setting. It's really not important it was just a matter of my curiosity as to how this person had made it happen.

No. The chatting is with partner and ONLY the partner sees the chat and all others see is the partners reply to whatever has been typed.

Not at a Tournament, just ordinary regular casual play and the chat was/is before during and after playing the hand.

No. . . . this is in ordinary casual play and during play.

What am I trying to say . . . . I know that 'chatting' with one's partner is precluded as a feature of the software and yet I know that someone is doing this i.e. I know it is not possible and I know it is happening. How is it happening? If this person is somehow circumventing the software are the moderators (if there are any moderators) able to identify it as happening and stop it?

Mentioning no names I 'formed a view' some time back on a certain player. One of the many issues that caused me to wonder about this person is that he/she is clearly communicating with his/her partner - I see the partners replies but I do not see his/her comments. At a point in time I asked his/her partner about this and somewhat bemused he thought I was accusing them of cheating making this comment in chat to this person that I had made contact and asked the question and thus in doing so confirmed that they had been communicating whilst they were partners. But . . . how is this possible as I know that chatting with your partner is precluded as a feature of the software. It is not possible to do this (chat with partner) but this person is able to do this - how?

Thanks for the helpful replies

Declarer played a card from hand. Dummy (before declarer's LHO played a card) states "Dummy" indicating that the card should have been played from Dummy. Does this fall within prevention? Law 41 B. Qualified Rights Dummy may exercise other rights subject to the limitations stated in Law 43: 2. He may try to prevent any irregularity by declarer. If it does not fall within his right to prevent an irregularity . . . . . surely there can be no procedural penalty if Declarer is not advantaged by the correction and logically the only advantage by this correction is to the opposition in so far as they can choose whether the card is played from hand or dummy plus penalty card rules?

Thanks for all the helpful replies

The problem with that is, I am encouraging their opponents to encourage the slow player to speed up and if the opponents know that by doing nothing they will get 60% then people being people . . . .

Thanks Gordon . . . .we use ScoreBridge, I can award an Av which gives 50%/50% and I can adjust that to (e.g.) 40%/60% i.e. penalising the slow play by awarding 40% but in doing that I reward (advantage) their opponents by giving them 60% and that disadvantages all other players. How do I penalise the slow play pair without rewarding their opponents?

Slow play. Here’s the problem. We have one member who is painfully slow, nothing said or done can speed him up. He simply can’t make a decision on any aspect of the game without giving it lengthy thought. I get complaints all the time and I know if I gave him the ‘x, y, z or else’ speech he’d leave and as we are a small Club which purports to be friendly I don’t want to force him out. I have been averaging their hands not played (timed out). I have been considering awarding an adjusted score but I can’t think of a way of penalising them with advantaging their opponents; is there a way of penalising their slow play without advantaging others? I know the rules of the game but this is not the world championships and I am not looking simply to apply the law I am looking for a pragmatic solution, some form of equity with some form of penalty that would encourage to play quicker - any suggestions?

I live and learn .. ty

Thinking about it further . . . why Did South re-bid 2NT and why did North pass that bid? South chose not overcall INT over the 1D because that would show 16hcp. South's dbl forces North to bid so South knows North's 1♣ response shows a point range of between 0 and 15. South bids 2NT offering North the choice of 3NT. North knows South has less than 16hcp (because South did not overcall 1NT) so North passes. How bad / wrong / poor / weak is that?

I have played Bridge at club level in the UK every week for the past 10 years and I can see nothing wrong, unusual or out of order with N/S's bidding. It's been described in this thread as 'weak' or 'poor' - I would much appreciate knowing how the Expert would do with South's hand? He/she has an opening hand and no 5 card suit, yes the Dble should promise a shortage in D's but what's the alternative - what is a better alternative? And yes, after the dbl, N bids the suit where there is a shortage so South bids NT showing no fear of thee Diamonds. In my experience all that is absolutely run of the mill everyday average (and not bad) Club bidding.

My partner and I play (Benjamin) Acol, 4CM, WkNT. In my Bridge Club last week I had a hand with 10hcp ♠Axxx ♥A ♦xxxx ♣Qxxx. My partner, first in hand, opened 2NT. In response to my 3♣ (Stayman) bid my partner bid 3♠. We had a minimum of 30hcp between us, a spade fit and I had a singleton A♥ I knew that the hand had slam potential but Gerber and Blackwood (the only slam conventions we use) won't give me the answers I need to decide whether a slam was on or not. Would rckb have given me those answers?

Thanks for the helpful replies.

Is there any feature(s) that define Acol from SAYC? I know there are many Systems and I know that some (e.g. Precision) are so different that anyone playing that system can not suggest that they are playing Acol but is also know that there are players playing many different values which to me look more like SAYC than Acol but they believe that they are playing Acol. So my question is - where is the line in the sand, what is it that a player must or must not do to define themselves as Acol or SAYC?