euclidz

When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick I must be missing something because I can't see how that is physically possible. What am I not seeing?

It is clear that a simple insufficient bid 2♥ over 2♠ can be corrected to 3♥ without penalty. It is not quite as clear (for me) when the bid is artificial. With regard to insufficient artificial bids, correct me if I am wrong (as I often am): 1. If after an insufficient artificial bid the offender makes a sufficient bid which had the same meaning / conveyed the same information to his partner (e.g. showed he held two aces when he only held one) the auction continues without rectification (no penalty). 2. If after an insufficient artificial bid the offender makes a sufficient bid which does not have the same meaning / does not convey the same information to his partner (e.g. it showed he held one aces when his IB showed he held two) . . . penalty - his partner must throughout i.e. he can do it but his partner must then pass throughout (which of course would be suicide).

27B1b if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director’s opinion has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, Does same meaning mean – the ‘meaning’ the offender meant or the ‘meaning’ his partner was told by the suit bid? I’ve read through several posts on substituting an insufficient artificial bid after e.g. asking for Aces where the offender meant to show ‘x’ aces but where his insufficient bid showed ‘y’ aces. He is allowed to correct that bid with a sufficient bid with the same meaning but is that the same meaning he meant ‘x’ aces or the meaning his partner received ‘y’ aces which will be a bid of a different suit from the insufficient bid?

Sorry again in answering my own question but I think I've found the answer in the White Book 8.12.8(b) A table loses a board because of slow play. They only just run out of time and the TD decides both sides are equally at fault. If one side had played a little more quickly the slowness of their opponents would not have lost the board, so both sides are only partly at fault. So AVE/AVE is the normal ruling. 8.12.8(c ) A player is taken ill and misses three boards. How should they be scored? The other side is not at fault, of course, but the player who is ill is ‘directly at fault’ for the boards being cancelled, so the correct ruling is AVE+/AVE-. 8.12.9 ‘Not played’ Computer software usually has a possibility of inputting ‘not played’ for a table on a specific board. Some TDs or scorers use this when a table loses a board for slow play, late arrival or other similar reasons but this is illegal. At such a time the TD should decide whether to give AVE+, AVE or AVE- to each side as is required by Law 12C2(a).

Sorry about this but . . . Looking for answers I found I'd asked this question a year back. In deciding how to score a board not played (due to slow play)the choices are: 1. Average 2. Not played 3. Adjusted score In the case of a board not played due to slow play by both pairs i.e. both pairs equally at fault which is fairest Average or Not played? (I presume the answer comes down to score achieved by each option and I presume (?) Not played means both pairs get zero points (?) i.e. both would be penalised?)

Thanks for the helpful replies . . . So is the following correct? W . . . .N . . . E . . . S P . . . . . . . . . . . . . P Law 30A. Before any player has bid (i.e. the Pass not being a 'bid') Offender must pass when next it is his turn to call. W . . . .N . . . E . . . S 1C . . . . . . . . . . . . P Law 30B2a. After any player has bid: (At Partners turn to call) Offender must pass throughout

Law 30 PASS Out of Rotation A. Before any player has bid: Offender must pass when next it is his turn to call. B. After any player has bid: 1. At RHO turn to call: Offender must pass when next it is his turn to call. 2a. At Partners turn to call: Offender must pass throughout 3. At LHO turn to call: Treat as Law 25 Q1. Does ‘Bid’ in 30A and B mean ‘Call’ i.e. what happens if there has been a prior Pass i.e a call not a bid? Q2. Law 30 B3: Treat as Law 25 - I’ve read this now a dozen times and for the life of me I can’t figure out what it is means – help!

Thanks for the helpful replies . . . When I asked this question (penalty), I suspected that the answer was somewhere in UI. If a player fails to announce a weak two and his partner knows that it is a weak two does it not follow that he is in possession of UI and that the opponents are disadvantaged if they presume it's a strong two and consequently should there be a procedural penalty? And, if so, how do we factor in that section that states . . . if the victim had considered the bid had alternative meaning/value and failed to ask it would hinder his claim.

Thanks . . . . the rules say x x.x . . . but it's not clear if there is a penalty for failing to comply other than 90a - perhaps that's it?

EBU Blue Book requires that opening 2's must be announced (weak/strong). What is the sanction/penalty (if any) for failing to announce (with Law number)? Thanks

Thanks to all for the helpful posts

Continuing on from the question posed by chrism 'What is suggested' . . . what if it had been East that had hesitated in that bidding sequence: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2hdpp]133|100[/hv] East's hesitation followed by a Dble shows that he believed he had options. Those options are: Bid; Dble; Pass. West receives this UI and it could be that from the shape and strength of his own hand that he could form a view on whether East was more likely to be considering one option over another(but we don't know that). So what does West know? He knows that East's hand has some value and some winning tricks. If he factors that into his hand and forms the view that their combined weight gives them a worthwhile bid he must Pass. Yes? Now lets say that West is holding 6 decent H's a void and few outside points and as soon as the 2H bid hit the table he was salivating. Now he WANTS to pass, can he pass?

Ooops, my mistake, although I have to say that if it had been E's hesitation it throws up more interesting (and more common) set of questions. But, for the sake of my education, I would like to use this example with East as the hesitant, to learn and will create it as a new question

East's hesitation shows he has some strength. West does not know if that strength is H's or elsewhere but he knows East has some tricks in his hand. If he factors that information (UI) into his hand and forms the view that the contract can be defeated, he must pass. The question for me is . . . if West has got the other H's and a natural/obvious/LOGICAL penalty double MUST be still pass because the laws states that he must not choose that (advantageous) logical alternative and must choose the less sensible/logical alternative and pass?

I'd be grateful if someone could explain to me why Law55b and Law57C2 don't contradict each other? Declarer LOOT: Law 55b . . declarer restores the card led in error to the proper hand. No further rectification applies. Law 57C2 A premature play (not a lead) by declarer from either hand is a played card and may not be withdrawn. Thanks

Thanks for reply No.5 I more helpful answer would have been . . . . this summary is inaccurate, a more accurate summary would be . . . . . . . My posts in this section are me asking for help in learning and understanding a set of rules which are *****.

Law 13/14. If a hand is found to contain more of less than 13 cards and that hand has not been viewed find the missing card and replace it. If the hand has been viewed misplaced card may become a MPC and an adjusted score may be appropriate. If the hand has been played investigate the possibility of a revoke. If that is it why does it take 3 pages to say it.......but is that it?

What's the core difference between a situation invoking a solution from Law 13 as opposed to Law 14? LAW 13: INCORRECT NUMBER OF CARDS When the Director determines that one or more hands of the board contained an incorrect number of cards LAW 14: MISSING CARD When one or more hand(s) is/are found to contain fewer than 13 cards, with no hand having more than 13 Thanks

Is it possible to have a MPC without lead restrictions? How / when? Thanks

Thanks Gordon

Thanks all

B.1. After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play as for example by an unmistakable hesitation (during bidding) . . the partner may not choose from amongst logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another . . A regular scenario during a competing auction is a player pausing to consider whether to pass, bid on or double opponents bid. I presume that is the next bid in his partners hand is clearly sensible a Director would rule that there was no logical alternative BUT where his partners next bid is a pass, bid or double how do we quantify that his partners choice of bid was assisted by that hesitation - is it simply a matter of judgement and if it is, is that adjudications based on the balance of probabilities or something else? And, if it is no way that his partner could know which option(s) were being considered during the hesitation would it correctly ruled that his next bid was not influenced by the hesitation? In short (and in writing this I think I am forming a conclusion) is it the case that the reason for hesitation must be obvious for deeming that his partner had received extraneous information?

Thanks for that. I see that deducts points; is there any guide to how many points should be deducted (I think the book talks about 3 IMPS).

Thanks . . . . I'll have a look to find that option

Slow play, placing hands in the wrong compass point, failing to count cards, failing to ensure all cards in a hand are replaced back in the holder, etc., etc. Where a penalty is appropriate, how do you penalise a pair without rewarding the opposing pair? In a situation whereby a player/pair should justly be penalised for some wrong that has not disadvantaged any one particular opposing pair how do you penalise them without rewarding an opposing pair with extra undeserved tricks. The book talks about deducting IMPs but we score with averages(using ScoreBridge).