euclidz

Thanks . . . . So it follows then that if the 9♠ becomes a mpc it must be played at the first opportunity and if East (declarer) plays the J♠ South (offender) most play the 9♠ I'm happy with that - thanks

Thanks Gordon for the helpful reply. In the above example, if East plays the 7♠ it seems reasonable that South should be required to play the 9♠ but what if East plays the J♠ must South then be compelled to play the 9♠ or could he play the Q♠ and if he is allowed the play the Q♠ does the 9♠ become a penalty card / major penalty card?

Defender plays a card before RHO plays his card. This is now driving me nuts. I have been reading the book now for most of the holidays and read and re-read Laws 53 to 57 so many times it's hurting my eyes. What seems to be a simple and common occurrence seems not to have a clear answer in the book. One of the problems is that, in the book, the word 'lead' is used ambiguously i.e. does lead mean play or does lead mean first to play. By the bye, I've got the red book, yellow book and blue book and I can't find the answer to this question. Lets say East is declarer and West is Dummy. Dummy plays 2♠ North plays 5♠ East pauses for thought South plays 9♠ (before East has played) Surely someone knows the ruling and what's the LAW number?

My problem is that Law 57 unambiguously speaks about offender playing a card before his partners has played a card i.e. not after partner has played his cards and before RHO has played his card!

Thanks for all the helpful replies

Thanks for that I don't know if the EBU laws apply anywhere else other than in the UK and to the Acol system. I know for example the EBU produces bidding rules/levels which appear to (?) be aimed at the Acol system

LAW 57 PLAY OR LEAD (OUT OF ROTATION (before partner has played) When a defender leads to the next trick before his partner has played to the current trick, or plays out of turn before his partner has played, the card so led or played becomes a major penalty card, and declarer selects one of the following options. He may: 1. require offenders partner to play the highest card he holds of the suit led, or 2. require offenders partner to play the lowest card he holds of the suit led, or 3. forbid offenders partner to play a card of another suit specified by declarer. Is this correct? But is the case that if declarer selects one of the options (1 - 3) then card is replaced and is no longer a mpc?

Declarer may accept the play out of turn and play continues without penalty or reject the p o o t and then the card becomes major penalty card. Is this correct?

Defenders may accept or reject the lead. If they reject it, declarer returns the card and plays from the correct hand and there is no penalty (Law 55) Is this correct?

Law 67b2 Thanks for the helpful reply - I've read through 67 and I'll study it in depth later. I had a feeling that a revoke might be involved. What I can't get my head around is the process i.e. the whole room waiting whilst the Director goes through the play of previous tricks to identify where the revoke occurred.

Sorry Title should read EBU not EBY (grrr)

I'd appreciate help with the below - what is the correct (EBU Acol) rule in the following incidents? 1. Declarer plays (leads) a card from his hand when it was dummies lead (played out of rotation should have played from dummy). 2. Defender plays a card before LHO plays his card 3. Defender plays a card before his partner and RHO have played their card. (Law 57?) Note: I am not being lazy, I have read the Laws but I can't find an answer for 1 and 2 seems too lenient (if I have read it right).

Can anyone tell me the correct (EBU Acol) rule for the following incident? Play reaches 9th trick when defender realises he has 3 cards in his hand and everybody else has 4 ((for reasons unknown)he has 10 cards on the table whilst others have only 9 on the table).

Thanks for the helpful replies

I've just read through a post on what was described by someone as RKCG. Taking aside RKC anything, during my time on BBO, I've formed the view that most here do not and would not use Gerber. I don't understand why and would appreciate any constructive reasoning on why it is not used?

I haven't got the time, energy or inclination for clandestine attacks over a hand in Bridge. I posted this post as I genuinely wondered whether a better bid would have been a jump overcall i.e. whether that would have conveyed a clearer picture of my hand. In the real world I play with a regular partner and over the years we have formed an unwritten understanding and with hands like this he would take a jump overcall as more likely to be medium strength hcp and long Diamonds and with hands like this we would normally Dble conveying hcp strength and go from there. Playing with other players in situations like this causes me to question myself and that's what I did here. In fact before posting the question I presumed that I was wrong i.e. my bid was wrong i.e. I should have bid 3♦. Before posting I expected replies something along the lines of . . . "you had a strong hand and a jump overcall of 3♦ better reflects that strength." Maybe, with this hand, neither bid is right or wrong!

[hv=pc=n&s=s963ht743dj64ct63&w=s742hj98dqcaq9754&n=skqj5hak652dt53c8&e=sat8hqdak9872ckj2&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hdp2c2s3dppp]399|300[/hv] This was the hand played on BBO. As I and most playing BBO don't have regular partners there is no partnership understandings outside of our individual profiles. With this hand this partner left the table after the bidding without saying goodbye! I presumed he/she left because he/she saw that we should have been in 'game' and blamed my bidding? That said, I suppose it's possible that he/she left because he/she fell on her sword or then maybe she simply got a phone call! I made 12 tricks! Looking at others bids the bid that got to game (in any decent order) went 2♦ 3♣ but I can't see that leading anywhere other 4 / 5♣.

[hv=pc=n&e=sat8hqdaq9872ckj2&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1h]133|200[/hv] Looking at other bids of this hand it was a mixture of Dble and 3♦ over Nth's opening of 1♥. East has 17hcp, 2 of which are dead in the water. By the bye it's a strong hand. Dble shows opening points, 3D should also have opening points but those points might come from length in ♦ rather than actual hcp. Which is the better bid and why? (Apologies if I've posted this in the wrong section (as it's probably not that interesting))

Not played or Averaged When a board is not played, the Director should enquire as to why and award a score, adjusted taking into account several factors. For many reasons my Club are not going to do that, that board will either be given an 'average' or deleted (as not played). My question is, of those two options, which is fairest and why . . . . (It looks like boards averaged or deleted affect the score by a difference of about 0.005%). It seems to me that if both pairs are equal then averaging it or deleting the hand from the calculation produces the same effect i.e. neither pair gains or loses anything. If the pairs are unequal (strong pair against a weak pair) then the strong pair lose and the weak pair gain whether it is 'averaged' or 'not played.' Is that correct?

Thanks for the helpful replies.

(EBU Rules) At a point in time whilst studying the rules I recall reading that once a table has commenced a hand they must be allowed to complete it i.e. the Director cannot force them to stop and move on (and award a score for that hand). My question is - when has that process started; at what point can it not be stopped e.g. is it as soon as they have taken the hands from the board OR e.g. after the first bid? (I have looked up the rules (index) and can't find it)

At the risk of this going off at a tangent . . . . why is it 'not legal' and what do you believe to be the 'legal' procedure when a table runs out of time and fails to play a board?

When a table are prevented from playing a board because they ran out of time it's 'averaged' and the Scoring program awards both pairs 50% (a half - it's halved)

I need a simple stand alone Round Timer (i.e. not a Timer that requires real time access to the internet) I have downloaded two Duplicate Round Timers and both fail to meet our needs. They both want to be set up for the whole event with the presumption that players will fold their hand and walk to the next table when the round time ends. The rules here are that once they have started bidding the hand they must be allowed to complete it, so a timer that simply says the round has ended all move doesnt work when a table has started to play the last hand. . . . I need a timer that reaches a point in time and then says if you have not yet started the last hand, halve it and then stops the clock OR after x minutes says you have 5/6/7 minutes left I could simply instruct them that if they had not started the last hand when that message came they must halve it. Before I go out and but an alarm clock - does what I need exist anywhere?

Got the book out (Dormer/Klinger 2004) . . . . The 2NT response - You do not go out of your way to make this call on hands of borderline strength. To go down in 2NT when opener has an unsuitable minimum is bad. . . . Some partnerships (back in 2004!) no longer use 2NT as a limit response preferring the conventional Baron or Jacoby 2NT. I can't see any advantage to raising to 2NT with 10-12hcp (unless it's pre-emptive?) and I can see all kinds of disadvantages.