TimG

I think the idea that one psyche creates an agreement is terrible. If he is going to record every psyche with the intention of declaring them agreements, he ought to also record every deviation any pair makes. The first time someone opens 1N with a singleton: agreement. The first time someone responds to an opening bid with 5 HCP: agreement. The first time someone opens a five-card weak two-bid: agreement. Of course, one psych doesn't create an agreement, just like seeing one swallow doesn't mean it's Summer. But the OP wasn't talking about one psyche. He was talking about frequent psyches. And if you see many swallows it is Summer. (At least here in Europe; in Africa it is probably the other way around.) Rik But, hotshot was talking about a single occurrence: He goes so far as to say "a similar psych", so it doesn't even have to the same. I agree that establishing a pattern is a good thing; I disagree that one instance makes a pattern.

If it's too heavy for an invite, doesn't that mean it's good enough for a game force?

I think the idea that one psyche creates an agreement is terrible. If he is going to record every psyche with the intention of declaring them agreements, he ought to also record every deviation any pair makes. The first time someone opens 1N with a singleton: agreement. The first time someone responds to an opening bid with 5 HCP: agreement. The first time someone opens a five-card weak two-bid: agreement.

I noticed this happened to me once recently. I wondered if it has always been this way and I just haven't noticed or whether this was an anomaly.

A club. Then, I assume, you ruff a spade and lead your last diamond. West ruffs with ♥8 or ♥9 and you have to guess the trump layout. If you know that they're 4-1, you discard a club and score either a club ruff or the long spade. However, that loses when East is 2722 and can overruff dummy's ♥7. This line seems to be equivalent to leading a diamond from dummy at trick two. I'm not sure it's the right line, but it is a way to make when you know west has 4 hearts and 4 spades.

I think it is awkward if you have no way of showing an invitational hand with clubs. If 1M-3♣ is Bergen, and 1M-2♣-2M-3♣ is GF, then I'd want 1M-1N-2M-3♣ to be invitational. With a weak hand and clubs, responder would have to give up on improving the partscore.

How about: ♦A, ♥K, ♠K, ♠A, ♠ ruff, ♥A, ♠ ruff, ♦Q? I think you always get three tricks from this position, either i) two ruffs and the ♣A, or ii) ♣A, ♠8 and a trump. East wins ♦K and plays a club honnor, when you win in dummy you play 5th spade wich gets ruffed and the 4th heart comes back, you score: 2♠, 5♥, 1♦, 1♣, or lose 2♦, 1♣, 1 ruff. OK...how about: ♦A, ♥K, ♠K, ♠A, ♠ ruff, ♦Q? I assume east wins. And, returns what?

How about: ♦A, ♥K, ♠K, ♠A, ♠ ruff, ♥A, ♠ ruff, ♦Q? I think you always get three tricks from this position, either i) two ruffs and the ♣A, or ii) ♣A, ♠8 and a trump.

I think it is sort of the opposite of what you suggest. If psycher's partner jumps to game when some other, below game, forcing action would have been normal then this is a problem. For instance, if this pair's GF major suit raise is 2N or 3M, but responder bids 4M instead when he has a really good GF raise, that is making allowance for the psyche. Or, if responder skips Stayman with a balanced 21 count opposite partner's "suspect" 1N opening in order to avoid playing in 2C, that would be making allowance for the psyche.

Helgemo may not be available as the result of a recent disciplinary action. This rgb thread discusses the matter -- I have not read all the way through it so am not 100% sure that this sanction would make Helgemo unable to represent Norway in Sao Paulo, but it could easily have played a role in the selection process.

Let me make a case for no adjustment. First let's assume there was a BIT or there is no need to go any further. Was there UI transmitted by the BIT? The player who broke tempo over 3♣ was either thinking about doubling or bidding 3♠, that is he either had extra defensive values or extra offensive values. This is UI. Was there a logical alternative to the action taken (3♠)? Yes, passing was a LA. Was 3♠ suggested by the UI? This is far from clear to me? If the UI is extra defensive values, 3♠ was not suggested by the UI. If the UI is extra offensive values, 3♠ was suggested by the BIT. We do not know which the UI suggested. Since we do not know that 3♠ was suggested over Pass by the UI, there should be no adjustment. Let's suppose that instead of bidding 3♠ the player had doubled. Once again we determine that there was a BIT and that there is UI that the player has either extra offensive values or extra defensive values. Pass is still a LA. Was Double suggested by the UI? This time I think the answer is "yes". Double caters to either extra offensive values (partner can bid 3♠) or extra defensive values (partner can pass). So, if the chosen action had been DBL (and the table result was still 4♣ -1 -- meaning there was damage) I think an adjustment should have been made. I am having trouble with my understanding of this Law; I do not mean this to be authoritative but rather present it so that those who are authorities might tell me if and where I have gone wrong.

I'm sorry that the way I pointed out what I saw as an apparent conflict caused problems. I did not mean to criticize anyone. David, please accept my apology and let me try again. Earlier you quoted the Law which includes "could demonstrably have been suggested". It is possible that these two statements have different meanings. I would like to better understand this Law and would appreciate it if you would elaborate: tell me that I am wrong to think that these two statements have a different meaning, or explain to me why it does not matter that the two statements have different meanings. Let me try and explain how I see the two statements as differing. "The chosen action to be suggested by the UI" leaves no doubt that the chosen action was suggested by the UI. "Could demonstrably have been suggested" seems to me to express a possibility rather than a sure thing. I want to stress that I have some (considerable) difficulty translating "could demonstrably have been suggested" into plain English. And, that this difficulty that is mine could well be the cause of what I have called an "apparent conflict". I could understand "was clearly suggested". I could also understand "could have been suggested" or "may have been suggested". But, I am having a difficult time with "could demonstrably have been suggested". Tim

I strongly agree with this view. That was also the view held by Jill Blanchard in her law suit. Oh, the irony. I don't understand this comment. Can you explain it please? Jill Blanchard is now Jill Levin and has many victories in...women's bridge. I think that includes a World Championship in a Women's event.

Cape Cod. Add grapefruit juice and it is a Seabreeze.

It appears to me that your non-lawyerly language means something different than the Law which you quoted. If you are going to say things that mean something different than the Laws, yet refuse to explain when asked, that does not seem helpful to those who wish to gain understanding. If things in quotes and other arguments are not in agreement, shouldn't they be compared and discussed in order to get to the correct understanding?

You quoted "could demonstrably have been suggested " before, which seems different than "to be suggested", the former allowing for the possibility, the latter saying it was so. I post a lot in these forums and on RGB [rec.games.bridge], also I answer a lot of queries by email and phone. I deliberately do not use the same language every time: it makes my posts boring and stale. In fact I very rarely say anything should be 'demonstrably suggested': are you sure you are not confusing me witrh my friend Ed who usually does write that in his posts? We are not legal eagles: we leave that to BLML [bridge-laws mailing list]. We do not need to use exact wording in every case, and I certainly do not. Yes, I'm sure it was you who quoted "demonstrably suggested": I think part of my confusion is over the meaning of "could demonstrably have been suggested". Does the adverb "demonstrably" modify "could" or "suggested"? It might mean: "someone could show that it was suggested". Or, it could mean: "could have been clearly suggested". I think you are using the first: one must demonstrate that an action was suggested. I think Ed is using the second: an action that could have been suggested is not allowed (if successful) -- it is unnecessary to demonstrate that it actually was suggested. It seems useful to me to use consistent wording when speaking of the application of Laws even if this is not BLML. Otherwise ambiguities are bound to arise.

If certain players routinely "kill the clock" won't they end up being late a greater percentage of the time than an average speedball player? I think it would be more to the point to penalize habitual offenders rather than what might be isolated cases.

I think commentators should be giving the spectators what they want rather than what it is determined that they need.

The probation should be for 30 days of NABC play rather than a plain 30 days.

What do people who use 3M to show (31)(45) do with their 3m responses? I think some people are using 3D to show short hearts and 3H to show short spades and expand the possibilities to include (41)44 hands (and maybe also (41)(53)).

Is this true? At least where American women are concerned?

You quoted "could demonstrably have been suggested " before, which seems different than "to be suggested", the former allowing for the possibility, the latter saying it was so.

Blackshoe, How is this different from the classic case of 1♠-3♠ where 3♠ is a slow limit raise? If opener bids 4♠, we can argue that responder might have been thinking about taking stronger action than the limit raise so that 4♠ has been suggested (over pass) by the BIT. If opener passes, we can argue that responder might have been thinking about taking weaker action than the limit raise so that pass has been suggested (over 4♠) by the BIT. Using your "might have been thinking about" approach would mean that opener in this case can neither pass nor bid 4♠. Tim

That would be a shame.

Maybe because ACBL rules require it? If you're trying to follow ACBL rules, maybe you ought to just try harder. Your suggestion might as well be: have a pop up window after every call reminding the player to alert (or explain) if required.