david_c

This hand was from a teams of eight competition; at the three other tables N/S were allowed to play in 4♠, but their auctions probably started differently. [hv=d=s&v=n&n=sj74h9dkqjt85cj72&w=s653hq842d32cq865&e=sahkjtda976cak943&s=skqt982ha7653d4ct]399|300|Scoring: XIMP[/hv] I bid 4♠ then 5♠, doubled for -100. Both 4♠ and 5♣ are one off double-dummy, but you have to find the ♥A lead to set 5♣, while everyone who was in spades made 10 tricks.

I hate 2♥ - it's not just the rubbish suits that are the problem, it's the good support for partner's diamonds.

[hv=d=s&v=n&s=skqt982ha7653d4ct]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You open 1♠, partner raises to 2♠ and RHO overcalls 3♣. What's your call? What do you plan to do if LHO then bids 5♣, passed back round to you?

That would put the TD in a rather difficult position, and he should probably refuse to answer: he is not able to give a "final" ruling at this point, since rulings are supposed to be made after proper thought and consultation, and his initial impression may well be wrong.

Hmm ... I don't like it ... even if all the rumours were false, everything we've heard from official sources suggests they are taking it far more seriously than I think is appropriate.

I totally agree with what Fred wrote. An apology was needed, but the punishment reported here (the second version seems more believable) is disproportionate.

If this West hand is not a diamond raise, I want to change the system.

No problem: we can just say "if you make a pre-emptive jump raise, you may not make any conventional calls for the rest of the session." :) Seriously, as others have said, at the moment if authorities really want to ban something they can always find a way around the restriction. And some of them just ignore it completely, which is illegal, but they don't seem to care. So this "change" to the Laws doesn't allow NBOs to do anything that they weren't doing already. Personally I think it is right that these things should be decided at local level.

Acol tends to allow for a lot of flexibility and judgement rather than rigid rules; a rule such as "raising clubs denies a 4-card major" sounds very un-Acol-like to me. So I don't think the raise denies 4 spades in "standard" (though local standards might vary). Personally I am a big believer in raising on this type of hand. If the deal is competitive or a part-score then you almost certainly belong in clubs. Bidding spades first makes it more difficult to get this across. (For example if you bid 3♣ later partner may play you for a better hand.) And your hand is weak enough that if the deal is a game for your side, partner must have enough strength to bid again, and then you will get the chance to show spades when it's right to do so. I bid 2♣ at any form of scoring, though I agree I am happier at IMPs.

Yeah. I can't remember why I went for different IDs, maybe I didn't want all the forumers to notice how bad I really am at this game :P

Thanks :P

With my first regular partner we had to work it out for ourselves, and we thought that this scheme was the most intuitively obvious: - direct 3NT = to play - 2NT then 3NT = no-trumpy hand but needs partner to help with the stopper - direct cue = 4 spades, no stop - 2NT then cue = 4 spades with a stop This still seems intuitively right to me. Possibly this is because the meanings of 3NT and the cue-bid are the same as they would be if we were playing old-fashioned methods without Lebensohl. But people kept telling me it was inconsistent. :lol:

This strikes me a a significant change. One that I think is a step in the wrong direction. But, as Richard pointed out in another thread, many authorities currently use a "fudge" to get around the restriction, by disallowing conventional continuations (which in most cases makes the agreement virtually unplayable) rather than disallowing the bid itself. So this Law change won't really make much difference in practice. Actually I think this change is a very good thing. The current restriction on SOs just led to a lot of tedious lawyering, both on the part of the SOs themselves (by trying to get around it) and by some trouble-making players (who, faced with SO regulations that they didn't like, either tried to get the regulations ruled illegal, or ignored them and claimed that they had legal justification for doing so).

You missed this very important one: 64: The revoke penalties have been changed: if the revoker does not win the revoke trick then the penalty is always one trick. [strictly speaking they're not called penalties any more.] Also a couple which are rather less important, but were a pain in the old lawbook: 25B2 (allowing intentional changes of call) has been effectively deleted. 40: The "regulating authority" can now allow/disallow any partnership understanding, regardless of whether it is conventional.

Technically, a singleton from dummy can be 'considered played', so dummy can do this. Law 45 F: After dummy's hand is faced, dummy may not touch or indicate any card (except for the purpose of arrangement) without instruction from declarer. I am not aware of there being any exception for singletons. If you think there is an exception, perhaps you could provide a reference?

This was explained as an BBO Indy tournament. This means that the opponents would have been present for any system discussion that took place. Sorry, yes, you're right. Please ignore that part of what I said. :P This thread still worries me. I don't think it's right to condemn the TD when we don't even know what his ruling was. Also, you don't get chucked out of a tourney just for losing a ruling. I suspect that this player's behaviour was less than perfect. If the TD actually chucked a player out for no reason at all, then this is a much more serious error than simply getting a ruling wrong.

We haven't been told what the TD actually said. Of course if he said "you have to say what you intended 2♦ to mean" then that is wrong. But perhaps that isn't exactly what he said. The opponents are entitled to know what agreements you do have, for example whether you have agreed a basic system. If you've not discussed system at all, then opponents are entitled to know that's what's going on. We also don't know why the player was chucked out of the tourney.

1NT or 2♥. I don't understand 1♠: when partner bids hearts we're much more likely to belong in hearts than in spades. Bidding 1♠ seems to bury the heart suit, for example if partner bids 2♣ now.

Agree with Matt, but I have always called them undisclosed. That's perhaps a bad term because it suggests that I know what splinter partner has but I just won't tell the opponents. ;) It's unspecified. :P

Maybe that's the problem. I'd get 98 if that was true. But that's not what it says: it says the "others" get to vote. So with two remaining there is no plan which gets accepted. That's why I didn't start with it.

Dammit I get 97. Can someone explain what I've done wrong here: with three remaining: -, -, 100, 0, 0 with four remaining: -, 98, 0, 1, 1 with five remaining: 97, 0, 1, 2, 0 or 97, 0, 1, 0, 2.

I'll believe that when I see it :P When I wrote to the EBU asking about one of their regulations, the reply came with a very clear disclaimer saying, "Advice given here does not replace a TD's ruling." Similarly in the ACBL, even if a TD was shown a copy of this email, he wouldn't be bound to follow what is suggested. In my opinion the 2♦ bid is permitted according to the regulations as written, and I would be prepared to rule as such.

No. The WBFLC says: If an insufficient bid is substituted before the Director has explained the options the premature correction is cancelled. LHO, if he so wishes, may accept the original insufficient bid but not the premature correction. Otherwise the Director explains his options to the offender and allows him to select his action.

Richard only quoted the first page of the editorial. It goes on: c. Many countries feel that the conditions imposed by the WBF for hosting a World Championship are too onerous, which is perhaps why no suitable candidate has stepped forward for next year’s World Youth Teams. Our view is that the WBF must try to make it more financially viable for countries outside Europe and North America to host such events. So far, we have had one each in Indonesia, Brazil, Australia and Thailand, and the other seven in Europe and North America. Japan, China, South Africa, Egypt, Argentina and Chile are all potential hosts with active bridge communities. d. As for individual behaviour, it is one’s demeanour at the table and behaviour toward partner, opponents, NPC and teammates which is important, not a few youthful highjinks. We seniors sometimes forget how we acted in our youth. Besides, what one does in the privacy of one’s own home (or hotel room, by extension) is no one else’s business, as long as it does not adversely affect others, or the player’s performance at the table. e. The EBL and WBF must step in quickly to find a replacement for Panos Gerontopoulos. Gianarrigo Rona (Italy), Andrea Pagani (Italy) and Stefan Back (Germany) are the most-often mentioned possibilities. It does seem that the Chairman of the WBF Youth Committee must come from Europe, at least until the other Zones catch up to Europe in Junior Bridge activity, numbers and sophistication. One further point: a successful youth programme must have both a grass-roots component (of which the Junior Camps are a part) and an elite component. We must bring large numbers of young people into the game, while at the same time providing competition for the most talented of these. If we do not, bridge will die out everywhere but Poland, the Netherlands and Indonesia.

That's a little different. When there is a dispute about whether there has been a hesitation, the committee will rarely overrule the director's decision, since this is one of those things where "you had to be there". So if you believe that there was not a hesitation, you have to try to persuade the TD of this; if it goes to an AC you have virtually no chance of overturning the TD's decision unless he made some glaring error.