dan_ehh

Thank you all for your answers. I appreciate all of them.

I tried searching but came up empty handed, if you can point me at a previous thread I would very much appreciate it.

Hello to all T Walsh players, I would be interested to know what method you prefer, and what are the reasons. Thanks, Dan

Thank you very much for your answers. I was declarer in this hand, and I made a tactical error in this post - I should have altered the hand so that the ♦J does not drop. These were the actual cards, so I couldn't go wrong regardless, but I honestly did not think the ♦ position was relevant. My claim statement admittedly was flawed, but the situation was so obvious. The word "spade" referred to the single discard I would be taking from dummy on the 3rd top ♦, that is why I gestured towards dummy. My opponent, a well known world class player, said the fact that the ♦ten was put on the table creates doubt, so let me emphasize the question - does anyone (other than TylerE) think I would have less tricks if the ♦J were guarded? Is there any doubt here which should be resolved against the claimer?

Hi all, [hv=pc=n&s=sa985h85dakqtck75&w=sj642ha93d9875ca3&n=skt3hkqjt76d42c84&e=sq7h42dj63cqjt962&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2h(8-11)p3nppp&p=s2s3sqsah5h3hkh4hqh2h8h9hjc9s5hacac4c2c5c3]399|300[/hv] At this point declarer says "I think I have the rest", puts the ♣K and the ♦AKQT on the table, gestures towards dummy saying "spade" (just the word). How many tricks? Thanks, Dan

Thank you all for your answers. I think this is a tough case because the laws do not provide a specific answer, and you have to be imaginative. My personal opinion is that 12A2 applies because the "no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board" criterion applies - it's true that we know the actual play, but I think this does not count as "normal play" because declarer is entitled to know what contract he is playing. I also think the auction was incomplete therefore there's no actual contract. Those who rule "table result stands" must first explain what is the table result, and why. Jallerton did a nice job and I would be inclined to agree with 2NT= for NS (and 3NT= for EW using law 23), but I understand this is not possible due to the regulations not permitting a change of call using 25B (and anyway not without the TD's supervision). Granted, declarer's partner was to blame for the infraction, but so was East - they are both equally responsible, as they both failed to transmit the auction to the other side - North by pushing the tray, East by not stopping him. Seeing as both sides are at fault, I would rule -3 to both, and maybe also a PP (but that might be overkill). I don't think ruling 3NT-1 to NS and 3NT= to EW is correct because North and East are equally at fault for the infraction which caused declarer not to be aware of the 3NT bid. If you decide to give an assigned score of 3NT, supposedly following the philosophy of "a result as close as possible to what would have happened without the infraction", then obviously this would be 3NT= for both (I intentionally did not provide the actual cards, as this is a law only problem).

Hi All, Screens are used with EU regulations. Team game. North is dealer, EW pass throughout. The auction is 1D-p-2NT-p-3NT-p*. Now, for some reason, North and East clear out their bids. The tray passes back empty to South and West. South makes exactly 8 tricks, but at the end they discover that East was defending against 3NT but West and South thought the contract was 2NT. Declarer calls TD and says he played safely for 8 tricks, but he would have played differently if he had known the contract is 3NT. The cards support Declarer's statement. 3NT was bid and made in the other table. How do you rule? Thanks, Dan

Thanks to everyone who answered. Sorry for not mentioning this earlier - this was a team match, and the other table played in 4♥ making 12 tricks. 4♥ and pass of 4NT were both the result of a blatant use of UI. North admitted to that - he said he bid 4♥ because he knew his partner did not understand the transfer (nevermind that he should be penalized for this). North did not know 4NT was intended as an answer to kickback, this was only explained by South in the presence of the director. I think that the North hand must make a slam try, because whatever 3NT means, it can't be a minimum 2♣ bid (because you bid 3♥ with that). So it has to be either a super accepting bid, or 25+ balanced (note that 2NT had no upper limit), and in both cases the North hand is too good to simply stop in game. The UI suggests not making a slam try. Some have suggested that bidding 4♥ IS a slam try, but in that case, passing 4NT is not allowed (because partner has cooperated with our slam try). If you agree with this point, then the contract might end up to be any of 3 slams (red suits or NT), or maybe even something more obscure - who knows. The UI has helped the NS pair to avoid an accident, and this shouldn't be allowed. The question then becomes, in my opinion, whether the opponents have been damaged, because obviously 6♥ can (and should) make. Cyberyeti's line looks like the normal line. The director was of the same opinion, and the decision was that the table result stands, because 6♥ can't possibly go down, so there was no damage. However, I think crediting the offending side with the correct line of play is wrong. They were a weak pair (that was obvious from the other results in the match). Why would declarer not try, for example, to find one of the minor KQs onside? Another option is to play a low ♣ or ♦ towards the ten, and if West wins an honor, then finesse East for the other honor. A 3rd option is to try to run one of the tens, hoping that East won't cover. The contract is not very good, and weak players sometimes panic when they can't see a reasonable line. All of these suggested lines are obviously inferior to Cyberyeti's line, but playing for one of them is not absurd, it gives roughly 25% chances to make. Note also that once North bids 4♥, it is no longer possible to give away the contract on the opening lead, since the other player is on lead.

Hi everybody, I would like your opinions on what should be the correct ruling: [hv=pc=n&s=saq5hak3daj7caj43&w=s9743hj2dkq953ckq&n=sk2hqt9854dt82ct8&e=sjt86h76d64c97652&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p2cp2dp2n(23+%20%5Bany%20bal%20hand%2C%20forcing%5D)p3dp3np4hp4nppp]399|300[/hv] 3♦ was intended as a transfer, but there was no alert, which is required by the Israeli alert regulations. NS claimed they have no agreement about the 3NT call. South said she thought 4♥ was kickback for ♦s (the system card confirmed they play kickback) and 4NT was the correct answer. 4NT made 12 tricks after the ♦K lead.

Thank you for the compliment. I'd like to consider myself knowledgeable, yes... As to your questions, the redouble-demanding pass is very much alertable. Whether the 2nd one (denying 3 card support) is alertable is not clear in the regulations (as far as I know). This is mainly because the regulations are not written in details anywhere visible. I personally alert it, and I think it doesn't hurt to alert. The principle of "when in doubt - alert" is strong in the IBF regulations. You're right about the doubles and redoubles - they are never alertable regardless of their meaning (another silly regulation in my opinion). I'd like to add something about announcements. As several posters already said, announcements do not violate the UI laws any more than alerts and explanations do. The difference is basically what barmar said - announcements are used in very common bidding sequences such as a 1 or 2 level opening bid, stayman, transfers, or other very simple situations. These are auctions where it's extremely unlikely that the announcement will give partner any meaningful UI. Quantumcat, do you really think someone will forget they play stayman? Or weak 2s? And in the unlikely event that someone is such a weak player that they actually do forget that 2♣ is stayman, not clubs, and the announcement wakes them up, they've probably already misbid that it won't help much, plus the director can usually determine that the announcement gave them UI and that they used it (because they'll be holding clubs, not majors, for the 2♣ bid). Finally, an interesting and very important point about the announcements: they are designed to protect the announcing side just as much as the opponents. Example: we play better minor. Occasionally, I open a 3 card minor suit, and LHO has a real suit in this denomination. He wants to overcall it, but obviously can't because that would be artificial. Under the old regulations, better minor was not alertable in Israel, so LHO would make the pseudo-cheating remark "is that really a ♣/♦ suit?" and then you'd say "promises at least 3" and they'd pass. Then their partner would magically lead the opening bid suit against 3NT... Under the new regulations, the opening bidder's partner quickly says "at least 3 cards" and the opponent has to shut up. The announcement serves to reduce UI because it negates the element of questioning the opening bid.

Then you have an argument and the director has to decide... when I have to decide, I usually don't choose, and leave them both at a=. You can call the director in the middle of the board and tell him that "this guy is taking WAYYYYY too long to play" and then he may observe and agree with you (or not) at the end. Quantumcat, I'm glad you apologized, however you are doing the same thing again. What you wrote is blatantly wrong and misleading. Alert regulations change from country to country, and since you are obviously not Israeli, you shouldn't comment on what you don't know to be true. For example, cuebids are alertable in Israel, and a 2♣ opening is an announcement. Doubles are not alertable (under any condition), but I am certain this is different in other jurisdictions.

Barmar, I don't know what is your definition of "well known", but I assure you that many LOLs in the club will never expect this bidding sequence: 1NT-Pass-2♣-Pass-2♦/2♥/2♠-Pass-Pass?!? (But stayman promises at least 8 points, doesn't it?) Quantumcat, I suggest reading and inquiring more before making such uninformed comments and observations. Additionally, I suggest improving your forum etiquette. Lastly, I think your signature is brilliant. Antrax, Time is limited in Bridge. If you need to play two boards in 15 minutes, and declarer takes 10 minutes before he plays from dummy after the opening lead on the first board, something is not right here. Commenting is not ideal, but what else can you do? Also, what paulg said is true. If you don't know what partner's bid means, you should say "I don't know" or "we don't have an agreement". True, it is not very helpful to the opponents, but that's just too bad for them. You are under no obligation to tell them what you assume the bid to mean. In fact you are under an obligation not to say so, because that is UI for your partner. Also, I have a question for you: which club is it that you play in, where they blatantly ignore the announcement procedure?

Hi, A. Stayman is an announcement in Israel as of about two years ago (maybe I'm mistaken about the timeline). The announcement procedure specifically states that the 2♣ bidder's partner should say "Stayman" out loud, as long as standard Stayman responses are employed, regardless of the point count and/or major length promised by the bid. So the answer to your first question is that your partner should not alert, he should say "Stayman", and when you bid 2♥ on your next bid he should alert and say "weak with at least 4-4 in the majors, asking me to choose". It is my personal opinion that this procedure is flawed because many players will be surprised when the Stayman response will be passed out (regardless of whether it is 2♦, 2♥ or 2♠), but that's life. B. Regarding the stop card, I would call the director in a serious tournament. You're playing in "just a club", though, so perhaps I'd comment on the pause requirement, and ask him to do better next time. If he responds negatively then I might call the director and ask to explain the rules. I'd also like to add that the 10 second pause is useful to the jump bidder's partner as well, as he can plan further bidding while the opponent pauses. Failure to pause might negate claims of UI by the side who did not pause, if the jumper's partner takes a little longer to bid. C. As blackshoe said, comments should generally be avoided. However, if someone plays very slowly, I think it's OK to ask them to hurry up a little bit (because we have another board to play). I wouldn't treat such a comment as UI. Most important, the bottom line: remember that you live in Israel. We are rude, not polite.

I had a feeling it was invented. Still, everything I said stands (except for the declarer correcting part). I don't think you can tell me to assume that "Acol means a three card club suit is possible". "Acol" is one word, "3 or more clubs" are four words. One phrase does not translate into the other. A more extreme example: "Acol" in Israel basically means a 5533 system with a strong NT. This is of course a great distortion of the original system, however the point is that convention names or system names mean different things for different people. The crux of the issue here is that your imaginary partner does not know how to provide correct explanations. This is unfortunate but it's not the imaginary opponents' problem. They deserve redress.

I think "partner has 4 ♣s" is misinformation, and the correct answer should have been "We have only played once before. We agreed to play Acol but we do not have solid agreements and misunderstandings may occur". You said so yourself, "... since we had not discussed it we have no agreement. Our agreement is to play Acol ...". If this is the answer retrospectively, it should also have been the answer at the critical moment. Actually, I think you should have corrected the explanation when you became declarer. Slight degression - Of course, this is a very big problem, because one could argue that this correction strongly implies you really do not have 4 of them and that my take basically means you have to tell them what cards you hold. However, I don't think this is true, because you should offer this correction even when you do have 4 of them. This of course leads to the other side of the problem - opponents may later claim to have been misled by the "correction". I believe there was an appeal discussing this specific matter not too long ago, which involved a top player in the states. Also a thread in this forum discussing the appeal.

Correct, because there is a crime of attempted murder. As pointed out, there appears to be no crime of attempted cheating under the Laws. There should be, it is agreed, and extending the TD powers under 12A1 could be the way. (72B1 is useless because he has not violated any law and 12A1 requires a violation as well.) This is not true. Basic criminal law says that you can be charged at attempting to commit any crime. It's called a "derived crime" (in hebrew anyway, not sure what is the English term). Same as soliciting to commit a crime is also a crime. The reason there is a specific crime titled "attempted murder" is so that the penalty for this crime can be altered. You can verify this by researching criminal law a bit. Anyway, this is irrelevant for the discussion. Sorry for going off topic. I think 72A and 72B1 are sufficient because he tried to intentionally infringe the law, but if you want, you can use 74A2. I am certain that making the opponents sweat unnecessarily in a hand which you intend to cancel later by calling the TD and explaining the UI issue, counts as an action that might cause annoyance to another player. I'd certainly be annoyed at such a comment and would immediately call the director, demanding that action be taken. No, the real reason that NS got a bad result was that East was wearing his spectacles and spotted the heart void in dummy. And how do you propose to beat it after a top club lead? I had not paid enough attention to which hand was dummy. My mistake. Also didn't notice the fact that dummy has two entries if trumps are played from the other side. And yet, the bottom line is still the same - EW got lucky with the layout of the hand. It's not against the rules to get lucky.

Cheating and attempted cheating are the Bridge world's equivalents of criminal offenses. They should be punishable regardless of their results, or lack thereof. Adjustment of a score is the equivalent of paying damages to rectify a tort. This requires the occurrence a tort, damages, and a causal link between the two. West is guilty of attempted cheating and should be penalized. If you can't find any other suitable law, then use 72A and 72B1 in conjunction with 91A. I do not buy his explanation simply because we will never know whether he was going to volunteer this information on his own without being asked about the strange lead, or whether he just hoped no one would notice the strange play and he might get away with it. This rationale should overrule any other reason to forgo the penalty, because if we skip the penalty then players will do this all the time, and some of them will undoubtedly get away with it. The score should stand, however. This is because there is no causal link between the UI (or EI) and the result. The fact that it is the wrong board breaks the causal link. The real reason NS got a bad result is that EW got lucky that east held the club ten in this board too, and didn't try to cash a heart trick before playing back the trump. This has nothing to do with the UI, it could have just as well happened if west led a top club. The crucial part is the trump switch, not the opening lead. Here is an equivalent from the legal world: I'm an assassin. I poison someone, he dies, and I get caught. After the police investigation is over and the lab report is done, it turns out that not only I'm poor at avoiding getting caught, I'm also poor at chemistry, because the "poison" I gave the victim turns out to have been apple juice. The victim is still dead, however. The post mortem suggests this is due to natural causes, a heart attack in his sleep. I am still guilty of attempted murder and will go to prison for it, but the family cannot sue me for damages because I did not cause the victim's death.

The definition of a psychic call in the laws: "A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or suit length." Bidding 5NT, unless it is intended as "to play", cannot logically mean anything other than "grand try"*, due to the game mechanics - you cannot go below it so you must go above, and since by going above you're already at the 6 level, there's no reason not to simply bid at the 6 level, unless you are possibly interested in something higher. Agreements are not part of the equations here, this is pure logic. By bidding 5NT without any grand intentions, you are pretending to explore grand slam, even though you know you have no intention of bidding it. This is a gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length. Gross, because the difference between small slam and grand slam is very big. If partner is barred from making the logical move of leaping to grand due to your agreement, this agreement sounds like a controlled psyche to me. This is very similar to making an agreement that "partner is not allowed to raise my 3rd seat favourable 1NT bid to 3NT because I might not have the promised 15-17. He must go via stayman in order to give me a chance to pass and reveal the psyche". By not bidding 3NT directly, partner is abiding by our agreement, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that the agreement is illegal. * with the exception of possible 6NT as noted above.

With the exception of Siegmund's reasoning which is explained in his post on the 2nd page, I think bidding 5NT without all the key cards in order to thwart a possible double like this is a controlled psyche and should be treated as such.

Completely agree with mrdct's first post. Especially the part about robbing declarer of the chance to squeeze west's memory. If we give EW this trick it is incentive for strong players to claim prematurely in order to avoid the chance of misdefense by their not-so-strong partners.

Completely agree with JLOGIC's post. Add my vote to 4H+1 for both sides. Maybe also a penalty for east.

Why on earth should the regulation need to specifically say that it includes the third seat? I would think rather that it applies equally to all seats unless it says otherwise. Because the bridge logic of 1st seat and the bridge logic of 3rd seat are entirely different. Different positions require different regulations (or so I believe anyway). I believe that light openings at 3rd seat cannot be classified as an agreement, because they are part of general bridge knowledge. If they cannot be classified as an agreement, they cannot be an illegal agreement. Remember that these light openings are either made for the lead, or to throw off the opponents. In which case, the implicit agreement that you might want to attribute to them is... "we may open light on 3rd seat if we wish to direct partner's lead, and sometimes we may also psyche in 3rd seat". Isn't this pretty much equal to "we play bridge"? If this suddenly becomes illegal per some interpretation of regulation, the whole game will change. Do we really want that? It is not general bridge knowledge that players ignore the regulations so it is legal: it just is not legal. And no, insisting the rules are followed does not change the game. Once again you have failed to address the main argument. The regulation which Wayne quoted says: "An opening bid at the one level that may be made on high card strength a king or more below that of an average hand (i.e., 0-7 HCP and insufficient compensating distributional values)." If you take this at face value, any player who has psyched a <8 hcp opening bid once in his or her life will never be allowed to psyche with the same partner again, because the initial psyche has created the implicit agreement that "sometimes we open with less than 8 hcp", and this agreement is illegal. A light opening in 3rd seat is just a psyche which for perfectly logical bridge reasons tends to occur at a higher frequency than other psyches. The system card had a special place for disclosure of psych tendencies. I don't see why any other measures are required.

Why on earth should the regulation need to specifically say that it includes the third seat? I would think rather that it applies equally to all seats unless it says otherwise. Because the bridge logic of 1st seat and the bridge logic of 3rd seat are entirely different. Different positions require different regulations (or so I believe anyway). I believe that light openings at 3rd seat cannot be classified as an agreement, because they are part of general bridge knowledge. If they cannot be classified as an agreement, they cannot be an illegal agreement. Remember that these light openings are either made for the lead, or to throw off the opponents. In which case, the implicit agreement that you might want to attribute to them is... "we may open light on 3rd seat if we wish to direct partner's lead, and sometimes we may also psyche in 3rd seat". Isn't this pretty much equal to "we play bridge"? If this suddenly becomes illegal per some interpretation of regulation, the whole game will change. Do we really want that?

A 3rd seat light opening is a method which is employed by a substantial percentage of the bridge world (if you can even consider this a "method"), and almost all expert players in the world. How can this be considered a highly unusual method? Isn't it common bridge knowledge that a 3rd seat openings can be light?

Bluejak, this is a forum which discusses ideas about possible changes to the laws. Bridge is a game, and in games there is nothing which is a priori correct or incorrect. The rules are revised every once in a while and there is no reason to assume this specific change is wrong. I think the same logic which prompted the law which deals with revokes at trick 12 applies here, and so I think this is a good addition. You may disagree, but you should provide a better argument than "you committed an infraction therefore you should suffer". There are quite a lot of infractions which do not lead to any penalties and in my opinion leading out of turn at trick 13 should be one of them. Also, I would like to remind you that "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. " (I'm sure you recognise the quote)