Trinidad

So, more information emerges: It wasn't Junker who said it. It was the Times who wrote that "Brussels said...." Any European who has been paying attention in school would know that "Brussels" (or the European Commission or the President of the European Commission or the European Parliament) doesn't have the power to decide on such matters. Since not everybody on BBF went to school in Europe, here are some quick Q&A's: Who in Europe can then decide on such matters? The European Council of Ministers can. Who are these people? These are the relevant cabinet ministers of each EU country. Each country (that includes the UK) has a veto right. So, "Brussels" can only determine that the UK has to accept some number of migrants (as an aside: the EU is talking about refugees, rather than migrants, which is a big difference) if the UK government agrees on it. So to put it very straight: Cameron can simply say "NO"? Indeed, he can just say "NO". Will saying "NO" have any consequences for the UK? Well... err... those countries who want Cameron to say "YES" could then decide to say "NO" to things that the UK would like them to say "YES" to. So the UK would loose some credit, goodwill, or bargaining power, but other than that there are no consequences. Rik

Ah. Now, we are getting somewhere... And Jean-Claude Junker has the power to decide that the UK has to accept tens of thousands immigrants from across the Mediterranean? Does he? No, he doesn't. He is allowed to voice his opinion, and his opinion probably matters more than yours or mine. But he has no power whatsoever to determine what the UK must do. Rik

Oh, since when can the EU speak? I asked who told the UK this? What person was it? Or was it a majority in European parliament? The council of prime ministers? A European commissioner perhaps? Which one? He has the power to tell the UK a lot of nonsense, e.g. that the UK has to accept tens of thousands of immigrants from across the Mediterranean. Rik

Talking about nice use of a passive sentence... Just out of curiosity: By whom has the UK been told? By Nigel Farage? Rik

But you don't need law 40 for that. Law 16 and 73A already take care of it. Rik

I know that and you know that. But the fact is that this law is somehow written in the law book. It clearly isn't needed for the situation where we ask or answer a question. Those cases are covered by UI laws. So, it must be needed for the situations where the opponents ask or answer a question. That means two cases are left: When the opponents ask a question I think it would be a very good idea to forbid a pair to vary their agreements depending on questions asked by their opponents. When the opponents answer a question We both agree that it would be too silly for words if you are not allowed to vary your agreements depending on the opponent's answer to your question. And I don't believe for a second that the lawmakers intended to disallow that. But if lawmakers really intended to only forbid varying agreements depending on questions asked by opponents, then why didn't they write it like that? Why did they specifically include the possibility to forbid varying agreements depending on answers given by opponents? They could have simple left out the "response" part: Why did they put it in? What am I not seeing? Rik

No, neither pass, nor 4♠ is the suggested action. It is not true that they might be suggested. Neither one of them is. Partner's pause might be caused by partner considering a GF raise and it might be caused by partner considering a simple raise. But the fact that partner's pause might be caused by A or B doesn't mean that this pause might suggest pass or might suggest 4♠. The pause itself does not suggest pass over 4♠ or the other way around*. Only if partner, in addition to the pause, would put on his "I am overbidding"-face or his "I am underbidding"-face then the UI is suggesting something. Rik * But we need to keep the case simple and only consider 4♠ and pass.

To me this looks more like Magic Diamond than Fantunes. (And I like Magic better than this "Modified Fantunes" system.) Rik

Isn't "answer" the same as "response"? I agree that it obviously should be allowed to play: double as takeout after 1♣ - Pass - 1♥* - * alerted, asked and with a response of "Walsh, natural, could have longer diamonds". double as showing hearts after 1♣ - Pass - 1♥* - * alerted, asked and with a response of "T-Walsh, showing spades, could have longer diamonds". I also think it was never the intention of the lawmakers to disallow that. However, law 40B3 makes it possible for the RA to disallow it. To vary your agreements depending on your own question or your own response is already disallowed in so many other ways. It doesn't seem necessary to write it once more in Law 40B3. So, it is hard to understand why the lawmakers wrote Law 40B3 I think they could (and should) specifically disallow to vary your agreements depending on a question by the opponents. I must add that the only time that I have really encountered this is in the play. Some defenders signal religiously, but stop signalling as soon as declarer asks about their carding. Some will actually start signalling the opposite "to mislead declarer". However, since they have been playing with this partner for ages, partner will know that the signals have been reversed. He will return the suit (with success) that partner just told him not to lead. And the explanation will be: "This seemed like an obvious situation to mislead declarer." I think it can't hurt to specifically disallow this practice. Rik

So, if I pass in a situation where I am close to 100% certain that I will get another turn to bid, this pass suddenly means that I am willing to defend? And it must also mean that I am still willing to defend when the opponents have found a fit and stop in 2♦? Some people use an initial pass to limit their hand. It gives them the freedom to take aggressive action later in the auction. No matter how aggressive they get, partner will not play them for values. If you play this style, the North hand isn't merely worth a balancing 2♠ bid, but at MPs (which this isn't I am aware) would even be worth a double if the opponents would go on to 3♦. The initial pass makes it clear to partner that you won't have close to an opening hand. Rik

The overcall is a matter of style. With some of my partners I will overcall, with other (equally good) partners I won't. The balancing action is a matter of life and death. If I'm alive I will balance, if I am dead I won't. Rik

Would you bid 3♠ with that South hand (at favorable vul, at IMPs)? If my partner would bid 3♠, I would call the TD and tell him that my partner's 3♠ bid was insufficient. ;) Rik

I think that the hesitation could demonstrably suggest bidding (or doubling) over passing. But I cannot see that passing would be an LA. Rik

The textbook lead is a trump. Unfortunately, we don't have any of those, but partner probably does. So let's get him in. I would try the ♥9. (I think the opponents are less likely to be void in hearts than in clubs.) Rik

It seems to make more sense to reverse those: Not accepting the insufficient bid makes all doubles for penalty. (They will usually make the bid sufficient and you will score an extra undertrick.) Accepting the insufficient bid makes all doubles for takeout. (You will have more bidding room to use.) Rik

Ok. I can understand that after: 1NT-(1♥...2♥)- I will have to play whatever I would have played after 1NT-(2♥)- (e.g. Lebensohl) I can follow a line of reasoning (though I do not necessarily agree) that after 1NT-(1♥)- I am not allowed have an agreement to a different meaning for the bids of 2♠ and higher. (They have to be Lebensohl too.) However, I don't have any agreements about: 1♠ 1NT since these bids would not have been available to me without the irregularity. Suppose that I write the following method in my system book: I could even write: How am I then varying my methods depending on the irregularity? I could argue that the method is the same whether there is an irregularity or not. It's just that part of my method isn't available to me when the opponents are uncooperative and play by the rules. ;) Rik

So, in short, no matter how we interpret the process of playing a card from dummy which would be a revoke, all roads lead to the same conclusion: Dummy does not need to play the revoke card: If the designation and the play are different actions, then not playing the revoke card is preventing an irregularity, one of dummy's rights. If the designation and play are the same action, then dummy is allowed to ask declarer whether dummy fails to follow suit. (Mycroft) So, dummy does not need to sit idle and play the revoke card. And if these two arguments would not be convincing, we still have the law that following suit is more important than any other law. (Pran) That is very fortunate, since it fits well with the practice in clubs and tournaments. Rik

So, to summarize what the choir thinks (or sings): Declarer plays a card from dummy by designating it.* (45B) A played card cannot be changed, not even when it was played inadvertently. A card that was played "by designation" can be changed but only if it was designated inadvertently. (45C4b) Did I summarize that correctly? Rik * This means that the designation and play are, in essence "one action", not two different ones. It also means that a designation is a play and not a request for or announcement of a play.

I will refer to your own conclusion in the recent thread: The "preaching to the choir" refers to Denny pointing out (with the aid of WBF Chief TD Laurie Kelso) in the post immediately above yours that designating a card and playing a card are two different things: I emphasized the word "wishing". If you say that Denny was preaching to the choir then that meant that you thought he was writing this to a BBF forum of people who all agreed with him that designating a card and playing a card are different things. (e.g. A played card cannot be taken back (Denny's case), but an inadvertantly designated card does not need to be played (Law 45C4b).) I certainly agree with the conclusion that Denny was preaching to the choir since I have rarely seen such unanimity on BBF. Rik

Dummy will not be able to prevent declarer's irregularity of designating the spade from dummy. That irregularity has already taken place and cannot be prevented anymore. But dummy is allowed to prevent declarer from playing the card if playing it would be an irregularity. Remember that declarer is only forced to play the designated csrd if it is a legal play (and he intended to play it). And the play of the card is still in the future and can be prevented. Technically, the way for dummy to handle this would be to say: "It would be an irregularity to play a spade. I am preventing you from playing it." Dummy should not point out that the designation was wrong. That would be drawing attention to an irregularity that had already happened. Rik

Dummy may be dummy, but that doesn't stop him from being a player. And each player must follow suit. Furthermore, even agents are supposed to follow the law. Furthermore, as we have discussed extensively recently, declarer's designation of a card is not the same as the play of a card. So, when declarer leads a club from hand and calls for a spade from dummy, dummy is not supposed to commit an irregularity by actually playing the spade. Of course, dummy is not allowed to participate in the play, but he can point out that it would be an irregularity if he would follow declarer's orders. Rik

I can assure you that this is not universal. Police officers in the Netherlands are instructed to stand still and aim for the legs in most situations, even if the situation might be life threatening. About a year or so ago, a Dutch police officer was convicted for not following this instruction (which had resulted in him killing someone). The outcome of the investigation was that the police officer had every reason to shoot, but not the way he did it. I would think that here it would be very difficult to commit suicide by COP: You'll get properly injured, but the probability that you are getting killed is small. Rik

This shows the wrong way to think. It is not about the training how to use guns. Any moron can learn how to maintain a gun, keep it clean, store it safely, load it, aim and pull the trigger, and do that in a safe way. It's not rocket science. It's about training how to keep your cool in a stressful situation, a situation that could develop into a situation where someone ends up dead. An analogy: Most adults will be able to learn how to drive a car. - Most adults will be able to learn how to fire a gun. To drive that car in traffic, you will need additional training. - To use that gun safely when hunting, you will need additional training. To use a car in high-speed police chase requires even more training. - To use a gun to stop a criminal requires even more training. An ordinary citizen is not trained on how to deal with criminals. He doesn't know how criminals think and how they might behave. A properly trained police officer does know that and knows procedures that are designed to prevent anybody from getting killed. Putting an untrained, ordinary citizen with a gun in a dangerous stressful situation is pretty silly, IMnsHO. Rik

I would bid neither of those, I would get to game. Rik

The correct explanation is perhaps: "We do have an agreement, even a special agreement, but we disagree on what the agreement is." Rik