Trinidad

My ideas about the American views on guns are probably known here. But let me say this from a completely different perspective: If I would be the shooter, I would feel incredibly bad, since I made a big mistake. My big mistake is that I gave the carjacker the opportunity to get at me, close enough for me to lose control of the situation. (If I would have had control of the situation, I would have shot in the leg, the man would still live and I probably still would feel bad, wondering if there wouldn't have been a way to avoid injuring the guy.) Ordinary citizens (which includes me) are bound to make these kinds of mistakes in these situations. That is a good reason to only allow people who are trained for these kind of situations (i.e. the police) to use fire arms against other people. (I think that the police could certainly use a little more training too, but at least they have had some, or that's the idea.) Rik

Good point. It's vacation here. I probably hadn't switched my brain on yet and had overlooked the part that the claimer wasn't on lead. Either way, I agree with Cyberyeti that this was a claim and that the aces were not penalty cards. Rik

Not when the opening leader has claimed the first two tricks (and conceded the rest). Rik

I think those are all the relevant facts. Where do you see any suspicion for an irregularity by North? All I see is an accusation by West, which can easily be understood by the natural assumption that West didn't realize he had led out of turn. But to anybody who realizes West led out of turn, there is no reason to suspect any irregularity by North. North has been thinking for a few seconds. Well, North is allowed to think for a few seconds if he has a bridge reason. Did he have a bridge reason? Yes. So, no irregularity. End of story. Rik

Perhaps everybody else in the forum realizes from the description given that North does have a decision to make and that therefore a hesitation is expected. They also realize that when North reacts exactly as he is expected to do, we don't have any reason to suspect that he is performing some kind of act to attempt to mislead declarer. And if we don't have any reason to suspect an irregularity by North, there is little reason to ask him for his motives. (Though lots of posts ago someone was already suggesting that it might be wise to ask North why it took him some time to play to the trick... Just to be sure. I would certainly not be against that. And, yes, in the unlikely case that North should happen to say: "I hesitated to make declarer think that I had QJ." then we adjust. But we don't even think of adjusting as soon as North starts with anything that sounds like: "Well err... I thought he was in dummy" or "It was a lead out of turn and " or "I somehow didn't expect that I would be on play already" or "I was considering my options" or "I was wondering what to do" or "I was thinking of calling the TD" or ...) A few years ago they past a law in the Netherlands that required everybody over 14 years to carry an ID. The police (or other authorities) are not allowed to ask for an ID, unless they have a good reason to know your identity (or age). IMO, but this is an opinion, TDs should go about the same way when it comes to asking players about their thought processes or motives. As a TD, we do not ask North for his thought processes or motives, just because they might give us information. We need to have a good reason. In this case that good reason would be a suspicion of an irregularity. From the description in the OP I don't see any reason to suspect North of an irregularity. I can see that anybody who overlooked the LOOT will see lots of reasons to suspect an irregularity, but as soon as the LOOT is in the picture all suspicions are gone. North has been behaving exactly as we expected him to. Of course, it is entirely possible that North was hesitating in an attempt to mislead declarer, just like it is entirely possible that the South player at the next table used UI. But there is no indication whatsoever that the South player at the next table used UI, so we are not going over to ask him some questions. In a similar way, there is no indication whatsoever that this North was hesitating to mislead declarer. So there is no reason to ask any questions. Rik

This gets us back to the questions I asked before and that you didn't answer: What are North's options? How much time does it take North to realize what options he has? How much time does it take North to choose from one of the options? All together, we expect that this will take North several seconds. So North has a good bridge reason for a hesitation of several seconds. That means that the reasons for North's hesitation are not only known to himself. No, the whole world knows the reason - the good bridge reason - for the hesitation. There is only one person who doesn't know the reason for the hesitation. He doesn't see the reason since he would not hesitate himself in that situation. After all, he would instantaneously tell declarer that he is in dummy ... err... I mean instantaneously call the TD ... or?? ... was it now telling declaring he's in dummy? ... or ... perhaps graciously (or inattentively) accept the lead?!? ... or would he anyway think about law 53A? ... Anyway... err ... whatever he does ... it would be instantaneous ... somehow. Rik

As a player, you can play and win using any legal way you prefer. But that is of very little relevance here. As a TD it is your job to apply the laws, not to impose your opinions on how to play and win in bridge. That means that it is simply wrong to adjust the score with the sole argument that North chooses to play and win in bridge in a way different from yours. Our cultures have nothing to do with it. Adjusting the score is wrong in Dutch culture, in American culture, in Inuit culture and it is just as wrong in Norwegian culture. It is wrong for one simple reason: There is no basis for it in the laws. Rik

Ben E. King

You may consider it good bridge to simply reject all the other options that you have on autopilot. To me it is equivalent to always following suit with your highest card: You can do that in a split second, but it doesn't have anything to do with good bridge. Most other players would like to consider ways to take advantage of the extra options that they are offered. This is entirely legal (Law 10C3) and there is nothing unethical about that. The, probably for you unexpected, consequence of this is that there is nothing particularly ethical or commendable about your refusal to use the LOOT to your advantage. (Nor is it unethical.) Considering other options than the one you choose on autopilot will take some time. That is a bridge reason for thinking a few seconds which means that North did not commit any irregularity. And that should be the end of this entertaining story. Rik

Please refrain from references to gentleman like behavior. It is so ... ungentlemanly. To answer your question: This is a standard example. The hesitation with a small doubleton is considered an attempt to mislead. Why? Because any player with a tiny bit of experience will know in a fraction of a second (and probably already before the opponent led to the trick) which of the two cards he should play. So, having to decide which of the two small cards to play is not a valid bridge reason to think. It is a situation that comes up routinely (many times per club night) and will not truly present any difficulty. Look how big the difference with this situation is: Something unexpected happens. North needs to make a decision half a trick earlier than he expected. North ends up in a non-routine situation. North does have a genuine decision to make. He is suddenly presented with an array of new options. His choice is not between two trivial options (play the 6 or the 2), he has several options. In some options, he will have additional options after he has chosen his initial option. In fact, North might already need time to realize how many options he actually has! He needs to realize his legal obligations and his legal opportunities. Finally, he needs to answer the question: "What am I going to do?" In your small doubleton example, the player doesn't have a genuine decision to make. He has no valid bridge reason to think. In the actual case, North does have a genuine (and, I must say, pretty complex) decision to make. That is a very valid bridge reason to think. Let me ask you three simple questions: You are defending. You won your own opening lead. You think for a while and decide to continue the suit. As expected, this is ruffed in dummy. Declarer leads a small heart from his hand. What are your options? Which one do you choose? How much time does it take you to answer questions 1 and 2? I would think that the sum (your answer to question 3 + the time you need to realize that declarer led from the wrong hand) is at least "a few seconds". This is the time North needed, not time that he hesitated. Rik

You have quoted law 73D2 a few times, but you fail to read it. Of course, West was misled. Everybody here believes West's claim that North's short pause misled him into believing that North could not have a singleton queen. (Because everybody recognizes that West failed to realize that his LOOT caused the pause.) But whether West was misled is utterly irrelevant. What is relevant is whether North attempted to mislead West. And there is zero evidence for that because North had good bridge reasons to think. Rik

Why? Is there any law that forces North to tell the table what bridge reason he had to think? You don't have any evidence that North hesitated his play of a singleton, so please stop saying he did. He thought what to do about the LOOT. His excellent bridge reasons, as I have said before, are that he needs to choose whether he would: treat the LOOT as a correct lead wait for his partner to decide something call the TD You make it perfectly clear that in addition to these, North probably needs some time to reflect on what his rights and obligations are. I mean, if the BBF laws forum members cannot agree on what North's rights and obligations are, then how is North supposed to know that in a fraction of a second? Seen in this light, it seems like a miracle that North was able to make his decisions within a few seconds, rather than a few days of internet discussion. Rik

You need to read all the enhancements you made to law 73D2, particularly the one that is most relevant: Do you have any evidence (at all) that North was attempting to mislead an opponent? Or might it just be that North, despite his singleton, had a list of excellent bridge reasons to think what he c/w/should do? I would say the latter and that North did have quite a bit to think about. In this situation, your suggestion to "make it clear that you hesitated by mistake ("sorry I had nothing to think about")" is much closer to a violation of law 73D2 (very first example in the long list): .North did have a lot to think about and if he would say he didn't, he would be lying. If declarer says that he concluded from such a remark that accepting the LOOT must have been a no-brainer for North, and that North, hence, must have been very happy with the LOOT, I will certainly grant him that he was misled by North's remark. Rik

NO. Law 53A goes much further than that. It gives the NOS the option to act as if nothing happened. (He "may treat the LOOT as a correct lead".) Of course, the player can call the TD. I never said he couldn't. You claimed the only correct procedure would be to call the TD. That claim is incorrect. It is entirely correct procedure to treat the LOOT as a correct lead and play to the trick. (Law 53A) Why? Is there any obligation for a player to tell his opponent what he was thinking about? The only requirement is that he had a bridge reason. And, for the record, it is NOT illegal to hesitate with a singleton. (Or, if you think it is, please quote the relevant law.) It is illegal to hesitate when you don't have a bridge reason for your hesitation. That is a big difference. Normally that makes it illegal to hesitate with a singleton because you don't have a bridge reason to think when there is only one action you could take (play your singleton). But this isn't a normal case and the big difference becomes very relevant. In this case, though North has a singleton, there are several actions he can take. One of these actions (giving partner the opportunity to draw attention to the irregularity) can in itself be considered a hesitation. So, North has a bridge reason to think whether he should: play the Q draw attention to the irregularity and call the TD wait a while to give partner the opportunity to draw attention to the irregularity (and when partner doesn't do anything choose 1. or 2.) And since he has a bridge reason and bridge is a thinking game, North has simple not committed any irregularity. It would be horrible to adjust the score in favor of EW if neither North nor South has committed an irregularity. Rik

I think there should be some room between "harmful use of alcohol" and "prohibition". Rik

Nowhere does law 53A indicate that the correct procedure is to summon the TD. Or do you have another law book then the one on the WBF website? So, if you are going to accept the LOOT, you do not need to call the TD (or even draw attention to the irregularity). It is entirely correct procedure to play to the trick (as North did here). That is not merely "protecting an inattentive North". It gives North an option: He may treat the LOOT as a correct lead. And you do not need to call the TD for a correct lead. So, your statement that the correct procedure is to summon the TD is wrong. The TD only needs to be summoned if the LOOT is not treated as a correct lead. Rik

I read the OP differently. (And I may be wrong.) I understood that the 2♥ bid was not a Multi type bid. The CoC were such that the 2♥ opening was allowed to show any specific weak two, i.e. in a known suit, but not necessarily in hearts. In addition, both a natural weak two in hearts and a weak two in a specific other suit were alertable. The OP needed to ask about the 2♥ bid because he wanted to know whether it was a weak two in hearts, or whether it was a weak two in some other (but known) suit. Rik

Actually, this is another fine hand for the famous Trinidad 2♦. The auction simply goes: 2♦1-4♠2 1Trinidad 2♦ opening, promising exactly: ♠KT2 ♥K9832 ♦A3 ♣K96 2Responder places the contract. Notice how the defenders are kept in the dark about declarer's hand, one of the major advantages of the Trinidad 2♦ opening. The South hand is also perfect for psyching a Tobago 2♦ opening. (You probably know this already, but for the sake of completion I will say that a Tobago 2♦ opening promises: ♠KT3 ♥K9832 ♦A3 ♣K96.) Again, the good contract of 4♠ is reached, played by the hidden hand and the opponents have been tricked about dummy's trump strength, which can't be bad. Seriously, for every hand there is a system that works well for that hand (but not so well for others). Sometimes a weak NT works well, and sometimes a strong NT works well, and sometimes it doesn't really matter. But let's just bid the hands according to the system that the OP has given, perhaps unless we really think that his system is completely unplayable. Rik

That is simply not true. If North decides to accept the lead, he does not have to call the TD. Yes, there was an irregularity. But, no, attention had not been drawn to it. North only needs to call the TD once attention has been drawn to the irregularity. And Law 53A is very specific: North has the option of treating the lead from declarer's hand as a correct lead. And for a correct lead you certainly don't need to call the TD. Nobody can force North to tell West that he just committed an irregularity. If North thinks it is (or potentially could be) to his advantage to hide that information from West, North is allowed to keep quiet. In addition, Law 55 gives South some options too, so North is allowed to give South the opportunity to exercise any of his options (accepting the lead, rejecting the lead, drawing attention to the irregularity). So, North has many options: Accept the lead, without drawing attention to the LOOT Wait for South to do something, without drawing attention to the LOOT Draw attention to the LOOT and call the TD (and then choose one of the options) One of these options already requires some pause. And remembering what your options are and having to decide between them is definitely a bridge reason for a short pause (the few seconds as reported in the OP). A similar situation, but even clearer, occurs when an opponent revokes. Nobody says that you have to draw attention to the revoke. You can just play on and let the revoke become established, with all the consequences. You can just let your opponents think that they beat your contract one trick and then call the TD to point out that your opponent revoked and end up with an overtrick in the end. In certain circumstances, you can even plan a two-way finesse in such a way that the revoker will win the trick if the finesse loses (which means that you will get the trick back). Rik

You will have to tell declarer your agreements. And your agreement was "the usual stuff". So you will have to tell him that and you can add "But it seems what is usual for my partner is not usual for me". Rik

I probably have missed something. Who said that the opponents are not entitled to an adjustment? Of course the opponents are entitled to an adjustment. But the adjustment is not because there was no agreement. The adjustment is for the MI that there was an agreement (and the resulting damage). Rik

I certainly didn't mean to imply that it was of great relevance that they thought they were playing "Widget". But the question was "What are the opponents entitled to know?" (not "What would be relevant?"). And they are entitled to know that piece of trivia. Rik

I think I gave my opinion on your question in post #64. The post that you now replied to was a reply to Frances's post which actually was about alerting. Rik

I don't agree with the idea that "no agreement" means "do not alert", because it seems that this bid came in a situation where the opponents expect an agreement that the bid is natural. Suppose two players agree to play "T-Walsh". Unfortunately, one of them has never heard of "T-Walsh" and thinks/assumes that it is the same as "Walsh" and they start to play. On board 2, he opens 1♣ and his partner responds 1♥ (meaning to show his four spades). Opener thinks that it shows hearts and doesn't alert. Without an alert, the whole world will assume that they have an agreement that 1♥ showed hearts when in fact the agreement is that they disagree about the meaning of 1♥. I would think that the unexpected lack of agreement on the meaning of 1♥ deserves an alert. When the opponents ask, or for the purpose of an AS, the correct explanation would be "We have no agreement what it shows. It shows a four card major, but we disagree on which one it shows.". If the opponents bid 1♣-1♥ against you without alerts, and you would nevertheless, ask for the meaning of 1♥, would you ever expect that explanation? I think you would fall of your chair if this would happen. Rik

Ok. I agree that the two are different. But it is a little bit difficult to "rule in the dark" without getting to see what the actual problem is. And it is silly to add complexity when it is not clear that this complexity is needed. But since it is, I will clarify my position: The non-offenders are entitled to the agreement, which for me means: everything the Widgeteers ("happen to") agree on knowing that they have no agreements on anything else So, they are entitled to know that: they play Widget they don't agree what it means. If they agree on parts of Widget, then the non-offenders are entitled to the parts that they agree on. An example: A= "a two-suiter with spades and a minor" B= "a two-suiter with spades and a red suit" The non-offenders are entitled to know: It is a two-suiter. One of the suits will be spades. The second suit is ambiguous, by agreement. The players disagree which suits this second suit might be, but they agree that they would use the bid for a spade-diamond two-suiter. They have no further agreements. (For the purpose of assigning an AS) they are not entitled to know who of the two Widgeteers (the bidder or his partner) thought what. Rik