chrism

There is another possibility for what is going on (though I don't think it is material to the legal question). I perpetrated this one myself a decade or so ago: 1♠ - Pass - 3♣ - Pass I alerted 3♣ and correctly explained it as a 4-card constructive spade raise. I then thought to myself "I have no interest in game; we are as high as we need to be" ... PASS Partner played 3♣ very nicely (and graciously) for down 3 :) So it is possible that opener has remembered the agreement but misfired a couple of synapses before rebidding. This is not quite jallerton's possibility (iii) since it isn't a mechanical error.

The board is now unplayable with both sides at fault. -3 IMPs to both sides, score the match asymmetrically, assuming that the league is scored by something like VPs - in a head-to-head KO, just cancel the board, with or without a substitute board depending on Conditions of Contest.

No, just you. A few years ago we played the Nickell team in the first (and, for us, last) round of the Spingold. Meckwell were at the other table and at one point about 3 rounds of bidding into the auction, Rodwell alerted and explained on the lines of "I'm not sure what that is - it isn't in our notes".

The correct form of the request is "Director, it's my round - what are you having?"

To see that "when" does not necessarily imply "instantly after", compare Law 41A: After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down. Would anyone seriously argue that it is an infraction of this law for a defender to think after the final pass before selecting a lead? Or is there a material difference between the "after" in this law and the "when" in 65A?

There are web movements for an odd number of tables and even number of board sets but they are hard to manage and need to be constructed ad hoc - essentially you first find a bump sequence that works for adding a roving NS pair, and then add an appendix table with stationary EW where the bumped pair goes to play, relaying boards with the table they just got booted from. The comment made by local director Michael Carroad in his notes on web movements, referring to the odd-table 24-board movements, is "The only time these movements should be used are for events meriting technical superiority such as the finals of the Blue Ribbon Pairs or the WBL Unit Game." :-) I have a fairly complete set of 24-board appendix webs, and bump web movements for accommodating late arrivals, in ACBLscore's EDMOV format, if anyone would like them.

In a local Regional recently, a defender smartly gained 4 tricks by holding up for 2 rounds with her singleton Jack. The tricks were duly restored to declarer as described above.

True in a head-to-head match, but not necessarily in a three-way (either one or two survivors). This situation actually arose several years ago in a Gatlinburg Regional. I had a brain misfire and gave a ruling from which we deemed that there was no recovery (indeed, it was barring the wrong partner after an opening bid out of turn). We awarded +3 IMPs to each side; the net effect of this could have been that the third team in the KO, who were completely uninvolved in the ruling might have been eliminated (in fact, happily, the margins were such that the error had no effect on the outcome). For example, in a 3-way, 2-survivor round: A beats B by 2, C beats A by 1, and after an adjustment for director's error B is +4 and C is +2 in the B-C match. So A has 1 win, B has 1 win, and C has 2 wins. The CoC have a team with 2 wins going forward, so C progresses. When more than one team has a win and a loss, it is resolved by net IMPs; A is +1, B is +2. B goes forward, Ignoring the tainted board, each team would have one win, A (net 1 IMP) and C (net 0) would go forward with B (net -1) eliminated. I am not saying that an unbalanced assigned score of +3 to each party to a director's error in a KO match is wrong; I am simply observing that in a very rare case it might actually affect the outcome rather than just canceling out.

Pass is always an option, but it is not always a logical alternative - a call that would be seriously considered by some number of a player's peers and actually made by some of them. A hesitation by partner can indeed bar you from "bidding your hand" if it demonstrably suggests one logical alternative over another that would be successful. Now you are constrained not to choose any such suggested LA. In this case, East's hesitation clearly implies he was thinking of further action, so bidding and double are suggested over pass. I believe that many players would choose to pass this hand in this auction, so Pass is a logical alternative - a poll should be taken to evaluate this. Bidding works out better than passing, so it is not allowed. What West "should have done" according to the TD is material only to the extent that if he should have done it it is certainly an LA. That West would "would have bid 5♥ anyway whatever his partner's actions" is immaterial and likely untrue - I doubt he would have taken partner's double out. What matters is how many of West's peers would have passed. West is not necessarily expected always to get this right at the table, but should understand that a TD or committee may not share his view of what LAs exist to the action that he would like to take.

You have obviously never asked a helpful countryman how far it is to the next pub, and been told "over that hill, cross the bridge, and follow the stream for a mile until you get to the village"; three muddy hours later ...

I agree. If the agreement is indeed transfer, South has to bid as if North had announced "transfer" and then called 4♦. Can anyone possibly bid a NF 4♦ over the 3♦ transfer? I would explore their super-acceptances over 1NT-2♦ for analogies; typical might be 4-card support with a small doubleton in diamonds, but there numerous other possibilities, none of which is "sign-off with long diamonds" - a minimum 2♣ with 6 diamonds would quite likely have bid 3♦ the previous round. So I might force South to bid more than 4♥, but never to pass 4♦. If the actual agreement is not transfer (or does not exist) we have a slightly different position; South has now been woken up to his misbid by the absence of an expected announcement. Still, he has to persist in his transfer interpretation, and bid (at least) 4♥ over the super-acceptance, and we are back in pretty much the same situation.

See also the earlier discussion: http://www.bridgeba...60530-1n-range/

The Mid Chart regulations prohibit: conventional calls after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (see #10 under RESPONSES AND REBIDS and #7 under DISALLOWED on the General Convention Chart) – however, this prohibition does not extend to notrumps that have two non-consecutive ranges neither of which exceeds 3 HCP which does not particularly help to clarify the GCC regulation but does mean that you can play conventional methods over your split-range NT in Mid-Chart events. If you want to use it in a club, check before the game with the club manager or director, since clubs have freedom to make their own restrictions on conventions, and vary considerably.

I think that once a ruling has gone to committee, the committee has the last word, legal or not (subject to appeal to a higher authority, if permitted). For the director proactively to rule on the legality of a committee decision would subvert the independence of the process. If the committee feels that they need further input on the Laws before arriving at a decision, that is a different matter. Edit: To clarify, the director is not present during committee deliberations unless called back to answer follow-up questions.

Once (and only once), I had a committee call me back after deliberating to ask if a proposed ruling was acceptable in law (it wasn't - a "two-way good" with no director error). They eventually came up with a legal ruling.

This is similar to Case 8 from the 1998 Orlando NABC (http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/98orl.pdf), though that is not the direct source of mycroft's case law.

I disagree with Barry, though I think either interpretation could be argued as consistent with the laws. The penalty card must be played at the next legal opportunity but until it is played the revoke is not established, so that opportunity has not yet arisen, even if the revoker is on lead after apparently winning the trick. First we correct the revoke, then we determine the disposition of the penalty card.

That sounds like bridge players ... "We don't want no education. We don't want no thought control. No dark sarcasm in the clubroom - Director! Leave those bids alone ..."

In general, the Laws don't require that we look into a players mind. In this case, looking at 16B1b: A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it do we add an implicit "and holding the same cards" or "and holding the cards the player thinks that he holds"? I think the latter is a very dangerous interpretation, since it requires the TD or committee to believe or disbelieve a player's assertion about their state of mind every time they claim a mis-sort - and making this interpretation explicit would open the door to many more claims like that. A revoke does not become exempt from the provisions of the law because a player missorted his hand; in the same way, I think that without explicit words to the contrary, Law 16B1b applies to the cards actually held - and the "class of players" should not be restricted to habitual missorters, nor should the "methods of the partnership" include a propensity for missorting. Your decision not to include the hand exemplifies the problem - how would a TD poll this? Give a player the actual hand, or give the hand that the TD believes the original player thought he had? Or present an actual hand of cards missorted the same way and see if the pollee notices they are missorted? Without UI, the consequences of missorting are rub of the green, just as without UI a player is free to make tactical bids, take unusual views, etc. Once there is UI, the options are constrained, and in this instance I believe they are constrained to the LAs for the cards actually held, though that is not explicitly spelled out in any law that I can see. I would apply that interpretation even if the player produced evidence, e.g. from a kibitzer or a video camera that the hand was indeed missorted.

The player in question has won at least one US open national championship and is in full command of his faculties. While you are not alone in being baffled at why anyone would tank in this instance, the evidence that he is expert far outweighs any intrinsic suggestion of this auction that he is not.

West expected to win 2 minor suit queens, but expected to lose a trick first to the fourteenth spade. When a non-spade comes back, he is expected to notice that it is the wrong color, and reconsider his (unstated) plan of discarding the ♦10 on it. However he is not allowed an unstated line of play that depends on finding North rather than South with the ♦J so going up with the queen is not allowed. His (imputed) statement that he expected to win two 2 minor suit queens applied to a different universe than the one he now inhabits. TD ruling upheld; apply whatever sanction is available for meritless appeals.

ACBL IMPs, 12-board match (non-standard 20VP scale), played at home All players advanced to expert. [hv=pc=n&s=sq763ha73d982ck92&w=sakj98hkqt52d6cq4&n=st5h64dak753c8763&e=s42hj98dqjt4cajt5&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p1sp1n(semi-forcing)p2hp2s(Very%20long%20pause%2C%20agreed)p3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] This was played in a local Round Robin league. A ruling was solicited by email after the match. The facts in evidence are all the facts that you have to go on. ======== Facts 1NT was announced as "semi-forcing" - West can pass with a flat minimum. East-West are playing 2/1 with a 15-17 NT opening. East paused 60-90 seconds before bidding 2♠. West confirmed/announced as he bid 3♥ that East had made a very long pause. Result: making 4, EW +620 ======== A poll on this hand (without mention of any UI) has been posted here on the BridgeWinners site, except that 1NT is there described as "forcing". The poll currently has about 14% of respondents passing over 2♠, almost all others bidding 3♥. Your opinion is invited.

If the cards were put back in the wrong slots, then the board is fouled and you will need to apply the standard fouled-board procedure (presumably ACBL from the NY, NY by-line). Within each group of 2 results, the ACBL regulation is that the better score receives 65%, the worse 55%. If the board was just played rotated, which could happen in a movement where a stationary pair changes between N/S and E/W in different rounds, for example, it is easy to edit the movement to swap the N/S and E/W pairs for two rounds. Since this could be the problem, you should also look at the results for the other boards in the same round to see if the scores look odd.

Are NT ranges announceable in the SBU? If so, it is entirely normal to wait for an announcement, and ask if one is not forthcoming. In that case, there should be a presumption of no UI. Indeed, failing to establish the NT range would pass the UI that South had no intention of acting no matter what the NT range. If announcements are not required, then I will change my vote to 1N undoubled down 2.

However, even if dummy woke declarer up to the fact that his incomplete designation resulted in his failing to call the card he incontrovertibly intended, I believe we let him play the card that he meant; there is nothing in Law 43B that countermands 46B. We may impose a PP on dummy for participating in the play, as a separate matter.