chrism

Indeed, he is also allowed to correct to 5♣ if he thought he was replying 0 or 3 to keycard Gerber(!) (or 0 aces to regular Gerber when also playing good-old Blackwood). The TD has to determine as best he can what the player thought his bid meant at the time he made it; if there is a sufficient call that shows the same set of hands or a subset thereof, a correction to that call is allowed. I don't altogether agree that the law is dreadful; it can be significant extra work for the TD but is more equitable than the Draconian consequences of the pre-2007 version, and gives a better chance of the board being decided by the classical bridge skills of bidding judgement and card play rather then by Law, which I believe is more attractive to most non-SBs.

I am familiar with the "Probst cheat" principle, and often paraphrase it when explaining to virtuous offenders why an adverse ruling is not an accusation of cheating. However, it is an interpretation of the law, albeit an excellent one, that is not explicit in a literal reading. Law 73F does not instruct us how to determine whether declarer could have known of possible damage, which I believe introduces a small crack through which justice can be allowed to enter the process of litigation, though such a dangerous concept obviously needs to be handled with caution :)

Fortunaely for bridge it is possible that the TD could rule in favour of neither side here. I would only adjust against declarer if there were some evidence that he did not routinely call "small" for the lowest card of a suit. I would be hard put to think of circumstances for giving EW redress. Notwithstanding the passion expressed ny some of the posters, it is important that we understand exactly what the Laws say before imposing our personal concept of "fairness". In this case the Laws provide a justification for adjustment, but they also provide an escape clause since IMO "could have known" gives wriggle-room to exonerate those declarers who are clearly just following the habit of a lifetime. Yes, a reflective or dishonest declarer could have known, but could *this* declarer?

It would at least be worth trying to determine (if this were a real-world problem) whether declarer routinely designates "small diamond" or whether he normally says something like "6 of diamonds" or "play a diamond", and this is an unusual designation for him. If he has chosen this occasion specially to emphasise the smallness of the card, I would still suspect coffee-housing. Compare the well-known story (whose details are hazy in my mind, but someone can no doubt provide chapter and verse) of the player whose smallest card in a suit was the eight, when he was anxious to signal low. With Hideous Hog-like presence of mind, he dropped the card on the floor, and while fumbling to pick it up, told the table "carry on ... it's a small heart".

Doubtless the reference is to "North thought 3C showed a non-minimum, and South thought it showed a minimum", though there is indeed no evidence that any explanation of 3C was sought or offered during the hand, still less of whether any such explanation was correct or mistaken.

My first reaction echoed the other posts so far in this thread, but then I gave it a little more thought. The designation is indeed improper according to Law 46A, even though 46B tells us how to interpret it. Declarer was clearly aware that the ♦6 was not "small" in the sense of being a loser, was planning to run it, and could certainly have known that so designating it could mislead an opponent - indeed, it looks likely to me that the designation was deliberately chosen with intent to mislead (of course in a fictional case, this is even less provable than in real life). I would consider that declarer has violated the proprieties in Law 73, and the score is subject to adjustment by 73F. I would hesitate to give EW redress, since East's play is pretty careless, but I would certainly consider awarding a split score, with NS getting -100, EW -1430. This is not similar to a tongue-in-cheek designation like "small spade", "duck" or "play low" when the only spade in dummy is the Ace.

Presumably the pause was longer than the approved skip-bid delay, otherwise there is nothing to discuss. If there was an unmistakable hesitation by North, it expresses doubt that defending 4♥ undoubled is the best place to play this hand. It therefore suggests that we do something other than passing. Since I can't imagine doing anything other than passing on this hand anyway, I am happy to do so with ethics intact. I'm less happy about my earlier auction, but that is irrelevant history.

I don't think so; it is UI that partner asked the question, but the answer to the question is AI. Actually, though the Laws allow a question to be asked (20F1) they do not explicitly state that the answer is AI even to the questioner; however, assuming that it is, then the clause "The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play" makes sense only if the partner was allowed to be aware of the answer. I realize that we are in yet another grey area where the Laws manage not to state clearly exactly what they mean, of course.

The boards were fouled, so apply the fouled board procedure for groups of size 1, which is pretty much universally Ave+ both ways. If either side had been responsible for the foul, there might have been a PP; that clearly does not apply in this case. So +3 IMPs to both sides on each board. Each side returns a separate result, and the VPs for the match add up to more than the usual maximum. The results in other matches playing the same board are irrelevant. 86D refers to "the non-offending side" which implies that there is also an offending side - not the case here. Answers to the 4 initial questions: 1) No 2) No 3) Ave+/Ave+ (and the TD's judgement does not enter into the answer) 4) He should not assign any score other than Ave+ to Team A, but if he does so, Team B still gets Ave+

This is particularly annoying when an inattentive declarer says "You play odd-even first discard, so the ♣9 says he likes clubs, right?" having failed to notice that this, in fact, partner's second discard :( I always respond to questions about the meaning of a specific card with a general description of carding methods and a couple of qualifications, on the lines of "We play odd-even first discard, otherwise UDCA and standard suit preference. On first discard, an odd card would, if honest and freely chosen from among cards with alternative meanings, tend to show something of interest in the suit discarded (lower cards implying stronger interest); an even card would tend to show suit preference between the other two suits". With familiar opponents who are known to understand what they are asking, this will probably be truncated to "Odd-Even first discard, UDCA".

I don't think there should be any question about which Laws to apply - "all of them" is the only option - but you definitely need to discuss with the DIC your expectations on the way in which regulations are to be enforced and the degree of flexibility your customers should expect. I trust that you will find the directing staff responsive, but if not, you should pursue the matter further with the ACBL in your tournament evaluation forms and by direct correspondence.

You are, of course, correct. The sponsors do, however, have considerable influence - and rightly so, since it is their tournament. If they ask that certain groups be treated with a particularly gentle hand, or that time restrictions be enforced strictly or loosely, or similar requests about directorial approach, the TDs should pay attention. Without explicit guidance from the sponsor, of course, the CC regulation should be enforced at all levels, with a degree of tact or firmness that depended on the experience and level of the offending pair. It certainly sounds as though the pair in the OP need to be educated, and it is surprising and alarming to me that they have managed to get through "hundreds of tournament games" without receiving such education (if, indeed, they have - I would take their assertion with a pinch of salt).

I am surprised that the directors aren't more helpful, but they may be following the wishes of the tournament chair. I suggest that you raise your concern with the tournament committee; either they will echo what the directors are saying, in which case you will know that this is just how they want their tournament to be run, or they will ask the directing staff to enforce the regulation more actively.

In that case, I agree with ArtK78 - not unusual enough to qualify as alertable.

The OP said "6 or less pts,[ maybe a bad 7]" - I read that as 0-6+, and if he had meant "4-6+" he would presumably have said so.

This auction would not be alertable in the ACBL: Natural 2NT responses that may or may not bypass four-card majors which promise invitational or better values

For many players a single raise in competition that could be on zero points and explicitly denies constructive values would be unexpected. That is why I regard it as "unusual" strength. There is certainly room for other opinions on that, but if asked for a ruling I will stick with alertable.

While Blackshoe is correct that a literal reading of the definition of "natural" in the ACBL Alert Chart does not include 3-card raises of partner's 5-card major opening (!) I would expect a 100% consensus among both ACBL directors and rational beings - neither of which is a subset of the other- that it is in fact natural. Given that, this is alertable from line 1 of the Alert Chart: Natural Calls Not Specifically Noted ... Unusual strength, shape, etc.

In a KO, if both sides are equally at fault then no net adjustment. In a Swiss team or similar event, -3 Imps to each team; each team scores the result separately and the net Victory Points will no longer add up to 20, 30 or whatever the applicable VP scale is.

The two questions are different. "Which hand am I in?" is essentially equivalent to "If I were to lead a card from my hand now would that be an irregularity?" which dummy is surely allowed to answer as part of 42B2, just as he is allowed to stop declarer in the act of reaching to pull a card out of his hand if the lead is in fact elsewhere. While I suppose declarer is permitted to *ask* "How many tricks have I taken?" (or indeed "Whose turn is it to buy the next round of drinks?" or any other question with no possibility of deceiving or disconcerting the opponents) it is pretty clear that dummy is not permitted to provide any answers that communicate anything about the play. Probably the best answer to all such questions is to treat them as equivalent to the second example above and respond "It's my turn, someone turn the dummy while I'm at the bar", which is of course part of dummy's extended rights and duties as described some time ago by David Burn.

The mobile website as presented on my phone does not include any"subline" so the sarcasm is unwarranted. Thank you for the clarification, though.

I am slightly handicapped here by my mobile Chrome client refusing to display the auction and hand diagram. However from the verbal description I would expect an appeal committee to throw the book at North/South. "It's all on the card" is a wholly unacceptable response, that deserves at least a stern warning about full disclosure and proper procedure answering questions. A PP should certainly be considered as an educational tool. If South believed when he bid 2NT that there was an agreement that it was strong and natural, of course he is obliged to disclose that prior to the opening lead. If he believes that there is no agreement but hopes his partner will understand that meaning, he needs to state that there is no agreement if asked. However, he is not allowed to become aware of his partner's different understanding as a result of his partner's explanation, our lack thereof. So assuming that transfers would normally apply in analogous auctions (by no means an obvious assumption, as noted above), he needs to alert (not announce, announcements apply only in specific contexts) and bid as though the pair is on the same "natural and strong" wavelength. This would be a flagrant use of UI that deserves a further stern warning and probably an educational PP unless the pair is *very* inexperienced.

It may depend where you are. The ACBL requires an alert for a natural NT overcall whose lower limit is less than 14 HCP and/or more than 19 HCP so you would indeed have been owed an alert in the ACBL.

The unimaginative might think that it meant "a very small quantity", from the name of the Greek letter written as a small subscript in polytonic orthography (wikipedia: iota). However, the more enlightened will be aware in this context that it is an alternate spelling of jota: It refers to the practice common in some bridge circles of making a song and dance about one's hand prior to burying partner. :rolleyes:

I agree that a literal reading of 64B7 leads to a silly conclusion, and that it should not relate to unestablished revokes. However, the fact that an unestablished revoke is dealt with elsewhere in the Laws certainly does not mean that it thereby ceased to be a revoke, and there is no intrinsic bar to having multiple laws relate to it. Compare trick 12 revokes: Law 61A defines, inter alia, a failure to follow suit when able to do so (including at trick 12) as a revoke, Law 62D1 requires it to be corrected (but it is still a revoke), and Law 63A defines whether it is established (but it is still a revoke either way). The fact that all of these laws have "dealt with" the trick 12 revoke do not preclude 64B6 from applying to it.