RMB1

The meaning of the responses to 2NT opposite a major/minor type hand are relevant if we want to establish the outcome(s) of an auction when we rule than North must respond below 4♠, because that is the system that South thinks he is playing.

The Australians have been magnanimous in defeat. In particular, the BBC Ashes Live commentary includes this quote from Shane Warne.

Now I can download the original attachment but I can't download the attachment in the "Roman Club" topic; with none of Firefox on Windows, IE on Windows or Firefox on Ubuntu.

I think it is sensible to appoint a standing appeals chair[man]. His/her job would be to arrange for appeals to be heard: by acting as a referee, by forming a committee, contacting a national referee, or delegating the task in some other way. The "job description" should also include how to deputise this role when the standing chairman is an involved player/TD.

It is difficult to rule without knowing NS methods. It looks like 3♠ is a logical alternative to 4♠. What 3♠ means in response to 2NT (asking for the minor) is difficult to know, but South might pass. Where Law 12C1c) is enabled, I can imagine an adjustment to some of 3♠ and 4♠ (and perhaps 6♠). Ruling under Law 12C1e), playing 3♠ could be "likely" and "at all probable".

So what demonstrable bridge reason did a player who was prepared to play in 4♣ with 10xx have for considering not playing in 4♦ with 8xx?

That's the sort of regulation that tends to actively discourage proper disclosure: everything outside the allowed (narrow) range gets labelled a deviation. Is it permitted to play 4-8 in some positions and vulnerabilities, and 7-11 in others, and avoid the restriction on playing conventions in the subsequent auction?

All I could find online is www.okbridge.com/member/iwbc_2000/cc/118/chipm:janm.ok, which appears to be ten years old. 2H Range:5-11, Desc:Can be 5 NV, Natural Resp:2N asks; 3 suit INV 2S Range:5-11, Desc:See 2H

Firefox on Windows

> Dealer is south it says. If so, why East opened 2♠ call? Board 30 is dealer East. > Do you agree with this ruling? Yes. An AWMW seems appropriate: even if Pass was not a logical alternative to 5♣, surely 5♥ is a logical alternative to 5NT, leading to the same adjustment. > How the committee decides that there is no particular reason to think that North-South have a slam. That is not what the committee is deciding. If anything, it is deciding that a North-South that does not know what it is doing has no particular reason to bid a slam. > If you are losing in the match, can south try 6♥ or 6♣ in this brd? Not necessarily when he has unauthorised information. > If the card of Chip Martel says for weak two opening meaning: > Usually 6 cards Vul, 5 cards in NV, 5-10HCP. > Is it ok to bid with 3 HCP. like this hand ♠ KT7632? Yes. But if it is usual to bid 2S on this hand then the card should reflect this. Is this a hypothetical question? Does the card of Chip Martel say "5-10 HCP"? > (1) West asked North about the meaning of South’s 3♠ call. North answered, “We have no agreement. I’m taking it as Michaels.” > Is it true that this statement happens all the time in the clubs? Yes. But this does not make it right. Players have been told for decades not to say how they are going to take partner's call.

I can't read PDF attachments to posts like the one at the end of Appeal case #3 in NABC, 2010 at Orlando I get I've tried reading the help files but I can only find stuff downloading topics not downloading attachments. Help! Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong.

Language changes, usage expands to provide useful meanings. Ranting aint going to stop the changes (q.v. L'Académie française). :)

For information: various versions of the convention cards are available from the EBU web site, including the standard EBU 20B convention card, as PDF.

According to Law 68D I should have been called before any further action (for example, objections to the claim being stated). I rule that both sides have lost their right to rectificaiton (Law 11): NS 7NT-1, EW 7NT=. If called at the right time, I may have been able to adjudicate the outcome of the board equitably: for instance, by pointing out to declarer can not draw trumps and ruff a heart if trumps are 4-0. I would then be able to judge other lines of play suggested by the claimer. If he had said he would try to ruff a heart before drawing trumps, I would rule 10(?) tricks; if he had said he would play for heart/club squeeze (or ♣8 being good), I might rule 13 tricks.

This was his claim statement. It is inconsistent: as the parenthetical remark points out. We have case law that when the claim statment is inconsistent, we ignore it (all of it) and rule as if claimer had made no statement. In the best traditions of Mr Scrooge! I ignore the inconsistent claim statement and now I can apply Law 70E (finesse or drop) and "force" declarer to finesse in spades when the clubs don't break.

In general, if dummy fails to display all 13 cards and this damages the defenders then we can restore equity through Law 12A. (Failure to display dummy is a violation for which the laws do not provide indemnity.) In this case, the revoke is established because dummy has played to the next trick. There is no penalty (Law 64B3) but the director shall assign an adjusted score (Law 64C). It could be argued that if the ♦A had not reached the played position when the ♠ was revealed then dummy had not played to the next trick. Then the revoke is corrected: the spade is played to trick one (the heart is restore to dummy); RHO can change his card played at trick one; and, if RHO changes, declarer can change his card. This may be a "better" solution, but if RHO changes his card then declarer has UI from sight of the original card.

Can we rewind a bit. "EW were playing 3♣ as a Bergen Raise." Is there any evidence, other than West's bid, that their agreement is Bergen. "before the opening lead, West clarified that 3♣ was a Bergen Raise" West was a defender, yet corrected partner's failure to alert at the end of the auction. "East admitted that he did indeed forget to alert 3♣" Is there any evidence that East knew 3♣ was Bergen. I don't think 4♠ is SEWoG. I would adjust on the basis that South would pass 3♣X with the correct explanation. West has UI from the failure to alert. For me, East's pass of 3♣X is encouraging (stronger than 3♥) so 4♥ is a logical alternative for West. 4♥ seems to be -1 on a ♣ lead. 4♥-1 NS+50 to both sides. A standard procedural penalty to East/West for West correcting partner's explanation before the end of play.

The answer is not clear in law. I would rule as follows: simultaneous calls or plays are resolved so that the legal action is deemed to have happened first; the sequence lead-then-claim is legal, the sequence claim-then-lead is not ("play ceases", Law 68D); so I would rule the lead is deemed to have happened first. Declarer makes both tricks: only legal play of the remaining cards.

♠J, Q, K. Six clubs, ♥Q, ♠A. In the position: - - AK8 - / 6 8 5 -, I hope one of my 6 or 8s is a winner.

I'm not sure about "ethical", but yes we want to make explicit that insufficient bids may require a "judgement" ruling. But the old law (and the current law) involve judgement rulings: if partner is not silenced then we have to apply Law 27D (or its predecessor); if partner is silenced then we have to apply Law 23. Both require a judgement decision on the TD's part.

A player/cheat does it to win (at bridge). What is the motivation for a law-disregarding director? If it is power, influence, money (winning at life?), then he is corrupt. I can not immediately work out what is the noun for "one who is corrupt". "pervert" is a strong word with sufficiently negative connotations.

I guess the moral of the story is: if you are going to psyche, pick the right opponents to do it against, and make sure they are the right opponents.

(second thoughts) If the throw-in is so likely/obvious to this class of player, why did East claim? Either East did not see the throw-in in which case perhaps South would not; or East did see the throw-in and claimed in the hope of avoiding South stumbling into the right line. In the latter case, I think the new Law 69B is there to protect North-South.

I think this is a Law 69 case and the first test I have seen of the new law. The inclusion of the word "likely" here happened in 2007, as did the removal of "but not irrational" from the footnote. I do not think "likely" means "normal"; I think "likely" is somewhere in the middle, between: all normal line succeed and all normal lines fail. When a declarer sees diamonds are 5-1 at trick 10, I would expect most to work out that ducking a diamond will win. The fact that this declarer did not see this line when shown the diamonds makes the successful play less likely. However, I think the change in the law is meant to benefit the non-claimer and I think this is the sort of case that law is aimed at. So I would (perhaps reluctantly) give declarer 4 diamond tricks.

There are a number of "solutions" to the insufficient bid law. Offender's partner is silenced, whatever the correction; Offender's partner is not silenced, whatever the correction; Offender's partner is not silenced if the correction is the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination, regardless of the meaning of the insufficient bid or the correction; In any case, the insufficient bid is unauthorised information and there can be lead penalties; If offender's partner is silenced, Law 23 applies; The insufficient bid can be accepted.