RMB1

This has been discussed by the WBF LC. There is confusion and contradictory advice. The relevant minutes are attached to the latest EBU L&E minutes, they are Friday 4 September, item 8 (page 9 of EBU minutes) and Tuesday 8 September, item 12 (page 11). So if the offenders do not correct the explanation at the end of the auction, the TD will adjust on the basis of the non-offending side knowing only the correct information. But if the offenders do correct the explanation and the auction is reopened, the non-offending side may use both the misexplanation and the correct information. Not much incentive for offenders to correct at the end of the auction. Robin

I know of one director in England who runs holiday bridge who will produce a new hand set if he thinks the customers will not like the first one. One reason would be a disparity of HCP N/S v. E/W. Robin

Now I know I'm getting old. :) When I was young, Acol was defined (partially) by its treatment of two bids and they weren't 5-9 or 6-10. What would the player make of eight playing tricks in a hand of power and quality. Robin

If the second card lead by declarer is a lead out of turn then it is a lead to the next trick. So declarer has lead to trick n, no one else has played to this trick and declarer has illegally replaced the card lead in his hand; now declarer has lead out of turn to trick n+1 and this has been accepted by LHO. If play continues, we will reach trick 14, with apparently no cards having been played to trick n. Trick 14 does not stand and instead trick n is (woefully) decificient and is dealt with under the appropriate law. This probably gives the TD sufficient scope to award any result he thinks is appropriate. Robin

This would relevant if the board could not be played at the second table and the card was missing from the hands of the pair that got the bad result. Law 86D applies and the non-offending side should get to keep their good result at the first table by assigning them the score comparing against a normal result at the second table. I have visions of Hideous Hog, having conceded a slam on double squeeze, eating one of his cards while returning the other 12 to the board! Robin

No. There is no equivalent of Law 25 for played cards. A card that is deliberately exposed and left on the table must be played. Robin PS With Topos theory, even geometry is pointless.

This is not law but regulation. In the ACBL I found a relevant regulation in ACBL Codification - Chapter 12 - Section c. Robin

David mentioned in another thread the box on the EBU appeals form "reason for appeal". If the reason for appeal is recorded as "we always appeal" the committee tend so see this as a red rag to a bull and are more inclined to keep the deposit. Robin

That's put me on the spot. :) I hope I am supposed to point out that while it is too late to change the auction (because the opening lead has been faced), it is not too late to change the opening lead as a result of misinformation (because dummy has not been faced). Robin

Was the result at the table 5♣= NS -600 or 5♣+1 NS -620 (more likely)? I am not convinced that a slow 3NT suggests pulling, for the same reasons as Frances. I do not think 3NT will go off as frequently as the TD, is a dimond lead likely? Robin

The definitions at the start of WBF System Policy give: Which does not quite match the implicit definition in the Brown Sticker regulations: "high card strength ... of an average hand" v. "average strength" :) As an aside, any one care to calculate the average opening/"rule of" points. I think this is 10 + average sum of lengths of two longest suits; because average HCP of a hand is 10, independent of shape. Robin

But East has explained an agreement that does not exist. West should correct the explanation to "no agreement". West should call the TD first to avoid feeling forced to reveal an agreement that does not exist. Robin

The WBF rules for two-level openers are contained in the Brown Sticker regulations. If Brown Sticker conventions are not allowed, 2C through 3S can be 1) Not weak (weak = below average strength) 2) Four cards in a known suit 3) Weak options with four cards in a known suit, and any strong options (strong = king above average strength) 4) 2m showing a weak two in either major with or without strong options So, loosely, any hand with 10 HCP (including AKQJ... in a suit) is not Brown Sticker and is allowed as two-level opening bid in any WBF event. Robin

My experience of the old "please don't alert" regulation. as a relatively young/inexperienced player was: It was intimidating for opponents It was awkward for opponents to comply It was used to intimidate Robin

In England the normal advanced treatment is: 1C-1M-2D-2oM (fourth suit) = Art, weak, F 1m-1S-2H-2NT (no fourth suit) = Art, weak, F 1m-1M-2R (red/reverse) -2M = nat, 5+, F Other rebids by responder are nat, GF So we can't stop in 2H but I guess we can sometimes stop in 2S: 1C-1S-2D-2H-2S. Robin

Even if we adjust for EW (and I am not sure we do). Should the double of 5C by North be consider [wild or] gambling - it certainly looks like an attempt at a double shot. If we are adjusting to 3NT making then the damage is self-inflicted. Robin Happy new year, hic!

David Burn made this point (and others) forcibly in a reply to another discussion of this topic. See "alerting mania" on rec.games.bridge. Robin

I would like to think that passes that can be passed out (i.e. non-forcing) should not be alerted. But there are many positions where players expectations of the meaning of pass differ. Often they will differ within a partnership. The practical approach in such positions is to alert if you have a clear partnership understanding (even when you think that your agreement coincides with general bridge knowledge) and to not alert if you have no (partnership) understanding. In the European Championship 2004, there was a sequence like 1C(2H)P(P),X(XX)P. Gold and Townsend knew their pass of a redouble was to play, thought that was the only way to play this sequence, thought this meaning was natural, and not did not alert. Their opponents may have thought that this was the right meaning for the pass, but in the absense of alert thought that the pass was neutral, and did the wrong thing. The TD found no consensus as to whether a pass showing a positive desire to defend was alertable (with firm views on both sides) and ruled misinformation. England appealed, expecting the only question to be the number of tricks in 2HXX, but were unsuccessful. See EBL Appeal Booklet 2004 Appeal 10, Sweden v England. Robin

A club is the sponsoring organisation for its own events and can create its own regulations. So the answer to 1. and 2. is Yes. (I would replace "inform" by "instruct") The answer to 3. depends not on the pair but the sponsoring organisation. In an EBU sponsored event the answer is No. In a club event, the club can decide that pairs can require the opposition not to announce or alert. I feel duty bound to point out that if a club has different announcing/alerting regulations. its players will be at a disadvantage adapting to playing in events that do use the national regulations. Robin

I don't think this can be right. If partner is forced to pass, the new (substituted) call is governed by L27B2; and L27D does not apply. Law 27D only applies to new calls allowed by L27B1 (a. and b.) and then partner is free to act. If partner is silenced under L27B2 then L23 may apply. For example: 3S-3D corrected to 4D, where 3D and 4D are natural. Partner is not silenced. L27D applies. 3S-3C corrected to 4C, where 3S-4C is artifical (e.g. Gerber :)). Partner is silenced. L27D does not apply, L23 may apply. Robin

If we know that 2NT was a response to 2♠ then 2NT is artficial and so L27B1(a.) does not apply, 3NT is not an artificial response to 3♠, so 3NT is not a rectification bid under L27B1(b.), indeed it is most likely that no response to 3♠ has the same or more precise meaning as a 2NT response to 2♠, so there are no rectification calls under L27B1. So any bid or pass will silence partner. If we do not know what 2NT was intended as, we would still rule that it may be artificial but it is possible that (say) 3NT is a rectification bid under L27B1(b.). (I would expect to discuss this with the offender away from the table.) Robin

Screen regulations vary with different competitions and organisers. The latest WBF General Conditions of Contest 2009 have According to Law 25, the only way to correct a deliberate call is to change the call and see if LHO accepts it; but changing the call is nevertheless a deliberate infraction. With screens, if you call the TD he will inform you that you can not change your call and even if you do, 26.4 (b.) applies and the infringing call (the changed call) must be put right (the original call stands). If you do not call the TD, and change the call, and RHO passes the changed call through the screen, then 26.4 (a.) applies: the changed call stands, as if LHO had accepted the changed call without screens. If the original call is insufficient, 26.4 (b.) applies and you can call the TD and must correct the insufficient bid without penalty. Robin

Plus the part score bonus = 230 + 200 per overtrick, 430, 630, ... But the reasoning for bidding is the same. Robin

Once declarer has called for the card from dummy, the irregularity has occured and dummy can no longer prevent it. When the irregularity has occured, dummy may not draw attention to it. Robin

The usual example of "different intention was incontrovertible" is dummy winning the previous trick with CA from CAKQJ2 and declarer calling for "club" and being allowed to play CK. Are there other examples? Robin