fito

♦ Some information: - There was a TD and my opp ask for him. He was agree with me, and does nothing with the hand. - West it's a lady who didn't have pd this afternoon, and I play with her. I know her because she plays a couple of days every week, and I decided not to complicate the system. So, she didn't pay me for classes or results, only bridge for fun, but... - I was there trying to get the large number of points that I can. If I play at my Club, and get a bad result, it is not good for me. That's why I bid over 1NT and 2♦. - I agree with you there are a small UI in any parts of the bidding and later. But this is not the World Championship, so we ca not rule very hard. In fact, I didn't ask for a rule for the "UI" for the question of South (who is a low level player too).

sure, they did, but what I am asking now it's for your opinion. If anyone wants to know the TD decision, I´ll write it later.

I am the professional of the Club and one of the best Spanis TDs. çlast evenning I was playing with a low level player of my Club. She does not play a lot of things, so I decided to play without any convention. so all our biddings are naturals. The hand is 25: [hv=pc=n&s=s876ha876dak6ckq9&w=sq43hkj3dq953cat4&n=sk95hqt92dj874cj5&e=sajt2h54dt2c87632&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1n(15-17)pp2c(Natural)p(Asks%20for%20the%202!C%20means)2d(%3F%3F%3F)p2sppp]399|300[/hv] Bidding goes like you can see. I was sitting in East, and when I just say 2♣ (not alerted) South asks for the meaning of the bid (incorrect, because not alerted, but that is not the question, I suppoussed to be playing a friendly tournament, and I didn't ask for a rule). Wets says that we dont have any agreement, but instead of pass, which is the logical bid, and probably because the question of South, she decided to bid 2♦ (problaby you think it´s one of the worst bids in the world, but this is not the matter of the topic). Of course, I think my pd has ♦, but not a long suit because she didn't bids it over 1NT, and decided to bid 2♠, which be passed out. In this situations I prefer play a bad contract by my self... When dummy were at the table, my pd says than she bids because she think we may have any agreement about majors (which was not the case), and she has no better idea than bid 2♦, and explain an agreement we don't have... At this moment North (a high level player, some times member of Spanish Bridge Team) says than the 2 ♦ bid is illegal, because my pd "understud than we have any agreement, which was not explained". There were a big discussion beetween N and me, and she rebuked me because "like teacher and TD, I can not admit the 2♦ bid". I say than like teacher an TD the 2♦ lawful, but North continue trying to involved me in any ilegal acttion, or better explainded to try to create the suspicius than I teach my students to do any kind of illegaleties. Your opinion about the bid of 2♦, my own and North's behaviours.

Is there any way to convert the BBO results to PBN file?? Thanks for your help

law 45C4 talks about a player than names a card, not only declarer. Any defender may say: "I play the 5 of ♦", and in it's case: "I play the 5 of ♦, sorry, the 10 of ♦" ;) , that's what Law 54C4 is talking about. :D Another matter is than the TD interpretation of an " unintended designation", and " if he does so without pause for thought". IMO it must be very clearly to apply it to and expert player, but I may be more permissive with a beginner player

yes, where it says: South then plays the ♥7!!!!!!, and East claims 9 tricks. At this moment, South asks for TD, climing the misinformation from North, and explaying than the bad explanation afected his defense!!!!!!!!. must say: South then plays the ♥7!!!!!!, and East claims 9 tricks. At this moment, South asks for TD, claiming the misinformation from East, and explaning than the bad explanation afected his defense!!!!!!!!. I agree with you, but I'm so bad english speaker, than writher, sorry again, but there is no more... Standard defense here is: X - is opening hand with ♦ 2Mayor is a normal double hand with short in the bid suit and long in the rest. 2NT - is a normal openning of 1NT with ♠ and ♥ stopers 3♣ - is suit and opening N-S loose the money, and they was not happy with it.

[hv=pc=n&s=s873hkq7dat4ct982&w=sj964ht9dk85ckqj5&n=sakqt52h86dj63c64&e=shaj5432dq972ca73&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2d2s3h3sp3nppp]399|300[/hv] Bidding explanations: 2♦ - Alerted - Standard Multi 2♠ - Not alerted - E-O do not have any agreement, so East thinks than they play Standard defense, and West thinks natural. 3♥ - South didn'at ask for 2♠ meaning till the end of the ouction (but see before in the AC) 3♠ - Support in ♠ (natural). 3NT - To play anything (Good!!!) Before lead, South asks for the meaning of 2♠, and West says than she does play the sort, but like E-W has no agreement, she thinks it's natural. Souths lead the ♥K, 9, 8 and A. South asks West why she didn't correct to 4♠. She says than if pd wants tio play 3NT, she has a good hand to play there. East plays ♥2, Q, 10, 6. South then plays the ♥7!!!!!!, and East claims 9 tricks. At this moment, South asks for TD, climing the misinformation from North, and explaying than the bad explanation afected his defense!!!!!!!!. TD ruled than there was not misinformation because E-W has no agreement, so result stands. N-S appeal the TD rule based in to points: 1- East must correct West's explanation before South leads. 2- East missdefense based on misinformation. During the AC hearing South and North say than they do not ask for the meaning of 2♠ at any time. Some more information: both pairs are normal good players. East-West are ocasional partnership, and North and South are good players, but not top players, and regular partenership. 2♦ Multi is not a usual convention in this tournament. Your opinions, please

No, you are right. TD was wrong. If East asks for a heart lead, and South does no way to play a heart, because he has no one in his hand, he may lead any other suit (Art. 59).

Sorry Zelandakh, I may express myself bad, when I say than a questions is illegal, I tray to mean that the player who asks is trying to give some UI to his partner with the way the question is made, and it is made "deliberately". Of course I do agree with you then any player may ask questions in his own turn during the bidding. and of course he may ask for the call actually made and some other didn't made, and all you say, and all the references to the Law 20, law wich deals with the proper way to ask the questions. I'm not talking about that Law. I'm talking about Law 73 B1: "Partners shall not communicate by means such as the manner in which calls or plays are made, extraneous re-marks or gestures, questions asked or not asked of the opponents or alerts and explanations given or not given to them". Of course I think the player in West may ask anything like: "how do you play this 4♠?" or "what's the diference between bid 4♠ in his first turn or bid 2NT at his first turn and 4♠ later". Both are lawfull for me. When I talk about illegal questions is when West chooses to ask "do you play this jump preempt?", in my opinion, he is trying "deliberately" to say something more than the normal information than he gets of a normal question. I see clearly the diference between those three questions, and the remarks than the last one is trying to give to his partner. The rest of what you are trying to tell us depends of the way than all the problem goes. In this case, we where talking friendly about a mater of the game, and trying to learn and teach, not to call him or me cheaters. The last of my opinions may be more questionable, in my opinion, a player who ask for a information about a call (not conventional, not alerted, and not avertable) may not ask questions without break Law 73B1. More opinios, please, I learn of all of you...

I'm siting in North an I open: ♠[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2sp4sppp]133|100[/hv] 2♠ is standar weak opening bid. East asks for the meaning of the opening saking anithing like: is it weak? My pd says yes. Easte pass and my pd jumps to 4♠. West start to think and asks anything like: do you play this jump preempt? I ask for the TD as soon as I heard that, and tell him that his question is not legal, and this question of course is not legal, so TD tells him also. West passes afterwards, and all pass. But with the TD at the table, I tell West than, in my opinion, it is not legal also to ask a question over a natural bidding like this. In this possition South may bid 4♠ with many hands all of then naturals, and opener has no a clear agreement but the 4♠ are to play. Are you agree?? Thanks a lot

full agree with you, note than the correction of this revoke is not by L64A, but L64C (equity), so you do not change the trick from one side to the other, but adjusting the score.

I can't find any Law that allow the TD to cancel any bid. Like Barmar says, at foist glance, Law 24 covers this infraction, but now I have no other way than apply Law 11:The infraction was (in the past) to put the ♥9 on the table twice, and NOS accept to return it to the hand twice, and the bidding of 2♥, their own pass and, when the bidding is close to finish and there is no other infraction (!!!!!!) they ask for a rectification. Too, too, too late, sorry. NOS have forfeited the right to the rectification passing over 2♥; TD can't forbid the 2♠ bid, and the bidding continues. It possible than TD may apply a procedural penally at the end of the hand, but I think it's better to go with responder to the doctor, of course at an international event, the penalty is right.

The next came from WBF Minutes of Laws Committee in Baijin, on Friday, 10th October, 2008. Law 25A ‐ It is strongly recommended that bidding box regulations should provide that if a player’s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call the ‘pause for thought’ should be assessed from the moment when he first recognizes his error. (Regulating Authorities please note.) and footnote of law 25: A player is allowed to replace an unintended call if the conditions described in Law 25A are met, no matter how he may become aware of his error. I think 2♥ is the right ruling.

[hv=pc=n&s=s42hakqt5dq93cj32&w=s87h2daj742ck9875&n=s963h9863dktcat64&e=sakqjt5hj74d865cq&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1s2hp3h3sppp]399|300[/hv] Club level, not on-line play. West hesitates not for a long time, could be for 5 seconds, but playing without screens this few second are more than enough. East is a 20 year player, not a good player, but she wins once in a week in her club. West is a 10-12 years same level player. They are not a experts, but nor beginners, and they play together at least once in a week, and play negative doubles. Do you think than this break in tempo is enough to produce UI? if yes, do you allow 3♠ bidding? If yes, do you agree with the final pass of West? If you need more information, just ask me. Your comments. Thx.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakqj865hj76d3cj6&w=st2ha92datcakq843&n=s43hkt5dkj9864c92&e=s97hq843dq752ct75]399|300| Hand 12 South plays 2♠ MP Club Tournament E/W vul.[/hv] West is a low level player, East is a top level player and South is a good level player. the play: 1st. trick ♣A ♣2 ♣5 ♣6 2nd. trick ♣K ♣9 ♣7 ♣J 3th. trick ♦A ♦4 ♦2 ♦3!!!!! 4th. trick ♦10 ♦J ♦Q ♠5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5th. trick ♠2 ♠3 ♠7 ♠A 6th. trick ♣3♠4 ♠9 ♠K (1st. revoke) 7th. trick ♣4 ♥5 ♣10 ♠Q (2nd. revoke, note than South knows it) 8th. trick ♥2 ♥K ♥4 ♥J 9th. trick ♠10 ♦K ♦5 ♥6 (at last the last trump) play finish with South making 8 tricks. South claims the revoke and ask for equity saying that playing ♥ in the same way, he makes 10 tricks. West says than he didn't play the ♥A because he controls the ♦ with the ♠10!!! (sure, but he has the ♠10 by revoking.) South says then West was upset. TD asings then one mor trick. South Appeals. I was not the TD, and I use to be a member of the AC, but this time I was late and can't be there, but when the TD tells me the hand, I find it like a interesting problem, and want to see your opinions. IMO, playing MP, West, without the ♠10 (playing it in the second trump trick), could be upset, but he is not going to risk than declarer make all the tricks if he plays small ♥. In other words, declarer is not allow to get another trick, the 10th for his side. In Teams, it's possible than I agree with South, in fact West, playing small ♥, is risking only 1 IMP trying to win 5 IMP's, but that is not the case in MP, where a plus trick may be a 0. you opinions like TD and like AC members, please? do you chage your opinion at IMPs?

this case is from Spanish Teams Championsiph. Top level players. The bidding goes: North East South West 1♥ pass 1♠ 3♣ 2NT (TD!!!) 3NT After the insuficient bid of 2NT, and before the TD came to the table, East doesn't bid and South bids 3NT out of turn. What must the TD acts to approach to this case??

i WAS WAITING FOR THE FINISH OF THE TOURNAMET AND SEEING AT A DIFFERENT TABLE WHEN MY LAST HAND BECAME AGAIN: [hv=n=s1096h654d876cq1094&w=sq32hj1097dakqca87&e=saj54h3dj10932ck53&s=sk87hakq82d54cj62]399|300|[/hv] THE BIDDING: NORTH IS DEALER: PASS PASS 1 ♥ 1NT PASS 2♣ PASS !!!!!!!!!! WEST THINK FOR ONE MINUTE, FOR ME IS CLEAR THAN HE IS THINKING IF 2 ♣ IS NATURAL (STOP) OR STAYMAN (LIKE TOO MANY PLAYERS USE IT). THEN EAST ASKS FOR "UNDO" WHICH SOUTH PERMIT. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS IND OF UNDOS?? FOR ME IS CLEAR THAN WEST IS TRYING TO TELL HIS PARTNER THAN HE HAS NO IDEA OF THE 2 ♣ MEANING, AND EAST ACTS IN THE MEANING OF IT. NOBODY ASKED FOR THE TD. TD STARTS THE TOURNAMENT SAYING THAT HE PENALIZES PEOPLE WHO DON'T PERMIT THE UNDOS...