bluejak

It is not clear that it is not best. I am very uncomfortable with the suggestion there is anything suspicious in a pair playing something just because someone else thinks it is not best. I know a lot of people who play Aspro, Astro or Asptro (anchored to long suit). In my view those are clearly and demonstrably inferior to Asptro (anchored to short suit). Should I be suspicious of their motives? Furthermore, if you play Ghestem as weak only, as I used to, I strongly believe that playing 3♣ as the extreme suits is technically superior, not inferior.

I am completely lost. A player gives his opponent MI. According to Law 12C1B quoted above SEWoG applies from that moment. I really do not understand any other interpretation. In the case in point the TD misunderstood what constituted a SEWoG, and that Law 12C1B only applied to one side. But his timing was fine: the play followed the MI being given and thus Law 12C1B could have applied.

Good for you. What about other clubs, that don't?

I really don't see the point in bringing up meaningless and impossible scenarios, and I suggest we do not discuss them. BLML will be happy to accept such discussions. The point is that you might get one claim during the auction every ten years or so where you are involved, even if only peripherally. There is no point in worrying about ones that will never happen. But if one does occur, without all the stupidities, we will have to rule. And whatever we rule, ruling "it is illegal because it is during the auction" seems wrong.

What other TDs? It is lucky enough that there is one TD present!

I was thinking of MI not misbids. I was not suggesting penalties for misbids, which are perfectly legal, but for MI.

Please tell me the Law that says it is illegal to claim before the bidding ends.

<puzzled> The infraction is the MI. After the infraction is after the MI was given. What other interpretation is possible?

The level of penalties is the thing I really object to. If you propose a standard PP [10% in pairs, 3 imps in teams, in the EBU] for any Convention Disruption for any above-average pair I would have no problem at all with that.

So would I. But the question here is not "Should I call the TD?" but "What should the TD do if called?". Giving a PP for leads or bids out of turn, or for giving MI or using UI.

Most claims are made when no trick is in progress. But they are perfectly legal. Your opinion would only be of interest in the correct forum, which this isn't. The question here is whether it is legal to claim before the play period starts, which I believe it is. As a non-claimer, you are expected to either accept the claim or call the TD and dispute it. This applies to every claim, whether you have seen other hands or not.

While I think I am merely repeating, perhaps I might just summarise the basic position, ignoring the judgement behind the ruling. When there is an infraction leading to damage, the score is adjusted for the offending side under Law 12C1C [most of the world, including Hungary] or 12C1E [North America]. 12C1B does not affect this. If the non-offending side has contributed to its own poor result by committing, after the infraction: wild action, eg they go mad and make a ridiculous double of a clearly making contract, or gambling action, generally considered the double shot, eg they double a contract which might or might not make, hoping for a favourable ruling if it does make, or an excellent score it if it does not, or commit a serious error unrelated to the infraction, eg a revoke, lead out of turn, or a shockingly bad play then Law 12C1B means they lose redress in the amount of damage caused by one or more of the above. We refer to such actions as SEWoG, standing for Serious Error, Wild or Gambling. So the first point is that if the TD's ruling is based on Law 12C1B then he must adjust for the offending side. Now, for it to be SEWoG, you compare it with normal play, not with a double dummy analysis! Within the last week I played 1NT -4: Deep Finesse pointed out unkindly that I could have made it. No-one thinks I misplayed it: I had a club suit in an entry-less hand and have to assume it is 4-1 to make it, going off when it is 3-2. There have already been some cases even amongst the pretty well trained EBU TDs of over-use of Deep Finesse's analysis. The TD should be looking at how the hand would normally be played, and why it went four off, and it it takes a very bad mistake for him to conclude it was a Serious Error, and therefore deny redress under Law 12C1B. I leave it to others to judge the actual hand.

It is completely illegal to rule the wrong number of tricks in a claim situation because of some unconnected events and the TD's actions as reported here were unacceptable. This is an unjustified accusation and I would prefer you do not make such accusations with no evidence. Some of them yours. If you think there are too many, you know what to do.

Of course it is fine in a laws forum, whether we agree with it or not. We make no attempt to encourage Bridge Lawyers. It occurs to me that we rarely use the term any more, so people will not know what I mean. A "Bridge Lawyer" is a player who actively seeks to get an extra edge through manipulation of the Laws in his favour. We have no evidence that East attempted to do any such thing, and I consider it a disgraceful assertion. I don't equate people appealing my rulings with them thinking them ridiculous. The Laws give you a right to claim at any time during t.he play. Of course it is not improper to claim at partner's turn to play. Of course it is improper to claim when you are not certain that all the tricks claimed belong to your side but it really does seem a waste of time saying it for the umpty-thousandth time. We deal with interesting contested claim positions here and someone always says claimer should not have claimed. Perhaps we need a FAQ, which would start: It is improper to claim in any situation where the opponents will not accept the claim unchallenged. :)

The OP said the ♣A was claimed. A solution that assumes it was led not claimed is clearly wrong. The embargo is on naming people. Other names are not covered by the rules. As several answers have made clear that is not the rule. Putting it simply, if the claiming side might make a mistake, for example by a poorly judged play, their opponents get a trick. But they do not get a trick if to lose a trick the claimers have to make a completely irrational play to give them a trick. We know East "claimed" the ♣A: the OP said so. :ph34r: We have, as usual, several posters complaining about the actions of the defender in claiming as and when he did, and even, in one or two posts, suggesting ulterior motives. Please may I remind everyone that this is a rulings forum, not a forum to teach people correct deportment at the bridge table. Quite frankly, it seems pointless that people complain about claims made whenever there is a contested claim here. Could we not just accept that people make mistakes, claim inappropriately, and will continue to do so? We are meant to decide how to rule when someone has done something that is not best practice. :ph34r: I notice that, yet again, we have a playing TD making a dubious ruling in his own favour. I trust and hope that everyone here, if forced to rule at his own table, will do his absolute best to make sure his opponents are not disadvantaged. It is one of the wonderful advantages of being a playing TD that you expect to lose points whenever there is a doubtful case at your own table. It would be nice to be in North America where at least we might be paid for ruling against ourselves.

3♦ is the obvious bid: 6♠ is illegal, unauthorised panic, and should be penalised with a sizable PP if made by an experienced player. Not legally.

They also bid it because it is part of Blackwood. Doesn't mean anything more than that.

The other day I tried putting my hand down and saying "How many tricks are you going to give me?" "Eleven," said RHO, so I looked at him. "Ok, ok, I was joking, I meant twelve," he said. :) This sort of thing is called personal ethics or active ethics, being ethics above and beyond what is required by the Laws. Unfortunately it does not mean that others will treat him with the same courtesy.

It is very normal for pairs who play short diamonds to play them in all sorts of different ways. Sequences like the one in the OP which are above 3NT so alerting is not done should always be asked about, opponents should never assume after a short diamond opening.

Some years ago I had breakfast with Bobby Wolff, and we discussed his approach to Convention Disruption. One thing was very clear: his main worry was at the top level. It was not his suggestion that his views on Convention Disruption should be adopted lower down the food chain. The problem with this approach is that bridge is a game of mistakes. One of the problems with many of the posts in this thread is that they want to treat one type of mistake very differently from other types of mistake. You might just as well say that bridge is less fun when an opponent revokes or leads out of turn. In a way, that is right. But why not just accept such things as rare happenings that disrupt the normal game? How about a three month ban on any player who leads out of turn twice in any three month period? And a second revoke by a player, on the same or different hands, should lead to being expelled from the tournament. Players make mistakes: it is part of bridge. Over-reaction to that is not desirable. Not everyone. I like players to make occasional mistakes, and unlike the majority here I accept three principles: Opponents' mistakes get me more good results than bad Opponents' mistakes lead to different positions, results, and happenings: that's life If opponents are going to try to better my score by making mistakes I have to accept that some of their mistakes will benefit them. Sure it is badly worded: TDs assume it means 'compelling evidence' and do not worry about it.

In principle it is not encrypted, since if you show an even number of small cards there seems an equal likelihood of declarer and the other defender knowing the key, ie who has the ace and king. Encrypted signals only apply when the key will be known by the other defender but not declarer. I did not mean that it is always obvious whether a signal is encrypted, just that the principle of what encrypted signals means is clear. Certainly there are dubious cases. This thread is about legality. The EBU has said that this encrypted signal is legal because it is considered a good and normal tactic. But ti is illegal under other jurisdictions without reference to whether it is a good tactic. I lead the 8 from T8xx, but when asked to describe my small card leads I say "Fourth from an honour, second without an honour: for this purpose the ten does not count as an honour". Similar to them excluding the 'u', perhaps.

I really think this just wrong. Sure, you give a meaningless example, but encrypted signals are clear enough. if you agree that in any situation where you, the defence, are known to have one honour only, and declarer does not know who holds it, then you will play high-low to show an even number with that honour, the reverse without, then that is clearly encrypted, and is illegal in the EBU, WBU and ACBL, except in the case of the specific exception mentioned earlier in the thread. As for whether it is a signal, if one of you is known to have the ace, the other not, and the one without the ace shows count, the other not, then the defenders are playing high-low to mean something different based on a key, and that is unambiguously an encrypted signal: of course it is a signal. What I dislike about some of these posts is that they seem to be based on the concept of how to get around a regulation. If a pair actually do that then they are highly unethical. Certainly the are some situations, not mentioned in this thread, where it is not clear whether a signal is encrypted or not. That is no reason to suggest that obvious encrypted signals are ambiguous just because it is a tricky concept. If you and your partner have an agreement in signalling, then that agreement is encrypted if it changes based on a key available to the defence but unavailable to declarer. That agreement is still encrypted even if part of the agreement is that one player's cards do not mean anything.

I cannot see how anyone can disagree with WellSpyder's reasoning. Just read the Law then consider it.

If the one without the ace shows count, and the one with the ace does not, that is encrypted.

Does anyone like getting good scores from opps who forget their agreements? Is it "just a part of bridge" to accept the good score?