mamos

[hv=pc=n&s=sha874dakt432cjt4&w=s7543h92dj87caq93&n=sqt6hqjt53dq5c752&e=sakj982hk6d96ck86&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1sd3sppp&p=dad7dq]399|300|Please don't criticise NS bidding - that's a whole different story[/hv] I was South, my partner - a good friend and a favourite partner. I lead ♦K. Our agreement is A for attitude (reverse) K for count (standard) Play to the first trick is shown. My partner believes the ♦Q is the correct card to play. I favour the ♦5. I think that I was taught that the Queen here promises the ability to win Trick 2 in Diamonds. I lead ♦10 at Trick 2. (Suit preference for Hearts). Not surprisingly the ♦J won the trick. (Well it was surprising to me!) I am unable to find any evidence for my recollection that the Q should imply that partner can win the next trick and as ♦J is in dummy it must be a singleton. I would be gratful for opinions and ideally documentary confirmation. Mike

I find much of this discussion deeply disturbing and depressing. It is every player's responsibility to research and understand the regulations. I am an EBU player - if I play in another country, I read their regulations for system cards, allowed conventions and alerting regulations. Online bridge at BBO has its own regulations which are clearly expressed, alert your own bids in the dialogue box as you bid. The whole purpose of alerting is to tell your opponents what you are playing. The online format allows you to tell your opponents in such a way that your partner does not know you have alerted or what explanation you have given. What upsets me is when people say things like "I think this is what the rules are" when they don't know or "This is what we do in EBU or ACBL". If you are a beginner ask people who know. Don't listen to some random player at the table who knows tiddley-squat. BBO has online hosts (found in the People List). If you want accurate advice ask them. They are all very nice and kind and patient and they'll give you proper advice not the nonsense you read in too many forums. Tell you opponents everything you know.

I know people (even one or two misguided partners) who double on hands like this. It is however completely insane. If South holds ♦AJ10x and a balanced 23-24, it is extremely likely that the blue two kisses card will be deployed and we will need a pocket calculator to work out the score. Double of 2♦ ought to be an offer to play Diamonds.

I do wish that people who replied to Law questions would make the effort to read the Law Book before they start to tap their keyboards. It certainly helps as well if that Law Book is the current one (2017 is the relevant edition). This can be dowmnloaded at the ACBL or the EBU, the WBF or probably at any National Bridge Organisation. Let no one think this is a simple issue. I've trained Club TDs for more than 30 years. At the beginning, this was one of the simpler Law Book rulings to teach and make at the table. It is currently one of the most difficult Club TDs face. Many think these Laws are inappropriate, but they are the Laws of Bridge and we have to do our best. To deal with this the TD will need to have a working understanding and refer to the following Laws: Law 27 Insufficient Bid Law 23 Comparable Calls. Law 82c Director's error Law 12 Director's Discretionary Powers (especially 12b and 12c) Law 9. Procedure following an Irregularity Law 10c Choice following an irregularity I cannot tell you what the correct ruling might be, because although it seems pretty clear that TD error occurred, I don't know exactly what happened. Law 10c is vitally important here and my suspicion would be that the TD's first error came here. C. Choice after Irregularity 1. When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available So here the TD has to begin by talking to East, the insufficient bidder's LHO and explain that the insufficient bid may be accepted or not and what North's options are then. At the end of this both players should understand all this. I think that talk of "comparable" calls in this auction are both fanciful and misleading. There is no way double can have a comparable meaning to 4♦. North should understand that if double is the replacement call, that the TD will require it to be replaced and lead restrictions applied to South. If this is not the case, the TD error occurred before North doubled. There is an alternative scenario. Some Norths, blissfully unaware of these Laws will pick up their bidding card and replace it with a Double. A different sequence of events might occur, when the TD arrives, North might not listen or double without waiting for a full explanation. Now the TD error comes after North has made the double. This distinction might become significant when adjusting the score. Once it is accepted that a TD error has been made, Law 82c applies. C. Director’s Error If a ruling has been given that the Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and if no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, treating both sides as non-offending for that purpose. Now those who refer to this all say 60%/60% without any explanation or justification. It isn't what the Law says or intends. (This is made clear in the WBF Commentary on the Laws in Jan 2019. Scores like 60%/40% or 50%/50% are intended to replace scores for boards that are unplayable. Law 12 explains how we should award assigned adjusted scores. We need to try and work out what would have happened without the TD error, starting in this case either before North doubled 4♥ or afterwards. This sounds difficult,but may be less daunting than you think. Scores can be weighted and split. Both sides are non-offending and may get a little benefit. If someone can post the hands and the details of what happened, I could try and work out something as an example. Hope this helps. Mike

With regard to Deep Finesse I've used it for best part of 20 years without problems - with Windows 10. The advantage is that it helps players of all levels to look at hands and discover that double dummy scores are often based on plays that will not be made at the table. Mike

I know that if we play with robots we are not supposed to moan and also that if human players bid "creatively" that robots cannot work out what we hold but I agree with the Original Poster that the failure to play ♣A is difficult to understand Mike

West's Spade discard later not exactly genius either Mike

My second Law of Tournament Directing is that when two players hold the same card something has gone wrong! (My first Law? "Tables with three legs do not work well" Both these Laws are based on considerable experience Mike PS I think suggesting that there has been a breach of Law 73A1 is a little harsh. What should the player with the real ♥A do? Put it in a pocket and dispose of it later? I'd follow Law13F. I'd put ♥A in my pocket - somebody will probably want it in a minute and let play continue, breathing a deep sigh of relief that they hadn't gone on without drawing attention when I would probably have had to deal with the real horrors of a defective trick and Law 67. I don't think the TD should have awarded 60/40. The non-offenders might have been in a good spot and deserving of more than 60%. Although Law 13F does not tell the TD to check for damage, I would do so and if the non-offenders had been damaged in some way, I would adjust - using my Law 12A powers if needed.

No one noticed the OLOOT?

My understanding is that the judge has not ruled one way or another whether bridge is a sport. He has simply ruled that Sport England could make the decision that bridge did no qualify as a sport for their purposes. Quote from BBC report "The issue he had considered was whether Sport England officials had "erred in law" when refusing to classify bridge as a sport, the judge said - not the "broad, somewhat philosophical question" as to whether or not bridge is a sport." Sport England continue to maintain that their job is to promote physical well-being. Pretty sad I think. Mike

I was South There was never any possibility that anyone was going to ask for any sort of adjustment whatever the outcome of the board - it was a Club game with a playing director. As many of you may know I'm a National EBU TD and I train lots of people in directing - one of my most frequent mantras is "When something goes wrong, call the TD". I'm quite amused that a number of people who haven't been nearer to Shropshire than 500 miles are very dogmatic about what happened. It was I who said "We ought to call the TD." This is in a context of a Club where the TDing is pretty variable, some experienced, very experienced TDs, some very inexperienced volunteers who help keep the Club running and do the best. The playing standard is also very variable. After opening 3♦ I'd done my bit and had no intention of becoming further involved. LHO made a takeout double. No great surprise there. Partner passed passed and my RHO bid 3♠. I passed but was certainly not paying a great deal of attention. My LHO made a bid, which I don't think I'd even registered. What happened next was that partner said something like "You can't do that" (I'm pretty deaf in my left ear) and I looked at LHO's bidding cards. Almost instantaneously she plucked 4♠ from her box and I immediately tried to stop her. making the remark about "I really think we should call the TD". The point I'm making is that this was all very quick indeed. North barely had time to finish his sentence or initiate a TD call before West had produced a change of call - in fact i don't think she ever let go of her 4♠ card and did in fact return it to the bidding box. West is a very experienced player, her premature correction by one of the Club's most experienced tournament players is a bad example and we should as a Club be better at ensuring that these minor "hiccups" are treated properly. She wasn't asked about a "misspull", and I didn't interfere because I think that this is unfair to the volunteer TD. The major point that I was interested in was ensuring that the TD was called. I suspect that this wasn't really a misspull, West never suggested that. I agree that the TD might have taken her away from the table and asked her about this. She looked as if she was a bit puzzled. I did at the time think it was her intention to bid 3♠. As someone interested and knowledgeable about the Laws the question of UI struck me as interesting and perhaps a little amusing here and as one scenario I hadn't really thought about before. If this was an insufficient bid, it was probably in North South's interests for it to be accepted - the failing of self-ruling that goes on in this area is that this option of accepting is too often ignored. I'm pleased James has raised it here, because it certainly can't be a unique situation. Mike

Sorry to hear of your troubles Catfi. Hope it doesn't put the two of you off. I imagine many couples do play on BBO. Generally there is little at stake except an enjoyable game of bridge. My wife and I both play on BBO - not often in the Main Bridge Club and we usually play in different rooms in our house occasionally hurling insults through the walls - we have nicknames that suggest our relationship mamos and s_amos (certainly lacking originality!!). We generally play with friends if we do play - Im pretty sure you could easily find people to play with - maybe in one of the Clubs who would welcome you :) When we used to play in the Main Club I usually told opponents that we were a "couple". You might try this - if people are happy to start you'll avoid the unfortunate, hurtful and unfair comments - certainly invite me some time when you are online and I and many others will be happy to join you both. Mike

Who are the offending sides? Well EW and the TD for sure and I haven't made my mind up about NS yet. From the distance of a large ocean and an entire continent there is an unsavoury smell about all this, which makes me think that some bridge players are odious !&%$s. These we are told are experienced bridge players, presumably the ones who set an example for newbies and establish the tone of the game. South makes an ordinary enough opening - so far so good. West overcalls 1NT on a hand which appears well understrength to my limited understanding. North has a pretty good hand in the context. I don't understand Pass at all. Was there history between these players? Is there a serial puerile feud going on? North appears to have "allowed" for a pretty weak opening in the South. East starts off OK too with a pretty normal transfer response, but falls from grace pretty soon after when he fails to draw attention to his partner's failure to alert and appears to take advantage of the UI following the failure to alert and what would presumably normally be a transfer break And then there's the TD. I assume the Club was burgled overnight and that the precious Law Book was stolen. The wrong player is offered the opportunity to change a call and apparently no one is told the correct time to correct misexplanations such as failure to alert. There was apparently no reference to UI nor to its blatant use. As for whether the TD was told about all the bad behaviour we don't know, but It seems difficult to believe that a competent TD would not have been alert to the atmosphere at the table and in a good position to witness this. If NS didn't draw it to his attention they have not really anyone to blame but themselves. Players cannot expect Tds to deal with bad behaviour if they themselves don't draw attention to it at the time. As for the ruling - done by the end of the round? doesn't seem to have been much considered but hey perhaps the Td was fed up with this lot and wasn't prepared to join in their games. NS 5/10 EW 2/10 (and maybe less unless East has a good reason for passing 2♥) TD 0/10 and perhaps less on appeal Mike

At the risk of sounding grumpy and pedantic, might I suggest that the best approach is to read from the Law Book. Generally if you can identify the appropriate Law things will get easier. Law 71 applies here, declarer has conceded a trick. Law 71 1 does not apply but we need to consider Law 71 2. Could a trick be lost by normal play. Normal play is referenced in a footnote and does include a reference to the "class of player involved" and also a reference to including "careless and inferior plays". I think that it is generally agreed that there is a class of play worse than this so bad, that it is beyond careless and inferior. It's difficult to understand what was in declarer's mind here maybe he though one defender had both trumps. Would he lose a trick? Clearly he could. I can see only two ways - we could cash ♠A and ruff Club high, or play the Club first and still ruff high. Do we think this is normal? Well I do think it could be. A player who thinks he has a trump loser may be unconcerned about whether it's Trick 12 or 13 that he loses. Sure this is not best, but then conceding was careless and inferior too. I would take some convincing that the defence should not keep their trick

B. Disagreement on Tricks Won If a subsequent disagreement arises, the Director must be called, then: 1. The Director determines whether there has been a claim or concession and, if so, applies Law 69. 2. If 1 does not apply the Director rules what score is to be recorded. If the Director is not called before the round ends he rules in accordance with C below or Law 87, as applicable, but there shall be no obligation to increase a side’s score. I've been doing some preparatory work for a Club Director Training Course and one item referred to in the course notes is Law 79B. I'm completely mystified by the reference to Law 87, which appears to me to be a mistake of some kind. (I do have a theory, but would be interested to hear other opinions before offering it) Any thoughts? Mike

Oh dear Oh dear West is a d***. Has he done any harm? I just don't see it. South is learning about the dummy before he makes his lead - declarer is learning about dummy.... but he'll see it when South leads, hopefully West will learn about ACBL alerting regs. Procedural penalty? For not knowing Law 41 B? Surely not. Unethical? Nah just stupid. It all seems a greatly overblown reaction to a small and harmless mistake Mike

Expert what? plumbers? If NS want to give 1400 away I see no good reason to interfere. Mike

Match Point Pairs North to call [hv=pc=n&s=sakj4hjt9dj754ck9&w=sq2h632daq83cj654&n=s9865hdkt962caqt2&e=st73hakq8754dc873&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p4hpp]399|300[/hv]

I'm tempted to ring John Probst who sadly can't read Laws Forum these days because of eye-sight problems. Surely this is a Law 23 case. John had a test called the "Cheat's Test" This doesn't imply that North is a cheat, but asks what would a cheat do? Playing the Club is a sure-fire way of finding out the Spade position. (Unless East is incredibly cute - you'd have to think very quickly to play small here) North "could have known" that this would work to his benefit and so I believe we should adjust. Mike

Perhaps a large bottle of cough mixture will become de rigeur in some tournaments Mike

Not true. Only declarer or dummy should correct misexplanations at this time. Defenders must wait until the end of play to correct in this way. Read From the Flipping Law-Book Mike

I'd like to make three comments about this case 1) I agree with those who suggest that SEWoG is not relevant in this case. Where MisInformation is involved, what happened during the auction and play following MI is not generally relevant to the ruling - what matters overwhelmingly is what would East have done with the correct explanation. If East had been told that South had 16+ balanced he would not have doubled. The contract should be adjusted to 3NT making whatever number of tricks the TD decides is appropriate. 2) In the EBU it would be unusual to award a PP for South's failure to call the TD in a timely fashion. Only a serial offender or a very experienced player would be awarded a PP 3) MI cases generally involve Unauthorised Information. North's failure to alert suggests that North has forgotten the convention, so South must take care to avoid a suggested action. I'd need to ask South why he chose 3NT rather than say 4♠. I might need to poll a few of South's peers who play this (imho) horrid convention It might be considered that bidding 3NT was a "safer" action in light of the MI than the alternative 4♠. Mike

This is a classic example of the situation described in some detail in Law 75 If North's description of the 2♥ call is an accurate description of the partnership agreement then South has made a "Mistaken Call" and as campboy has suggested EW are not entitled to adjustment. On the other hand if the partnership agreement is different (or indeed as is so often there is no real partnership agreement and the correct response to an opponent's query ought to say just that) then North has given a "Mistaken Explanation" and the TD must try to determine what might have happened with the correct explanation of the offending partnership's agreements and adjust accordingly. Often of course the tricky bit is deciding what the partnership's agreements actually are, especially here where the "cultural norm" is no convention cards. From Law 75 C "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.)" Sometimes it is assumed that evidence means documentary evidence but this is not always the case. The TD must ask NS questions - "Have you ever played a different method? Do you often play together? Do you play different methods with different partners?" Have you used DONT on another hand today?" and from the answers to these questions form an opinion. Is their real agreement that this bid shows the majors? It is my experience that the vast (overwhelming) majority of bridge players answer truthfully in these situations. The TD has to be a judge of character and decide (Law 85) (Sometimes I think too much weight is given to Convention Cards in these cases. Even when there are two Convention Cards the TD needs to ask questions and to be aware that often CCs reflect one member of the partnership's understanding of their agreements rather than both. I long for the "good old days" when CCs were written by hand. If a player had the agreement written in their own handwriting this was pretty good evidence that they had at least heard of the convention they were supposed to be playing!) The bidding might sometimes give clues too, eg if North had more Spades than Hearts, or a better hand and had taken unusual action opposite what was supposed to be a major two-suiter, this would cast doubt on the strength of their agreements. So if the TD is satisfied that this is a Mistaken Call, no adjustment is appropriate, (Sorry EW) but if there is any doubt that this might be a Mistaken Explanation then the TD should adjust if he thinks EW have been damaged. (I'm sure they have, even if West might be considered a bit of a dope here)

Even table Mitchells are dead easy to organise in two halves and a competent scorer should be able to write such a movement into a scoring program For example 8 tables - 3 boards a round - needs two sets of boards - minisession 1 12 boards Table 1 1-3 2 4-6 etc then 5 1-3 again 6 4-6 and so on - now you can play and complete 4 rounds with normal Mitchell and conduct your teaching whatever Second half boards 13-24 in same way move up one table from end of Session 1 and play four more rounds Barometer need not take s many boards as you may think - an eight table complete barometer could easily play three board rounds using four sets as three boards can successfully be shared between two tables. You can devise semibarometer moves where half the field shares boards in one round and swaps with the other half in the next. Dividing nine or even 12 tables into threesubsections would work As Blackshoe suggests tell us what numbers you have and Im sure someone can come up with some ideas Mike

Mindful that this may not be the whole story, it seems to me that not just East and West have done badly on this hand but also the TD. I believe that the TD should have drawn the players attention to the existence of UI and of their responsibilities following it. We tend to assume that experienced players know this but this assumption is not always well-founded. East should clearly have known better than to do anything that would draw attention to West's mistaken explanation, but the West player should also have been told that East's actions and request to talk to the TD in private were UI and that further calls by West must not take this into account. The legal position in relation to South's withdrawn 2♥ bid is clear. The TD should have read Law 16D and made sure that the players understood this also. West's Pass over 2♦ is not a Logical Alternative. No way EW can do anything except bid 2♥ and no reason NS cannot use their AI to double it. No way E or W can pull except by using UI. About NS +800 In some sports, golf and snooker for example, professional players believe that they must display exemplary ethical and behavioral standards. If East wants to appeal, then the player will have the opportunity to explain why an attempt to correct West's erroneous explanation was made at an inappropriate time.