jallerton

Yes, lumping together South Africa with Kallingrad is particularly interesting as the latter is now GMT+3 all year round, always one hour ahead of the former. Equally, Nairobi is not in the same time zone as Turkey, even though they may share the same time currently! I would suggest that each time zone is split into places which use Summer Time for part of the year and those which do not.

If declarer has ♦10xx with ♦AK9xx in dummy, do you expect him to play low fom dummy at trick 1? What's the hurry? You'll get to see dummy anyway.

So what meaning do you consider to have the best theoretical merit (in the context of a natural system)?

Because you were claiming that a particular system was inferior because it was not played by "elite" pairs.

Sometimes an event is listed as broadcasting from more than one table. For example, four people have currently signed up for an event with two tables. Does the software tell the commentators who should be at which table, or are the commentators expected to sort this out at the time themselves?

So according to you, this pair has very good results despite not playing very much and despite playing what you consider to be an inferior system. Perhaps this means that the choice of basic system is not so important. Better players tend to win simply because they play better bridge than their opponents.

I think you could be waiting for quite a while! I'd prefer to worry about more frequent hand types.

To be fair to the blogger, The Netherlands are the current holders of the Bermuda Bowl (which England weren't good enough to qualify for). Meanwhile, in the recent European Championships, when England were considered to have done well in finishing 4th, The Netherlands came 2nd. So Guadelope would have every right to consider their 25-4 victory against The Netherlands to be a finer achievement than their 25-4 victory against England. My understanding is that Northern Ireland has always been part of Ireland (never Great Britan) for the purposes of European/World bridge events. Up until 1999, the British Bridge League had its own selectors, which seemed to work OK (at least relative to what we have now). An Olympic team would be The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of course.

Why? Surely it is also possible to include the word "not".

It means that after 1♠-1NT-2♣-2♦-2♥, 2♠ by Responder is a relay to find out more about Opener's shape (Opener's follow-ups are shown on the card below that).

Law 20G1 says "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner’s benefit." (my italics). So which Law precludes asking a question (at your own turn to call or play) partly for your opponents' benefit?

So if someone is ungagged (automatically or manually), is that person just ungagged for the session in question, or for the rest of the event in question, or for for all vugraph presentations until the next server reboot? When a potential commentator logs in to sign up, will they see how many (and which) commentators have already signed up for that session?

No, because it would lay us open to the accusation that our alerting regulations are simply bananas.

In my experience: the bidding and play records in the vugraph archives are correct (or at least in accordance with what was recorded by the vugraph operator at the time). the commentary record in the open room relates to the correct table (sometimes the first few comments relate to the previous hand, but this is normal for the live commentary too); the commentary record in the closed room contains comments from various random sets combined. In set 1, Helmego/Helness were in the closed room.

Try this website for vugraph archives.

Congratulations on your victories so far and good luck for the rest of the week. When this hand was shown on vugraph, there were a few differences. First of all, the vulnerability was shown as game all. Secondly, you were shown as having passed as dealer with the 1♥ opener in second seat (though I believe that you could not open a weak two in diamonds, so the inferences from passing as dealer may not affect too much). I would have doubled 3♦ too; Larry Cohen thought it was obvious to do so. Passing is dangerous, as when partner has roughly equal holdings in the side suits, the one suit he won't be leading is diamonds, noting your failure to double. Your opponent did very well to get the hearts right; diamonds are quite likely to be 5-5 from his point of view.

I agree that the TD should seek to establish the facts. The problem in cases such as this (and it seems like you agree judging by your careful wording "seek to"), is that it is very difficult for the TD to establish all of the necessary relevant facts. Law 25A says: though we are advised to rule on the basis that Law 25A1 says something like: "1. Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call for an unintended call but only if he does so, or attempts to do so, as soon as he realises his mistake, without pause for further thought. The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law." So for a correction to be permitted, the TD needs to establish all of the following: 1. That at the point when he put his hand in the bidding box, the original call was not the call he intended to remove from the bidding box. 2. That at the point when he put his hand in the bidding box, the call he intended to remove from the bidding box was the now proposed substituted call. 3. The exact time (which I shall call time t1) at which the player realised that he had not made his intended call. 4. The exact time (which I shall call time t2) at which the player corrected, or attempted to correct the unintended call. 5. That there was no pause for thought between time t1 and time t2. 6. Whether his partner had called before time t2. When, as in most Law 25A cases, the correction is immediate, the TD can have a reasonable idea what the answers to questions 1 to 6 might be. However, in cases like the one in this thread: the TD has to guess the time of variable t1. For example, if 2♥ was the intended call, North realised that he had actually bid 3♥ after 50 seconds and it took a further 10 seconds for him to attempt to correct it, then a Law 25A correction is not allowed. Even if the TD does allow a Law 25A correction at the table, then, as Campboy rightly points out, the TD would have to consider what prompted North to realise he had made an unintended call. If there is a breach of Law 73A, 73B and/or 73C, we could have the bizarre situation where North is allowed to change his call to 2♥, the contract is played out in 2♥ and yet the TD then has to assign an adjusted score, based on the contract being 3♥! As the declarer play and defence in 3♥ may not necessarily be the same as in 2♥ and the original poster is from ACBL-land, it is conceivable that this could end up with a split score after all!

As far as I am aware, the WBFLC has not obtained a copyright on the use of this phrase. I was just explaining that I was writing in normal English, not WBFLC-speak. Yes, we are all well aware that there are several WBFLC minutes explaining that they want Law 25A to be "interpreted" differently. The mystery to many of us is why the wording of the 2007 Laws was not amended to reflect the WBFLC's apparent intention.

So, on the occasions when you do not achieve your normal competence level, at what point do you discover that the wrong biding cards have been displayed? If I am writing a cheque then yes I do check all of the entries. You are right that when a new year is reached, there is a danger that one will write down the previous year by mistake. Hence I would be inclined to be more careful in my verification during this 'high risk' time. Similarly, players who know that in general they have a tendency to grab hold of the incorrect bidding cards learn to check which bid they are making when the bidding cards are removed from the bidding box. When, under the bidding box regulations in force, an unintended call is deemed to have been made, this natural check allows the player to make an instant correction, "without pause for thought" under the ordinary meaning of this phrase: a genuine correction under Law 25A.

I think that all Laws, including Law 25A, ought to be interpreted based on the normal English meaning of the wording used. Yes, if a person claims to have failed to notice what they might normally be expected to notice, then one should consider the possibility that the person is not telling the truth (or is mistaken). Let me ask you a question in return. When you are playing, do you check that the bidding cards you are removing from the bidding box match to the call you intend to make? Or do you sometimes hope for the best and not bother to check?

The TD could do some more investigation work here. He could enquire what percentage of the time this particular North uses the 'stop' card when making a jump bid, and whether or not the 'stop' card was used on this occasion. I agree. North might even be wrong without intending to lie. The longer the time that has elapsed since the original call, the more hazy the distinction in her own mind will be between "I intended to bid 2♥" and "I wish I had bid 2♥". Interesting. I agree with gwnn that if the wrong bidding card comes out of the box, the bidder would normally be expected to notice whilst the bidding cards are in her hand or as soon as they are released on to the table. Perhaps the phrase "if a player’s attention is diverted as he makes an unintended call" is referring to a situation where there is an external distraction (e.g. West knocks over a glass of water, or perhaps the TD makes an announcement) at the point when the call is being made.

The term "cheating" includes any deliberate violation of a Law or rule. Yes, having pre-arranged signals using what ought to be UI is one form of cheating, but there are plenty of other ways to cheat. Like it or not, people find ways to cheat at most games and sports. If you believe that the last incident of cheating at the bridge table was 50 years ago, then I'm sorry, but I think you are being naive. Of course, it is unwise to accuse anybody of cheating without hard evidence to back up your accusation, but that's no different to being very careful before making any other potentially slanderous comment. By the way, I suggest you edit your post to include the word "alleged" before the word "Reese".

It depends. Do you play: (1) Weak NT with 5-card majors; (2) Weak NT with 4-card majors, but opening the lower of two 4-card suits; or (3) Weak NT with 4-card majors, but opening the major before the minor? I expect that Justin's answer was assuming (1). If you play (1) or (2), then a sequence like 1♦-1♥-2♥ is consistent with 15-16 balanced and therefore has a stronger upper limit than the same sequence playing 5-card majors and a strong NT (when the typical hand type for this sequence is a weak NT). Therefore, playing (1) or (2), you don't also want to be raising to 2♥ on unbalanced hands which are relatively weak for playing in hearts. Otherwise, how does partner know when to make a game try? If you play (3), then yes you could agree that 1♦-1♥-2♥ is often a minimum 3-card raise.

Yes to the last question. Double sounds like penalties to me. If you double 2♥ on ♥KJ9x and also on ♥Kx, partner will not be able to judge when to pull. Partner's failure to double 1♠ suggests that he lacks 3 hearts, and defending a 9-card fit at the 2-level (albeit with the spades badly placed for declarer) is not normally a good idea. What would you have assumed 2♠ to be?

Two good observations. It seems to me that from East's explanation and his 3♣ bid that he did not really believe West to hold both minors. On this basis, if West had responded to Stayman with 3♥,East would probably have ceased to believe that partner could hold both minors and would have continued with 3NT. West, not holding 4 spades, would pass this.