jallerton

Is this line of argument specific to Law 27 or a general point about whether the laws are available authorised information? Are you suggesting we should not read Law 31A2 before giving a non offender the option of accepting a bid out of rotation, or not reading Law 50C or Law 50D to a non offender before playing on once there is a penalty card? Yes, this is the more general point. Advising a player which calls would or would silence partner is surely just as much an aid to technique as is advising them what Law 77 says.

It is sufficient and thus of course legal. But partner would have to pass whenever it is his turn to call. Even if the pair has an agreement showing approximately opening hand, or at least overcall, strength (maybe vul vs not)? Wouldn't that encompass hands that would overcall 1 ♥, but also be more defined, and thus legal? Not necessarily. With the two hands below: [a] x AQJxx x AKJxxx void AKQJxxx AKQJxx void (i) what would you open; and (ii) would you make a Michaels cue bid over a 1♠ opening? However, I believe that a correction to an intermediate jump overcall of 3♥ would be permitted under Law 27B1 without silencing partner as all IJO hands would open 1♥.

Ed suggests Law 81C2 which says: So the TD should advise South that he has a right to accept the insufficient bid and (if he does not accept it) he should advise East of his responsibility to correct it to a legal call. Sven suggests Law 10C, but that says: Law 10C1 instructs the TD to "explain all of the options available". In this case, it seems to me that the options available are: 1. South should be given the option to accept the insufficient bid or not. 2. If South does not accept the insufficient bid, East should be given his options: to correct his call to any sufficient bid or to a Pass (or possibly to a Double if this has the same or a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid). It seems to me that neither Law 81C2 nor Law 10C authorises the TD to explain the consequences of selecting a particular option. I realise that it is generally accepted TD practice around the world to explain which calls would or would not bar partner, but this practice would appear to be legal only if you consider the Laws themselves to be available authorised information.

Thanks to everyone who has replied. Sven, can you please explain which Law gives you the authority to read out the whole of Law 27B to the players?

North, the dealer opens 1♠. East bids 1♥. If you ask, East will tell you that he did not see the 1♠ opener. You are called to the table. What exactly do you say (and to whom)? [You may assume that East/West play both a 1♥ opening bid and a 2♥ overcall of 1♠ as natural.]

John is a good TD. He was neither one of the best, nor a poor TD. Unfortunately he is not currently directing owing to serious illness. Since the quiz was not official, the L&EC will have had no reason to review it unless someone brought it to their notice, and they may not anyway. The quiz has no more legal standing than this forum, to which similar comments apply. This quiz was in what appeared to outside world to be an official EBU publication. If one or more answers to the directing quiz was clearly incorrect, then "one of the best" of the TDs should have written to the bulletin editor to have the correct answer with a suitable explanation published in the next edition (the bulletin editor is always looking for material!).

This case needs more investigation before we can give a definitive answer. We need to ask Opener: 1. What did 4♠ mean and why did you bid it? 2. What did 5♣ mean? 3. What did 5♦ mean and why did you bid it? Remember, we need to consider the logical alternatives for a player who thought that it was correct to bid 4♠ and then 5♦. If polling players, we should exclude the results from people who thought it was correct to play in 6♠ as soon as partner had moved with 5♣ as those players would not (or at least should not) have bid 5♦. I've never played Blue Club, but I would have though the most logical interpretation of the space-consuming 4♠ bid would be: "I don't think we have enough controls for slam" and hence 5♣ shows interest in slam despite the fact that the partnership is missing a few high card controls, i.e. 5♣ implies a shortage and/or a source of tricks in a side suit.

or, as in the case of Law 27B1, if a single Law is in apparent conflict with itself then it should be changed!

Actually I did precisely that... but at 470 pages of A4 it's much too bulky to carry around, so I've left it at the club and intend to rely on the online version on my iPhone. Section 121.7 of the EBU White Book still requires EBU TDs to have access to a (presumably up-to-date version of) the White Book itself. Bad news for diligent TDs such as Gordon: your EBU White Book is already out of date! According to the EBU website, the White Book (published April 2010) was amended again in August 2010. Does anyone know what changes were made between the April and August versions?

Are you sure that this was the explanation? I had been under the impression that Lauria knew his partner had opened 1♥ during the early auction but that at the time the auction reached the 6-level (several minutes later) he had a mental block and temporarily thought that 6♠ was slam in the suit partner had opened.

So apparently when using the old-fashioned travellers, the "correct" procedure is to take out the traveller at end of the clarification period to record the contract and opening lead whilst fresh in mind! Law 79 requires the players to agree the number of tricks won before the hands are returned to their pockets. I can't see why there is any legal requirement to enter the score in the Bridgemate at this time. Meanwhile it surely makes sense to clear away the pile of quitted tricks before getting the Bridgemate out.

Of course, partner's announcement is UI. The more tricky question is deciding whether any logical alternatives exist to ones based on noticing your misbid yourself anyway. Let me recount an example from personal experience when I was feeling a bit sleepy a few months ago. My partner and I were playing a variable 1NT opening. We were NV and the first call I saw in the auction was a 1NT opening by my partner. As we play a mini 1st NV, I announced this as "10-13". RHO doubled, I passed, LHO bid 2♥. But as LHO put down her 2♥ card I could not help but notice that she had put it on top of a green Pass card. Then I worked out what had happened: LHO was in fact the dealer and had passed originally. As we play a different NT range in 2nd position I now had to call the TD to correct my misexplanation. The relevance of my example to the present case is that I believe that Opener who thought he had bid 1♠ would always have noticed the 1NT bidding card in front of him at the time when he came to make his next call.

Well, what about Law 12A2? In the circumstances you outline, I do not conider "normal play" of the board to be possible.

My view is that the TD should ask South to explain exactly why (s)he passed 3♣, before attempting to make a ruling.

How can 1NT not be allowed? Are we playing some game that isn't bridge? Sorry that post was from FrancesHinden, I forgot to log out as jallerton and this forum won't allow posts to be deleted.

I am surprised at the dismissive nature of most of the replies you have received thus far. In answer to question 1, if called to the table as director I would approach this situation as I would any other ruling: investigate the facts! In this case, after hearing the auction I would ask the player to explain why he bid 7NT; depending on the initial reply, I may or may not ask follow-up questions. Only when I have heard from the player can I give a sensible answer to question 2.

Well it might make sense from an "active ethics" point of view, but the pairs Bluejak knows are clearly breaching the Orange Book regulations (5C1 says that natural 1NT openinggs are announceable and 5E1 implies that announceable bids are not alertable) and despite their good intentions they should apparently (according to 5H2) be given procedural penalties. If I were playing this system I would make an effort to draw my opponents' attention to this part of the system at the start of the round. I might also risk procedural penalties by announcing it as something like: "16-17 or perhaps 13-15 with a precise shape" I thought you played Strong Diamond. That is still allowed at Level 4, isn't it?

I've never played with GIB, but a friend who does play with GIB has asked me a question. In GIB Money Bridge, it is permissible to take advantage of GIB partner's tempo? Playing normal bridge, the answer is of course no (Law 73 and Law 16B refer) but is GIB Money Bridge normal bridge?

Oh, no. That is definitely untrue. When Precision was invented players believed much more that points were necessary for strong openings. At that time, Precision players had 16 points for 1♣. It is a new idea to open distributional hands with strong artificial openings. What does the sequence 1♥ 1NT 3♥ show in Precision? Simple: a hand that these days players want to open 1♣. Not as I recall it. Some of you perhaps have the benefit of a copy of the old books - I gave my Reese book on Precision to a former partner - but I seem to clearly recall a couple of examples that were powerful rule of 24 hands that he did recommend be included in 1♣. I am afraid your memory is faulty. I repeat below the results of my research from several months ago. In Precision Bidding for Everyone (Goren & Wei), it is explained that the correct opening bid is 1♦ on: ♠AQ ♥none ♦KJ1095 ♣ KQ10973 So in original Precision, it seems that there are no upgrades for distribution or exceptional intermediates! In Precision Bidding and Precision Play, Terence Reese is slightly less strict. Although he explains that it would be a mistake to open 1♣ on: ♠5 ♥AK10974 ♦KQJ86 ♣4 he goes on to say that: Interestingly, Reese's exceptional hand both conforms with the Rule of 25 and contains eight "clear cut tricks", whilst the hand on which it would be a "mistake" to open 1♣ does not meet either of those criteria. In "either or" 1♣ systems such Carrot/Swedish Club and Polish Club then the traditional minimum strength for the strong option is 17, 18+ or 19+HCP so the EBU's 16+ minimum does allow slack for judgement upgrades when playing the traditional versions of these system.

Of course. I fully accept this, and that opponents were fully entitled to seek an artificial score. (I do think it is a bit ironic, though, that one of them told me that he thought it was a completely ridiculous regulation but that while it existed he didn't see why he shouldn't take advantage of it.) My personal view is that the current rule for strong club openings is slightly too restrictive, but as long as the regulation exists [and my strong club team-mates religiously adhere to this (and also to other arbitrary regulations)], I don't see why my opponents should be allowed to gain a potential advantage through an illegal agreement, especially when the true agreement is not properly disclosed.

I was about to reply along similar lines but you have expressed the situation very well so you have saved me some typing!

So the questions to be asked are: 1. Is considering whether or not to make a pre-emptive raise a "demonstrable bridge reason"? 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes (making 73F1 not relevant) can or should the TD ever adjust as implied by Campboy above for a breach of Law 73D1?

I think that this: tells us that such an interpretation would be incorrect. The issue with the wording of Law 86D is not the use of the singular; it is the deliberate use of the definite article which is significant. Compare with Law 12C1(e) where the use of the indefinite article acknowledges that the clause can apply to both sides. As others have observed, it seems that Law 86D may have been written to cover a very specific situation; and that cases like the one mentioned at the start of this thread had not been considered.

That's not the question to be considered. Instead, the TD needs to consider whether failing to double after 2♠ p p with a 1444 13 count after RHO has thought for a long time is "wild or gambling" In fact as the hand comes from Denmark, the TD would consult the Danish laws and would only deny redress if the action is considered to be "vildt satsende" which roughly translates to "wildly gambling", apparently.

It doesn't. It may have been in a WBFLC minute, I'm not sure. The term did not appear in the 1997 Laws. It was introduced in the The First Edition of the World Bridge Federation Code of Practice (“CoP”), which was published by the WBF in December 1999 and adopted by the European Bridge League in January 2000. However, as the Code of Practice did not replace the Laws themselves, NBOs were under no obligation to adopt the CoP. For example, in England the Laws & Ethics Committee decided not to adopt the CoP recommendations for denying redress for "irrational" actions. I'm not so sure about that. My guess is that the WBFLC judged the term "serious error" to be a modern/better way of saying "irrational" just as it judged to replace the word "penalty" with "rectification" in many places.