Sadie3

If you had started the board before the new round had been called, normally you are allowed to finish that board according to Law 8. If the TD called the new round and then you ignored him and started the next board, I think you are lucky he just stopped you from completing it.

As a player, it would definitely be my last game played in any event that TD directed if he ever refused to let me see the claimant's cards. I would finish out my game, but that would be the last of me ever seen at that site as long as that TD worked there. (And I make lemonade out of lemons). ...and I would write to every regulating body I could think of and encourage all my friends to boycott that TD as well. This is not an issue that you can push under the table. I never have delayed a game, nor acted frivolously nor been disrespective towards a TD nor openly argued with one even when I know for a fact that their ruling was incorrect. Most issues can have nuances of interpretation, but a reasonable request to see a claimants cards is something that we should not refuse to allow. A TD that would do something like that is on a power trip and has forgotten his purpose for being there is to assist the players. If I were co-TDing the event, I would strongly encourage that TD to correct his ways (but I would not overrule him) and if he did not, I would be strongly inclined to write regulating authorities and report this behavior even though I truly dislike doing something like that to another coworker. IMO, this type of TD should find another job.

We'd be sitting at a table for a long time if my opponent made a claim and didn't let me see his cards.,

No one seems to mention that this was the first time blackshoe had been told that his partner was a frequent psycher. As a truely impartial TD, blackshoe had an obligation to treat this as a first time psyche (IMO). I also think that the reporting pair should be advised that they need to report this player every time he psyches so that a history may be established. In other words, "what is the problem?" Psyches are part of the game.

I think it will continue to post until you make out a new one and post it. Then the revised one will take the place of the original one. I'm not sure about replacing the ACBL convention card. I haven't figured out how to modify that one.

Bidding goes 1C (X) 1D (2H). How do you interpret the 2 Heart Bid?

Law 23 is specifically about irregularities in the bidding. I don't see where 'playing' a singleton has anything to do with the bidding.

What happened to the part about players having to explain their agreements but that doesn't mean they don't deviate occasionally on purpose or accidentally? The subsequent bidding certainly should have put the opponents on alert. Misinformation is giving out incorrect information regarding agreements. I see no laws regarding one having to tell when they have deviated from their agreements as long as their partner knows no more than the opponents do. He could have just stuck a spade in with his clubs and said, "Opps, I thought I had 5 clubs and intended to make a reverse."

Wow, Your interpretation of the law is way different from mine on this one. I agree that the hesitation by the partner puts strain on the North hand to bid his hand without taking inference from partner, but I know of no one that would say that the North hand was not worth a 3S bid on its own merit.

I have never required 5S to respond 1S to a 1H opener when playing flannery because I think it is important to show the spade suit in case NT is in the future for this hand. I will specifically try to show a 4 card spade suit especially when I am holding 2 or less hearts.

Is this a ruling question or a poll on how to make bad bids?

It is 81C3 (ACBL 2008)in my law book and the issue is : Are you a director when you are kibitzing? I was told that you were not. Thank you for your take on this. But as soon as you don your official hat, you must act. So in this interpretation, walking by a table would constitute 'official' but sitting at a table would not be. I can understand and relate to 'not seeing' when walking by a table as well.

As a Kibber you can say nothing. You must wait until one of the players makes it official. From this point on, I am not positive how to proceed because I am not sure you may use what you observed before officially acting.

Ok Bluejak, you win. A player with 20 HCP that has two opportunities to get into an auction (one of them in the pass out seat) fails to do so and should be recompensed for his failure to figure out something rotten was going on.

I read "could be" not that "it is"."Could be" is totally different from "it is" and my thoughts remain the same. The opps failed to protect but they certainly had the instincts that something was amiss or a director wouldn't have been called at all. I do have a "hard line" attitude towards players that try to play both sides of an issue. You know, the ones that say we'll let this go in hopes the opps messed themselves up, and if we find we are going to get a bad board, let's call the director and see if we can get redress that way. So, yes, I have little sympathy here. The ethics of the N/S pair is the issue. Depending on the remainder of their agreement for this bid, I can see a penalty for a "failure to disclose". I'm still trying to understand why anyone thinks the E/W pair should be considered for any recompense.

I think this all depends on whether or not having a long unidentified suit is also part of the agreement or was it just that this hand happened to have a long suit? I suspect that the definition of "gerber" was accurate and could suggest several hand types one of which is this one. I think the opps failed to play bridge and I think the result stands.

Yeah, I was wondering why East got away with saying North couldn't change his bid and that no TD was called at that point. The late TD call really muddied the waters and if it were me, I am not sure I would have allowed any discussion of anything at that point. I think I would have said...discussion ended, assume what you want, play and call me at end if you still think that there is some irregularity you wish to report.

I was interviewing a cleaning woman that was applying for a position in helping with the upkeep in a house I was rehabbing and occupying in this small town Florida community. When I asked the reason she had left her last employer, she replied, "Well, sir, they paid good wages, but I'm tellin' ya, it was the most ridiculous and sinful place I've ever worked. My, last night they were playing some kind of game called Bridge and a lot of local town folks were there that I recognized from the social pages of our town newspaper. I was about to bring in the refreshments, when I heard a man say, "Lay down and let's see what you've got." Another man said, "I've got strength but no length." "Then another man says to a lady, "Take your hand off my trick!" "I pretty near damn near droped the tray and dropped dead just then, when I was shocked to my senses to hear the lady answer, "You jumped me twice when you said you didn't have the strength for one more raise." Another lady was talking about protecting her honor. And I couldn't believe it, in this respectable community, hearing yet another lady call out, "Now it's time for me to play with your husband and you can play with mine." "Well, with them shenanigans goin' on, I just got my hat and coat ...and as I was leaving, I hope to die if one of them didn't say, "Well, I guess we'll all go home now cuz this is the last rubber." viva las vegas Bonne Journee/Have a Nice Day

I would tell East privately, later, that it is always in his best interest to not talk at all once a claim has been made other than to call a TD. That being said, it is my understanding that when there is a reasonable line of play that may be construed wherein the non-claiming side may take a trick that trick is awarded to the non-claiming side. The declarer can state how he will play the hand 1000 different ways and it makes no difference once the claim has been made and those late reiterations are to be ignored by the TD. Without East's statement saying he would lead a heart, it was reasonable that East play the club and therefore West would score his trump. However, East's premature statement saying he was going to lead a heart "trumps" the law and the reasonable play from the declarer would be to play his low trump, not the high one, I would rule that the claim was good. IMO East gave up his rights when he blurted out his intended play.

Maybe you misread my post. The 30 day suspension was only if the issue could not be resolved. And I agree it is excessive for just ZT. But it is not just for ZT, it is for disrupting the whole game and the other players. Any player that walks out on a face to face game faces a 30 day banning. That is standard practice in my area. The reason for the foul language getting the 30 days is because it caused the walk out and disruption of the game. Note that no banning is involved if the involved players can work it out promptly. ...and the ZT is for the type of foul language. I think all bridge players have some bridge terms they use that some may consider foul, but that is different from swearing at some one. I would never suggest that the two arguing players apologize and move on. I am not a counselor. If they want to hate each other it is ok with me, but they can't behave badly in my game.

I think the TD's main priority is to stop the arguing and to keep the rest of the game running smoothly. So, I would take each of the arguing players and separate them and talk to them privately. What I mean by talking is actually listen to them, because what I have found is that usually players that get steamed up like this usually just need to vent a little steam and they calm right down. If after the brief separation, either of the players still refuses to play, that player would get a 30 day suspension for that infraction effective immediately. I would take the time to explain that the infraction has nothing to do with the personal differences of opinion between the two players, but everything to do with the disruption to the game and inconvenience to all the other participants. I would then find a substitute player by calling or having a kibber sit in or playing myself to finish the session. As for the foul language, that is a zero tolerance issue and I would give a 30 day suspension to that player as well, but I would wait until the end of the session to enforce it. In other words, the ZT is a 30 day suspension and the walk out is a 30 day suspension so both players are held responsible and neither will be able to gloat about the other being suspended. If after the cooling off talks, these players agreed to play and continued the session to completion without further incidence, I probably would not give a 30 day suspension to either of them but I would advise them at the end of the session that a repeat offense would result in a 30 day suspension and that they need to figure out how to get along.

I would say results stand. East has no double of any kind over the 3S bid and the failure to alert did not damage the opps. E/W could possibly make 3S but that bid is not available to them and any higher contract would damage them considerably since N/S would never give up the contract below 5D. It is normal for north to pull 4S to 5D. South should not be punished for misunderstanding his partner's bid and the pull to 5D is normal in anyone's game.

What about applying Law 21, "Call based on misinformation"? It seems to me that the player that believed this would be gerber was giving misinformation even tho he believed it himself. I think it is time to see what the hands look like.

I do not know anyone that plays 4c over a takeout double over a 3s preempt as conventional. Is this common in Europe?

A South that isn't drooling over the 3H bid has fallen asleep at the table in my opinion. I can't imagine anyone making a double at that point especially since 1NT had been bid by East. South unquestionally knows what has happened. I wouldn't wake anyone up by doubling but I might bid 5 diamonds as an attempt to stop the opps from finding their spades. I just would never buy south's attempt to tell me he didn't know what was going on. I think south was hedging the bet by pleading ignorance. (If this doesn't work and the opps run into the right contract I'll call for protection.)