Chris L

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9764hak543dqt9c&n=sj85hjt87dj2caj52&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=p1n2cp2hp3hp4h]266|200|2C showed the majors. 1NT was 12-14. 2H (which showed values and H support, with a 2D negative available, was slow[/hv] At the table EW called the TD when 4H was made. He allowed the 3H bid and an appeal panel upheld the decision. Were the TD and appeal panel right? (This hand came up in a recent "A" team inter-county game in England)

I took a call from someone directing at a local club last night. The evening had been underway for 20 minutes or so. On the first round, with cards dealt at the table, one member of the NS pair at a particular table had 14 cards and the other 12. Each member of the partnership faithfully recorded the cards they had on the relevant curtain card and proceeded to bid and play the hand, with no one at the table noticing the irregularity, and arrive at a result. The error was discovered at the next table, when NS counted their cards (without looking at them). NS at the first table were asked to correct the misboarding but said they couldn't as the hands were exactly as played. Without having a law book to hand and not wanting to hold up their evening, I said that the result on the first round should be cancelled, with NS getting 40% and EW 60% and then someone at the first table should be asked to select a card at random from the 14 card hand to add to the 12 card hand, with new curtain cards provided, and the board could then be played normally for the rest of the evening. It occurred to me afterwards that maybe the board should have been re-dealt instead.

I could certainly amend the rules of the particular county league to cover the point - thank you. I am now wondering what the legal basis is for the use of multiple sets of pre-duplimated boards in EBU events; in the case of knock-out matches played privately there is this specific provision: "16. Boards must be shuffled and dealt at the table at the commencement of each set. A player of each side must be present at the dealing of every board. Any player in doubt may require a board to be re-dealt before it is first played. Alternatively, team captains may agree to an alternative means of board dealing (e.g. via a "Duplimate" machine) subject to proper security arrangements being maintained at all times." But what about congresses or events like the Tollemache Cup? Law 6 E.3. permits the Director to "have his assistants or other appointed agents perform the shuffle and deal in advance" - but with a Duplimate machine there is no "shuffle" as such. Is a computer plus a machine which can read bar codes capable of being an "other appointed agent" of the Director? This is only a semi-serious observation - I am not thinking of pitching up at Brighton next weekend and giving Max Baxin a hard time!

I'm hoping someone can point me to some relevant guidance on this. Duplimated boards are rapidly becoming the norm in England - and not just for Simultaneous Pairs events, where there are specific regulations about the preparation of the boards and their transportation to the venue. Law 6 is silent on the specific point, as is the 2011 White Book. My county participates in the Eastern Counties League with seven others. All of us now produce two or more identical sets of 32 boards with accompanying hand records. Sometimes they are brought to/left at the venue by someone who has "duplimated" them but who isn't playing, but sometimes not. No one (in the dozens of matches I have played) has ever raised Law 6 C (representatives of both pairs to be present etc). What is the position under the Laws if they do? The TD at such matches is invariably a member of the home side, playing in the match. There was a challenge in a recent county teams of four match where a representative of the home team had duplimated about half the 24 boards on the home club's machine before the first of the oppo arrived - and the oppo captain then objected and they ended up dealing all 24 by hand in the "old" way. No doubt the oppo were within their rights; possibly not within the "spirit" of the Laws (cf the admirable decision of Mr Dhoni at Trent Bridge last weekend).

Quite. One of the four players at the table was our captain. I think their captain was playing in my room - had he also been in the room, the "captains [might have agreed] on a ruling" without realising it. :)

Ooops; I had forgotten that 2♠ was no longer alertable. I'll go back to sleep.

[hv=d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1c1nd2hp2sd3hppp]133|100[/hv] This hand came up in a teams of 4 match of high quality played in EBU land. I wasn't involved either as a player or in a TD capacity but was asked for my view subsequently by South. I don't have the full hand details. The 1NT overcall was 15-17. Both doubles were for penalty. The 2♥ bid was alerted, 2♠ wasn't. EW are a very regular partnership. E had a 2722 shape, W 4♠ and 2♥. E thought they were playing "system off" after the double, W that they were playing "system on". (You might think that this fairly basic bit of system is not something that a very regular partnership would forget and I would agree with you - but they are and they did). W explained 2♥ as showing 5+♠ and 3♥ as natural. He justified his pass of 3♥ on the basis (in the light of the double of 2♠) that the only explanation for the auction was that E had just ♥ and that one of them had forgotten the system. It would seem that both E and W were in possession of UI. Do you allow the pass of 3♥?

To the best of my knowledge, all four players in the room where the board was due to be played the second time agreed that it should be cancelled - whether one or more of them were more or less happy about that I don't know; I can only assume that all four thought that was the only option available - so there was no question in their minds of the captains having to agree a ruling (which is indeed what the conditions of contest provide). There was no further discussion about it as we joined our team-mates in that room to score up. After we had scored up and arrived at a win by 6 IMPs we thought that was the end of the matter until one of the oppo suggested that it wasn't.

Absolutely; I always carry one (and the Orange Book) when I am captain. I wasn't captain on Wednesday night; as we were playing in our captain's house, I made the (mistaken) assumption that he would have one and didn't bother to take my copy. On this particular occasion, I don't think the presence of a law book would have prevented the taking of the law into their own hands by the players concerned, though it might have meant that we wouldn't have needed to trouble the panel TD at almost 11pm.

No - I read your reply rather too quickly and misunderstood it. :) Give my regards to Shireen

As to the first, at the table the board was first played, 12 and 14 cards were put back in the East and South hands respectively. Whether one player (either East or South) was responsible for this or two I have no idea. We are using "passed" in two different senses; I thought Gnasher was referring to the "call" not in fact made by East before he counted his cards on the second occasion the board was played. No - before either East or South could call, East discovered he was a card short.

No player passed the wrong number of cards. Two players with the right number bid; then the player with 12 cards finally got round to counting his cards and declared that he had only 12.

Not the least of the many sources of amusement generated by this forum is the noise of hobby horses being ridden, closely followed by the utterly cynical willingness of some contributors to believe (on no evidence at all) the worst of fellow bridge players. Did I say anything about "speed bidding" in the OP? I think not. What I wrote was that East had been a bit slow to count his cards - and this in the context of being third in hand. As to the possible explanations for the original misboard, we were playing with old-style rigid Fleming boards, with impenetrable divisions between the individual pockets.

Thank you all for the comments so far. Law 13 D 2 (b) would certainly have been relevant had the "director" been called immediately. Certainly South was at fault. This incident is a good example of why players shouldn't make their own rulings; had anyone from my room been summoned as soon as the incorrect number of cards in the S and E hands had been identified, it might have been possible for the board to have been played - we never discovered which card it was that was in South's hand rather than East's. The TD may well have considered Law 86D; he was called by our captain and I didn't hear the whole of the conversation nor the whole of the reply. 5♦ was a fairly normal result which I am reasonably sure would have been reached by our NS pair, who are not shy in the bidding. At worst they would have taken 300 from 4♥X. It was certainly the case (or so it appeared to me) that all four players in the room in which the board was not played concurred in the decision to void the board. There was certainly no suggestion at that stage that the board should be replayed. Maybe EW thought they had a good enough card not to worry; we were 3 IMPs up after 12 boards and they had bid and made a very thin game and team-mates had missed a 50% slam (which proved to be worth 21 IMPs). Unfortunately their team-mates had gone two off in a pretty ludicrous 6♣ when our pair played in a normal 3NT and their EW pair had let through a no play vulnerable 3NT on a hand on which we held 2♣ to 8 tricks.

[hv=d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1h1s2h3d4h5dppp]133|100[/hv] This board, played privately last night, was the last of a 24 board teams of 4 match in the EBU's NICKO Plate (a "consolation" event for those unfortunate or incompetent enough to get knocked out in the first round of their popular National Inter-Club KO competition - needless to say, I wasn't playing for our team when that happened :) and nor was my partner). You may find it hard to believe when you read what follows but all eight players were experienced tournament players. The bidding in my room, where the board was the last of the six played after the compulsory change of opponents after 12 boards, was as shown. There was no defence to 5D and that was 400 to the oppo. We then played boards 13-18 and knocked on the door of the other room to see how they were getting on. "Two to play" was the reply (ie boards 23 & 24). After quite a short time, they emerged from the room. I said "that was quick for two boards" and someone said something like "we couldn't play board 24 as it was misboarded in your room so we've agreed that board is void". We then scored up and my team, ignoring board 24, had won by 6 IMPs. At this point the oppo said they thought that board 24 ought to be re-dealt and played. I was fairly sure that was no longer possible but no one had a Laws book. The conditions of contest provided that in those circumstances, if we were unable to agree on an outcome, we should telephone one of the EBU Panel of TD's for a ruling. The problem was that, after the board had been played in our room, one of East's (my partner's) cards somehow found its way into declarer's hand: I still can't think how. When the board was replayed, South counted her cards face down and arrived at 13; she then looked at them. The bidding then started 1♥-1♠, as in our room. At this point East, who had been a bit slow to count his cards, counted them face down and said "I've only got 12 cards". Everyone else recounted theirs and South found a 14th card in her hand. Because she had looked at her hand, the players came to the (possibly erroneous - see Law 13A) conclusion that it was no longer possible to play the hand and at that point agreed that the board should be void. Nothing was said at that stage about dealing and playing a replacement. There would seem to have been breaches of Laws 7 B 2 & 3. Law 13 B would seem to be in point; Law 86 C precludes the play of a substitute board. The TD we consulted came to the same conclusion and ruled that any procedural penalties of 3 IMPs would cancel one another out as both sides were at fault (not that an "unbalanced" 3 IMPs would have made any difference). I agree with the TD but then I would, wouldn't I. Anyone think he got it wrong?

Easiest problem of the decade; adjust to 7♠x minus several, maximum permissible PP to NS and, assuming the Monday IMP game at the Royal Over-Seas League falls under the auspices of the EBU, haul NS off to the L&E for a good disciplinary seeing to. Surprised you even needed to ask.

The majority might be right or they might not. As this is perhaps the nearest we will get to a consensus ad idem perhaps we should leave it there (some posters seem to have got bored, to judge from the last three posts). At least seven contributors appear to know the Surrey NS pair quite well; if and when anything which clears up any of the "known unknowns" emerges, no doubt it will be added to this thread. I don't know whether the moderators keep statistics on "most views" or "most posts" on a single thread - has this one broken any?

I meant in arriving at his ruling, and no more. We can only "assume" it because we don't know (and will probably never know) exactly his reasoning. Should "concrete evidence" from NS ever arrive, it would be interesting to read it. I am "assuming" that the TD didn't rule "result stands" because, for example, he didn't like the look of EW (or their N-PC) and arrived at his decision in accordance with his understanding of the facts and the relevant laws. As to the second point, surely the TD has to satisfy himself that the meaning of 3♠ contended for by NS is at least a possibility under their agreements. If he does, then he must ask himself of what other possible explanations (if any) for the 3♠ bid the NS agreements admit. Then he needs, via consultation, to establish the logical alternative bids (if any) to 3NT and decide whether 3NT is indicated over any of those by the UI.

This problem arose in an Eastern Counties League match between Cambs & Hunts and Suffolk yesterday. At one table in the "B" team match, (Love All, dealer E), S opened a weak NT and W doubled for penalties on ♠AJTx ♥AQ9xx ♦9 ♣AQT. The oppo were apparently playing "system on" after the double and N bid 2♥* on a 5341 3 count. S duly converted to 2♠ on his 2443 13 count. W doubled this for penalties and all passed, EW scoring +300. At the end of the hand, NS asked for a ruling on whether the second double should have been alerted as being for penalties; I'm not sure what damage was said to have ensued from the failure to alert, but that's not the point of the question. I couldn't deal with the matter as I had yet to play the board. There was an EBU TD playing in the "B" team match and he looked at the hand with his TD hat on after he had played it himself and ruled "result stands". Given that EW can make 6♣ - and did make 5♣ +1 at one table in the "B" team match - NS seemed happy enough. My colleague discussed it with me afterwards and neither of us was sure whether, after 1NT has been doubled for penalties (not alertable under OB 5 E 2 C ), the double of the 2♠ bid should have been alerted under 5 E 2 (a). Is 5 E 2 (a) no longer relevant once EW have embarked on a "blood" sequence? Or could one argue that, since 2♠ didn't actually show ♠ (the 2♥ bid did that), no double was necessary under 5 E 2 (d)? In that case, what is the position if NS had been playing "system off" and N had bid 2♠, passed back to W who doubled for penalties?

At last. I have no problem with the way this is put, though, like Jeffrey, I might quibble with the adjective "huge"; we can only assume that the TD put it this way to himself and was satisfied that the partnership methods admitted of the strong two suiter possibility. FWIW I gave the N hand to a couple of county "A" team players at a match yesterday - with the added information about the methods said to be used by NS - and they both bid 3NT.

In EBU KO competitions, there are rules governing late arrival. If a team is more than 45 mins late, without notifying the oppo (or 90 mins having notified the oppo) they forfeit the match. Once a team is more than 30 mins late (notified or not), the match is reduced in length; by 2 boards for the first 30 mins and then by 2 more boards for each successive period of 15 mins, with the non offending side receiving 3 IMPs for each board withdrawn. There are no exceptions for "force majeure". I have experienced these regulations in action twice. A few years ago my team was due to play Gordon TD's team in a Crockford's Plate match at the YC in London on a Saturday afternoon. We set off in good time to get to the venue but were delayed on the M11 by an horrendous traffic jam caused by a van which caught fire on the other carriageway. We had no means of escape. Had the authorities been more on the ball, they could have turned on the warning signs on the motorway at the point we joined it (the incident had occurred well over an hour earlier) and we could have reached the venue in plenty of time by another route. We rang Gordon on a mobile, initially just to say we were going to be late. When it became clear that we would be well over 90 minutes late, we rang to concede. Gordon very sportingly offered to re-arrange the match but we were already very close to the deadline for playing it and at least one of my team couldn't make any of the alternatives offered. The concession stood; we eventually escaped after about 5 hours. A year or so later we had a NICKO match at our home venue. The opponents had to come 30 miles or so from Essex. They rang shortly before the match to say that their car had broken down. The AA had been called but they didn't know how long they would be. We told them to keep us posted and we would be in touch. We then had a team talk and decided (one of my team called it "thinking outside the box") that we would go to their house and play an 18 board match there with an 18 IMP start (by now it was clear that we would eventually become entitled to claim the match) which also saved them the problem of two of them being stranded with a broken down car at our venue. The oppo were duly grateful for this gesture on our part and showed their gratitude in the usual way by overcoming their 18 IMP handicap to beat us, even though we were, on paper, much the stronger team.

Arrogance. Nice one. Are you the same Paul Lamford as the person by that name quoted in N16 magazine in the summer of 2006 as saying: "I only play for low stakes in casinos, as I have an advantage and am likely to win. If I played for high stakes I'd be asked to leave." ? And, apart from associating yourself (with evident approval) with Mr Burn, have a look at your post no. 50. I wasn't threatening anybody, just suggesting that you be a little more restrained in your "opinions". On the other hand your last sentence does look like a threat to me.

First, the players who could not have attended were from Surrey, not C&H, so I wouldn't have been representing them (though I have tried, apparently with no success, to ensure a fair hearing for them on this forum). Secondly, given that the final double was made by E not W, I thought it had been accepted that SEWOG was irrelevant. Thirdly, though on some occasions you qualified your posts in the way you say, the posts themselves actually assumed that three material "facts" (namely that, after a natural 1♥ and 2♣ overcall, (1) 2♠ would have been NF, (2) 3♠ would have been natural and forcing and (3) 3♠ could not, systemically have been a splinter) were not as stated. I find your assumption of a right, particularly in the absence of all the facts, to pronounce on the ethics of other players breathtakingly arrogant. I offer you (gratis, now that I have retired) a small piece of advice: the law of libel applies equally to matter posted on the internet.

In the majority of cases, maybe - but not in his one because, shortly after the conclusion of this match, one of NS was on his way to the airport, driven by the other. So all the A C would have had would have been their C C plus the T D's account of what he had been told by them - and whatever "evidence" their team-mates would have been able and permitted to give - as Frances & Jeffery have tried to inform the debate on this thread, only to have their views treated with utter disrespect by you and Burn, as if they were doing no more than defending what you evidently regard as the indefensible. Your stance reeks of "my mind is made up; do not confuse me with [attempts to get at the] facts" which, given that you are purporting to sit in judgement on the ethics of the players concerned I find reprehensible. I was not aware that contributors to this forum were obliged to deliver a judgement on every problem presented to it; sometimes the only intelligent, rational response (as demonstrated by Gordon Rainsford and David Stevenson) is to get at the facts first - and, if they can't be got at then to say "if this, then that but if ..." etc. I followed just such an approach when practising law in the City of London for 25 years and it did me no harm.

I hadn't forgotten your very constructive post and was about to pray it in aid but you beat me to it :)