jeremy69

That's good. It might make them check as to whether they can play something or not (ignorance being no defence) and also to be rather more careful when cheating after playing their illegal method.

Oh yes there is, at least in England where the level is £20 in pairs and £30 in teams. Deposits are noted on the appeal form. When retained they pass into the safe hands of the director and they are accounted for as part of Laws and Ethics committee income the details of which are publicly available. However don't let the facts get in the way of good, solid prejudice or some dodgy innuendo.

If North is a. inexperienced b. believes that to use UI here and bid 4H is ok c. believes that appealing a decision given by the TD is ok then I agree that some education is needed and the type I would provide is that if you waste everyone's time having taken an action of dubious ethicality then you will lose your deposit. If there was "unauthorised panic" whatever that is then having bid 4H and heard the TD rule it not to be ok the offending side are, IMO, pushing their luck.

I would adjust the score. I am prepared to believe a diamond lead may be best but any doubt about that has been reduced by the pause over 3D. I think a small club beats it as well as a diamond but EW have to be careful to win tricks in the majors immediately so a club would perhaps not always break the contract on anything other than precise defence. I would ask East why she hesitated over 3D and act according to the response received. I don't think it would make 10 tricks on a major suit lead and would make 8 on a low club lead quite a lot of the time.

I'm going to lead the SK whatever way round the suits are likely to be. I'm going to need a bit of persuading that there is damage here unless one or other of us might have come into the auction if we had known waht was going on but that seems unlikely. However I think any director who ends up at the table might enquire as to why a pair playing a system such as this seem so blissfully unaware that they should alert at some point if this is a canape sequence and assuming they should in their jursidiction then the choice (perhaps depending on their answer) is between a wagging finger and a PP.

I was arguing that it was not clear which it was and when it is not clear misexplanation rather than misbid is usually the presumption. Yes it would and it didn't. I was just theorising that North thought that they were playing a forcing club of some sort at the time she bid 1D. After all one is struggling to find an explanation of why 1D was the original chosen response. She may have been confused but so were her opponents and it wasn't their fault!

I'm suggesting that the opportunities which might exist should be where the majority wish to do this and the number of boards make it reasonable to spend time working out defences. 3 board rounds in what is a social but decent standard event is not the place. Of course it is their fault they don't know their own system. They can practice to their hearts content at 3a.m. in an online game with consenting adults if they can find any. It's a fact of life that most people wish to play their bridge without being presented with a sheaf of notes on how to defend against the Mongolian Heart and having to learn for not many boards what to do over a 1D opening showing 6-11 with 5S+4C. The reason the "Groove is in the Head" minority don't organise their own tournaments and play all this to their hearts(or even spades) content is that all events would be two table Howells. There is a difference, IMO, between innovation and inflicting your ill thought out and poorly remembered toys on the populace at large but I hope I'm not sounding illiberal in these matters. In the event being discussed there was a problem arising from a lack of knowledge of the system and a resultant ruling. The TD was otherwise confined to checking players had moved to the right table and followed suit when they got there.

Of course South says so because that is what they believed unlike North at the time. North was not perhaps entirely sure and as you determined confused but believed it to be right when she bid it. My working and not very knowledgeable theory is she believed 1D to be some sort of negative(0-7) and 3H to be transfer because it was system on over any natural 2NT. When partner was vehement that this was all rubbish she quickly gave in and said she was confused. I've never seen any system card have anything referring to this situation so the absence of information I would dismiss. I'm not saying you weren't right about your assumptions, after all you were there and I wasn't, but I don't think you have to impose on them any agreement merely to say in the light of the available evidence it is not completely clear so will rule misinformation not misbid.

That's the point. It isn't the correct explanation because South says so or the alternative is bizarre. What compelling evidence was there that it was not a transfer because that is where the onus lies?

I don't agree with you. When a system is complex and unfamiliar to opponents then it causes difficulty. That on its own is not necessarily a reason for stopping it. However if a partnership play something which is quite complex and in short rounds then even with some generic defences you have work to do, probably most of it wasted as the sequence won't come up. Perhaps because opponents don't get all that many opportunites to play their toys the misunderstanding possibilities are greater. In addition sme of these systems which involve medium and forcing pass prevent you from playing your own system some of hte time.

I don't think, as others have suggested, 74A2 says that at all. It infers that to reply to the request "*!??? off" might be a breach however "I'd rather not" is not offensive and if the other side wanted to argue it spoilt their enjoyment I would be happy to argue that their request spoilt mine. I have seen, on one occasion, a request turned down, opponent reach for the cards anyway and a large clenched fist descend to the table about 1mm from the encroaching hand(missing was possibly accidental). That, of course, was before the days of zero tolerance. Now don't get me wrong. I have (usually) no problem with opponents seeing my cards at the end of the hand and would only object if they took loads of time with this, we were late starting the round or they were rude in their request. One reason, especially in a tight last set to see cards is to improve the accuracy of estimation of likely gain or loss. I guess that if I felt the opponents were likely to refuse I might play my contract out to trick 13 so as to ensure seeing the cards! I await someone telling me I am not allowed to.

I would double if it were penalty. I imagine East is feeling uncomfortable with one or no diamonds and if they move to anything else I shall also double. but if I have guessed wrong about the reason for the tank I think it will be my tough luck.

My reaction is for no adjustment here. Opponents are entlted to know about implicit agreements but I don't think forgetting constitutes an agreement.

Pots & kettles come to mind.

I agree that one solution is to take my bat home and not play again but a. I don't feel that strongly about a couple of pairs playing what they did b. I should be capable of taking care of myself anyway but I don't think systems such as these suit short rounds and if they contrive to spoil what is otherwise a good event then now is the time to say it before the next one is planned. The organisers, of course, are free to ignore me and probably will.

I agree with what you say and am not suggesting that the investigation was anything but thorough however North has a. bid her suits in a canape order and b. suggested her bid was a transfer. It maybe that she is bonkers and her partner is right but I think the presumption should be that it is an agreement unless it can be demonstrated it is not. If it was so demonstrated to the TD then fair enough but given the mix up which NS started the standard of proof should, in my view, be high.

I think it is exactly that simple. The player believed that she was making a transfer at the time. She may have been confused, tired, out of her depth etc. The only reason she woke up was because of the failure to alert. This is clearly UI for her. Why does she not correct at the end of the auction?

North is required to explain the failure(in her eyes) of partner to alert. Not doing this caused damage. However absurd the agreement might sound why has the TD decided it is mistaken bid rather than mistaken explanation. This is not a good effort by the TD and you were dealt with harshly on the facts as presented.

I expect my invitation said the same and I took no notice! The advanced notice of the intermediate pass was non existent but then I wouldn't really have expected or particularly wanted it. The problem with these systems is that 1. the perpetrators don't know them particularly well and thus have systemic cock ups which further reduce their opponents enjoyment of the game. 2. one should be able to play without being presented with a ream or two of paper to examine in a short event. 3. Forcing and intermediate pass systems have the effect of stopping opponents playing their own system for some of the time i.e. when they aren't first in hand. 4. disclosure is rarely adequate

You'd be very welcome on one of mine! B)

I think this thread is turning into a masterclass in why there should be some regulation as to what can be played especially in shortish rounds. It might be jolly fun to frighten the horses under the guise of expanding the boundaries of knowledge in the known universe and it may also be correct that the event referred to had no systemic restrictions, not that this was advertised as such in any way to this participant. However it was great fun to be presented with 29 additional bids to agree a defence to for a 3 board stanza. Our opponents helpfully produced some defensive notes to assist us but the shortness of the round militated against reading War & Peace written on margarine paper.

Pots & kettles come to mind

I think they are designed, amongst other things, to provide a framework for the game, to give a set of rules and procedures and to specify redress and or penalties if laws are broken. If someone cheats they place themselves outside the law. For example the player who fixes hands in matches played at home. You don't really need a law to deal with this. It is so bad that if caught the player is not permitted to play in the organised game, in my view, for life but authorities are too afraid of infringing someones human rights that it ends up with the odd decade or so ban.

Both BGB for the Gold Cup/Silver Plate and the Welsh Bridge Union in general use the Orange Book in its entirety and no action will be taken by the L&E to make either of their collective lives more difficult.

Rare that we see an octuple PP. :angry: