gordontd

Congratulations!!!

If you have UI (unauthorised information), you have UI. However, you may also have AI (authorised information) that reduces the number of logical alternatives (LAs) there are to the action that was suggested by the UI. This may reach the point where there are no LAs to that action, and then you could do it, despite it being suggested by the UI.

Just as in the Terence Reese book that popularised the system.

I played against a pair who played RKCB 1340. I wondered if they meant 1430, but no, they really did play 1340!

Sounds like it's working as it should. You've told them with your alert that it's not a takeout double, and they ask you to explain exactly what it is.

Only over those who not only don't do this (shuffling before inspecting), but also who make the sorts of deductions suggested by you in this thread. In my experience, that would be virtually no-one.

Usually you can just click a button or type in a letter beside the score to arrow-switch the result. If not, just look at the number of match-points each of the two pairs get, and put in an adjustment that has the effect of reversing their scores.

Just imagine how that opponent feels about it! :)

Not only do you lack a club stopper, but 2NT would be a bit of an over-bid.

I used to play bridge with a former military cryptologist, who said that he had to avoid looking at me while I sorted my hand because he could tell too much about it from my sorting. I think I sort fairly normally.

I wondered in #36 above if it might be.

Looks like we've got there... finally!

As I understand it, he's not trying to see their cards or observing the place from which they draw their cards... unless (and this thought has just occurred to me) he is observing the place from which they draw their cards in the process of sorting.

I should imagine it varies quite a lot, depending on who you are watching. I saw someone (who has been playing for at least five years) sort her hand by putting the cards face down on the table in suits. She seemed a bit puzzled when I told her she couldn't do that! But the player in question believes he gets useful information from it, and it doesn't matter either way to determining the question of whether or not it's allowed.

Oh yes, I'd be happy to have more frequent revisions, but Nigel's suggestion would lead to all sorts of confusion and uncertainty as everyone used a different version. We already encounter that to some extent with the Orange & White books, even though they are only updated every year, have the most recent changes colour-coded, and we have it impressed on us to only use the current version.

Yes. L17A says: "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board." The definition of auction says "It begins when the first call is made."

A new law-book every few weeks doesn't strike me as an improvement on what we have.

Yes, that would solve it, but I'm afraid it's way above my pay-grade to make such a pronouncement. :)

More importantly, if chunks of Law are going to be quoted, they should be from the current law book.

I had had a look at this too, but you may not be surprised to learn that I was uncomfortable with the notion of just making up stuff under this law. It is rather strangely structured though, isn't it, to simply have a list of examples without further explanation? It contrasts with the list in L90B. I'm beginning to wonder if it's L90 we should be using. Certainly it inconveniences other contestants to be watched as they sort their hands, and if he's delaying taking his hand out of the slot to get around L16A3, then it unduly delays or obstructs the game. It would all be easier & clearer if L74C5 said "auction period" rather than "auction". Perhaps in 2017.

I can visualise it. :)

L74C5 says "during the auction and play", not during the auction period. Auction is defined "....It begins when the first call is made." If L74C5 said "auction period" we wouldn't have a problem, but unfortunately it doesn't.

A player says that he always watches his opponents and partner sorting their hands to get what information he can from them doing this. Presumably we would all say he can't do that, but which law says so? Note that the auction has not yet begun so the conditions of L74C5 don't appear to have been met.

Ah, thanks for the diagram. I had read the original post with the East & West hands interchanged. Is that not the case? I think it's the use of dummy's LHO that's a bit confusing.

So, the only way the defence could lose a trick would be if declarer's LHO overtook his partner's winning card in order to lead back a card that he can see will lose to the card he has thereby establised for dummy? I think we should allow the claim, unless we have doubts that the position is as clear as that to LHO.