gordontd

What does this word mean here? I'm not surprised by this: we all expect to learn from our experience, and this just shows that we do.

Not that they should have to, but that's one way of avoiding the exchanges gwnn has encountered.

Perhaps you should instead ask, "What is your basic system?"

In fact, on re-reading her email, I see that she hadn't yet removed her cards from the next board, but had asked me if it would have made a difference if she had. So, it seems she was still within time to invoke L20F2, but that if she had removed her cards she would have had to rely on the TD investigating her concerns for her.

What I said initially to my correspondent was that she had no specific right to ask about a previous auction, but that because she is still well within time to ask for a ruling on the hand, she should ask for the director if the opponents declined to answer. I think that's broadly in line with what has been suggested here. I would refine it as follows: Presumably the play period for that player ends when she removes the cards for the next board, and hence the significance of part of her question. So, had she not removed her cards, she would have had an absolute right under L20F2 to request an explanation. Once she has done so, that is no longer the case but she could still ask for the director to look at the hand, and part of that is likely to involve the director requesting an explanation of the call. The director might well choose to wait until a more convenient moment (at the end of the round or session, for example) to pursue this.

I don't think this is correct. It's not uncommon for players to only realise that there has been an irregularity (misinformation or a revoke for example) when they see the hand records at the end of the session.

Yes, sorry everyone, I forgot to check which forum I'd been reading.

I've been asked by a player whether she can ask the meaning of a bid on a board which they have just finished. She had just taken out her hand on a board, and asked the meaning of one of the bids on the previous board, to be told by her opponents that she had no right to ask that question. I've expressed my opinion to her, but said I would ask some others what you think. What law do you think pertains?

I believe it's a contingency for occasions when there haven't been enough tables with screens and some have had to play without.

It's about the likelihood of them being damaged, of which the likelihood of them noticing is only a part. However, if others are satisfied that it "could well damage" I'd be happy to go along with that.

I think L9A4 protects declarer in this, so it's only dummy's infraction we can adjust/penalise for.

Of course. So "could damage" would be met. I'm not so sure about "could well damage".

I agree with all of this. I'm trying to decide whether the "could well damage" condition of L23 is met.

Was L23 considered?

They got a lot of complaints from members who felt they were getting a lesser service by not being able to see the results when they could see them at their local club. This came with the introduction of Bridgemate IIs, which allow the scores to be listed in frequency format (rather than by individual result), and so take up less space (and time) on the screen than formerly.

I expect we should start with the first infraction, which appears to be West's failure to alert the 3♦ bid. Since that would be likely to change all the rest of the auction, we'll probably just give a PP (warning or fine) to NS for the comment and pass of 5♥. It's hard to see the auction proceeding past 3NT with a correct alert of 3♦, although no doubt North would have contributed a surprised question along the lines of "did you really say that he has hearts?" before passing.

Yes, I'd adjust because it seems that pass is an LA, and acting rather than passing is suggested by the hesitation.

So what was the outcome? I would have doubled, but I'm not surprised that the results of this poll seem to suggest that passing is an LA.

Well that covers Moscito-like openers, and transfer responses to 1C - two of the more common modern uses of transfer bids.

Then you misunderstood. In general the EBU takes a very hands-off approach to how clubs run their games.

What's surprising about the Tournament Committee deciding the conditions of the tournaments?

The one quoted by sfi above is fairly standard too.

Why not just give the player the auction and contract and get him to be declarer on every hand? It's just an extension of the philosophy of "best hand" robot tournaments.

There's more to bridge than declarer play - like bidding & defence.

I certainly find it dull and narrow, and would prefer it if there were more robot games available that don't force us to have the best hand.