gordontd

When the new laws first came in, a number of players told me that they always sort their hands before passing them on, and didn't see why they should stop. I told them they were free to sort their hands as long as they then complied with L7C by shuffling their cards afterwards.

The auction starts: 1♥ - (2♣) - 1♠ Would you allow the 1♠ bid to be replaced with a negative double under the new WBF guidance to use a liberal interpretation of L27B1b? Would it have fulfilled the stricter requirements of a literal interpretation?

I wouldn't like the idea of the 3♥ second-rebid being passable - it's the first time hearts have been bid properly. I've played the relay-break the way you suggest, and although it didn't come up often I think it makes sense that way. Have you discussed whether you are playing the 2NT rebid after Kokish as forcing and unlimited (and in that case what is 3NT?) or will you split your ranges to give more definition and have Stayman & transfers or Gladiator after the 3NT rebids?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_mean...9;It_sucks'

I agree :D

It would be very unusual to penalise anyone - the normal thing, as mentioned above, would be to explain L7C to the previous player.

Call the director. There may be a sensible reason (the first time a board is dealt by machine with a new pack it will be sorted) or it may be that someone needs to have law 7C drawn to their attention.

I think that's an unfortunate comment, and one that's not going to encourage other players to want to become directors. Which law says this? As you've acknowledged in a later post, this is not correct, which makes the following comment even worse. I don't want this to seem like an attack on you, Ed, but there is an undesirable tendency of some on these forums (not usually you) to issue personal criticisms of directors involved in rulings, rather than focussing on discussing the rulings themselves. I think we would all gain from being polite about directors, while having the freedom to discuss their rulings in as robust terms as required.

I think "otherwise" is the significant word here - ie if it's not a situation when variations may work to the benefit of their side, then unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not an infraction.

I think West has failed to "be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side." The trouble with thinking about making a pre-emptive raise but then passing is that you are getting much of the advantage from raising (making it harder for the opponents to compete) without taking the required risk. I think there would be a case for adjustment.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to misquote you.

Since this topic has died down, and I was the TD who gave the ruling, I'll add my bit now. I determined that there had been a break in tempo (although NS were initially reluctant to agree that there had been, but North accepted that he had thought a bit before passing), and I agree with everyone that pass is a logical alternative to bidding with the South hand over 3♠. What I thought needed to be considered was whether the 5 ♣ bid was demonstrably suggested by the break in tempo. I discussed the hand with five people before making the ruling - two players from the game who are both very strong, experienced & knowledgeable, Jeremy & his wife Heather, and one of my colleagues who is also an EBU National TD. I've also since discussed the hand with another National TD colleague. In each case I gave them the auction (including the hesitation) as far as 3♠ together with the South hand and asked them what they thought the hesitation suggested. Only Jeremy thought that the break in tempo suggested anything very clear - a hand that was thinking about raising a NF 3♣ - which would suggest that bidding 5♣ would be successful. None of the others answered with any certainty that bidding 5♣ was more likely to be successful opposite the hesitation than it would have been opposite an in-tempo pass. I think it's far from clear that Jeremy's explanation is the only one, or even the most likely one. The most likely reason for the hesitation seems to me to be doubt as to whether or not 3♣ is forcing (since one of the partnership insists it is but the other has passed it). Other possible reasons are considering whether or not to give false preference to a doubleton heart, or thinking about bidding 3NT. If we now look at the North hand, he may well have been thinking about bidding 3NT, and far from suggesting bidding 5♣, that would suggest passing 3♠ to allow partner to double. The fact that 5♣ happens to make and 3♠ only goes one or two off is not a circumstance that could be foreseen. For these reasons I ruled that the tempo break did not demonstrably suggest bidding 5♣ and so I allowed the table result to stand. I commented in passing that I thought that one possible explanation for the 5♣ bid was if South was irritated by his partner passing what he considered to be a forcing bid. I think it's more likely that North and South were unclear about the forcing nature of 3♣ than that they both thought 3♣ is non-forcing.

I don't think anyone disagrees with that, but it's not really the point. I don't know whether or not he thinks that, but I don't think he said so above.

I thought it was 60/30 No - fielded psyches get 60/40 & a fine of the standard amount, which comes to 60/30 whenever the scoring method is matchpoints.

Oh, does England extend outside London? :D

I think in Kaplan's version the 1NT response only promised four good spades - 1♠ usually showed fewer than four, but could occasionally be four poor. The significance is that the 1NT rebid was natural (but might have four spades), whereas in the Granville version the 1NT rebid promised four spades.

I think Justin's description is not the Kaplan version, but is the Granville spade as played in Cambridge Precision.

The system that was being asked about is "Strong 10s".

There seems to me to be a contradiction between and

The wording of the relevant law is: "L70C. There Is an Outstanding Trump When a trump remains in one of the opponents’ hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play." The phrase "at all likely" sets the standard fairly high (or low depending on which way you look at it): it's hard to see how it could be "not at all likely" that a player who has failed to play a third round of trumps and failed to mention the outstanding trump, is unaware that the trump remains out.

But what about "the points normally associated with a one level opening"? "Points Schmoints" :P Seriously, if a player thinks that opening this hand 2♣ is the best way to bid it constructively (e.g. since 4NT doesn't ask for specific aces), then I think no regulation should get in this player's way. You said that you think the clear cut trick criterion allows you to open the hand under discussion with 2♣. I showed the rest of the regulation that means that is not correct. No amount of wanting the regulation to be what you think is better will make it so.

Actually no: it says that the EBU's election under Law 40B2 c (iii) is that a player may look at his opponents’ system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information.

But what about "the points normally associated with a one level opening"?

It doesn't say so: it says "unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise".

L40B2c Unless the Regulating Authority provides otherwise a player may consult his opponent’s system card (i) prior to the commencement of the auction, (ii) during the Clarification Period, and (iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play. EBU Orange Book 7D1(e) Under Law 40B2 c (iii) a player may look at his opponents’ system card at any time, though this may create unauthorised information.