richlp

It matters more what opener has, since the ruling will depend on what his logical alternatives are. Except that this gives some rather significant support to the assertion that 3D was forcing to game.

Are you sure about all of this David? I remember the incident differently, as follows: The explanation was corrected, the defense played on hearts, and the Americans were incorrectly ruled against. I believe that is correct but that they then won the appeal. For the curious....... Case 21 http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/96miami.pdf

I disagree. This is very patronizing. I agree it's patronizing. I also agree that "experienced players shouldn't psyche in games aimed at attacting new players"

I agree. As a matter of fact the statement "I have all the high trump" indicates to me that declarer was going to draw trump instead of crossruff. Deleted response as I mis-read the original post

The Director now needs to decide how many tricks to award ... if claimer really hadn't forgotten about ♠J then he might just discard ♠T in an attempt to induce an unfortunate discard from a defender and win trick 13. OTH, no real line was mentioned in the claim statement. I suppose we award all the tricks to claimer as he does have enough top tricks by any order of play other than discarding what he seemed to think was a winner at the time he made the claim. You don't allow Declarer to change a line of play when a card he thinks is high turns out not to be. Now your forcing him to change his line of play due to an incorrect objection from an opponent. Doesn't sound right to me. Declarer needs to stand by his original claim statement which assumed the 10 of spades is high. Lucky for him, he was right.

I have lived in New York (3 areas) and California, as well as now living in Nevada. Played plenty of bridge in all places. Still haven't come across anyone in person that thinks anyone but 5-5 is standard. Was there really a time the jump showed a void? Yes, there was such a time. There still is, especially among weaker players. I play rarely nowadays, and almost always with a pick-up partner at local clubs. Part of my 10 minute system discussion is "Jacoby 2NT?" "Yes." "What are your four-level responses?" The results are about 50% suit, 25% void, and 25% "HUH????" (Remember, pick-up partner at club)

To say that a player would always call for the highest card "just in case" does not, at least in my opinion, accord with reality for a player who knows there is a higher card outstanding. I know it's careless to play low because I've done it. In my case the lead was in dummy and I said "Spade. You get this and I get the rest." My opponents looked at me strangely and said "OK." My partner looked at me strangely and said "You're buying tonight" and we went on to the next hand. I would not be surprised if I made the same mistake again some time in the next couple of years.

I haven't read the entire thread but if I were the declarer I would be losing the club. Assuming I have all winners (I almost never claim without all winners) my claiming "sytle" in this hand would be "High Club" and face my hand. If I didn't state "High Club" with the claim, it means I miscounted the suit and, were I playing it out, would have said "Club"

I didn't think this was presented as a misinformation case nor had it anything to do with correcting South's explanation. Maybe I'm wrong again, but I thought North called the TD to complain about the form of the question. He felt that East had essentially planted an answer in South's mind and caused him to misbid.

deleting repeat post. sorry

Here are the details on the RGB thread Spades were trump and had been completely drawn. With four cards left dummy had four winner in the minors. Declarer had two trumps and two losing hearts. LHO lead a heart, declarer ruffed and then claimed without showing his cards. The claim was agreed to but, before getting cards for the next board the opponents asked declarer about his hand. He admitted to having the two hearts and no minor suit cards. The original question was, what is the technically correct ruling?

You can also cook the hands for Par tournaments.

Isn't an old-fashioned strong, natural and forcing 2♥ opening bid alertable in ACBL-land? Yes. And a strong, forcing, natural 2♣ is also. I play very rarely now, perhpas two sessions a year and that with my old college roommate. We play Goren and get the strangest looks when 2♣ is first alerted and then explained.

Don't know the answers, but I'm curious..... Does anybody play 1C (possibly short), 2C (natural) X = negative????? Would you make a negative X with the West hand????

Perhaps............ But unless there has been an alert of some sort, my taking 5 seconds to pass is a definite BIT (and I think that I'm usually a fairly slow player).

Regardless of the responses to questions 1 and 2.......... Assuming you are the declaring side, aren't you required to correct partner's misexplanation? If you start to do so and your opponents stop you, they have prevented you from fulfilling your obligations and should not be able to claim damage.

I'm confused by the confusion. IMO, Sven clearly said that if there is doubt about whether or not defender's partner could have seen the card, the doubt may be resolved by determining if declarer or dummy can name the card. If the director determines that defender's partner could not have seen the card there is no doubt and declarer's or dummy's ability to name the card is irrelevant

I'm extremely confused by this statement. Are you talking about a situation where I don't know if the information I've received is UI or AI? If not, regardless of whether or not I could have received UI, if I didn't receive UI, how could I possibly know not to use it?

While I laud your willingness to take a zero, I think your logic on needing to pass is flawed. Unless your mannerisms give the show away, bidding further won't tell partner he has given a mis-explanation. He'll think you have ♣s and whatever else you bid. So you must continue to bid as is partner had said "That bid is non-forcing and shows Spades. I bid 3C." Unless the 3C bid shows clubs, you must NOT pass. I would expect the 3C bid to show support for spades and a maximum (or at worst better than minimum depending on your style). If your ♥K were a ♠x, I think you could ethically bid 3♠. Your partner should expect ♣s and ♠s and you will probably escape. With your actual hand I think a 3♥ bid is called for. Partner will now expect ♣s and ♥s and you might get the same zero, but you'll have followed correct procedure on dealing with the Unauthorized Information that partner thinks you have clubs.

Your partners are spoilsports......... My college roommate is now an ACBL National TD and if he ever used that line (believe me, he WOULD), there would be less than a two second pause before I chimed in with something like "I agree completely. Let's get the director" or, more likely, "That's surprising considering how many director calls there are at your table"

Sorry to resurect an older thread, but if there are legitimate lines to yield 12 tricks absent the revoke, why can't 12 tricks be awarded (or a weighted proportion of 11/12 tricks if that is available) based upon insufficient compensation from the revoke penalty?

This just doesn't sound right to me. While there may be nothing to "permit" this action, I'd be interested to find where it is prohibited. When a claim is made play ceases and I see no reason not to be able to face my cards when play has ceased. I may need to verify that a revoke has/has not taken place. I may want to validate the claim. If time permits, I may want to analyze my mis-defense a little. Are you saying that I need to call the director every time I suspect an invalid claim or potential revoke?

(Law 16B is the law on unauthorised information.) Robin Could you clarify something for me pleae. Can the "right expires when a lead is made to the following trick" be interpreted to mean that you can only point out when the last trick is incorrectly pointed? Could a comment at Trick 10 such as "Pard. You've got Trick 4 turned wrong" be a violation of this rule?

I think that, while the UI certainly suggests the double of 5♥, the AI should be sufficient to allow it. West bid 4♠ at unfavorable and I have no fit and an Ace. I don't think Pass is a LA. I don't think a poll would show enough of my peers bidding 5♠ but if I'm wrong then I can accept an adjustment to that.

That was my exact reaction. Unfortunately I expressed it in such a way that I may end up with a "Zero Tolerance Penalty" as a result. Go figure :) It sounds like it. Go figure again... Fred Gitelman Bridge Base Inc. www.bridgebase.com Sounds to me like one of those Infinite Loop system decisions where both pairs' choice depends on how the other pair plays. Something about your style of opening 1NT in 3rd seat at this vulnerability leads them to want to play penalty doubles. Of course, if you know they have a penalty double available, you change your style. In which case they want the double to be conventional, in which case you revert to original style. etc. etc. etc.