Pig Trader

Excellent, James! My club committee are wittering on about wanting a timer and you've given me the perfect wording with which to reply if they manage to get one! :P

I agree They are mad. I have managed to stop this practice at at least a couple of clubs using your argument ... .... so I hope you give them a piece of your mind! The last time I was instructed to "take an average" in these circumstances, which was several years ago, I was waiting for some time for my LHO to lead against a slam we had reached when the TD came. Had the opening lead been made, I'd have claimed 12 tricks in five seconds before even playing from dummy for an outright Top. Clocks and timers are all very well but there is no substitute for the TD using discretion for when to call a move. Barrie

This must all have happened towards the end of the teams in the upstairs section as I was one of the TDs and never heard about this incident! But while on the Harrogate Congress, I had to complement one of my collegues on his cool quick response to "If you rule against me, I'm never playing in any EBU event ever again!" which was "I really don't think that you wanted to say that to me!" and it elicited "No, I didn't. I apologise!" Barrie :rolleyes:

Well, I sit corrected, and the answer is Yes, except that it's not a matter of cancelling the establishment, which we can't do, but a matter of making the establishment never having happened, which we can do! West had no trumps.

Exactly! The Claim/Concession established the revoke under 63A3 and while the objection to the concession may have cancelled the concession, there is nothing in the Laws to say that the objection has un-established the revoke.

That's interesting as I would have ruled that the revoke had been established under Law 63A3. Have I missed something?

For anyone who's seen the BBC TV program called "Yes Minister" Jim Hacker: "There's a rumour that an incident happened at our club recently. Is it true?" Sir Humphrey: "Yes." Jim Hacker: "So the incident did happen!" Sir Humphrey: "Did it?" Jim Hacker: "But you just told me it did!" Sir Humphrey: "No I didn't!" Jim Hacker: "But I just asked you if it was true!" Sir Humphrey: "No, you asked me if it was true that there is a rumour that the incident happened!" Jim Hacker: "Ah! So there is a rumour then?" Sir Humphrey: "Yes, you just told me there is a rumour!"

Hi, Stefanie! Good questions: Are you then permitted to open this hand? Yes, as you suggest. If so, are you deemed to have an agreement the next time it comes up? Generally no, but I would consider each occasion to constitute a Deviation from agreed methods because it cannot be an agreed method. Therefore the stuff in OB Chapter 6 applies If partner does not cater for a 7HCP hand are you permitted to open the hand as often as it comes up? See my reply to the previous question. Can you upgrade to 7 1/2 or 8 because the points are not in queens and jacks? I don't think so. The Regulation relates to the Milton Work Count method and you can't change the method of counting. Can you upgrade if you have intermediates? This, though, is a good question and I would like to say Yes, but I wonder if that would mean a contradiction with my reply to the previous question! Thanks for your posting as I'll now find out if my lines of thinking are incorrect! Barrie :rolleyes:

The last two posts lead me to recollect one of my most amazing experiences as a TD. I was at the big EBU Summer meeting at Brighton in August TDing the Swiss Teams and North South at one table called me to report a psyche. West had opened Vul first in hand 3♠ and his partner responded 3NT with ♠Axx ♥Ax ♦Axxx ♣Jxxx and NS felt that the 3NT was a psyche. This was not near the bottom of the field. All four players are current or recent Internationals! Barrie :P

No. Our hand was the one shown but partner opened 2♠. Barrie :D

My thanks for your comments. The ruling was that 4♦ was bid as a result of UI and that passing was a LA, and a weighted adjustment was reached of 3♥ doubled making 50% of the time and one off 50% of the time. Deep Finesse says that 3♥ can be defeated, but it looks rather DD, and it'll make probably rather more often than not, I would think. So the ruling was along the lines of the consensus here. It seems from the replies, that if we consider that North should have passed 3♥, then we don't need to look at whether South should have converted 4♦ to 4♥. But is this always right? Let's assume a similar case where if we were to consider an adjustment for a first irregularity, we would find no damage to the NOS, but if we were to consider an adjustment instead for a second irregularity, we would find that the NOS had been damaged. Can we adjust for the second irregularity now? Barrie :blink:

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=skj875hj9daqj543c&w=sq42hak5dk62caq42&e=s963h8642d108cj1073&s=sa10hq1073d97ck9865]399|300|Scoring: IMP -- -- -- No 1♣ 2♣(A,1) 3♣ 3[H] Dbl(2) 4♦ No No Dbl(3) No No No[/hv] (1) explained as cro, 5/5 two suits of same colour (2) no explanation asked or given (3) again after west enquired south confirmed minimum 5/5 red suits Hi, all! I have been asked for comments on a ruling at a One-Day-Green-Pointed Swiss Teams event in England at the weekend. I wasn't there, but the West player on the above deal wrote: After lead of ♣3 north said "Sorry. I should explain that I pulled out the wrong bid." At this point the director was called and we were told to play the board in 4♦X and then call her back. 4♦X was made. The West player then described the ruling and asked Would be interested in your views please. I am wondering whether it is reasonable to consider that South should treat the 4♦ bid by North as constructive, possibly with extra diamond length, and therefore repeat his heart preference by bidding 4♥. The fly in the ointment is that North should perhaps not be bidding 4♦ over 3♥? I don't have any other information available other than the actual ruling. Over to you! Barrie :P

Indeed, I have never found any difficulty. I am a great believer in "action replays" and fine-tuning the replay until everyone is happy that I am seeing a good representation of what happened with the player with the card. If I were ever to not get enough agreement to make a ruling easy, I don't think that I would find the advice about whether declarer could see a card to be helpful when proceding in accordance with Law 85. Barrie :)

The evidence here is that West will routinely open a doubleton minor so the partnership should be alerting. Barrie :rolleyes:

I agree with Cardsharp and Bluejak. If only they were all this easy! Barrie :(

I think that not only has North woken up by now but he has also put on some clothes and had breakfast! At this kind of event, there is almost certainly only one reason for North's pratner to behave in this way - the fool thinks that 2NT isn't natural after the intervention and thinks that he's showing a raise in North's suit. So, in this nearly-happened case, it's pretty certain that North already has the UI of the misunderstanding, but, even so, it doesn't actually matter. There are times when you, as TD, have to make clear the UI in order to follow the Laws, here to impose lead restrictions. Indeed, you need to explain the lead restrictions to East at the start of the play because it may affect the way that East plays the contract. Barrie :( Pig Trader in BBO, Senior Kibitzer in BCL

If I had been South, I would have been very willing to believe the explanation of "Support Double". After all, the hearts must be somewhere because I haven't any! If the correct explanation had been "penalties", then South would probably pass, but if the correct explanation were of any other take-out nature, I'd need convincing that South wouldn't still bid 4♣ anyway, even though I happen to think it's not a good bid as partner is very likely to have a fair number of hearts. Barrie :) Pig Trader in BBO, Senior Kibitzer in BCL

An interesting thread. I would just add a couple of bridge-related opinions: In England, at National or County events, it is very common nowadays to encounter 2♦ openings that show 5+/4+ in the majors with a weak hand. Several have commented that they consider the 3♠ and 4♠ bids by E/W as being wild or gambling etc. Given the MI from South, it appears to me to be reasonable for East and West to bid as they did. Although East is only mid-range in HCP (if playing 5-9HCP), he has seen partner give preference to his longer suit. West's raise may be slightly aggressive but the TNT could well be such as to justify it. Barrie :)

I was Senior Kibitzer at Bridgetalk as I am on Bridge Club Live. Here, on BBO, it was too long, so I used my original internet name of Pig Trader. It's an anagram of my surname! Another anagram is Great Drip, but I thought Pig Trader was preferable! Barrie :)