bixby

Yes, I posted this earlier today in "General BBO Discussion": Robot play used to happen at a reasonable speed. But recently I have noticed when playing in Robot World that the robots have started playing at lightning speed. When I lead from my hand as South, it sometimes happens that West, North and East play almost instantaneously, and if I don't win the trick, one of them leads to the next trick so fast that I never see the cards played to the trick I led to. I know I can still click on the played cards to see what I missed, but that is not really a good substitute for seeing each card as it is played. Is there a setting that controls this? Did I change the setting recently without knowing it? Is there a way to get back to things as they were?

Robot play used to happen at a reasonable speed. But recently I have noticed when playing in Robot World that the robots have started playing at lightning speed. When I lead from my hand as South, it sometimes happens that West, North and East play almost instantaneously, and if I don't win the trick, one of them leads to the next trick so fast that I never see the cards played to the trick I led to. I know I can still click on the played cards to see what I missed, but that is not really a good substitute for seeing each card as it is played. Is there a setting that controls this? Did I change the setting recently without knowing it? Is there a way to get back to things as they were?

Thanks for these replies. Gordon, can you please explain how your answer then works in practice? Suppose, for example, the Director, in accordance with one of your suggestions, scores the board as 2N= (E/W +120) for E/W but as 3NT-1 (N/S +50) for N/S. Meanwhile, the actual result at the other table was E/W +120. What is the IMP result for purposes of scoring the match?

In a Swiss team event, the bidding on the first board of a match began: W N E S -- -- -- P 1D 1S 2C P X South called the Director and pointed out that West's double was inadmissible. The Director instructed West to withdraw the double and substitue a legal call. West substituted 2NT. South said, "isn't his partner barred?" The Director said no, that rule had changed. The Director instructed the table to complete the auction. The auction continued: W N E S -- -- -- P 1D 1S 2C P 2NT P 3D P 3NT AP The Director then instructed the table to put the board aside and play the next board while he conferred with other Directors about the first board. Later, the Director cancelled the first board and instructed both tables in the match to play a substitute board instead. N/S's team lost 3 IMPs on the substituted board, and as a result the match was exactly tied. At the end of the event, the Director stated that the basis for this ruling was that his initial ruling regarding the inadmissible double was Director error and that it was not possible to obtain a result on the board. Question: Given that the initial ruling was indeed incorrect (under Law 36, East should have been barred, as South stated), what should have been done thereafter?

When I load a hand into the hand editor, I see how I can change the cards, but I see no way to change the bidding while keeping the cards the same. Is there a way to do this?

The answer to this complaint, like the answer to pretty much all complaints about masterpoint awards, is to repeat to yourself every morning and evening the following mantra: "Masterpoints do not matter. Masterpoints are not the goal. Masterpoints are an illusion. The goal is to have fun and become a better bridge player."

Yes, exactly.

Good question. I don't fully remember, but I believe his claim was that dummy was good, so no one was focused on the cards in his hand. Declarer showed his hand, but only as part of the process of scooping his cards together. It wasn't anything nefarious. He was very surprised to learn that he had revoked.

No question for the group, just a possibly amusing story. Playing in a regional ACBL tournament over the weekend, my partner and I got two tops off the Laws. On one board, we were on defense and the declarer, in 4S, ruffed a club in hand at trick 8 and claimed two tricks later for making 5. As he was pushing his cards together I happened to notice a club in his hand. We got two penalty tricks, even though without the revoke declarer would have made 4. +100 was tied for top. In the second session of the same event, my partner opened 3C as dealer and I held xxx / KJx / AQxx / Axx. I took a chance and bid 3NT, figuring that on any lead but a spade I would probably have nine tricks. The opening lead was a spade . . . from the wrong side! I called the Director more quickly and loudly than I think I ever have before, and exercised the option to require the correct defender to lead and to prohibit the lead of a spade. My LHO harrumphed for a while and finally led a diamond. Partner had xx / xx / Kx / KQxxxxx. +630 was a clear top. Stay alert to the Laws!

[hv=pc=n&s=s95haj8752dk4cak9&w=sq42h94daqjt6ct83&n=skjt83hktd32cj752&e=sa76hq63d9875cq64&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp1sp3hp4hppp]399|300[/hv] The opening lead of the C10 went to the Jack, Queen, and Ace. Declarer crossed to the HK and successfully ran the H10. Declarer led a diamond toward his King, which was taken by West's Ace. West returned the Queen and then the Jack of diamonds, the latter ruffed in hand by delcarer as dummy discarded a small spade. Declarer drew the last trump with the Ace; West discarded the D6 and dummy the S8. Declarer then cashed the CK and C9. Declarer was now down to the S95 HJ8 in hand and SKJ10 C7 in dummy. Faced with the crucial guess, declarer led the S9 toward dummy. West hesitated for a long time before playing the S2. Inferring that West held the SA (as he could hardly be thinking of covering with the SQ given that dummy had the King, Jack, and Ten), declarer called for the King, and therefore went down one. Is declarer entitled to any redress?

Playing robot bridge, I often reach what seems like a completely normal 4H or 4S contract and make it, only to learn that others have beaten me in NT. What's a good guideline for determining when to play 3NT even though you have an 8-card major fit?

Plaing matchpoint pairs, you are declarer in 3H, after you and your partner had an invitational sequence in which one of you rejected the invitation. After dummy goes down, you see that you are likely to take 10 tricks. You also see that if the defenders' cards lie unfavorably you might take as few as 8 tricks, but there is a safety play that will guarantee 9 tricks while giving up on 10. How should you decide whether to take the safety play?

Thanks!

I haven't been able to get to bridgeclues.com for the last few days. Does anyone know what's up with this site?

I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. I don't see where you're getting that. Leading from the wrong hand is an irregularity, and reminding declarer where the lead is therefore constitutes trying to prevent an irregularity. You have not cited any law that requires that an irregularity be likely before dummy may try to prevent it. All you have cited is the law that says that dummy may not participate in the play or communicate anything about the play to declarer, but that law is necessarily limited by dummy's right to try to prevent an irregularity, so I don't see how that law gets us anywhere. We're just back to the question of whether dummy was trying to prevent an irregularity. If, as dummy puts down his cards, dummy says, "remember, play proceeds clockwise," then dummy is trying to prevent an irregularity. Not a very likely one, perhaps, but again, there is no requirement that the irregularity be likely. And here's one more point: If, before declarer provides any indication of which hand he is thinking of leading from, dummy says, "the lead is in dummy," then there are two possibilities: 1. Declarer was going to lead from dummy, in which case dummy's remark made no difference, or 2. Declarer was going to lead from his hand, in which case dummy's remark prevented an irregularity. In either case, how is dummy wrongfully participating in the play?

I don't understand the basis for saying that dummy can tell the declarer where the lead is only if dummy has some reason to believe that the declarer is about to lead from the wrong hand. Law 42B2 says that the dummy "may try to prevent any irregularity." If between tricks the dummy says "you're on the table" or "you're in your hand," dummy is trying to prevent an irregularity. That is permitted by Law 42B2. Law 42B2 does not limit dummy's right to situations where it seems likely that an irregularity is about to occur. I agree that if declarer does lead from the wrong hand, either by calling a card from dummy or leading a card from his hand, it is too late for dummy to try to prevent the irregularity, and dummy may not call attention to such an irregularity once it occurs. But dummy may try to prevent an irregularity before it occurs, and I see no requirement in the laws that limit dummy's right based on degree of probability of the irregularity.

Thank you for this very informative reply.

My hand was A102/6/AK1073/K962 and my robot partner had J98/Q84/4/AQJ1054. We were not vulnerable, opponents were. Matchpoints. I opened 1D in second position, my partner bid 2C (explained as forcing 2/1, forcing to 3NT), I bid 3C (also explained as forcing to 3NT), and my partner passed. We made +150 for a poor matchpoint score. I seem to recall having this same sequence once before. Has anyone else run into this? Is this a bug?

The offender's comment "I didn't see the intervening bid" is UI, isn't it? Shouldn't the offender's partner be required to ignore information gained from that comment? I would think that someone who makes an insufficient bid should remain silent as to why it happened, except if asked by the Director away from the table, although spontaneous explanations of the kind given here are common in practice. And once again, I wonder whether it is appropriate for even the Director to ask why the insufficent bid was made. Is the Director required to, or even permitted to, accept the offender's answer to that question? The "meaning" of the insufficient bid could vary greatly depending on why it happened (e.g., offender didn't see the intervening bid; offender saw the intervening bid and thought she was cue-bidding over it), so it is very important information, but it seems a little fishy to let the offender shape the ruling by giving the reason. What is the proper procedure?

The OP says that the Director allowed the 1NT bid to stand. Under Law 27, there is no doubt that the offender was entitled to replace the 1S bid with a 1NT bid. The question is not whether the 1NT bid may stand. The question is whether the partner of the offender is barred from bidding for the remainder of the auction. The OP does not make clear what the Director's ruling on this point was. Perhaps in saying that the Director allowed the 1NT bid to stand, the OP means that the Director ruled that the offender's partner was not barred and that the auction would proceed "without further rectification," presumably under Law 27B1b, the Director having determined that 1NT is a "comparable call" to the withdrawn 1S bid. If that is what the OP means, I find the Director's ruling puzzling. I don't know the offending side's agreements, of course, but I would think the 1NT bid could be made on something like AQx / xxx / xxx / Kxxx, which would not be an appropriate 1S response to 1D. So I don't think 1NT has the same or a similar meaning as 1S, nor does it promise a subset of 1S. So it is not a "comparable call" and offender's partner should have been barred. The OP notes that the offender indicated that she bid 1S because she didn't see the intervening 1S call. This raises a question: is the offender's reason for making an insufficient bid relevant? Is the Director even permitted to consider the reason? In the auction 1D - 1S - 1S, perhaps the offender didn't see the intervening 1S. But perhaps the offender saw the 1S bid and meant to bid 2S, showing a limit raise or better in diamonds, and then had a brain malfunction and pulled out 1S. How can the Director rule on whether a replacement call of 2S would be "comparable" to the withdrawn 1S without knowing the meaning of 1S? And how can the Director know the meaning of 1S when 1S can't have a meaning in the auction 1D - 1S - 1S? Is the Director supposed to assume that the offender thought the auction was 1D - P - 1S? In that case 2S would not be comparable at all. Is the Director supposed to imagine what meaning 1S would have if a player really intended to bid it over RHO's 1S? Is the Director supposed to ask the offender what she thought she was doing and what meaning she thought it had?

This scenario really happened to me about two weeks ago. Declarer, playing 4S, forgot the contract and from the course of play it was clear to everyone else at the table that declarer thought he was playing 3NT. Eventually my partner ruffed a trick that declarer thought was his. When my partner led to the next trick, declarer said that it was his own lead, but dummy said, "no, he ruffed," pointing to my partner. Declarer, still somewhat bemused, allowed my partner to lead to the next trick. At the end of play, declarer had taken nine tricks, and I said, "down one," but declarer said, "no, making three"! Only then did we all tell declarer what the contract was. Declarer had not been woken up even by dummy's remark about my partner's ruff! Declarer apologized and admonished dummy that her remark about ruffing was improper. Dummy agree that it probably was. We didn't call the director, but we ended up with a top anyway. In the case posed in the OP, I think dummy has to play a heart when declarer says "discard a heart," but dummy should not have told declarer that the lead was in dummy based on a ruff, and the director may award an adjusted score.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I was dummy. I called attention to the problem with declarer's claim because I thought it was ethically appropriate to do so, but I wondered whether it was required by the Laws, hence this query. I don't remember the E/W hands exactly, but one of the defenders had ♣J10 left at the time of the claim (The ♣Q and ♣K were gone). This defender could conceivably have discarded a club on a heart lead by declarer, but the previously play had made clear that clubs were the only side suit declarer had left so such a discard would have been very unlikely in practice. I guess the technically correct ruling does turn, as others have suggested, on the meaning of the phrase "could not lose" in Law 79A2. If it means "could not lose by normal play" then my obligation to speak up was clear. If it means "could not lose by any legal play, even a stupid one," then perhaps I was legally permitted to accept E/W's ill-considered concession. (And if it means "could not lose even by playing cards at random," then there's always the possibility that a defender would have revoked.) In any event, we agreed on one trick to the defense without calling the Director. I am satisfied with that result, but this has been an interesting discussion.

Aha, thank you. That answers the question.

Sorry, I should have said, "Dummy notices that declarer must lose a club." But that still leaves the question, was dummy legally obliged to point this out?

[hv=pc=n&s=sh85dca2&n=sh7dc953]133|200[/hv] In a recent ACBL-sanctioned game, declarer (South), playing a heart contract, claimed, saying "I have the rest -- I'll ruff a club." There were no trumps out. Both defenders nodded and started shuffling their cards. Dummy saw that declarer could not ruff a club. Was dummy under any legal obligation to point out the error in the claim?