Chris3875

Sorry pran - I really just don't follow that. Take bluejak's example 2 - the player opens 1♥ with 6 scraggy hearts and 5 spades (presumably of better quality). In my opinion he SHOULD open 1♥, so I would consider that he INTENDED to open 1♥ but then changed his mind. Same with example 1 - although with 5 spades and 5 clubs he SHOULD open 1♠ did he INTEND to open 1♣ and then realise with 5 and 5 he should open the higher suit. Are these both changes of mind and should they be allowed to be changed? And why would my coming along and disallowing the change of bid give any more information than the player has given anyway? Help !

bluejak this will probably show my level of experience when directing, but with the 2 examples that you showed, I would think to myself, "hello, this is a change of mind" and probably not allow the bid to be changed. (I stand ready to be pilloried)

I just LOVE those replies!!! What happened last Saturday was that one of our obnoxious senior smart ass players took umbrage at 2 lots of novice pairs who coincidentally both opened a weak 2 at his table with 7 of suit (and one even compounded the situation by having a void). He didn't ask about the first bid, but when the 2nd pair opened 2H, he asked and was simply told "weak" ! He got into a rant and rave situation with them after bridge concluded for the day - I intervened and told him they were quite justified in opening a weak 2 in whatever style they wished, but I did explain to them that they must give a full explanation if asked (e.g could be 6+ of suit, may contain a void). I later wondered about the alerting bit which is why I added this thread. It is people like this particular player who spoil the day for novice players and discourage them from returning to play. I shall take great satisfaction in explaining the facts to him in detail - supported by printouts of your replies. Cheers !

Hmmm what I was thinking mjj was that if you had KJxxx in dummy and declarer pointed in the general direction of the J and RHO came up with Q and declarer said "No, I was pointing at the King !" I think declarer would have a long bow to draw to convince the TD though.

We have a player who also has speech problems who points her finger up to the ceiling to indicate a high card, and down at the table to show low - this is when dummy is following suit. As Peachy has already said, Declarer plays from dummy by naming the card or playing the card himself - I wonder could you run into problems if there became a disagreement about which card was actually pointed at?

Thanks Peachy and Blackshoe for your very clear replies - which I actually understood !!! The situation I am describing blackshoe, is where a pair make this part of their agreement - so they regularly open a weak 2 with 6+ of the suit, and often with a void. It arose yesterday and I told 2 pairs who were doing it that they must describe the agreement fully when asked (e.g. 6+ of suit, could be a void, 6-10 HCP) but I wondered later whether it should be alerted because most people wouldn't ask about it, just assume it was a "normal" weak 2.

There are many different versions of weak 2 openings - some show more than one suit and need to be alerted. Most of the players doing lessons at our club are taught to open a weak 2 in hearts or spades with 6 of suit, 6-9 points, no 4-card in the other major and no void. This does not need an alert. But what about the partnerships who then decide to open a weak 2 with SEVEN trumps and a void - if they have on their system card 6+ of suit, may be a void, are they covered or should the bid be alerted because it is not what ops would be expecting?

I have noticed in a number of different threads the comment has been made "don't look at the players' hands" when called to the table to make a decision. Assume you are called to the table by a player who has made an unintentional bid - wrote hearts when she clearly meant to write spades - a quck glance at her hand would show that she had 1 heart and 5 spades and the decision is simple. How do you handle this? Do you take the player away from the table and ask her what she actually intended to write and accept her word? Do you check later by looking at the hand record or wait until the opposition scream because, in fact, she may not have been truthful. Sometimes players will tell you that they made an unintentional bid when, in fact, it was a change of mind. How can you know this unless you look at their hand?

I have no clue what Axman is talking about - it's like a foreign language.

I think declarer shot himself in the foot when he said all trumps and hearts are good - but even if he didn't say that and gave no line of play when making the claim I would still give South the T of hearts.

Darn!! Going back to the 2NT - 2C (stayman) - wants to change to 3C (stayman) http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/law...sCommentary.pdf says - "... the auction cannot be continued normally" but then goes on to say later - "The WBF-LC has decided to give the Regulating Authorities the right to apply the criteria in Law 27B1(:ph34r: with a liberal interpretation which could lead to accepting the 3C bid (if both calls 2C and 3C are considered to be just asking bids they fulfil the requirements given). What's a girl to do ?

In the "Zone 7 Law Interpetation, Regulation and Guidance" document, effective 1st June 2008, if specifically sets out the example of 1S - 3S - 4NT - 4D and says "if the Director is satisfied that East was answering Blackwood but at the wrong level, then East will be allowed to correct to 5D without any restriction". It was interesting to read the 2NT - 2C scenario as I probably would have just automatically allowed IB'er to correct to 3C (if the 2C bid was stayman) - I see now that that would not be the case.

Surely this is not correct - under the new Laws isn't the player free to change his insufficient 4♦ bid to 5♦ with no restriction on partner?

Gotcha !!!! thanks very much :P

Thanks David - can you give me a simple example please, because I don't really understand what you mean.

Blackshoe - I hear what you are saying about 2 sections, etc. etc. and while we do that for red point events, club championships, etc. this is just a normal Friday semi-social day of bridge for 80% of the players. They don't want to be messing around playing Howell movements (which they HATE anyway). We usually have "hospitality" after the day's play - some wine, beer, cheese and dip, etc. The hand records are distributed and people can dissect, discuss and rehash to their heart's content. I don't think it's expecting too much to ask people to not discuss the hands - the particular player who made the comment, deserves a harsh smack IMO because it would not have taken him much effort to work out that the person he spoke to had not played that board. This is one instance where I believe that a PP would be appropriate - if you decided to give one how does it actually work? Do you take a certain percentage off their final score ?

Blackshoe - reading back through your original reply to this thread - I am of the opinion that if the player in question had called the Director immediately and explained the situation, been allowed to continue bidding and playing the hand normally, bid and made 7NT, I would have been inclined to allow him to keep that score knowing the class of player that he is. I am reading c} allow completion of the play of the board, standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that unauthorized information may have affected the result I am suggesting that the UI did not affect the result - what say you ?

If you only played 9 rounds in an 11 table Mitchell, surely you would miss playing 2 pairs ?

This "event" is just a normal, weekly, regular Mitchell movement where the session happens to start at 10.30 am and finish about 4.00 pm with a half hour lunch break. If it were a special red point Pairs or Teams event, then sure, players would finish a complete set of boards before the lunch break - I don't think you can shoot the organisers for running a routine Mitchell event in the way they do - there are probably 11 tables playing 4 boards each during the course of the session. Players understand that they have played boards that other people have not yet come across and should surely have enough ethics and self control to keep quiet until the session is totally over. Apparently there was no doubt that the board in question was, in fact, the 7NT board. I thought the player shot himself in both feet - firstly by not calling the Director straight away and secondly by trying to be "holier than thou" and deciding to bid 6D. To add insult to injury the particular player and his partner missed out on first place by some miniscule point something of a percentage.

Yesterday, at the lunch break, one of the NS players asked an EW friend, "did you bid the 7NT?" Later, during the afternoon session, the EW player realised he was now holding the 7NT hand. He is a very experienced player and when he says the 7NT was cold, I believe him. However, in an effort to be "ethical" he instead chose to bid 6D, which made 13 tricks and was 3rd best score on the day on that hand. I don't know what the hand was as he had not kept a hand record and I wasn't playing yesterday. Do you believe that this player should have called the Director immediately he realised that he had been given information about the hand he was holding? If you were called to the table and given the above facts, how would you rule? I was in a similar situation about 18 months ago myself and I recall that I called the Director and was given an Average+. I had to ask myself would I have bid the hand to it's full potential and had to be honest and say, probably not (I am a bit of a wimpy bidder) whereas the EW player yesterday would certainly have bid the 7NT I am sure. I think as the Director I would have been tempted to give him the 7NT making and give the NS player some sort of PP but do not know if there is any law covering that.

The reason why I was surprised at being left in the 2D bid was because we open with 4+ diamonds, although my repeat of the diamond bid shows 6 - my partner was void in diamonds. However, we managed to make our 9 tricks so I was happy. My regular partner and I often split up to "blood" new players into club duplicate so often the bidding can be quite erratic (even more erratic than normal Aussie bridge players David!). I recall that during the afternoon session my partner failed to open with 19 points because he didn't have a 5-card major suit and he had too many points to open 1NT !!!!

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sq7hk5dkqj9764c84&w=st6haqjt3dt52c932&e=saj52h86da83cajt5&s=sk9843h9742dckq76]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] This was the hand in question.

David, you are quite correct. I was giving the worst possible case scenario where there was no physical evidence (no 3D written extra big or extra bold) and both pairs coming up with a different story. How much weight (if any) can you put on your knowledge of the players? (none, I expect). I was quite blase when told the story by one of the opponents and said "well, it's not much good telling me now, you should have called me to the table when it happened" ... all the while thinking "thank God you didn't!! :rolleyes:

I wasn't called to the table when this alleged incident occurred, and only heard about it later, so naturally only know one version of what happened. Apparently the bidding went (no intervening bids) 1D - 1S - 2D - 2S -3D* - all pass. The information given to me was that the 3D bid was made slowly and deliberately and with some eye contact with partner. (In other words SHUT UP PARTNER, this is where I want to play). What would you do if you were called to the table and given that scenario by one side, but the other side totally refuted it. I guess you could look at the written bidding pad and see whether the 3D bid was written larger or more boldly than the other bids. It seems to me that it could come down to one side's word against the other and with no evidence all I could do as the Director would be to say that IF that had occurred it would be totally wrong and fix everyone with my infamous "look". I recall playing this particular hand in 2D and I remember being surprised partner left me there because he was void in diamonds and had 5 strong spades. (I was playing with someone only a few weeks out of lessons).

shocked WAS over the top - I agree. However, the fact it was in capital letters and followed by a poking out tongue smilie indicated that it was only poking fun at the normally correct blackshoe.