WellSpyder

The rules have been clarified as far as the rest of the world is concerned, as has been explained by more than one person above. THERE IS NO NEED FOR VP SCORES TO ADD UP TO 20. As RMB1 implies, if your part of the world wants to do this differently, then you probably need your own regulations about how you do this since other people's regulations are not designed with a 20VP constraint in mind.

I don't think there is any reason why VPs should add up to 20. I believe the procedure set out in the White Book means that the OS gets the VPS associated with their imp score (ie 10 VPs for 0 imps in your example) while the NOS get the VPs associated with their imp score (8.73 VPs for -6 imps according to your calculations).

Really? I have certainly asked oppo on more than one occasion to agree that a bid was out of tempo because it was too fast rather than too slow, and only yesterday called a TD to register this when oppo weren't initially sure they agreed. Usually this happens when they bid (or, indeed, pass) immediately after a stop bid, thereby signalling to partner that it was an easy choice to make. I have also considered asking for a ruling when a defender signalled encouragement on partner's opening lead of an A immediately after dummy went down, rather than waiting a customary period, and indeed rather than waiting for the inevitable small card to be called from dummy.

This doesn't seem to work for me - I still make blunders even when I think.....

I very strongly disagree with both of you. I played for the first time last night with quite a strong partner, but one who appeared to have a complete aversion to claiming. It was painful, and we were slow to move for almost every round (though I should stress she was a pleasure to play with in other respects). I was more than once tempted to claim as dummy when it was obvious the hand was over, and even once as defender when it was clear my partner had the remaining tricks....

Reminds me of an old rule for (economic) forecasters: "Either forecast what is going to happen or when something is going to happen, but never both at the same time...."

OK. So you would feel insulted if the TD ruled against you. Meanwhile the oppo will feel you have cheated them if you rely on a play that you didn't mention in your claim. So someone is bound to be very unhappy. Isn't life so much more pleasant if people simply mention when claiming how they intend to play the hand?

I sympathise with the rationale behind the OP. I always feel that match points can be pretty random when you only have a couple of tables in play. But at others point out, the same is true of X-imps. Which is better? Well, consider the case of just two tables. How often would you want a teams-of-4 match to be scored by point-a-board (BAM) rather than imps? It might be interesting occasionally for variety, but everyone seems happy to accept imps for teams matches. So why would you necessarily want to do anything different when comparing with 2 other tables rather than just one? To answer the OP about what clubs actually do, in my experience they generally stick to the announced scoring method, whether that be imps or mps. But with fewer than 3 tables, I would expect them to switch to imps anyway, and I have certainly seen this done.

In my experience poor TDs are tempted to use the SEWoG route as a means of justifying no adjustment. If they can be made to understand that SEWoG does not actually allow them to avoid adjusting the score (it is only relevant in whether or not you adjust for the NOS - you still need to adjust for the OS, anyway) then they are less likely to be tempted towards judging an action SEWoG inappropriately.

It would be even more careless NOT to unblock! :) But I agree with your ruling....

I must admit I haven't followed your line in detail, Phil, but you have very helpfully provided a diagram of the position after T10. How is West going to score 3 trump tricks from this position if declarer leads a C from dummy and ruffs with ♠J?

"you haven't stated how you are going to play it."

Frankly, I really struggle to believe a declarer would notice the problem and not mention it in his claim. However, that does not mean that he wouldn't notice the problem and deal with it sensibly if he played the hand out, even without any "warning" from a contested claim. If there is no reasonable doubt that declarer would have made the contract had he played it out, then I think that is the basis on which the laws require the TD to rule. If the TD concludes that since the declarer hasn't noticed the problem at the time of the claim then he might not notice it when playing the hand out, then the ruling is different. I think it is perfectly reasonable for players to make their own judgment about this before deciding whether or not they want to dispute the claim, but it is also perfectly reasonable to decide that it is an issue for the TD to decide.

I'm guessing you weren't 2 off in 2D.....

Not from me, I'm afraid - your assessment looks fine to me.

Errm... are you in the class of people who enjoy semantic discussions or those who don't? I think the whole point of a Grosvenor coup (if it has one at all!) is that it doesn't show any profit. The net result is the same as if you had played normally because declarer will never play you for what you have since you would never have done what you did with that holding....

Wow! In my mind if you perpetrate the same psyche with the same partner three times in a year you will arrive at an implicit understanding, let alone three times in a session.

The OP states that there is no agreement about the 5♦ bid or the 6♦ bid. But the first was apparently meant as exclusion RKCB, and the second as a response to exclusion RKCB. That at least suggests that there may have been more of an understanding than was admitted to.

I was far from convinced by the decision, too! But what do you do when a defender (in a county A-team match) claims to have lost count of a suit and needed to work out whether there was any point in keeping the 13th card in a suit (which declarer had ruffed earlier)? His other two cards were two relatively low ones in a side suit that had only been played once so far. (I think he had the 8 or 9, but there were still 4 or 5 higher cards out, so it could not possibly take a trick.) After all, everyone does lose count of a suit occasionally if they have a lapse of concentration.

That's what I thought. But a ruling given at my table a while back by a very experienced TD implied that the requirements for adjusting the score are not met if you have ANY bridge reason for going into the tank. A defender who apparently thought it mattered which of obviously useless cards he kept for the last two tricks persuaded declarer to play for a squeeze rather than a finesse, and the TD decided that because he was thinking about bridge rather than dinner then that was OK.

I may not always agree with what mikeh says, but I think his post here is the first time I have really felt he has got something completely wrong. It is always a pleasure to read one of his posts since I know it will be well-argued and may well raise perspectives that I haven't really considered before. And I don't think any apology is needed for the tone, either - they may be strongly argued, but they are invariably polite. I would not complain about a "timid" approach on the cheating scandals, either - I was really glad to see someone prepared to think a bit more objectively than the mob about how to avoid confirmation bias and perhaps to consider the perspective of someone who might be falsely accused in the future, which might be any one of us.

It does not apply to smaller club games since there is an annual turnover threshold below which the selling organisation (ie the club) does not need to account for VAT. But it certainly applies to national tournaments.

I agree people are likely to resist change. My perspective, though, when we play Swiss Pairs once a month at the club, is that in many ways it feels more sociable playing 8 boards against the same opponents, giving time for more interaction and a decent contest, rather than just a random brief interlude in an overall evening of chopping and changing.

I have seen both these statements many times before, but I have to say I have my doubts. Playing with my regular partner in our last county match, I opened 1♠, partner thought for a bit before raising to 2♠, and I felt my hand was worth a raise to 4. Partner turned out to have a 4-count or something without a huge amount of shape, and the alternative he was considering was clearly a pass. And not surprisingly the contract went a trivial 2 off. Oppo clearly weren't bothered about any UI from the hesitation, and there was clearly no evidence that I was able to interpret partner's UI. But suppose he had turned out to have a raise to 2.5♠ rather than 1.5♠, and game had actually made. Now I can imagine everyone saying that I had a good idea of what partner's hesitation showed, even though another bridge player would not have done. But the evidence of what actually happened clearly contradicts this assertion....

Indeed - but hopefully a pretty widely held one.