PeterAlan

As it is here. The idea was to highlight the contrast between current practice and what would have to apply in a different scenario ("The only alternative ...") - I'm sorry if the differentiation didn't come across clearly enough for you.

I suspect the answer is really quite simple - there needs to be a way of determining when you have actually made your lead. It's not sufficient to say "when you turn it over" because there needs to be a Clarification Period first. And how do we know when the Clarification Period begins if you're free to change your selected face-down lead? The only alternative would be to allow you to faff around, changing your face-down card at will, and finally announce "I'm ready [at last]" or some such mechanism for embarking on the Clarification Period. This obviously would be unsatisfactory for all sorts of reasons (including all the UI you could transmit), so it's best to go with a straightforward "you make one choice and take it from there".

Generally 32 boards in the Spring Foursomes, but there is an option for the undefeated team to claim an extra 8 boards in the final stages - see p 10 of Programme for details.

I think you're thinking of Law 79A2, which addresses a slightly different issue (but which could be applicable here):

OB 11 C 14 & 15 were introduced in 2010: My understanding of these has been that 11 C 14 is relaxing, at Level 4, restrictions (such as those in 11 C 2) that apply at lower levels, and says that at Level 4 you may [agree to] open 1♣/♦ to show a different (specified) suit, but 11 C 15 was added at the same time to emphasise that you still can't do the same thing with a 1♥/♠ opening.

Nothing to add about E/W, but there's also N's opening bid (you say they are a regular partnership) - illegal as an agreement if playing under EBU Level 4 (or less) since only 7 HCP. This is just to note - I'm not suggesting anything was fielded. Because the defence cannot take more than two spades, one heart and one club, and, as the declarer contracted for ten tricks, and scored nine, he is down only one. And if the defence continue forcing in diamonds the contract actually makes! But -2 on a ♣ lead - declarer will either lose a third ♠ or a second ♥ (I've verified this with DF).

This is incorrect, Pran. If the Bridgemate has moved on to the next round, you can still erase a board from the previous round: move on to the point where you are prompted for the Board number to be played, insert the TD key, press 3, and you'll find you can delete the previous round's board(s). [if you've already scored a board in the current round you'll have to erase that first.] There's only a problem if you've reached End of Session.

Disclaimer: I have not been involved in writing the regulations and am in no position to give you a definitive answer. Having said that: As MickyB says, you can start with which is amplified by I think, therefore, that the first question to ask (OB 5 C 6) is: Natural or Artificial? If the "12-13 with ♣" option is not restricted to hands which would be regarded as natural 1NT openings if they were the only option, then I think it's clear that the criteria in 5 F 1 (b) are not met and the opening should be alerted. If the option is so restricted, so that in effect you've got an extension of a natural 14-16 range together with a selection from the natural 12-13 range that is limited to hands with some (undefined by you) sort of ♣ suit, then arguably it could be announceable, and the sensible announcement would be "14-16 or 12-13 with ♣" (NB OB 5A4: "Announcements are not intended to provide comprehensive explanations – matters of detail will still be disclosed by means of information on convention cards and the answers to questions"). However, it's still questionable whether the bid "conveys ... unusual information about suit holdings", and I would have thought it should be safe to alert even in this case too. The downside is that this says that the NT opening is "artificial", and a picky opposition who don't ask might complain when the hand in question turns out to be one that conforms to the natural NT opening parameters. Finally, it seems to me that the familiar 5 E 1 (b) (alert if it's natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning) is essentially irrelevant, since it only kicks in if the bid is not announceable (first words of 5 E 1), and in that event it's alertable anyway under 5 C 6.

Gordon, I'm not advocating any departure from standard TD practice, let alone any specific one, merely trying to give an answer of sorts to the question(s) about the legality of certain courses of action. Describing something as "reasonable" doesn't mean I favour it. I suppose, also, that I'm starting from the viewpoint that your concerns about players gaming the cancelling of current round boards would be overstated, in the places I play most of my bridge anyway, but maybe I'm just naive! Incidentally, it seems to me that there could also be some, though probably lesser, opportunities for that sort of shennanigan if you're removing board(s) from the next round, though I don't want to think particularly hard about it! That practice, of course, also has the disadvantage that it affects pairs who were not any part of the slow play, even if they do get Ave+ by way of compensation.

For the reasons I gave above, and provided the Tournament Organiser / Tournament Director has previously made clear to all concerned what slow play rules are to be applied and that the situation in question is within those parameters, I would maintain that in any of these scenarios the TD has the authority to cancel the board. It would normally be unusual to draw the line so that scenario 14 is included, but in order to rule out wasting further time if the result of the board might be in dispute, I can see some merit in that too. What's reasonable depends on how those parameters are expressed, and I suggest that there's an implict requirement of reasonableness. I would, for example, regard it as reasonable to say "if you haven't finished a board, including scoring it, by [say] 2 minutes after the move is called, then I'll cancel it" (your scenario 14). I would not regard it as reasonable to say "you can't start the second board any later than 3 minutes into the round" (your scenario 1). Within that constraint, it's up to the TO / TD to decide what the rules are, and in terms of which state of the board (start, auction, lead, etc) they are defined, and they have the authority to do so and to enforce them. I think you should look again at all the White Book wording I quoted. From the first sentence, the Tournament Organiser (here the club) may "prescribe the speed of play, and the actions the TD takes if players play more slowly than prescribed", and the rest of the advice applies only to events where this is not done. Even then, I would suggest that the TD, under Law 81B1, has the authority to set these parameters him/herself at the start of the event, provided they are made clear to everyone. Where these slow play parameters are set, by the TO/TD, I don't have a problem with them involving the termination of play on a board where the auction has started, and so don't agree that this is necessarily "seriously misguided". To repeat my earlier question, surely you would accept that if the players took hours over the auction then the TD would have to step in sooner or later? In many events, any significant late play time is just not practical.

It seems to me too that there is nothing specific in the Laws that determines whether or not a board must be played out once the hands have been drawn; instead, in the absence of any specific provision, and of any requirements of the Regulating Authority (Law 80B1), it would appear essentiallly to come within the Tournament Organiser's powers and their delegation to the Director, under the following Laws: (Note the last sentence of Law 81B1.) If it is accepted that there are no other specific provisions for these to conflict with, then it seems to me that these confer sufficient powers on the TO / TD to halt play of a board at any stage in order to deal with slow play. I'd certainly agree with In response to pran's (My enhancement) Where in the laws do you find any authority for the Director to cancel a board after the auction (period) has begun on that board unless there has been an irregularity that makes normal play of the board impossible? (1) I understand Law 8B1 as being solely about defining when the end of a round is deemed to occur (an interpretation re-inforced by the heading "End of Round") - I don't think it was ever intended to say anything specific about the regulation of the play of a board; instead, it's just saying that if a table over-runs for a while they're not deemed to have ended the round until they move on. As far as I'm concerned, play can be completed not only by playing the board out, but also by the Director terminating play of the board. After all, surely you accept that if the players took hours to complete the board the Director would have to step in sooner or later? (2) My answer to your question "Where in the laws do you find any authority for the Director to cancel a board after the auction (period) has begun on that board ..." lies in the Laws I cited above. In EBU-land the RA's guidance would seem to offer the Tournament Organiser the opportunity to set its own conditions, and is only saying "play the board out" in the absence of such conditions:

This is secondary: the essential point of my original post was that, contrary to what was being suggested at the time, 3NT doesn't make: instead, it's -2 on an intial (low) ♣ or ♥ lead, -1 on a ♠. I happen to disagree with you over whether anything more than -1 is likely in the latter case. Of course you're right to say that W shouldn't make it easy by cashing A♠ after winning the ♦ and before switching to ♥, but by the time E plays a second ♥ and W shows out, S has pretty much got a complete count on the hand, knows that he's not locked out of dummy permanently, and can also see that taking the ♥ and running the ♦ will squeeze dummy in the endgame. So he ducks again, and from that point on the hand pretty much plays itself for -1 since W can't have A♣. But we agree completely that 3NT making should have zero weight, and that the adjudication should be some mix of -1 and -2.

It makes no difference whether W cashes ♠A or switches immediately to a ♥, it's -1 in both cases. In the second case, provided declarer ducks the ♥ in dummy and E's continuation, E's effectively endplayed for -1 not -2. -2 requires not leading ♠ in the first place.

Actually, it can always be taken 1 off on a ♠ lead (and 2 on a low ♣ or ♥). Say S wins the 7♠ lead and clears the ♦, W winning the second round. W now cashes A♠ and leads the ♥, and E-W will come to 2 ♥ tricks and A♣.

I looked at the results when the system first went live; it would have been too difficult to have totally ignored them. I noted that it rated Y (probably the fifth- or sixth-best woman player at the relatively mediocre standard club where I play a fair amount of my club bridge) quite a lot higher than both Nevena Senior and Heather Dhondy, and concluded that there was some settling in to go through. More seriously, though, I have a regular partner with whom I play 90% of my bridge (and almost all my tournament bridge); she plays a little more with other people, but I think plays at least 85%+ of her bridge with me. Yet our initial ratings were a full 3 levels apart, and without a fair bit of analysis, which I'm not prepared to undertake, and which I'm sure she won't, of the data that EBU makes available, neither of us knows just why. We came to duplicate bridge essentially as beginners who knew our way around the basics (we'd both played kitchen-standard rubber bridge) on the back of a raw partnership that we formed at the time, we both progressed from there as that partnership, developing our system together right from the start, and sharing the gathering of experience. We've become close friends as a result. It's been very important to us to treat the partnership as one of equals throughout; in a small way, this risks undermining that for both of us in a subtle but slightly insidious fashion.

This actually happened against us at Brighton a few years ago. I didn't look to see what the actual adjustment for the other side was at the end of the day, but it was just an inadvertent oversight and it certainly didn't feel to me either at the time or since as at all heinous. I'm entirely with Stefanie here. On that occasion, I think we were playing with uniform cards for all boards, but in cases where the colours of the backs alternate, say between red and blue, it's in theory more likely to be picked up. It's reassuring to realise, however, that the stricture about not looking at opponents cards becomes a habit in practice, and I'm not sure that in fact this adds much to the detection rate.

I always do the following: Suit contract: trumps on the right, then alternate red / black, keeping majors and minors together (so in S it's S, H, C, D; D it's D, C, H, S etc). No-trump: S, H, D, C. I suppose there's a memory aid in the different NT configuration, but no-one's ever commented on it. And the information that a NT contract is being played is always available.

When dummy, I try to ensure that I only quit the trick when my declarer partner has done so. However, I'm very conscious of how easy it is to get caught up in the tempo of the defenders quitting their cards.

Blackshoe, your annotation of the bidding says that W "after Pass asked about 2♠". It's not clear to me from your OP whether the sequence was: (1) (late) Alert, Pass by W, Question, or (2) Pass by W, late Alert, Question but I'd have thought (a) if it was (1), W has no business to be asking questions at that point, and (b) if it was (2) calling the TD would strictly have been the appropriate action by W if there was any likelihood of him wanting to change his call. Also, I don't know about your local bidding systems and Alert rules, but is there any likelihood that W could have believed 2♠ was natural? This is all a bit formal, of course, and in the context of a club game I can understand W just wanting to get on with the hand in as straightforward a way as possible. To answer your question, I think it would be better manners for W to be patient whilst you at least got out your explanation of the new nature of the partnership, and, if he felt it necessary to interrupt a bit further down the line, to do so in as low-key a way as possible, say with a hand gesture that says "Nothing more's needed" and / or perhaps saying "That's OK". So my sympathies are with you, but we all need a thick skin for some aspects of this game and I don't think you should take what actually happened too much to heart. Given your experience is so vastly greater than mine, I don't suppose you really need me to tell you that!

We had the following hand tonight (matchpoints): [hv=pc=n&w=sqj2hdakqj952ckjt&e=sa7654hak97d86ca5&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=2h(Weak%20%5Bwill%20be%206-card%5D)2s3h(WIll%20be%203-card%20support)4dp5dppp]266|200[/hv] The standard was intermediate club bridge; not especially high. N will have 6♥ for the weak 2, and S will almost certainly have 3 for the raise, so on the second round E knows W is likely to be void. The result was not a great success, as both 7♦ and 7NT are on (♠K is with N, and, if playing 7♦, ruffing the 3rd round of ♣ works too - though N is doubleton, S has ♦10). 6♠ makes too, but not 7 (N has K 10 3). Any thoughts? In particular, please, your views on (1) X rather than 2♠ by E on first round, and (2) E's best action after W's 4♦?

Why? Surely it's not East's position to start making rulings at the table. He's already erred in not calling the TD (which he "must" do under 20F4). Let's not compound it further, especially as N's right to change his call is not an absolute right but is subject to "when the Director judges" etc (21B1(a)).

This just goes back to an earlier point, which was that IF you start from the position that a particular scoring method (raw score -> point conversion table - Teams-of-4 IMPs, say) is "correct" (ie has certain desirable characteristics, whatever) THEN mathematically you won't maintain correctness (those same desirable characteristics) if you use the SAME scoring method (raw score -> points conversion table) on a raw score set that's twice (three, four, four hundred times) as large. If, however, you regard your base scoring method as totally arbitrary, then, Yes, you've got no desirable characteristics to lose. But usually the Teams-of-4 IMP scale is held to have some merits (for Teams-of-4). It can't retain those same merits in full if used unadjusted for Teams-of-8 with twice the number of scores per board.

I'm conscious that I don't know the mathematical details of the construction of the usual IMP table. Obviously the purpose is to damp the swings that would otherwise occur under aggregate scoring, but was there a particular mathematical basis to the scale adopted, and if so can anyone point me towards it? I can speculate about what it was fitted to, but I'd prefer to know!

Sorry if I was being a bit cryptic. It was a bit early in the morning for me! Taking your example as you present it, what you're implicitly saying is that 0 net at one match (pair of tables) and 500 net at the other is the same as 500 net at one match. In fact, this highlights why using the same IMP table for both is wrong, because ONE result of 500 is not the same as TWO results, one of which is 500 and the other of which is 0. You're using your example to say "there may be 4 scores involved, but there are plenty of boards like these when it's really just 2, so we should treat it like 2", to which I'm saying "Oh no you shouldn't. Yes, there are scoring events [boards] like that, and we know all about them, but it's still correct to treat them as 4 scores and not as just 2. In particular, it's no reason to lapse back to a Teams-of-4 IMP table; we should still be using our appropriate Teams-of-8 table [whatever that may be]." Elaborating what I'm saying, any mathematically-appropriate way of combining the 4 scores on a board and looking-up an IMP score in a Teams-of-8 table takes account of the fact that there are 4 scores involved and not just 2. Built into its mathematical construction, it implicitly "knows" perfectly well that some of these sets of 4 scores have a pair that balance each other leaving only the other 2 to contribute to the net score, and it also "knows" the proportion there are of these to sets where there are 4 different scores - it wouldn't be mathematically appropriate if it didn't. I didn't want to go into further detail, not least because I didn't want to discuss whether pairing the scores off, as you did when you talked in terms of "matches", was appropriate. In fact, the usual Teams-of-8 scoring doesn't do this; it just adds up the total of 4 scores without worrying about how they might be paired. 420 / 170 in one match and 170 / 420 in the other is +250 & -250 for a net 0, as would be 170 / 170 at one and 420 / 420 at the other, but if you're thinking in pre-defined "match" terms one is -250 / +250 and the other 0 / 0, not necessarily the same thing.

It's events like this that lead people who do not understand the mathematics to believe that "this form of scoring is not as bad as people are making it out to be". Nevertheless, they are wrong, because the likelihood of such events is taken account of.