http://forums.bridgetalk.com RSS IPB news 1.5 Forums for the discussion of all aspects of contract bridge Thu, 15 May 2008 00:16:52 +0000enbridgetalk.com ©2006admin@bridgetalk.com admin@bridgetalk.com http://forums.bridgetalk.com/style_images/1/cardhand.gif http://forums.bridgetalk.com 111 112 Forums for the discussion of all aspects of contract bridge Mon, 12 May 2008 21:25:51 +0000
I'm curious how they would be defined in your partnership. If they aren't defined (and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they weren't), what do you think that partner is up to if he sprung them on you...

(4 ) - 4NT - (P) - 5
(P) - 5

(4 ) - 4NT - (P) - 5
(P) - 6 ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3727 Mon, 12 May 2008 12:59:22 +0000
None of the rulings will be technically difficult (so move it into "Simple rulings" if you must), but they may become progressively more divisive.

Part 1

Declarer wins a trick in dummy and calls for a club. RHO plays a heart (revoke) and immediately corrects it to a club, leaving the heart face up as an exposed card. The director is called.

Easy, isn't it? How should you rule?

James ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3726 Mon, 12 May 2008 08:53:27 +0000
W opens 1C, N pass, E 1H, S pass, W 2H, N pass, E 3H ( which is preemptive ), S double.
Is this double for take-out or penalty?
What should bid S at the first round with : Qx AJ AQxx ARxxx
Many thanks in advance
Best regards, Al. Ohana ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3725 Sat, 10 May 2008 01:18:11 +0000
And if someone knows, what would be their cost.

Thanks in advance

Pmd176 ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3723 Fri, 09 May 2008 23:32:23 +0000 * announced as "weak".
** alerted, not asked.

The hesitation over 3NT was agreed. 3H showed a feature, and a better than minimum hand. A small spade was led and declarer made 7 tricks. What do you reckon? ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3722 Fri, 09 May 2008 19:10:19 +0000
There seems to be a notion that the director should "just follow the laws". Then you can add that the director should follow the direction of the Zonal Authority (e.g., ACBL). Or custom.

Then the director makes a ruling, which hopefully is "correct". The disadvantaged players get compensated (Law 82C) if it is not. This entitles the players to feel some upset if the wrong ruling is made.

This creates a director-intolerant environment. The director is supposed to get it right, even when that is difficult and even when experts might have different opinions. To quote one director on a recent thread: "Thanks for the input - looks like I got one right!" This affirms the idea that a ruling is either right or wrong, and in a backwards way suggests that directors do not expect to get many right.

So I want to promote more "director tolerance". First, the easy part, which is more acceptance of director error. True story -- the director starting at Table 14 comes to my table (#1) for the second round, while the other director, at Table 15, blissfully sits out the first two rounds. We get two complete tops on the two boards. These are then taken away from us when it is discovered that we played the wrong opponents. First director professes renewed faith in the existence of a benevolent God.

Later I discover that I was supposed to get those tops. The rules are about as clear as they can be. So how should I feel? I think the mistake was honest. Mistakes happen. It is a relatively obscure rule. No problem. I graciously accept the director's ruling.

And that is just for the rulings that are clear. What about the one's that aren't? In theory, some director is supposed to come here and get a unified answer as to what should have been done. Often that does not happen. When it does, sometimes a consensus exists here but if that director had gone elsewhere, the director would have gotten another opinion. (And often of course the answer is straightforward, I am just saying that often it is not.)

To be more director-tolerant, people have to acknowledge that different rulings are reasonable. My analogy is to bidding problems. They give bidding problems to 15 experts, then they get 4 different answers. Bob sez, if some beginner picks one of those 4 answers, the beginner's bid was right. I think it should be the same way for directors. If the director finds a reasonable ruling, then great. If it isn't the ruling that the majority of directors would choose, then so what?

There is also the problem of conflicting advice. The other night, a player and I had an apparent disagreement on a ruling. It never came out into the open, but I had one opinion as to what information LHO is entitled to before deciding whether or not to accept the insufficient bid, and she had another. She was a tournament director. I read the laws, and they seemed to agree with me. I read "Duplicate Decisions", from the ACBL, and it seemed to agree more with her, though not as far as she was taking things. Then I read Club Director's Guide, which was close to Duplicate Decisions, but differing a teensy bit in my direction.

Or suppose each side revokes on a board, and one of the revokes is not established. Do you apply the new L64B7: "There is no rectification... following an established revoke..when both sides have revoked on the same board." I would not blame a director for going either way. Grattan has said the intention of the law, so now I know which ruling is "correct". But that doesn't exactly help the director in Kansas who has to make a ruling that night.

Perhaps the WBFLC will make some pronouncement on this. The director in Kansas doesn't even know there is a WBF or that the laws go any farther than ACBL-land. If the director went to the WBF website, the director probably would not find the pronouncements, which are buried in the minutes of the WBFLC.

(My impression is that England solves this problem with their White Book and Orange Book. And by not paying their directors. Duplicate Decisions is nothing like the White or Orange book, IMO.)

So I guess there are two points here. One is to be director-tolerant even when the director makes a mistake. My impression is that people here are very good about this.

The second is to be more supportive of directors when they are ruling in the grey areas or just making judgments. What I never seem to hear, anywhere, is "That was a reasonable ruling, though not the ruling I would have made." Or, for that matter, just acknowledging that there are two reasonable rulings.

Thanks to David for constructing this forum. ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3721 Thu, 08 May 2008 22:27:58 +0000
“A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it was to call before rectification has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent. “
Have never had to apply this law at the table under 1997 laws and wonder what drafters intend should happen at the table

Naturally the Director will offer LHO the chance to accept the COR.
Does the law require a Director to invite the player whose turn has been usurped to exercise his rights to call at this turn? With no rectification.

Law defines the action with simultaneous plays and leads out of rotation, but in case of dispute by NO does LHO have priority in L28 situations?

My interpretation is for this law to apply for situations when the Director reaches the table and two players have bid including the player whose turn it was. Otherwise just offer LHO his rights.
]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3720 Thu, 08 May 2008 21:09:28 +0000
This hand comes from an early board of a knock-out teams match.

Basic systems: N/S play 4-card majors, 14-16 NT. E/W play 5-card majors, 15-17 NT.

Table result: 4 (N) -1. N/S -50.

E/W call the TD to ask about the 4 bid following South's agreed hesitation. The TD asks North why he bid 4 and he explains that he was always bidding to 4 on his powerful hand; he bid 3 to involve partner in the event of the opponents bidding to 4 .

The TD rules result stands on the basis that there is no logical alternative to 4 .

E/W appeal.

E/W basis of appeal:

1. North has a doubleton spade. From North's point of view, South can hardly have been considering doubling 3 . Therefore it is clear from the UI that South was clearly considering bidding and that demonstrably suggests North bidding 4 over passing.

2. South could have raised to 3 pre-emptively on the first round so South is either too weak offensively for that call or has only 3-card heart support. Hence it is not clear to bid game on the North hand.

3. North's 3 bid suggests that he was making a game try. If so, he should respect South's decision.

4. Perhaps North would have bid 4 rather than 3 if he had always intended bidding to game.

N/S comments:

1. North was always bidding to 4 .

2. In our style a raise to 2 shows a stronger hand that a pre-emptive 3 bid.

3. A jump to 4 by Opener would be a splinter.

The obvious question is: how do you rule?

There is also a subsidiary issue. During the next set of the same match, the following hand occurs:



The 1 opener was from the partnership that opened 1 on the original ruling. On this occasion, Opener did not even make a game try even though his playing strength is not dissimilar to that of the 1 Opener on the first hand after an apparently similar auction.

These subsidiary questions arise:

1. Can E/W use this later hand as evidence to refute N/S comments numbers 1 & 2 on the original ruling?

2. If this later hand occurs after the normal time limit for notifying the TD of an intention to appeal, can this time limit be extended in view of new information coming to light? ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3719 Thu, 08 May 2008 13:24:33 +0000

(1) spades and diamonds
(H) agreed hesitation

Result: 5 X (E) -1, NS +100, lead 6

I didn't give the ruling on this one, and I may not have all the details, but EW called the director at the end of the auction because they were not happy with South's 4 bid after North's hesitation.

Do you think they have a case for an adjusted score?

James ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3717 Thu, 08 May 2008 08:55:56 +0000
S 1H Pass Pass ---
Pass!
I have been told that the turn comes back to EAst, the South'pass is cancelled and that :
If E bids, S can also bid. But law 30 says that after a pass OOT when it is the RHO turn, the offender must repeat his pass.
Thanks for your explanations
Best regards
Al. Ohana ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3716 Wed, 07 May 2008 02:49:19 +0000 (A) Not alerted, intended as weak (East had a balanced 8 points and 5 clubs), but by partnership agreement invitational. Stop card used IAW ACBL regulations.
(B) Immediate. Less than one second. South has a seven card heart suit, I believe.
(C) before passing, North asked if 3C was "weak or strong". West replied she wasn't sure, but she thought strong, and that in any case, it was on the CC (it was, as invitational - 2NT would have been a weak raise - but North didn't look). North thought for some few seconds (about 5 or so) and passed.

After the auction, and before the lead, East called the director, because he wasn't sure whether there was any UI in the opponents' tempo breaks. Director said "call me back after the play". The question of MI (from failure to alert 3C) was not addressed. 5CX was down 1, which turned out to be a phantom sac, as 4H cannot make. Director was not called after the play - partly because South had already expressed displeasure that the director had been called at all.

The hand records are unfortunately not available to me, but I'm just interested in whether you think there is or may have been any UI here. ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3715 Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3714 Tue, 06 May 2008 12:55:34 +0000 (H) agreed hesitation

NS called me at the end of the auction to reserve their rights regarding the 4 call. All players agreed the hesitation.

Result: 4 (W) +1, NS -150

What would your ruling be?

James ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3712 Tue, 06 May 2008 08:43:33 +0000
NS playes 6NT. While west thinks over the lead NS quickly exchanges some info about their calls and because of this south looses his concentration and belives in his head that spades are trumps.
After the lead is won, south playes off A + K of spades and the only spade that is left now is the queen.
Now south leads a singleton club towards AQJT9xx and wins with the ace. Then leads the queen which east covers with the king.
South 'ruffs' with a small spade and:

a) Places the cards on the table and says -: "You get the trump queen"
b) Places the cards on the table and says -: "You get the spade queen"

After some confusion the TD is called.
East who won the club king does not have the spade queen.
NS has plenty of tricks in the reds and clubs so it would be 'insane' to give away to the spade queen as soon declarer is on the right track again, after east unexpectantly won the club king.
Ruling?

Jan

]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3710 Tue, 06 May 2008 05:09:07 +0000 The topic is about the alert for strong club like 2 in natural system and 1 in precision system.
The full hand is as below:
---------------- K
---------------- AQ6
---------------- AK10763
---------------- J74
J2---------------------------- Q96543
109752----------------------- K3
Q4--------------------------- J2
AQ102----------------------- 865
---------------- A1087
---------------- J84
---------------- 985
---------------- K93

W-----N-----E-----S
P-----1 ---2 ---2NT
P-----3NT-----P-----P
DBL----P-----P-----P

The Fact:
There are 8 boards for this segment and this is the 4th board.
At the beginning of this segment, North-South annouced they played precision system and both East-West confirmed that.
During the current bidding process, 1 was forgotten to be altered.
West started their defence by leading J then the play went as:
J-K-3-7
A-2-5-4
K-J-8-Q
3- 5- 9-...
The director was called at this moment.
West stated that 1 was not altered and he forgot that the opponents played precision system because it's the first time they hold the value to open 1 since the 1st board.
At the such vulnerability(Both), jump overcall 2 after a natrual 1 shows medium sthength hand. We can also find that from their convention card.
If he knew 1 was artificial and 2 shown a weak hand, he would not DOUBLE 3NT for sure.
The Result:
3NTX+2, +1150 to North-South

Do you think the result should be ajusted?
As I know, strong 1 and 2 opening is usually failure to be altered at every board in many regional tournaments because of the announcement of their system.
What shall we do with the similar situation?
Thank you for your comments. ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=3709