Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 90B2

The folloiwng are subject to a procedural penalty.

2. unduly slow play by a contestant.

Law 74C7

C. Violations of Procedure
The following are examples of violations of procedure:

7. varying the normal tempo of bidding or play for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

Law 72C. Awareness of Potential Damage
If the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non‐offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity.

Law 73D2

2. A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of a question, remark or gesture; by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a
singleton); by the manner in which a call or play is made; or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure (see also Law 73E2).
June 7
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It was reported I think in the EBU magazine and a poem was made about it - I remember that fact well

“And if I plump
for a quick 3NT
they'll never lead the club ace.” was part of the mantra.
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I like East's 2 overcall. It stops the opponents bidding hearts at the one level and gives a clear message to partner what suit to lead. The prime cards are perfectly placed in the short suits as well! Unlucky!
June 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sure I saw an article suggesting that 3 was the most successful opening bid. It encourages opponents to come into the auction at the three level on relatively weak hands when they mightn't have a fit or partner is strong.
June 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well it wasn't partner. I assume you mean opponent - but pulling the wrong card out isn't an infraction.

The comment “Did you mean to bid that” is probably a breach of 74A2 or 74B2.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh - sorry I thought you were talking about West deliberately not bidding hoping to wake up his partner. Of course he is going to have to think for a bit to try and work out what is happening.

And yes! It might give partner UI, but I don't think partner is going to bid again on this auction. If the UI (from the long pause) wakes up partner in time then he will still be allowed to correct the bid if he pulled out the 5 instead of the 5 - And obviously law 25A3 overrides Law 16B in this case.
June 1
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He can wait until an opponents calls the director under law 90B2.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Other than your first four words, I agree completely. It makes sense that partner is aware of the meaning of the call, as he is entitled to. Unfortunately that is not how the law really works - and there is that nasty law 21A

“No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.”

The EBU have decided in their wisdom that weak players are fully entitled to Law 20F protection (actually it is a bit more complicated than that. Players are only entitled to a full description of opposing partnership methods if they ask. The alert procedure is the method to advise players that they might want to ask - and is obviously in breach) but that experienced players should be aware that a call might be conventional.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well the actual law states

"1. A player may not ask a question if his sole purpose is to benefit partner."

If you ask opponents whether a bid is FSF then you could argue part of the reason is to ensure they realise that they should alert it in the future.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer thinks he has a loser in Spades. When the third round of hearts is played he ‘knows’ he can't make the contract as he can't throw his ‘losing’ spade away.

In which case there is no point in ruffing the heart and playing on spades, so you might as well give up your trick there and then.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I suppose this comes down to the law of total tricks. If you accept the transfer with only two then you have (most likely) only 7 trumps, which is not usually enough to go to the three level (especially if the bid is made after 1NT when you may have assets in defence).

Knowing you only have two means that the person who made the transfer is unlikely to bid again unless they have six or more.
May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The law is that the player can correct any bid made by mistake (mechanical error/ slip of the tongue) before his partner calls no matter how he finds out (Law 25A3 - this was originally a footnot ein the 2007 laws)

So if you decide it WAS a mechanical error then you have to allow the call to be rescinded. (The fact that South doubled 5 Hearts is AI to North, UI to East West). Obviously you are at the table and can get feedback, but I find it very hard to imagine that the 5 heart call was a mechanical error rather than a lapse of concentration - I mean the pass cards are in another part of the bidding box, usually.

You then give EW a procedural penalty for breach of Law 73A1

A. Appropriate Communication between Partners

1. Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of calls and plays, except as specifically authorized by these laws.
May 31
John Portwood edited this comment May 31
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Certainly b) on its own is not sufficient to regard an appeal as being without merit and, from the discussion here on what should have happened, I don't think this is trivial. The director made a ruling, presumably under law 25, that appears to be incorrect and as a result the OP was allowed to change his response to anything without any worries that the changed call might or might not be comparable and might or might not silence his partner for the rest of the auction. The appeal decision presumably changed the ruling into an IB situation and it was then decided that the OP could then make the texas call. In effect the appeals committee had to decide on the probable outcomes of the hand, had the director made a correct call. Presumably they agreed that the result would have been the same.

Players are not really expected to know the laws by heart. The other side felt the director's ruling was incorrect and so appealed. The appeal committee agreed with that - and then decided that the result would be the same. There could have been similar situations where the result may well have been different. SO I am perfectly happy to say that the appeal had merit.

With regards to the NOPLAY (which would be incorrect anyway since the board was played), what the NOS would want would have been an artificial adjusted score on the basis that after the unusual circumstances (an unintended change of call) no result on the hand was possible (or the result would be indeterminable). Had this been awarded then they would have got an AV+, not a near bottom. NB Law 82 C (Director's error) is often misinterpreted. It does NOT say that if the director has made an error then the score is adjusted treating both sides as non-offending.

However there is no requirement on an appeal that the fact that you don't get what you asked for makes the appeal ‘without merit’. Players have been known to appeal asking for 620 and be given 1100 (typically a MI/UI case). Equally players have appealed a -500 and been given -800 instead. An appeal is basically to check the facts of the case and then discuss with the TD whether the changes to the facts or their interpretation on the law is correct. Yes there is a presumption of correctness in the TDs decision but the AC can certainly ask questions why the TD ruled that way.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Skid Simon gave some very good advice 75 years ago.

1) Your hand does not improve because your opponents may be psychic.
2) Treat any suspected psychic as genuine until obviously not.
3) (Quoting Richard Lederer?) “it is unnecessary to psych against weak pairs - they are quite capable of messing things up without your assistance”.

The EBU attitude

Frivolous psyching, for example suggesting a player has lost interest in the competition, is a breach of the laws. (Law 74A2, Law 74B1, Law 74C6).

(I suspect that there is far less of this now since actions that result in a worse score in a tournament have a negative effect on your NGS grade - which many players, especially those who had the mental characteristic of frivolous psyching, regard as proof of their machoness.

I am sure that on at least one system card, players had to indicate their general attitude towards psyching.

I don't know whether the ACBL wants to prevent psyching, but I can understand that they don't want inexperienced players turned away from the game because they get a bad result from what they might regard as an ‘unhelpful’ attitude. This obviously would be exacerbated if the psycher's partner fielded it. (e.g. assumed it was his partner who had psyched rather than the opponents.)
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Do you play Namyats/ SAT?
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Assuming the facts are as stated.

The TD cannot back up the call to 1NT and allow the auction to continue from then. That would be a Law 25 issue, and you can't correct a misbid under that law since partner has made a call.

So it would seem to be a law 21 A ruling

No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding.

The TD COULD wind the auction back to 1NT if the OP's RHO claimed they had acted upon the misinformation of the 1 card i.e. they would have made a different call over 1NT but not over 1.

So I think the 1 call has to stand - and comments above confirm that a Texas response is a comparable call - so the auction proceeds and since partner has not made use of the original (insufficient) call there is no further rectification.

The appeal may have merit on a technicality (The TD should not have wound the auction back to 1NT).
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 80 B2

2. The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:

(e) to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions (as, for example, play with screens – provisions for rectification of actions not transmitted across the screen may be varied).
(f) to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws.

The appropriate law is Law 40B2

The regulating authority

(v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls.

You actually could stop frequent psychers

"1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation . Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the
partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has
damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.
- - -
If you tell the pair that your opinion that due to the frequency of psyching, each member has more reason than their opponents to be aware that they have deviated then this law can be used to prevent them psyching.
May 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
At a club level I might just do it in case opponents have an agreement what XX, P, and 2 mean and they forget it. It is always an advantage to move the auction away from something familiar to something unfamiliar.
May 27
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am certain there is a case in VM when Charlie the Chimp does something like this - VM calls it ‘resorting to a discovery play’. (He reaches towards dummy and SB asks him to play from his own hand).

The trouble is that the bar set in 72C (old law 23)is very low. Declarer COULD have known that leading from the wrong hand COULD result in a comment by an opponent with a finessable honour and as such then we have to apply the law.

By the way - Law 72C isn't the only law that is applicable in this situation. Law 55 also applies.

C. Declarer Might Obtain Information

When declarer adopts a line of play that could have been based on information obtained through his infraction, Law 16 applies.

So not only must he not make use of the possible information he must carefully avoid doing so.
May 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Patrick - I don't think that would apply: it only applies if the Mistake causing unauthorised information. In this case there is no UI.

The statement in bold is intended to cover the situation when partner does something unexpected i.e. alerts a call you did not expect to be alerted; doesn't alert a call that you did expect to be alerted; gives an incorrect explanation of a call that you expected him to alert.

I suppose it devolves to semantics of “a player, having heard his partner's explanation, knows his own call has been misinterpreted”. Does this mean only that “The action of hearing partner's explanation, has caused a player to know that his action has been misinterpreted” (which does not aplpy in the OP) or does it include “The player knows his action will be misinterpreted, and his partner has now confirmed it” (which does apply)
May 26
.

Bottom Home Top