Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the principle of restricted choice may sometimes apply as well. e.g. if a player underleads a Queen early in the hand (with no extra information) then if you have to guess whether he has underled a queen or ace later on then it is more likely he has undeled an Ace.
Feb. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
10C4. Subject to Law 16C2, after rectification of an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 72C).
……
Law 27 is Insufficient bid and 72C is the catch-all (quoted by Bud above) 16C2 is information from withdrawn calls.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 40 (in part)

5. (a) When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to an opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him
through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

Thus if 1 is alerted as 16+ and 1 is then alerted as 8+ then you need not state that it is game forcing since general bridge knowledge is that 24+ points in general will produce a game in a major/ NT
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I see no reason why 3nt can't be. Bid on a solid minor. Happens in other auctions often over a weak 2 he expected a club lead and got it.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Which is one of the reasons RAs don't like players to have to face too many unusual/ home brew conventions, except at the highest level - and even then you have to give due notice. They want to preserve the enjoyability of bridge at every level.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
yes - but it qualifies the time i.e. you can't look at your own defences ‘unless it would be appropriate to refer to an opponent’s convention card'. Since your defences are not on the opponent's convention card I assume you cannot look at them.

IIRC there was a story about an event for beginners/ improvers where the only system to be allowed was ‘SAYC’ - players asked if they could refer to their convention card during the auction and were told ‘No - but you can look at your opponents’'
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The troubkle is that partner will not be prepared for it either and should usually play the jack from KJX to find out who has the Queen ‘knowing’ declarer has the Ace. To solve this problem I suggest you ALWAYS undelead an Ace with the left hand or put the card sideways (TIC).

I can only think of three reasons to underlead an Ace in a trump contract.

1) To give declarer a guess (with the King offside)
2) To play partner for XX/ KX and a trump entry
3) (In trumps), to maintain communication with partner so you can play an extra round of trumps and reduce declarer's ruffing values.
Feb. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Obviously you are initially angling for 3NT and I assume the 1S response is denying 4 hearts so I can see both 3D - I have great diamonds can you bid 3NT, and 2H - I am interested in 3NT can you help? are plausible.

I would go for 2 - if only because it is more likely to be interpreted as forcing and it gives partner an extra set of calls to make the wrong decision.
Feb. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK - sorry for misunderstanding.

In the EBU white book is this

"The Systems Committee (and any sponsoring organisation likewise) has unrestricted power to identify any method as ‘unusual’ and to authorise reference to written defences at the table in countering such methods"

Which is certainly a strong indicator that the written defence should be treated like a convention card (IMHO) - otherwise we would have the incompatible position that if looking at the written defences was UI then the fact that a call is based on the written defence would also be UI.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry - I thought the question was whether partner consulted the opponents convention card or not AI or UI. The answer lies in the laws I quoted.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
2N Pre-empt in one minor (b.iv.1)

3C Pre-empt in both minors (b.iii)

3D Pre-empt in one major (b.iv.1)

3H Pre-empt in both majors (b.iii)

3S Solid minor, no more than a queen outside (b.iv.1)

They may be brown sticker but are certainly allowable at level 4 in the EBU

(b) At most one from the following four options:
(i) One or more meanings which all show at least four cards in the suit opened, or
(ii) One or more meanings which all show at least five cards in the same one specified suit, or
(iii) One or more meanings which all show at least 4-4 in the same two specified suits, or
(iv) Any combination of meanings that show either or both of
1) At least five cards in a suit, specified or not, which must not be the suit opened, and/or
2) At least 5-4 in two suits, either or both of which may be specified or not, but both of which must not be the suit opened.

With regard to your question - this is covered in law 20F1 and 20F3

1. During the auction and before the final pass any player may request7, at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents’ auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made,about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership nderstanding. Except on the instruction of the Director replies should be given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations.

3. Under 1 and 2 above a player may ask concerning a single call but Law 16B1 may apply.

Law 16 is about unauthorised information in general and law 16B1 is about unauthorised information from partner.

I would suggest that playing against brown sticker conventions, players should agree to always look up the meaning of the call, that way avoids the giving of UI - since it is obviously inequitable that a player of a BSC gain an advantage due to the nature of his calls rather than the calls themselves.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You should ask the player's partner if they agree that thier partner broke tempo: do it when the BIT comes apparant before the consequences can arise. (Unless the RA stipulates that you call the director). The onus is then on the person who made the BIT to call the director and dispute it.

The advantage of this is that it is defintely not an accusation of cheating (a breach of LAw 16B has not yet occurred) and if a player knows you know there is UI around then he might be more circumspect and thus avoid a TD call later in the hand. You can of course call the TD at this point instead so the table can be informed officially of what their obligations are by a neutral third party.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am surprised that this isn't done as a matter of course.

If a board cannot be played the TD has to award an artificial adjusted score. Law 12A2 - which could very well be AV+,AV- (one pair clearly at fault) or even exceptionally AV+,AV+ e.g. both pairs arrive at the table on time but the two pairs at the table take a long time to complete the last round. (or any combination of course). Law 90 specifically includes slow play as being liable for a PP.

a NP should only be done when the board isn't scheduled to be played i.e. at a half-table
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True - but the law does allow for a result ‘clearly favourable to one side’ - the problem is that if the hand is only played once then it may not be clear whether the result is favourable. (I suppose +1700 on a part-score deal due to a Ghestem misunderstanding would come into this category)
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You don't: but If you are 22 imps down with 6 hands to go then that is a better position than 19 imps down with 5 hands to go. (At the extreme of course, you could be 28 imps down with two hands to go (which is a vulnerable slam/ game swing) compared with 25 imps down with 1 board to go) Thus the opposing side have gained an advantage.
Feb. 3
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peg - the director may use his powers to order a board re-dealt (Law 6D3) as Robin Says, provided the result of the event without the board isn't known (86A).

Unfortunately it is not compulsory. Although a player “counts his cards…” this is a ‘does’ rule (establishes procedure without suggesting that violation be penalised). However the TD may award a procedural penalty under law 90A since an adjusted score has been awarded.

So: the director hasn't made an error, even though the result in inequitable.

(You might, however, be able to argue Law 12 applies

B. Objectives of Score Adjustment
1. The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non‐offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. (my emphasis)

Since the awarding of 3 imps is obviously an advantage to the OS because it is less than the average number required by the NOS to win the match.)
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Oh - 6 makes!
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
No - If I remember correctly there is now no UI - however law 23C is there to pick up any unfair advantages. (NB an unfair advantage means that the side gets to a contract that they would not have other than with the help of the comparable call. If they would have got there on an auction when there is no COOT or IB then the NOS are deemed not to be damaged)

NB2: if they get a more favourable result and the Comparable call did not help them (which is often the case) then that contract stands.
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the spades come in you don't need to ruff diamonds.

KC, AH,AQC throw a spade, AS, ruff spade high, H to 9 ruff spade high, H to Q run spades. Since you need the AS to stand up spades aren't worse than 3-1. This also gains, if player with 2 clubs or 0 spades only has 1 heart.
Feb. 2
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So the auction hasn't ended (no pass card in the final position).

Obviously if the opening lead had been face down there would be no problem.

Do we start on LAw 21A?

A. Call or Play Based on Player’s Own Misunderstanding

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

I think that is such a case, I would award 4 -1 against the side that should have played in spades and 4 making against the side that should have played in diamonds.
Feb. 1
.

Bottom Home Top