Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Seems a pretty clear case of unauthorised panic. I would not regard this situation as tough - you have a nearly solid diamond suit, heart tolerance and a ruffing value to go with partner's seven or eight card suit.

Why didn't you XX?
June 20
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
95%+ of the law is perfectly reasonable. It is just difficult for the law to clearly state what should happen in every eventuality.

The law also assumes that the TD can be in full possession of the facts at the time of the infraction. This can be very difficult, especially in the case of uncertain partnership ‘agreements’.

The 2 should have been alerted and East probably states

“Maybe conventional - I can't remember if it is or not.”
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't see how 2 doubled can be bid: West bids 2, North passes and surely east now passes since he didn't alert 2 he must think it to be natural.
June 19
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just because you forget an agreement doesn't mean that there isn't one.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He doesn't but East is going to tell him that he can't remember. So the only other possible source of info is from West - assuming there are no CCs.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if “could have been aware” were removed from this it would still apply under law 72C.

I think the catchphrase is purely to ensure equity is obtained without forcing a procedural penalty on the person who broker tempo (which would happen if the law was “A player must not break tempo when such a break could damage an innocent person”.

Note that playing a card very quickly (which some people do when they have the key card) when you don't have the key card could also likewise fall foul of the law.
June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I assume that EW confirming the agreement means at the end of the hand, rather than when asked.

I see no problem with North failing to make enquiries - some pairs use natural escapes when 1NT is doubled.

So East should alert and say basically as he did - that he can't remember what the agreement is (In the EBU this is alertable). NS call the director who sends East away and gets the exact partnership agreement from West. East is called back and the auction proceeds.

Obviously that didn't happen.

Now try and progress the auction. North presumably passes. East now has to choose between passing 2 thinking it natural or bid 2 thinking it is a transfer. As far as I can see this is a 50-50 shot (so the worse one will be preferred on any weighted rulings) (Poll #1)

We then have to find out what South would do:

Posisble outcomes.

2 - 6 by West (East and South pass)
3+2 by South (South bids over 2 and North passes)
5 0r 3NT by South (North bids on knowing of fit and shortness)

(I don't think South will be so stupid as to double the 2 call for penalty as I would allow West to pull it to 2 all the time - yes an exception but with 0 diamonds passing is not IMHO a LA - we can poll)

I don't think it is obvious that NS will get to game with no spade stop and not enough points for 5 of a minor.

So: (edited to reflect vulnerability)

60% NS +600
20% NS +150
20% NS +600
June 18
John Portwood edited this comment June 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't think so - you might make 3H or you might make 4H. As I understand it 1NX-4 (the equivalent) is worth a bit more than +620. Even 1NX-1 beats a heart partial.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I'm just quoting what I interpret as EBU policy - if partner's bidding appears to allow for the psych then that is regarded as fielding - which the EBU regard as having an illegal agreement.

The EBU have three classifications.

“green” - no evidence of fielding: no adjustment. Two ‘green’ psychs on the same hand will result in one being raised to ‘amber’
“amber” - possible evidence of fielding: no adjustment for the first occasion. A second ‘amber’ psych results in all ‘amber’ psychs being reclassified as ‘red’.
“red” - evidence of fielding: standard penalty is 25% of a top and a maximum of 40% on the hand. (so you can get -ve mps as a result). The standard additional penalties are also 1vp or 6 imps (so the hand would be scored as +3/-9)

With regard to fielding: There is nothing per se in the white book about subsequent actions by the psycher. However the book says

"If a player describes partner’s bid as showing a particular hand type, and then acts as if partner had a different hand type, that player is usually attempting to field a misbid (or a psyche). Of course, it is possible that a player knows from the legal auction and from their own hand that partner has misbid – for example, partner shows three aces in response to Gerber but the player has three aces. It is also possible that a player has a hand that makes it very likely but not certain that partner has misbid – for example, partner opens a Texas 4 (showing a good pre-empt in hearts) and the player holds K10xxxx and no clubs. It is not possible to provide guidance as to the strength of evidence required before a player may legitimately act on the basis that partner has misbid. Individual cases are rare and can be judged on their merits.
June 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the EBU a fielded (red) psych is one where the psycher's partner has taken action that appears to allow for his partner having psyched.

“If a player believes, from partnership experience, that partner may have deviated from the system this must be disclosed to the opponents. If a player properly discloses this possibility, the player will not be penalised for fielding it, although there may be a penalty for playing an illegal method.” - EBU white book.

In the example given, South should alert and state that partner has been known to psych in this position. South's double of 1NT is perfectly legitimate (a pass would be fielding)

South's actions - in not supporting partner's 5-card heart suit with his own appears to be allowing for his partner having psyched. “It may be Just Bridge Jim, but not how we should play it”.

I think that the EBU treats a fielded psych as indicative of a concealed partnership agreement and hence a breach of Law 20F in failing to alert.
June 13
John Portwood edited this comment June 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Except that we KNOW defence have more hearts than spades - so the heart lead from West is more likely to be from a 5-card heart suit than a spade lead would be from East.

In fact I am wondering if East has 5 hearts. The 6 suggests five cards are outstanding higher - we can see three and West has one more.

That one can't be the King (West would play the King) and is unlikely to be the Ace (Wouldn't West cover with the Ace and return the jack to unblock the suit)
So East has AK. If he had 5 wouldn't he go up with the Ace of clubs and try and cash out?
June 11
John Portwood edited this comment June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It would possibly have been better to lead a low club towards dummy - taking a ‘finesse’ against the Queen.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well it makes no real difference - since ‘should’ means that the player won't often be penalised but his rights (as here) can be prejudiced. If we suggest that someone failing to make a ‘clear statement’ should have a PP issued at least “more often than not” “(the strongest word, a serious matter indeed)” then people would be less willing to make a claim statement for fear of not being able to articulate their line of play clearly. This would slow down the game even more.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Declarer Cashes AC, AD, AH, comes to hand and runs the spades. Loses last two tricks.

OK I think that comes below careless or inferior, I think we can allow declarer to cash 4 club tricks as he might think he is in 7NT (and suffer the consequences) - now loses a heart or a club ruff.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Isn't there a squeeze for the 15th trick. If a defender has the long club and the King of hearts.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I have been advised (3rd hand) that Reese and Shapiro were ‘taking the mickey over the Americans’ over the alleged hand signals in the Buenos Aires Affair"
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East : Oh s**t. I don't know if my partner has the Queen of Hearts or the Jack! I know he hasn't the Ace since he showed the Ace of Clubs and King of Spades. Better sign off.

West:-

I've shown the King of spades. Partner's sign off suggests that that is not the king he wanted to hear about. But if so he would have signed off in tempo, so it must be something else. The only possible extra my hand might hold is the Queen the trumps. I have it so I can bid six.
June 11
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
'coffeehousing' is not mentioned in the definitions section of the law book, nor the word in the main text. ‘unauthorized information is’.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
if the non-claimers ask and the declaring side agree then play can continue. Stopping play after a claim is made ended in September 2017.
June 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Am I getting this right?

3 is NOT forcing by agreement - the 2 caller passes a non-forcing bid? If so there is obviously no UI infraction - but there may be a MI infraction.

OR

3 IS forcing AND the pause demonstrably suggests passing AND there is no logical alternative to doing so - in which case we rule as Hank suggests (which seems reasonably weighted IMHO in favour of NOS). I would like to know what the weak-2 bidder is supposed to do after a forcing bid e.g. show an outside King or something - I just hope it isn't a ‘feature’.

OR

There is no agreement on whether 3 is forcing or not forcing. (MI applies). In which case we poll to decide whether the pause suggests (non)-forcing and make the 2 caller choose the opposite.

The only MI would be if the 3 call had to be alerted by the RA, for whatever reason. (not forcing/ forcing or no agreement) - in which case last pass can be retracted if they would have done something else with the correct information (and there may be a score adjustment if the other defender would have taken an action)
June 9
.

Bottom Home Top