Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually it is much more strict than that: 76B1

“1. A spectator may not look at the hand of more than one player unless allowed by regulation.”

"Again “must not” is the strongest prohibition, “shall not” is strong but “may not” is stronger – just short of “must not”. (introduction)

Since the kibitzer is under the control of the TD, the TD should penalise the kibitzer - i.e. by kicking him out.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I don't see how! If we break it down:

“it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized ” - I think you will agree that information deriving from Kibitzers isn't specified to be authorised.


“arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations”

Law 76B pretty much stamps on this.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 16A actually handles this by omission.

A. Players’ Use of Information

1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another
source; or
(b) it is authorized information from a withdrawn action (see C); or
© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not
otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following); or
(d) it is information that the player possessed before he took his hand from the board (Law 7B) and the Laws do not preclude his use of this information.

2. Players may also take account of their estimate of their own score, of the traits of their opponents, and any requirement of the tournament regulations.

….

Nowhere does it say that information from kibitzers may be used.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The part in the White Book that Paul refers is this

8.21.2 Misunderstandings

Players often have a misunderstanding over their system, including giving misinformation to opponents. When a TD adjusts because of the misinformation they will consider what opponents would do if correctly informed, but the TD will not normally assume the opponents also know that there is a misunderstanding .

It does not say that West is not entitled to know there has been a minsunderstanding.

(I regard myself as a better player as RR - and it took me quite a while to work out that NS have a 2-2 spade fit.)

So I suppose we have to decide whether the incorrect explanation is AI.

A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and
plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another
source; or
(b) …
© it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in
regulations (but see B1 following)…

It seems quite clear that the information arising from the (mis)explanation comes under 16A1© as it arose from West exercising a legal procedure under law 20F1.
Nov. 18
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Nothing in the laws requires you to match tempo with LHO RHO or CHO. One assumes there was a BIT because the OP commented on ot.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To this day, my partner says “But I needed time to think.”

He did need time to think. He could have thought what he was going to do when declarer led the suit, at trick 2,.. trick 3,… trick 4…..trick 10.
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hesitating when there is no demonstrable bridge reason is unethical - so I would call out declarer on this.

(I will forgive him if he was KX opposite AQ as he might need to consider entries, but to try and give the impression that he might have a choice in the suit is definitely a no-no.)
Nov. 17
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is reverse Weasel a recognised convention?
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
123.5% North.

South has 6 cards that could potentially take tricks + all of North's hand - which must show some values. I mean West has shown nothing and East could have 11 points and a 5-4 distribution.

One of the Ace's rules - don't bid on nothing.

1. No-win declarer plays.
2. No-win defensive plays.
3. Bidding without values.
4. System violations.
5. Unilateral actions.
6. Mechanical mistakes.
7. Impulsive actions.

(http://judy.bridgeblogging.com/2013/01/23/the-seven-deadly-sins/)
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
South should have made a slow 3NT call to ensure partner knows he has doubts about whether it will make.
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In another world South had XX in Spades
Nov. 16
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A A A A K Q duck diamond
Nov. 15
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We've discussed what ‘penalty’ means. The concensus is that it means that you expect partner not to call again unless they have unexpected offensive values, with the corrolory that you expect to make your best score by defending the opponent's contract rather than declaring your own.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In the good old days they used to have appeals panels. Wonder what happened to them over in ACBLland.

And yes! I don't think just giving the name is enough - but some conventions involve multiple rounds of bidding and can quite easily use up all the space on the SC. You have to draw the line between <name only> and <system file>.

X>15;2=+M,2=,2=+,2=,2N=+
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One problem is, as I am sure you are aware - and you could have told the director - that you have no recourse if you make a call or play based on your own misunderstanding (Law 21A) and therefore you are trying to clear up any potential misunderstanding. (Obviously we agree that you are entitled to a full explanation of partnership methods including relevant calls that weren't made.)

If the director hears what the answer to the question is, then at least he knows what information you were presented with.

Answer to <rhetorical question> - providing UI is not an infraction. You may get caught out on law 20G1 though

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

Not sure what I would have done as TD. Probably taken the <OS> away and asked for an explanation of their card. Hopefully I could convince them that a more accurate explanation would be in their own interests as I would be less likely to rule against them. I could then have given you my results i.e. which agreement (or none) applied.
Nov. 14
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I would only want a point count written down if there was a specific partnership agreement as to the minimum high card strength required (The EBU require an alert if it can be made on fewer than 15 HCP or without compensating distribution.)
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The law does not say you MUST have a system card. The law says:- (Law 40B)

2. (a) The Regulating Authority:
(i) is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.
(ii) may prescribe a System Card, with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership’s understandings, and regulate its use.

Note that the RA may designate an entity called the Tournament Organiser to ensure these regulations are upheld - Law 80B

The TD is the representative of the TO
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe you should have asked for the explanation again in the presence of the TD - and accepted the suits offered. The ruling (if the explanation incorrect) should be that you would take an action GIVEN the correct explanation (to which you are entitled under law 20F) AND the fact that your opponent thinbks that the call shows Diamonds and a Major.
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is not recommended as a) it is probably a breach of sero tolerance rules issued by the RA and b) if partner misbids then you are most likely going to be ruled against for providing a mis-explanation.

(I do have sympathy with the correctness of the ruling - the ‘serious error’ seems to be related to the infraction and hence should be absolved. (certainly under the 2007 rules, not sure of earlier ones)).
Nov. 13
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Hi Wayne,

Sometimes the constraints on UI are over-exaggerated. It should be remembered that under law 16B the UI has to demonstrably suggest a course of action AND there to be no logical alternative.

In this specific case, the OP has a problem with a convention card. It is very difficult to say that calling the director because the convention card isn't clear is going to ‘demonstrably suggest’ a course of action for their partner to take.

Since experienced players (all of us?) are expected to protect themselves, if they can do so, and since some players double for takeout and some for penalties against 1NT then it seems sensible to find out what the call means.

Suppose partner finds out that the call is for penalties and then passes. Does that suggest anything? What can you say about his hand? Presumably that he doesn't have the distribution/ weakness to want to escape. In this type of auction passes etc often have a conventional meaning and responses are forced.

As Kit says, having a consistent policy of always asking, and partner knows you always ask serves to reduce the UI considerably.
Nov. 13
.

Bottom Home Top