Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually I don't think that the -3400 can stand since only 1700 of it was caused by the ‘extremely serious error’ - and then we have to decide whether there was an ‘extremely serious error’ and if so it was unrelated to the infraction . . .

Here is a possible scenario

North figured that South's weak two was in spades (given the misexplanation) - hence the 4 Spade bid - and South thought that North was showing a strong hand in spades and redoubled - pehaps hoping that EW would pull the XX to 5 Hearts - even if that is gambling the reason for the gamble is not as is defined in law 12.

So although your proposed split decision is legal, I can certainly see why I might not apply it in this case.
June 29
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
OK - I'll agree to that - as I said 23C exists if needed. The problem is that ‘similar’ includes hands that aren't subsets - hence the wriggle room. The ‘similar’ interpretation is “A hand with reasonable+ values and a diamond suit of 3+”
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 15 is the worst - it has no appreciable benefit for the players compared to the old version. Law 23 at least allows more bridge hands to be played ‘normally’ without partner being silenced.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the double guaranteed three diamonds and at least 10 points then it is a comparable call, since that it all the 1 call guaranteed - and is therefore a subset

(A bid that shows 3+ diamonds and denies 5 spades is a subset of a hand that shows 3+ diamonds and might (or might not) have 5 spades)

A 2 overcall would be comparable (unless the player has an agreement to overcall on really grotty hands) since this would show at least 10 points and 5+ diamonds - which is a subset of 10+ points and 4+ diamonds. If the OS gain from the fact that the offender's partner allows for the fact that there might be only 4 diamonds then we adjust under 23C.

Your LHO is lucky they don't play a weak NT since it is pretty well impossible to produce a comparable call of 1NT due to the high card point limitations of the bid.
June 28
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
He mentions it in “Why you lose at Bridge” as well.
June 26
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Correct explanation

“Systematically it is a transfer to 2 - but partner has been known to forget”.

Whilst fielding a misbid is not per se an infraction, at least not in England if the opponents are advised that you are aware partner might misbid, opponents are justified in asking why you did it.

Obviously AV+, AV- is incorrect: with that explanation opponents might bid 2 - or might not. SO we may consider a weighted score - 75% 2+1, 25% 2-1.

Partner forgetting the system 50% of the time is AI to you.
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am sure someone will come on here and say that the correct explanation is;

“Undiscussed: if this was an unpassed hand it would show both majors”

(Players are often embarrassed to admit they have no agreement or don;t know what partner's call means)

And we base NS auction on that information. (With West thinking it shows clubs)

So the queation is then: what would NS do with that information?
June 25
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Even if the defence was woefully incorrect it is not “unrelated to the infraction”
June 25
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
.

Bottom Home Top