Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am pretty sure I have read a story/ heard a tale with a similar theme many (for me) years ago. i.e. a player sees opponents bid a stupid contract and realises/ suspects that the reason why they did so was that they had EI but got the wrong hand. The justification was that the player could take inferences from the opponents “tempo or manner” at their own risk - law 73D. Since this may be more specific than the general Law 16 then it should be allowed - and anyway I rule against SB on a matter of principle !

I am no technician so will accept the responses on how 7X was made, more of interest is the UI situation (if there is any).

By the way - doesn't the roved out pair play EW? Let's suppose it was one of the last two rounds and arrow-switched.
Dec. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 1997 rule for an IB was (in part)

“If either the insufficient bid or the lowest sufficient bid in the same denomination may have been conventional or if the bid is corrected by any other sufficient bid or by a pass, (penalty) the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (apply Law 10C1 and see Law 23 when the pass damages the non-offending side; and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply).”

And for a BOOT (in part)

“When the offender has bid at his partner’s turn to call, or at his LHO’s turn to call if the offender has not previously called,11 (penalty) offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23 when the pass damages
the non-offending side), and the lead penalties of Law 26 may apply.”

So basically if you made either infraction then that was the end of a constructive bridge auction and you had to guess the final contract.

Interestingly I can't remember anyone complaining about “protecting the field” when someone got a good score from application of this law.

Nowadays the aim is to try and allow the OS a chance to recover if they can do so. We still only have just over 2 years experience with the law and due to the nature of the rectification (the TD has to decide mid-auction whether the call is comparable - which means it is a judgement ruling, but it happens mid-hand rather than at than at the end as is the case for a claim or a UI/MI situation) I bet many TDs don't advise of the right to appeal since they have less experience of the law than others.
Dec. 9, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I am not so sure - if there was UI then a player could not choose from logical alternatives one that was demonstrably suggested by the said UI - thus reducing his chances of getting to the right contract. In the current wording you have greater latitude - e.g. if 75% of people would do what you did then that is now OK whereas with UI it would be proscribed.

(It also means of course that there is less (if not no) chance of receiving a PP for deliberate abuse of UI but since no one issues those anyway (it appears) the point is moot.)
Dec. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Quick example - you bid 5 1430 Roman keycard so you have zero or three Key Cards. Unfortunately your RHO bid 5 as a sacrifice in front of you. 5 is not accepted.

You now replace your 5 with a double (DOPI) showing zero key cards. A call showing 0 key cards is a subset of a call showing 0 or 3 key cards and is therefore comparable (and incidently is one of the few occasions when you are allowed to replace an insufficient bid with a double).
Dec. 8, 2019
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sometimes players want to get feedback on why the appeal went against them. However, as someone once said, it is inevitably a mistake to theorise before you have evidence.

If the Double, by the partnership agreement, shows cards over and above those shown by the redouble (and 14 HCP is at least a King over the usual redouble requirement) then it is not a ‘penalty’ double per se - and that is the information that people polled as East should be given (as well as then asking what a pause could mean).

If the East players are given the incorrect information as to the meaning of West's double then the poll results are inaccurate.
Dec. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But law 27 deals with an insufficient bid, not a call out of turn.
Dec. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your hand does not have to match the comparable call you make, by the way - and partner can make allowances for this (Since there is no UI from the withdrawn call, you could even have an agreement!). If you get to the correct contract then there is no adjustment. (Correct contract meaning the same contract you would have got to without the infraction)

Pass: totally comparable

1: not comparable - some hands would respond 1 spade that would not have passed (If your system limited the range of 1 to 11 or fewer points then it would be comparable).

Forcing 1NT: Only comparable if it excludes hands of a decent 11 points or more, where you would open the bidding.

2,3,3 (invitational jump shifts, fit denying without competition): only comparable if they are only made on hands that do not have the strength to open.

NB in the comments below ‘allow’ = without silencing partner for one round.

2,3(limit raise), but not 4 (preemptive)** :
2, 3 or 4

2 : certainly
3 : I would allow it (being generous), but would be prepared to adjust if the information it could not be an opening hand resulted in a (non-making) game being missed.

(If you bid 2 and partner makes a game attempr because you could be stronger and game does make then there would be no adjustment since you have got to game despite the infraction, not with the assistance of it)

4 : Again - assuming you do not pre-empt with opening values - I would allow the call.

3 - unidentified splinter with 10-12 HCP *** : Not comparable assuming you would open on 12 and most 11 point hands with singletons. If you would only open on 12 point hands then this call could be comparable since the overlap (10-11) is greater than the non-overlap (12)

Any bid that includes hands you would not open: Not comparable in general, since it includes hands where you would open (see above for possible exceptions where the only opening bids are very limited)

Only bids that deny all possible openings: Again, see above
Dec. 8, 2019
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 8, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 74A2 might come into play

2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

Since it appeared you deliberately tried to confuse the opponents.
Dec. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Explicit agreements that psychic calls are expected, or providing systemic protection for them, are classified as Brown Sticker. One example of the kind is when, third in hand at favourable vulnerability, a player is expected to open the bidding on anything at all.” - WBF.
Dec. 6, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't see how EW can impose on NS a different agreement from the one they actually hold. From the looks of it North has the decision on whether to bid 6NT or 5NT - and his pause suggests he was contemplating bidding 6NT. The UI therefore does not demonstrably suggest passing.
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
A little known law states that you must look at your hand before making a call. 7b2
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“Not exactly Solomonic”

What on earth happened to the PP for NS for not calling the director before correcting the information? It seems there is a partnership understanding.

So I suppose you poll and ask “South's 1 Club bid is described as ‘showing a sound opening, not necessarily a club suit, other suit bids at the one level are weak but natural’. What would you lead?”

Even if West's statement is not regarded as being self-serving, then it would appear a weighted result is the best that EW could get.

(The bid is illegal at EBU level 4 BTW unless ‘sound’ == ‘strong’)
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In Summary: freak hands have their own rules. (You can't have an agreement on freak hands)

Now all we have to do is define a ‘freak hand’.
Dec. 5, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Is that in addition to the 16|| 12+5?
Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
So that's another disciplinary penalty under BB@B then.

(“No one likes the Secretary Bird” - V. Mollo)
Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
We tried that not so long ago - the unlamented ER25.
Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes! You can agree that 2 shows a strong hand, or game forcing/ natural (but may not be strong) in clubs. (subject to proper disclosure)

If the partnership agreement is that all hands must be strong then RR has been given the correct explanation and there is no correction. It is perfectly possible that the agreement is of the form “8 playing tricks, not necessarilly strong unless the suit is clubs” - which is a legal agreement under the EBU level 4 system. In which case we do NOT have a case of illegal agreement (which it appears the director applied to get the +3-3 IMP resul), we have one of misinformation.

And if we have misinformation the final result is unlikely to be +3-3 imps (unless the director decides that the results are numerous or not obvious). It will be based on allocating some of NS -800, -1100 and -1440 and imping that. (A pp may also be issued of 3 imps if desired).
Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Actually you can't! The problem is that if the suit is clubs then the hand must be ‘strong’ by agreement. So you can't agree to open 2 on

S -
H -
D -
C AKQJT98765432

if the suit is unspecififed, because it is the suit that is called. You can agree to open 2 on

S AKQJT98765432
H -
D -
C -

Since that is NOT the suit that has been called.

The whole point is that when players use the word ‘strong’ then the very use of the word puts off opponents from calling (as here!)

The hand itself is a legitimate (Benji) 2 opening bid since it will (and does) show hearts.

If the opponents have an agreement that 2 will always show a strong hand then there is no problem (provided partner doesn't innocently say that they, too, would have opened the hand 2!)

It looks like JJ didn't ascertain the full meaning of the opponent's system.
Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
True - but it still isn't “must carefully avoid taking any advantage”.
Dec. 4, 2019
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 4, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And waht would they open with

J
K5
AQJ765
QJ65

or the equivalent?
Dec. 4, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top