This part of the web site is designed to provide members with articles of interest. There is a wide variety of information, tips, articles and general interest features. Please bear in mind that whilst the authors of the Articles and the Club have taken great care to ensure accuracy, members are referred to the Official publications such as the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Orange Book etc for more detailed, precise (and possibly, more accurate!) information.

APPEAL  PROCEDURE

See also Appeals Committee

What can I do if I remain unhappy at a Director’s ruling? The club has established a fine tradition and reputation for resolving differences at the table amicably and with good humour, and long may that continue. Nonetheless, as a responsible Club we have to be prepared for that rare time when you may find yourself unhappy at the director’s ruling. If this occurs there is little merit in having a long debate at the table; (a) its discourteous to the director who will only be doing his / her best; (b) it affects other players enjoyment; (c) it delays the progress of the event. Instead, simply tell the Director you wish to reserve your rights and play on. Reserving your rights will do two things: it protects your position and ensures the Director takes both an accurate note of the problem and a full hand record (or retains the curtain cards) at close of play. If time permits speak with him / her briefly at the end of the evening, but if you remain unhappy or time does not permit further discussion then it is open to you to use the Club’s appeal process which exists in line with EBU recommendation and the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

Within 48 hours of the score being published on the web site (if you don’t have Internet ask any main committee or other member to let you have the score / traveller details as all time limits are strict!) you should give the Director verbal formal notice of appeal and within 72 hours thereafter send a letter signed by you and your partner setting out the full grounds of your Appeal. The Director will notify the Appeals Committee who will form an impartial Appeals Panel comprising a minimum of three members of the Appeals Committee, to include at least one Director of the Club not involved in the disputed decision. After the matter has been considered, you will be informed of the outcome. If you remain unhappy you have the right, as we are an EBU affiliated Club, to appeal to the WCBA where you will need to follow their process. Ultimately you can take your appeal to the EBU. Our Appeals Committee comprises all the club Directors plus experienced players. It is independent of, and does not report its findings to, the main club committee. Hopefully, none of us will ever have need of it but the process is there - just in case.

Please note an Appeal will not normally be heard if it concerns a Director's ruling re the imposition of a penalty score or fine as a result of a member or his partner's own conduct.

 ALERTING

Are weak jump overcalls alertable?

Weak overcalls are more common these days and as Richard Jephcott showed us weak jump overcalls can really disrupt the opposition. However, as they are non-forcing on partner they are not alertable. Opening weak two bids are alertable / announceable.

Is a strong 1NT opening alertable? No. Whilst you may think the information “we play a strong 1NT” should be volunteered by your opponents the Orange Book (rule book on conventions) says: “you are expected to know and if you are later embarrassed because you failed to find out, it will be your fault” ie ask!!

As from August 2006 it will be necessary for partner to announce the strength of your 1NT opening and also announce if it may contain a singleton.

LAW CHANGES 2006 & CONVENTION CARDS

In order to introduce the 2006 Law changes smoothly, we have provided players with a laminated summary sheet, plus table guide in addition to publicising them in advance via the Newsletter and web site. All members therefore should be aware of the changes and be prepared to follow them from 1st August.

The Law changes are principally designed to assist the less experienced, and in line with EBU recommendations we wish to further their aims of making the game of duplicate bridge less intimidating for those new to it. However, it is also important to recognise that some of our members play in Local, County and National Competitions and it is important for them that they are properly prepared for external competitions. As a club we therefore have a responsibility to ensure that we give the best support we can to all, whilst maintaining the friendly and social aspects of our Wednesday evenings.

 From 1st August players will be able to refer to their laminated summary of the new announcing and alerting rules without penalty until we are familiar with the procedures. It is anticipated that this will take a couple of months but progress will be monitored by the Committee and Directors. Obviously if players are comfortable with the new procedures at an earlier stage then we can remove them. Initially it will be a learning curve for our players so there will be no penalty for failure to announce, nor for alerting incorrectly, but Directors will advise and encourage members to use the correct alerts and / or announcements in future.

CONVENTION CARDS

We have long encouraged the use of convention cards. We have a mixed ability range of
members and the less experienced players, who may be only be familiar with Basic Acol or simple systems, should not be disadvantaged by their opponents failure to disclose ALL aspects of their systems. Accordingly, players without a convention card will be expected to play EBU Simple System only. Partnerships playing standard Acol, and other systems must have identically completed convention cards. Blank EBU20B convention cards are available via the Club or the EBU, as is a pre-printed Standard Acol Convention card. From the 2nd August please bring your convention card to the Club.

Directors and session organizers will remind players about the announcements and alerts at the start of each session and also remind players about having a convention card available for their opponents. Your Convention Card must NOT be used as a crib sheet to assist you with your bidding – it should be given to your opponents at the start of each round and collected from them after the entire round has finished. It is not permitted to refer to your own card during bidding or play!

We very much hope that members will support these changes which are designed to make our games more enjoyable for all concerned, but if you have any difficulties please bring them to the attention of the Director or Committee who will be pleased to assist you.

 

Why do the opposition need my Convention Card?

On arriving at the table it usual to exchange pleasantries and your basic system, ie 12 - 14 NT and weak 2s.  As we evolve as bridge players we add more gadgets to our system and it would take too long if you had announce each one at the start of every table so we exchange convention cards as well.  Remember the opposition are entitled to know as much about your bidding methods as you do!  Once the cards have been removed from the board, we can only communicate with partner legally by taking a card from the bidding box and putting it on the table in front of you. Announcements, Alert and Stop are all intended to help your opponents and your partner has to pretend they never heard or saw them (they are unauthorized information); they certainly must not make any bids based on any information received this way.  However the opposition will want to continue the auction based on your alert etc.  So, at /their turn to bid, they can ask the partner of the player who made the bid, what that bid means.  Because in some situations this can cause more unauthorized information and rather than ask, many will prefer to read your convention card.  Remember you should only ask questions when you are intending to make a call, not if you are going to pass anyway.  The time to ask questions is after the auction has finished (a) before the opening lead has been made if you are on lead or (b) after partner has placed the lead face down on the table.  Note: the lead should not be changed at this point, although if you feel that something has come to light which would change your actions, now is the time to call the director.

Alan

BEHAVIOUR / CONDUCT

The club fully adheres to the EBU Code of Conduct which can be seen by clicking on link below. See also Conduct - below and our own NEWS page.

Best Behaviour

CHANGE OF CALL

Can I ever change my call?

When you make the wrong call you are allowed to change it if:

1. It is inadvertent ie you did not intend it and
2. you change it or try to immediately after you realise your mistake, and
3. you change it or try to before partner calls

This usually happens when the wrong card is taken out of the box and is sometimes referred to as ‘mechanical error’. Note 2 above: if you put a call on the table, gaze around the room, then look down and realise it was not what you intended you are still in time (even if your LHO has called) because you have only just realised your error and try to change it immediately.

Similarly, you may also change an inadvertent call for the wrong card from dummy in similar situations. HOWEVER - you are not allowed to change your mind. Example: You took your singleton club that was in dummy with your own Ace and then lead back a club intending to ruff with the 2 of trumps. As you play your club from hand you call "ruff low please" (or state the 2 etc) and to your surprise your LHO ruffs with the 9. You cannot now say "O, then ruff with the 10 please" or some such. That is a change of mind - not inadvertence.

Also:

Should I correct a wrong call? If the bid is a legal bid, made in turn, then you are under no obligation to correct a ‘wrong’ bid. Suppose you meant to bid 2© but instead bid 2ª.Your opponents as a result missed their 3NT contract. If all else was legal about your 2ª bid then that’s the luck of the game.

It would of course be a different matter if you had a habit, understood by partner, of often deliberately making such ‘wrong’ bids.

Doubling for take out:  by Grahame Weir

When we first learn bridge we are introduced to the concept of doubling, normally it is explained as a method of extracting more points ( double ) from the opposition, as we are quite sure that their proposed contract will fail. This double is referred to as the penalty double. Originally I suppose that was the sole use of the double, however in the modern game we are now confronted by many different uses of the double, I think the most popular use these days is the Take out double. I will try to give a few pointers on how to use this type of double to good effect in the modern game.

Just to get back to the penalty double quickly, is common that a double of 1NT is for penalties; I would suggest that you always double 1NT when you can. If the opposition are playing a 12-14pt NT you should have 15 or more points to double. The rule of thumb is that you should always have one more point than the maximum NT range used by the opposition. ( e.g. if the opposition play 14 –16  NT you should have 17+pts to double etc ) remember to check your opponents NT range before play, as it is not their responsibility to tell you prior to the hand. (from Aug 2006 has to be announced)

So this is a straightforward penalty double and most players realise this , however when you introduce take out doubles things can become slightly more complicated. You need to work out guidelines with your partner when doubles are for penalties and when they are for take out. A nice rule to use is ALL doubles are for take out up to 3ª unless the opposition or yourselves have bid No Trump’s.

Some examples being

N                                 E                                  S                                  W

1)   1§                               P                                  1©                               X ? 

2)   1¨                               X?

3)   1©                              X?                               1NT                             X?

4)   1¨                               1NT                             2©                               X?

5)   1©                              P                                  1NT                             X?

6)   1ª                              X?                               P                                  P?                   

1)      In example 1 your double is clearly for the unbid suits you should have at a minimum of  4/4 in ¨/ª’s and probably 12+pts (incidentally with 5/5 in the unbid suits you can bid 2NT Michaels style )

2)      In example 2 you should have 11+ pts and shortage in ¨’s ( no more than 2! )  You should also try to have at least 4/4 in the majors

3)      As you can see the double has been used twice in this example, the first double by E is the same as example 2 and should be 11+pts and at least 4 spades – after the south hand bids 1NT west’s double is now for penalties showing a nice hand with points but they have no fit for your suits so would prefer to try and take a penalty.

4)      In example 4 partner has bid 1NT showing 15 – 18 pts balanced ( a limit bid ) south has then bid 2© - your double should therefore be for penalties as No Trumps have been bid ( even by your side )

5)      In this example, double should show a penalty double ( however some pairs play this as a take out  double of  1© ) sorry but this is the rule being broken – that’s bridge!

6)      In the final example partner has shown 11+pts and length in the other suits – you have left it in – therefore you have converted the double to penalties – so you must have a trump stack and no fit for partner… possibly this type of hand.  ªKQJ983 © 8 ¨J65 §654

All take out doubles can be converted if you hold a very good suit of the opponents proposed trumps

Lets look at the concept a little further then. Take-out suggests that you would like partner to bid a suit, and that you don’t have more than 2 cards in the suit(s) bid by the opposition.

Lets say RHO ( right hand opposition) opens 1ª and you hold:

ª3   ©KQ43  ¨AK32  §QJ43  - this is a perfect hand to make a takeout double.

Whatever suit partner bids you will have a fit for and you can compete & maybe push the opposition too high, or even bid a game yourself.

At this point its worth mentioning that some partnerships use a double of an opened suit by the opposition to show opening values or even opening values and interest in the opened suit. I would recommend that this system should be scrapped, as double for take out gives you much more scope to land in the correct contract.

If   RHO opens 1© and you hold: ªA3 ©KQ3 ¨J1098 § QJ32  I would suggest that you PASS – you do not have enough points to bid 1NT ( 15 – 18 ) and you don’t have a good enough suit to bid at the two level, you just have to hope that partner bids and then you can support them or that you may take the opposition off in their contract. If you double to show opening values your partner will bid ª’s most of the time and you may get into all sorts of trouble. The hardest bid to make in bridge is PASS…

The majority of pairs use takeout doubles these days however there is some confusion as to what to do next …here is a useful guide about how far to compete after partner has made a takeout double.

Lets say LHO bids 1§ and your partner doubles for take out:

You can trust that partner has 11+pts and probably 0/1 §’s  ( 2 on a bad day ) and that they have at least 4/4 in ©/ª’s and at least 3 ¨’s.

So RHO passes and the ball is in your court. Now firstly partner could have any number of points maybe 11 or maybe 20!  So its up to you to tell partner about your hand.

I would suggest you always jump with 8+ pts and an 8 card fit. ( or extreme shape)

So if you have ªKQ45 ©A32 ¨9876 §43  you should jump to 2ª ( your partner will have 4 ª’s ) if you are sticking to the rules. If partner does not have 4ª’s then they should have 16+pts and very good suit of their own.

Just to clarify this point, if you hold  ªAKQJ54  ©AQ ¨J98 §87 and RHO opens the bidding 1¨ , you should double in the first instance and then bid ª’s – this shows a hand with 16+ and a really good suit , that was to strong to just overcall 1ª on the first round in fear of missing game. Some of you will play strong jump overcalls and a bid of 2ª’s will also show this hand type.

However far more common is a hand with distribution and 11 – 15pts.

If you have less than 8pts – you can just bid your best fit at the lowest level

e.g.  ªQ945 ©A32 ¨9876 §43 – you should just bid 1ª. If partner does have a big hand 18+ then they can bid 2ª as a game try, at this point you could have a zero count and partner should try no to jump to 3 or 4ª’s – remember you have forced your partner to bid, they are not obliged to hold any points.

So using these rules try this test and see how you do? Write down your bids for the eleven examples and see if you can score 110 points:

WRITE YOUR ANSWERS DOWN – don’t cheat by looking!! Scroll page for the answers.

Love all - RHO opens 1ª ? what would you bid or call next

a)   ªJ92               ©KQJ3           ¨QJ2               §KJ5

b)   ªJ                   ©KQJ2           ¨K876            §AJ32

c)   ªKQ93           ©AJ65             ¨J76                §AJ

d)   ªA                  ©KQJ543       ¨KQ2             §Q32

e)   ª32                 ©AQ3             ¨KQJ93          §J109

Your Partner doubles LHO’s opening bid of 1§ - RHO passes what do you bid?

(  W: 1§ - X – P - ? )

f) ªQJ8                 ©KQ3             ¨QJ765           §43

g)ªA7654             ©KQ32           ¨3                   §543

h)ªK102               ©Q10              ¨J652              §K1098

i)ªJ9876               ©A653            ¨543               §4

j)ª4                       ©J54               ¨J72                §KQJ987       

k)ª-                      ©QJ98765      ¨J8765            §8

DON’T  SCROLL UNTIL YOU HAVE WRITTEN YOUR ANSWERS DOWN!

Answers:

a) 2© = 6               Pass = 10         1NT = 7           Double = 3       others = 0

b) 2§ = 6               2© = 6             Double = 10     2¨ = 6             others = 0

c) 2© = 6               Pass = 4           1NT = 10         Double = 1       others = 0

d) 3© (strong ) = 10                       2© = 6             Double = 10     4© = 5

e) pass = 9             double = 6        2¨ = 10           3¨ = 3             others = 0

f) 1NT = 4             2¨ = 7             3¨ = 10           2§ (forcing) = 10

g) 2ª = 10             3/4ª = 8          2© = 7             1ª/© = 5

h) pass = 8             1NT = 10         2¨ = 2             2NT = 3

i) 1© = 6                1ª = 10           2ª = 3             others = 0

j)1NT = 5              2§ = 2             1© = 2             pass = 10

k) 3© = 10            4© = 9.5          2© = 5             pass = 0

In k) your extreme shape and length in hearts + spade void , should make game or a sacrifice a good option, so you should jump, in hearts.

Well I hope you all scored 110 anything over 95 is very good.

This may shed some light on the take out double – the main thing to have is partnership understanding, good luck all. 

Grahame Weir

INCORRECT EXPLANATION

“My partner gave an incorrect explanation during the bidding but I don’t have to say anything until the end of the played hand”. If you become declarer or dummy and your partner has given a wrong explanation, or one of your alertable calls has not been alerted, you MUST rectify the situation before the opening lead is faced. You must not do this as defender until the hand is over, when you are required to do so and if damage to your opponents has resulted the director may award an adjusted score.

BIDS – 1NT

Is a strong 1NT opening alertable? No. Your 1NT is not alertable but it is announceable ie your partner must say its strength and he must also say if it may contain a singleton.  You and your partner should use properly completed convention cards (which would disclose the strength of your 1NT opening). 

Can I make a first round double over 1NT to ask partner to bid? Because it will not be expected, you must alert any take-out double of opponents 1NT opening. A double of opponents 1NT is expected to be for penalties and shows at least 15HCP or “compensating distribution”.

Can I make a first round double over a 1NT response as a take out of opener’s suit? Because it is not natural, the double has to be alerted! An example: your opponent, North, bids 1© and S responds 1NT. If your partner now doubles for take out you must alert; and he must alert if N passes the 1NT and you double for take out

INSUFFICIENT BID

Example 1:

How friendly advice can lead to problems! NS were the more experienced players, EW being fairly new to duplicate. All were kind, friendly players (of course!) and when W made an insufficient bid N tried to be helpful ……. The bidding went N: 1¨ ; E: Pass ; S: 1ª ; W: 1©. North said quietly “you should make that good”. West, not knowing the implications, decided that 2© was not a good idea so Passed. North now said gently, “you can’t do that, you must make a bid” whereupon W thought 2§ a safer bet. At this point N realised things had gone from bad to worse and it was time for the Director. Had the director been called as soon as the insufficient bid was made all the options would have been made clear: In simple terms did N accept the 1© bid? If ‘yes’ bidding proceeds normally, but N would say ‘No’. Then W would be told to correct the bid by either the lowest sufficient bid or pass but before deciding which the ramifications would have been explained: There would be no penalty provided the replacement bid was in the same denomination (2©). If the insufficient bid or the substituted bid could have been conventional or the bid was corrected to any other sufficient bid (eg suit changed) or Pass then offenders partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call and lead penalties may apply. If offender (W) substitutes a double or redouble that call is cancelled; partner must pass throughout and lead penalties may apply. Lead penalties: If the withdrawn call referred to a natural suit that was not specified in the auction by the offender, then declarer can require or forbid that suit to be led by offenders partners at his first turn to lead and for such restriction to continue for as long as offenders partner remains on lead. If the withdrawn call referred to NT declarer chooses which suit he requires (or prohibits) to be led by offenders partner for as long as he is on lead.

So, in trying to be helpful N had actually made matters worse (and contravened Law 9B1) and a strict interpretation of the laws would certainly penalise poor EW who had not only made an insufficient bid but W had given unauthorised information to partner by mentioning pass and 2§. That said, even inexperienced players should remember one golden rule: When things go wrong call the director immediately (Law 9B1).  Any of the four should have done this. Could it be resolved fairly to all parties now? Well, the the Laws as above should be applied with a warning to E not to take advantage of the unauthorised information and then letting the bidding and play continue. If NS felt they had been disadvantaged by the unauthorised information the Director would return and determine, what if any, adjustment needed to be made but in view of N role in the affair and the inexperience of EW, I suspect NS would not get very far.

MISCELLANY

The subject you have requested is contained on this page – scroll down to find what you want.

Can I insist on starting at a particular table / polarity? No, though its rare you will be asked to move. Exceptions would be the need to make up full tables or where someone with mobility problems requires a ‘sitting’ table.

As I move around the room it does it matter if I play E or W (S or N) at one table and swop places with partner at another”. Yes, It does – you can’t pick and choose whom you "sit over” and therefore the director will only sanction a change of your compass position in special (and rare) circumstances.

What is a Swiss Event? A Pairs (or Teams) event where in simple terms after the first round each pair plays an assigned, different opposing pair and where the cumulative scores of both pairings (teams) are approximately equal. As each winning pair or team can score points each round, a Swiss Event gives both weak and strong players a chance of some successes, though the overall winners usually get additional points.

Must I have at least one 4 card major to bid 2C Stayman? No. Stayman is an asking bid not a telling one! Indeed, sometimes it is excellent to use in situations where you don’t hold a 4 card major

Do I need to have a 5 card major to bid a red suit transfer?  If you describe it as a transfer, yes. If you do use transfers and want a weak take out, say in diamonds, you could try using 2S as a transfer to the minors (partner bids 3C and that can be passed or converted to diamonds), use some other method. What you must not do is to use 2D (say) and describe is a transfer to hearts or simply "hearts" when you and your partner play it also to include a weak take out in diamonds. If you do use 2D in this way it must be described as "may show hearts or weak take out in diamonds".

CAR  PARKING

The Parish Council have made a very polite request that we use the car park, rather than parking our cars outside residents houses on the road. Neither the Council, nor ourselves, wish this matter to 'escalate' as both of us recognise it could become an emotive issue. I have explained that we have a few members who find walking difficult and I need to park outside the hall itself as I have to carry some heavy stuff each week. However, there are only a few who actually need to park in close proximity to the Hall.

BORROWING  EQUIPMENT

The equipment is owned by the Club, and as such members (who have paid for it) can borrow any equipment at any time – provided of course that any equipment needed for a Club Evening or other Club Event is returned on time. The borrower assumes responsibility for any loss or damage whilst in their possession.

TEAM EQUIPMENT Provided members are not representing another Club, members may borrow boards and bidding boxes etc free of charge to help with NO FEAR, OPEN or just friendly "two teams of four" type competitions. The Club has its own special “Team Box”  containing 32 boards; 8 distinctive bidding boxes; scorecards; Orange Book and a MP / IMP / VP chart.

To borrow any equipment contact the Chairman

CLAIMS & CONCESSIONS

“When I claimed I said ‘the rest are mine’. It was obvious I would have drawn trumps before running off my side suit winners but my opponents challenged this as they had a trump left.” When you claim (or concede) play has ended. You must show your cards and immediately state fully how you will play the remaining tricks. If you do not and generalise, and / or opponents query your claim, you cannot then state how you would play the tricks nor amend your explanation. The director should be called and he will rule on the basis of what you first said. If incomplete or ambiguous he will judge a reasonable line of play - NOT necessarily the best line of play - and if, when claiming you did not mention an outstanding trump, a finesse or something similar, he will rule you are likely to have forgotten it, even if you are a grand master!

COMMITTEE  2012

 

Alan Boyes         Chair

 

Doug Stainton      Vice Chair

 

Martin Rees        Treasurer

 

Chris Kelly  ;   Richard Harrell   ;  Tim Vivian           

 

Events - not on Committee - Liz Boyes

CONDUCT & ETIQUETTE

Some Guide Lines for Members of PDBC

The Club is affiliated to the EBU and therefore follows EBU rules. Although at liberty to make its own special arrangements, the Committee strongly advocate members adhere to the following standards in order to avoid any misunderstandings at the table that might otherwise occur and assist everyone's enjoyment.

Please note members will be expected to act as host once per year (max)

General

·         When not using predealt boards, thorough shuffling of the cards is essential. When dealing, adjoining cards must not end up in the same hand eg deal A, B, C, D;  A, B, C, D etc not A, B, C, D, D, C, B, A, A, B etc.

·          The board being played should remain in the centre of the table.

·          The bidding cards should not be returned to their boxes until the opening lead has been made and any questions asked and answered.

·          There should be strict observance of the rules concerning the STOP and ALERT cards. Only the alerting player may provide explanation / understanding of the bid made.

·          The declarer will not touch dummy's cards but ask dummy to play a named card. When not playing a card Dummy should have both their hands below the table and not anticipate declarers play.

·          Pairs are advised and encouraged to have Convention Cards but these are not compulsory. To minimise possible misunderstandings please inform your opponents of your basic bidding system when you reach the table. This is especially important if you play the "strong" No Trump or 5 card majors; weak two's etc. It is mandatory to alert all non-natural calls as per EBU Orange Book.

·          If a board is passed out in the first round, it is not permitted to redeal it. Whenever a board is passed out each player should shuffle only his own cards and replace them in the board.

·          Curtain cards will be used, also Name slips to aid the task of the scorer.

·          Utmost care must be taken by North in recording the score on the traveller. The entry should be carefully checked by East.

·          It is not unsporting to call the Director if an irregularity occurs, in fact it may be unfair not to call him (or her). We would positively encourage anyone who has made a mistake to call the Director  before being requested to do so by another player.

·          Please only use pencil to complete travellers, name slips etc.

Etiquette

A player should maintain a courteous attitude at all times and should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.

As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from:

·          paying insufficient attention to the game.

·          making gratuitous comments during the auction and play.

·          detaching a card before it is his turn to play.

·          prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent.

·          summoning and addressing the Director in a manner discourteous to him or to other contestants

Violations of Procedure

The following are considered violations of procedure:

·          using different designations for the same call.

·          indicating approval or disapproval of a call or play.

·          indicating the expectation or intention of winning or losing a trick that has not been completed.

·          commenting or acting during the auction or play so as to call attention to a significant occurrence, or to the number of tricks still required for success.

·          looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponents card.

·          showing an obvious lack of further interest in a deal (as by folding one's cards).

·          varying the normal tempo of bidding or play to give partner information or to disconcert opponents

·          leaving the table needlessly before the round is called.

*********************************

Thank you.

DUPLIMATED BOARDS

The introduction of computers has introduced technology to virtually every aspect of our lives and the game of Bridge is no exception. Firstly they have enabled truly random hands to be devised – thereby eliminating the sequencing of cards that can be experienced when the pack of cards has not been shuffled sufficiently for hand dealt hands – and also have led to the development of duplimating machines.

These machines have input to them the random hand produced by the computer, after which they can then sort and deal the cards which are bar coded for computer recognition. The whole process of producing 32 boards is incredibly quick, and accurate.  In turn the use of these machines has given rise to more and more Swiss and other tournaments when it is necessary sometimes to have 6 or more identical sets of 32 boards in play at each sitting. Hand sorting all these would take hours whereas the machine does job in minutes.

As a value add, the machines will produce (via the computer) a print out of the hands played plus a statistical analysis that may include not only the number of HCP’s for each hand or partnership, but can integrate with other software such that it is possible for specialist hand analysers to be incorporated that can tell you what contracts were makeable on each board.

NEUBERG SCORING

Is the National Sims scoring unfair? No. The Neuberg mathematic formula is used whenever the boards in an event have not have been played the same number of times by all players. This ensures scoring fairness across the field.  This is one reason why your club score will alter when scored alongside everyone else nationally. Neuberg would be used at the Club if one evening there were several misboards that affected a number of players. As one can imagine, the formulae is complex and it has only been with the introduction of computers that it is now possible to produce such fairness in results such as Simultaneous Pairs.

At a normal club night a misboarding is serious in that it affects the overall integrity of the result, and therefore the Director has discretion to fine or warn those responsible. Innocent players who could not correctly play the board would normally be awarded 60% (Average +)

HESITATION

There are several articles on this page:

ARTICLE 1:   a letter from Nick Doe; Secretary, Law & Ethics Committee, EBU

HESITATION & 70% RULE

As I perhaps implied in my earlier acknowledgement, it is not really possible to define how you assess a player's peer group for the purposes of adjudicating on an unauthorised information problem, such as a call which is alleged to have been influenced by a hesitation, without going a little into the background.

A director who has to adjudicate on a hesitation situation must satisfy himself on three distinct issues:-

1.    Was there unauthorised information?

2.    Could the unauthorised information demonstrably have suggested the action taken?

3.    Were there one or more logical alternative actions not so suggested, the choice of which might have led to a more favourable result for the non-offending side?

The question of peers arises most specifically in connection with question 3, i.e. it comes in as part of the assessment of logical alternatives.  However, the background is that a player in receipt of unauthorised information is permitted to take account of authorised sources of information.  The crucial thing to look at is what the unauthorised information adds to the authorised information.

For example, in the middle of a conventional sequence, a player takes a very long time to choose his call, and ends up making a bid which "does not exist".  The hesitation suggests that the player may have forgotten the system, or has a hand that does not fit into the agreed responses.  However, essentially, the choice of a response which does not fit into the agreed scheme might be considered pretty much to duplicate the unauthorised information.

The prior auction is authorised information.  The agreements of both sides are authorised information.  The legitimate inferences from the auction are authorised information.  When considering the question of logical alternatives one has to consider the action taken in the context of the options available to a player who is faced with the same auction, with the same agreements and legitimate inferences, but no unauthorised information to add to the authorised information.

The section of the 2004 White Book (EBU Tournament Directors' Guide) relating to logical alternatives reads as follows:-

"16.6 Logical alternative:  A "logical alternative" is a call or play which three or more in ten players of equal ability could be expected to make in the particular situation, if playing a similar system and style, but if the irregularity had not occurred.

The converse of this is that if the TD or Appeals Committee is satisfied that over seven in ten of his peers would make a particular call, such call is evident and it is legal to make such a call whatever the unauthorised information involved.

These definitions are modified somewhat if there are several possible alternatives. For example, if there are five apparent actions, and it would be expected that two players out of ten would find each one then they are all logical alternatives. 

Example -  West opened 1S, North passed slowly and East passed. The TD might conclude that Pass, 1NT, double, 2C and 2D might all be found by a similar number of the player’s peers, so all are logical alternatives. 

It should be noted that the standards are different nearly everywhere else in the world. Outside North America the normal standard is one player in four. The WBF have published a definition with no mention of numbers – see "Use of unauthorized information" in the Appendix WBF Code of Practice – see Section XVIII. 

Knowledge of the player is used when deciding what players of equal ability might do. If the player is unknown to the TD or Appeals Committee it is best to assume he is average for the competition."

In assessing the action of the peer group (the "players of equal ability"), the director takes into account the standard of the player if he knows it.  Such knowledge may well be assisted by the arguments a player puts forward in support of his actions - of course directors should not be over-influenced by players  who "talk a good game", but players will often give significant clues to their abilities by the way in which they approach discussions with the director, and experienced directors tend to be very good at assessing players' expertise by picking up on such things, even if they have no advance knowledge of the individuals concerned. 

In the absence of any evidence as to the player's actual standard, then the only realistic option is to take the standard of the field as the next best thing.  It is not sensible, nor the intention of the Law, that the actions of a player who significantly better or worse than the rest of the field should be arbitrarily judged by the average standard of the field as a whole.

Matters of style are more difficult.  At one end of the spectrum are documented agreements of the pair concerned (if a pair really does protect super-aggressively, that agreement ought to be recorded on their convention cards so that opponents know about it, quite apart from any questions arising when they protect opposite hesitations).  At the other end are more nebulous and often "self-serving" arguments along the lines of "I am a very aggressive player - it would never occur to me to pass".  Where the line should be drawn is not a matter of black and white, but in general a director will not go far wrong if he only takes into account documented agreements or compelling arguments concerning the style of players of equivalent ability.

I have discussed this response with John Pain, who is not only a senior EBU Tournament Director but is also responsible for TD training.  In essence we confirm that the penultimate sentence of your email of 28th May is correct.  You should be looking at players of the same ability as the particular player concerned.  Of course in training simulations you don't have much to go on in assessing a peer group, so the participants are now given a bidding quiz in advance and the answers are used as a point of reference in assessing logical alternatives.  I would be happy to qualify the last sentence of the extract quoted (the one that you considered contradictory) as follows:-

"What matters is what 70% of players of similar ability would have done, and in the absence of any information about the standard of the individual player concerned, that means what 70% of your club members would have done."

The training material has been revised since the version quoted, but John is aware of the need to consider further revisions to eliminate any remaining confusion.

I hope that this is helpful.

Regards,

Now read the further articles on hesitation and / or unauthorised information

ARTICLE 2

I find there is so much to think about I can’t help but hesitate. Why does it get penalised? This is a complex area but if you hesitate, either in the play or in the bidding, you may have given unauthorised information to partner. It is not always penalised, for example it will sometimes not be penalised where partner has an obvious bid which he would have made irrespective of any hesitation but in broad terms hesitation can cost you. Consider the following real examples – the latter from the 2004 Llangollen Congress.

Example 1:  N opened 1§ and E (who was just about to open a weak 1NT) hesitated, thought, murmured something, then slowly passed! S bid 1ª whereupon W bid 2¨. N bid 2ª and, low and behold, E bids 3¨!! The contract went 1 off (-50) but 2ª makes. It transpired W had only 8 points when he bid 2¨. The hesitation and / or comment was unauthorised information to partner and the director correctly adjusted the score to 2ª making for NS. So, please remember – hesitation and comment during the bidding will cost you!! Also, if such an incident occurs at your table please call the director immediately. He will probably let the bidding and / or play continue and re-visit once the board has been played but it gives everyone a chance to agree the facts at the time the incident occurred.

Example 2

ARTICLE 3

“Opponent’s finesse caught me a bit by surprise so I paused briefly (as I often do when playing a card) but partner had the K and opponents objected.” And so they should! You must not hesitate unless you “have something reasonable to consider” eg you had the K. If you hesitate because you are caught off guard by a play and have nothing to consider you should say so even if that reveals who has the K. In the example above the Director will probably award an adjusted score if it can be shown your hesitation cost opponents a trick(s).

ARTICLE 4

You must ask!! Bridge must be one of the very few games played where the players often feel embarrassed to ask a question, especially in relation to the opponents bidding. If you don’t ask – and if you do and still don’t understand – you are putting yourself at an enormous disadvantage. If you ask what a bid means and you get told its “Lebensohl” or “Landy” or “South African Texas” etc and you are still none the wiser then don’t be reticent. Ask specifically what the bid means; the Laws do not expect you to put up with jargon and some of the most common conventions like Stayman can be played with variations eg is it promissory or not. You are entitled to know!

However, you must have a valid reason to ask. Ask ONLY when it is your turn to bid. Also, if you do not intend to bid then do not ask! The very fact of you asking is conveying information to partner that you have some reason to ask and you will be penalised if that might have influenced your partner to bid, or make a particular lead etc. Wait until the end of the auction when you can freely ask questions before the opening lead is faced.

ARTICLE 5

Can we play a board even if I have overheard something about it? If someone calls out the score or makes a comment about what contract is possible, or states anything of substance about the hand - and that comment is heard by an adjoining table - they are required by the Laws to call the Director as it clearly would be unfair for them now to play the board and score it. Those deprived of playing the board (NS & EW) will receive an awarded score of at least 60% and those responsible for making the comment will be deducted Match Points. (The board may then only be played for fun at that table). 

SCORING & TRAVELLER ERRORS

I am pleased to say the travellers are now being completed with fewer errors - thank you, it makes the job of scoring so much easier. Please remember that if you see a score which does not look valid whilst you are completing the traveller please do NOT put a question mark against it or attempt to alter it etc but raise the matter immediately with the Director.

“The scorer or director will correct any wrong score”. We often issue reminders about the importance of filling in table slips completely and for East to thoroughly check the traveller scores. We do this to ensure that an accurate result can be given – members don’t want to turn out on a cold evening only to find the result cannot be given because of incorrectly completed paperwork but also because it is not often understood how reluctant a director will be (supported by the Laws) to amend an agreed score. Consider the following extract from a traveller:-

        All Non-Vulnerable

Pair 11 may have made 9 tricks but the score, agreed at the table, is 110 - a legal score. Unless the director can have the apparent discrepancy brought to his / her attention before close of play (marking a traveller with a ? mark does not do this) in order that BOTH pairs can be found and the mess sorted out, the result will be scored as 110 as that has been agreed at the table. When we had several inexperienced members we did follow up this type of discrepancy the next morning, but it is very time consuming and the director / scorer is not under a duty to do so. In certain situations an expression like “2H+1” can be helpful but its use is optional, and its omission is of no effect - hence pair 6 will score 140. However, pair 5 will have their score altered to 400 as 600 is an illegal (impossible) score.

When a score has been incorrectly entered by the scorer (eg if 110 was erroneously entered for pair 10 above) it can be amended within the time limits that apply to such a mistake – this varies club to club but at PDBC we give until close of play the following week to allow everyone the opportunity of checking their scored result. After that, unless the sponsoring organisation (eg Ecats) sets a longer period, the score is final. Clearly it helps to know earlier rather than later if the scorer himself has made such a mistake – and I am grateful to those of you who check the web site on Thursday’s and phone me straightaway if such has occurred.

Whilst I am now putting the actual contracts onto the score data to provide more information for members when they view the scores on the web site, players are reminded that if a difference exists between the contract and the correct score (eg 3N  10 tricks but scored as only 400) it will be the SCORE that prevails. The only exceptions to this will be:-

Where the correct score and the incorrect score make no diference to the result. eg if the correct score gives a top for the board and the incorrect one does as well.

Where the recorded score is impossible. eg where 3N-1 Vul is recorded as -50

As always, please take care when recording all details and make sure that East ALWAYS checks the result. Where the contract is illegible or nonsense it will not be shown.

MOVEMENTS – General

Why can’t we always have the same movement? There are dozens of movements for Pairs, Teams, Individual and so on but the movements we usually encounter at the Club are those commonly used for pairs events - Mitchell and Howell, and derivatives of each such as Bowman, Hesitation Mitchell or ¾ Howell. Club Directors seek always to achieve the best ‘trade-off’ between fairness, ease, speed (28 boards played by each pair is the maximum time would usually permit) and sit out time. Fairness is the most important factor. In Pairs, (its different for teams)  competition is fairest if all pairs play all boards. But there also needs to be equal opportunity for each pair. If a movement achieves both it is a complete and fair (or balanced) movement. For that reason a Mitchell movement where EW move up a table each round until all boards are played is balanced. A Skip Mitchell, where by virtue of your starting position you may be lucky or unlucky in the opponents and / or boards you “skip” half-way through, is clearly not as balanced though it may be the best compromise available for, say, 10 tables where 30 boards are in play but the skip reduces this to playing a ‘time favourable’ 27. Full Howell’s are excellent balanced movements but are more often found when the number of tables is low as moving between rounds takes a lot of time as players search for their next table! For this reason Howells are not popular with Club players, but they are balanced. TIP: - always identify which pair you will follow throughout an event, whatever the movement.

Nobody likes to sit out but when there is a half table, this is unavoidable. A movement which otherwise might be played may require the sit out pair to remain idle for 4 boards (eg a 6½ table Mitchell) or more in some cases. The director might then decide that with a very slight compromise on fairness, the sit outs might easily be reduced to 2 or 3 boards by using a different movement, eg Hesitation Mitchell.  For 9½-11 tables a normal Mitchell would need 30- 33 boards so a Bowman (a Mitchell derivative) or ¾ Howell can be used so that the evening gets finished on time with no “skipping”. Finally, some movements are designed for a single winner, some designed for two (EW and NS) winners. The Director will ensure that the number of arrow switches ensures a fair result for single winner movements.

Why do we have a ‘complicated’ movement sometimes? I have covered this before, but just lately we have been getting 11 tables (which is good!!) but ironically 11 tables is one of the ‘worst’ number of tables for any ‘easy’ movement. We could play a 33 board Mitchell – but unless you were happy to play until Midnight each pair would not play a different six or nine boards; clearly unbalanced and the result largely a lottery of whom you have played against (or haven’t played) and what boards you have had to miss. So, a hesitation Mitchell is used either for 24 boards or 26. This is fairer.  

Passed Out Hands

We abide by the EBU regulation that a hand that is passed out on the first round is not re-dealt; the hands remain as initially dealt thereby giving everyone the same opportunity to bid or not. However, each player should slightly shuffle or re-arrange his cards before replacing them in the board so as not to make it obvious to the next players that the hand had previously been passed out.

“You score nothing on a pass out” It is not true a pass out scores nothing. Zero (a pass out) is a real score as all NS scores are plusses and all EW are minuses. A zero is therefore scored as per any score eg

REVOKE

The Laws appertaining to a Revoke – a failure to follow suit – are dealt with in Laws 61 to 64. For full information it is better to read all the Laws but the broad summary following may assist. If a revoke has occurred, or is suspected of having occurred, always call the Director immediately.

1.            A player must correct a revoke if he becomes aware of it before it is established. Any card withdrawn becomes a penalty card unless it was played by Declarer or Dummy.

2.                   A revoke on trick 12, even if established, must be corrected.

3.                   A revoke is established:

·        If offending side leads or plays to next trick

·         When the offending side indicates a lead or play (eg names a card to be played) to the next trick

·         When offending side makes a concession or claim

4.                   Once established it cannot be corrected, except on trick 12

In determining what penalty is incurred the following applies:

How many tricks did the offending side win from the revoke trick (inc revoke trick itself) onwards?

a)                  None – no penalty

b)                  One – one trick transferred

c)                   Two or more:

Did the revoke card win a trick? Yes – two tricks transferred.   No – Did offender win a trick with a card that could have been played to the revoke trick?  Yes – two tricks transferred.  No – one trick transferred.

Note: The director has the power to give an adjusted score in addition if he rules the non-offending side have been inadequately compensated.