South has UI from the explanation but suppose Pass is not a logical alternative to 4 ; and suppose it is established that South has misbid and the explanation is correct, so there is no misinformation. So NS are non-offending.

Suppose further that Pass is a logical alternative to 4 and 4 is suggested over Pass. So 4 is using UI and EW are offending. We adjust to 4 for EW.

But what about NS? Should we deny them redress because they failed to defeat 4 ?

Is playing K a serious error?
No. It is an entirely reasonable given South's bidding.

Is South's bidding (3 = nat, GF) a serious error?
Yes.

Does it matter that 3 was a serious error committed prior to the infraction by the opponents?
Does it matter that 3 was a serious error whose negative consequences ( K switch) did not occur until after the infraction by the opponents?

Robin

]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4391/feed/ 0 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4390 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4390#comments Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:14:16 +0000 bridgetalk | international bridge laws forums tag:forums.bridgetalk.com://b68042af246542fa27e5d9007941c1f8
What action, if any, should the TD take? Is North required to bid again? At the Table the TD canceled (???) South's 5 bid and required the contract to be played in 4 . South did have a doubleton , but this was not a successful contract! 11 tricks are available in a contract, and 10 tricks in a NT contract. ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4390/feed/ 0 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4389 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4389#comments Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:49:14 +0000 bridgetalk | international bridge laws forums tag:forums.bridgetalk.com://ac512d3417590939888562f4d5fcf446
(1) 12-14
(2) alerted, explained as natural and forcing
(3) penalties
(H) undisputed hesitation

NS have agreed to play Lebensohl in this situation. Direct 3-level suit bids are forcing, weaker hands go via 2NT. This is on the convention card, South had forgotten.

South led 5 to the queen, North switched to the K. East won, drew trumps and discarded a club loser on a heart to make ten tricks.

North queried the legitimacy of East's 4 bid after the hesitation. Do you think he has a case? ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4389/feed/ 0 http://boardgames.about.com/b/2009/06/22/golf-solitaire-complete-rules.htm http://boardgames.about.com/b/2009/06/22/golf-solitaire-complete-rules.htm#comments Mon, 22 Jun 2009 05:33:44 +0000 About.com Board / Card Games http://boardgames.about.com/b/2009/06/22/golf-solitaire-complete-rules.htm http://boardgames.about.com/b/2009/06/22/golf-solitaire-complete-rules.htm/feed/ 0 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4388 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4388#comments Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:10:35 +0000 bridgetalk | international bridge laws forums tag:forums.bridgetalk.com://c11e3fc5c0e53b89d7b3a29b4f4c45c2

The first two suggestions are reasonable, but the third (the tactical psych) worries me. I suppose that the very first tactical psych that a pair uses in this situation is fine because the irregular bidder has no history of seeing partner psych in this situation. But when does Law 23 come into play? ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4388/feed/ 0 http://boardgames.about.com/b/2009/06/20/oh-hell-card-game-rules.htm http://boardgames.about.com/b/2009/06/20/oh-hell-card-game-rules.htm#comments Sat, 20 Jun 2009 05:33:31 +0000 About.com Board / Card Games http://boardgames.about.com/b/2009/06/20/oh-hell-card-game-rules.htm http://boardgames.about.com/b/2009/06/20/oh-hell-card-game-rules.htm/feed/ 0 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4384 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4384#comments Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:14:02 +0000 bridgetalk | international bridge laws forums tag:forums.bridgetalk.com://42beefb7a86f768be20d9cb78ebb9421
Are this many poor bids by E/W an infraction ?
Table result 2NX= by East (a top for E/W)
No alerts or "asks" during the bidding or play
E/W are playing SAYC (?) and are inexperienced.

South calls the TD at the end of the hand to complain he had been mis-informed by East's 1NT which South assumed contained no 4 card majors.
South said he would not have doubled if he knew East had the majors
Is this a double shot from South as 2N= by East would be a near top for N/S.

Would you adjust and how would you rule ?

Thanks ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4384/feed/ 0 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4383 http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4383#comments Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:36:51 +0000 bridgetalk | international bridge laws forums tag:forums.bridgetalk.com://381b46d61389b1e8d67366fc89dd0b7a 2S is ALERTED
P Inquires about meaning of 2S SOUTH explains as Transfer to D.

Was not at the session so report is second hand.

In play 4C makes 11 tricks! no idea how.

EW do not ask for ruling for damage or use of UI by NS!

After play N asks Director whether there are any restrictions on his bidding because of his partner's incorrect explanation of the sytem and bid of 3D?

In discussion, a poll of 10 directors gave no suggestion of considering a bid of 4C so would you rate 4C as not an LA??

More important to me is action by SOUTH in passing 4C. Surely if he initially believed 2S is a transfer to D passing 4C is using UI to "wake up" rather than bidding 5D say treating 4C as a control show suporting Diamonds?? ]]> http://forums.bridgetalk.com/index.php?showtopic=4383/feed/ 0