Leaderboard

There is no reason to think that the UK will not retain this law after leaving the EU.

I would want to know if the pair make a habit of opening light like this, and if so make sure it is disclosed properly on their convention card (or in some other acceptable way, if they don't have convention cards). If NS had been informed correctly, what difference would it have made? Remember that they are not entitled to know that the bid is weak, only that it could be weak. A takeout double looks more normal on the South hand whatever the strength of the opener, after which North is likely to end up playing in 3NT, with a better chance of making it. I can't see that the choice of action by South is affected by the agreed minimum strength of the opening bid, so I would allow the score to stand, and make sure EW know about the requirements of proper disclosure.

As a new poster you've forgotten to provide some of the relevant details that typically get asked before anyone ventures an answer. Firstly, the jurisdiction which is important for the British Sim Pairs since the EBU and SBU, and perhaps NI, regulations differ. For most of these the relevant system policy is also needed, since even affiliated clubs have their own regulations in addition to differing regimes within most NBOs. Then, as Richard says, what is the pair's agreement on opening bids, especially in third position? I'm not a TD, although I often provide advice at my local SBU club, and my process is something like: - what is their agreement? - is this agreement legal? - have they disclosed this agreement properly? - does this call meet their agreement? - if not, was it deliberate? - is it a gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length? The accredited TDs probably have a better checklist than mine. In this case I will presume you are playing at an EBU club, using Level 4 partnership agreements which I believe is common in most English clubs. At Level 4, an opening bid is required to have at least 8+ HCP and, in first or second position, meet the Rule of 18. Therefore, by opening an 8 HCP hand in third position with a natural suit, this is a legal opening call. Is their agreement that they can open this light in third position and is it clear on their system card that they would do so? This might be an implicit agreement if they regularly open light in third position. If it is their agreement and they have not properly disclosed it, then you may judge it under misinformation regulations. I suspect it is well below their agreements for an opening bid and that it was a deliberately light opening bid in third position. The question the director will need to establish is whether this is a gross misstatement of honour strength - in my opinion it is probably not. If it were considered a psych, you would also need to look at whether his partner fielded the action. West here seemed to bid normally, including doubling the final contract; it does not seem to have been fielded. Overall I'd be unlikely to rule this a psych, but if it were then it would be a green psych with no change to the table result.

I'm glad you brought this up, because many people do not understand this. Transfers, for example, are played for two major reasons. 1: The transfer is forcing, and allows responder to better engineer an auction based on their strength/shape 2: It preserves the lead going through the usually weaker hand, and into the stronger hand, creating some possible finesses. Transfers are primarily played because of reason #1, not reason #2. It's much harder to defend when the 1NT opener is in dummy, because there is much more uncertainty about what the declarer holds. How many times have we all wondered if it's safe to cash our King in a side suit? We really need our partner to lead it, but we're on lead, and unsure if we'll regain it in time to defeat the contract... So we lead our King in the 2nd round of a suit where dummy still holds QJX, ruff, and two tricks promote without a loser, when the ruffing finesse fails and you hold enough length to guard the suit... These sort of uncertainties just aren't as common when you can see the only hand that **could** be distributional face up on the table. Good point!