Leaderboard

Well, it's your game, not mine, therefore your ruling; but I bet it looks an awful lot like this: I believe that this is, if not direct misinformation, definitely not full disclosure; and I'd poll to see whether peers of west would double with that hand. As I said, I have my doubts, but I'd accept anything other than "pass, no other options" and "what about double?" "Well, that's a possibility, but do I really want a spade lead?" They are the NOS, and she wanted to do it before seeing how anything worked. I assume reasonable play led to -1, -100 for N/S. If it made, fine, I can see that too (but if it made because of the non-spade OL and inability to correct it after the explanation, we'll start there with the adjustments). Don't think that's egregious/double shot territory, even if we should be asking about this auction when North passes. Who knows, maybe they do bid this way with ♦AQTxxx and a card or two, willing to play 3NT if the diamonds run, but 3♦ over 2NT if they don't? Would East raise, either after the pass or after 3♦ was passed out? Actually I think so (but again, peers of East, treating the results from a NOS perspective). If it's invitational, he wants to let partner know he has enough spades to set up KJxxxx (what else could west be doubling on, with 12 and 11 and 12?); if it's weak, preempt them showing their suit in the auction. If after 3♦, well, the cards look to be about equal, and partner rates to have lots of spades and very few diamonds. And it does. Pretty much loses a club and two hearts. I'm not giving them game, but -170 seems straightforward. I expect I will be high in "if you'd explained all of your agreement, we'd have found out at the table, wouldn't we?" territory with this ruling. I'm not upset with that, frankly. This is part of blackshoe's "will get what's coming to them". Do it right, and the table decide; do it wrong, and you don't get the benefit of any doubt. It's not the good old 12C1e (not the current one), but still. As far as penalties are concerned, I assume in a club game I know the players. If their attitude to disclosure, or their attitude to having correct procedure explained to them warrants, "you give a poor explanation of your call that 'just happens' to help the inhibiting competition nature of it; you don't actually know what to Alert; and you waited until dummy came down to fix your explanation, thus stopping re-opening the auction or allowing a full knowledge opening lead. We're ruling 3♠+1 because it's reasonable to have happened; (even if we didn't, we're awarding 3♦-1 on the spade lead); we're penalizing you 1/4 board because all the mistakes you keep making in disclosure are, just coincidentally I'm sure, ones that benefit your side."(*) If it doesn't warrant yet, a similar discussion, ending in "learn your responsibilities or the next 'convenient' incorrect disclosure will get a 1/4 board penalty." And then discuss this with the other directors so they're aware. In fact, maybe discuss this with the other directors before deciding; it may turn out the immediate response is "yeah, I saw that in a call last week, and warned them that this is neither correct or fair." I may be too lenient with PPs that actually affect score(**); but especially at the club, I am balancing this against people not coming back if I'm too much of a hard***. Of course, what I'm balancing against is people not coming back if I let the Usual Suspects get away with their hoodwinking with just warnings. I have found that (especially as a player in the club I direct at, on the days I'm not directing) most people do well (or at least better enough) with warnings and me pointing out other examples where they may not have quite stepped up to the mark. Yeah, I think there's an onus on (at least experienced) players to not put up with half-***ed disclosure (witness my three questions against the Precision pair yesterday in three boards that I bet nobody else asks, conveniently for them); but they will do it against inexperienced players, too, and they won't even know that they've been played after the hand. When someone pulls them up on it, it's time to lean. (*) Why yes, I have been known to use sarcasm for emphasis, in addition to passive-aggressiveness. Why do you ask? (Note: it does seem to work well, when it's right to use it). (**) I have said here more than once that yeah, I also give out more score-based PPs for movement-damaging issues (especially as I tend to run webs with big games and alternating-direction stationary Howells for smaller ones) than I do for poor disclosure. I certainly don't feel like I should be handing out PPs for misinformation primarily caused by the Alert Procedure being non-trivial with no intent to deceive. It is only when the poor disclosure is deliberate, either because "I don't care to learn", "I don't care about these stupid rules", "Everybody is bad, why do you only care about me?" or worst, it's an advantage to give careful explanations and hope the opponents don't notice or know.

Nothing in the Laws (except that they allow the ACBL to create system regulations). The old regulations (GCC at least) required it to be "a strong hand", and the definition of strong was effectively "they think it's strong". There was a problem with that, as you might imagine. The new regulations say: Basic/Basic+: must be Very Strong. Open/Open+: can't have less than Average Strength. Very Strong: 20+HCP (note: HCP does NOT include points for shape); or 14+HCP and within 1 trick of game assuming suits break evenly in the other hands, or at least 5 Control Points (A=2, K=1) and within 1 trick of game assuming... So allowing hands like your example is not a legal 2♣ agreement on the Basic or Basic+ chart (it only has 2 Control Points (K, K) and <14 HCP). Note that it is not legal to psych an Artificial Opening bid on the Basic/+ charts, and deviations that do not meet the "gross" level of Psych are not permitted if those deviations, if part of the agreement, would make the agreement illegal. So literally no outs here. On the Open/+ Chart, it is legal to agree to open these hands 2♣, but you must Alert your 2♣ openers (Artificial: do not Alert "a Very Strong Artificial 2♣ Opening Bid"), and explain when asked that it could include hands that have shape, but limited defence. Now the opponents, who can make 5 or 6 of either red suit, are not surprised. Note: it is still not legal to Psych an Artificial Opening Bid. All capitalized terms are defined explicitly in the Definitions at the top of the Convention Charts.