mfa1010

What is intuitive is individual :). This is a complex (and theoretical) situation, and I would expect the Director to explain UI consequences when summoned, so noone is on their own about the legal issues. To me it is intuitive that I can use the bids laying on the table and everything the opponents have said as if they have said it only to me. And use nothing else. Partner is percieved to be in his own isolated shelf where he takes care of his own business without me knowing when or how. Try this: Partner pulled his X-card before the wrong transfer-announcement of the 2♦-bid was made. I think we could agree that it is UI that partner did this. But what is the consequence? After 3♦-p-p and getting the correction, I must now assume that partner had misunderstood the bidding (due to the announcement)? So even if the bids on the table plus the sum of the information from the opponents make it clear that partner's double in our system is takeout of diamonds, I must assume that partner meant it as showing diamonds for the lead? It would be illegal to bid as if it was a takeout double, since I can only know it is because partner pulled the X-card before the announcement? I think your view leads to that, and that would be counterintuitive to me. I don't need to ask again. Everything the opponents' have said is AI to me (and MI to me if it is wrong). The UI I have is the fact that partner chose to ask plus what partner chose not to ask about. This UI I can't "errase" by asking again myself. In general, even if the opponents' explanations are AI for me, their explanations often come with an UI aspect = what partner chose to ask or not ask about and got of information, and what partner therefore could be expected to think. This is only a problem when it gives us reason to expect that partner (due to MI or other) has misunderstood their system. If we ever sniff out that partner has misunderstood their system, UI will inevitably have been helping us (when there are no screens), because we can see what partner did to get enlightened.

You did. But I respectfully don't agree with what you said. I think we always have to assume that partner has full info and takes care of himself. Otherwise we are using the UI that stems from what partner did or didn't do to get enlightened. We can't think: "At the time partner doubled, he had only heard the announcement. He hadn't asked questions or looked in the CC. Therefore I can conclude xxx about his bidding." Think screens. Or try this: Bidding starts 2♦(alerted)-D-2♥-P-2♠-P-P to us. After 2♦ partner read the relevant section of the CC and chose to double. When the bidding got to us, we also read the CC, it says 2♦=X. When we later start to think about reopening the bidding with our weak hand with long diamonds, RHO interrupts (and calls TD): "Oh I'm so sorry, the CC is absolutely wrong, it is that of a different partnership, we play 2♦=Y here." May we use the fact that partner read the wrong thing too, and therefore likely intended his D as a defense to convention X? NO, partner's reading in the CC is UI. We should act as if we don't know what partner did, said, heard etc.

6♠. At least partner will not hang me next time I bid 5♠ with normal values.

Yes, it is also the pass to 2♣ I don't understand. What more does S need for 3♣? A guarantee that pass would miss a game?

I think the situations are equivalent. I think we always have to rely on partner having the right information. Otherwise we are using UI about what partner didn't do to investigate their system. For all we know, partner took the convention card after the announcement, found out about the discrepancy, asked for clarification and got the right answer... But we know he didn't do that? Right, and that is UI! It doesn't matter that this process would have let to some AI for us also (their explanation) - partner's being passive is UI. We can't use that UI to make conclusions about his hand. Less dramatically, partner might just well have realized the mistake (again maybe from the CC) and chosen to say nothing. That would be normal, if he had a clear pass, because why wake them up? When he had a bid, it would be highly speculative, because his bid means different thing in different contexts, but he may have done that. It is perfectly ok to do, only can he not claim misinformation afterwards, when he knows about the system. Again we can't use partner's passitivity to help us guess what he might have realized or not. It follows that if we for instance double 3♦, we are using UI to conclude, that he does indeed have diamonds. Doubling 3♦ would be an illegal bid.

Speculation, Your Honour! :) No, I think it is posible to have a neutral approach to this, so neither of the options asking/not asking really says anything. I think this is (fortunately) not so. Alerted bids come in many guises. Uncontested auctions, competitve auctions, bids we know what means anyway (here stayman is alertable for instance), bids by familiar opponents or by unknown opponents, bids where we think know our opponents' system and bids where we don't, etc etc. The reason for asking varies a great deal. We may also be more inclined to ask about a forceful alert than a small knock. The point is, that we don't need to ask always at all to make us unpredictable in practice. Sounds quite problematic.

No I hope not. I think anybody could be ready for the asylum if they were adjusted in England after asking, flew to Denmark and were adjusted here again when they stopped asking, as they were basically told to in England. I think these question-cases shouldn't be handled too aggressively. As Rik is also saying, experienced players are pretty good at handling questions. They don't give a lot away in situations like this. If an experienced player asked as W if I were S, I wouldn't expect W to have a borderline hand for 5♥ just for that reason. The UI is much-much less clear than had there been a huddle. I don't think we should work from an assumption that a pair is unaware that questions could give UI and ignorant about doing anything to randomize and limit the transmission. I like akwoo's point of giving latitude and not effectively putting up a barrier to full disclosure. The alerting side shouldn't be getting an advantage through having alertable bids. The other side should be able to play the game in practice. But first of all I don't think W's question (or silence) here is reliable as UI.

Yes 2N is correct. East then bids 3♦ and it goes all pass. West should be given latitude to compete for the partscore after their 1♥-p-2♥. Getting to 5m has low priority, and here I think sensible bidding will miss the good 5♦.

Nothing strange about that. It is a very typical thought process to begin with gathering information and then make a decision afterwards. It is not like we would always think: "If it means A, I would bid X, if it means B I would bid Y". Sometimes we will, but sometimes it will be more like: "I want to know, so I ask. I can always make my decision later".

I don't think we should be asking W, who followed good procedure, how often he will follow good procedure, implying that it is a problem to follow good procedure if it is not followed often enough. I see your point, and I think it has theoretical merit. But in practice we also want to educate players and encourage them to follow the regulations. If we pose questions like that I think W will feel himself rolled up in red tape gasping for air.

Seems pretty weird to me.

So W is presumed to sit for 10 sec after the skip bid, pretending that he has something to think about, but if he uses the time to ask a question about an alerted bid, then he transmits UI, because it now seems like he does have something to think about? If this case merits an adjustment, something has surely gone wrong somewhere.

No adjustment, I agree with what RMB1 said. S had the chance to change his call, and that is all we can offer him. If he was worried that his partner might have misunderstood 3♣ because he didn't ask about it, sorry but partner's asking or not asking is UI to south. N chose not to ask about an alerted call - TD established that 3♣ was in fact alerted, as I understand it. Already for that reason N is not damaged by misinformation, since he didn't seek any. Result stand.

This is not correct, not my position, and not what I wrote. And regarding this particular case, I judge it not to be just a rub of the green case. This bid out of turn is just too likely to win (cause damage), and too close to what a crook might do on purpose. If the thing were legal, I might have done it myself if I needed a swing, things didn't even have to be desperate. But that doesn't mean that the same is true for any bid out of turn.

Strictly requiring that the irregularity is +EV for the offending side is imo going too far. "Damage" is a concrete negative outcome for the nonoffending side on the particular board. Not an average of outcomes. "Could well damage" implies that "damage" might concretely occur with some reasonable, nonspecified probability. And that is all. I think the rule covers situations where damage could well go either way, even if the irregularity is probably -EV for the offending side, as long as it is reasonably close. It seems clear that what we don't want, is for offenders to speculate in committing irregularities, and a margin of judgement seems right. In my opinion this board is such a case. The irregularity is probably -EV, I would say. But it is easy to imagine that it will work to the offender's advantage (and thus could well damage the opponents), because with a 1hp hand vul vs not it could well be good to silence partner, especially holding a surpise void of spades, the master suit and most probable trump suit. I would adjust the score.

Pass. Not worth a 2N overcall.

If they play T, we should play J to cater to QT or AQT, where K would cater to AT only. If they play 8, it is in principle a pure guess between J and K. J handles Q8 and AQ8, and K handles A8 and AT8. (Going 9 would be epsilon worse since it handles QT8 and AQT8 - two less balanced distributions.) But a clever 2nd hand can play T from AT8 to force us to misguess to the stiff Q. If 2nd hand might find that play, then J>K when we see the eight, because AT8 becomes less likely.

If trumps are 2-1/1-2, then declarer is 100% to get a second heart trick by leading the ♥7 up to ♥QT8x later, ruffing out their stoppers.

Worst case is if they guess the layout and make a game they would otherwise have gone down in.

Probably more annoying for west would be to establish the 5th heart through brute force. That would demonstrate that his hearts are too weak for his double. ;)

Disagree with many of the decisions, but I don't think they were very bad. I would have overcalled 1♠, I think we need to test if we have a big fit in spades. I would have doubled 2♦ for takeout. I would not have doubled 5♦, because with a singleton trump, it looks too much like a huge diamond fit, and doubling is like waiving a flag that hearts are off side. I would not have lead a trump. I have only one of them, so I can't lead another later. And a trump lead might pickle partner's holding that might give an overruff if declarer misjudges.

We have spotted the same problem, if we want to shift to 10-12 NTs nv in our presicion, so 1♦ would become 10-15 unbal 4+♦ or a 13-15NT. I haven't thought it through but my immediate idea is: 1♦-1N: This should be passed by the big NT. It makes little sense that the big NT have to go on the 2-level every time. 1♦-2N: INV opposite 14-16. The diamond hand can bid 3m to get out. 1♦-3m: INV long suit opposite 14-16. 1♦-2m: GF opposite 14-16 (we use 2♥ to show the bal hand over 2m). 2m followed by 2N or 3m is only INV opposite the diamond hand.

Denmark adopted this system from Sweden in June 13. It is generally a lot of fun. There is a ranking list updated daily. I think it is good. Minor details could still be improved, but that is only natural. In Denmark, strong foreigners start with a good handicap. Curiously nr. 2 and 3 on the Danish list at the moment are P. Fredin and M. Eriksson of Sweden, who play in the Danish premier division. They might have benefitted on the ranking list from not playing club games, because the high ranked players are seemingly having problems with keeping their hcp in high-hcp fields, because the expected score is so high. @ Zel There is no real incitement to try to dump the ranking. Tournaments are scored as usual, it's not like in amateur golf. Having a high hcp in bridge gets you a bad seed, when the event is seeded.

A woman was playing with her husband in a district tournament. They usually only play in club games. Defending 6♥ she cashed ♦A, felling her partner's stiff king. Swift as lightening she shifted to a spade, and the contract rolled. "Why on earth didn't you give me a diamond ruff?" "Oh so sorry, I was sure that the ♦K was lavinthal for spades". He was not amused. :)

In one single misguided and unnecessary bid we have flushed 3N down the drain every time partner's spade stopper is vulnerable. It is a limited success that might be able to diagnoze our disaster already during bidding. Anything else (p, 2c, 2d) >> 1N imho.