mrdct

You may have fallen into the common trap of applying a test of "Is 4♠ the normal bid to make absent to UI?" whereas the test that needs to be applied is a more severe, "Is 4♠ demonstrably suggested by the UI and do other logical alternatives (absent the UI) exist?". Basically, if several logical alternatives are in the serious consideration of your peers in a poll absent the UI, you are not allowed to select a call which is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Here, North has pulled a safe and practical 6♠ bid with a rationale of, at least in part, to seek to avoid an enhancement of the misunderstadning that ♥ may have been agreed as trumps. She is not allowed to do that. A possible irony here (or maybe even Karma at work) is that if North had pulled out RKCB over 4♥ and found out that South held ♠AKQxx and the other two aces, the grand slam would've been quite easy to bid, so her apparent use of the UI seems to have worked to her disadvantage.

I too can't find a link to it anywhere but I'm quite sure that I've played against this defence before and it's quite hard to come up with a sensible counter-defence.

Assuming this took place in New Zealand, I'm guessing written bidding would've been in use so a mechanical misbid (i.e. pulling the wrong card) just doesn't happen. It's one of the many advantages that written bidding has over bidding boxes, including: cheaper (certainly up-front and likely long-term as bidding pads are dirt-cheap); easier for TDs as there is a written record of the auction (including which bids were alerted); never any dispute over what the final contract was or whether or not it was doubled; easier to comply with Law 20C as with bidding boxes the bidding cards are usually put away when one or more players still has a right to review the auction; less space taken up on the table; less time to set up a room for play; and no mechanical misbids. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I still prefer bidding boxes for the following reasons: less mess; environmentally friendly; no need to decipher peoples' poor hand-writting; persistent non-compliance with Law 20C as 99.9% of the time the bidding pad remains of the table throughout the play as it's only the serious SB-types who remove it after everyone has followed to the first trick; no questionable variations in the size or manner of bids and calls (an occassional source of cheating allegations); and much clearer for people with failing eyesight. My local bridge club (a typical country town senior citizens centre twice-weekly duplicate) acquired bidding boxes four or five years ago, but only used them three or four times before reverting back to written bidding following a poll of members which was about 75% in support of written bidding.

It seems fairly clear to me that North has taken advantage of the UI and selected a bid (6♠) that is less likely to "enhance the misunderstanding" when there were logical alternatives of 4NT and 5m available. For an experienced international representative player this is definately in PP territory for me, but it may be sufficient just to have a chat to him about the hand and make sure that he understands that what he did was dodgey. To gauge my response as TD, I would need to ask North what he would've done if 3♥ had been alerted and described as a splinter. If North is on the ball he will say that they hadn't discussed any of their continuations after a splinter; nor their cue-bidding or Blackwood style so he decided to just punt 6♠ knowing that it has the advantage of potentially minimising the chances of the opps getting the lead right. Did the regulations for the event require players to know their system?

If North presumes that partner is supporting ♥, then he is most definately using UI from the non-alert. North needs to proceed as if partner had alerted and described 3♥ as a splinter. North's hand looks pretty good to me opposite a hand that is making a slam try and cueing ♥ control (which can only really be the ♥A as nobody would cue ♥K opposite a splinter). I'm a little bit concerned about the known ♣A sitting over my ♣Kxx, but partner is pretty likely to have some cover in ♣ to be making a slam try. I'm not so sure that 4♠ should be allowed as once North knows about the bidding cock-up, it is demonstrably suggested by the UI that staying low is the best plan as who knows where this might wind up if North starts ace-asking or cue bidding. I think the only ethical options for North are 4NT or 5m (depending on what their cue bidding style is) and I would adjust the score on the board to whatever contract North-South will likely get to after that action, unless the table result was worse.

More info required. What type of event is this? How strong is the field? What sort of cue-bidding style do North-South use? What would 3NT over 3♥ have meant? Is South a good card-player?

If a game has psyches banned, it is a game other than bridge, so the organisers of that game can do whatever they like.

So it seems right to let the 4♥ bid go, as North-South did at the table once they'd had a closer look at West's hand, but how about this claim? Adding a little bit more to what happened at the table, after it had been scored as -620 and the cards were out of the next board, South jokingly complained to North, "You needed to underlead your ♦A to my Kx so I could get a ♦ ruff and take it one down". West then said to South, "Did you have ♦Kx? In that case I make 11". Not wanting to get into a discussion about whether or not a player of the calibre of West would adopt a "careless or inferior" line to lose a ♦ trick, South conceded the extra trick and re-entered the score as -650. As it turned-out the extra IMP for East-West was worth a VP, so at the end of match and still within the correction period stipulated in the regulations for the event, North-South queried with the TD whether or not he could look at the board and, if applicable adjust the score back to -620 as originally claimed. What should the TD do now?

[hv=pc=n&s=st9542h75dk5caj63&w=sak8hajt862daq6c8&n=s76hq4dt9873ckt54&e=sqj3hk93dj42cq972&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1n(8-10%20balanced)2d(Single-suited%20Major)4dp(Agreed%20BIT%20%5Bapologised%20when%20putting%20dummy%20down%5D)p4hppp]399|300[/hv] This hand came up on the first night of the Victorian State Teams Championships ("the Pennant") in the qualifying phase. West is a multiple state open team representative and quite a good player. West is also good friends with both North and South. Stop cards are not in use in Australia and bids above 3NT are not alerted. The 8-10 1NT range was pre-alerted in addition to being alerted by North when it came up. Nobody asked about the 4♦ bid; which was somewhat fortunate for North-South as without the intervention 4♦ would've been RKCB but they hadn't explicitly discussed whether that was off after intervention but it seems they were on the same wavelength. There was a noticable hesitation by East after the 4♦ bid and he apologised and acknowledged the break in tempo as he was putting dummy down. After winning the ♠ lead in hand and playing a ♥ to the K, declarer got trumps wrong and then claimed 10 tricks conceding a ♣ and a ♦ after which South made a tentative suggestion that he might like to have the TD look at the board, to which West represented that he had a clear 4♥ bid at teams with a mini-NT on his right and a preempt on his left. North quickly agreed with West and the board was scored-up without any involvement of the TD. If the TD had been called to adjudicate on the board, how do you think he should've ruled?

That reinforces my view that at matchpoints with a non-passed partner and a passed-hand in RHO, you just can't afford to defend 3♣ at these colours as +150, +100, +50 and -110 all rate to be very poor scores. Pass is not an LA for South.

North's BIT over the 3♣ bid conveys UI that he was contemplating some other action which could be double, could be three of his suit or could even be 3NT. The bottom line is that the BIT in all of those scenarios indicates that North is not completely void of values so it certainly make taking an action other than pass more attractive so I think we are over the first hurdle that the BIT suggests to South that bidding or doubling is a safer bet than if North had passed smoothly. The second hurdle is whether or not pass is a logical alternative for South. We are told that South is a pro playing with his client so I'd be thinking that he probably wants to play the hands whenever possible and take partner out of the cardplay equation. He's also playing matchpoints where in all likelihood 3♣ making anything from 6 to 9 tricks is going to be a bad score, so I think it's reasonable to conclude that passing-out 3♣ is not a logical alternative. I uphold the TD's ruling and EW get their deposit back. By the way - what does "nat" mean here? Is it his only way of showing a ♣ suit? Is it preemptive? Has West denied a two-suiter with ♣?

How does any UI arise when I go to explain my own bid privately to my opponents with my partner unaware of both my alert and my explanation?

An actively ethical precision pair on BBO will pre-alert that they are playing precision and will alert and describe their 1♣, 1♦ and 2♣ openings together with anything else that has an unexpected meaning; but all within reason. If you type your explantions as or immediatley after you make each alertable call there is no slowing down of the game. In practice, of course, alerting and disclosure on BBO is generally inadequate; but this poll was posted in the Laws & Rulings Forum so the response should be based on the prevailing regulations of the jurisdiction concerned (BBO) under which there hightened responsibilities to disclose what's going on given that a self-alerting regime is in place.

The OP said this was played online, so assuming it was on BBO the BBO Regulations (found under "Rules of this Site" in the Flash Version amongst other places) apply: "If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert". I think the pre-alert that they are playing Precision is sufficient to cover their 1M openings and passes thereof. If they hadn't pre-alerted that they were playing Precision, 1♠ is definately alertable as the mere fact that it is being discussed here suggests that there is some doubt.

The ambiguity arises from the fact that the verbalised line is a very unexpected line for an expert declarer to be taking, coupled with the suggestion by East that something else may have been intended. The TD needs to adjudicate on the claim as equitably under Law 70A and apply the balance of probabilities in determining the facts under Law 85A1. In finding equity on the board, he needs to get to the bottom of what line declarer was actually intending to make.

If South has the competence to execute a nosittej squeeze on the previous hand there probably needs to be a presumption that he knows what he's doing when it comes to declarer play. I would find it pretty hard to believe that his intended line at trick 1 was to take what seems to be a significantly inferior line of combining ♣J stiff or doubleton with a ♣ finesse, which seems to be about a 65% line, compared to an 80% line of combining ♣J stiff, doubleton or tripleton with the ♦ finesse; so in determining the facts pursuant to Law 85A1 the TD needs to weigh-up South's potentially self-serving statement (which may have been influenced by dummy's comments and East's eagerness for a ♦ finesse to be taken) with the evidence that South is clearly a good player unlikely to choose a 65% line ahead of an 80% line. I'd want a little bit more evidence before I made a decision about what South really intended when he made his claim statement. If South is indeed a genuine expert player, I'd be asking him quite directly why he chose such an inferior line and I'd be looking him straight in the eye as he answered. It should be fairly easy to work out if he's fibbing. I think East has been a bit naughty here too. Rather than say "I presume you mean the diamond finesse?" he should've said something like, "huh - what are you doing?" which would've seen South reveal his true intentions without external influence. Perhaps equity would suggest that North-South be awarded 7NT-1 and East-West be awarded 7NT=. At the end of the day the TD needs to work out on the balance of probabilities whether South meant ♣ finesse (in which case making) or ♦ finesse (in which case going down).

I still don't understand why people are second-guessing the facts as presented in the OP and reiterated in subsequent postings by Hanoi5 and YesHoney. The OP said: "the agreement for 2♦ was ♦ & M". Hanoi5 clarified: "DONT alerted by North as Majors". OP clarified: "2♦ bidder and his partner said at the table they discussed both possibilities (DONT and Capp) and agreed on DONT. 2♦ bidder remembered, his partner forgot". Also germane to the ruling, we were told by Hanoi5 that 3NT failed despite being in a makeable position which can only mean that sometime before North-South cashed-out, declarer got in and failed to play on ♣ which in my books is a serious error. Accordingly, East-West keep their poor table result and North-South get an adjusted score based on what would've likely happened in the auction had East-West been given a correct explanation of 2♦ and North-South not taken advantage of any UI to extricate themselves from their bidding misunderstanding (which I believe will be 2♠S-3). The side discussion about whether or not it is sensible to regulate that partnerships should know their system, perhaps belongs in the Changing Laws & Regulations forum; but in relation to the Australian regulation I posted above, one needs to understand that most of the high-level bridge in Australia is more-or-less free of system restrictions so at different points in time we have had pairs playing some pretty weird stuff which is fine under our rules, but when you get a pair playing a weird system and they don't even know it properly it is a pain in the %^&* to play againsts them. My personal view (and apparently a non-mainstream view according to Bluejak) is that at all levels players should aspire to developing their partnership agreements and understandings such that you can have a sensible game against them without having to constantly involve the TD with misexplanations. As a "should" concept it describes best practice and failure to do it would rarely attract any penalty, but players should be aware that there is a general expectation that partnerships know their system. Let me present a hypothetical example of a weekly duplicate at small club in England where a keen young pair decide that "Standard English Acol" isn't quite floating their boat so they decide to load-up their system with various complicated, but legal, conventions including relay continuations after an artifical one-level GF response to a natural 1♣ opening. The problem is, every single time their GF auctions go beyond the third round of bidding, one or both of them forgets the structure and they wind-up misinforming their opponents, create a myriad of UI situations, randomise the results, annoy the punters and consume a disproportionate amount of the TD's time. Now tell me, would a TD not be doing his job properly if he didn't sit down with these fellas and tell them that if they are going play these methods at his club they have a reasonsibility to make sure they actually know their system and that if he doesn't see a significant reduction in the TD calls he receives due to their bidding cock-ups, he's going to ask them to play something less complex?

The equivalent ABF regulation isn't so much for TDs to base rulings on, but is to give TDs the authority to tell a pair who is having an unacceptably high rate of system-forgets to either sort out their system or play something less complex. I'm not aware of any situation where a pair has actually been issued a PP or been forced to play a less complex system pursuant to this regulation, but I'm quite sure a few pairs have been given at least informal warnings to either get their act together or play something simple. Despite what bluejak maintains, I think there is a universal expectation at all levels of the game that partnerships ought to know their system. To play a system that one or both members of a partnership don't know properly is disruptive to the orderly conduct of an event and is discourteous to one's opponents. Adding to the list of "sensible" NBOs the EBU Tangerine Book states in Section 1: "One way to avoid problems is to avoid putting partner into a difficult position in the first place. Don’t think then pass when partner might have a problem, don’t sign off slowly if partner may want to bid on, and (easier said than done) don’t forget the system". (my emphasis added).

I wonder who is more offended, lamford or me? How is a Tournament Regulation such as the ABF's or ACBL's that encourages pairs to know their system going to get rid of 80% of people? Try not putting words in my mouth. hrothgar suggested that it is a requirement that players know their system; lamford queried under which law; and I opined that it's not in the laws and is more a matter of regulation and quoted some examples. I would add that the Australian regulation, which pretty much only applies to top-level PQP-type events, is a "should" (i.e. best practice but rarely penalised) so the practical effect is that if a pair playing in such events ia consistently stuffing up their agreements, the TD will have a quite chat to them to get their act together or play something more simple.

My name is Dave, not "Paul". What, pray tell, is my non-mainstream opinion on this topic? I was simply answering lamford's query as to the legal basis of hrothgar's assertion that players are required to "know their card". I'm not quite sure what Convention Disruption is, but all I'm talking about is that it makes sense, and is regulated as such in some "sensible" bridge jurisdictions, that players should know what their system is. As far as I know the ACBL is in that camp. The ACBL General Conditions of Contest include: "2. A partnership is responsible for knowing when their methods apply in probable (to be expected) auctions. A pair may be entitled to redress if their opponents did not originally have a clear understanding of when and how to use a convention that was employed." It makes perfect sense to me to regulate that players should know their system as it really isn't much fun playing against a pair that constantly have bidding misunderstandings in their complex home-grown system which just randomises things.

That would be a matter of local regulation I would expect. My Spanish isn't good enough to find the appropriate reference on the FVB website, but I assume any sensible bridge jurisdiction would have an equivalent regulation to the ABF Tournament Regulations: 5.5 A partnership’s knowledge of its system 5.5.1 A partnership should be able to explain its own system clearly. The Director may impose a procedural penalty upon any pair that consistently displays ignorance of its system and in an extreme case may require the pair to cease playing its system and revert to a more natural system for the remainder of the session. The Director shall report such a ruling to the Tournament Sub-Committee. The Tournament Sub-Committee may prohibit the partnership from playing its system in subsequent sessions and events unless and until the partnership is able to demonstrate a satisfactory knowledge of the system. 5.5.2 Should the Director consider that a pair has been damaged due to the opponents’ inability to explain their system, he/she may apply the provisions of the Code that relate to misinformation in order to provide redress and/or restore equity.

We can only work with the facts as presented which were "At the end of the hand it is explained that the agreement for 2♦ was ♦ & M". There was no suggestion that this was in dispute. My presumption would be that at the end of the hand South would've said, "pensé que nos pusimos de acuerdo para jugar DONT" and South would've said, "oh, lo siento compañero, se me olvidó". If there was doubt regarding what the North-South agreement was, I'm sure the OP would've said so.

You are right - three down looks normal. However, East-West don't stike me as the sharpest tools in the shed so I'm fairly sure they will find a way to slop a trick somewhere - perhaps West will be too scared to lead away from his ♠J9xxx at any point.

The OP said that the double was "no particular agreement" and there is no indication that it was alerted, enquired about or described. The OP said the agreement for 2♦ was ♦ & M which is an undisputed fact so this is clearly a case of MI . The explanation of the 3♣ bid in the hand diagram looks fairly tongue-in-cheek to me and looks more along the lines of "we are in a competitive auction for the partscore so I might as well get my suit into the action". Whilst it may not be the expert bid, 3♣ is far from being "wild" - it's just competing for the partscore. It would be useful to know a little bit more about East-West's style and agreements, although we are told as a fact that the double of 2♦ showing Majors was "no agreement" so it's probably quite likely that they have no idea what they are doing after 1NT intervention. What we do know is that West chose to double 2♦ holding 5-4 in the overcaller's suits and a fairly weak hand. If West had been told 2♦ was ♦ and a Major, there is every chance that he would choose pass rather than double and the Laws require us to resolve doubtful point such as this in favour of the NOS. I would most definately be adjudicating this hand on the basis that West would not have doubled a 2♦ bid with the correct explanation. With no double of 2♦ from partner, East is unlikely to bid again as he's quite marginal (potentially wild or gambling) for his 3♣ bid with the double from partner; so without any encouragement from his mate, he will surely pass throughout. I agree that South will bid 2♠, but there is no way West will double it if he's in possession of an accurate explanation of 2♦ as he would be concerned about the opponents running to a superior 3♦ contract. Quite possibly, but I was thinking the tapping defence would probably be employed allowing declarer 5 trump tricks potentially. When I get a chance I'll stick it into a double dummy solver to see what's what.

I'm still in the camp that what East-West did during the auction was somewhat anti-percentage, but not without bridge merit so I'm not going down the SEWoG path. The suggestion that East might have been able to make 3NT is interesting. I'm struggling to see a position where if North-South haven't cashed-out 3NT can fail so we appear to be in "serious error" territory for the declarer play. If declarer got in before the defence cashed-out and then "didn't try clubs" he seems to have completley abandoned all of his quite legitimate chances of making the contract which would most certainly be a "serious error" under Law 12C1(b) so for East-West, they are keeping the table result (3NTE-3 -150) For North-South, absent the UI and with East-West knowing the correct meaning of 2♦ there will be no double by West or 3♣ by East and South will clearly bid 2♠ after the pass/correct 2♥ bid by North. North will now assume South is 6-4 in the Majors and will pass 2♠ which looks to be down two after South gets tapped-off, so they get 2♠S-2 -200.