mrdct

That sounds sensible to me.

Perhaps we are just giving fairly heavy weight to the part of Law 70A that says, "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides".

[hv=pc=n&w=s42hak5dj63cak842&e=sj9763hqt94d5cqt5&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1n(15-17)2d(S%3A%20Ms%3B%20N%3A%20D+M)d(no%20agreement)2h(not%20alerted)3cp3nppp]266|200[/hv] Whilst I wouldn't bid 3NT myself, with both of RHO's suits stopped and a pretty handy holding in the suit partner freely introduced at the 3-level, I don't think it's a SEWoG. East-West were given misinformation about the 2♦ bid and north has UI from the misexplanation of it. Had East been properly informed about the meaning of 2♦ he most likely would've passed, south would still bid 2♥ under the misapprehension that North has Majors and then North is either going to pass 2♥ if that's his Major or bid 2♠. Either way, the adjustment is to NS playing in 2 of North's Major which probably won't make.

I would agree that the source of hands is generally not very important, unless there is some NBO or tournament specific regulation in play. However, my gripe here is completely different. It is nothing short of academic fraud to make up what purports to be an authoritative source or reference to support your own argument. An analogous situation would be if were take a recent ruling posting that I made such as Possible UI from a non-alert where the TD ruled against me and the general sentiment of the forum was that the TD was right, but I then represent to the forum that when I took the hand to appeal the appeals committee found in my favour and I back-up that representation with a detailed dissertation from the appeals committee presented as a direct quote filled with lots of well-expressed arguments in support of my position. The only problem is that the hand never went to appeal and the detailed dissertation was a figment of my imagination. Whilst bridge rulings and appeals don't strictly adhere to the principle of legal precedence, they are to varying degrees influenced by precedent; particularly in jurisdictions with well structured appeals processes and reporting on appeals. If people can freely run around making-up appeals committee decisions and posting them in well-respected and moderated forums such as this, there is a danger that forum users will treat such "decisions" as being in some way authoritative and will be influenced to rule in line with such decisions in similar situations. The quoting of imaginary appeals committee decisions, unless properly disclaimed as such, has no place in a discussion forum about Laws and Rulings. I appeal (excuse the pun) to the moderators to make it clear in the forum rules that it is not acceptable to insert purportedly authoritative references in support of an argument where such references have been made-up.

What is the systemic meaning of 5♣? If it's cue after ♠ had been set as trumps, south's correct bid after East's double is to pass denying ♣ control which may well result in 5♣x as the final contract.

I'm only interested in whether or not the "appeal" was constructed.

Absent UI he can do whatever he likes, but I'm guessing there is some UI going on here. If north pulled a face when 3♣ was described and/or took a long time to bid 5♣, I think south is ethically bound to bid 5♠ as any uncomfortableness on the part of north suggests a hand with ♣ only which makes pass attractive where 5♠ is clearly a logical alternative (particularly given that it's a pairs game). I would speculate that north may have some ethical problems of his own if he heard an explanation of 3♣ that doesn't coincide with what he's holding. Full hand and jurisdiction please.

I reiterate that I have no problem with people making up hypothetical situations so that we can have an interesting discussion about the related ruling, but the forum rules should require that such posting be identified as such; particularly where there is a cross-over situation of a real hand but an imaginary appeals committee which may be what we are seeing here. The way I look at this case is the OP posted an interesting ruling hand which arose at "a local club of mixed standard" that dealt with several interesting issues and with the general consensus being to allow the claim of 13 tricks for reasons well outlined earlier in the thread. The OP is on record as being of the minority view that the claim should be denied and subsequently posted a very similar hand (but with a more dramatic illustration of the concept of a suit "breaking" where slightly greater attention to the pips would be required) to reinforce his opinion on the first hand. The second posting was described as being "at a local club last night" but with a tongue-in-cheek rider of "had a surprisingly familiar ring to it" which very much makes it look like a made-up hand. No big deal, as I think it was pretty obvious to the forum users what was going on. The matter that I do find concerning is that the OP went a step further in reporting on the subsequent "appeal" on the hand, including a very well worded summary of the AC's deliberations which was represented by the OP as being a verbatim quote from what the AC wrote on the form. I've called shenanigans on that as I just find it too hard to believe that a hand from "a local club of mixed standard" involving a player of "intermediate" skill would go to appeal after the player in question had already flagged his intention to "not be coming to the club again". I'm not sure what goes on the UK, but in 25 years of playing bridge in Australia I think I've only ever seen one appeal coming from a club duplicate. If the OP can produce some evidence that this hand did in fact go to appeal and the reported judgement is factual, I will gladly donate US$100 to a charity of his choice (provided it has deductible gift recipient status in Australia so it will need to be a mainstream international charity such as the Red Cross, World Vision, etc.).

Well thanks for the lifeline David, and that was certainly my view at the time although we seem to be in the minority. What made me suspicious at the table was East's initial explantion of 2NT of the more "normal" 15-17 which West quickly corrected to "18-19". I certainly got the sense that West was indeed worried that East had forgotten this unusual agreement when she went into the tank after East's 4♥ bid. I agree that West has a very good hand, but her partner didn't cue over 3♥ so why should she expect anything better than a filthy 10-count from East absent both minor kings? After the match, I discussed the alertability of a number of other "unexpected point range" NT rebids with the ruling TD as I have a few in my own bidding system which I religiously alert, such as 1♣:1♦(showing ♥):1NT=18-19 balanced which is most certainly an unexpected point range which is affected by the agreement to accept the transfer on all 11-14 balanced hands with 2 or 3 ♥. The ruling TD (who is one of Australia's most senior directors and is on the WBF panel) opined that 1NT in that auction would not be alertable, but there's no harm in alerting it.

Fair enough on the non-alertable consensus, but please bear in mind that in Acol a 2/1 is merely 10+.

I was South as it happens and have only played against East-West a few times in my life and possibly seen them on Vugraph once or twice, but I can't recall ever seeing their 2NT rebid after a 2/1 so there not much I can add as to whether or they have previously alerted it. The TD didn't ask that question (perhaps he should have but the likely response would surely have been, "we never alert it"). Whenever a limited hand makes a slam try after partner has signed-off the auction is suspicious by definition imho. The TD didn't make any enquiries about other inferential information available to West from their other agreements as he was in the "2NT is not alertable so there is no UI" camp. No bids in the auction were alerted, but it was certainly a slow auction after the 2NT bid but I didn't allege that East's 4♥ bid was out of tempo at the time and won't now.

I think the ABF/NZ Bridge guidelines are perfectly clear. The respective ROs of Australia and New Zealand have made an election under Law 70E2 to specify "top down" where there is unstated line of play in a disputed claim. I guess a strict interpretation of the "top down" election only applies when declarer states that he is cashing the suit, but when there is only one suit left I think you are deemed to be cashing it when you claim the rest. It's a completely different kettle of fish if there are still other suits in play as a declarer unaware of an outstanding trump might have a "careless or inferior but not irrational" reason to use a low pip to cross to dummy to cash something there, or do something else that results in losing a trump, but if I understand your situation correctly you are talking about a 4-card ending holding J972 in trumps.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj93hj3d942ck6432&w=sakq65ht94daq8ca9&n=s8742hq65dt76cjt8&e=sthak872dkj53cq75&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1sp2hp2n(18-19%20bal%20not%20alerted)p3dp3hp4hp4np5hp6hppp]399|300[/hv] This hand was played in a moderately serious event in Australia without screens with all four players having international representative experience. East-West play a modified version of Acol with a 12-14 1NT opening in all positions together with opening suit lengths of 5443 and 2/1 F1; but their system card was not sufficiently detailed to disclose the point ranges of their NT rebids. At the start of the 12-board match South began giving some pre-alerts as North-South were playing a short club system with lots of transfers and few other unexpected treatments. East said, "don't bother pre-alerting" to which South said "I'm fairly sure pre-alerting is compulsory - best we ask the TD". The TD was called and he told East that just like you aren't permitted to ask your opponents to not alert during the auction, you are not permitted to ask them to not pre-alert prior to play. South proceded to give all of his side's pre-alerts and East-West gave no pre-alerts (even though they had several things in their system requiring pre-alerts including a brown sticker convention which came up during the match). There was a little bit of tension at the table after this early chest-beating by South and East, but nothing over the top. The ABF Alerting Regulations were in force, with the most relevant clauses being: 2.2.2 A natural NT bid is a bid that shows a preparedness to play in NT, and conveys no specific information about your suit holdings. 3.2.2 Two classes of natural calls must be alerted (unless they are self-alerting), viz. (a) The call is natural, but you have an agreement by which your call is forcing or non-forcing in a way that your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: •Responder’s first round jump shift on weak hands. •A non-forcing suit response by an unpassed hand to an opening suit bid (whether or not after intervention). •A pass which forces partner to take action (e.g. SWINE). (b) The call is natural, but its meaning is affected by other agreements, which your opponents are unlikely to expect. Examples: •A natural NT overcall in the direct position, which does not promise a stopper in the overcalled suit. •A jump raise of opener’s one-level bid which may be weak or pre-emptive. •A single raise of partner’s suit which may be strong or forcing e.g. 1♦ - 2♦ forcing. •The rebid in a canapé sequence where the second suit may be longer than the first. •A 1♥ opening which denies holding 4+ spades. Prior to the opening lead, South enquired about the range of the 2NT rebid and East said "15-17 balanced" which West immediately corrected to "18-19 balanced" and East apologised and said "oh sorry I forgot". South then called the TD saying that it appeared very unusual for the 2NT rebidder to make a slam try after partner's sign-off in 4♥ when she'd shown such a narrow point range. The TD asked that play continue and 6♥ duly made 12 tricks on the ♣6 lead. The TD returned to the table and South argued that East's failure to alert the unexpected point-range of the 2NT rebid gave UI to West that East might be playing her to be a bit weaker than she actual is and she used that UI to make a move after East had signed-off in 4♥. South also argued that assuming East-West follow the principle of fast arrival, West had already shown slam interest by bidding 3♥ rather than 4♥ and East did admit that they were in a game forcing auction after the 2NT bid. South also claimed that West took a long time before she bid 4NT so she was clearly contemplating passing 4♥, but East-West did not admit that the 4NT bid was slow. Questions: 1. Do you think 2NT is alertable under the Australian Alerting Regulations? 2. How would you rule?

Given that North and East are regular partners and play the multi-2♦ together, I'd be inclined to ask North how he and East play 3♣ if the CC is silent as any representation by East-West could be self-serving (intended or otherwise). The EBU system card has a very big box for responses to 2♦ right on the first page so I would presume that if it's been left blank as to what 3m means, the agreement is "undiscussed" unless East-West can produce evidence to the contrary.

I'll take that as "created" then as if it was "genuine" you surely would've said so. It's one thing to make up a hand to illustrate an interesting ruling situation, but it's quite a different thing to make up an appeals committee judgement that purports to be from a properly constituted appeals committee when in actual fact it may have been made-up. The forum rules do require that you state the jurisdiction where the matter arose. If the hand, ruling and/or appeal arose in Imaginationland, you should indicate as such. I have absolutely no problem with people posting hypothetical situations, but they should disclose that fact. I would very much like some clarity on this point from the moderators.

We need to know a little bit more about East-West's methods and competence. Do East-West play support doubles/redoubles? How many ♣ did East initially promise (i.e. are they playing Acol)? Did West have a fit showing jump available? Is East a noob? Do East-West systemically open 1st seat all-vul with 8hcp? Depending on what we learn from investigating East-West's methods, I think it's quite likely that East can be placed with 9 or 10 cards in the blacks and West with 7 or 8 so on the theory of vacant spaces if you were going to take a ♥ hook you may well choose to play West for the ♥Q. If East is a competent player there is not much that can be read into a fidget, hesitation or card replacement as there is no holding where it's right to cover the ♥J. I don't think much of declarer's line here either. With West not having lead a singleton ♣, I don't think there is any chance of ♣ being 1-7, so a ♣ exit at trick two will at the very least give you more info about the distribution on the hand, and every so often will see a trump switch depending on the standard of the game. I'll reserve judgement for the time being until I know more about what's actually going on at this table.

If you are going to post hypothetical situations they should be indicated as such and not described as "this occured at the club last night" or similar. So just to be clear, are you confirming that the appeals report you posted was in fact an actual appeals report and not something you made up to illustrate your point? Can you at least identify the jurisdiction in which this hand arose, as I'd be interested to have a look at the local regulations governing appeals and the publishing of same? As for the AC ruling, aside from being nicely laid-out and well referenced, it is even worse than the the TD ruling in several ways: not allowing the obvious dyslectic adjustment of the initial claim statement which I think has been universally accepted by posters here; and once adopting the inflexible position of the claim is "see if diamands are breaking and, if not, take a club finese" the only possible outcome is 7♠-2 as declarer will lose tricks to the ♦K and ♣J. At the risk of being accused again of being an extremist, this is one of the worst appeals committee decisions I've ever seen.

Isn't anyone concerned about East's 3♥ bid? A 3♣ response to a multi 2♦ opening may well convey, "I am pretty weak myself and want to play this in 3♣ opposite either weak M" which is a pretty common treatment in my part of the world particularly if 5-card suits are within the agreed partnership constraints for the weak two option. As East, I'd be expecting partner to hold something like a 1147 to have not made a pass/correct 2M bid or a 2NT enquiry. The UI that West thinks East is a strong two in ♦ demonstrably suggests bidding 3♥ whereas Pass may well be a logical alternative for East. Accordingly, the first thing the TD needs to do is ascertain what the systemic meaning of 3♣ is. Unless the East-West convention card says "3m F" or similar under "Responses to 2♦", I am going to presume that 3♣ was non-forcing; in which case if East had passed, South would've balanced with a double as it's obvious now that East doesn't hold the strong two anymore (he'd probably have a look at the convention card to confirm it now or possibly recollect the pre-alert of the 2♦ multi at the start of the round) and North will then bid a practical 3NT, get a ♥ or ♣ lead and make 11 tricks. I will poll a few of South's peers to confirm that they would in fact balance with a double if 3♣ came back to them, and assuming the majority do, adjust the score to NS +660. If, on the other hand, 3♣ was determined to be a forcing bid, I'm going to let the table result stand on the basis that even with the correct initial explanation of 2♦, north can't act over a natural and forcing 3♣ bid by West. The only thing North-South may have done differently is double 3NT but in possession of all of the information, including East-West's apparent misunderstanding, they chose not to.

I'm having a little bit of difficulty reconciling the emerging facts in this case; muddied further by a strikingly similar hand by the same poster a few days after the original post. I'm not a great believer in lightning striking twice and have a strong feeling that the second hand may well have been contrived by Lamford to reinforce his position on the first hand; although I'm happy to stand corrected if Lamford can produce a hand record or some other corroborating evidence that the second hand did in fact occur. As for the appeals report, despite disagreeing with the TD ruling and the AC decision, I am impressed that an appeals committee at club game would produce such a comprehensive written judgement; but I must say that I'm tempted to call shenanigans here given that there was no mention of the appeal in the earlier posts, an apparently contrived claims ruling was then posted and now an appeals report (in format and detail at least) worthy of a Bermuda Bowl final has emerged. Again, I'm more than happy to stand corrected, but can Lamford let us know exactly where this appeal took place and whether or not appeal reports in that jurisdiction go on the public record as I'd like to see a copy of it. Perhaps Lamford could let us know at least who the chair of the appeals committee was so he or she could be contacted independently to verify the accuracy of the transcription of the appeals report.

Why would that be invasive?

On this hand, it is even more clear that "clubs breaking" means "clubs breaking favourably" than your earlier post. Clubs are breaking favourably, so he won't need to fall-back on the diamond finese. Making 13 tricks.

Even if declarer was initially unaware that he held the ♣10; when the ♣J appears that would most definately focus his attention on what ♣ pips he had and unless he is an absolute noob, I can't really accept that there would be any chance that he wouldn't work out he had four guaranteed ♣ tricks at that point. The intended line of play is obviously to play ♣ from the top and if that doesn't work, take a ♦ hook. When the ♣J appears (and I think it is completely unreasonable to give any weight to the possibility of not noticing a key honour card falling when playing in a grand slam) any declarer skilled enough to know what a finesse or claim is will do a quick retake on what's going on and spot that the ♣10 is high and claim the rest of the tricks. The fact that this declarer is familiar with the technique of combining one's chances would of itself place him in the "expert" (note: not "BBO expert") category. To rule this contract as going down is one of the worst rulings I've ever seen and whether or not it mattered to the outcome of the event in question, I would be appealing. I'm not a great fan of having a sookie-fit and refusing to play at a club anymore, but I don't think I would go out of my way to play in events run by this TD.

Whether or not the next player has called is irrelevant. If the 2♠ bid was genuinely an unintended call under Law 25A1, it can be replaced with the intended 2♥ bid anytime before partner calls. Your LHO is free to change his call and whatever action he took over the unintended 2♠ bid is AI to his side but UI to your side.

All suits break in my experience. Some break poorly, some break well, some break evenly, some break unevenly and some break miraculously. The claimer just said "break", he didn't say "break evenly". Absent the qualifier "evenly", I think it's reasonable to interpret "break" as meaning "break favourably" and the ♣J coming down doubleton is most certainly a favourable break on this hand. The TD in this case needs to follow the steps in Law 70, including adjudicating as equitably as he can, and assuming he determines that the claimer was just having a bout of dyslexia and misspoke ♣ and ♦ the claim statement can quite reasonably be interpreted as "if clubs don't come home for four tricks, I'll fall back on the diamond finesse". The TD is obliged to hear the opponents' objection to the claim, but is allowed to consider other factors. In this case I think the opponents' objections strengthen the claimer's position as the opponents through suggesting a result of one down have conceded the dyslexia point as if ♦ get test first and then a ♣ finesse is taken the result will be two down. Accordingly, the only line consistent with the clarified claim statement is cash ♣ from the top and once the ♣J appears 13 tricks are unavoidable.

Do the Israeli Screen Regulations have a presumption of no hesitation if attention is first drawn to the BIT from the wrong side of the screen? If so, if South first drew attention to the BIT and EW don't admit that there was a BIT, the TD must determine the facts as if there was no BIT. Assuming the BIT is an established fact, I think the ruling is quite easy to wind it back to 5♥ as 6♥ is suggested by the BIT and pass is clearly a logicial alternative. If the BIT is not an established fact, we then need to look at the audible "0-3" comment and determine that fact on the balance of probabilities. If East denies hearing it, I'm generally reluctant to call anyone a liar and will determine the facts as if he didn't hear it unless North says that it was clearly audible in which case I'll need to look these dudes in the eye and work out who is fibbing. The 6♥ bid itself is a bit suspect and almost of itself suggests that East was in possession of some UI so I would give that some weight in determining the balance of probabilities. Michael does say, however, that the audibleness of the explanation was "not confirmed", so I think this will come down to whether or the BIT was called by North or South or otherwise admitted by EW. I would only issue a PP for the non-written explanation if the player was a repeat offender as failure to write an explanation is merely a breach of correct procedure but is not something that would ordinarily be penalised.