mrdct

I think pass by West over 5♠xx is a logical alternative. for which the test is pretty mild iirc - something like "in his contemplations". The ruling is still a bit complex after that as there is surely a good chance that East will rip the redouble himself at least some proportion of the time. Also, I think South's redouble should probably be treated as a SEWOG as it's basically telling the opps to sacrifice in 6♥ which seems to be a serious error unrelated to the possible infraction of West taking advantage of the UI. If weighted rulings are allowed in the jurisdiction (sorry I can't remember what the situation is in the EBU on that) I'm going let NS keep the table result and give EW something like 50/50 table results and 5♠Sxx=. That might actually result in both teams losing the match, which I imagine means a a close loser from another part of the bracket survives to the next round - but need to see what the regs say about that.

The landscape option is a massive improvement. Top of my request list now is other room result when kibitzing/vugraph; perhaps only available in landscape given the extra real estate.

We probably need to know the jurisdiction as bidding box procedures are governed by local regulations. In some places, for example, it is correct procedure to leave the bidding card indicating the final contract on the table throughout the play. In Australia, I don't think 1♠ on the final board would be considered a "made call" as it hasn't been "removed from the bidding box and held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or maintained in such a position as to indicate that the call has been made" during the auction period (n.b. "during the auction period" is not actually in the regulations, but I think it's implied). I would then turn to East's double which we may be able to treat as an "unintended call" under Law 25A in which case it is withdrawn, as is South's rebouble, and East replaces the double with a legal call and everything proceeds. East's attempted double is AI for NS and UI for EW. Similarly, South's attempted redouble is AI for NS and UI for EW.

We wouldn't necessarily be booked for a bad score with opener likely to rebid 1NT is he doesn't have a ♠ suit himself and we should be able to scramble to our best fit if the opps smell blood. There might be merit in playing our weak NT escape mechanism if the 1♥ overcaller doubles 1NT which is another thing I'll need to clarify with my partner.

I agree with Chris that 1 & 6 are no-nos, but I think you also ned to consider whether or not Person A has a good track record of contributing to sensible AC decisions in spite of perceived or actual conflicts, big or small, and the availability of other suitable AC members.

As it happens, I was South and I whilst many non-complimentary words have been used over the years to describe my bidding style, "wimp" and "wuss" haven't made the list. I don't think "assume that the players will play bridge" has any basis in law when UI comes into the picture. West has produced UI suggesting that she holds more values than East is suggesting and East has produced UI that he's bidding as if West has shown both minors with less than an opening hand. The TD's considerations in such circumstances can't be just assuming everyone will play bridge as there can be all manner of LA constraints to apply. The TD ruled that there was MI in relation to the explanation of 2♣ with the TD suggesting that East should have said something like "against a normal weak NT this would show a single-suiter, but other than agreeing that double shows an opening hand, we have no agreements about any other variations to our defence to 1NT when it's 8-10". The TD adjusted the score to North-South making 3♦ on the basis that absent the MI, North-South would've competed to 3♦ and the UI from East's comments would constrain West from bidding 4♣ as pass would be an action at least somewhere in her considerations. Whilst weighted ruling are allowed in Australia they are extremely rare; possibly due to the hassle they create for scorers and in this case the TD was also the scorer! East then got a tad angry and said he was going to appeal, but didn't end up doing so.

With or without the pass/dbl inversion, we play the Swedish-style of transfer acceptance whereby accepting the transfer shows 11-14 balanced with 2-3 ♠. With 11-14 and 4♠ you bid 2♠ and with 18-19 balanced you bid 1NT. The 1♣ opener can't have 15-17 balanced (he would've opened 1NT).

In our pre-alert we do say any intervention below 1♠ including double, but I agree it would be better disclosure to cover-off on the redouble situation. The 1♣:(dbl):redbl auction hasn't come up yet, but I think the most likely hand will be 0-5hcp as hands interested in playing in 2♣xx would bid 1NT (good ♣ raise and F1), but the redoubler could just be waiting to see how the auction develops with a wide variety of hands. It could be an awkward position for opener though, but we would play 1♦ by opener now as 11-14 balanced. Bear in mind our 1♣ opening is 2+♣ being either natural with ♣ or balanced 11-14 or 18-19. As for our experience with it, it's only come up a few times and not against any particularly strong opponents. My sense is the advantage is unfamiliarity (which is only a legit strategy if you properly pre-alert) and taking away 4th seat's ability to double when you've shown a suit with pass.

Hang on, in the only documented instance where that transaction took place it actually worked out very well for the recipient of the magic beans when he scored a hen that lays golden eggs!

I can't remember which pair it was (I think they were French) but I saw on vugraph from Lille an interesting treatment of inverting the meaning of pass and double after low level intervention within what is increasing becoming a standard expert treatment of playing transfers after one-level intervention. I started playing this method with my regular partner, applying it only where the opponents double or overcall at or below the level of 1♥, e.g: 1♣:(dbl): pass=4+♦, 1♦=4+♥, 1♥=4+♠, 1♠=8-10bal or 11+ no clear bid, 1NT=good ♣ raise, 2♣=bad ♣ raise. This leaves double as waiting bid of sorts which is either a hand too weak to show its suit (<6hcp or so) or a hand that would traditionally have made a trap-pass. We've been playing it for a few weeks now and it all seems to work OK within our general structure. We pre-alert it along the lines of, "after intervention below the level of 1♠, including double, we use pass to show the next suit up and double as a waiting bid, generally a hand that traditionally would've passed". I'm interested in people's thoughts on the merits or otherwise of this treatment.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt32h72dkqjt3ct9&w=sk5haj3d2cakqj854&n=sa84hqt84da9876c7&e=sj976hk965d54c632&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1n(8-10%20balanced)2c(!)ppp&p=c7c2c9cjcad6c3ctd2d7d4dth7hjhqhkd5djcqd8hah4h5h2h3hth6d3]399|300[/hv] This hand came up on board 6 of an 8-board match of a country congress swiss teams event. NS were playing a short club system with a few gadgets including an 8-10 1NT opening 1st/2nd seat favourable and gave thorough pre-alerts at the start of the match. Under ABF System Regulations, an 8-10 1NT range is legal within all system classifications, but a pre-alert is required due to its unexpected nature. When told of the mini-NT, East (a bridge pro) told his partner that against the mini-NT they should double with any opening hand. East alerted 2♣ and North enquired. East said, "We've agreed to double with any opening hand so this shows both minors with less than an opening hand". West expressed some confusion and/or disagreement with the explanation with a somewhat startled look and a bit of a head shake. After North's pass, East commented "Well, I have to bid according to the agreement here" and passed. The EW convention card says that 2♣ vs 1NT is any single-suiter, but by a passed hand is both minors. After the hand, West opined that just because we are using double to show an opening hand doesn't mean we don't play our usual defence to 1NT to which East said, "Yeah, fair enough". North called the TD suggesting that had he been told 2♣ was a single-suiter, he would've competed with 2♦ and quite probably bought the contract in 3♦ making 9 tricks. East had a bit of a whinge that they've never played against a mini-NT before and didn't have adequate opportunity to prepare. How do you rule?

It is illegal to have a partnership agreement as to the meaning of an insufficient bid so it's not clear to me how you could assume 2D was a transfer H. It's kind of moot anyway, as the first thing you are going to do when partner bids insufficiently is call the TD.

I'm going to force West to bid 2♥ and then I need to know what East holds to predict what might happen after that.

I think I'll start off with ♠A and another with a view to losing 1♠ and 1♥ but still retain a chance to cope with trumps 3-0 onside. I initially thought I'd duck a ♠ first, but then I could potentially lose an unnecessary trump trick if ♠ are 5-1.

Another way of looking at this is that the 1st ♣ finesse is for the contract and the 2nd ♣ finesse is for the overtrick. So when declarer says he will take a ♣ finesse for the overtrick he can only be referring to taking a ♣ finesse after he's wrapped-up his 12 tricks by successfully running the ♣J - i.e. the 2nd ♣ finesse which will fail whenever East has ducked.

I'm going to rule one down. In these situations the benefit of any doubt is resolved in favour of the non-claiming side (Law 70A). If declarer's intent was to try the finesse only once and secure his 12 tricks, he should've said so. Declarer quite possibly didn't think things through when he made his claim and to let him succeed would deny East the opportunity to find a clever duck; which experience shows will work quite a lot of the time as many players of pretty much all standards have a mindset of "if the finesse works once chances are it will work again". It's not entirely clear that repeating the ♣ finesse at IMPs is the wrong play anyway. We are all taught to guarantee our contracts at IMPs; but we also observe many major championships being won or lost by an IMP so going for overtricks perhaps isn't a silly as some may think. The fact that declarer's claim statement explicitly refers to an attempt to make an overtrick rather than a safe line to guarantee 12 tricks makes me think that declarer did have the overtrick on his mind. It's obviously hard to assess the odds at the table, but if the risk of going off in your cold slam to make an overtrick is say, less than 3%, then you should probably do it as in the long run you will be ahead. This is well within the circumstance contemplated by Law 70D1 as there is clearly an alternative normal (includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved) line of play that would be less successful that is embranced in the original claim statement.

That's interesting, so HUM systems designed to enhance constructive bidding are OK over there?

Well in that case I think the explanation of “any 2-suited hand willing to compete to level 3” is probably a misexplanation given the omission of all of that additional information which is probably of some interest to the opps. I don't care what defence you play against artificial openings, provided you disclose what you are doing properly. When you talk about luring your opponents into a trap, that smells like trying to play a game of not giving your opponents full disclosure which is not bridge.

Under existing augmentation rules in Australia, when a team-of-four wins the trials or a pair withdraws from a winning team-of-six, the winners actually need to provide a ranked short-list of eligible pairs (usually pairs from the semi-finals) to the ABF who are the ones who actually make the choice, but they give heavy weight to the preferences of the winning team. The only way of being certain of selection is to win the trials (even then technically the ABF does have a veto right to refuse to ratify the team but I don't believe they have even done so). Of the top pairs in Australia who would be in such a position of confidence that they would honestly believe they would be automatically appended to the team if they lost in the trials, I would be absolutely staggered if any of them would even dream of doing such a heinous things as not play at their absolute best. It sounds like a very good way to not get hired again. Mbodell's scenario is adequately controlled by the ABF's right of veto.

I'd be really surprised if a professional pair deliberately played below their best with a view to losing the trials and then getting appended to an all-expert foursome; particularly if they are on a sponsored team with bonuses for winning the trials. I think the more likely scenario is that an all-expert foursome enter the trials hoping that they can win it and then strengthen their team by adding a gun pair that was playing pro in the trials.

On the "would this constitute misinformation" question, I would consider the following: 1. Does the word "any" in the explanation "any two-suiter" contemplate one of the suits being opener's suit? My gut feeling is that it does, but it wouldn't hurt to explicitly say so and if we were in a jurisdiction where the meaning of "any" in that context may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players, I think the burden of disclosure would generally be greater. 2. Does a 4-4 or 7-4 fall within the meaning of a two-suiter? I think it does, but again it would not hurt to say something like "at least 4+/4+ in any two suits which may include ♠". I can't see a lot of merit in this counter-measure to a canape transfer opening. Personally, I play 1♠ as natural, dbl as takeout of ♠, 2♠ as ♥ & minor, 2NT as minors and the rest natural. When the opps have already introduced their major and a limited range, I think it's more frequently to your advantage to to describe your hand not muddy the waters. If an auction goes (1♥):2♦:(4♠) how is partner meant to work-out whether or he's got a 10-card fit with one of your suits for a potential save?

1. I assume 2♠ is pass/correct implying a willingness to play at the 3-level if your suit isn't ♠, so you should just proceed as if that's what partner has shown, with or without RHO changing his call if allowed to by the TD. Your partner's initial misexplnation of 2♣ is UI and you are not privy to the fact that his 2♠ bid was simply preferencing to ♠. Assuming you hold a single-suiter with ♦ and partner has said "I want to compete at least to the three level if your suit is not ♠" I can't think of any alternative but to bid 3♦ unless you had overcalled particularly light or on a particularly poor suit. 2. It would be useful to see the full hand, but the UI you have demonstrably suggests some action over the double where pass seems a logical alternative so I'd be winding this back to whatever result emerges from 3♠x on that basis alone (although if it happens to be cold or a good save I'd look at other remedies for the NOS). As for the 4♥ bid by your partner, it's kind of moot but it looks like he got a wake-up call from either or both of the double and the 4♣ bid which are both AI so I think 4♥ would probably be OK. It's one of those situations where the "what would've happened with screens?" or "what would've happen if no explanations were sought or given?" tests are possibly applicable. I think you need to play something less complex over the opponents' 1NT with this particular partner :)

In Australia, ignorance of the alert regulations is quite often successfully used as an excuse for inadequate disclosure. The concept is touched-on in the ABF Alerting Regulations: 11.1 Tournament Directors will not allow players to manipulate these Regulations to their advantage. For example, opponents must be allowed enough time to alert; a speedy action out of tempo followed by a claim for a late alert will receive little sympathy. Likewise, experienced players claiming damage through a technical failure to alert will need to present a strong case. (my emphasis added) When you are worried about potentially generating UI for partner and/or AI tells for declarer, a nonchalant "was everything natural?" or "can you explain the whole auction please?" by the guy on lead would rarely impart anything that could be reasonably inferred, particularly if you are in the habit of asking such a question whenever you are on the opening lead.

I opened 4♠, but I contemplated each of: pass: Would enable me to show a 2-suiter, but risks the auction being at 5-level at my next turn to bid; 1♠: Seems a normal action, but feels like it will be too easy for the opps to get in; 1♣: Has the advantage of being able to pattern out a 7-6 (albeit the wrong way around) to better position partner to evaluate red-suit wastage; 4♠: This is what I actually chose to open, thinking that some preemption was necessary and I need very little from partner to make it. Rightly or wrongly, my partner pulled out 4NT as he thought surely some of these goodies will be working cards if South has a couple of Aces. I responded 5♣ (1 or 4) and partner signed-off in 5♠, fortunately completely in tempo as I might have had some LA constraints if 5♠ had been slow. I now started to think about what sort of hands partner would bid 4NT on. In an attempt to run some simulations on the prospects of slam making I started to think that there were plenty of hands with which slam would be cold or at least have some play, so I bid 6♠. I should've pointed out that this was a teams match in a regional Grand National Teams qualifier against a team unlikely to be bidding slams unless entirely obvious, and perhaps this should've dissuaded me. I got the ♠9 lead and eliminated the possibility of the ♠K being onside so flew ace. I had an option at this point to protect against some 4-1 ♣ break by ruffing a ♣, but that was going to be a disaster if East had ♠Kxx and ♣x so I gave up on that plan and ruffed a low ♥, exited the ♠Q with West pitching a low ♦, ruffed East's ♦ (no diamonds either parter?!) and then ran trumps down to my last one. Nobody pitched any ♣, so now I was faced with the decision about whether to play for the ♣J coming down or play for West to hold ♣Jxxx which seemed plausible with his stiff ♠. Fortuately I got it right and cashed the ♣ from the top.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqjt8743hdcaqt953&w=s9ha8632da7542c64&n=sa2hkqt4dkt986ck2&e=sk65hj975dqj3cj87&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p]399|300[/hv] I held the South hand yesterday and managed to stumble into a making 6♠ contract off three key-cards. Before I reveal our somewhat inelegant auction, I'm keen to hear people's views on what South should be doing with this monster at All-Vul and East a pased-hand. The play was kind of interesting too as I came quite close to playing West for ♣Jxxx due to his stiff ♠ and no ♣ pitch on the run of the trumps, but rightly or wrongly I eventually played for ♣ to be breaking.