mrdct

I don't understand the rationale for the USBF approach. The screen is meant to be this magical barrier through which there is no communication other than legal bids and calls for cards from dummy. If there have been differing alerts and explanations, the non-offending side are always well protected and will usually be assumed to have found the winning play had they been correctly informed. The USBF approach seems to be a bit of a time-waster and also opens-up a can of worms from a UI perspective.

In my experience, whenever there has been a misinterpretation of a verbal explanation the TD will almost always determine the facts in favour of the person who misheard the mumblings. In other words, if you choose to not write down your explanations you are in breach of the regulations and the receiver of the explanation will be treated as the non-offending side in resolving "he said - she said" facts.

I'm not sure that I agree with any of the above. We need to know what the bidding box regulations are in your jurisdiction. Bidding box regulations vary significantly from one place to another and will need to be consulted to determine whether or not the 2nd 1♣ bid was in fact a bid pursuant to those regulations. It's quite possible, and would usually be the case in my country, that an extraction of the 1♣ card from the box would not be treated as a bid and could be put back in the box a substituted with whatever (including double) with the only implication being some UI to partner that you fiddled with a bidding card.

Screen regulations in all jurisdictions modify several of the laws which were written with face-to-face bridge in mind. Most screen regulations more-or-less conform to the WBF Screen Regulations which are set out in Clause 25 of the WBF General Condiitons of Contest. Quite explictly under GCC25.4(a)(ii) "if a player infringes the law and, inadvertently (otherwise Law 23 may apply), the irregularity is passed through the screen by his screenmate the latter has accepted the action on behalf of his side in situations where the laws permit LHO to accept it".

No more UI than he already has from the mere fact that partner isn't describing the meaning of 4♦ confidently and accurately.

Fails at point 2 as the hesitation doesn't suggest any particular action by South. All the hesitation suggests is that the 3♦ bidder was considering other actions such as pass, 2NT, 3♠ or 3NT - but who knows which. I believe South is completely free to bid whatever he likes and 3NT looks pretty obvious to me and even if it were relevant no other potential bids, particualrly pass, spring to mind.

I'm a little bit confused. Can you tell us who was North, South, East & West (perhaps with the full hand diagram and auction)? It seems that the tray may have been moved by East or West which is incorrect procedure and we may not, therefore, have a situation of a player accepting an IB on his sides behalf. However, we now seem to have an entirely different problem as if the 2♥ bid was made under a misapprehension that it was in response to a 2♦ opening because the bidding cards weren't properly arranged on the tray, that is probably the fault of North-South who are generally responsibly for ensuring that the tray goes back and forth with all of the bids intact. So I think it's now even more important to establish which way the 2♠/2♥/2♠ bidders were sitting. Also, what were the alerts on your side of the screen?

I'm not sure of the legal basis for it, but when this sort of situation has come up for me as a player I respond "it's undiscussed, but if we get the director over he might consent to partner leaving the table so I can elaborate on related agreements without giving too much UI away".

Of course a pass or correct response is artifical. It does not convey a willingness to play in the denomination named unless partner happens to hold length in that suit.

I would presume 2♥ to be conventional as it is most likely a pass/correct response to a two-suited opening.

The bidding tray is only allowed to be moved by North and South. We are told that the insufficient bidder's screenmate pushed the tray through, so the insufficient bidder is either sitting East or West. Accordingly, we know that the tray has been pushed through by the insufficient bidder's RHO. The insufficent bidder's LHO never got an oportunity to express his wishes as to accepting the IB as his partner has already done it for him. It may very well have beeen against the wishes of the IB's LHO.

Sadly, it is all too common with leads out of turn and bids out of turn for TDs (particularly amateur TDs) for the TD's opening gambit to be simply to ask the offender's LHO, "do you want to accept it in which case everything will proceed normally" and not go into all of the implications and ramifications of non-acceptance, several of which would require consulting the Laws for all but the most well-read TDs. I'm very much an amateur TD myself and don't know the Laws off by heart, so what I usually add is "if you don't accept it there will be implications for the offending side which could include bidding and/or lead restrictions particularly if <bid X> is artificial but I'd need to look that up"

I don't think there would be any bridge jurisdiction where a 1♠ response to a 1♣ opening showing 5-8hcp was not alertable so it is most definately an infraction by the 1♣ opener to have not alerted the 1♠ bid. Accordingly this is a Law 21B1(a) situation: As your partner hasn't called yet, I would allow you to replace your pass with a 1♠ bid and have the auction continue from there. The plot thickens though as Law 29C now comes into play as the call out of rotation was artificial. Perhaps a shortcoming in the Laws, but where the call out of rotation was artificial the basis on which partner will be barred for one round or the entire auction is whether or not your LHO repeated the denomination "specified" rather than "named". This becomes quite awkward if 1♠ only showed points not any suit. As any bid by LHO is going to be in a denomination other than the one (i.e. none) specified by the out of rotation 1♠ bid, I'm inclined to force RHO to pass for the rest of the auction. As an aside, I think the TD has really failed badly here. It is not good enough to simply ask your partner if he wants to accept the call out of rotation - the TD must explain to the table the full implications of accepting and not accepting the bid, including the potential restrictions on the 1♣ opener that may apply. To properly explain these implications, the TD should have enquired himself as to whether or not 1♠ was conventional; particularly in this day and age where many expert partnership play a 1♠ response to a 1♣ opening as artificial (typically denying a major unless GF).

That changes things a little bit, including making my 17-card ♦ suit layout more plausible. Now I cash 3♠, 2♥ and 2♣ and hook the ♦ which at least gives me a make when RHO has a 3262, but that's the only layout with ♦KQ offside I can safely guard against without risking my contract on cold layouts such as split ♦ honours or KQ onside. At the table you might have a look at your opponent's carding and sniff something else out and some knowledge of how honest their count is might be relevant.

What - no 17-card ♦ suits where you come from?

You should cash two tops in each suit outside of ♦ and then run the ♦9 keeping an entry in hand to repeat the ♦ hook just in case RHO is 2272 with ♦KQxxxxx offside. There are a whole bunch of other ♦KQ offside situations you can cater for double-dummy, but these could put a cold contract at risk.

It's more relevant for playing without screens, but I'm interested in whether or not accepting an IB due to not paying attention could be considered a "wild or gambling action" under Law 12C1(b) and thereby negate the NOS' right to a second chance with Law 27D. I'm inclined to think that accepting an IB and then passing is sufficiently weird to be classed as "wild or gambling" as 99.99% of the time when a choice is made to accept an IB, it is so you can get a bid in yourself at lower level than you might otherwise need to. However, in this case with screens it is North who pushed the tray through, and thereby accepted the IB on South's behalf, so the subsequent pass by South irrelevant. Similar to Rossoneri, I can't really see anything in the current Laws pertaining to insufficient bids that are favourable to the OS and Law 27D provides a good safety net for the NOS when the OS happens to land on their feet.

The robots never play double dummy (that would be cheating). My understanding is that the play methodology is to generate a largish number of hands to the current position which are consistent with the play thus far, work out the best double dummy card to play on each of them and then choose the card with the highest frequency.

Whilst not "barring" you from going into the tank in such circumstances, Law 73D1 most certainly requires players to be "particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side" and Law 73F gives the NOS protection if they incorrectly draw an inference from the dodgy tank. If I found myself in this situation, I would announce to the table that I have the ♣K to protect myself as it's quite foreseeable that either opponent could now miscount the location of the points by placing the ♣K in their respective partners' hands. This reminds me of an appeals case from a Bermuda Bowl years ago when Zia was declaring and Meckstroth, his LHO, nodded-off mid hand when Zia was in a very long tank working out how to play something like ♥xx opposite ♥KJxx for one loser. I think Meckstroth held Qx or Qxx and when Zia eventually lead a ♥ Meckstroth did nothing for a few moments and then realised it was his turn to play, said "sorry" and played a low ♥. Zia apparently concluded that the "sorry" comment could only be consistent with Ax or Axx, played K and went one down. I've never seen the appeals report, but if I recall correctly, the TD ruled table result stands but the appeals committee gave Zia his contract. Apologies if I have any of those details wrong, but the point is that the NOS does have a quite a bit of protection when opponents make extraneous comments, gestures and tempos which are not actually consistent with what they are holding.

That's the key point here. It wasn't the insufficient bidder's LHO who foolishly accepted the IB, it was his dopey partner who pushed the tray through without realising that an IB had been made. As noted, under the screen regulations in force this action constituted acceptance of the IB on behalf of the NOS, the auction proceeds normally and West is perfectly entitled to use the additional space that his opponents have chosen to give him. Working out whether or not to accept an IB is a bridge skill like anything else where you need to make an assessment about whether or not you want to accept an IB. I don't think there is anything harsh about that and in the event that the irregularity leads to a good score for the OS, Law 27D allows the score to be adjusted to what would've/could've/should've happened without the irregularity. Screens make it a bit trickier as IBs will generally only pass through the screen where there has been a lack of attention on the other side of the screen so nobody is actually making an assessment about whether or not it's to their advantage to accept an IB. Without screens, I can think of very few hands where the 2♥ bidder's LHO would want to accept the IB; particularly as not accepting the IB could really muddy the waters for the OS when the IB and/or the replacement bid have conventional meanings (in this case both 2♥ and 3♥ could be p/c).

I disagree. Full text of Law 20F1-3: If I'm defending and forgot what the declaring side's auction was, I simply need to say, "please give me an explanation of your auction". It would be virtually impossible for the declaring side to answer that question without restating the auction. The qualifier in Law 20F3 clearly contemplates, if not encourages, such requests to be for the entire auction given the potential extraneous information implications of asking about single calls.

On these facts South certainly has an obligation to correct the misexplanation immediately, but I don't see how that would give West the opportunity to wind-back his final pass and replace it with a double as his final pass wasn't influenced in any way by a mis/non-alert or misexplanation. The fact that North bid 4♥ apparently thinking that South was strong is AI to West which may influence his opening lead selection. Accordingly, 1 = no; 2 = only to the extent to which a superior defence may have been found if South had corrected North's misexplanation.

The problem here is that your wording doesn't include a direction to East to not act until South has exercised her option. Saying "I don't want a club" is not exercising her option so East has lead the ♥ prematurely.

I don't see why not, but it would come down to what the relevant regulations say for the event you are playing in. It would certainly make sense to keep the deposit if the appeals committee replaces the director's ruling with an adjusted score that is even more unfavourable for the appealing side. Personally I think appeals deposits are stupid as they do not act as a deterrent for frivilous appeals. A much better idea is to issue AWM penalties in VPs or imps.

I don't think East's experience level is relevant. South saying "I want a club" is not exercising one of the options made available to her by the director so the TD should tell her again what her choice are. The comment, however, is AI to the defence so either defender can use that info. East's ♥ becomes a major penalty card due to Law 50D2 "When a defender has the lead while his partner has a major penalty card, he may not lead until declarer has stated which of the options below is selected (if the defender leads prematurely, he is subject to rectification under Law 49)". I assume declarer will now demand a ♠ lead from East, which will get interesting if West wins the trick as now South can forbid a ♥ lead! A residual concern here, however, is whether or not the TD properly explained to the table both what South's options were and that East shall not lead until South has exercised one of those options. If the TD didn't explain things properly, we might have a Law 82B or 82C situation and need to find some sort of equitable solution but we can't really do that without seeing the entire hand.