mrdct

If 4♥ promises a void ♥ and first round control in every suit and some extras, then I guess pass of 4♠ would be a logical alternative; but I don't know of anyone who plays it that way. The slow 4♠ suggests that West was contemplating other actions which could be anything from 4NT to 6♦. Some of those alternatives suggest extra values and slam interest, but it could be that West is simply stuck for a bid. In this sort of auction I wouldn't really expect the tray to come back quickly anyway so there may not be too much to read into the tempo at all. In any case, I don't think pass by East is a LA and 5♣ wouldn't be in my considerations at all as I have no reason to believe we have a ♣ fit. If they'd consulted a qualified appeals adviser and were advised not to appeal; otherwise I think an AWM penalty is warranted as moving over 4♠ seems pretty clear-cut for me with East's hand where slam must be pretty good opposite a GF.

There was a time (about 10 or so years ago) when Australia had a regulation for weak twos whereby systemically they needed to conform to the Rule of 15 whereby the length of your two longest suits plus your high-card points needed to be at least 15 and you simply weren't allowed to have a partnership agreement to open a weak two with anything less. When this rule was introduced my usual partnership agreeement for non-vul weak twos was "5+ cards 0-9hcp", but that was no longer a legal agreement so I had to change to "less than an opening hand but conforming to the Rule of 15". During the tenure of the Rule of 15, most players continued to employ "hand evaluation" and open hands from time to time which didn't conform to the Rule of 15 (but would never have a partnership agreement to do so of course) and eventually the regulators in Australia came to their senses and abandoned the Rule of 15, but I'm not sure when. There was an interesting appeal from the New South Wales state team trials in 2003 where the Rule of 15 was mentioned in the obiter dictum in relation to a first seat favourable weak two opening on: [hv=pc=n&w=skj9874ht96d2c652]133|100[/hv] I think the ABF scrapped the Rule of 15 not long after and today you are allowed to have any agreement you like for your weak twos; however, principles of full disclosure still apply and if your system card says 6-10hcp and your partnership agreement is to open on less when favourable, your are required to disclose that to your opponents. I think on the hand from the 2003 NSWBA appeal, it is such a blindingly obvious weak two that I can't imagine anyone ever getting into trouble with a 6-10hcp agreement and similarly for the hand in the OP, if you add the distributional points you get to 6 easily enough although I think I'd have a mild word to East-West about proper disclosure and ask that they make sure that their CC properly reflects their partnership understanding of the requirements for a weak two - especially at favourable vul. I personally had a more extreme example that had a ruling and appeal back in the 2006 Australian National Open Teams where I opening 2♥ (described on the CC as "weak 6-10, can be 5 cards and shaded values nv") first seat favourable with: [hv=pc=n&s=s8764h87543d86ck4]133|100[/hv] The opponents had an auction with several hesitations, questions out of turn and gratuitous comments mid-auction including "if I'd known it could be that weak I would've doubled" and bid to a game which the TD took away from them but the appeals committee gave it back to them on the basis of inadequate disclosure, suggesting that if our partnership agreement is to open weak twos on such hands the bid should be alerted. From that day since I always alert weak twos and give the opponents a bit of a run-down on our partnership preempting style.

In both cases I rule down one. In the initial scenario, he could change the ♥10 to the ♦J if it was an unintended play and he did so without pause for thought (Law 45C4b). However, on the facts presented it was an intended play based on a misapprehension that the previous trick hadn't been ruffed that was reinforced by his attempted concession of a trump. In the second scenario, I don't buy it - if he was claiming he wouldn't have played the ♥10, he would've faced his hand or otherwise indicate he was ruffing the ♣K and taking the last trick with dummy's ♥A.

But then it turns out that I didn't read their cc properly and the 1♦ overcall is natural at this particular vul and now I've used my "vs artificial 1♦ defence" and completely misrepresented my hand. Much as I like to think that I know my opponents' system back-to-front, all of the nuances are rarely fully set-out on the cc. I think I'm completely entitled to treat any non-alerted call as non-alertable irrespective of my knowledge of my opponents' methods. Am I allowed to have a meta agreement with my partner that any non-alerted call by the opponents will be treated as a non-alertable call (usually natural depending on the jurisdiction) for the purposes of our competitive auction agreeements?

If there is a non-alerted 1♦ overcall and I happen to have looked at their convention card or otherwise know that they play it as artificial, I'm clearly precluded from asking about it for partner's benefit and, as noted above, it would be illegal communication with partner lf if I enquired so to establish that the bid I'm about to make is our "versus artificial 1♦ defence" rather than "versus natural 1♦ defence". Given that I'm not allowed to ask, surely I have to proceed as if it's natural (even though I know it's not) and call the TD later if there's a belated alert or I'm otherwise damaged.

This is at the heart of why I raised this thread in the first place with my fundamental question being when a suit holding by a player is AI to one side and UI to the other, should subsequent actions by the non-offending side be described based on the additional information they alone are privy to or be expressed more vaguely around what the meaning would be absent the UI that the offending side has. In this particular scenario, if I was West I would describe the hypothetical 4♥ bid as "we haven't discussed this particular auction but we generally play jumps to the 4-level in a new suit when neither of us have previously bid as a suggestion to play there" but I wouldn't make any comment about East's likely ♥ length and if pressed on the issue say something like "East would expect to have enough ♥ between us for 4♥ to be either profitable save or a viable contract". When it comes to the rest of the auction and the play, I believe North-South would have an obligation to play East for 8 or 9 ♥ until such time it becomes obvious that he doesn't. West would probably lead the ♥10 to help maintain the illusion.

If Kxxx is sitting over dummy there is every chance partner needs count here, but we'd need to see the full hand and auction.

At the table, the TD gave clear directions to South prior to the opening lead that in the play of the hand she cannot choose from amongst LAs any line suggested by the UI that West has ♥ length. I've got no idea why South chose to bail-out in 4♠ but she might have been worried about being constrained into take a losing line in a potential 6♠ contract and just wanted to take a safe plus. As mycroft observed, there aren't really any issues to the play here that were informed by the UI, but it would've been really interesting if there were. If East had bid 4♥, South still has to disregard the UI about West holding ♥ and would probably need to assume that East is playing funny-buggers with a hand full of ♥ hoping to get doubled. In this particular case, I would've though that South would've been giving some consideration to doubling 4♥, particularly given that she didn't make a slam try. Not that this situation arises all that often, but as a general strategy I'm fairly sure that if the TD gives you an option to change your call after a delayed alert the winning strategy is to change your call to pass unless there a very good reason not to due to the upside of getting lead penalties if our side declares and placing UI constraints on the opponents for the rest of the hand.

Perhaps declarer would've been better off asking a more specific question such as "in your partnership experience, when holding Kxxx under an entryless AQJ10 in dummy, would your partner tend to give false count or true count?". Another twist here is who you ought to be directing your question to. Law 20F2 tells us that in relation to carding, explanations should be given by the partner of the player whose action is being explained which is sometimes a little bit ambiguous when you have two opponents following suit and/or discarding. When I'm interested in my opponents' carding what I usually try to do, if the tempo of the hand allows it, is defer any question until as late as possible and then ask a for a general description of their entire carding regime from the player who looks more competent and/or honest. I try to avoid like the plague asking "what are you discards?" immediately after someone has discarded something unless I really need know right then and there. In this case I'm probably most interested in my LHO's view of the world so I'd probably be asking him about their general partnership approach to falsecarding and then maybe drill down on the specific relevant holding of Kxxx with a question to RHO.

In the 1st hand in the OP, the choice of 2♥ was most definately influenced by the MI as the bid (which is kind of marginal already) has a lot more going for it over a natural 2♣ than a check-back 2♣. In the 2nd hand in the OP, it's less clear but South would probably argue that his 1♥ bid was auto over a natural 1♦ overcall not necessarily so over this artificial 13-18 balanced bid where if he's marginal and perhaps only 4♠ pass could well be a better option - perhaps give south something like J109x xx xxxx QJx. I'm not sure how we are meant to arrive at what the intent behind Law 21B is, but I certainly don't see anything written in the Laws suggesting that the desired outcome is to restore the situation to a normal auction unifluenced by MI. Quite specifically, the Laws do not say that when you withdraw a call influenced by MI you need to replace it with the call you would've made absent the MI. Law 12C3 states "When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action". When the most advantageous option is to withdraw your call (provided it was a call which could well have been influenced by the MI) and replace it with a pass to create an AI/UI situation for the offending side (i.e. setting a trap via the Laws) a player is perfectly entitled to do it. If was to try to devine the intent behind Law 21B I'd suggest the law makers wanted to strongly discourage giving MI by making the penalty for doing so reasonably severe. Also, the law makers chose to use the test of "could well have been" which is a lot weaker than "was" and to my mind can be read as "if there was a possibility". I pretty much never make any bid, unless I'm in first seat, which is not influenced by what my RHO has just done.

I think a better answer is "we don't false card per se, but our general agreement is to give count in situations where we think it's important that partner knows what the correct count is". If playing natural count the guy with Kxx probably should've played high-low while the guy with three small plays low-high in the hope that declarer will play the guy with Kxxx onside to have false-carded.

Fair enough, but what about the misalerted TWERB scenario where South's mode of showing ♠ was entirely dictated by the apparent artificiality of 1♦ so there was no initial intent to "game the system" but once the opportunity presents itself, where at the very least he'd want to change his 1♠ bid to 1♥, is it acceptable to take advantage of the situation and conceal your ♠ suit from East-West by passing and play system-on for North-South as if ♠ had been shown? Another thing not mentioned thus far is the further opportunity to "game the system" when your opponents fail to alert where if the TD allows you to substitute your earlier bid (that was influence by the MI) and you change it to pass, there will be lead penalties on the offender's partner so you have an auction like: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c(2+)1d(incorrectly%20alerted%20as%20TWERB)p(1S%20changed%20to%20pass)p2s(11-14bal%20with%204S)p4sppp]133|100[/hv] Under Law 26B, North can now forbid the offender's partner from leading any suit so there is quite an advantage in these situation to get the offender's partner on opening lead; although if South declares you can still get lead penalties but not until it is East's first turn to lead.

That sounds quite sensible, however, Law 21B doesn't talk about "damage" arising from the MI, only whether or not the potentially replaceable call "could well have been influenced" by the MI. In a situation where you bid 1♥ to show ♠ over a natural 1♦ overcall but 1♠ to show ♠ over an artificial 1♦ overcall, when there has been no alert wouldn't you be taking pot luck if you bid 1♠ (no 4-card major if 1♦ is natural) hoping that partner was listening to the pre-alerts as closely as you were?

I guess the issue is, if a player know very well what a bid means can he still claim misinformation due to a failure to alert? In this scenario, South probably would not bid 1♥ over an artificial 1♦ bid, but because he had the misinformation he decided to intoduce his ♠ suit knowing he had some upside in being able to withdraw it. The issue of the legality of playing "system-on" after a withdrawn call is one I'm really keen to get some thoughts on. Another example: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c(2+%20clubs%20-%20alerted%20but%20no%20enquiry)1d(TWERB%20%5Bsuit%20above%20or%20other%20two%5D)1sp]133|100[/hv] In this scenario, North-South have agreed to bid naturally over a TWERB overcall but when the bidding come's around to North he has look at the East-West convention card which says "TWERB over strong club only" and asks West for some clarification and West says, "oh sorry - I thought the alert of 1♣ was because it was strong - 1♦ here is just natural". Over a natural 1♦, South's 1♠ shows a hand with no 4 card major so his systemically correct bid is 1♥ showing 4+ ♠ but he perceives a potential advantage in concealing his ♠ suit from his opponents but still showing it to partner so changes his call to pass. West now raises to 2♦ and North has a problem - he has a good hand with ♠ support which absent the withdrawn call would be shown by bidding 2♥ so he bids 2♥ which South alerts. The question here is, can South describe 2♥ as a good raise of an unspecified suit?

The test in Law 21B is "a player may change a call without other rectification for his side when the Director judges that the decision to make the call could well have been influenced by misinformation". I would tend to take the view that "could well have been" is a pretty low threshold and certainly a lot lower than "likely", "was", etc. In the second case, South had an automatic 1♥ bid over a natural 1♦ overcall but taking the same action over an artificial 1♦ carried some risk of having a misunderstanding so I think it's fair to say that the non-alert may well have influenced the decision to bid 1♥ rather than pass.

In the North-South methods, 1♥ over a natural 1♦ overcall is unambiguously showing 4+ ♠ but over an artificial 1♦ overcall it moves into "undiscussed" territory as North-South had never encountered this defence to a nebulous club before and when it was prealerted amongst a range of other things at the start of the round they didn't agree on what impact it would have on their general structure of t#$%*fers after one-level intervention. South new very well that 1♦ was 13-18 balanced when it hit the table and wanted to show his ♠ suit but was a little bit reluctant to bid as he wasn't sure if partner would take his next bid as a t#$%*fer or not. With the non-alert, he felt he had a safe 1♥ bid as over a non-alerted (and presumedly natural) 1♦ there could no confusion and if he gets the chance to withdraw it so things will be even more clear for partner.

A few weeks ago I had an interesting situation with a delayed alert where there was an option to withdraw a bid such that the withdrawn bid was AI to the NOS but UI to the OS. The hand was as follows: [hv=pc=n&s=sakt86hadaqj95c76&w=s975hkqjt8d7cj832&n=sj42h52dk8642cak4&e=sq3h97643dt3cqt95&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1sp1np2c(check-back%20not%20alerted)p(initially%202H%20changed%20to%20pass)2sp(queried%202C%20in%20contemplation%20of%20raising%20H)4sppp]399|300[/hv] When East enquired about the 2♣ bid as he was thinking of pulling 4♥ out of the box, it was revealed that 2♣ was artificial and had not been alerted. West called the TD who explained that West could withdraw his 2♥ bid and change it to any legal call in which case the information conveyed by the initial 2♥ bid would be AI to East-West but UI to North-South. West perceived some potential advantage in changing his 2♥ to pass and did so. TD then further clarified the UI situation for North-South along the lines of they are not allowed to take account of the 2♥ overcall in the way they bid the rest of the hand and in the play can't play West to have length in ♥ until same is demonstrably suggested by other AI in the remaining auction and/or play. South bid a fairly meek 4♠ after East's pass and duly lost 11 imps against the slam bid in the other room and they moved on to the next board. The hypothetical ruling on the hand is in the situation where East instead of passing over 2♠ bids 4♥ and then North-South go on to bid their slam. With the fact that West had a ♥ overcall over a non-alerted 2♣ bid, this delayed 4♥ bid out of the blue by East after passing twice already looks like it has -1100/1400 written all over it so it may be reasonable to conclude that penalising 4♥ is a viable option for North-South absent the UI that West also holds a ♥ suit. As the TD, would you entertain an adjustment to 4♥xE-3 for NS +500? A similar situation came up last week with the following auction: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1c(2+%20clubs%20%5Bany%2011-14b%2C%2018-19b%20or%20nat%20with%20C%5D)1d(13-18b%20not%20alerted%20until%20after%20South%20bid%201H)1h(4+%20S)p]133|100[/hv] West alerted 1♦ (which, btw, had been correctly pre-alerted at the start of the 5-board round) after South had bid 1♥ and South elected to muddy the waters with a change of 1♥ to pass creating a UI situation for East-West, but North would have the AI that South holds a ♠ suit. When South changed his 1♥ bid to pass (and West chose to still pass) a few interesting issues arose. Because South has already promised 4+♠, in the North-South methods a 1♠ bid by North would show 2-3 ♠ and 2♠ by North would show 4♠, but for East-West should they be alerted to the adjusted meanings of 1♠ or 2♠ which are affected by the UI of South holding 4♠; or do East-West need to proceed as if North has an unbalanced hand which is what 1♠ and 2♠ would mean if South had passed after an alerted 1♦ overcall?

No. The definition of LA is things that you would give serious contemplation to doing, not the actual choice you make.

I'm quite sure that this player is of the standard where they bid their hands one bid at a time and would never think ahead about what they would do on the next round.

I think it matters quite a lot. If declarer calls for a card from dummy when the lead is in his own hand you can't be making rulings yourself and presume that you are able to accept the lead; you must call the TD and have him tell you whether or not you can accept it. Accordingly, if you are going to put your ♠J on the table when it's not your turn and the TD had told you that you can do it - it becomes a penalty card. I think the TD has got this one right.

The poll should be limited to those players who would choose double as their initial action, so your first question should be "what do you do over 2♠ constructive weak two with this hand red vs green?" and then you only ask the follow-up question of what to do when 3♠ comes back around to you of those chose double as their initial action. Moreover, the follow-up question shouldn't be "what do you bid?" it should be "what actions would you be giving serious contemplation to?". As for the defence to 3NT, I don't think the ♠A lead is at all double-dummy given that partner has raised ♠ which gives West a known 9-card fit with his side entry with the ♣A so there is no cost in protecting against a stiff K or Q in either opponents' hands.

Do you have any basis in law for that? My understanding is that drawing attention to an irregularity is a "may" requirement (i.e. failure to do it is not wrong) and I don't see anywhere in the laws where it says if you fail to call the TD after an irregularity you have to "accept the consequences of the infraction".

The protracted pause is unauthorised information to you, suggesting that partner was considering actions other than 1♣ but generally you won't really have any idea whether the alternatives were to show a weaker or stronger hand or perhaps open a 5-card Major ahead of a 6-card ♣ suit. The (paraphased) rule in this situation is that you are not allowed to select from a range of logical alternatives a bid which is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Hard to say for sure without seeing the hand and knowing a bit more about your bidding system, but it would seem that the UI doesn't really indicate that you should or shouldn't pass so you should just take your normal action on the merits of the hand and auction you are looking at.

That's pretty much my experience also, but I've also seen a moderate amount of whisphering. When I was at the APBF Championships last year in KL, the CTD announced at the start of play on day one that any director calls regarding alledged misexplanations which are not supported by a written explanation will only be dealt with if the players agree what was verbally asked and responded. Sounds like a sensible approach to me. The team I was captaining was under strict instruction to write all explanations unless they are absolutely obvious (e.g. 2♥ transfer to ♠ - you just pull a ♠ card out of your box or clenched fist means strong, etc.).

Since when is the onus on the receiver of an explantion to ensure that it is given in the prescribed manner under the regulations? Both North and East have committed infractions by not following Reg 5.1, but I'd suggest the more serious infraction is on North as it's the person giving the explanation that needs to be understood.