mrdct

If the "unsound bidding sequence" is based on ignorance rather than partnership agreement then it isn't a "special partnership understanding" and would not be alertable. What I was talking about is a pair who, by agreement, bid in an unsound manner which is something that their opponents are entitled to know about and needs to be disclosed however the prevailing RA dictates. We haven't been given the hand in the OP, but if opener is indeed weak for his reverse and responder chose to pass, that is pretty strong evidence that they have a special partnership understanding to play reverses as non-forcing which their opponents are entitled to know about. In that situation, I guess the potential damage to the NOS is opener's LHO being denied the opportunity to pre-balance, but the fact that he couldn't find a bid the previous round over 1♣ suggests that this is unlikely. What probably should've happened is after responder passed the seemingly forcing 2♥ bid, responder's LHO should enquire about whether or not 2♥ is forcing and if told "no" call the director who will apply Law 21B1(a) and let opener's LHO have his bid back.

I would take the word "must" in the phrase "natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be alerted" as implying that the alert is mandatory. A reverse after a one-level response in a natural system being non-forcing is about as "unexpected" as I could possibly imagine and is clearly a "weak bid that sounds strong". As for the alertability of "unsound bidding sequences" if such bidding sequences form part of your "special partnership understandings" pursuant to Law 40B1 (i.e. the meaning of those unsound bidding sequences may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament) disclosure will be required in the manner prescribed by your RA.

Alerting procedures are governed by the Regulating Authority which in the case of a club duplicate would be your NBO so we need to know the jurisdiction, but I'm sure that a non-forcing 2♥ reverse irrespective of your basic system would be alertable in the ACBL, EBU, ABF, WBF and BBO and probably any other jurisdiction which has published alerting regulations. In the ACBL: "Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them". In the EBU: "a pass or bid must be alerted if ... it is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning". In the ABF: "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". In the WBF "Those bids which have special meanings or which are based on or lead to special understandings between the partners". On BBO: "If you have any doubt as to whether one of your bids should be alerted or not, it is appropriate to alert".

I've just bought a Geniatech Enjoy TV ATV1000 running Android 2.2 with claimed support for Flash 10.3 to replace a clapped-out Windows XP PC that I currently have hooked up to the TV in my living room. I'm hoping it will do the job at the very least for vugraph (with voice) but potentially for actual play using the querty remote. It's shipping out of Hong Kong so I probably won't get it for a week or so but I'd be interested to hear if anyone on the forums has had any expeience with these sorts of devices.

In many jurisdictions, including WBF events, picking up your bidding cards to indicate a concluding pass is officially sanctioned. For example, the WBF GCC Para 23 says, "If a player whose pass will conclude the auction removes his bidding cards from the table he is deemed to have passed".

If that is the way the TD determines the facts then the potential UI doesn't suggest anything and West can do whatever she likes.

1. Depends how it was asked - I think you need to have been there. 2. The question kind of answers itself as I presume "off the graph" means "could only have been made with UI". 3. "Weak" is a very broad description, but I have certainly come across many "weak" players who would routinely pass with such a hand (which is why raising a weak two with rubbish is such an effective strategy). 4. Probably not, but I can't really comment without seeing the full hnad.

In Australia we have an even better system called "written bidding" where the alerted bid gets a circle drawn around it so there is never any doubt or dispute as to whether or not a bid had been alerted; although bidding boxes are making some inroads now and are used in a small minority of clubs and some of our major national events. I know a lot of leading TDs in Australia strongly favour written bidding as it eliminates all disputes about what the auction was and which bids were alerted and gives the TD a written record of the auction that he can take away from the table to consider his ruling without having to transcribe it.

Definately "eye contact" is the way to go - it's pretty much the only way you can be sure that your alert has been seen.

From the ACBL Alert Definitions: Cuebid: A bid in a suit which an opponent has either bid naturally or in which he has shown four or more cards. Control bid: A bid, not intended as a place to play, which denotes a control (usually first or second round). The control need not be in the denomination named. These bids are usually used to investigate slam. Similar to blackshoe, I'm of the view that whatever its potential meanings, 3♠ should've been alerted as it's highly unlikely to have been intended as natural once ♥ had been agreed.

3♠ wasn't a non-alertable cue bid as neither opponent had bid or shown spades at that point so it would be entirely alertable in the ACBL if it didn't show a ♠ suit.

Of course that is preferable, but if a player wants to ask a question during the middle of the auction he is allowed to do that only in the knowledge that doing so may transmit UI and/or mislead the opponents if there was no demonstrable reason for asking the question. TDs are usually able work out whether or not rectifiable damage has occured and will adjust accordingly if there has been an infraction. As for the alertability of 3♠, even if you have no agreement or have forgotten the agreement, bids which are likely to be artificial but you are just not sure are alertable in most jurisdictions (including the ACBL) and in giving the explanation you would probably say something like, "we have never played before so haven't discussed this sequence but there's every chance this doesn't show a spade suit". There is obviously a new set of UI issues when you alert 3♠ and describe it that way, particularly if your partner happened to intend 3♠ as natural.

Why wasn't 3♠ alerted?

Another aspect of jillybean's approach that I don't like is telegraphing a presumption to the table that 4♥ is going to be the final contract which could put the the 1♥ opener in an awkward position if, for example, they were considering further action (given the possible earlier slam-try with 3♠) but now Pass is strongly suggested by East's comment. The Laws are quite clear that at a player's turn to act they can ask anything they like, but they do at the risk of transmitting UI. If a question is asked by the player whose turn it is to act, you should answer it. If at the end of the hand you feel that the question was inappropriate and/or transmitted UI that was acted upon, that is the time call the director. Have you got the full hand?

I have to disagree with your approach here. You should answer your LHO's question and worry about whether or not the question transmitted UI later. By coming up with this, "you may want to wait until your partner makes her lead face down" stuff you are making your rulings at the table and crossing over into the TD's domain. If it turns out to be a lead-directing question you will be fully protected, so why would you want to start an argument with someone - especialy at the Christmas Party?

Says who? The Laws require the TD to make an assessment of the probabilities of the various potential results. This can be done in a number of ways including: - looking at the double-dummy analysis (Deep Finese, GIB, etc.) albeit with a large grain of salt but still a reasonable starting point; - applying his own bridge skill and knowledge as to the likely leads, defences and lines of play; - consulting with other other players and/or TDs as to how they may have declared or defended the hand; - examining empirical evidence of what actually happened when the board was played at other tables.

If permitted by the relevant NBO, I would give a weighted score probably reflecting the portion of tables where the overtrick was achieved as there is certainly a non-zero chance that the ♠ honours will crash; but otherwise east-west will have to make do with 420.

I'm definately not going to let north-south keep their table result as the 5♦ bid by south is blatant use of UI. I'll also give serious consideration to issuing a PP or at least a warning to south depending on his/her experience and form. I think it's a moderately difficult hand for east-west to work out who is sacrificing and who is bidding to make. The TD should make some enquiries about the east-west one-level overcalling style at favourable vulnerability and what agreements, if any, they have about forcing pass situations. My preliminary view is that whilst letting north-south play 5♦ undoubled is poor bridge, it's not a SEWoG.

You polled the wrong people. The only relevant pollees are people who would bid 3♣. If, surprise surprise, the TD can't find any such people all he can do is place himself in the mind of the 3♣ bidder and ask himself, "If I'm the sort of hcp-hound who would bid 3♣ with this hand, would I give any contemplation to passing 3♠?"

I couldn't imagine ever stopping out of game with East's hand, however, we need to consider what East's peers might have had in their considerations. I think it's quite reasonable to conclude that a player who chose to treat this hand as a 7-9 raise would at the very least consider passing 3♠ so as bidding 4♠ is demonstrably suggested by the tank and pass is a LA for East's peers, I'm going to wind this back to 3♠ unless 4♠ wasn't making. What "high level" event was this from?

When that claimer says "I'm going to play East to hold the ♦Q" that is to be taken as "I'm going to play the East Hand to hold the ♦Q". The bit at the end of Law 2 strongly implies that the markings on the board are the sole determinant of who is which compass direction through the statement "No board that fails to conform to these conditions should be used. If such board is used, however, the conditions marked on it apply for that session". You could also look at Law 7B1 "Each player takes a hand from the pocket corresponding to his compass position" which reinforces the concept that the board markings define each player's compass position. In other words, whichever person pulled out the east hand from the east pocket of the board, assumes the compass position of east and is thereafter referred to as "east". It is quite common for boards to played out of alignment with magnetic compass directions and/or markings on the wall of the playing room; e.g. arrow-switched rounds, boxed tables and N-S being switched because the board was incorrectly placed on the table. It all comes back to the marking on the board.

The scoring method is basically each team gets its match result in +/- the net imps but capped at 46 imps; but to avoid teams going negative each team effectively starts with 46 imps so the worst result possible is 0 and best result possible is 92. I assume the match in which the total doesn't add to 92 is due to slow a play fine. This scoring method is quite common in Australia for small field round-robins, although quite often the capping is 30 imps plus 10% of the excess to a maximum of 32.5 for winners and -35 for losers (e.g. Australian Interstate Teams Championship). I think the idea to avoid the compression caused by VP conversion.

"East" is defined by the markings on the board. I rule one down and advise South to be more careful with his compass designations in future.

We have a similar section on the ABF System Card headed "PRE-ALERTS: CALLS THAT MAY HAVE UNEXPECTED MEANING/S OR REQUIRE SPECIAL DEFENCE" but it only has room to mention about half-a-dozen things. What I usually say to my opponents is, "doubles, redoubles, bids of your suits and bids in competitive auctions are usually artificial, quite often a t-fer, but often aren't alerted so it may pay to ask". To date that has kept me out of trouble.

Playing mini 1NT with a range of, say, 8-10 bal at favourable vul may also run into problems as there will certainly be some unbalanced 9-10 hands which will be passed.