joostb1

No. But psychic bids that the system protects, are not allowed. E.g. You play 2♣ as strong, forcing partner to bid 2♦, but you have a weak two in diamonds and pass. That's not allowed. In this case, partner can bid 2NT, either strong or weak, but forcing you to bid your minor suit. This N will then bid spades.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa92h84dj62ct8642&n=sjt876543h762d7c7&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] This is a theoretical case, as published in the magazine of the Dutch union. The 2♠ bid is alerted and explained as 5-card ♠ plus a 4+ minor suit. NS, both young and enthousiastic, have this agreement, but N decided that he wanted 'to do something' with his 8-card spades. For argument's sake, let's asume that he might also have opened muli 2♦. What do you do if EW call you, because they feel cheated, also because they didn't know that N could bid vul with only 1 HCP?

In Dutch as well.

Blackshoe has given an answer that covers everything, so I won't comment on the ruling. But, why do you call this a "trick used by your opponents"? Do you have any proof that N did see the 4♣ bid and still made the insufficient 3NT bid knowingly? If not, and actually in all circumstances, it would be wise to refrain from accusing any player of using 'tricks', since this is a blatant violation of law 74A2 "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player". You should also refrain from trying to get a changed ruling, most certainly when you obviously are mistaken about the laws yourself. You could ask the TD on which laws he based his ruling, you might even say that you have the idea that the laws state something different, but you certainly should not argue "that South had unauthorized information about his partner having no interest in slam, and therefore South should answer the North's Blackwood inquiry". If had been the TD in this case, I would possibly have given you a PP.

[hv=pc=n&s=sjha832dt83caj854&w=saq874hqt97d954cq&n=s962hk6dj76ckt632&e=skt53hj54dakq2c97&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d2c2sp3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv] North starts with a small club for the ace of south, who continues with a club, trumped by the declarer. The declarer plays a small spade for East´s king and says `two´. The dummy picks up the two of diamonds, south plays the three and the declarer the ace of spades. The dummy asks ´No diamonds, partner?´ and the declarer says ´I called for spades´. The TD is called and the declarer explains that he thought that the dummy had the two of spades instead of the three. He continues explaining that he was drawing the trumps and that he would never play the two of diamonds with ace, king and queen on the table, let alone at this moment. Do you allow the withdrawal of diamond two and three and let the dummy play the three of spades? Please asume that the declarer hasn't played the ace of spades yet. This is about the question wether this is an unintended designation and the application of law 45C4b.

In contrast with EBU andd ACBL the Dutch bridge union rules still make it possible for you to forbid the opponents to alert.

I'm afraid that someone has to tell West that it might be wiser to stop playing bridge at this level. Hopefully he won't shoot the messenger. But the good result on this board, which the director should have let stand, doesn't prove that he still can play well. Continuing can only lead to more disappointments and unpleasant decisions by directors. West is probably no fool and knows that he is making mistakes. Furthermore, we all know that a time will come when our abilities will let us down. Emotionally tough, but you have to accept the inevitable. Why some of the respondents think fit to comment on East's bidding, is totally incomprehensible to me. Your opinion as a director is called for, not a lesson in bridge. It's a mistake more directors make ("I won't bid that way, so yo shouldn't either and I shall therefore rule against you").

A straightforward answer. But what can you do? If you have reason to believe that your partner hasn't heard or seen the alert, the alerter should also have noticed that, since the ACBL procedure, like many others, states "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ALERTER ... TO ENSURE THAT THE OPPONENTS ARE AWARE THAT AN ALERT HAS BEEN MADE". Should you just go on in the knowledge that the bidding on your side will go off the rails, because your bid will be misunderstood by your partner and there will be probably an UI case because of your alerting your partners response which will wake him? Or should you call the director and point out that your opponent didn't ensure that the opponents were aware that an alert had been made?

Your Dutch is quite good, although there are some minor mistakes. But I'm afraid that Norwegians understand it as good as the average Englishman.

What is ODR? It's not in the list of abbreviations.

So east also assumed that S had only 13 pt. Any reason for that? Does he know that S has a habit of opening 1SA with a hand with considerably less that 15 points? Not returning diamonds is a serious error and it's East's responsibility that NS made 6S. If his reasoning was right (in which case S had only 13 points) and returning clubs was the only way to get the contract down, then he would have had a valid case had he played diamonds instead.

The basic question is "What agreements, if any, have EW about 2NT?" Up till now I have not seen any proof of an explicit or implicit understanding. which means that there is no misinformation and therefore also no infraction. What E meant, is totally irrelevant for the case and it's a waste of time to speculate about it. I completely agree with the TD, table result stands.

Although NS can guess something has gone wrong with the bidding of EW, I don't think you can blame them for not getting in 4♥. So I correct the score to 4♥= for NS. Besides I would seriously consider a PP for EW. At this level you should know your system. I would suggest to the original poster not to reply to or discuss every single answer he gets. You asked your question and it would be wise to see what replies you get.

I don't think you should use terms like rubbish if someone explains what the reasoning is behind this law. David certainly doesn't deserve to be addressed so. Why don't you give an outline for a change of this law which doesn't have such disadvantages as the current one has in your view?

The hardware is Dutch, at least in design, and probably produced somewhere in Asia. Not that that will make much of a difference.;)