jcrosa

Pass. (And feel no qualms about passing again in most follow-up situations). You will very seldom be missing a game, and even then it might be difficult to reach the right one. I think you have a lot more to lose than to win when you decide to step into this auction.

I agree with 5♣ by West, but following that IMHO East should bail out at 5♥ (and would be well advised to avoid any huddle). He's done enough. If partner passes that (which he will often do when lacking a ♠ control), slam rates to be sub-par.

If our overcalling style allows for that, I suggest the pass should be reserved to warn partner that we only have 4 (good) spades. (Advancer should assume a minimum but of course overcaller can bid further). I use this principle in other situations. For instance, playing Drury: P - (P) - 1♠ - (P) 2♣ - (X) - ? Pass = (sub-)minimum, 4 spades 2♠ = (sub-)minimum, 5 spades

We should have started with 2NT over 2♥. Not only we'd be in a better position now to evaluate the potential of making 11 tricks, we'd also put partner in the picture in regard to doubling the opponents. As it is, anything other than double now is a wild shot.

Partner did not deny 2 spades. It's easy to construct hands with 10 HCP (and less than that) where slam is good, either in ♠ or in ♦, and even if the ♣Q is a wasted card. So don't count me in for giving up on slam right away. IF we are in a forcing situation (as normally set up by the redouble, but some people might consider that the jump bid by advancer and/or the opening bid in 3rd position change that), opener should perhaps consider passing and then bidding ♠ or ♦, showing ("pass and pull") a better hand than by taking immediate action.

1) and 2) I expect partner to have: at least 9 red cards (likely 5 diamonds - no 2♦ overcall - and 4+ hearts); 2 clubs; and at least 10 HCP. The double per se doesn't say anything about the number of spades, but looking at my hand and the bidding I expect him to have 2 (90% of the time) or 1 (the remaining 10%). I expect exactly 2 clubs, since: with less, he's unlikely to have a hand good enough to force the bidding to the 3rd level with no known fit; and with more, he would be leaving me badly placed to evaluate the possibility of passing the double. (The inference about heart length comes more from the opponents bidding than from the double in itself, I admit, so in essence this is pretty much like a Snapdragon double). 3) I bid 3♣. I have a minimum, clubs are not running and my (likely) only entry will soon be gone.

After 1♣- 1♦ - 1♥, in standard 2/1 (let's leave the Walsh issue aside), responder has no direct way to show a slammish hand with long ♦. So, a FSF bid will have to be used. Scenario A: 1♠ is natural (and forcing 1 round, at least) and 2♠ is FSF (and GF). The next 3 bids would surely be 2♠ - 3♣ - 3♦. Next bid by opener should probably be 3♠, showing some doubt about 3NT. (Some might argue that, having avoided a NT rebid after 2♠, jack doubleton is now enough to bid 3NT; I disagree, but with queen doubleton it would be sensible). After 3♠, responder might place the final contract in 3NT. Has he done full justice to his hand? Wouldn't he bid the same way with a king less, say? Well, the fact is that his partner's bidding so far is not slam-positive (no ♦ belated support, likely no ♠ high honor). Giving up on slam is not absurd. Scenario B: 1♠ is FSF (and GF, to simplify the analysis) and 2♠ is natural and GF. Bidding might proceed: 1♠ - 2♣ - 2♦ (no need to jump if GF; the jump in this case should be reserved for a self-sufficient suit) - 3♦ (2 card support is adequate at this point, and more so being J9; the 2♣ rebid tends to deny 3 card support) - and now what? One thing is certain, responder will not bid 3NT right away. He might do it after 3♥ (1st or 2nd roud control) - 3♠ (ambiguous, "last-train to 3NT"). Over 3♥, opener might also bid 4♥ as a suggestion to play there in the (expected) Moysian fit - partner will correct to diamonds if lacking 3 (good) hearts. If instead opener choses to bid 4♣, denying a ♠ control, responder knows there is no slam, and let's hope he has the means to stop in a makable game (4NT or 4♥).

No legal issue really, I agree. I'd bid 4♦. Unambiguous, and quite likely (though not guaranteed) to be an improvement over 4♣.

Under the circumstances one has to assume MI, not only by East (by alerting and describing 1NT as unusual), but also by West (by failing to alert - or announce - 2♠ as showing clubs). Of course there is also UI, and East was obviously at fault by passing 2♠ when his only possible systemic rebid would be 3♣ (or 2NT if per chance that would show a negative hand for clubs - unlikely). Furthermore, over 3♣ (or 2NT) by West, pass would not be a LA for East, given that, whatever the specific meaning of the rebid, his partner would be showing a strong ♦/♠ two-suiter. Further E/W bidding would not be a pleasant thing to watch, but some high contract would be reached (West overriding East's attempts to play in ♠, and East reluctant to play in a different strain after his partner's initial two-suited bid). (No need to delve much into the defensive play in 2♠).

Yes it was clear that N/S had an agreement and South had forgotten it. I think we should assume that West, if given the correct explanation of 2NT (majors), would double 3♦ (as he stated he would). It is clear that, absent that double, the 3♠ bid by North makes use of UI (South's wrong explanation). Does the situation change significantly when West interposes a double? South's passed hand status does help a bit North's case for self-rescuing. As TD, I considered (too hastily, I see now) that over the double the 3♠ bid would be the normal action by North, and ruled a weighted adjusted score based on 4/5♦ contracts by E/W only; upon reading other posts and rethinking the issue, I believe that passing the double remains an LA. (I also admit that I didn't pursue the issue of what kind of hand with long diamonds South might have, not having preempted in 1st position). IF we accept a 3♠ bid over the double: does that bid make clear to everyone at the table that North has the majors? I think so. I also think that the normal move by East would then be to bid 4♦ (at least; some might consider that 5 card support + KJ in partner's first suit + an outside ace would justify a stronger move, for someone who previously passed). I don't think either N or S would bid 4♠ (which might prompt a very unsuccesful double), but E/W just might drift to 5♦ on their own momentum. What would have been the correct ruling (weighted scores allowed)? Some of EW 4♦ made, 4♦ -1, 5♦ -1, 5♦ -2, and/or NS 3♦ doubled -6 or so?

[hv=pc=n&s=sj72ht8dj54cat542&w=sqhaq2dak93cq9763&n=skt9853hkj653dqc8&e=sa64h974dt8762ckj&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1c2n(%5BA1%5D)p3dp3sppp]399|300|(A1) The 2NT bid was alerted and explained by S as showing the red suits[/hv] This is another one from last night's club MP tournament. Weakish field. E/W are a young inexperienced pair. NS are quite experienced. N doesn't fancy "modern" conventions and the only two-suited overcall he admits is an old fashioned 2NT as showing "the opposites" (i.e., majors over a minor and vice-versa). TD was called at the end of play by E/W. The table result was 10 tricks in 3♠, NS +170. W claimed that with a correct explanation of the 2NT bid he would have doubled 3♦, after which their side would have reached a ♦ contract. S admitted that she had forgot their partnership agreement and therefore had both misbid and misexplained. Your ruling?

[hv=pc=n&s=sakth7daj32ckq863&w=s97654hkqj64dqt7c&n=sj82hat5d965cjt94&e=sq3h9832dk84ca752&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1c2dpp2n(%5B1%5D)p3nppp]399|300|(1) S asked the meaning of 2♦ (given as "natural, weak") before bidding 2NT[/hv] This one is from a club MP tournament last night. Weakish field. E/W are a young inexperienced pair. They play a modified Michaels where 2♦ over 1♣ shows the majors (2♣ being natural), but E (the most inexperienced of the two players) forgot the system and took 2♦ as natural, preemptive. TD was called by S at the end of the play. The table result was 1 down in 3NT. S claimed that he wouldn't have bid 2NT with the singleton ♥7 if given the correct explanation. Your ruling?

The idea behind 27B1(b) revolves around what (unauthorized) information was transmitted by the insufficient bid, and to what extent a possible substitute (sufficient) bid may, by providing at least the same information, "cancel out" the infraction by transmitting it through a legitimate bid - therefore precluding the need to penalize the infraction. When the meaning of the insufficient bid is unclear to the TD, obviously the information trasmitted by it is also unclear to the infractor's partner. And asking him what he thinks that insufficient bid "showed" doesn't help much - unless, from partnership experience, he might have some clue about what was going on his partner's mind. (For example, his partner might have shown in the past a tendency to assume he is the dealer...).

There's something in Law 27B1(b) that has been puzzling me for some time. When the law states that "if (...) the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning as, or a more precise meaning than, the insufficient bid (...), the auction proceeds without further rectification (...)", it assumes that the meaning of the insufficient bid is something that is clear and incontrovertible. This puzzles me, because in some situations it may not be clear at all what that meaning is, and how to assess it correctly. Consider for instance this auction: W - N - E - S 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♣ - 1♦(=IB) Just by looking at the auction, it isn't clear at all what S had in mind when he placed the 1♦ card on the table. Some possibilities are: (1) - He was thinking of bidding 2♦ and simply pulled out the wrong card. (The most likely explanation). (2) - He didn't see anything of the previous bidding and thought he was opening 1♦. (3) - He didn't see any of the North and East bids, and thought he was overcalling 1♦ in balancing position after 1♣ - pass - pass. (Odd but possible). (4) - More oddly yet, he thought he was overcalling in 2nd position over his LHO opening bid of 1♣, thinking he was next in turn. Since the meaning of the insufficient 1♦ bid is different in these different scenarios, the Law should, IMHO, prescribe how that meaning should be assessed by the TD. Of course, he will get some idea just by looking at the player's hand, but in some cases that may not be sufficient. Should he ask the player (away from the table) what he had in mind? Or should he follow a more strict (and, in any case, unwritten) rule of assuming that the meaning of the insufficient bid is the meaning that bid would have replacing by passes all bids subsequent to the first bid in relation to which it was insufficient as a bid? (Which, in the example above, would lead to the 3rd possibility listed). (Note that in this example the most likely turn of events, in any of the scenarios, is that there will be a correction by a 2♦ bid, and we will then be in 27B1(a) territory, end of story; but, conceivably, in some cases the player might now have at his disposal a bid - a double, say - that might have a meaning "more precise than" that of the insufficient bid). Clarification of this issue would be most welcome. (Being quite new to the forum, I don't know if this question or similar has already been raised, but I have looked for it and didn't find anything).

Thanks all for your comments so far. Now on to part 2 of the story. The N-S team appealed the TD decision, directly to the (national) Board of Justice, which attends to all appeals when, as was the case, there is no Appeals Committee nominated for the tournament. The appeal was submitted late, for which reason the Board couldn't accept it. Nevertheless, the Board thought it a good idea to analyze the case all the same and put forward its views, if it could have been accepted for appeal. What follows is (a free translation of) an extract of the results of that analysis, as publicized by the Board of Justice. Your comments will, once again, be much appreciated. (...) Law 13 C clearly establishes that "when it is determined after play ends that a player’s hand originally contained more than 13 cards with another player holding fewer, the result must be cancelled and an adjusted score awarded", any offending contestant being also liable to a procedural penalty. This precept is complemented by Law 86 D which determines that, in teams contests, the result obtained at the other table must be taken into account. However, Law 12 B states that the purpose of an adjusted score is to redress damage made to a non-offendig side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. All along said Law 12 C, the main idea one retains is that the artificial score has the purpose of re-establishing, with equity, the conditions of play at the table, eliminating any advantage of one of the sides, in detriment of the other. The punishment of the committed infraction is processed through procedural penalities and not through the artificial score, which has a different purpose. Therefore, in this case, aside from the mandatory cancelation of the hand and from the optional procedural penalities to the infractors, either the result from the other table is considered, by applying the score adjustment with the purpose established by Law 12 B 1, or, not considering the result at the other table, for any reason (as, for instance, the hand not having already been played at that table), there is no case for a score adjustment.

In a teams match, the following occurred at one table in the open room: By some bidding misunderstanding, East-West were playing a partial in a hand with slam potential. The declarer was in the process of claiming after just a few rounds, when he found out that dummy was one card short. The TD was called at this point. The TD confirmed that dummy (West) had in fact only 12 cards in total. It turned out that South had 14 cards. No one at the table could explain when and how the extra card had come to rest in the South hand. However, South (a very experienced player) said he was sure that he had counted is hand before the bidding ("as always"). The TD established afterwards that the hand had already been played at the closed room table, with East-West reaching the slam (missed at several other tables; the hands were the same for all the matches). The TD decided on an adjusted artificial result of -3 IMP for each team, considering, on the facts as presented, that both West and South were at fault for not counting the cards (or counting them incorrectly). The TD decided not to take into account the result at the other table, considering that there was no non-offending side. Any comments on this ruling?