schulken

While a bit tangential to the instant example, I have been intrigued by my favorite sleepwalking call from the old laws - 1♣ - 1♣. Back then, there was nothing the offender could do but bid 3 NT and hope for the best. Now, it seems as though offender could consider replacing his errant 1♣ bid with either pass or X. The commentary on the new laws issued by ACBL states "Other changes have been made to give directors more discretion in some situations in an attempt to achieve more equitable results instead of imposing arbitrary penalties that often lead to random outcomes." I think you'd stand a better chance of achieving equitable results with either of these options rather than 3 NT. There are certainly many times when I may have a hand that I would open 1♣ but I can't because RHO has already done so. Therefore, I pass. My question then is, "Is pass a comparable call under 27B1.©?" I may also be able to justify X holding 3ish ♣ - possibly more if I play minimum offshape takeout doubles. Double seems more acceptable since it shows an opening hand and 16C doesn't apply to withdrawn calls under 27B.1.(b). I have noted that the discussion herein seems to focus on explaining the law to the offender and letting him decide what is comparable. If offender's judgment is faulty, we can adjust the score under 27D. Which brings me back to what the meaning of comparable call is: comparable to the call I just made considering the prior calls or without regard thereto?

Here's where I get confused. When ACBL adopted the new rules in August 2016 and updated GCC, they established guidance for what a "natural" NT opening is. The discussion in the adoption memo doesn't preclude a player from psyching a natural 1 NT opening. The laws define a psych as "a deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength and/or of suit length." Presumably, it's a psych when you use one of the situations they considered, i.e., stiff Q is not a psych but a stiff J is. However, if you psych that kind of hand frequently, it becomes an agreement "and an illegal one at that." I'm wondering if there's some bucket between a natural NT opening, as defined, and a psych. The difference between a stiff Q and stiff J doesn't strike me as a "gross misrepresentation of honor strength" but maybe that's exactly what the committee was trying to do - draw a bright line. I think that bucket would contain 1 NT bids having what otherwise would qualify as a natural NT opening but not having at least a Q in your stiff suit that would be illegal to have on your card. General shape (other than the stiff) and point count would otherwise be within the acceptable range. That's how I would like to view that's where KQxx J AJxx AJxx might land. TDs would administer a PP and possible adjusted score. A psych would be something more along the lines of Jxxxxx xxxxx x x. With the latter, if you get a good score, that's why you psyched to begin with. If you get a bad score, shame on you. The question then arises as to where the line might be between a non-natural 1 NT opening and a psych.

Quite a while ago, ACBL changed the rules about the hand you may have and open 1NT, i.e., no voids, no stiffs unless Q or better, etc. To date, I continue to see human players playing against robots in ACBL sanctioned games on BBO opening 1NT with hands that would warrant a PP if they made such a bid in a humans-only tournament. I would think that the GIB developers could grey out 1NT when the S hand doesn't have a legal 1NT opening. I don't know if this is the right place to post this. If not, please forward it along as appropriate.

[hv=pc=n&s=sa5hkt632dkt4c876&w=skj93haj954dq5c42&n=s864hdj8732cakt93&e=sqt72hq87da96cqj5&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=pp1h2n3dppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL. Matchpoints. Club game. NS is a C pair (both NLM) of decent skill who play together occasionally. (In fact, they finished first overall this day.) W is an accomplished A player (4000+ MPs) and E is B. Not a regular partnership. The auction went P-P-1♥-2NT. At that point, E asked S what N's bid meant and (surprisingly to everyone but S) was told it was ♠ and a minor. E continued with 3♦, which she (on my inquiry) thought showed a limit raise in ♥. The hand was passed out and EW was down 5. That’s when I was called as N correctly alerted EW to the misinformation at that time. My later discussion with W indicated that he did not understand the 3♦. He was perplexed by the explanation his side had received and was in a quandary since he considered his rebid to be 3♠ which was taken away from him. While I didn’t specifically ask this, I presume that he must have concluded that E had a ♦ suit - they were told that N had ♠ and a minor, so the minor must be ♣ since E bid ♦. Since he could tolerate ♦, he passed. E said that even given the correct explanation, she still would have bid 3♦ as she believed it showed a good ♥ raise. (Not sure why she asked, then.) If W had been given the correct information all along, as an accomplished A player, I’d like to think he would have figured out that E’s ♦ bid must have shown ♥ support or something other than a minor that the other side had bid. If he did, he would have bid 3♥, ending the auction. However, even during my inquiry, he was not aware that 3♦ showed a good ♥ raise. He was considering a ♠ rebid but didn’t feel he could believing N had 5 ♠ behind him. If he had accurate information about the 2NT overcall, thinks E has ♦ (or ♠ but not ♥) and then bids 3♠, E has to bid again. W knows E is a passed hand but E now thinks W has a stronger hand. I think 4♥ would be the right bid for E but 4♠ would be a good bid as well - a 5-3 trump fit generally isn’t considered as good as 4-4. Now we have the possibility of 4♥ off 2, or 4♠ off 3. I think most S players would double 4♥ which probably gets pulled to 4♠, so maybe 4♠ off 3 is a possible adjusted score. Also, some with whom I have discussed this hand believe that EW get no relief - passing 3♦ is SEWoG and the table result stands. I disagree since his decision to pass was influenced by the misinformation. The other consideration is whether Law 12C.1.© applies here. While we didn’t poll any other players, I suspect there would be a variety of answers and possible adjusted scores. 3♥ off 1 isn't that easy to accomplish and maybe off 2 is a more likely result. While I keep coming back to 3♥ off 1 or 2, (off 1 is what the club manager and I decided) although I am concerned about what happens if he doesn’t figure it out. I still feel that the misinformation led to his poor decision and that an adjustment is warranted based on that fact alone. The fact that the adjusted score we assigned evenly splits the matchpoints between the pairs seems to fit exactly what the law was designed to do. Factoring in some likelihood of 3♥ off 2 and 4♠ off 3 may get us to the right answer. Thoughts appreciated.

Well done. If only I had been this clear on my OP.

[hv=pc=n&s=s83hdaqj874cqj763&w=sqj976hq73d62c984&n=sa5h98dkt953cak52&e=skt42hakjt6542dct&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1d4h5dpp5hppdppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL regional tournament open pairs. NS (me and my partner) C pairs. EW serious world class established partnership. Following my partner's pass, E asked if I agreed that my partner had hesitated. I did not agree. The TD dutifully went through the rule. Obviously, it was unnecessary to call the TD back as there is no way to defeat 5♥. We had lots of company with that result. Here's what happened - yeah, I'm somewhat biased but I try to be objective. Following the 4♥ overcall, I would not have disagreed with a claim by my opponents that my partner shotgunned his 5♦ bid. Did it affect my subsequent call? I don't think so, While I have a good hand, my ♦ are pretty ragged (although with my partner bidding them at the 5 level, I could expect those gaps to fill in), I see two quick losers in ♥ but three quick winners in side suits. E's hand is stronger than I think his bid would indicate (who am I to disagree with someone who plays at that level?), so I'm thinking 5♥X off 1 is a good result. I think I have my double irrespective of whether my partner shotgunned his bid or had a slow pass on his second turn. Then, what happens if my partner bids 6♦? He's thinking that we have at least a 10 card ♦ fit with no losers, we have no ♥ losers, since I can't have more than the K in ♦ I have to have values in the side suits, 5♥ is probably cold, even if we don't make 6♦, off 1 is a better score. With the one or two claimed BITs, both of which were made by him, does EW have any argument against the 6♦ bid? I think not. My partner is (arguably) the offender, so he can't be taking advantage of UI. Is my X of 5♥ following the claimed slow pass UI for him? As I elaborated about my decision-making process, I think have my X. I don't think pass is LA for me. So I think 6♦ making, assuming we get there and he bids it, should stand. Despite the quality of the players in the room, no one found 6♦. Thoughts appreciated.

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt3hqj8732dqj5c8&w=skq9876hdk9732ck4&n=s42ht9dt8cqt97653&e=sa5hak654da64caj2&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1c2h2sp]399|300[/hv] ACBL Club game. Both A pairs. Match points. I think this is benign as I don't think it would have any effect on the outcome but I thought it was interesting. I didn't see the rest of the auction but E declared in 6NT making 7 for a top board. N called me to the table after E opened 1♣, W alerted the bid and S overcalled 2♥. S did not inquire about the alert prior to making his bid. N advised me away from the table that his partner's bid had different meanings if the 1♣ bid was precision v. a forcing 1♣ opening - N said their agreement with a natural or forcing 1♣ bid, he would be showing ♥ only; if the opponents used precision, his bid would show ♥ and a minor. He was concerned that W might claim damage if he (W) called without this information - the information being that S's bid had more than one possible meaning at that point - and that he (N) couldn't ask what the alert was since it wasn't his turn to call (Rule 20F.1.). I told him that, based on this information and the auction to this point, he should alert his partner's bid. If W inquired about the alert, he would then have the right to ask E about W's alert. Now knowing the meaning of the 1♣ bid, N may correctly answer W's inquiry. Of course, as it turned out, W did not inquire so it was a moot point. However, I believe my answer was correct in that I was attempting to avoid a call being made by W without access to information that he was entitled to. Do you agree with my ruling? The alternative would be for N to remain silent until his turn to call, then inquire about the alert, and then alert his partner's bid. That just doesn't seem right to me.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt87643ht4djt4c8&w=sk52hj97652d7caq3&n=sajhaqda9853cj965&e=s9hk83dkq62ckt742&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1dp1h1nd2s3hpp3s4hdppp]399|300[/hv] Club game. ACBL. A players both directions. E's opener was announced as "could be short" - they play precision. N's bid of 1NT alerted by S and explained as showing the unbid suits, which is not the partnership agreement. The agreement is that it is a good hand with a two suiter, but it could be any two suits. E X, alerted as 3-card support. S bid of 2♠ alerted, but no explanation was requested and none was given. After W rebid 3♥, N had an agreed hesitation. The hand was played off 1. N led his two non-trump aces and exited with a ♣. When W tried to draw trump, N rose with his A and gave his partner a ♣ ruff. The club manager and I discussed the hand and consulted with a TD who was playing. We came to three different conclusions. Not all of us can be right but all of us could be wrong. I'd appreciate your thoughts. The club manager believes that S may bid on despite the hesitation with his length in ♠ and that the table result should stand. If I had been S, I would have preempted in ♠ at my first opportunity rather than passing - irrelevant, I know. However, now that he has alerted and explained to the opponents that his partner has ♣ and ♠ and more than a pulse, he must now preempt in ♠ at a minimum, if not go to game. My concern is that, after his erroneous explanation of their agreement and before his call, he realized that his explanation was or may have been in error. Otherwise, with a known 11-card fit, how can you not be in game? The TD, like me, thought that a preempt in ♠ by S at his first turn was appropriate but that is similarly irrelevant. Since he chose to show nothing more at his second turn to call, he has nothing further to say following his partner's hesitation. We allowed the table result to stand since we couldn't come up with a better or consensus answer. While I don't think it's SEWOG, I think W is partly to blame for going too high. He doesn't know partner's shape from the auction (aside from the three-card ♥ suit), although E likely has ♦. E has limited his hand by not opening 1♣ and hasn't bid further, probably showing he doesn't have much. Bidding on to game with decent shape but a very ragged suit invites the given result.

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj2ht972d65ct52&w=s75hkjdt9842cj943&n=sqt8643hq85d73c76&e=s9ha643dakqjcakq8]399|300[/hv] Sorry - the hand editor has a few shortcomings when you omit the auction. E is dealer and NS are vulnerable. ACBL club game. Much discussion was generated after the hand. My own view - trying to ignore what the others have - is to open 1♦. I have a general rule to avoid 2♣ openers when there's a chance we could play in ♦, since the contract will now likely be wrong-sided. The other concern I have is that I have no rebid, assuming a 2♦ response. Those I polled opened all over the map - 2♣ winding up in 5 twice, 2♣ winding up in 3 NT twice (down 2 - at least NS were smart enough to lead ♠ and unblock, and 6♦ twice, by the somewhat aggressive 1♦ - 3♦ - 6♦ route. This was the top. There were a few other oddities, based in large measure on inexperience or miscommunication - 3♠X by N - off 3, and 4♥ by E off 3. What do you think? One participant was concerned that her 1♦ opening could be passed out, missing a game. My response was, what game did you miss? If W were completely broke, N would likely balance, and as was seen, EW can defend well against a ♠ contract.

Declarer could require a ♠ lead but then S gets to return the 3 to his hand, replacing it with the 9, causing declarer to win with the A. W still hasn't learned anything.

So now with BBO we have thousands of "spectators" watching on viewgraph. A side question is, will the viewgraph operator's software even allow him/her to revoke, as the player at the table has? Assuming it does, the cyber-sphere will light up with those who were paying attention. L76A.2 allows for some flexibility in "acceptable conduct" for viewers. It seems that ignoring something that is obvious to many - and can easily be reconstructed electronically - isn't in the spirit of equity just because it is inconvenient to the TD. I think the analogy to golf is a good one, except that golfers are expected to self-report infractions but bridge players are not.

[hv=pc=n&s=s93hjt874dakj97cj&w=sa8764ha9d62ca974&n=sqt2hk653d83ck652&e=skj5hq2dqt54cqt83&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1sp1np2cp3sppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL. Club game. Match points. NS C players. EW advanced A players. W led 8♦ which S won. S returned J♣. W sensed what was going on and rose with the A, followed by small ♣ from W and dummy and 3♠ from S. We got it sorted out - I ruled that it was a fifth card played to a trick as it was clear through her action and a somewhat incoherent conversation that she was quite eager to ruff a ♣. Since W had won the trick, he took advantage of the free finesse and cleared the trump suit. As I was walking away, W made a comment about there being UI, which I didn't consider at the time but I have thought about a good bit since. Let's say W had ducked the ♣ hoping to set up three tricks in that suit. Given the early stage of the play and nothing being contributed by the defenders during the auction, declarer might not have worked out yet that the J♣ was stiff. Now N rises with the K, E plays low and S contributes a trump as the fifth card to the trick. Now we have an exposed card, P is on lead and the best declarer can do is prohibit the lead of a ♠ under L50D.2.(a). N is happy to comply by leading a ♣ which S ruffs, disposing of a major penalty card at its first legal opportunity. It would be a better solution for declarer if I could rule that the ♠ was led (rather than being a fifth card to the trick), which would again give declarer a free finesse of the trump suit. Since the facts and circumstances didn't support such a ruling, declarer gets a bad result. About the only relief I can conjure up is to award an adjusted score under L12. I just had not considered that there could be UI resulting from such an action. I guess that's why we want experienced TDs - people who have been around long enough to have seen everything.

The director held an away-from-the-table conversation with each of the NS players but nothing discussed was mentioned to us. I think that if S mis-pulled, as some of the posters have ventured, he might have said something when I questioned his partner before my second pass, when he could have corrected it without penalty. Certainly, with N now bidding S's short suit, S needs to get the ♥ bid on the table. However, he chose to explore slam first. N's response shows two key cards - the A♣ and (I guess) the K♠, as the agreed suit. We were all wide-eyed with amazement when S bid 6♥. After looking at the hand, it appears that S was splintering without letting his partner know what his suit was. Sadly, I understand you can get a bottom for doing the best you can, and that serendipity sometimes poops on you. Maybe next time I'll get a good result when my opponents get lost.

[hv=pc=n&s=s5haqj8654da752c3&w=sqt98ht7dj94ckt72&n=sk642hk32dkqcaj64&e=saj73h9dt863cq985&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1np3sp4sp4np5hp6hp6nppp]399|300[/hv] ACBL. Unit game. Established partnership B pair NS. Second-time partners, not as good, EW. I am sitting W. After S bid 3♠ and I waited through the silence, I looked at N (we all know each other) and I asked him if he had figured out his partner's bid. He said he had not. When the auction came back around to me, I did look at N's card and there are no 3-level responses to 1NT openings marked. I called the director at the end of the auction. It seemed to me that S was the only person at the table who knew what was going on and they had somehow landed in a contract that no one else was likely to find through a fair auction using their partnership agreement. So P and I are in the dark until the board comes down, but it was too late by then. Making seven for a cold bottom, but 6NT making was still a cold bottom as most of the room was in 6♥ making. According to DD, we should set 6NT by one, but that depends on finding the lead of a low ♣ and holding the right cards while dummy runs out his ♥ suit. I got no sympathy from the director who said that N had no UI and had bid his hand as best he could given that he didn't understand his partner's bid. I hope we may have defended better (or at least differently) had we known what was going on before seeing dummy or if they were in their indicated ♥ contract. Should we get an adjusted score? Should NS get a PP? They've only been playing together for 20 years.

I don't know why the auction period would be immaterial. Suppose that offender returns the cards to the wrong board, the round ends and they pass the boards to the next table. Or make it even more intriguing - they pass the boards to the bye-stand, so now it is two rounds later before the error is detected. I can't see reopening the auction at either of those points.