weejonnie

Not necessarily - if the person making the 1NT call would have bid e.g. 2 Diamonds had there not been a 2 Club overcall (but can't now without silencing partner as it isn't a comparable call or a 27B1(a) adjustment) and this would have definitely resulted in the same contract then there is no damage.

A call that specifies the same denomination at the lowest level is now automatically allowed. 27B1. it doesn't have to be a 'comparable call' e.g. if you bid 1NT - intending it to be 6-9 balanced, no denomination, and you have to replace it with 2NT (notionally 11-12 balanced, no denominaton) then that is not a comparable call, but it is allowed (NOS are protected against damage if the outcome of the hand could have been different without the IB) I assume an example would be if the OS stay in 2NT for +120 whereas otherwise the opponents would have played in 2♠ for -110. PS - what would you regard the second double as showing in this auction. 1NT - P - 2♥ (announced Spades) - 3♥ X (3-card support, not alerted) - P - 2♠ (accepted) - 3♥ X - AP Presumably the second double has to be alerted as 'no partnership agreement' - I haven't discussed this auction with partner for some unknown reason.

An example in the EBU would be a defence to 1NT whereby initially a 2♦ call starts out as Astro (Hearts and Diamonds), but the person then rebids 3♦ and his partner then says "Oh he only has diamonds". Playing 2♦ as Diamonds is Legal (Level 2) Playing 2♦ as Astro (Hearts and Diamonds) is Legal (level 2) Playing 2♦ as 'either hearts and diamonds or just diamonds' is illegal (Level 2)

The law states "1. When the partnership agreement is different from the explanation given, the explanation is an infraction of Law. When this infraction results in damage to the non‐offending side, the Director shall award an adjusted score." With regards to information A and information B being given then unless the information is identical then the partnership agreement is different. It is up to the Director to find out if there is an agreement, but one player has given an incorrect explanation - and then: 3. When there is an infraction (as per B1 or D2) and sufficient evidence exists as to the agreed meaning of the call, the Director awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents received the correct explanation in a timely manner. If the Director determines that the call has no agreed meaning, he awards an adjusted score based upon the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed. If East is given the correct explanation (assuming one exists) then there is no problem for him - but if West has been given an incorrect explanation and his subsequent actions have resulted in damage. Note that "(b) The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." One assumes, therefore, that system notes are evidence of what the correct explanation is. You are also correct that if the agreement is decided to be 'A and B' and the combination is illegal then the TD would normally assign an Artificial adjusted score (60%-40%) if the NOS have not done as well.

Personally, I don't think that is practical - games like chess, backgammon and Go are 'full-information' games. Both sides can see the state of the board during the time your opponent plays and can work out the optimum move/ plan ahead (in Go you may never run out of time, once you run out of official time you enter a state where you always have 1 minute to make a move). That is not the case in Bridge. (Not to say that steps have to be taken to speed up the game, however any such step needs to recognise that one side/ player may have a problem that their opponents do not.)

The law says "Until the auction ends" (3 successive passes in rotation) - which means before the opening lead is made (face down). Only a few seconds (usually).

Not sure - at our club we use bridgemates and also have pre-dealt hands (by Darlington bridge Club). They send me the hand records and then after the session has ended, I append the hand records to the output from Scorebridge. (Which opens up BCS (Bridgemate Control Software) automatically). (OK I could cheat in theory - but never in practice.) However, I can enter results manually from travellers into Scorebridge and then append the hand records. Our club plays 3 sessions (novice, hosted and regular) a week and if present at the last session (only one I play), I can post all three sets of results on the website (including pre-dealt hands in the regular) by midnight - and that includes travelling home from the club at 10.30pm. When you think of how long it took to score travellers (and checking scoring errors) before the advent of computerised software, I am thankfull for large mercies.

I dont think so - there is nothing in the laws that says you mustn't- see law 54C which presumably deals with this case. "C. Declarer Must Accept Lead If declarer could have seen any of dummy’s cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead and the presumed declarer then becomes declarer."

As I said - if attention is not drawn to the irregularity then South will not be penalised. His partner may not be stupid, but he is ignorant. He does not know if South is void in Spades, Clubs, Hearts or two of them. South would have bid the same with the black voids interchanged (he could be bluffing about a spade void). Now then - suppose the Ace of clubs was led. South cannot draw attention to the irregularity (again), but in this case he is defintely NOT going to table his hand, in the hope that North will forbid a club lead.

When the opening lead is faced South becomes dummy - definitions Dummy may not initiate a call for the Director during play unless another player has drawn attention to an irregularity. (Law 43A1) - this has changed from 'should not' in the new laws and thus a pp should be awarded. If he does call the director then the director will still rectify. If declarer could have seen any of dummy’s cards (except cards that dummy may have exposed during the auction and that were subject to Law 24), he must accept the lead and the presumed declarer then becomes declarer. - Law 54C NB it is North that has to accept the lead. So the only 'penalty' for South putting his hand down as dummy is that it will no longer be possible for North to be dummy instead and the opening lead cannot be treated as a major penalty card as it has been accepted. There is nothing to stop South from tabling his hand to ensure that the Spade lead is accepted - provided no one has drawn attention to the irregularity. No doubt HH will regard it as 'excellent dummy play'. BUT If attention has been drawn to the irregularity before South spreads his hand then it is a different matter. (Law 9B) The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. - “should” do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardising the infractor’s rights but not often penalised),” - opening words 2. No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification. (Breach of this will incur a pp 'more often than not'). Since there is an irregularity by South, law 72C kicks in C. Awareness of Potential Damage If the Director determines that an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that it could well damage the non‐offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). At the conclusion of play the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity. Although EW are an offending side (lead out of turn), in respect of failing to follow law 9B they are 'non-offending'. So the director will have to rule that part of the time East would have made the killing Club Lead since North may feel that it would be best to prevent East from leading a Spade - in which case, if East might lead a club.

I knew it was a general discussion, the difficulty would be how to implement it into a legal framework. I think that at the moment, players should be grateful that in many, if not the majority of cases, the partnership will not be unduly hamstrung by an IB or BOOT. Just remember the previous situation.

Whilst this is logical and understandable, regrettably it is not the law. The law cannot specify multiple specific cases, due to the plethroa of meanings at any point in the auction, only a broad generality. You would have to specify a 'captain making call' as a subset of allowed changes of call - in other words you can change an IB or BOOT to a call if the new call assumes captaincy and for the rest of the auction demands responses from partner (usually after a limit bid). Not impossible, but I would like to see the wording.

Assuming that the 1♥ call showed opening values and a heart suit then I don't see any reason why 3♥ or 4♦ (if showing strength to open at the one level, which it would opposite a weak NT, but not necessarily over a strong one) would not be accepted. If, on the other hand, you would bid 4♦ on, say, 7 hearts to the AK and nothing else then it is not a comparable call. (You could bid 4♥ knowing partner is going to be silenced, of course)

As a beginner it is always a great feeling bidding a making slam (and cue-bidding as well - will give her a sense of achievement.) Now is the time to teach her Exclusion Key-card :D

8 Playing tricks in an unspecified suit that is not clubs - what's the problem? It is only when the suit is clubs that there are 'problems'. It could be a good tactic to prevent opponents bidding their solid 6♥ contract

Interesting points - thanks. Presumably if 5♠* had gone for 800 then the ruling might well have been different. Anyway - I ruled 3NT -3 by East. [hv=pc=n&s=st753ht8642dt6cqj&w=sk9ha97dq83ck7643&n=saqj642hqj53da7c5&e=s8hkdkj9542cat982]399|300[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=st753ht8642dt6cqj&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1s2np3np4dp5dpp5sdppp]133|200[/hv] 2NT wasn't alerted at the time, however when 3NT was taken out to 4♦ West did alert as showing both minor suits. South had passed so I asked South if he wanted to change his pass (which was declined). I also tried to explain the problem to East (probably wrongly :rolleyes: ) about taking advantage of UI and asked to be called back if NS were damaged. 5♠* went off 2 only and South explained that since he felt 5♦ would make (it is unbeatable), he would sacrifice at the favourable vulnerability. (5♠ can go 4 off on correct defence but that is probably irrelevant). I am polling the East hand on Bridgewinners - the problem is that the players there are much better than the East at the table (with all due respect to her). Assuming that the 4♦ call is disallowed (one of the better players in the club felt that 3NT should be passed), should NS be awarded the score for 3NT - 3 (which is what would almost certainly happen - as North has 6 spades and an outside Ace, the Spade would be led, killing West's K8, or should they keep the 5♠* - 2 (even though it was a relatively successful call)

Maybe it would be better to say "Pass for the rest of this auction" - Saying "Pass forever" would severely reduce their enjoyment of bridge for the next 10+ years. The following suggestion are, I hope, more pertinent. It would help in the 'lead penalties' session to say "such prohibition remains in force until he loses the lead" - or something like that. Also : may be better to change wording to "the probable outcome(s)" - to remind the TD that a weighted decision is allowed. In the first example 'a negative double is comparable' - I would agree provided it promises 4 hearts. In the example where 3♥ is described as the lowest call showing the same denomination, it is not necessary for 3♥ to be a comparable call.

If 2♠ shows spades then it is allowable under 27B1a Surely, if the stolen bid double shows 5 spades then it qualifies under 27B1b. It does not matter if it shows a non-minimum, or even a minimum hand with spades since a non-minimum hand is a subset of a minimum - > anything hand. (b) except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16C does not apply but see D following.

I think that East is allowed to know that West has not bid a spade suit - after all, West is a passed hand and then has jumped to 4♠ - this is authorised information. (And as is often the case - we cannot impute on EW our own interpretations of what the bid might mean) East having bid 5♣, West is fully entitled to consider that this is natural (and he has explained the possibility to opponents). How the Dutch handle 'fielded misbids' is not something I know.

So you apply law 31B1 - and offender's partner may make any legal call at his proper turn i.e. BEFORE the offender has to decide what to call. Then the offender makes any legal call (31B2) - but Law 31 A2 applies - which may restrict partner's NEXT bid

No - it only applies to openings and overcalls. (My comment was intended as a joke). HOWEVER It does raise questions - Suppose the bidding goes 1♣ - 2♥ and the overcaller is asked to describe the call and gives the word "Intermediate" Since you can restrict the use of the word 'Strong' to greater values, then you could have 14 points and AAKQJ, for instance. Similarly you could describe an overcall as 'Strong' on a hand such as: KX A76543 A43 J2 In fact it is far more likely that there will be confusion over the use (or lack of) of the word 'strong' on overcalls than opening bids, since overcalls are more likely to be distributional in nature.

The major change is the addition of "The same purpose" - this means, to quote the usual example, that replacing 2♣ (stayman) over 2NT with 3♣ (puppet Stayman or whatever) is now allowed. In addition transfer bids are now allowed by default (instead of the 'incotrevertibly not artificial' limitation) Also 'A similar' meaning is now allowed - thus an overcall instead of an opening bid is probably OK whereas before you could argue that as an overcall could be based on lower HCPs then it could be banned. Now it is similar (A specified suit and sufficient values to enter the auction)

The South hand certainly isn't strong - it hasn't 16+ points or 12+ and 5 controls.... (See other threads re EBU changed ---- I'll get my coat). With regards to the actual circumstances, all that can be done is to ask the TD to record the hand and the explanation - and do it after every 'misexplanation' by the couple. In the meantime we have no alternative but to accept the result - assuming BOTH convention cards said 'weak'. If one said intermediate or had no explanation on it then we can rule differently. (If one person does not have a completed CC identical with their partner how can you tell whether there is a partnership agreement.

When we get case-law then it will be easier. If I may expand: In a normal auction there are going to be a series of final contracts - some of which may be good ones that go down, some will make - with overtricks possibly. If a pair reach a high-scoring contract which they would not have reached without the recourse to a comparable call, then we adjust the score. To illustrate (EBL simulation) [hv=pc=n&s=sjt3ht65dq8caqj97&w=sq987haj3dj9ct854&n=s54h872dat6432ck2&e=sak62hkq94dk75c63&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d2c2s3d4sppp]399|300[/hv] This shows the final auction. The initial auction went. 1D :: 1S - i.e. West bid before South (1D = better minor - 1NT = 12-14) North was offered th eopportunity to accept the call and refused: the call was cancelled and South overcalled 2C: West bid 2S which was accepted as a comparable call (I agree - even if 2S by agreement showed 5 spades, since a hand showing 5 spades and 9-12 points is a subset of a hand showing 4+ spades and 6 - 14 points) Because West bid at the 2 level (most people wouldn't - they would probably double, but this might not be a comparable call) EW got into their 23 point 4-spade contract. Without the assistance of the comparable call the auction would probably have died in 2 Spades (A double would normally show a weaker hand than West is showing) Thus we decide what is likely to have happened - if some pairs bid to 4S but most did not then we would weigh the final result as e.g. 80% NS -170, 20% NS -420.