weejonnie

My reading of law 70C is 3. A trick could be lost to that trump by any normal play (including careless or inferior) Well the action by North (ruffing with the 8 instead of the 6 is (to North) neither careless nor inferior as, to North, both cards are equal) - an abnormal play would be to ruff the second boss spade with a trump, if there was a loser.

Was this more than 30 minutes after the end of the session?

Matchpoints - NS aren't actually going to be damaged but I was wondering whether this case could be one of the 'legitimately fielding a misbid' 'authorised unauthorised panic' cases.

No - you can switch from suit to suit in tempo - no problem there. What would be unacceptable is playing very quickly hoping to induce an error e.g. in cashing A♠, K♠, Q♣ .... (If CC hadn't tried to anticipate SBs play then this wouldn't have happened. However there is a lot of difference between deciding if something is illegal/ legal and deciding if it was right/ wrong.)

I think that ChCh would be more likely to do that, but he would do it whether or not there was a possible guess. There would be more complaints if it turned out that he DID have a guess to make and declarer assumed he was trying his tricks out. For the Chimp to be honest is to be dishonest. I would still say that 44C would apply. However I do concede the point that what happens in real life is often very different to what happens in a Kaplanesque Universe. It is an unjust world and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances.

Which law is SB invoking BTW - The Corgi hasn't committed an irregularity other than 74B (A player should refrain from detaching a card) - and even then this is 'not often penalised' so Law 23 won't be applied and 73C says that changes in manner/ tempo may be drawn only at the opponents' own risk. and Law 75F doesn't apply as the Corgi did have a demonstrable bridge reason for the action - to follow suit 44C - 'which takes precedence over all other requirements in these laws'.

Easy enough - Benji Acol (4 card majors) with weak 2s in the majors, weak no trump, PinPoint Astro defence to NT with the 3 Heart response being invitational. Don't think anything else would be necessary. (Players are slightly aggressive, but not suicidally so)

Benji (as to most in the club)

However the bid per se to the pair is impossible - you are making the classic error of imposing your own (vastly superior) bridge knowledge and theory upon the pair. Which is why we poll players of the same ability and not experts.

1.4.5.4 (North bids 3♣ intended as natural) South alerts and explains 3clubs as spades and diamonds; North (who has clubs) bids a firm 4 Clubs and South (who ought to treat this as a slam try, or perhaps 5=0=5=3 and a good hand) passes for the remainder of the auction. If North proves to have spade support or even tolerance, the director will usually adjust to some number of spades by North-South, probably doubled. But if North doesn’t have spade support, and there is no logical alternative to 4C, the 4C bid is not an infraction. Nevertheless, the subsequent Pass by South has fielded the original 3 Club misbid. The TD rules that South is in breach of Law 16 and adjusts to whatever he considers North-South would reach if South kept bidding (again, the ruling will probably be some contract doubled) Now look at the part about mis-bidding 1.4.5.5 If a player describes his partner’s bid as showing a particular hand type, and then acts as if his partner had a different hand type, that player is usually attempting to field a misbid (or a psyche). Of course, it is possible that a player knows from the legal auction and from his own hand that his partner has misbid – for example, partner shows three aces in response to Gerber but the player has three aces. It is also possible that a player has a hand that makes it very likely but not certain that partner has misbid – for example, partner opens a Texas 4C (showing a good pre-empt in hearts) and the player holds K10xxxx and no clubs. It is not possible to provide guidance as to the strength of evidence required before a player may legitimately act on the basis that partner has misbid. Individual cases are rare, and can be judged on their merits. I would agree that the White book as shown is not consistent - the rules about mis-bidding and fielding have changed but the consequences do not seem to have been reviewed.

I assume you mean "Sitting as West, what hand does my partner hold to bid 3 Hearts over my 2 Clubs" - To East it was an invitational raise in hearts. I suspect that there is no partnership agreement on this but it does sort of feel forcing. My first impression (at the table) was that I would be awarding 4H* - lots, however further research suggests that both the 4 Club bid and the subsequent pass MAY be allowed. (My gut feeling is that there are LAs to 4♣ (as you mention) in which case Law 75 and 16B force us to disallow it.) (Had West more values in Clubs and less outside then 4♣ might have been the only logical action.) Weighted decisions are allowed - they may have to include some percentage of 3NT(*) making as that is a possibility. Although that of course is a much better score for EW than 4C-3 it can be allowed provided the OVERALL effect is worse for EW i.e. NS are damaged. NB A Split decision is one where different scores are attributable to NS and EW - usually due to SeWOG actions. That doesn't really apply in this case. Yes South has AKJX of clubs and A hearts BUT partner could have absolutely nothing on the bidding (and, to South, EW might 'escape' to a cold 4♥ contract).

I've had a further look at this - using the EBU white book. 1) If there is no LA to 4♣ (no heart tolerance) then it is allowed. If not then 3NT seems the only possible LA 2) Playing in 3NT (possibly doubled) there is a chance North (who does not know but who may suspect the misbid) will lead a pointy suit as he is entryless. 3) If so we need to factor in probabilities and see if NS are damaged when we go through the weighted options. If not then the score stands. 4) East may be able to legitimately field the 4♣ call if he can tell from his own hand (club void) and bidding (Partner pulls 3♥) that partner has misbid. - in which case there is no adjustment. 5) If it is decided that East cannot field the 4♣call then the contract will almost certainly be 4♥ doubled as West will give up. Edit: From the EBU White book - which helpfully notes "It is not possible to provide guidance as to the strength of evidence required before a player may legitimately act on the basis that partner has misbid. Individual cases are rare, and can be judged on their merits."

[hv=pc=n&s=st4ha76d8654cakj4&w=sa75h5dak9cqt9532&n=s862hkqj832d2c876&e=skqj93ht94dqjt73c&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1n2cp3hp4cppp]399|300[/hv] At a certain bridge club 300 miles North of London, 4 players, none of which had animalar initials or Secretarial Bird pedantry 'played' the hand. 1NT was weak, 2♣ was alerted at PPAstro - Hearts & Clubs (actual agreement). 3♥ wasn't alerted (invitational in hearts), nor 4♣ (Unauthorised Panic in clubs) So the poor director gets called. What should be the final ruling? a) 3♥ doubled by East -4 (NS+1100) on the basis that West should pass 3♥ and North will double. b) 3NT doubled by West -4 (NS+1100) on the basis that West will think that with a maximum and all suits stopped 3N has chances c) 5♣ doubled by West -4 (NS+1100) on the basis that 3♥ should be a splinter agreeing clubs d) 4♣ - 3 (Table result) e) Some other result or reason.

FYI - from 1st August in England a 'strong' bid must also have at least 10 HCP. BB 5C3

What his bid means if he had understood your bid - opponents are entitled to the agreement not to knowledge what cards are in your hands. You, of course, know what cards are in his hand but must carefully avoid taking advantage of that information. The problem on the BW thread is when you aren't certain whether you have misbid or not. I think you would have to make a conscious decision one way or the other and then act consistently on it.

You announce (or not) your partnership agreement. So you announce transfer since that, to you, is the agreement. It is not (presumably) your fault that partner has misremembered. So you bid 2 Spades. (You can't field the misbid because of the UI position.) If you have an agreement that 2 Hearts cannot be removed then your partner can wake up - but by then of course it will be too late. He should of course call the director. I somehow suspect that the opponents won't be damaged.

I would rule Home come SB suggested that Colin the Corgi doing possibly calling the director when he was not at the table? SB surely knows law 76B5. Everyone knows Charlie the Chimp is ChCh. What was ChCh doing waking up the Rabbit - surely it was in his best interest to keep RR confused? SB gets a DP for breach of BB@B for not calling the director politely. As for the result - well I would poll the other two players in London of similar standard to the Rabbit (Toucan and Walrus) and see what they would do. Mind you - it is very hard to find a subset of players with Guardian Angels. If unable (very likely!) to find such players I would cop out and ask for technical advice from HH - knowing he would undoubtedly rule in favour of RR V SB.

Without the alert surely this is "No partnership agreement"? So nothing is demonstrably suggested.

Law 23 would be a good starting point. Whenever, in the opinion of the Director, an offender could have been aware at the time of his irregularity that this could well damage the non-offending side, the Director shall require the auction and play to continue (if not completed). When the play has been completed, the Director awards an adjusted score if he considers the offending side has gained an advantage through the irregularity*. * As, for example, by partners enforced pass. PS = why can't you complain (report an irregularity?)

Oh yes - although it leads to the strange position where he has to explain to the opponents one thing and act on another. I was just trying to cover all bases.

Mike & Sarah will probably use this at the next EBU County Directors' course :) I don't think that 3NT -1 would be the final adjusted score - unless the OP has said he would lead a spade rather than just noting the result. Given a good 6 card suit of your own, the fact that N and S have shown something good in Spades and an outside entry some players might have played on hearts . . .

I think you can assume partner has just discovered his A♦ is actually the A♥ :) Alternatively you could prepare to justify fielding a misbid - (which is allowed under EBU regulations, although the guidance isn't clear) I assume you have an agreement to always raise 1♥ to 2♥ with 4 card support - so it is probable that the AI allows you to assume a bidding misunderstanding. Your problem will be that if you tank then PARTNER may wake up to the fact that your 2♥ call was a relay. Personally I think you are up the creek and you had better hope partner's 3 card support is the AKQ and he holds very good Diamonds and bid 5♦. You KNOW the hearts aren't breaking - but the diamonds might be and you do have 3 quick tricks to go with them. At the end of the auction, before a card is faced, you will of course call the director and tell the opponents that the 2♥ call was a relay - just so they have the chance of doubling you in 5♦.

[hv=pc=n&s=saj2hkq93dqj986c5&w=s764ht5dk74cakj63&n=st85hj642dtcqt984&e=skq93ha87da532c72&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1n2cdp2s3dp3hppp]399|300[/hv] 2♣ was alerted as Landy (both majors) and at the end of play I was called because West was unhappy and wanted to record the psyche. Both N and S confirmed they played Landy but, as is so often in the club, no convention cards were available. At the time I ruled it as a green psyche (no evidence of fielding) with a recommendation that it be recorded (this was the pair's 2nd psyche in 3 weeks which is a lot for our club - not that it makes any difference to me). But was it a psyche or a 'treatment'? PS East dealt, not north.

This is dealt with under Blue Book 3Z (You can also deal with it via laws 19, 23, 26, 32, 36 ending up with 81 C5 and hoping opponents ask you to waive rectification 3Z A 2 Starting with the dealer, players place their calls on the table in front of them, from the left and neatly overlapping, so that all calls are visible and faced towards partner. Players should refrain from touching any cards in the box until they have determined their call. A call is considered to have been made when the call is removed from the bidding box with apparent intent (but the TD may apply Law 25) So I would rule that the player did not intend to remove a double card. Interesting - In theory The doubler's LHO could make a free call under Law 36A.

Have we considered the possible UI implications from Declarers (slow) 'transfer to hearts'. That suggests this could be making the wrong call, but intending to make it and correction should not be allowed.