BudH

2NT would be a subset of 1♣ opening bids (3+ clubs) only if the 2NT bid contained 3+ clubs. Which is not the case.

I am beginning to be more liberal in my comparable call allowance, such as this 2NT which frequently has 2+ clubs and the opening club bid having 3+ club bids. However, I will assume a heart or spade opening showing FIVE or more is a completely different animal. Even a diamond opening showing 4+ starts to skirt even the liberal line. (As is true of many of us, I would greatly support simply using the UI law exclusively and award an adjusted score when required - certainly would make the law much easier, although there would be more judgement situations to rule on.)

Regarding the (lack of) UI law to be (officially) used if you are liberal with your comparable call "same or similar" criteria, I recently took a player aside whose partner I allowed a borderline comparable call. I informed him the unauthorized information law did not apply - BUT, if he used the small amount of extra information about his partner's hand that he was not supposed to have, it would greatly increase the chance I would be awarding an adjusted score (under Law 23C). In other words, although the UI law doesn't (officially) apply, in some ways, UI "principles" still may affect the score under Law 23C. If there is NO extra information held by offender's partner, then Law 23C would rarely be used (although I can imagine a case where the declarer is on the other side of the table from "normal", allowing a better score than if the illegal call had not occurred).

As has been mentioned in at least one thread, the WBF Laws Committee released it's Commentary on the 2017 Laws of Duplicate Bridge: http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017LawsCommentary.pdf It has some excellent information. The one thing it is missing is a few very specific examples that would answer many of the questions Directors have been waiting for. Example we've all seen since the comparable call law has been in place: Dealer's LHO opens 1♠ out of rotation, not accepted, dealer opens 1♥ and offender overcalls 1♠. What systemic range of overcall strength would allow 1♠ to be considered comparable to an opening bid? I didn't expect an EXACT answer. But it should have at least indicated if the lower end of the overcall range was near 5 or 6 HCPs it would not be comparable and if the lower end of the range was at least 9 or 10 HCP, then it would be comparable, and for the gray area between (7 or 8 HCP), it could say it was a gray area to be determined by the Director.

Although I am sure some will try to rationalize the "subset rule" allows a 2NT overcall to be comparable to a 2NT overcall of a weak 2-bid, the problem is that not all 2NT overcalls contain 3+ clubs (which the withdrawn 1♣ opening shows and offender's partner is not legally allowed to know. Additionally, it is extremely likely offender has a balanced 18-19 hand with 3+ clubs, but a 2NT overcall isn't nearly that precise.

The recently released commentary on the laws from the WBF Laws Committee http://www.worldbridge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2017LawsCommentary.pdf is very clear that an offender may ask the Director if an intended call will keep his partner in the auction (and additionally, there would not be any potential lead penalties nor would the UI law apply). The offender always is allowed to know if the call he is about to use will require his partner to pass (or not). As for the question of 2NT being comparable to a 1♣ opening bid out of turn, the problem is that offender's partner knows about club length from the withdrawn club bid which isn't shown with the 2NT overcall. Also, the 2NT overcall of a weak 2♠ opening shows about a good 15 to bad 20 HCPs - but offender's partner will know 18-19 is very likely. So there are both club length and hand strength pieces of information that offender's partner should not possess. So I don't think this technically should be allowed to be considered comparable. However, I would be tempted to allow it and be at the ready with Law 23C for a potential adjusted score if that small amount of distributonal and hand strength information affected the result. If 1!C was an artificial strong Precision opening bid, then I'd allow a 2NT overcall to be considered comparable.

You are required to inform the opponents, if asked, what the systemic meaning for partner's call happens to be. Some might suggest whether you should or should not mention that it is the first time in over a year this convention has been used. I would often do so in this kind of situation, but it should not be required. It's your decision if you think partner has the minors or not. There is no UI. If you miss a 5-level sacrifice, it's your issue. I'll assume (for now) since East made 9 tricks in notrump at the other table that minors were not held. Were they?

I expected this question. I don't know how soon after the 2♦ bid was placed on the table that the 2♦ bidder called the Director - but I think responder saw the 1♣ bid on the table a moment after the 2♦ bid was made. There had not been an alert by opener and responder determined her own bidding error without UI. Yes, lucky for her she did, for if her partner was quick to alert, the result might have been different. (However, there is still a good chance that 6NT would be reached, even if you forced responder to continually treat the auction as if opener's first bid was 1♠.)

ACBL club matchpoints, no interference, involving best pair in the room (5000+ masterpoints each) [hv=pc=n&w=skq64hk875dq6ca76&e=sa7ha3dakjt97c983&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1cp2dp2np6nppp]266|200[/hv] WEST EAST ♠KQ64 *** ♠A7 ♥K875 *** ♥A3 ♦Q6 *** ♦AKJT97 ♣A76 *** ♣983 1C - 2D** 2NT (balanced 12-14) - 6NT Pass ** I was called to the table as Director after responder East 2♦ and just before South was about to pass. East (stupidly) said to me and the rest of the table she thought partner had opened 1♠ and wanted to know if she could change her bid. 1. I ruled the 2♦ bid stands. (Obviously, if she had lied and told me it was a mechanical error and that she intended to bid 1♦, she would have gotten away with it.) 2. I informed opener the unauthorized information cannot be used and that on a close decision, he must choose the call that is least advantageous to his side. 3. I informed opener that at this point, if 2♦ is alertable in the auction 1♣-Pass-2♦, he needs to alert and if asked, to explain the systemic meaning of the 2♦ bid. (That bid by responder showed an artificial game forcing club raise.) An easy 12 tricks were made in 6NT and I let the result stand because it was clear that the player learned herself the opening bid was 1♣ instead of 1♠ so she isn't required to bid her hand as if the opening bid was 1♠. I know I have seen EBU documents describing a player cannot just jump to slam or game to avoid a misinformation situation to prevent a disaster. (Can someone tell me the two word phrase to describe that principle? I couldn't find it after numerous internet searches.) I decided that was not the case - but some might think with the type of hand responder held that a 4♣ Gerber bid might appropriate, but responder knows 4♣ might be misinterpreted after a club game forcing raise (although it shouldn't be). Is the fact opener is potentially constrained due to UI responder caused allowed to be used by the responder?

Law 28B (Call by Correct Player Cancelling Call Out of Rotation): "A call is considered to be in rotation when made by a player whose turn it was to call before rectification has been assessed for a call out of rotation by an opponent. Making such a call forfeits the right to rectification for the call out of rotation. The auction proceeds as though the opponent had not called at that turn. Law 26 [Lead Restrictions] does not apply, but see Law 16C2 [uI by offending side]." I admit to not having looked this up at the time but got the ruling (almost) correct. This table was clearly behind, otherwise I would have given myself a minute to look in the law book. What happened in the end was that overcaller bid 2♠ and responder bid 3♦, so there was never going to be an issue here, with the 3♦ bid being comparable to the insufficient 1♦ bid if you had thought that applied. But I did think lead penalties would have applied if diamonds had not been bid again, which as the law specifies lead penalties do not apply - at least not directly. (Note, however, the UI law applies, so opener can't lead diamonds if a logical alternative is present.)

As Director at a local club game earlier today, I was called with the following auction showing on the table (explanation of it follows the diagram): 1♣-2♠-1♦ This was not an insufficient bid situation. I was told responder bid 1♦ out of turn and then overcaller studying his hand and never noticing his LHO's action, bid 2♠ and a moment later the 1♦ out of turn irregularity was verbally stated by 4th seat and/or dealer. So now we have a bid out of turn. But we also have the 2♠ bid by overcaller (whose turn it was to bid before responder's bid out of turn). I know how I ruled. What would you have done?

I stand corrected. I never saw B3 and I agree that is what should have been used, and it appears an adjusted score should have been awarded. Annoying from my standpoint that I contributed initially from the CJ being a penalty card (due to what the players told me) and if I had taken a count of how many cards each player held, it likely would have been caught prior to the insanity that was identified a few minutes later.

As Director in an open club game, I arrive at the table with defender South's club jack (CJ) faced and North's club 8 (C8) also faced after completion of trick 4. I am told the contract is 2S by West with South on lead, but North led the C8 out of turn followed a second or two later by South's CJ. South did not notice North's C8 lead, as you would suspect. In my opinion, they were not nearly simultaneous (Law 58A), so North's C8 was led before South's CJ. West accepts the North's out of turn C8 lead, plays the CQ from dummy, and South has to follow with the major penalty card CJ. End of ruling and I leave the table. Or so I thought. A minute later, I am called to the same table and learn after trick 8 South holds one card more than the other three players. The players then remember South's CJ from before was not really a lead out of turn, but was the card that won the trick prior to North's C8 lead out of turn. Contrary to what both sides told me previously. So South failed to play a card to trick 4 (the CJ should have been part of trick 4) and the CJ was instead part of trick 5. Players in my club know I am a student of the laws, so when they saw me looking through a law book, they knew this must have been an unusual and/or uncommon ruling. I did find it difficult to find the correct law reference for this (I initially checked LAW 13 - INCORRECT NUMBER OF CARDS and LAW 14 - MISSING CARD unsuccessfully) but finally found it in Law 67 - DEFECTIVE TRICK: Law 67B1(a) - "When the Director determines that there has been a defective trick (from the fact that one player has too few or too many cards in his hand, and a correspondingly incorrect number of played cards); both sides having played to the next trick, he proceeds as follows: When the offender has failed to play a card to the defective trick, the Director shall require him forthwith to expose a card face-up in front of him and then place it appropriately among his played cards (this card does not affect ownership of the trick); if the offender has a card of the suit led to the defective trick; he must choose such a card to place among his played cards. He is deemed to have revoked on the defective trick and is subject to the loss of one trick transferred in accordance with Law 64A2." South had at least one club, so I had her show the club card face up for all the other players to see, then had her put it with her quitted tricks face down in the trick 4 position. (Note the law never says to turn the card face down!) Declarer gained a one trick transfer after play was completed. It's been a long time since I had to take more than 2 or 3 minutes to find the correct law reference for a ruling. I was fairly sure it was going to be a "deemed to have revoked" situation with a one trick transfer, but still needed to find it in the book. With regards to the earlier incorrect information, should the declaring side in some way be penalized for having a part in what happened earlier with the CJ "lead" by South that wasn't really a lead, even though the defenders did not refute the facts given to me at the time on my initial call to the table? NOTE TO SELF - CONFIRMING HOW MANY CARDS EACH PLAYER HELD AT THE TIME OF THE INITIAL RULING WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE SECOND CALL TO THE TABLE!

Agree completely - and unfortunately is something I see in my local club far too frequently. But in those cases, the pause is just short enough that they won't get nailed for it.

I'm having trouble visualing this. Just as an example, assume we had five teams playing a four round, six board per round round robin with comparison after the first two rounds. This is the layout you'd see in a book describing this movement. If I have three full sets of boards available to me, how would I lay out the boards in Rounds 1 and 2 so no board higher than 18 is being used? ROUND 1 NS1 vs EW3 Bds 1-6 NS2 vs EW4 Bds 7-12 NS3 vs EW5 Bds 13-18 NS4 vs EW1 Bds 19-24 NS5 vs EW2 Bds 25-30 ROUND 2 NS1 vs EW4 Bds 19-24 NS2 vs EW5 Bds 25-30 NS3 vs EW1 Bds 1-6 NS4 vs EW2 Bds 7-12 NS5 vs EW3 Bds 13-18

I have convinced my local club (after volunteering to duplicate the several sets of boards required) to try a "Dupli-Swiss" where the same six boards are played during each of the four matches and a hand record made available after play ends. Very unlikely will more than 12 teams compete. For up to 16 teams, four boards sets 1-24 and one board set 1-36 (so that an odd number of teams with a 3-way at Tables C1/C2/C3 can use 25-30 and 31-36) will be sufficient. The "A" tables are split into groups of three tables (triangles) and they share boards 1-6 in Round 1. Similar for the "B" tables in Round 1. A 3-way with an odd number of teams use 1-6, 7-12, and 25-30 in Rounds 1 and 2. No caddy is required to move boards as no boards are passed from any "A" table to "B" table or vice versa. This is generally easy for 8 or more tables. QUESTION: How would this be set up for 4 to 7 tables where you play a round robin type format? Of particular interest is the odd number of tables (5 or 7 teams) situation which normally would require comparison only after every TWO rounds. I considered a Board-A-Match type movement, but it appears the teams cannot compare until the entire 24 boards are played, which would not be an acceptable format.

I gave a hypothetical case. In real life, it was 7 1/2 tables and my most hated movement, the ACBL H8ROVER external was being used with a Pair 15 rover. Stationary pair at Table 4 had the medical issue and had already been bumped by the roving pair for two boards early in the session. 9 boards out of 28 were missed.

The thing is, there should be official instructions or interpretations to follow when something like this happens ........

7 table club game, 7x4 Mitchell. A player has a medical issue and cannot play the last two boards. You award Average Plus - Average Minus on those last two boards. Hopefully everyone agrees with this. But what if the medical issue happens much earlier forcing the pair to withdraw from the session? You don’t want to be giving Average Plus scores to a huge number of pairs. What do you do if the player is forced to miss: 1. One round (4 of 28 boards) 2. Three rounds (12 of 28 boards) 3. Five rounds (20 of 28 boards) Feel free to emphasize the difference between “no play” and “average”, if you’d like.

A few days ago, a player asked me if, during the auction, a player could verbally tell his partner "STOP" to prevent him from making a call out of rotation. Considering the wording in Law 9A3 ("Any player, including dummy, may attempt to prevent an irregularity (but for dummy subject to Laws 42 and 43)", it appears during the auction anyone is allowed to try to prevent any player (partner or opponent) from committing an irregularity. Law 42B2: "He (dummy) may try to prevent any irregularity." So it appears to me any player can try to prevent any other player from committing an irregularity, during the auction or the play. (Of course, if the irregularity has already occurred, dummy must stay silent.) Is the above correct? Or have I missed something?

Just in case I might get "SB'd" in the future, I better phrase my claims saying "finesse against the heart king". If a case like this in real life actually gets appealed and the defense gains a trick (instead of getting an "appeal without merit warning" or whatever it is these days for a frivolous appeal), it will be a very sad day for bridge.

Old 2007 Laws - Law 42B: "In case of an incomplete or erroneous call by declarer of the card to be played from dummy, the following restrictions apply, except when declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible." The new laws also use very similar wording. The claim laws did not have the "different intention is incontrovertible" included.

Of course, the emphasis here was on entering the contract immediately and making it easily visible to one of the opponents. Some clubs, such as my local club, want the opening lead entered. It does also help prevent incorrect declarer designations. The need for score corrections has significantly decreased due to this. Yes, I am aware if there are sleepy opponents not paying attention, and if the feature for the table to correct a score in the same round without the Director is enabled, then North can use this feature to cheat - I've mentioned this on this site and other sites. But it does take a lot of keystrokes and opponents not paying attention to be useful. (Plus, if there is any suspicion, you can check the Bridgemate log and this North player would be quickly busted - and hopefully banned from the club for a significantly long time.)

I'll assume the original face down lead card was returned to hand and not easily determined by the Director. When I first read the original poster's description, my first thought was original lead stands and must be faced, second card is a major penalty card. But it may not be easy to determine the original lead card if offender is not cooperative! As for the procedural penalty, Ed is probably correct due to the "may not" phrase, and I think I give much more procedural penalties than most (club) directors (although I often make them very small - the key is for players by word of mouth to know a PP was assessed and why for a learning opportunity), but I doubt I'd consider giving the PP on this one.

I strongly encourage the North players to enter the contract immediately into the Bridgemate and, while it is still in hand, enter the opening lead immediately after it is faced to avoid the "what was the opening lead?" after the play ends. Additionally, I encourage North to position the Bridgemate so East or West can see it after the contract and opening lead have been entered - before Trick 1 is completed.