LH2650

I didn't realize that when you stated "face up" you meant that the entire table could see them! You are saved by that 14th card. Have someone refuse to play the hand. Otherwise, the exposed cards are put face up on the table, her partner must pass at his first opportunity, and the poor director will probably be stuck at the table for the entire hand.

Not at all! Suppose you were not vulnerable. Then the bidding I mentioned in the my previous post becomes much more plausible, and you might get a score of +50 for 5 hearts down 1, beating par, without taking any risk. Also, whenever there is a failure to alert, the Director is empowered to assess a procedural penalty. I have not seen this actually done, but it should be if multiple offenses come to the attention of the Director, even over several tournaments.

If the Director concludes that the information gained by seeing the extra card is inconsequential, AND all four players agree, the hand may be corrected and played. Otherwise, Average Plus is assigned to the non-offending side, and Average Minus is assigned to the offending side. That is generally the 60/40 previously mentioned. If this is in the middle of a duplicate game, the Director might want to inquire how the hands got that way, and warn or penalize the previous players of the hand.

Don't get too excited! My quote was from Fouad, and my comment was directed at his case. I can only hope that a different set of regulations was in place when that ruling was made. Your case is not rediculous, but you would have to argue that you would double, would later bid 4 spades, and that North would bid 5 hearts rather than taking advantage of the vulnerability to double you. All of that seems extremely unlikely, so no adjustment. Personally, I would like to see directors assign procedural penalties against players who cause situations like this to occur.

You got a horrible ruling. Without screens, the splinter is not immediately alertable because it occurred on the second round of bidding. However, with screens it is immediately alertable. In the case that started this thread, the spliner/Gerber bid was alertable even in F2F bridge without screens because it occurred on the first round. The WBF Alert procedure may be found at http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/systems/alerts.asp

If your minor suit bid denies a major, I feel that it should be alerted. If it only tends to deny a major, then no alert. And don't blame Richard Walsh or Max Hardy for this style. A longer minor was always bid first in a game-forcing hand, and a 7 card diamond suit was bid in preference to a major in a non GF hand. I would not alert any of the other bids mentioned.

In ACBL-land, 4C would require an immediate Alert, whether Gerber or a splinter. However, no damage and no adjustment in this case.

Suppose your agreement was that the cuebid showed the other major and diamonds, and that partner properly alerted and explained it, and then bid 3 clubs. If the opponents then doubled, would you pull? I hope not. Partner knows much more about your hand than you do about his. That is the logic that you must use in your actual situation, since you are not entitled to use the knowledge that he thinks you have clubs. Are you aware that if this case went to an NABC appeals committee, you can find it on the ACBL website in an Appeals Casebook, and read an expert analysis of the director's and committee's decisions?

If I added 4441 hands to my present list of acceptable notrump opening shapes, they would comprise slightly over 5% of the total. If I did not open 1N with a singleton Ten or Jack (personally I think that the King is the only appropriate card), I would be down to about 2%. The "standard expert" might think that some of those hands containing two four card majors would be better opened with one of a minor. If so, his methods would be close enough to the ACBL standard that there would be no objection.

The ACBL policy can be found at http://www.acbl.org/learn/noTrumpwithaSingleton.html Too much is made of it. Although opening all 4441 in-range hands would be excessive, if you have a genuine rebid problem, open 1N. It is when you start bending your system because of your propensity to do this that you are in violation.

The literal interpretation of the wording is that your first auction is forcing to 3 spades, and your second is forcing to 3 clubs. This is strange, since in the absence of interference, you could get out at 3 diamonds in the first auction. Note that this is the SAYC and 2/1 Forum. In SAYC, I believe that these bids have the same implications as they would without interference. Therefore the first would be nonforcing if opener rebid 2N or 3D. If opener rebid 2H, then he could pass your 2S continuation.

This looks like Pittsburgh NABC appeals case #5, which may be found in the Wednesday bulletin. Until such time that an Appeals Casebook is issued (and they may no longer do that) with the review committee taking exception to the ruling, this is about as close to an official ACBL policy pronouncement as we are going to get. Note that the ruling of the floor director was overturned by a panel of senior ACBL directors, not a committee of players.

I am not an expert on Standard American, but I doubt that 3♥ on this auction shows 15+. I would interpret the bid as showing 10-12 with exactly 3 hearts, whereas 2♥ would show the same range with a doubleton. Fortunately, there is an SAYC System Booklet that can be downloaded from the ACBL web site (under Tools and Supplies). It states that 3♥ is forcing. I would rebid 2♥ in 2/1, and 3♥ in SAYC.

OK, so North's question is authorised information for East. So, on what basis can you adjust the score if you decide that East gave a correct explanation and West has misbid? Here is a similar situation: uncontested: 1NT:2♥,2♠:3♥,P. In this auction, perhaps responder forgot they were playing transfers. Supposing he has lots of hearts and no spades, then we will have to allow his 3♥ bid. But what if opener knows that his partner is likely to forget, and therefore passes 3♥ rather than making his obvious 3♠ bid? Can a TD disallow the pass? As I said before, in the UK I believe this is called a "fielded misbid" (anyone here able to correct me? I'm no expert on this) and we adjust to A+/A- unless the non-offending side did better than that on the board. What would happen in this situation in the US? If you can answer that then I think you can rule on the original problem. Per the first paragraph in Law 16, Authorized Information consists of calls, plays and mannerisms. hotShot's example involved a "mannerism". Try as you might, you can't fit “questions” into any of those categories. However, put down your law book for a moment, step away from the problem at hand, and ask yourself “Can it really be right that I should be able to take advantage when my opponents attempt to obtain information, to which they are legally entitled, about my system?”. I believe that anyone experienced in the ethics of bridge will conclude that the answer is “No”. And that is what I find in the Laws. As for your transfer sequence, if your action is based only on your hand and your knowledge of partner's propensity to forget, there should be no adjustment. The Director would certainly try to ascertain whether there was a “mannerism” that influenced your decision. Your opponents have a right to know about your partner's history in this area, so you might get into trouble for failing to adequately explain your agreements. In the NABC Casebooks, sometimes committees have accepted a “catch” of a non-transfer, and sometimes they have not. It depends on the circumstances. (The auctions were always more complex than yours.) If you decide that there was a use of UI, your score adjustment is incorrect. You need to ascertain the agreed meaning of the rebid, follow the systemically correct auction to its logical conclusion, and determine the score based on that.

Authorized Information is defined in the first paragraph of Law 16. It specifically includes your example. Any use of Unauthorized Information is illegal.

I'm repeating myself, but the infraction that must lead to a score adjustment is not the misinformation, but the use of unauthorized information by East when he passed a nominally forcing bid, based on North's questions. The most likely contract without the infraction is 4 clubs doubled, but NS would be entitled to a higher scoring contract their way, if they could make a reasonable argument that they might reach it.

Better read that Law again. You are allowed to base your actions on mannerisms and calls, not questions. If it were otherwise, you would gain advantage merely by playing an unusual system that requires considerable explanation. This is a UI problem, not an MI problem. Also, NS can't lose any rights by not calling the director immediately. There is no established irregularity until it is obvious that the explanation does not match the hand. EW might want to call, since they are likely to get into trouble.

The Director should have been called when East showed uncertainty about the meaning of West's call. Perhaps he could have determined the actual agreement and avoided this mess. However, at this point an adjustment seems clear. North was effectively told that he would have the opportunity to double a higher contract than 3C, so he decided to do that. Is there any doubt that North would have taken a more successful action if he had been in possession of the (apparently) correct explantion that the 3C bid was preemptive? Also, when East based his bidding on North's question, he acted on Unauthorized Information, committing a second Law violation. The discussion should be about procedural penalties.

You are missing the point. RHO opens 2anysuit and you hold say a balanced 16 count. The opening bid was not alerted, so you pass and so does everyone else. Do you really think that you can claim damage afterwards because there was no alert of the 2any? Even if it had been alertable? Sorry no. You must try to get your points from elsewhere. No sensible TD would award you anything. In fact, he should tell you that it's your own fault that you didn't bid on the hand. No one will ask any question unless he or she has an errand. You had one with your 16 count, and yet you didn't act. Roland I see no specific hand presented, and no claim by the originator that there should be an adjustment in this case, so this is a generic question. The generic answer is that you do not have to ask questions in order to later successully prosecute a claim of damage due to misinformation. In ACBL-land, 2 diamonds is a weak two-bid unless Alerted. You are allowed to act based on that assumption. If your action works poorly because the opponents are playing something else, and you have a reasonable claim that you would have taken a different action given the correct information, you are entitled to an adjustment.

I disagree strongly. This philosophy invites, or even forces, leading questions. The second and third asterisks on Law 20 (Review and Explanation of Calls) in the current ACBL Lawbook explicitly indicate that questions about the meanings of bids may lead to the application of Law 16 (Unauthorized Information). Asking questions can damage your side. Law 21 (Call Based on Misinformation) states that a failure to give a timely alert provides misinformation, and that the Director may award an adjusted score. Yes, there must be damage in order to have an adjustment, but there is nothing in Law requiring you to protect yourself from opponent's failures to alert.

Double, nominally penalty for at least 1 of their suits, followed by 3H over their 3D. Expect to get to 3N if partner has diamonds stopped, and 4C otherwise.

At the time you must make the decision, there are only 2 cases that must be considered - J32 opposite Q, and 32 opposite QJ. Originally, there were 8 cases of a 3-1 split, with a total a priori probability of 49.74%, and 6 cases of a 2-2 split, with a total probability of 40.70% (Encyclopedia of Bridge, Mathematical Tables). The relative probabilities for the two remaining cases hold. Therefore, the 2-2 split is more likely. However, RHOs best strategy is to randomly play the Q or J from the QJ doubleton. (If he always plays the Q, you are entitled to this information.) The probability of interest is that he held the QJ AND he played the Q. If he follows the optimum strategy, this is only half as likely as holding the QJ originally, so your best strategy is to play for the 3-1. It comes to about 64.7%. I remember reading an article by Jeff Rubens about what happens when he follows a non-optimum strategy, and would like to hear if anyone can identify it.

I support the 3C rebid, since anything else is gambling, given your system constraints, but why didn't South rebid 3 diamonds? Seems automatic. North will bid 3 hearts if he has 3, and 3N on this hand. Neither partner should move above 3N (e.g. responder raises clubs) unless enough values have been shown to give a reasonable play for slam.

IF partner is showing the minors, some of the example hands would have poor play for game opposite a 2N response not including a major suit Ace. Therefore, they are minimums. My hand is so golden that I will try 5S, which partner should interpret as an RKCB response for clubs. He may even work out that my hand is too good for a mere 6C, and infer that I have the diamond King. Then he can make an intelligent decision. Even if he is totally confused, he will retreat to 6 clubs, which would be my second choice.

In Bridge World Standard, you could bid 3H. I would here, even though I dislike it.