dburn

A possibly apocryphal headline in a 19th-century English newspaper read "Fog In Channel - Europe Isolated". And quite right too.

If "missing AK10xx" means "missing AK1032", then you had better lead to the queen first. If the queen loses to the ace or king, lead low on the next round. If RHO plays high in front of the queen, play low on this round and high on the next. The way to think about these things at the table is to consider cases where one line wins and the other loses. We compare "queen then low" with "finesse the nine" and we see that the former: Wins when RHO has AKx, Ax, Kx (six of the possible 3-2 breaks); Loses when RHO has A10x, K10x, 10x (six of the possible 3-2 breaks); Breaks even when RHO has AK10, AK, A10, K10, Axx, Kxx, 10xx, xx (eight of the possible 3-2 breaks). We are on the verge of tossing a coin when we realise that "queen then low" also wins when LHO has the singleton ten. Since this is the only 4-1 break that we can handle (once RHO has failed to play the ten on the first round), we conclude (correctly) that "queen then low" is better than "finesse the nine". Similar calculations for combinations missing the nine, missing the eight etc. are left as an exercise for the reader.

Permit me, as an old Equity draftsman, to make a suggestion. If the word "transfer" bears any relation as a bridge term to its more general meaning, one would say that there must be something being transferred. In the simple cases of 1NT-2♦ and 1NT-2♥ showing respectively 5+ hearts and 5+ spades, what is (usually) being transferred is the declarership of the hand (from the player actually holding the long suit to his partner). I strongly suspect that this is why the originators of the convention in the United States and in Sweden chose the words that they chose; the use of "retransfers" to re-place the declarership in the hand of the opening bidder after he has "broken the transfer" is further evidence for the notion. If this is admitted, then the words "transfer to either minor" make no sense regardless of the meaning with which "either" is imbued, and should not be used as part of full disclosure. One hopes that in time those jurisdictions using announcements will take the view that if 1NT-2♠ shows 5+ clubs and 1NT-2NT shows 5+ diamonds, this may be revealed by the use of an announcement such as "clubs" or "diamonds" (I do not think the time has yet come when a transfer to a 4+-card suit can be disclosed by means of an announcement alone). Meanwhile, those who use 2♠ or 2NT to show a weak hand with one minor or some other stronger hand type should alert and explain what they are doing in terms that do not involve the word "transfer". This is not difficult. In my bright college days, we employed these terms: Transfer A call that showed length (usually 5+ cards) in a suit and commanded partner to bid that suit; for example 1NT-4♦ usually showing a hand that wanted partner to play 4♥ (but might be followed by slam tries in hearts). Puppet A call that commanded partner to make a particular bid, but did not necessarily relate to the denomination of that bid; for example 1NT-2NT showing (perhaps inter alia) a weak hand wishing to sign off in a minor. Request A "breakable transfer" that showed length (usually 5+ cards) in a suit, but allowed partner to do other than bid that suit at his next turn to call; for example 1NT-2♦ showing 5+ hearts and the pious but often unfulfilled hope that partner would not do anything stupid just because he had four hearts. Muppet A "breakable puppet"; for example a 2NT response to a double of a weak two bid that expected a "normal" doubler to bid 3♣ but allowed an "abnormal" doubler to show strength (or amnesia) by making some other bid. Of course, mere definition could not overcome imbecility. I still recall a 2-1 fit reached after 1NT-2NT (puppet to 3♣) - 3♦, which opener thought "must" show the six-card club suit that he actually held, but responder thought "must" show a desire to break the puppet on the basis of an independent diamond suit (with or without the values normally associated with an opening bid of 1NT, but probably without, for the opener was a card-carrying member of the Trick Cyclists' Union).

Assuming that one can cash a top club without loss of generality (and I do not see how it would affect the squeeze lines, though I am open to correction) one might well do so. If you do so, West drops the jack. Now, this does not necessarily mean that you should abandon everything else and play for the jack to be a singleton. For a start, a singleton jack is not very likely to have been dealt; moreover, this is the £15 game and West is a player capable of dropping an honour from such as ♣QJx. But it does open up various possibilities...

Just dealt in the £15 game at TGRs: [hv=pc=n&s=sk7haq64daj2cakt8&n=s642hk3dk8754c642]133|200[/hv] South opens 2NT, raised to three by North. West leads a spade to the ace and a spade is returned, West carding as though he started with five (he did). Plan the play.

A question you need to consider is this: when the Director arrives at the table, whose turn is it to call? Since South is the only player who may legally call at this point, a plausible answer is "South's". But South is not actually compelled to call at this point, so an equally plausible answer is "no one's, until South makes up his mind". It is not particularly surprising that the rest of the Laws do not appear to cover this position completely; after all, they assume that at any stage during the auction it must be someone's turn to call. But that ain't necessarily so...

Depends on the county. While discussing the hand, some of the London B team are capable of getting a complete count if you give them the hand records. And about five minutes.

If the captains agree on a ruling, why would there be an appeal?

Whenever I hear a discussion such as this, I am reminded of the words of John Armstrong. He perfectly understood the logical and statistical arguments behind various forms of scoring; he also perfectly understood the practical reasons why certain changes to established scoring methods would be acceptable to the paying customers while others would not. "But", as he remarked to me after some perceived quirk in the scoring system had led to the elimination of his team from an important event, "truth is there's no point moaning - if you play well you win, and if you play poorly you don't".

I should like to see an example (absent reverse hesitations). Not that I doubt you, but I have been giving the problem five minutes' consideration (which is 4'45" more than I give most bridge problems) and I cannot picture a "clear" case in my mind. Sure, the BIT may be accompanied by body language or vocal intonation that suggests passing, but that is not the same thing at all.

I don't see how I can be confusing two different things when I was not talking about two different things. I said nothing about "the general principle of whether we should give PPs for forgets"; there is no such principle, nor would it have entered my head to talk about it even if it existed. When an incident such as this occurs, one of two decisions may be taken: either the actual partnership "methods" have been correctly explained, or they have not. The convention card often is a good starting point, at least as regards opening bids, but in the case of rarely-used artificial opening bids it is no more than a starting point. Since the Laws enshrine the concept that partnership experience is part of the "methods" that must be disclosed, it is not enough for the putative offenders to say "we gave the right explanation according to our published methods". If there has been previous history of "forgets", clearly it is not enough to say "we really do play what's on the card", because they really don't. I would go so far as to say (because I have done it in the past) that players trying a new method for the first time should include that information on the card and in their explanations. Just tell the opponents what's happening - is that too much to ask?

The White Book helpfully says It then rather less helpfully says:

Even more years ago, before I had written the words I alluded to above, I chaired an appeal that had to rule on this situation: North-South had bid 1NT (12-14) - 2NT (natural, invitational and slow) - 3NT. The opener had a complete minimum, the raiser had a ten count, the lie of cards was favourable though not quite favourable enough, but the defence was ridiculous and the contract made. The Director cancelled the 3NT bid on the basis that it was demonstrably suggested by the slow 2NT. I was of the view that the 3NT bid should be allowed not because it was "not demonstrably suggested", but because the guy would never have bid it in a million years if he had any actual information about his partner's hand. And if he didn't have any information about his partner's hand, how could he be penalised for acting on unauthorised information about his partner's hand? I was a little unhappy that if this line of thought became standard ruling procedure, the clever division would raise slowly to 2NT only on hands that wanted partner to pass with other than a complete maximum. But although still more than a little wet behind the ears, I knew enough to know that you couldn't actually stop the clever division from bending the rules (slow penalty doubles were penalty because they would bar partner, fast ones were optional because they would not). All you could hope was that they would do it often enough for the pattern to become apparent. But it seemed to me, and I argued the case strongly enough to convince my fellow AC members, that this line of thought would actually solve quite a few problems. Assuming that a partnership was not playing reverse hesitations, then if it got a good result via an auction that it would never have conducted had it been communicating illegally (by standard hesitations or in some other way), that result should stand because there was no legal basis for amending it. Recall that the matter of breaks in tempo is merely a subset of the matter of illegal communication between partners; if there could not have been any of that, then there could not be a reason to adjust a score. I learned the error of my ways in very short order. The Director, one Franklin by name, informed me that (and here I paraphrase): "we didn't rule on that basis; we ruled on the basis that someone who went on over a slow 2NT with a minimum was trying to cheat; and even if it turned out that the slowness of the raise was based on doubt as to whether to pass, not whether to bid game, we adjusted the score if the game made". (Of course, he meant that the score was always adjusted for the putative offenders; if the non-offenders had contributed by ridiculous actions, they might keep some or all of their bad result.) The Laws and Ethics Committee on reviewing the case confirmed that this was indeed correct procedure. When I became a member of the said Committee, I came up with the formulation above in order to enshrine this procedure (despite my personal reservations): slow actions were in effect deemed demonstrably to suggest that partner take some further part in the auction, whether the hand on which the slow action was based actually wanted this to happen or not. The reasons I disagreed with myself then, I have outlined in the foregoing; the reason I do not disagree with myself now is that the procedure leads (as mine of all those years ago would) to consistency in giving rulings provided that it is consistently followed, and as the philosopher remarked "Consistency is all I ask". As to Bergen raises, a player might "raise" 1♠ to (say) 3♣ slowly (that is, after pulling out the Stop card and then thinking) for one of a number of reasons. As with a limit raise to 3♠, he may be wondering whether he has one of those or a raise to 2♠ or a raise to 4♠; but he may also have been intending to make a pure limit raise to 3♠ before remembering that he lives in some part of London south of Jeremy69A and therefore that 3♠ is a pre-empt; or he may have been trying to recall which of 3♣ and 3♦ is the four-trump raise and which the three-trump raise; or... At any rate, I don't see how the Burn Formulation of the Franklin Procedure could apply to a forcing bid, but the question is an interesting one.

Even if she had said: "The Ace of Hearts no the nine" it would be a legal call for the nine. No, it would not - the very idea is absurd. Suppose for example that dummy did not have the nine of hearts (from the original post I have no idea whether it did or not). And suppose that dummy did have the nine of, for example, spades. Now, when declarer says "The Ace of Hearts no the nine", for which card has declarer called, if any?

What bothers me somewhat about this case is West's "I guess he forgot the system again". This implies that the explanation South should have received from West before South called over 2♦ was not "18-19 balanced" but "18-19 balanced if he remembered, a weak two in diamonds if he forgot" (recall that partnership experience is part of partnership method and must in Law be fully disclosed). South may argue as follows: "my opponents were playing an opening bid of 2♦ as two-way: weak if the opener forgot, strong balanced if he remembered. Had I known in advance that this was their method, my partner and I would have had the opportunity to discuss a defence to it, and might have come up with (inter alia) "double means I think RHO forgot" (certainly that is the defence I would suggest without overmuch cerebration). Because South may quite correctly argue that way, the notion that South is not entitled to redress when 2♥ comes round and he does the wrong thing, given that he would have done the right thing over 2♦ had he known what his opponents actually played, is based only on the very stupid "principle" that "most of the time the opponents forget we get a good board, so we shouldn't complain when they forget and we get a bad one". For some reason Brian Senior also thinks this, the only one of his opinions on the game that is other than non-ridiculous. Must be the Northern air, or lack of it.

If so, mine is clearly lacking - I don't at all mind the notion that an unalerted 2NT should be something like ♠xx ♥Kx ♦Ax ♣AQxxxxx. Or should I have opened a strong no trump with that?

If North (an expert playing with this partner for the first or second time) said "I had so many clubs and so few hearts that I decided partner had forgotten the methods", would you believe him? If North (a beginner) said "Partner had shown the black suits so I bid my longer black suit; I didn't bid more than three because I had a bad hand and they'd doubled 2♦", would you believe him? If North (an expert playing with this partner for the thousandth time) said "I bid 3♣ so that when I later bid 5♣ over 4♥, they would be more likely to double me than to bid 5♥ or 6♥; when they bid 3NT I knew that either he'd forgotten or they'd gone crazy and 3NT would go down several on a club lead", would you believe him? That is: I agree strongly with the notion that I would like to know why North acted as he did. But I would reserve judgement until I had an answer to the question.

Some years ago I wrote words to this effect: the slower a call, the less happy the player making it is with the notion that it should be the final call in the auction. Some years later I see no reason to disagree with myself.

Your hand is: ♠A32 ♥AK2 ♦KQJ10987 ♣None You open 1♦. Partner bids 3♣, a weak jump shift. What call do you make? If you would bid 3♦ (as I would, because I am pretty sure that my prospects there are better than partner's prospects in 3♣, and it is not clear to me that any game will make on a spade lead) then you would hope that your partner would pass it and not bid 3♠ on three to the ten. Sometimes these threads descend swiftly into self-parody, but this one appears to have done so faster than most.

Don't mind 3♣ - quite an intelligent bid, really. Provided of course that partner is supposed to select his rebid on the basis that I can have a hand that might make slam opposite a suitable maximum. If the partnership in the actual case can supply evidence to this effect, then I don't have a problem with the notion that there is no LA to bidding game (and this was "a high level of play", so such evidence may well be forthcoming). It seems to me that many comments are along the lines of "the player who bid 3♣ was or could have been a bean-counter who re-evaluated on the basis of the UI that partner nearly bid game". Well, it may be so, but the original poster's question was along these lines: "the player bid 3♣ fully intending to carry a minimum response to game, and to try for slam over certain maximum responses; may he now bid game over a slow 3♠?" Of course he may, and he should not expect to be ruled against if he does. To put this into sharper perspective: I once had an auction behind screens where my partnership had agreed hearts, and the opponents had competed in spades to the point where our side could not conduct the scientific auction we would have liked. I cue-bid five of some minor, and before I shoved the tray under wrote a note to my screen-mate saying that I was going to bid six however slowly my partner bid five. My screen-mate (a world champion) added the words "quite right" underneath. I learned later with astonishment bordering on incredulity that some people would have objected to this procedure (as it happened, my partner bid six anyway, so there was no issue).

Not exactly. There is however a link to the ecats site, from which the EBU proscribed system card can be downloaded.

This isn't altogether clear to me. For example, several of the systems I have encountered in my years as a coach have been referred to as "strong pass" systems, and in most of those an opening pass has shown a minimum of 12 or 13 hcp. If a strong pass is 13+, why can't a strong club be 13+? To me, a "strong club system" means that on almost all hands above a certain strength the opening bid is one club; all hands weaker than this strength open something else. But what that strength may be is a matter for the system designers, not the regulators. Of course, if you want to disclose your system adequately it is not very helpful to describe it as "strong club" without further elaboration unless an opening one club starts around the 16-hcp mark.

Suppose that your hand is: ♠AKJ64 ♥KQ75 ♦42 ♣32 What should you bid after 1♠-2♣-2♥-2♠ (where this auction is game-forcing)?

"Permit me, as an old Equity draftsman, to make a suggestion." (W S Gilbert, Iolanthe) The EBU L&EC has for a number of years (and I think I may be the only person who has served on it for all of them) vacillated on the question of whether or not players should alert above 3NT. On the one hand it is held that such alerts help only the side that is making bids above 3NT (4♣ being Gerber when alerted and something else when not alerted being the canonical example). On the other hand, as happened only this evening, it may be important for the opponents to know what 4♦ (good 4♠ opening) - pass - 4♥ (some slam interest, at least three controls) means, but in the present jurisdiction we are not allowed to tell them unless they ask, thereby possibly conveying UI to partner. Thus, the rationale is not to "reduce UI to the bidding side when it has had a misunderstanding"; rather, it is to eliminate the possibility that the bidding side will avoid a misunderstanding by means of tempestive (look it up) alerts. To that extent the policy is laudable; to the extent that is prevents the non-bidding side from finding out what it needs to know, it is not. Of course, the whole muddle in the current case would have been avoided if the 4♣ bidder had been allowed to alert 4♥ as showing spades. But he wasn't, so he didn't. Perhaps gnasher would have done anyway; for myself I would consider it automatic to alert were it not for the fact that I know I'm not supposed to. In truth, if my partner had explained 4♣ as "asks me to transfer to my major" and then bid 4♥, I could not bear to sit there smugly waiting for the guy on my right to bid spades on such as ♠Axx, so I would commit some histrionic to ensure that he did not - or at least that if he did, his partner would know it was a cue-bid. In all seriousness, what harm could I do thereby? The purpose of any mechanism to ensure full disclosure as required by the Laws should be just that: to ensure full disclosure as required by the Laws. Insofar as it fails in this purpose, it is a bad mechanism, and in that respect not alerting above 3NT may in many cases be a bad mechanism. To my way of thinking, players understand now far better than they did ten years ago what their responsibilities are in respect of UI, and we don't need a mechanism to prevent them from exchanging it if that mechanism prevents full and timely disclosure. But I could very well be wrong. This has not much to do with the present case - I don't understand why East bid 4♠ anyway, and I would want convincing that he wouldn't have done if he'd been told that 4♥ showed spades. But if the AC thought categorically that he was told that (because to the AC "transfer to my major" had no meaning other than "4♥ shows spades"), then the AC may have been a distance adrift best measured in anything from miles to parsecs. In this respect I find myself (not for the first time) entirely in agreement with my learned brother bluejak.

Only yesterday a very experienced tournament player at my table said of a bid of 2NT that "it asks me to transfer to clubs". Curiously enough, this did not mean that it asked him to bid spades or no trumps in order to show clubs - no, he was meant to bid clubs. I thought at the time that his usage was a little odd, but I didn't have any trouble accepting it as entirely valid - just as I would accept as entirely valid a request to "transfer to the District Line" as a request to get on a District Line train.