chrism

This is not quite a psych, though it doesn't feel close even to a 9-count in HCP to me, so is not covered by the general ACBL ban on psyching artificial opening bids (General Convention Chart, DISALLOWED, clause 2) or the mid-Chart prohibition on psyching conventional agreements that may shower fewer than 10 HCP (Mid-Chart, DISALLOWED, clause 7). However, if the pair is frequently "off by a point" in this and other agreements, then they need to fix their CC to reflect their real agreements, or face serious disciplinary consequences for deliberately having Concealed Partnership Understandings. And if their agreements on Flannery embrace normally choosing to open the example hand with 2D, then they are playing a convention that is not legal in ACBL GCC events. Someone should have a serious word with this partnership before they get themselves into trouble.

In the ACBL: A natural non-forcing 2♣ opening is alertable no matter what the range (including weak 2-bid and Precision 2♣) NF suit responses to weak 2-bids are alertable Strong artificial 2♣ opening is not alertable

If these are indeed novices then I want to protect NS without being punitive. I explain briefly that this is not an allowed use of the STOP card, and that EW should come and discuss it with me when there is more time, but that in the mean time they must decide to use the card never or (preferably) every time a skip bid occurs. Then I rule on this hand, which I treat as a failure to alert a weak 2C opening bid. N gets a do-over of the last pass, and NS are protected from damage resulting from the MI, as in a routine MI case.

Concealed Partnership Understanding

That is at least better than the "discovery claim", where declarer claims without a line, and when a defender objects or asks for clarification, says "well, maybe we had better just play it out" having magically inferred the location of a missing honor, existence of the 13th trump, etc.

Whether Pass is an LA is only one of the questions that needs to be answered before adjusting a score. In this instance it seems clear that it is. Was there damage to the opponents? Not clear, since as noted above, even if a Pass is imposed on South, the auction isn't over at that point. Was there UI? Yes, provided it is determined that there was an unmistakable hesitation. Did the UI suggest a more advantageous course of action that South adopted? I didn't think so at first sight; I am less sure on reflection. If you decide to make South pass, you must project results, determine possible damage, and assign a score according to local regulations (possibly split, since this happened in the ACBL world).

The original post did not specify the jurisdiction, nor whether the board had already been played at the other table (as could easily be the case with a 2-section mirror movement). Assuming it had not, then a replay would be appropriate in the world of ACBL, following the regulations that gordontd aptly terms "byzantine" (quoted below). While I have sympathy for EW, they achieved their "good result" on an illegal board that has to be canceled. I would be happy to see a PP go to NS, and if time did not permit a new board to be played, then whatever the local interpretation is of A+/A- for a BAM would be indicated.

Is it not credible that East, given a correct explanation of 2♠, would double? And after two passes, with partner ostensibly offering a choice between 2♠X and 3, North has a strong enough desire not to play 2♠X that he can bid 3♣ despite the UI from partner's misexplanation. That would lead to the suggested contracts of 3♣ by North or 3♠ by West.

ACBL General Conditions of Contest (found in the ACBLScore tech files), file CCGEN PLAY ... 2. A player may play and earn masterpoints in as many sessions of bridge as possible while not entered in a concurrent or overlapping event, except that players on teams with more than four members or teams with byes may play in concurrent one-session events only (for this purpose Side Game Series (Continuous Pairs) are considered one session events, but no access to gold points for that session). - A player who is on a team that has received a bye is considered entered in that event when that event begins. - Morning and evening knockout events are not considered overlapping or conflicting events regardless of times scheduled. Also, from the CoC for KOs (file CCKOS): PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS 1. To fulfill the participation requirement, a player must meet EACH of the following conditions as appropriate: a. For any given overall award, a player must play at least 50% of all boards (excluding play-off boards) played by the team at the time the award is earned. No contestant may play any match after it has become mathematically impossible for him/her to play at least 50% of the boards (excluding play-off boards) played by his/her team. b. For any given overall award, a player must have played 50%of the boards in the match in which the team earned that award. c. In order to be entitled to the first place award, a player must also play at least 50% of the combined boards in the semi-final and final matches. 2. A player who fails to maintain participation eligibility in an event receives match awards only and is not entitled to honors or recognition for further achievements of his/her teammates in the event. Additionally, a player who was, but no longer is entered on a team in a knockout event may not participate in a concurrent championship event (two or more sessions) while the team is still competing in the KO event.

My recollection was that the regulation in the ACBL was "use the warning consistently, either always or never". However, when I searched the references in the ACBLscore TECH files, they say that the warning "should be used all the time" and do not condone the "never" option. ACBL Tournament regulations and policies: THE STOP CARD Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding. Place the stop card so that LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). The skip bid is made. The stop card is replaced in the bidding box. NOTE: If a player forgets to replace the stop card there is no penalty. It is each player's responsibility to maintain appropriate tempo including after a skip bid. If the stop card is placed on the table and a skip bid is not made, the director may judge that the bid card was played inadvertently or not. If the judgment is that the card was played after a "slip of the mind" therefore with intent, then the situation is a Law 16 (Unauthorized Information) situation, not an insufficient bid - assuming that the player does not want to make (or did make) a purposeful correction under Law 25 B.2. An example of this situation is; 1H - 2D - (after the stop card is displayed) 2S. SKIP BID REGULATIONS Skip bid regulations and protocol (with or without STOP card use) are explained in the POLTRN file, pages 7 & 8. This is the referenced POLTRN policy: SKIP BID - WARNINGS 1. How and When Made Players should protect their rights and the opponent's by announcing, prior to making any subsequent bid that skips one or more levels of bidding. Proper procedure is: a. Place the stop card so that LHO sees it (the skip bidder is responsible for gaining LHO's attention). b.The skip bid is made. c.The stop card is replaced in the bidding box. 2. Skip Bidder The skip bid warning may not be used to alert partner that a strength-showing bid is being made or not being made. The warning should be used all the time. The tournament director may assess a procedural penalty (Law 90) for failure to comply. 3. Opponents of Skip Bidder a. All Players When RHO has announced a skip bid, the player following the skip bidder must wait for a suitable interval (about 10 seconds). In waiting the player's manner must be one that suggests he is an active participant in the auction (the hand should be studied during the pause). Any obvious display of disinterest is most improper. b. Experienced Players Experienced players are expected to maintain proper tempo whether a skip bid is announced or not. 4. Questioning After a skip bid, players may ask questions but must still pause an appropriate amount of time for study. 5. Failure to Pause When a player acts with undue haste or hesitation, the tournament director may award an adjusted score (Law 16) and/or procedural penalty (Law 90). 6. Where Used The warning is effective for all ACBL sanctioned events. For sanctioned games at clubs, the club may elect to discourage it's use and require no mandated pause. (Board of Directors - November, 1995)

This works well for experienced partnerships who know their system. It also works well in slightly less formal games and can keep the auction flowing (Andrew Robson's Bridge Club used this procedure when I played there). However, there is a potential for UI, and even deliberate exploitation thereof. For example, my partner opens a weak 2♥, and I know I want to consider the possibility of game but can't remember whether we agreed Ogust or Feature-asking - no problem, I'll bid 2NT and partner's announcement of what my bid means will clarify what the response means. Or after the uncontested and announced auction 1♥ {5 or more} = 2NT {GF raise with 4 pieces and no shortness} 4♥ {minimum} if I can't remember whether we play Kickback but am lucky enough to have the ♠A, I can bid 4♠ and find out whether I have just asked for keycards or cue-bid a 1st-round control. Overcoming similar problems may not be insurmountable, but I don't think it would be easy.

For what it's worth, it really happened (at last year's Orlando NABC).

How about the situation where we need to explain (or hear partner explain!) "Our convention card says that we play ...[whatever]... but long experience has shown that partner ignores all but the most blatant signals, so much of my carding is as likely as not to deviate from our agreement. As for partner, the best I can hope for is 90% conformity to 'follow suit when possible'"

Without excusing declarer's question in any way, your side also appears not to be faultless in case 1, assuming that your treatment of Q leads against NT is typical. When asked about your carding, full disclosure is required, so your partner's response should have been along the lines of "normally upside down count and attitude, but in this context partner is expected to unblock the J if he holds it, and otherwise give count, so specifically the D3 denies the DJ and, if it is a low card and not a singleton, would show an even number of cards" [i know, everyone can see the D2, but we are not obliged to think for declarer]. "Upside down" (unless that is indeed the sum total of your carding agreements) is neither complete nor accurate.

This was indeed in the world of ACBL, so no weighted scores. Non-reciprocal scores were a possibility, since this was a VP-scored game as part of an extended round robin championship. The eventual ruling was 6CX-1 for NS, 5CX making for EW, on the grounds that it was "at all probable" that South would have attained a degree of sanity after a correct explanation, but not, in view of his choice at the table "likely". The ruling may well be rather harsh on the offenders, but the auction 1NT-2H-Dbl-5C-Dbl seems to meet the criterion for the offending side, and a S lead to partner's presumed suit (West can't wake up to the misexplanation) or a heart lead both seem as likely as anything.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sqt62hakj8654d63c&w=sk43h97daq95cat62&e=s987hqt32dkjt742c&s=saj5hd8ckqj987543]399|300|Scoring: IMP (VPs)[/hv] 1NT[1] 2H Dbl[2] 4NT[3] Pass 5H Dbl 6C Dbl 6H Dbl All pass Down 4, NS -800 [1] Announced, 12-16 [2] Alerted, explained as transfer [3] Keycard for hearts The actual EW agreement is that the first double was penalty. This occurred in a team game played at home; although a director was available to give telephone rulings, he was not called, and the players solicited a ruling by email after the match (a procedure condoned by the Conditions of Contest). All players are sound intermediate level. A poll of players of comparable level found nobody who would call 4NT whether they were given the correct or the incorrect explanation. How would you rule?