quantumed

To bluejak, The country is Singapore, where rules are silent on the issue of written bidding. In fact, one local TD did quote the Australian rule saying that what's written on the pad is irrelevant, and board is to be left at the middle of table. I'm not sure if he's eligible to use other country's rule as reference. Thanks.

I'll describe a case, can you please give your input on how you would rule, and what law the ruling is based on, if there is any such law at all? In a tournament, bidding pads were used due to a shortage of bidding boxes. Before auction started the North players marked the dealer and vul on the pad, then the board was left aside. On this particular board East was the rightful dealer. However, North accidentally marked himself as dealer instead, and opened 1D in "first seat". This forced EW into a competitive auction where they had a misunderstanding and finished in a bad contract. The EW players noticed the irregularity at the end of the game, and asked for a ruling because they felt damaged due to the irregularity on North's part. The reason cited was that the out-of-turn opening forced them into a more difficult competitive auction instead of a straighforward uncontested one (a simple 1NT sequence). The only Law that i find semi-relevant is Law 7A "when a board is to be played it is placed in the centre of the table until play is completed". But notice in this case the bidding pad was used, in which case complying to 7A would somewhat inconvenience players in writing on the pad. Hence the practice of leaving board aside, while following what's on the pad, is somewhat understandable. So what is your ruling?

I won't say most people will cheat blatantly in scenarios where they forget system and then hear partner explain their bid, but sometimes when you already "know" something it's hard to just ignore it. It's in your sub-conciousness and it affects you in a subtle way that may not appear to you at all. Back to the original topic. So what is my parnter to do if he has equal (or similar) holdings in club and diamond? Say if club is the only lead to set the contract. In theory, 50% of the time we should get 50 and 50% we get -420. But now is he obliged to always choose a diamond instead? Because if he chooses club there will be uneasy feelings all around whether he takes the UI or not. But if he is obliged to lead diamond this does not seem fair to us. Only because opponents make a conventional call now we have to forgo our 50% chance to set the contract? That just sounds weird.

Well that's true in theory but sometimes you can't always spot a UI with evidence, as it's not always obvious, and when they "woke up" their knowledge of the system might help them revert back to the right track. Say, someone stops relay and jump to 3NT, can't say much about it.

Well, that's silly. The obvious solution is to either always ask, or at least sometimes randomly ask when you have nothing in clubs. Then no inference can be obtained. Why is that silly? In f2f bridge without screen sometimes you don't want to remind opponents of their agreements.

I encountered this sequence a few days ago, 1♠ - P - 3♣! - ? . 3♣ was alerted by not explained yet, it looked like some form of spade raise. I was holding a hand that wanted club lead, but I need to know the exact meaning of 3♣ before doubling, because in my agreement with partner if 3♣ shows something like mixed raise in spades my double would be t/o. So I asked about the meaning, explained as 4♠ 7-9, so I passed. Opponents ended up in 4♠. This happened online and was a friendly match so it didn't matter. But what if this is f2f without screen? Since we are taught not to ask unless we wanted to act, my action clearly implied I wanted a club lead. I can't find anything illegal with my action, but I am sure my parnter (and my opponents) would be feeling uneasy if he's holding equally attractive holdings in club and another suit. Can something be done about it, or is this a loophole in the law?

If declarer misclaims for -1 when contract is making (all his remaining cards are good but he cannot remember), and both defenders have agreed (mistaken but assume they are unintentional), is declarer allowed to change it back if he realizes it was wrong? If timing is important assume he notices it the next day.

Thank you for all the kind responses. After reading them, I realize that the real question here is down to how good you feel the north hand is. Some take positive views and think passing 3C is impossible, some are more negative about it and think even the 2♠ bid is too much of a stretch. Indeed how good is that 14 count opposite a minimum responder? Well, I was the north player as you might have guessed. Several bids came to me after seeing the 1NT response, 2♣, 2♠, 3♣, 3NT. 2♣ is an underbid. My partner is marked with 3 or 4 clubs, which means I can easily gather 8 tricks so 3NT is very nice. The next question is, should I take the chances and blast into 3NT and hope partner give me ♥A/♥K, or should I bid it slowly? Opponents have 9+ hearts, so I'd expect a heart lead anyway, so 3NT is out. Between 2♠ and 3♣ I found 3C not clear-cut, also not a strong enough invitation. Therefore I bid 2♠, hoping partner will find a natural response of 2NT. As you can see 3NT is a much superior contract. Of course there came the misunderstanding later in that 3C bid. But from my point of view, my parnter has denied a heart stop, which makes 5C feasible even he held a dead minimum, say SQ + DK/DA. Denying the heart stopper made those points the very possibility. Moreover, he could bid 3♣ on an 8P aceless hand, say SQ DKJ HJ CJ. Of course you can argue that he could have DQJ instead of a K and CQ instead of SQ, but I took the more positive view and were happy to give it a try. By the way my partner has a reputation of slow player and I barely noticed his hesitation. When faced with a slightly abnormal bid, 8-10s thinking was "in-tempo" of him. :)

In a local MP event one hand caused some dispute.[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sak108hxdxxcak109xx&s=sqxxhk10xdkxxcjxxx]133|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] Bidding went 1C (can be short)- 1NT (6-10) / 2S - 3C/ 5C - AP Problem was that there were two hesitations. First when N bid 2S, second when S bid 3C, both hesitations about 8-10 seconds. N thought they don't play lebenshol in this sequence and S thought they did. So 3C was forcing to S, NF but denied H stopper to N. N figured that he needed no more than SQ DK or spade doubleton and 4 clubs from partner to play a decent 5C so he bid 5C nevertheless. TD was called for hesitation. What's your opinion on this hand?

I also have problem interpreting the 3♣ bid. If 2♣ is ever misunderstood by south it must be thought of as Astro showing H+m as this pair plays Astro at second seat and Landy fourth. So there's no way he doesn't know the heart fit. What more, if 2♣ is natural, don't you think 2♥ by south showing heart + club tolerance is more logical? In fact, the "shut out 5♣ save" explaination was given by the director.

In a regional event I played in my hometown in China there were two questionable (I think) rulings that greatly affected our result. My team is very unhappy about it. We had an discussion on how it should be but could not be definite. I hope some epxerts here could help me justify our thoughts. It was a 32 boards KO quater-final. It happened on my teammates table in the open room. It was their first board.[hv=n=sqxxxh109xxxdakxcx&w=s10xxxhdqjxxxca109x&e=sajxxhkjd10xxckqxx&s=skhaqxxxxdxxcjxxx]399|300|Dealer E Both Vul[/hv] East opened a precision 1NT (13-15), pass pass until north balanced 2♣(!). It was alerted as both major to east, who was on the same side of the screen as north. Pass by east. South bid 3♣, but neither 2♣ or 3♣ was alerted to west, who assumed the bidding was natural. Followed by 3♥ by north then 4♥ by south. My teammate in west liked his club points and heart void (which implied bad trump break) so he pulled out the double. The play was straight forward, 4♥X+1, 990. Director was called of course at the end of the board. But to their surprise the director asked them to play on without giving any ruling! Firstly I want to know what should be the proper ruling of such a situation. Secondly, there are a few pieces of background information that need to be taken note of: The player in south has a reputation for playing "immorally", if that is the word. He frequently takes advantage of players who are not familiar with conventions by not properly disclosing full meaning of his bidding (I know this from my own experience). Therefore, I suspect the 3♣ bid together with his failure to alert was intentional. Clearly he knew what 2♣ meant and he knew he would bid 4♥ anyway, but he wanted to shut out the 5♣ save by making the club bids looking "natural". At the same time he knew 3♣ cannot be passed. Everything was under his control. Now I want to know what you think the ruling should be. Another ruling was on board 3. Over east's precision 1♣ opening, south overcalled 1NT (!), explained to west as different level different colour two-suiter. West passed with a 7 count because any other bid shows 8+. Then followed by 3♣ by north, who explained 1NT to east as SAME level two suiter. With long clubs east doubled. When south saw the bidding he interpreted 3♣ as "a strong hand, looking for suit" so he bid 3♦. So it appeared clear to west that south has ♦+♠. West liked his ♠KJX and 5 card heart so he bid 3♥ then 3NT by east. During the play, east who was convinced that south has the minors necessarily followed a wrong line and went -3 vul where 3NT is makable if proper information is given. Director was summoned again. This time the director blamed west for his 3♥ bid because a follow up double on 3♦ would result in 800. Again no immediate penalty. My teammates were very unhappy about opponents' way of playing bridge and felt more upset at the lack of ruling. Their emotion got very badly affected (which i suspect is the opponents' purpose) and messed up the remaining boards. Remember this was only board 3 of a 16 board set. At the end we lost an unbelievable 66imp in 16 boards whereas my team is a very stable team and deemed slightly stronger than our opponents. The most rediculous knowledge comes to me the second day when I got to know that the director was from exactly the same organization that the opposing team was representing. I wish to know your opinion on this too.