jvage

While I know the declaring side very well (they are both recent juniors with ambitions for the national Open and Womens team respectively), I don't know N/S. Sorry, I only know they came well below average in this tournament, which was quite strong.

[hv=pc=n&s=st8652ha987da764c&w=sa3hqt64dqj853ckj&n=sk4hkj53d92cq9653&e=sqj97h2dktcat8742]399|300[/hv] W, N/S, IMP This weekend I was called as a playing director on this board, where it seemed like the players were visitors from a certain North-London Club. I don't know the bidding, but West was declarer in 3NT. North led a small club to the J and declarer cashed the ♣K at trick 2, a move she would later regret (South discarded 2 spades). She then led a diamond to the T, won at once by South, who switched to the ♥9. This went to the T and and Norths J. Instead of playing another heart North now switched to a spectacular ♠K! Declarer realised she was in trouble and thought for some time before/after winning the ace. Before declarer played to the next trick South now claimed the last trick for the ♥A, conceding 10 tricks to declarer! I'm guessing part of the reason for the claim was that he was unhappy both with partners spadeswitch and his own second spadediscard. This was not a very good claim for more than one reason, if Dummys clubs had been good South would never get the ♥A, and as it was declarer suffered some shortage of both entries and tricks. Understandably the players now agreed to call a Director. How would you rule? North/South play standard methods, but low encouraging, as is standard here in Norway. I noticed that several declarers got too many tricks in NT on this board (around a third got 9 tricks), and my guess is that what made the defence tricky for some pairs was that South got no small heart to encourage or lead.

Lots of questions and I can't answer all of them. In Norway Convention Cards are required by regulation in more serious tournaments (regional/national), but normally not in local tournaments. Most people play relatively similar methods and seem not very interested in CC, neither their own nor their opponents. As I said I was called after play had finished, they had actually laid all hands open on the table. I didn't ask about methods over an opening NT. Around here I don't know anyone who uses the same methods in both positions. Most use something artificial against a 1NT opening, against 1NT overcall many of the best players use something similar to the 2♦ here for majors (some use 2♣ as the artificial call even after 1♣) and the rest natural, while the rest play everything natural. North asked before he doubled (for penalty), South was not very clear on how she interpreted the double, it seemed sort of like she took it out as a "safety play". I didn't ask about your other questions, but "stolen bid doubles" are practically unheard of here. People either play penalty or takeout, and while both are popular it is not always discussed, even among relatively regular partners...

[hv=pc=n&s=sat6hk42dak3cat83&w=sj7432hat765d8c76&n=s9hq83dqjt7542c42&e=skq85hj9d96ckqj95&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1c1n2ddp2hp3dppp]399|300[/hv] I don't direct much these days, but yesterday I was called because the playing director was busy. Matchpoints, my table was the only one to reach the par contract of 4♠EX-1, which gave us (N/S) around 40%. 2♦ was not alerted, upon inquiery from North it was explained as "Natural". Both pairs are regular partners, N/S is a relatively weak married couple, E/W are very good clubplayers. 3♦ made the normal 10 tricks and I was called after the play. I tried to ask North what he would do if 2♦ was explained as both majors and it seemed like he really didn't know. After thinking for a while he said he would bid 2NT which his partner would raise (he had seen all the cards and knew 3NT was making). E/W didn't mention this, but I strongly suspect that N/S exchanged some UI leading to Souths final pass of 3♦. I also didn't quite understand why South bid 2♥, but West was very clear that he would bid 2♥ if she had passed, and to me pass doesn't seem to be a logical alternative (partner got maximum 4 diamonds). When I consulted with the playing director after the round I was surprised to hear that he believed this should be ruled as mistaken explanation, but with "No agreement" as the correct explanation. He said this was the general advice given in a European TD-seminar recently. I would have ruled "both majors" as correct explanation, both because my impression was that it was the agreement and because otherwise the nonoffenders are placed in an impossible situation. All 4 reasonable calls by North, Pass, X, 2NT (I don't think they play Lebensohl) and 3♦ has a meaning depending partly or very much on the meaning of the "undiscussed" 2♦. This will often lead to the sort of UI-problems for the originally non-offending side that I expect actually happened. The TD suggested an adjustment to 2♦W-5 which I accepted (this gave N/S about 75%, 3NTS= would give them 90%). How would you rule and what do you think should generally be ruled as "correct explanation" in cases like this (including when you really belive "No agreement" is correct)? Edit: When I asked West said he believed 2 Diamonds showed the majors, East said he didn't remember that they had talked about it. They had, like most other pairs in this clublevel tournament, no CC or other documentation.

Even if one assumes a mistaken explanation (I am leaning towards no, but will leave that to those who know more about Acol than me), there is also the question about damage. If declarer plays on diamonds, notice the fall of the Queen and shows a minimum of care about entries, 10 tricks are easy on any lead. The defence is actually more difficult, South needs to switch to a high ♥ and jump in with the ♠A to cash his hearttrick on any lead. While it seems someone played "safe"(?) for 7 by playing on spades it is not obvious that this is a LA even on a neutral club-lead.

Maybe you are right, but 4♥ is a better contract than 5♦ even now when partner got only 5. It will make without a clubruff when hearts are 5-3, the clubruff is more likely in 5♦ were Geir as opening leader may well have led a club from a doubleton instead of a weak (QJTxxxx) 7-card spadesuit with no entries. Leading the ace of clubs from something like AQxx when you have a singelton in the suit partner preempted seems much more unlikely.

If you play with a trustable partner you have no reason to fear 5♥. If he bids it (he should do it rarely even with a void in diamonds) his hearts are solid, something close to KQJTxxx minimum and the contract will have play. He knows my diamonds are very good and probably 6+ long with a likely void in hearts.

Since I agree with all of Souths bids IMO North is clearly the one to blame. 2♥ is OK (depending a bit on how much responders twobid promise after interference, some would double). 3♦ is borderline (I think I would double, not penalty, but would love it if partner passed now). 4♥ is not only an overbid, it is IMO the second best overbid, 3♠ (or possibly 4clubs if you play that as choice of games, I don't) giving partner a choice looks better.

I definitely made bigger mistakes during the weekend, but this was one of the most costly. My choice also cost the match, although that is not so important with the actual series-format. We came 5 out of 12, our opponents in this match won the event, congratulations to Geir Helgemo, Christer Kristoffersen, Espen Lindqvist, Boye Brogeland, Erik Sælensminde and Rune Hauge! At the table I bid 5♦, at the other table they passed after the same bidding. Partner had x, AKQ9x, Qxx, KJxx and 5♦ was 1 down after a singleton clublead (3 clublosers), hearts were 4-4 and in 4♥ there was 11 tricks. RHO had to lead the ♣A and another to hold it to 10. At the table I thought it was close, but was afraid of too many heartlosers (4 or more in hearts and the minors combined) and was dreaming about slam if parter got the perfect hand. He would for example probably raise to slam with the same hand with the A instead of KJ in clubs, which would be excellent, normally making 13 tricks, while 4♥ could go down after a clublead. Afterwards partner regretted not doubling, allowing me to bid 3NT, but I find his 4♥ OK and would probably bid the same (this is partly a matter of style). The reason I afterwards thought bidding 5♦ was a mistake is that the 4 relatively small clubs may too often give you problems in 5♦ and your third spade may also be a problem, RHO wil often be able to overruff partner. Even if they have no clubruff you will often need good hearts by partner to get rid of enough losers. And if his hearts are good 4♥ is normally a good contract.

Neither side vulnerable, first hand AK7 - AKJT43 T985 1♦ - (3♠) - 4♥ - (P) ? Agreements are relatively standard (if you don't put a green card on the tray together with 4NT partner will take it as RKCB :) ). If it matters, partner is very good and the 3♠-bidder is Geir Helgemo.

Norwegian Transfer-Walsh, where accepting the transfer generally show 3-card-support (as I think also in Italian, while I think Dutch and Swedish TW differentiates between 11-14 and 18-19), is divided when it comes to rebid with 18-19 and 3-card-support. Having played both ways I now prefer to accept the transfer with 3-card-support and 18-19. This makes the rebids after 2NT (showing 18-19 in this style of TW) easier (can either use that accepting a retransfer shows 1-2 or even differentiate between 1 and 2 card-support) and also makes it a little less risky to respond to 1♣ with shaded values (you sometimes get to pass 1M) which IMO is generally a winning tactic. Unlike Helenes suggestion I think noone here rebids 1♠ with 4 spades and 18-19NT.

I think there may be some small variations between "Norwegian standard 2/1" and what is generally called 2/1, but since I actually discussed this with a couple of the other players during this weekends Premier League, here are my thoughts. The hand we discussed was both vul with xxx, J9x, xx, Axxxx after 1♦ - (P) - ? At the table I passed, which didn't make much difference in practice. I would have played and made 1NT, now opponents had an obvious balance (Geir Helgemo doubled behind me) and we could actually even beat 1♥ (they got to 2♥ but our/my defence was not optimal). Partner later agreed that it was borderline between pass and 1NT, but he would also pass. One reason is that playing Norwegian Standard most partners will simply raise 1NT to 3NT with 18-19. Before anyone tells me how stupid this is it has some advantages in other areas and has been good enough to win some World championships, but I expect most experts who play a structure based on using Gazilli-type rebids with strong openers would respond 1NT with this hand. If I had a 4-card major, even with 3424 I think it is clear to respond 1M with this honour-structure. If partner had opened 1♥/♠ I think this is a clear raise (I play weak and strong raises to the two-level) and it is also clear to respond if the minors are switched and partner opened 1♣ (I can then respond 1♠ playing transfer-Walsh showing 5-9), but I would have passed 1♥♠ if that was my low doubleton based on not wanting to play 3NT across a 17+-19NT. This is also because the limit for 1♥/♠ is around 21 bad HP, while 1♣♦ could be a bit stronger.

The problem with your simulations as I understand them is that they are only relevant to the case where responder got a balanced hand with exactly 4 spades. If we knew that was the case I am sure far fewer players would suggest supporting with a 3 card suit. The main advantage of supporting is probably to releave partner of the problem of wether to rebid a fivecard-suit after openers 1NT (or 2m) rebid. I suspect this is more difficult to simulate, partly because it probably depends on how often opener actually got 3 card support (where some would have supported directly) and also how likely a singleton or a semibalanced doubleton are (are say A, AKxx, Qxx, xxxxx or xx, Kxxx, AQ, Kxxxx possible after 1♣-1♠-1NT?). While we don't have to repeat the debate about double dummy simulations versus real play, I suspect this affects the results more on this simulation than on average. Playing and defending 4-3 fits are often tricky, starting with the opening lead. If I knew in advance that declarer was on a 4-3 fit with a semibalanced dummy I would for example be more likely to lead a trump, but in practice of course you don't know this.

[hv=pc=n&s=s754hqj83daq98ca7&w=sqjt9hk94d65ct652&n=skha7652dj4ckqj84&e=sa8632htdkt732c93&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1h2h4h4s5hppp]399|300[/hv] Regional teams match, all 4 players are average plus clubplayers. 2♥ was alerted and explained by West as "5-5+ in spades and clubs". The ♠A was led, West following with the Q, and East switched to the ♦T. Declarer then went up with the ♦A and played a heart to the A, resulting in one down. The TD was originally called because of misinformation. The TD could however establish that 2♥ was a misbid (E/W provided a CC and system files supporting the explanation). E/W say the ♠Q asked for a diamond-switch and that East just complied, hoping partner was void. Their relevant carding agreements are "standard", apart from confirming that they do sometimes use suit-preference signals there is nothing relevant in their system-files. Do you see any reason to adjust?

There were definitely no Norwegian directors in Pula (but 3 Norwegian players, including me, got a TD-authorisation). I don't think there were any Swedish or Danish TD's either, but this I can't say for sure. John

Isn't it "standard" to use 0314 responses to Exclusion (even when using 1430 responses to regular RKCB)? Then the response will be 5♠ (0 aces excluding hearts), which will end the auction. Since we are told there were only 10 tricks in spades, one down at the 5-level may result in about the same poor score as bidding higher (noticing this was MP). However, the question may become wether we allow the player to "wake up" and realize that 5♥ is Exclusion. I think we need a bit more information about the players and their agreements to answer that. John

Just to be clear, it was not a continuous update of the score. For the first part of the matches the screen had large numbers showing the time left of the round, then at some time it switched to showing the results (both for updates and checking of official scores). They were not very strict on times, but it may have changed before the round was supposed to be finished. I actually never saw my own result while still playing (partially intentional), but both we and our teammates were faster than average. The results were always up when we had compared and sometimes when we left the room. I don't know if the screen switched at a set time or after say a set number of tables/matches were finished. I can't claim it was impossible to see the score with 3 boards left and still finish in time, but more normal would be to be playing the last board (possibly at both tables with one delayed bridgemate-update if 3 boards were still missing on the update). John

3rd/5th leads are pretty standard in Norway. In Pula we (almost) always qualified 3rd/5th with "normally" (so that the opponents could ask about exceptions, noone did...), I think me and partner chose 4th 1 time each from similar holdings during the week. Another holding that for some 3rd/5th leaders is an exception is leading from a six-card suit. Some lead 4th best, to make them easier to distinguish from lowest from 5 (we sometimes also lead second best from weak suits, but only when known to hold length). PS: We actually had a CC available at the table describing these lead-agreements even if the regulations specifically said it was non-mandatory. John

While I must admit that I have limited experience with playing on or against teams with a great variation in skill-level I generally don't think seating rights matters very much. I also think that other factors than skill-level in isolation are more important. If for example one pair on your team has either good or bad experiences playing against one of the opposing pairs, that may be more important for your choice of seating. If the skillevel really does vary, the style of the players may be important. Some (both strong and weak pairs) are relatively better at playing against weak opponents than strong or vice versa, which may influence your seating-strategy. If one or both teams contain a sponsor they may prefer playing against the weaker pair (for example because they can avoid complicated systems or because their results look better when playing against weaker pairs), but it's still the comparison with the other table that decides the match. John

I was also in Pula and for me it felt strange when some pairs where only one person spoke any english (in one case only german, which I also speak) were explaining their bids, leads etc. Several times the bidder/opening leader either translated partners explanation or simply explained their own actions :P While not being the correct procedure according to the rules this felt like the most practical solution and it did not cause any problems. A couple of times I did not fully comprehend, but it did not cause any problems when I assumed that the opponents played for instance "Standard Polish Club" (I have played Polish Club in one partnership) and "Standard Polish leads and discards" based on their nationality :) The only time I had problems understanding the explanations was when we played with screens (used at the top 5 tables of the teams-tournament in Pula). A screenmate of mine really struggled, but still refused to revert to written explanations, that may have been easier... It seems to me most players, contrary to regulations, prefer giving oral explanations even when playing with screens. This corresponds to my (admittedly limited) experience from international championships, and it is the same in Norway, where we only use screens in the Premier League and the Teams Final. PS: Perhaps partly because I am not a native english speaker I would have recognized "colour" as probably meaning suit in the example above (or asked to check), but probably not the both/either. John

I think the answer depends upon the setting and the available pool of potential AC-members. For example in a small club it would be normal if there ever came an appeal that the AC-members (if you succeded in finding suitable players) both are friends with and have played with some of the involved players, and noone would normally think that it was a problem. On the other hand in a large international congress as in Pula last week (see the other thread in this forum) it was no problem at all to get members who had no links to the players involved. An alternative for events like the English Premier League mentioned above could be what we have previously done in Norway. Here we have a permanent National Appeals Committee consisting of 4 members. When one excuses himself for whatever reason the 3 remaining members may still handle the case, or we could do as we did last time there was an appeal in our Premier League. 3 of us were playing in the event, including one that was a teammate of the appealing side, while our chairman was the TD... In that case we just asked the Swedish AC if they could handle the case, which they kindly did (we have done this also in one other case). John

Having just returned from Croatia I noticed this thread, and as is mentioned in the OP I was a member of the committee. While I prefer not to go into our discussions I can give some additional facts (and even a personal opinion about the level of the declarer...). The level in Pula is quite varied, I would describe the actual declarer as decent but not close to being considered for playing for his country (we played against a couple of considerably stronger polish teams). The declarer hardly spoke a word of english. The way the case was presented to us he showed his hand without saying anything, pulled it back up and then said something in polish which his partner translated to "He believed his club J was the K" (not sure how long each step took and the OP is probably correct that the last step was after the TD had arrived). I am not sure when the TD asked if he noticed Wests discards and whether he also noticed the diamond-discard (in our defence we were short on time and 20 minutes into the next round when we finished, but we could have asked more questions...). In the committee a polish TD translated, and here they disputed that a claim had been made (which I think was not mentioned to the TD at the table). They did not bring any new facts to back this up. When asked (via the polish TD) about which 12 tricks he had with the club K and how he knew the club had been discarded from 4 the answers were not very convincing. He said he knew from the bidding (even if E/W had passed all the way...) that West had been squeezed... In the final ruling we allowed declarer to take the clubfinesse, but did not let him get his club 2 as his last trick. Instead we assumed he would play for a failing double-squeeze. I do not remember the details, but Jan wrote down a scenario where he would be stuck in dummy with a non-high heart T as his last card (I must admit that I am not able to reconstruct the exact line now, but it assumed that East, with a presumed club-stopper, discarded his potential heart-stopper on the diamonds...). John

[hv=pc=n&s=s75hkq83dkq43ckt6&w=sajt98ht642d7ca32&n=s64h97daj82cj9875&e=skq32haj5dt965cq4&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=pp1dp1sp2sp3d(Short-suit%20try)p4sppp]399|300[/hv] I was South and may have doubled 2♠, although I don't think it would affect the result. Partner led the ♥9 (top of doubleton, we lead smallest from 3 small), and like the 3 other tables with the same lead against 4♠ we failed to beat it. I won with the Q and switched to a small diamond. Partner won and continued hearts and it was smouth sailing for declarer (he won the Ace, drew trumps and established a heartdiscard for his losing club). In the evening partner and me discussed this board. From my side the position is relatively clear at trick one, including the danger of a clubloser disappearing on a heart, so maybe I should win the first trick with the K? Partner also knows that I didn't bid 1♥, so maybe at clubswitch is indicated anyway? What do you think? John

I played in this tournament (it was the Norwegian teams finals, not team trials) and here I agreed 100% with partners 4♠. The opponents (the eventual winners, but we won this match) then played in 5♣. The original doubler did not jump over his partners 4NT, which my teammates did to bid the making slam. Interestingly I also had almost an identical hand in the same tournament (Kxxxx, xxx, Qx, xxx) after partners 1♠ opening and a takeout double. I jumped to 4♠ and this time we won the board because next-hand opponent bid 5♥ instead of a "2 places to play 4NT". In practice they had 10 tricks in their 4-4 heartfit and 11 in their 5-5 diamondfit (without a double-dummy underlead of AQJxxx of spades which would enable us to avoid a later endplay). Edit: I would be on lead against 5 diamonds and after a relatively natural lead of the spade K I should find the club-shift, so 4NT may not have improved the score. In our Premier Leauge earlier this year (also against the winners of the team finals) the bidding also startet the same way (pass - 1♠ - Double), but then my hand was much stronger (A98xx, Q9xx, Txx, Q). I probably was a bit to strong for my choice (also 4♠), but we still managed to bid to our laydown slam (when given the chance I naturally raised partners invitational 5♠ to 6). This weekend I also held Qxx, T87xx, xxx, AJ and heard partner open a five+ heart (all vul). This hand is is very different in texture and there was no double, so I only bid a constructive raise. Next hand bid 2♠ and opponents eventually finished in 4♠ down one (makeable on a very doubledummy line), while we had only 7-8 tricks in hearts. John

As Gnasher said, find out if there were other options. One option not mentioned would be to bid 2♦ (initially for preference), planning to bid 2♠ over 2♥ and raising 2♠ to 3, showing an invitational hand. If she suddenly remembered this relatively common (at least among experts) agreement she might have seconds thoughts about 3♠, perhaps thinking it was an overbid or fearing it could be taken as preemptive. If so the UI does not suggest much apart from it being invitational, which may (but need not) have already been obvious.