jvage

This weekend I went over to Sweden (Østersund) to play a tournament. We were 12 Norwegian pairs who all played something very boring and similar-looking (something close to 5443-openings and strong 2♣). Our Swedish opponents on the other hand played all kinds of strange systems (this was a 2-days semi-serious pairs tournament with 3 board rounds). I was quite impressed that all our opponents had a CC and while the 2 most common systems probably were 4+ majors, 8-14 (with a strong club) and the supernatural 4+ openings in all suits (like the rest both are practically unheard of in Norway), our 25 Swedish opponents played at least 10 totally different systems. We did not meet any strong pass (as i know some Swedes play), but we did meet all of these: - Fantunes-like with unlimited openings and transfer responses to 1♣ - Transfer openings (a 1♥ opening showed 4+ spades) - Two-way club (strong or balanced) - 1 major promising exactly 4 (denying 5 or more) 2 pairs actually played that 1♥/♠ was 3+ with 8-14 hp. Against us one of them bid: 1♠ (3+spades, 8-14) - 2♠ (alerted and explained as 14-17 balanced!) 3NT - pass I led my only fourcard-suit (clubs) and of course hit declarers fivecarder... John PS: It was great fun playing against all these strange systems, but in the end the boring Norwegian style came out on top. We got the top 2 and 2/3 of the prizes ;)

I agree with iviehoff. The suggested play of 2 rounds of diamonds is actually quite poor, maybe declarer came up with this after seeing his opponents hand. If he just knew the trump-position clearly best was a diamond to the K planning to discard the A on the spade Q if this was not ruffed. This would secure 3 tricks even if RHO had a singelton diamond. John

As far as I know Norway is the only country with this regulation :P As a sidenote, in Norway STOP should actually be used already from 3♣ and onwards. John

In Norway singletons are allowed. If your 1NT may contain a low singleton one would expect this to be specified on the front of the CC, often with a quantification (seldom/sometimes/often). The regulations however only says "Possible distributions for NT-bids should be listed on the front of the CC". John

Of course we have two . . . Irregularities, only one of which I will term infractions. Let me handle them in sequence: Declarer calls a card from dummy, only that none of the cards available in dummy can match his call. This is an irregularity that is handled under law 46B4, and the ruling shall be that the call is void, (i.e. not made). Declarer is now free to call a different card from dummy, or - if he becomes aware of his mistake regarding which hand has the lead - he is forced to lead from the correct hand. However, before he manages to lead an existing card his RHO leads to the trick in the belief that he is just playing to the trick after declarer's (non-existing) "lead" from dummy. He is of course wrong because no card has been led (see above). This infraction is handled (by the Director) under law 49 unless Law 47F1 (leading to Law 53) is chosen by Declarer. Whatever the reason for the infraction committed by RHO, he may for instance have paid insufficient attention, he is an offending side in this situation. Only on one condition can he be allowed to retract the card incorrectly led by him without any rectification; if he was incorrectly informed by an opponent that is was his turn to play (Law 47E1). Of course that does not apply here. In the following end-position it seems the correct play is becoming obvious. Hearts are trumps, declarer is in dummy where he got the last trump and a small diamond, knowing that the defender behind dummy got the last and winning diamond: ♥2 ♦3 Clearly best is to call "Two of Diamonds". If the opponent next in turn now plays his winning diamond (as many would) you call for the TD. If that happens to be Sven he will say that the opponents played diamond is a penalty card and tell you to state a card that is in dummy. Of course you play the ♥2 and score both tricks, if asked you will say that you always meant to play the heart, the "technical correct card for the pseudo-squeeze" (which of course had no hope of succeding with the 13. card visible in dummy)B) This is a no-lose play, if the director rules that the opponent can pick up his card (or that a diamond was played) you are back to the one trick you originally had. The same will happen if your opponent (or dummy) is awake and asks you to restate what card you want to play. (Just to be clear, this is not a serious suggestion. It is just to show why the minority-opinion on the correct ruling may lead to serious problems. I do not recommend Alcatraz-type coups or lying to the director, just noting that a practice where this is rewarded seems dubious ;) ) John

I recieved a question about law 25, just checking my response here. Assuming the other conditions are present (inadvertent, without pause for thought etc), would you allow a law 25 correction if the player admits he realized that he pulled the wrong bidding card because of partners alert/announcement (or the lack of it)? For example say the bids were 2♣/2♦. In the jurisdiction, playing their methods, one is announced and the other alerted. You are called because the opener wants to change an inadvertent bid.

It seems not all TD's agree on how often a player should be removed and his partner explain. It was recomended in some situations at the TD course in San Remo, but I don't think "no agreement-cases" are typical (if "no agreement" is the correct answer that is all the opponents are entitled to). This procedure is mainly for the situation when the player asked (partner of the bidder) thinks/knows they have an agreement but doesn't remember it. One solution to the problem you refer to is: Q: "What is double?" A: "If 2♣ is natural we play takeout, if it is Michaels we play it shows penalty interest in one or more suits (or whatever they have agreed) :) "

When we discussed the case we only had written evidence, one problem was that it seemed neither the players nor the TD had even considered what 3♣ was supposed to mean after a two-suited overcall. Among stronger players in Norway the most common agreement is probably a good raise with support for at least one suit, but I don't know the actual agreement (undiscussed is perhaps the most likely). Even if this was from the third division (of four), the players are normally better than average club-players, since average club-players generally don't play in the national divisions.

I agree with the two comments about the MI-aspects of the case. No-one has commented on the UI from partners explanation of the 2♣ call, which was the basis for the appeal and in my opinion more interesting. West explained 2♣ as natural and then bid 3♣, after which East bid 3♥. Since no-one has commented on this, does it mean that all agree 3♥ was OK? John

Some of the players have turned down an offer to play this year. This was quite expected for some (like Grøtheim - Tundal) who have other obligations (job/family) and have said early they don't have time to go to all the championships, including the preparations that is needed. This may have influenced the decision from the professionals Helgemo - Helness, who after representing in almost all championships for 20 years have also taken a break. The "new" players are also very strong, but got a little less experience at this level. They all got some international experience however and deserved a chance to represent when there was an opening. They have all produced excellent results in the top Norwegian championships. John

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=skjhtdjt9872caj43&w=sa3hj9653dk54cq86&e=sqt842haq742dct97&s=s9765hk8daq63ck52]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] East_South_West_North Pass_1♣___Pass_1NT 2♣___Pass_3♣___X 3♥___All pass N/S plays 5-cards openings. 1♣ shows 1+ after which they play transfers. 1♣ was alerted and explained as 1+. 1NT showed 10-12 without 4+ major. 2♣ was not alerted, North asks before he doubles and West says this is natural. After 3♥ the TD is called. He basically just asks the players to continue and call him back if there is a problem (would you have done anything different?). 3♥ was 1 down, N/S +100. When the TD is recalled North first said that he would have bid 4♦ if correctly informed, then says that he thinks East should have passed 3♣X. The TD adjusted to 4♦ N=, N/S +130. N/S appeal because they don't think East had any reason not to pass 3♣X. They think the score should be 3♣X with 4 tricks, to quote the appeals form; "the result with optimal defence, I had already decided to lead the ♥T" (which would be a lead from the wrong side, it seems to be only 3 tricks on a trump-lead from either side ;) ). East's statement comes close to admitting that he got what Bluejak calls "Unauthorised Panic". He says that when 3♣ was doubled it seemed partner did not have much clubs and that it sounded like opponents had a lot of minors. It was likely partner had a bit in the majors, so he bid 3♥ to show his other suit. E/W agree after the fact that 2♣ showed spades and another. PS: E/W did not actually complain about this so you may think it's unrelated, but N/S's CC was incorrectly labeled. In Norway we don't have any prealerts, but systems are split into 4 groups (natural, artificial, strong minor and HUM, the last type is only allowed in some top tournaments), each with a a colour code on the CC, based on opening bids. N/S's CC was marked "Natural" (but with a correct description, the system is allowed in the event). A natural system requires at least 3+ for openings in a minor and 4+ for openings in a major, a correct description for N/S's system would be "Artificial". How would you rule? I am afraid I have no other information. John

I would double. Since we have already bid 4♣ partner will maybe at least some of the time take out into 5♣ when it's correct. Also this is MP, we may have to protect our +130 from 4♣, in that case +100 may not be a very good score. Third, if 4♠ makes it may be a bad score even undoubled. Of course 4♠ will sometimes make and the double lead to a bottom, but then I just blame it on the MP-scoring :) Since this is posted here I guess part of the question is wether or not pass is a Logical Alternative (sorry Gordon, but it's almost impossible to get "neutral" votes posting in this forum...). I would guess that it is, but a neutral poll would be the best way to determine this. It may also depend on style for the 2♣ overcall. John

I agree that "or a very strong hand" sounds strange. However a normal and sensible defence to Polish club is to use the same as over a "could be short" (2+) club, at least around here many use 2♣ as both majors. This is because it is easier to play the same defence against only slightly different openings and because 1♣ is very often either balanced or natural (18+ is less frequent). North may have splintered over 2♠ and South should definitely have done more than 4♠ (4♣ seems obvious). If 2♠ had been taken as a cuebid N/S would likely have been damaged, but as it was I also wonder why N/S actually felt damaged and what they would have done differently with another explanation. John

Saying it is no problem in Norway is IMO an exaggeration. I don't think we have more problems than most other countries, but both as a director and player I know several cases where information that may affect play have been overheard. This goes for both pairs and teams. As a sidenote, I remember an incident during the final round of this years Premier League. A player from a neighbouring table said to my screenmate (for courtesy reasons I mention no names...): "Could you please keep quiet, we would like to be able to analyze at least one board ourselves..." John

I also use double here as the majority (takeoutish), and while it is a reasonable bid pass clearly seems like a LA. To Fluffy; I would assume you have 6 and not 5 (3hp less) for the equivalent position facing a 15-17NT? John

This was one of the cases we discussed in our last meeting in the National Laws and Appeals Committee, I plan to post a couple more when I have the time. It seems this case was easier than I believed, of those who have expressed their opinion it seems all considers pass a LA, several even saying they would bid it. The TD actually allowed the raise to 4♥ and did not consider pass a LA, N/S were the appealing side. A very strong player on the committee also originally did not think pass was a LA. Admittedly he considered 3NT clearly the correct call since the sequence indicates that partner got only 3 hearts (in any case he can correct to 4♥ with four). We could discuss what the best bid is unrestricted by UI, I also happen to think it is 3NT. After some discussion we however agreed that pass was a LA and that the UI suggested further action which was successfullfully taken. The result was adjusted to 3♥+1. John

As often is the case the TD will have to rule with the information he got. I think we can safely assume that your second alternative is not relevant, if 3♥ was forcing they would have said so. What they said was in effect a fourth alternative, that the sequence was invitational and that East should accept with supermaximum. They agreed about this, but it could be that the true answer is closer to your alternative 3. This would be my guess, that this was undiscussed, but that they had an implicit agreement as stated. John

I don't know the E/W players or their system and style, I only got information from the appeals form. In their written statement they say that East got a clear raise with his supermaximum when West has showed game-interest. They have however no documentation of their system or tendencies (such as if 2NT could sometimes be a tactical bid with a weak hand and good fit). N/S says 2NT could have been looking for more distribution or be a tactical bid. John

Teams, N/S Vul, East dealer. K982 KT84 A4 T93 This hand opens 2♦ Ekren (3-10 hp, 4+♥ and 4+♠) and E/W bid without interference: East West 2♦ 2NT 3♣ 3♥ 4♥ all pass 2NT was a relay and 3♣ showed exactly 44 majors and maximum (OT: These are not standard replies). Since this is posted in the Laws and Rulings forum you have probably already guessed that 3♥ was bid after an agreed hesitation. Of course 4♥ made (it was actually a poor game with 3NT far superior, West had AQ6, AQ6, K98, J762). How would you rule? John

Sorry, I got no more information about the case or the methods in use. As mentioned in the opening post I told the TD (I was not directly involved) that I was not sure if pass was a LA, but decided it probably was I was however pretty sure most good players would raise if given as a problem. It is interesting to note that posters here seem split, mostly very convinced one way or the other :) It is also worth noting that the appeals committee contained some excellent players, including Tor Helnes. After his team (which is very strong even with a playing sponsor) failed to stay in our Premier League last year we'll meet there again next year :) John

This is from the link that Sven provided. Being Norwegian I might add that I know nothing about the case except what has been presented here. East had a normal 10-12 NT (if such a weak NT can be considered normal :lol: ). West did not have an invitational 3♦, but the OP did not say what that bid was supposed to mean. [hv=d=e&v=n&n=s7hkq65dat98ca952&w=skt982h84dqj532c6&e=saqj5hjt97dk64c73&s=s643ha32d7ckqjt84]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

Maybe "sub-minimum" was a bad word, I meant borderline between 3♣ and 3♦. If partner can't find another bid over 3♦ game will normally not be laydown, while 3♣ will lead to some no-play games. John

I also find your reasoning here a bit strange, Sven. To me it seems double is what the hesitation suggests. Not that it matters, but after checking the hand-record it also seems to have been what North most likely considered (he had x, KQxx, AT98, A9xx, confiming that 4♣ was an underbid, 3♠ was the least he could do). I also think pass is a LA, in pairs you would normally be satisfied having pushed the opponents to the 5-level. John

Jeffrey raises a couple of interesting points. I considered writing something more than "non-minimum" (the appealants also used the word "extra values"), but decided not to, since this would be guessing. I honestly don't know if it was GF. Personally I use similar methods and consider both the example hands as sub-minimum for 3♣. If I did bid 3♣ on something like this I would definitely bid 3NT over 3♥ with the second example hand (x, Kx, KJTxx, AJTxx). John

I am quite sure that neither Helgemo-Helness nor Brogeland-Lindqvist (the ones on this list that I know) would agree that they play Ghestem. They both play a cuebid of opponents suit as specified suits (both majors/other major+club) and 2NT as the 2 lowest, but they don't have a bid to show the last two-suiter (have to bid each suit naturally). John Edit: After checking their notes I saw that Brogeland-Lindqvist actually use a jump-cue-bid over a minor (not over a major) to show the last two-suiter (spades+other minor). My comment above about not having any way to show the last two-suiter was inaccurate.