jvage

When I originally told the TD that I believed pass was probably a LA it was actually mainly because 4♠ looked more like a bid investigating six than seven. As mentioned by some posters West would probably have bid 3♠ with the Ace (may depend on methods, I agree the TD should have checked this). Secondly 4NT would either way determine if partner got all the missing 4 keycards, the grand could then be bid confidently since that is all that is needed. I don't know if it "smells", to me it seems most likely that East just didn't want to admit to the TD at the table that his 4♠-bid was not a very good bid. I know many players who try to rationalize their mistakes, often realizing this when they have had some more time to think. The poor argument for 4♠ may of course also be because he realized this bid could be questioned when considering the final raise to slam. This also sums up the decision from the appeals committe, which seems to be supported by the Forum. The committee found that E/W had a very good sequence up to and including 4♣ (also mentioning that West's non-mimimum probably did not include the ♥K, since West then most likely would have bid 3NT). They did not agree with 4♠ or the reasoning behind it, but ruled that pass was not a Logical Alternative after 5♦, the sequence up to 4♣ had told East that a slam should be bid . The original table-result was reinstated. John

I was only indirectly involved in this case, I was not a teammate or playing at this table. I did discuss the case with the TD, so I knew his reasoning at least partly. We are both members of our national laws/appeals committee (he is the chairman), but had decided beforehand that we would send any appeals to another committee. Our committee was either directing or playing in the event (the last member was E/W's teammate...). Some has mentioned East's 4♠ bid. I also found this bid and the players argument interesting, but will wait to give my current opinion. In the OP I wrote what my initial reaction to the LA-problem was when asked by the TD, I have since had a bit more time to consider... To David: I also think it's a bit strange that the frequencies are listed on the appeals form, that was one reason I mentioned it (also to give the same information as the appeals committee had). I agree that this could possibly lead to other results (possibly with different bidding etc.) influencing some desicions too much, which is not a good thing. John

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sa3hkt9632d8ct975&w=s4hj5dakt95caj863&e=skj52haqdq7642ckq&s=sqt9876h874dj3c42]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Teams, both pairs are strong (E/W are European Champions), screens West North East South 1♦___1♥___2♥(1) pass 3♣(2) pass 3♥(3) pass 4♣(4) pass 4♠(4) pass 5♦(5) pass 6♦ all pass 1: Invitational+ with 4+ diamonds 2: Natural, not minimum 3: Asks for cue-bid (unlike in my system it did not promise a heart-control even when followed by a cue-bid) 4: Cue-bids 5: Very slow. While the tray was on the other side East actually told his screenmate that he would raise 5 diamonds. It seems this happened after almost a minute, the hesitation then lasted almost two minutes longer (this was agreed). 6♦ made an overtrick (North did not jump in with the ♠A). When the TD is called East says he cue-bid 4♠ because he wanted partner to bid 4NT (RKCB) to get better control towards a grand slam. The TD adjusted the score to 5♦+2. His argument was that the long hesitation suggests 3 "aces" (of 5) lacking a heart-control. Since the hesitation was already established Easts comment to his screenmate did not matter. Easts reluctance to bid RKCB may have been because he feared a 5♥/♠ response, driving them too high lacking 2 aces. This also suggests that passing 5♦ is a logical alternative. I don't know if he conducted a proper poll, but when I was asked I knew about the hesitation and told him something like "Most strong players would probably raise 5♦ to 6, but pass is probably a logical alternative". E/W appealed based on pass not being a logical alternative. How would you rule? Feel free to ask, but I have already listed what I found relevant from the appeals form. In our match (not this one) both tables bid to 6♦ (I was North), the deal was played at 10 tables of which 1 stopped in 4♦(!), 1 in 3NT and 1 in 5♦, the last 7 (including this) were in slam (one in 6NT) (these frequencies were listed on the appeals form). John

This looks like it's taken from a book. Answer hidden: John

The discussion has focused on whether or not there was misinformation, this is not clear. Assuming the TD rules misinformation a weighted score is certainly possible. The suggested score (60% of 3NT making and 40% of 3NT going off) indicates that in the opinion of the consulted TD's with correct information declarer would make 3NT around half the time (weighted in favour of the non-offenders). Even in a jurisdiction where use of 12C1C (weighted scores) is possible one would rule like the TD did (100% of 3NT making) if one believes he would most likely (say 80-90% of the time) make 3NT with correct information, which in practice still means weighing in favour of the non-offenders. John

In Norway most people also call the 2NT raise "Stenberg". But this it is more confusing than just mixing Stenberg and Jacoby 2NT. Here almost everyone call the way they play Stenberg, this includes invitational+ and GF 2NT and promising 3+ or 4+ support. The name is also used for versions with both side-suit and short-suit rebids (or even relays) and for all of 3♣, 3M or 4M as the minimum rebid :rolleyes: The "expert standard" referred to above is GF with 4+ support, side-suit rebids and 3M as minimum. John

I would be a bit careful before using this as a "strength-barometer". 4x as voidshowing in this position is pretty standard among good players in Norway (I know you were discussing American players), to my knowledge it is played by all our recent Bermuda Bowl and European Champions (I only checked the CC of Brogeland - Lindqvist)... John

Where in the laws did you find that the adjusted score must be an artificial (A+/A-) adjusted score? John

Congratulations David, very well done :) :) :) For those who don't know what this thread is about, David was ranked no 1 of the around 60 TD's participating in EBL's seminar/course in San Remo last week. Of the regular posters Gordon also did very well, being appointed EBL NBO TD. Personally I was also very satisfied, doing better than 3/4 of the very experienced directors participating. It was however a bit disappointing to finnish just below the mark required for being appointed to the aforementioned international degree that Gordon achieved :P John (from Norway)

Axman made some funny remarks about what to do when the deck contains two cards of the same suit and rank, here the ♦7 (often referred to as the "beer card", since in some circles a player who scores the last trick with this card earns a beer from partner). John

It seems Sven is discussing the facts from an actual case, and that this case inspired Nigel to write the original post. The facts described in the opening post seems however slightly different from the real case. As to how common the different agreements are, my experience from Norway is different from Sven's. I agree almost no-one use "system on" after intervening bids, but I think those who use "system on" after 1NTX are also a small minority (there may be geographical variations, I only know one good player, mentioned in an earlier post, who clearly prefers that treatment). John

To the extent that it results in misinformation to opponents or extraneous information to partner it is already an infraction of the applicable laws. I'll take that as a "yes". IMO, such an approach may be okay at high levels, but not in a club game (unless the club consists entirely of experts). As a member of the Norwegian Laws Committee I feel the need to point out that Sven could sometimes benefit from writing "I" instead of "we". I will not speak for all Norwegian TD's, or even the Laws Committee, but on several of the points being discussed here opinions will differ in Norway, as among the contributors to this thread. We follow WBF/EBL practice where "convention disruption" is not an accepted principle. For what it's worth, personally I agree with the majority regarding the problem in the original post. I don't know anyone who would pass a transfer with Sven's example hand (Axx, xx, AKQTx, Axx, a better example may have been a hand with less toptricks for hearts). As the case is presented a correct explanation of 2♦ was "no agreement", I don't think I would adjust based on MI either (wheter or not to alert undiscussed calls that may or may not (possibly with very different probabilities) have an alertable meaning is a discussion for another thread). Generally you try to avoid undiscussed calls, here East was in a position where if he wanted to play in hearts he had to risk either 2♦ (may be taken as natural) or 2♥ (may be taken as transfer to spades). I have actually been in a similar position. I normally play "transfers off", but was playing a session with a partner who I knew belonged to the minority who play "transfers on" after 1NTX. I even knew he knew I knew, and he also knew I preferred the opposite treatment! But we had not discussed which principle to use (there were some "interesting" responses to questions and a bad contract was soon reached) :( John

I have actually never used this method (2♠ as transfer to clubs) so I can't comment on what is the best or most popular responses. I am still pretty sure I would not have used the method on this hand, but I can think of 2 explanations for South's bidding. 1: The "Blackwood-syndrome" often seen with weaker players. They want to use their methods and see the wheels moving even if there is very little to gain. The player sees a gamegoing hand with six clubs and goes on to show it. This may have been what he meant by "choice of game". A weak player may not have considered what strength (if any) he shows and that partner would not have enough information to make an educated decision. In this scenario he doesn't care much if partner shows a fit or not, he thinks he has left the decision to partner. 2: He either believed he knew how they played this sequence or did not consider it, but the UI from the hesitation told him that partner was not sure. I still don't think I would adjust, since it is unclear that the hesitation shows anything substantial (a fit/maximum). In this scenario the decision is however much closer, since pass is probably a Logical Alternative. His statement of "choice of games" may still show a lack of bidding judgement, but if we believe him it does indicate that he would always move to game. John

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sj54h74dq832cjt87&w=sq92hqt2dt764ca54&e=s873hkj983da95c62&s=sakt6ha65dkjckq93]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] This happened yesterday at the club. I was East, playing with three young girls, unfortunately a relatively rare experience. My partner, West, is a beginner, N/S a bit more experienced. With N/S vulnerable and West dealer the bidding went: West North East South Pass Pass 2♥ X Pass 2NT Pass 3NT 4♥ Pass Pass X All pass 2♥ was weak, before the lead North said that 2NT should have been alerted (Lebensohl). She then asked me if this was the correct time to say this, and I informed her that it would have been if she had been declarer or dummy :) She then became a bit embarassed and suggested we called the TD, which we did (playing TD, in practice he arrived at the table after the board was played). The TD's first statement (we are both members of our National Laws Committee) was: "I am sure I will rule against John, but you may first explain why I was called" :P 4♥ went down 3. If you ask West what she would have bid if 2NT had been correctly alerted and explained she would answer honestly "I don't know". She did have a long tank before bidding 4♥, making me (who understood what had happened) hoping for a pass, but worrying a bit whether if she did I would have any Logical Alternative to a heartlead :P How would you rule? John

There is a fourth option, a simple and natural solution that seems to have become "expert standard" in Norway; Just make the 3NT rebid show a balanced 14 (possibly a very good 13), with 2NT as balanced 11-13 NF. In theory you create some problems if opener got 18-19(20), but since you have more bidding room with this handtype these are easily solved. You can for example use 2♥ (possibly also 2♠) either as an artificial or dual-meaning bid, or simply bid natural (2♥/♠ is seminatural and GF) and agree that later jumps (or raises of 3NT) to 4NT are quantitative (you have to bid 4m or cue/splinter to ask for aces).

I am not sure Pass is a LA (KQJxx, xxx, xx, xxx is enough to make slam almost laydown, it got some play with less), but it seems like a more relevant question may have been what the hesitation suggests. In my opinion it suggests a (sub)minimum, since with all these points and both opponents bidding it seems much less likely that partner considered a stronger action. This is looking a bit like "if it hesitates, shoot it", where the player moved on after a slow 4♠. If the player had succesfully passed one may have argued that bidding on would be an LA and that passing would not be allowed, since this was indicated by the hesitation.

I agree with Trinidad above. Even in team-games, as a player I often just check the basics before the round start. This is just to check whether they use something that will require any agreements with partner. I know most opponents and most play relatively standard. The basic system is surprisingly uniform among most of my opponents, also at the top national (Norway) level. If I became dummy on one of the first boards I may want to study their card in more detail (depending on what that quick glance before the round told me), without wasting everybodys time. I would then study things like leads/signal (if I became declarer on the first board I could be forced to "waste everybodys time" if they played some non-standard signals), or more subtle inferences in bidding, for example how they differentiate weak-two bids if they play "weak-Multi" combined with more constructive Weak 2. These are things that would not affect any agreements with partner and in general would not give any UI.

I think inexperienced players generally pass too often in this position, thinking that since partner has passed no game is possible with their minimum. With 3-cardsupport you may sometimes pass with a minimum opening (I agree with the majority, and would bid 2♠ on the original deal), but rarely ever with 4. This is both to show our fit to partner (making it easier if opponents compete), to keep the opponents out of the bidding and because the fourth trump makes our own game more likely/possible. I would however never expect 3NT from partner, with a balanced maximum for an opening pass 2NT would be more than enough, with 10/11 and 4333 pass would be the normal action.

This may depend on location (I am in Norway), but I would say in standard this is forcing. Personally I normally play it as non-forcing, but that is because I play a non-standard method where 2♦ by responder is a general game-force in this position.

This happened on the last board of a Premier League match a couple of years ago. My sceenmates partner had declared 5 boards, going down in all of them, then the bidding went: Pard RHO Me LHO 1♦ 1♥ 3♦ 3♠ Pass When the tray returned my screenmate pointed his finger down his score-card and said: "He went down on that, that, that that and that board. The guy just doesn't take any tricks! 3♠ is forcing, but I pass!". My screenmate was Tor Helness, his partner who we could hear laughing on the other side of the screen was Geir Helgemo :) In the same match (we actually won!) Tor was declarer, and had xx to AQJx in diamonds in dummy. He had taken a working finesse, and later went into a for him very long tank. Then he repeated the finesse (dummy had no side entries) and claimed his contract when this also worked. One of the many kibitzers was obviously disappointed with her hero and couldn't refrain from asking at this point: "Why did you think for so long?". Tor patiently explained that a good player may have held the K even after the first finesse held. This lead me to another true story, where a very good player actually did hold up his king in a similar position. This match was broadcasted on BBO and the duck was so smooth that the operator didn't even see his card on this trick. She asked so load that the whole tabled could hear her: "Did you win the K?" :)

I was very surprised to see the wide spread of meanings atributed to the 6♦ call. Even more so since no-one has mentioned what I believed was the standard expert treatment around here (Norway). I would definitely expect partner to be asking about third-round diamond control (Q or singleton/doubleton), an ideal hand would be something like AKxxxx, x, AKxx, Ax (assuming 3♠ showed 4+ we have 10+ spades and can ignore the ♠Q). Much of the discussion focus on methods to find out about a second king. Here 1 ace + 2 kings would be a clear maximum, is it too "Rexfordian" (sorry Ken :lol: ) to assume that partner would have responded 6NT to 5NT with that? I expect we all agree that partner would bid 7♠ directly over 5NT with something like xxxx, xx, xx, AKQxx (a source of tricks)?

Many posters don't like the methods as described and neither do I. But I do play something very similar, and it may be the description and not the methods that is at fault. It seems Firmit (a fellow Norwegian) plays something resembling what I and Brogeland-Lindqvist (European champions and butler winners from Pau) use. This is how they describe these bids after partners 1♠ opening (note the difference in hp and suitlengths): 2♥: Either natural GF or weak with spade-support (normally 3, may have 4). For the weak option minimum Qxx/xxxx in support and out, maximum around 7hp. 2♠: A good raise. Typical 8-11 with 3 card or 6-9 with 4 card support. 3♠: Preemptive (0-5). There are other bids to show a balanced or splinter raise with 4+ spades and invitational values. Personally I normally use 3sp as semibalanced invitational with minisplinters while they use some dual-meaning raises to free 3♠ as preemptive. This hand is not good enough for a constructive or splinter raise, so the choice is between 2♥ and 3♠. With this distribution I agree with most posters who bid 3♠ (if like me you play 3♠ as invitational it's an obvious 2♥). John

You may be right or it may be another example of the name of a convention meaning different things to different people. I have never heard the name Muiderberg (or Lucas) used in Norway, but from what I have seen, including here Muiderberg, I believed it was a 2-suited 2♥/♠ opening, similar but maybe not identical to Lucas or Tartan. Tartan is the name used in the article (the writer is from Israel) and the most common name in Norway for a 2-suited 2M opening (very common in combination with Multi among tournamentplayers). In the article it seems 2M-openings that may include both majors are lumped together with systems that promise 4+ or 5+ in a minor (promising a minor is probably the most common, but both versions are called Tartan here in Norway).

You are of course welcome to have have your own preferences, personally I no longer play neither Bergen nor Muiderberg (Tartan) if partner does not insist. If you think Multi and Muiderberg is a "must" the following link may be of interest: Multi and Muiderberg The author analyzed the results of Multi and Muiderberg compared to the stoneage alternative of weak 2's in European, World and Olympic championships in the period 1987-2004. With a weak 2 type of hand the Multi-openers lost on average 0,33 IMP's/board. More surprising was perhaps that they on average lost almost as much (0,31 IMP's/board) on their 2M Muiderberg/Tartan openings. If you think this is more because of class of players than system (few Italian, American or Norwegian top pairs play these methods), one may wonder why they prefer other methods (most play some form of weak 2, at least in the majors). Multi/Muiderberg may however be very effective against weaker opponents, that is not discussed in the article. John

To me this is close between pass and double. I can see myself choosing both, depending on vulnerability, opponents and time of day. In my experience doubling with 3334 (4 card in the unbid minor) and the appropiate strength has led to more good results than bad, but as mentioned by other posters the honour-location is not optimal on the given hand.