MFA

Under these circumstances, I would rule that it is ok to escape to 2♥.

I would open 2♠ if we have agreed my preferred range of 8-11 (combined with a bandit multi). My main point with this is that I certainly don't think 2♠ is too ugly a bid as such, 2-bids don't need to be absolutely pure - but they have to be in range of our agreements or we should really change our range to something else. As it happens I'm used to a strong club base with quite aggressive openers, so this hand is a little above a minimum 1♠ for us (take away 1 point somewhere and we will still be there).

Why shouldn't I open? I don't see it. I have the majors in 4th position - and I even have an opening hand. :)

We play 2nd/4th with no attitude, so always small from xxxx. This is normal in my neighborhood. We 'treat a 9 as an honour', so we lead 9 from 9x, and may choose the 9 from some sequences like 98x or H98x.

I don't think we even need the threat of getting a worse result. In my view it can never be unethical simply just to take note of the director's decision and leave it there. Whatever the circumstances in the tournament. The director is (supposed to be) an official, compentent person specifically designated to decide these matters. So his decisions should be trusted as a general principle. --- The thread case is an easy adjustment to 2♦ undoubled. If NS are appealing this to get back the table result their money should be withheld.

iviehoff: But the 11A-thing would be equally true if declarer had called the director instead of dummy. TD may rule that lead restrictions can't be enforced now, that's a good observation. But this point can't have anything to do with the ethics of calling the director in the first place.

Now, this is the interesting post. Has attention been drawn? I am not sure. Wow, is that an issue? :o West says "Oops" and replaces his wrong card. How can that not be equivalent with saying: "Sorry guys, I revoked, here is the right card"? West has drawn attention to his revoke himself. Which he has to in order to avoid the revoke from being established (unless he wants to gamble of course that noone will ever notice the revoke at all).

Since attention has been drawn to the irregularity (the revoke), dummy is entitled to call the director about that. Law 43A1a.

Agree with all that :angry: I agree too except for the PPs.

It annoys me to death that noone who plays these two-suited overcalls ever seems to remember them, even though having this misunderstanding at the second bid of the auction almost always messes up the board completely :angry:. NS can't be kept out of 4♠, but I'm VERY tempted to just say 5♥X -3 because of the MI. Too harsh though, but I'll vote for a weighted score where EW will find the sacrifice say 40% of the time.

I agree with you about the frequencies of the actual bids. But it's less clear when it comes to the frequencies of the respective huddles.

No. The hesitation is more likely to stem from east's thinking of his axe. Look at the bidding and west's 1-2 in the reds.

I don't see what can be done about this. If the official regulations allow the team to withdraw then that's how it is.

2NT should be natural or it will be too hard with a strong notrump kind of hand. 3♣ for majors, 3new preemptive. I don't like the weak or very strong treatment in general for unusual NTs. I prefer a continuous strength range where I give up on the very weak (and very dangerous) hands, so that the two-suiter is always reasonable. Advancer then takes overcaller seriously in the rest of the bidding.

I support the view that TD should try to investigate, but if he doesn't learn anything interesting, the default ruling would be no UI.

Thanks for the reference!

Would double, but I don't hate 1NT. I do hate 2♦.

I don't understand not raising - strange bridge ... :(

pass - eezz

I do not understand the reams of argument, which - if I have understood rightly - involve assuming Law 23 always applies and we might as well throw the Law book away. No doubt BLML will welcome such arguments but we teach practical tournament direction here. For Law 23 to apply there must be an expectation of likelihood of damaging the opponents. Any infraction might get lucky but that is insufficient reason to apply Law 23. I'm trying to be practical too. I don't think adjusting the score here is practical - I think it's wrong. I was challenged with the argument that a certain interpretation of law 23 was prevalent among the law drafters. That the word 'well' in law 23 is meaningless. How can I not take such a claim seriously? I think the scope of law 23 is limited to the situations where the player could have known that it would be advantageous to infringe the laws. What do you think?

Pass. Not offensive enough to bid 5 over 5. The three little spades are especially bad.

Yes, North will benefit from being doubled in 5H when it makes. I think you (and Codo) are applying the wrong logic. a) Could North have known that suggesting a heart void could cause the opponents to double? b ) Could 5H doubled be better than 5H? Clearly the answer to the first is yes, and the second is yes, when it makes! The law does not say "is expected to be better" or that the player "believed it might be better". Anybody that thinks 5H doubled could not be better is lacking imagination! And there is that rather meaningless word "well" in the Laws. Law 23 says "could well damage" the non-offending side. Most legal drafters I spoke to said this means exactly the same as "could damage", but some people think it means that "there is more than an insignificant chance" that the non-offending side will be damaged. So, North's antics could have caused East to double. North could have anticipated that 5H doubled would make some of the time. Sadly for him the times it does he does not benefit. An expensive little joke. Bluejak's 70% of 5H making and 30% of 5H going down looks better than my ruling if the TD removes the double. Ok thanks, I see your point. 1. Curiously the Danish translation of law 23 goes in the other direction than that interpretation. "Might well damage" is translated to: "... tilbøjelig til at skade", where "tilbøjelig til" usually means: to be inclined to, to be disposed to, or to tend to. ("Damage" = "at skade"). I think the Danish interpretation of Law 23 is along the lines of my previous post, but I will try to clear that up (for myself in case I have misunderstood something once again :)). 2. It seems to me that if you don't attach any meaning to the word "well", then law 23 would catch just about any good result that an offending side might get out of the infraction. Because then all it takes is the imagination that this good result was indeed possible. There would be no requirement that the hand itself points towards such a lucky outcome. Example a. I'm in 4th hand but open accidentally out of turn with 1♥ on an ordinary 13-count. Partner has to pass throughout now, and when it goes p-p-p to me, I try 4♥. Or pass. Or 3NT. Or 1♥. Am I subject to an automatic adjustment if my actual choice leads to an unlikely but fortunate contract that gives me a good board? I mean, I could have known that I might get lucky, right? Example b. I lead the ♦K from ♦KQJ against 4♠ ... but it was really partner's lead. Partner happened to be about to choose his obvious singleton diamond, but now declarer forbids him to lead that suit. Instead he finds the only killing lead - a club. Adjustment? My hand screamed for a diamond, but of course I could imagine that a club lead might be right instead. I think the actual case is fundamentally equal to example a and b (if we accept the premise that north's antics might provoke a double - not clear at all).

I would agree that if the ruling is 5H undoubled, there is an increased chance of declarer going off. Your ruling was for some percentage of 5H doubled, however, and I don't think a good declarer is going off after East has doubled. And I certainly think that suggesting to his partner that the auction go back to 4H might have the effect of getting East to double; that just seems common sense. Whether that was a wise move is irrelevant; he could have known that a gesture or mannerism might work to his advantage. And for what it is worth I think his 5D was an excellent bid, and, certainly I would back 5H to make after my partner bid it. If I could double for the opponents I might give it a shot. Are you suggesting that north also "could have known" that NS might well profit from getting doubled in 5♥? If so, I disagree. North is void in hearts and has nothing special on the side, if I were north and saw the LHO-preemptor double partner in 5♥ I would expect to go off almost all the time, when we can't even muster a single trump to lead from dummy. LHO will have something in trumps for his double. The actual lay-out is very atypical, since I frankly do not know what south was thinking when he bid 5♥ on AKxxxx. Usually south's hand is of a different type - very long hearts, not particularly strong, but too strong for a 4♥ opening.

I disagree with adjusting the score - I think the result should stand. North should have red ears of course, or the TD could help warm them. North's joke doesn't help south. The joke is an old one and is almost exclusively related to the bidding. North pulls 4♥ to 5♦ but is corrected back to 5♥ - of course he would rather then have played 4♥ and the bidding itself looks a little silly on the surface. That's was north's joke is saying. If we are to analyse north's 'timing' of the joke from a phychological point of view, I think there are 2 immediately plausible explanations: 1) 'Apology in advance'. North didn't really have his removal to 5♦ and is preparing south for an annoying dummy. or 2) 'Reserves of mental energy'. North thinks his bidding (including his pass to 5♥) is very clear-cut, so he has the excess mental energy to make a joke about the unfortunate bidding sequence. The actual joke was a 'type 2' joke. I don't think either of the 2 explanations helps south. In neither case is north even dreaming about that there is a possible, practical alternative to playing 5♥X.

It may or may not be, but where alerting is concerned WBF rules have no force in the EBU. Right. I know.