Rossoneri

I wouldn't call NS a casual partnership, they've won tournaments together. Like I said, I was told that South said 2NT was minors after he put down dummy. I agree. Hm, no, South is definitely NOT an intermediate player!

No. I shall fill in on some of the details. This hand occurred during an evening club game, in one of the later rounds, with a playing director who had recently obtained his qualification. I was also playing, and was asked about the hand at the end of the session. Bridgeboy and his partner had left by then. Also, we both decided it would be best to consult the more senior directors the next day. FWIW, West was not sure if there was damage, and both EW were not asking for any adjustments but also wanted to know what the correct ruling should be. The rest of the facts that I was told/know: - W said he could make a cue of 3♦ if 2N was explained as minors, and felt he was unable to describe his hand in better detail after the 2N bid. - After the 2NT bid, W waited a few seconds for an alert, didn't receive one, and doubled. After 3♠, E asked what is 2N, and received a reply of "I don't know." - After 2 passes, W now wondered if 2N was misexplained and was really the minors and if so, 4♥ may be going down on bad breaks and so he doubled. - S (bridgeboy) told W that 2N was meant to be minors after he put down dummy. - NS play together on some club nights and in mixed pairs events. Due to the late hour, these facts were presented to the two senior colleagues the following day. They both felt that there was damage due to the MI and that the score should be adjusted back to 4♥+1. I was the third, and I felt the same way as Pran did. Personally, I am not completely convinced that this is entirely right, and I was planning to ask as well. Unfortunately I was not able to post earlier. I must also add that when I informed Bridgeboy of the ruling, he did tell me that they had no prior agreement wrt the 2NT bid in that position, which made me even more doubtful. I'm not quite sure if there was some other misunderstanding along the way. Feel free to tell me if I'm wrong. I'm more than happy to overturn the original ruling if this turns out to be the case.

You beat me to it. I'm also looking forward to hearing opinions.

Well I'm pretty sure years ago, after doing that with your friends, you didn't come onto the forums to brag about it.

I don't know about negative votes, but your post deserves a positive.

I'm in the 1♠ camp as well.

Thanks for all the replies: I've created a new thread in the Laws forum regarding the actual case.

Some of you might have seen the poll I did: What would you open? This occurred in a pairs tournament I was directing last week. West was dealer, and East opened 1♠ out of turn. However, West did not see and tried to open in turn, although he retracted his bid when he realised what had happened. I was called and arrived at the table (from an angle behind West) just as West was retracting his bid of 1NT. However, no one else at the table saw what West was trying to bid. West had a balanced 15 count. I asked, "What's going on?" and West said, "Nothing, nothing." North then explained that East had bid out of turn at his partner's turn to bid. Having explained all the options, South rejected the bid out of turn and the bidding reverted back to West with an enforced pass. Now North passed, and East pulled out 4♠. This was cold for 11 tricks, but NS allowed him to make 12. I was called back to table. After further consultation with a colleague, we both decided to adjust to score to 2♠+4 instead as 4♠ was demonstrably suggested by the UI. Comments? Edit: Argh, I've placed this in the wrong forum by mistake, could a moderator help me move it please? Sorry for the trouble!

I suspect Law 23 might cover this.

Edited for clarity.

[hv=pc=n&e=skq8743h86daj8cq8&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp]133|200[/hv] MPs Before you say wtp, here is the twist: Due to an irregularity, partner has to pass throughout the auction, including his first pass. Now, what would you bid?

I quite agree, it does seem that said individual can be considered to be an "interested party".

FWIW, I usually get these wrong. Agree with 5♣, I vote for X as you've got more defence than you've shown

Thanks Gordon! (And thanks Max!) While waiting for some word, I actually did come up with something based on John Probst's article and David Stevenson's website. So after some work in MATLAB (though a standard normal table would do just fine), I obtained: 7.5-7.5 0-1 8.5-6.5 2-4 9.5-5.5 5-7 10.5-4.5 8-10 11.5-3.5 11-13 12.5-2.5 14-17 12.5-1.5 18-23 12.5-0.5 24+ My results were less "flat" than if I had used the adding and scoring method.

The case in question is in theNABC 31 July Bulletin on page 4. To put it shortly: - Case arose at the end of the game - Somehow it was discovered in screening that the correct auction at the table was not the one the original ruling was based on - Screening director referred the case straight to the appeals committee rather than making a ruling himself It all seems weird, puzzling and doesn't quite put the screening director or the original director in a very good light. Thoughts?

Yes, I know short triangles but silly, but this was due to circumstances beyond my control. I have tried some way of manually deriving a VP table, but I'm not quite sure if I'm right. I've also searched and not been able to find much. Would anyone happen to be able to shed more light on how to do the scoring?

Sounds like EW did the damage to themselves.

Like the others have said, it's hard without an actual demonstration.

I'll lead a low ♦ and dummy will table something ridiculous like AJx in that suit.

Amen to that. LOL

I think it's a good idea, but matmat has raised some good points.

MPs or IMPs?

Maybe I should have been clearer in my first post. What about if you are making mistakes that you are not supposed to be making?

Good suggestion. Theoretically this would work, but in practice...(we all know what happens)

Glad I didn't get spammed, but now I'm curious as to how bad aforementioned hand is!