RMB1

:( We believe the player intended to Pass. Campboy's form of words is the generally understood approach to Law 25A. We had the old Law 25B to deal with an intended call which was seen to be a mistake. The normal example was passing a control-showing response, as in your example. We now no longer have the old Law 25B and these mistakes are not recoverable.

It is possible that there is no mis-information (except that 4♦ should have been explained as "asks for the major, if I've got a weak two", if anyone asked). It is very possible that 4♠ shows a weak two in spades, so the explanation "6-10" was accurate. Opener may have realised that they had misbid and so no correction of the explanation "6-10" was appropriate. Playing these methods, do you have to start showing your 4441 shapes at the five level?

Is it really permitted to choose your defence ("option 1" or "option 2") having seen your hand? I had assumed pre-alerting was required if written defences were to be offered (and used). This smacks of Christmas party bridge where you decide your system and your opening bid on each deal, based on your hand.

Any sufficient bid is allowed: after 4♠, opener is silenced. The same lead penalties apply if opening side become defenders: the penalty relates to the withdrawn 3NT call, not how it is corrected. So if 3♠ bidder get the lead he can be prohibited by declarer from leading any one suit.

3♠-(4♥)-3NT not accepted, replaced by 4NT silencing partner -(5♥)-end. Then, when/if the opening bidder is on lead, Law 26 applies. 3NT did not specify suit(s), so Law 26B applies: declarer may prohibit opener from leading any one suit at his first turn to lead (such prohibition to continue for as long as opener retains the lead).

Regardless of how we get there, if the TD rules that 4NT will silence partner and responder does bid 4NT then the TD must consider if Law 23 applies (as referenced by Law 27B2). It is likely that Law 23 will apply: bidding 3NT and correcting to 4NT as a way of playing 4NT, when the meaing of bidding 4NT directly "isn't obvious", would appear to meet the reequirements of the law.

Second thoughts ... If 4NT doesn't silence opener then it is to play and opener will pass anyway. If 4NT isn't "to play" then responder can bid it to play anyway because opener will be silenced. If the TD asks opener and/or responder (separately) what is their understanding of 4NT, it may be in their interests to say (confidently) it is to play, and they may know this. How can the TD tell responder whether 4NT will silence partner, or tell opener if he is silenced when reposnder does bid 4NT, without them both knowing that they both know it is to play. How can the TD apply Law 27D to allow for the fact that if the auction had gone 3♠-(4♥)-4NT, opener may have treated this as artificial. The offending side will say they both knew 4NT was natural. I wish it would all (Law 27) go away!

Law 27B1a requires the TD consider whether 3NT is incontrovertibly not artificial (YES) and a replacement of 4NT is incontrovertily not artifial (NO). 4NT could be not artificial but I do not think it is incontrovertibly so. Law 27B1b requires the TD to consider if any legal call has the same or more precise meaning than 3NT. Nothing looks likely expect perhaps 4NT: I do not think double shows the same as (or is more precise that) 3NT. I think if the TD is convinced that 4NT is to play then a correction to 4NT will not silence opener (if not under Law 27B1a, then Law 27B1b). Otherwise there would appear to be no (other) calls that will not silence opener. If 4NT is to play then responder can bid that and opener will not be silenced; any other bid and Pass will silence opener; responder can not double.

We strongly suspect that Gunnar Hallberg's "He claimed it on a double squeeze" is the main motivation for Law 70D3.

Hi, welcome. The ruling sounds legal - based on Law 70D3. Whether the ruling is right depends on the actual cards and play.

Er. Yes. Different regulatory authorities have different alerting regulations. Different in England (and Wales) from ACBL, different in Scotland (UK) from England, etc. Is 4♥ "natual, not Pass-or-correct, to play opposite any weak two" alertable in ACBL?

A BBO commentator said recently that "fearless" was a euphemism for "bonkers". :)

I disagree. The spirit of the game (as played historically, in rubber bridge, and now online) is that one player makes a bid that suggests playing in that contract and others use their general bridge knowledge to work out what he is likely to hold.

I agree that it does seem "dirty" to say "yes you can bid" and then call the TD when they do. I think the opponents should call the TD, even a playing TD, and get the TD to explain to East his rights and restrictions.

I guess that's disappointing. I've made rulings you disagree with before, but I'm sorry if such rulings disturb you. To adjust I need to imagine there are peers of North who would bid without the alert, and I can't. Yes a probst cheat might alert, some cheats will not be caught by Law 16. Many players still alert above 3NT, especially responses to 1suit. Some would alert 4♥ and proudly explain "to play", out of relief that they have remembered their agreements. Perhaps the agreement "natural, to play" in a potential pass-or-correct suit is sufficiently "potentially unexpected" to require an alert (if it were not above 3NT). It's OK. You can always appeal and dburn will give you 6♠X off lots.

Mine was meant to be a more open question: certainly we must determine what the alert suggests ---- but I agree that it suggests that opener does not think 4♥ is to play. My real difficulty is determining if there are logical alternatives to Pass. I think that a very large proportion of people faced with this auction would Pass because the odds are that partner has a weak two in spades (and has either forgotten the system or thinks he can pull 4♥ with an unsuitable hand). They might well assume that a strong two in spades would not risk 4♠ because it might sound like contract correction. It would be difficult to find peers of NS with the same agreements and level of confidence in their agreements. So conducting a poll would be fraught.

In the EBU, this would be a breach of the "Best Behaviour at Bridge" code. This would result in a standard disciplinary fine: twice the standard amount = 20% of a top. Any disciplinary fine also results in a record of the fine being sent to the regulating authority or tournament organiser. Again, I can only answer for EBU procedures. A TD is supposed to act on disciplinary offences that take place outside the playing time or outside the playing area, for instance in the bar after the end of the session. The full scope of this has not been tested but I think if the TD is "on duty" (including between sessions) and is "on site" (on the premises for the event) then he is expected to act. How fines are applied between events is not clear, but a record would be sent to the regulatory authority or tournament organiser.

I ask the table "perhaps within earshot" what they heard. If they heard identifiable accusations of cheating then my hands are tied and disciplinary procedures must be followed. If the table did not hear enough for what was said to constitute a public accusation of cheating, then: I warn the pair that they could have been overheard, and that would be a serious offence; I ask if there is anything from the play at the table they wish to bring to my attention.

If there is misinformation there would still be time to re-open the auction as the opening lead has not been faced. But there isn't any misinformation, as no-one asked for an explanation. What does the UI (the mistaken alert) suggest, other than that opener does not know the regulations?

No one said it is cheating to pass 5♦. It is just that passing is not an action that the laws require. Robin

Think again :) (My emphasis)

Can some one confirm that Texas (in response to 1NT) is alertable. It isn't in EBU.

I don't take offence at many calls/plays at the bridge table. I don't think West's pass is a serious error or is wild or gambling. Indeed taking offence (or shuddering) at call/play is a good test for SEWoG, see the shudder test

I wish I shared your optimism. Given the efforts that went in to indirectly restricting natural bids (weak twos, wide-range 1NT) by prohibiting conventional/artificial continuations under the old laws; I would not find it all surprising if an RA designated natural opening bids as special partnership understandings in order to control them.

I think Bluejak is arguing that a regulatory authority can designate natural bids as special partnership understandings (regardless of whether they are psyched) and then regulate them, and so prohibit the psyching of them. It does not take much for a regulatory authority to (legitimately) label a partnership understanding as "special": an agreement to open on less than traditional values; an agreement to not always open the longest suit; opening the higher of two 5 card suits, but the lower of 4 card suits. The laws put no real constraints on what may be designated a special partnership understanding.