RMB1

I'm not an ACBL director but the laws are the same and (in this case) the adjustment would be the same. 1. No 2. It appears that passing 5S is a logical alternative: RKCB bidder is in control of the auction. 6S is suggested by the unauthorised information. So (assuming 6S made) an adjustment to 5S making the same number of tricks appear appropriate.

This last bit isn't true. North can double. If West passes, North must bid 3H. Law 31A1 If West bids, North can pass, bid, double or redouble (if admissible). Law 31A2 If North shows hearts, then South must pass once. Law 31A2a If North does not show hearts, then South must pass throughout. Law 31A2b So if West bids 4H, North can double. But West would not bid 4H if the director had given the right ruling. So we are in "director's error" territory.

The current laws are the "2007" Laws, see www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/2007laws.asp. The laws were agreed by the WBF LC in late 2007 but there were changes to the index and (notably) to Law 27 early in 2008. Most countries (NBOs) and Zones adopted the new laws between March and November 2008.

If an opponent doubles you and you go for 1400, is the double an action which "might cause annoyance" or "might interfere with the enjoyment of the game". It has always seemed a clear infringement of Law 74A2. :(

It is disappointing but inevitable that threads get hijacked. It is more frustrating that a new thread in a different forum has reverted to discussing the original thread. A bid is explained as "A or B, we haven't discussed which", and the bidder subsequently agrees that this is an accurate statement of their partnership understanding. GordonTD and DBurn want to rule that this is not an adequate disclosure, and opponents are entitled to know which of A or B it is (unless there is evidence of an understading to play "A or B", I guess). FrancesHinden and I think that this is adequate disclosure and that there is not misinformation if the bidder has A or has B. There may be an illegal agreement, and unauthorised information, but not necessarily misinformation. Nige1 said that he would like the law to be as GordonTD and DBurn had said, but was not persuaded that the law did say so. So it might be good to be able to rule misinformation and if that needs a change in the law then so be it. I was trying to suggest a possible change to the laws by extending Law 21B. Are there other approaches or do others agree that the laws are adequate to rule misinformation? [i blame a long bridge event and a long train journey home due to multiple instances of weekend engineering work. :(]

But not the 2009 edit. OB 3 B 10 was removed from the latest edition. It was considered illegal following adoption of the 2007 Laws.

As I see it, the argument here is about what the laws say about what the opponents are entitled to in the presence of uncertainty about agreements. If West thought 2♠ was natural and was unaware that other agreements might make the meaning ambiguous then there is a case for ruling that "2♠ = natural" is the agreement to which NS are entitled. In other cases, I have been content to rule that the partnership understanding is that a call is ambiguous when there is a difference of opinion as to what the agreement is. Should the law e.g. Law 21B1b be extended to say "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary; and the director is to presume a simpler explanation rather than a more ambiguous explanation in the absence of evidence to the contrary."

There were three possible disclosable explanations of 2♠: (1) natural, (2) the same as (1♥)-1♠, or (3) undiscussed, but presumably either (1) or (2). It is possible that (1) is correct and East had forgotten; it is possible that (2) is correct and West had forgotten (but unlikely given East's uncertain explanation and West's bid); but the players and TD were happy that (3) was correct. So how is West to explain XX? If 2♠ is (1) then apparently XX means the same as 1♠-(X)-XX. If 2♠ is (2) then XX is to play opposite D+S and not opposite clubs. If 2♠ is (3) then either East has decided which of (1) or (2) West has and has chosen his call appropriately; or has made a call which he thinks is best opposite either (1) or (2): a strong hand to play opposite D+S or just S. West's explanation of XX should have been along the lines of (3) but sounded (to North) like (2). North concluded from the explanation of XX that (2) was the correct explanation of 2♠. The TD found the explanation by West was misleading and North was misinformed and North would have chosen differently with different (more ambiguous) understand of 2♠. I hope I am not putting words in the mouths of the players or the TD. I appears that if the explanation of XX had been "To play if I have got spades (having shown S+D or clubs) or to play when I have spades (having shown spades)" then North would not have been misled/misinformed.

I think the original explanation of XX was misleading and adjustment was required. I think someone should have called the TD before the explanation of XX was given. "The explanation of two spades was ambiguous and this makes it difficult to properly explain the redouble". The TD could then extablish that 2♠ was ambiguous, and XX was strong and to play opposite S+D or a natural S overcall. This would prevent West from giving the impression that he necessarily had shown S+D when he passed the redouble. The adjustment should be on the basis that West could have S+D or just S.

Before I would adjust, I would ask the meaning of X, 2♥, 3♦, and 3NT (in the context of the earlier X).

Now at least we understand the claim. A normal line appears to be 3. DK, 4. HA, 5. SA, 6. SK, 7. HQ (throwing C8), 8. CA, 9. CJ intending to cross-ruff the rest. The defence now have only winners, together with DK. 3NT -2.

It should certainly stop the opponents worrying the TD will be biased to rule in your favour. :P

Players call me "Robin" when they want boards, or want to know when the next session starts. Of course, mine is a relatively uncommon name - but Mike, Gordon, David will have the same effect. Sensible players know not to use (first) names when calling the director for disputes if the opponents do not know the director as well. Who is "Barky", I am sure no one has called me that. :lol: Robin "Barky" Barker

In the sequence (2♦)-P-(2♥)-P-(P)-X, the double is a double "of" 2♥ (which does not "show the suit bid") not a double of opener's pass (which does show hearts). So the regulations require an alert of a take-out double here, just as they do for (2♦)-P-(2♥)-X.

I was thinking about such matters this weekend, duing some fascinating bridge that did not need much from the TD except moving boards and getting the air conditioning turned on. :) For what its worth, I think some of these problems would be solved if take-out doubles of non-forcing suit bids (natural or not) were not alertable, including all protective doubles (of suit bids). So in the sequence (2♦=multi)-P-(2♥=pass or correct), double by either player (with opener passing) would be take-out of hearts if not alerted.

The short answer (without chapter and verse) is the regulating authority is ACBL and they permit the question (i.e. the regulating authority has not prohibited). The ACBL is the strongest proponent of the question being permitted but almost all authorities do not prohibit: in some zones it is decided at a national level and the German national body has prohibited these questions.

I was skeptical because I thought South would want to be in game opposite a take-out double regardless of what the opponents were up to. In suggesting an adjustment to some of 3♠-1, I had neglected that West thought 2NT was game forcing and I think with a minimum he won't do anything but bid 4♥ over 3♠. I don't think NS will double 4♥ and I think South will often go on to 4♠. So there is at least one other auction which reproduces the table result (1♥ X 2NT 3♠ 4♥ P P 4♠) and one that reaches a different contract (1♥ X 2NT 3♠ 4♥ P P P). So perhaps NS are due some (<50%) proportion of 4♥ - 1.

I'm sceptical. But if I can find players who would bid 3♠ with the correct explanation then I would adjust; not necessarily to 100% of 3♠-1.

I don't think so much of South's chances in 5♣. Declarer has to ruff two hearts in dummy and probably draw a round of trumps to stop East over ruffing. If West does not over ruff the ♣K at trick two, he will usually make two trump tricks.

I think this is solely a misinformation case. 2♠ should be described better when asked and even "strong or 8 playing tricks" on the convention card is insufficient, something about lack of outside cards/defensive values. 2♠ showing length in spades and any strength is permitted. This one should probably be announced as "intermediate or strong". I don't think NS were damaged in the auction but perhaps they were damaged in the play. How did the play go? If NS knew East might have no cards outside spades, could they had a better go at cashing their four tricks. Perhaps an adjustment to a weighting of 9 and 10 tricks in 4♠ might be appropriate.

Posters are still imposing agreements on NS, or their peers, who may not have such understanding. We need to talk to NS to find out their understanding (or lack of it) of this sequence (or 2NT-3♥-4♥ or 1NT-2♥-3♥). From this we can ask the peers of NS what they understand about the sequence at the table, and discover whether there are logical alternative to 4♠.

Two posters have assumed the OP was from "(probably) UK" and "England, which seems likely". All this after I dutifully put "Swiss Teams, England" in the topic description. :D

Another appeal where I was consulted about the ruling. [hv=d=e&v=e&n=sa8ha965dqj84cq109&w=sq2hq1032da106ck762&e=sk65hkj874dk72c53&s=sj109743hd953caj84]399|300|Scoring: IMPs W . N . E . S . . . . . P 2♠/A Q/P P 3♥ P P . P 2♠ was alerted West asked then passed 2♠ = ♠+other 5-4, 5-9 HCP 3H= NS +140[/hv] TD was called at the end of the auction. West said she asked about 2♠ because she had forgotten to look at the opponent's convention card. TD ruled there was no (useful) unauthorised information from the question or the unauthorised information does not suggest 3♥ over Pass. Score stands. AC disagreed and ruled 2♠= NS-110.

To answer the UI question. I think West is entitled to know that 2♣ on this auction may be misunderstood. Partner's 3♣ is further evidence that partner may have misunderstood. I do not think any player would pass 3♣X, risking playing that contract; so I do not think Pass is a logical alternative. Perhaps XX and 3♦ are logical alternatives but once partner has bid 3♣ the risk of a misunderstanding is too great, and bidding the better of one's suits is the only logical alternatives. I do not think there is a logical alternative to 3♥.

With the table result: +620 86/86, +50 55/86, -100 40/86.