RMB1

Not disclosed. I assume it is a limit raise: 10-12 with diamond support, probably denies 4 card M.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=sk10432ha853d94c43&w=sqj7hkdkq652cj1082&e=sa85h642daj873cq6&s=s96hqj1097d10cak975]399|300|Scoring: MP W . N . E . S 1♦ P . 3♦ 3♥ P . 4♥ ..P P 5♦ P . P . P 1♦ showed 3+ ..P "slight hesitation" acknowledged by East 5♦ bid as sacrifice, "without noticing the hesitation" 5♦-1, NS +50[/hv] South reserved his rights at the end of the auction and the TD was called at the end of play. West said that to raise, East needed 5 diamonds because 1♦ could be three, and so it was obvious to sacrifice. The TD ruled that Pass was a logical alternative to 5♦ and 5♦ was suggested by the hesitation. He adjusted to 4♥=. When consulted, I was swayed by West's failure to compete to 4♦ in finding Pass a logical alternative. I think we were swayed by the hand records in finding that 4♥ makes (by playing on spades rather than clubs). The AC restored the table result. 5♦ was reasonable, at favourable vulnerability with little defence. Although 4♥ can be made, it probably won't. I think the AC decision amounts to: if 4♥ is not making very often then a weighted adjustment would not benefit NS, so there is no damage, and the status of 5♦ is not significant.

Most posters seem to be answering on the basis that the choice of lead is the end of the matter. Yes, you have UI and should avoid a spade lead if the UI suggests a spade lead over logical alternative leads. Then at the end of the hand you recall the TD and explain that if 3♠ had been alerted, partner would have doubled to show a spade honour and you would have led a spade.

It is stated in the laws: it is in Law 16 not in Laws 28/29/30 for Pass out of rotation. Law 16D says partner's withdrawn Pass out of rotation is unauthorised information. Law 16B says you must pass if Pass is a logical alternative and other logical alternatives are suggested over Pass by the Pass out of rotation.

There were a number of rulings on this hand. My ruling concerned overhearing remarks from the next table: We should have bid six hearts.

This is a follow up to two threads: Overheard at the next table and 12 black cards! [hv=d=n&v=n&n=s10hqj6daqj954cq108&w=skq93h4d108632c952&e=sa76542hd7cakj743&s=sj8hak10987532dkc6]399|300|Scoring: IMP W . N . E . S . . 1♦ 1♠ 2♥ 4♠ 5♥ 5♠ 6♥ 6♠ P . P . X P . P . P[/hv] After the first bid, West says that he heard something from the other table as they finished the boards and passed it to this table. The TD is not called and West does not say what he heard. 1. If the TD is called and finds that West heard "We should have bid six hearts", how do you rule? When the auction reaches 6♠ P P, the TD is called. South wants to know whether what West heard has affected his 6♠ bid. 2. What should the TD rule now? As the TD, I decided that the damage had been done and instructed play to continue. I did not find out what West had heard and I did not answer South's question. I checked the other table in the match and they had already played the board. South doubled and East took the club finesse for 6♠X=. I now asked West what he had heard. The result at the other table was 6♥-1 by South. 3. Do you adjust the score at this table/match? I decided that had I been called at 1♦ I would have found that West hearing "We should have bid six hearts" could interfere with normal play and awarded an artificial adjusted score +3IMP to both sides. I know some contributors to this forum would have ruled differently, because they told me so at the event.

(I don't think North has shown H+m opposite a partner who must pass once.) > How do you rule? North has UI that partner has an opening pass. I think this suggests bidding preemptively (randomly) over pass. I think Pass is a logical alternative for North: even opposite a partner who must pass once, there is the danger that partner might compete subsequently with inadequate hearts. Having decided there is use of UI, it is less clear what to adjust to. If North passes, I suspect EW will still bid 6S and North will lead a heart. Even without being mislead about the position of HK, I can't see how 6S makes. So I would probably rule: table results stands, and a procedural penalty to North for use of UI (assuming the TD explained the UI position when called for the opening pass out of turn). An alternative ruling is AVE+/AVE- under Law 12C1d because the outcome after removing the initial 2H is too difficult to determine. South could not know when he passed out of turn that North might bid hearts and mislead EW as to the location of HK, so there is no law seventy-something adjustment. (I don't really like ruling UI here - I think the law, having silenced South for one round, should leave North free to act.) > It is alleged that N/S gloated for the next few rounds about the clever trick > they had pulled: as TD, what would you do? (They gloated for several rounds? Even with different opponents at the table.) A disciplinary penalty for each batch of gloating. 1VP, then 2VP, then dismissal. > After the TD had taken certain action the N/S team walked out, > as did another team local to themselves: what action would you take? (Isn't "local to themselves" tautology? ... another team local to original N/S team?) Knowing me, that action I would take would be to end up with two triangles. :) I have no interest in a contestant once they have walked out, except to recover the movement for the remaining contestants. I apply standing regulations to the scores of the other contestants against the withdrawn contestants. I write to the tournament organisers and/or the national body, reporting the fact that the teams walked-out and recording the circumstances of the ruling and misbehaviour.

But if partner makes an opening bid out of turn and any one is silenced it will be you not partner.

What happens when the provided defence contains options and the oppoents accept the legible defence without choosing between the options? W: 2♦ N: What's that? E: Multi: weak two in M ... N: Oh yes, you provided a defence didn't you. (N read defence, finds the call that best describes his hand.) N: Partner, we will use option 2. N: 2♠ (or whatever) :) As this is an ACBL scenario, should it be "defense"?

You just forget about the minor suit canape stuff and look for fits in overcaller's major or advancer's suit(s). I haven't really thought this through or developed anything coherent. For the last few years I have got away with 2C=majors, or some lazy form of astro/asptro.

You got me! Its a long time since I played with anyone who played ASPTRO and discussed this sort of detail. Both good suggestions. I know it's off topic, but this sort of structure is really a distraction. Something conceptually simpler based on [2m = take out with corresponding major, 2M = nat, single-suiter] is more flexible and easier to bid after.

Laws and ruling question from Interesting Bridge Hands. 1♣-P-3♣-3♠; P-4♠-5♣-P; P-P. Result 5♣-4. For purpose of my question, I will assume: The final pass was a serious error, 96% would double. 3♣ was preemptive and should have been alerted. The failure to alert was not apparent until dummy was spread. Last to speak would double if 3♣ had been alerted. We would adjust for the offending side to 5♣X. Do we deny redress (Law 12C1b applies) to the non-offending side was the failing to double was a serious error? Or was the failure to double related to infration, so was not a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)", and so the non-offending side get the adjustment to 5♣X.

(1NT)-2♣-2♦ negative, NF, not H support (1NT)-2♣-2♦-2♥ 5 H (1NT)-2♣-2♦-2♠ 5 S (1NT)-2♣-2♦-2NT 2=4=2=5 (?) (1NT)-2♣-2♦-3♣ 5 C, unbalanced (1NT)-2♣-2♥ to play (1NT)-2♣-2♠ constructive, NF, 5 S (1NT)-2♣-2NT nat, invitational (1NT)-2♣-3♣ art, relay (1NT)-2♣-3♣-3♦ 5 H; then 3♥ asks for minor (1NT)-2♣-3♣-3♥ 5 S (1NT)-2♣-3♣-3♠/3NT 5 card C/D (1NT)-2♣-3♦ good raise to 3H (1NT)-2♣-3♥ pre-emptive raise to 3H (1NT)-2♣-3♠ nat, 6 S [agreed strength: GF or preemptive] (1NT)-2♣-3NT nat (1NT)-2♣-4m splinters Similarly over (1NT)-2♦ (1NT)-2♦-2♥ negative, NF, to play in H opposite H+S (1NT)-2♦-2♥-2♠ 5 S (1NT)-2♦-2♥-2NT 4 S, 5m, balanced (1NT)-2♦-2♥-3m 4 S, 5m, unbalanced At the three level, I did play: 3♣ = nat, to play; 3♦ = relay (as above), 3♥ = good raise. But you could play: 3♣ = relay as above, 3♦ = good raise, 3♥ = nat, GF. Or: 3♣ = relay, 3♦ = H, invitational or better, 3♥ = good raise. YMMV

A player is entitled to mislead opponents only with the actual calls and plays he makes. He is not entitled not mislead opponents in the manner in which the calls or plays are made or by remarks and guestures.

There is some difference in rulings depending on when misinformaiton comes to light. But I don't think it necessarily applies in this case. If the misinformation does not come to light before dummy is spread, the offending side have committed two infractions: failure to alert 3♣, and failure to correct the failure to alert once the auction has (apparently) finished. The offending side should get an adjustment to 5♣X and a procedural penalty (warning or fine). But neither of these need benefit the non-offending side. It is the concensus of this thread that failure to X 5♣ was a serious error regardless of the (lack of) explanation of 3♣, and implicitly that there should a split score. The law that requires a split score is Law 12C1b, which requires "a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action". I don't think failing to double can be wild or gambling, but I accept that failing to double was a serious error. But I do not think that the serious error was "unrelated to the infraction": we are adjusting for the offending side because the non-offending side were likely to avoid their error given the right information. So I do not think Law 12C1b does not appy, and the adjusted score 5♣X-4 should be awarded to both sides. The application/interpretation of "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)" in the 2007 Laws is not yet fixed but I think the above is a reasonable approach.

He might be called to the table later. Or he might have forgot the rule. It is quite new. The relevant laws did not change in 2007, so the law is at least 13 years old. I can't find a 1987 law book but I don't think they changed in 1997, so the law is probably at least 23 years old.

If I read the action correctly, the misinformation (failure to alert) came to light before the opening lead was faced. In which case the auction is not over and the last pass of the auction can be changed if it was made as a result of the misinformation. This would give the original hand the chance to correct his Pass to Double; even if Pass was a serious error, he is still more likely to double if 3C is preemptive. There should have been no need for a judgement ruling.

It looks like the OP wants to know if there are logical alternatives to Double.

I think the fact that offender must pass is authorised but the fact that he did pass is unauthorised. So (if he had a strong hand) opener is allowed to know that he might be naming the final contract, but he is not allowed to know that partner has less than opening values. This arose in Brighton 2004, see Appeal No 12. The new laws make the position clearer: the words "and another substituted" have been removed from Law 16D.

The whole-scale replacement of "penalty" with "rectification" has lead to some strange phrasing in the new laws. Some instances are just plain wrong. The multiple occurences of "without further rectification" do not really make since.

I think both "wild" and "gambling" suggest actions with a large upside if successful but a large downside which means they are against the odds. Both might occur in a double-shot situation because you expect to keep the gain and have an adjustment if you lost. "wild" suggests an action that is an emotional reaction to events at the table "gambling" suggest a more calculating response to the situation. (At a civilised 11:30am but still not really with it :))

I too want to award AVE+ to both sides, and think I can under Law 16C2c/d, Law 16C3 or Law 12A2.

I do not think that Law 70E1 is relevant to this ruling so I do not think that "irrational" is the right test in this case. We can use "irrational" as a label for plays that are not normal (where normal includes careless or inferior). But since the law makers deliberately removed the word from the footnote I think this is bad usage. All I can suggest is "worse than careless/inferior". I am also trying to point out that "irrational" is not a useful term. Many plays are clearly simultaneously careless, inferior and irrational. Carelessness can be a reflection of failure to give sufficient thought to the correct line of play: it is careless and inferior to not realise a small card has unexpectedly become good but it is irrational not to cash it. It is also both careless/inferior and irrational to play the A from A10xxx v KQ9x or from AK9xx v Qxxx. I suspect the failure to remove "irrational" from Law 70E1 could be an oversight. (I also suspect, as I have said elsewhere, that the right concept is "bounded rationality")

I think the only question is whether to deny redress for EW. 5♥ by West is at bit wild but not SWoG (for the purposes of Law 12C1b).

In the natural language meaning of the word "irrational" - yes it is irrational. A rational agent would be aware of the whole hand (including the club position) and would preserve their entries as necessary. (Of course bridge players are not rational agents.) But this is irrelevant for two reasons, the footnote to laws 70/71 no longer uses the word "irrational" and the WBF LC secretary tells us that "irrational" in the 1997 laws did not mean the natural language meaning of the word.