RMB1

The AC thought there was a case for ruling "different intention incontrovertible" but on the evidence from the players who attended the AC they were not persuaded to rule that way. Circumstances for ruling "different intention incontrovertible" is not something that is covered on the Club Directors' Course. Robin

I am glad to see this post. I was the TD and I was struck by the relevance of the earlier posts to the problem of ruling on this hand. The AC found that WellSpyder and partner did not have an agreement/understanding to open this 5440 15 count. Some players (I think, including the AC) thought that the regulation should permit an agreement to open this hand as "strong", as part of a strong club or Either/Or club system. Robin

Recent changes are to change 16+ HCP for artificial 1♣ to "extended rule of 25" but this does not allow any 14+. Extended rule of 25 is 16+HCP OR Rule of 25+: HCP + length in two suits >= 2 OR opening values and 8 clear-cut tricks. Robin

2008 appeals are now on the website: EBU L&E publications Robin

This was an early response to this thread. But the ruling I gave disagreed right there. Instead ... We thought that the BIT suggested bidding 3♣ over 4♣, if only to give partner the opportunity to bid his hand. We would not want to preempt partner with 4♣. So I ruled no "use of UI", no infraction, result stands. This avoided having to rule on self-inflicted damage. I was happy to rule that failing to make 11 tricks was a serious error because I was told so! If I had ruled that 4♣ was using UI and after 3♣ the auction would end at 4♥ 50% of the time and at 5♥ 50% then I believe the correct adjustment is as follows. The result in the other room was 5H= NS+650. Actual result was 5H-1 = -13IMP Result without the infraction is 50% 4H= + 50% 5H-1 = 50% x -1 + 50% x -13 = -7IMP Result that would have been obtained with the infraction but without the serious error is 5H= = 0IMP. The damage is all self-inflicted, without the serious error the non-offending side would not have been damaged: the 0IMP they could have scored is better that the result without the infraction. So the non-offending side get no adjustedment, and keep their table score, -13IMP to NS. The offending side get the adjusted score from before the infraction, 7IMP to EW. Because this is a head-to-head match we have to assign the average ajustment to both sides (L86B), NS/EW -/+10IMP. Robin

I thought that Pass was suggested over 4♥, so did not include 3♥ (the outcome from Pass) in my ruling. The UI suggests playing in hearts is not a good idea, so not only does the UI suggest playing in not-hearts over hearts, it also suggests playing in 3♥ over playing in 4♥. Robin

The offender was the one who rang me and asked for a ruling (the following morning) after the club TD had been unsure how to rule. The offender thought he could be "woken up" by partner's alert/explanation and had not understood his obligations in this position. It was too early for me to consider 4HXX. :) Robin

Weak. OP edited. Robin

I don't have the full hand. North: ♠Q ♥KJ ♦98765 ♣AQ753. West deals: (1NT) 2♣ (P) 3♥, (P) 3NT End. 1NT is 12-14. 2♣ is alerted, East asks and is told "Landy. Both majors". This is NS's agreement - it is on both convention cards. North has forgotten, but there is no partnership history of forgetting this convention. 3NT makes +2 despite EW having 5 spade tricks. 3♥ or 4♥ would not make, East has ♥Axxxx (and would double 4♥). EW have no real agreements about the auction (1NT) 2m[NAT] (P) 3M. How do you rule? North has UI. Are there logical alternatives to 3NT: Pass/4♥? Which logical alternatives are not suggested by the UI? If 4♥ is a logical alternative, is pass a logical alternative if the auction continues (1NT) 2♣ (P) 3♥, (P) 4♥ (X) P, (P) ? Robin

This is covered by a WBF LC minute and the EBU White Book. (Why is it always clubs? :)) Robin

I think there should be a different attitude to "but partner forgets" when the effective partnership understand is or is not a permitted agreement. (1S)-3C = "2-suiter with red suits but partner forgets" is not helpful. The understanding is 3C="2-suiter D+H or 1-suiter C" and this is not a permitted agreement. Fourth hand will not be able to use the the information that partner forgets because this will be evidence of an illegal agreement and the opponents should not have to defend against 3C with the dual meaning. The explanation needs to be "2-suiter with D+H. Partner has forgotten before; but you and I should ignore that possibility because if he has forgotten we have an illegal understanding and you will get an adjusted score." 1NT-(X)-2H = "spades but parner forgets" might as well be "hearts or spades". 2H = "hearts or spades" is a permitted agreement (in the EBU), and this is how opener is going to treat the call, so the opponents might as well have the same clear (if unhelpful) explanation. There could still be a misinformation ruling and responder has UI if he was not aware that there was ambiguity when he bid 2H. Robin

The OP asked if this was unethical, not if it would result in a penalty. Robin

Incomplete designation in calling for cards from dummy (e.g. "high", "low") are infractions. Law 46 A: "... declarer should clearly state both the suit and the rank ...". Introduction: '... "should" do (failure to do so is an infraction ...)'. I think that trying to gain an advantage by committing an infraction is unethical. Robin

No. I would be afraid that we will go past 3NT when partner has not got diamonds.

I am sure bluejak knows. :) Some have made contributions, which were due 6+ weeks ago: I am imagine work is progressing. Robin

Uncertainty about strain: ♦ values, doubt about ♥, not ♠ support. Robin

I am sure that is the way we are going: regulations (e.g. EBU Orange Book and White Book) only available online and not necessary as linear documents; with a simplified summary available as a printed document (c.f. the "Tangerine Book"). It is impossible to capture the regulatory requirements/contraints on (say) passing a multi-way bid (or asking questions during the auction) accurately and concisely. Too many people (in England) who play, direct or regulate the game need precise, detailed statements of regulations: statements which the remaining players do not want to read (or even know about). The cost of maintenance, (re-)printing and (re-)distribution of complicated regulations as printed documents is becoming prohibitive. Robin

I think 2♦-2♥-Pass = "weak two in a major" is a permitted agreement. Certainly, a successful pair at national level do play 2♦-(Pass)-3♥-(Pass)-Pass = "weak two in either major" Robin

There is a separate statement in the regulations (OB 11G6 bullet (v)) that one strong option must have a "reasonable frequency". For the thread as a whole, it may also be relevant to quote OB 11G6 bullet (vi) Robin

I don't think we would do 95/5 or even 90/10 but we might use 5%/10% if there were multiple outcomes to be weighted. For example 60/20/10/10 or perhaps 40/40/10/5/5. Even where there are multiple outcomes to be weighted I don't think we would go below 4%. For example, might reach 3NT 20% of the time, might make 10 tricks 20% of the time; giving 64% of +150, 16% of +180, 16% of +400, 4% of +430. Robin

The recent WBF minutes point to the removal of chapters/headings in the official version of the laws and confirm that Law 23 applies to all irregularities (in the auction or play), even though it is sequential with other laws related to the auction. But as gnasher tires of saying, law 23 requires damage. Robin

I was consulted at the event about this ruling. I made the point to the TD that my opinion was based on my understanding of the intent of the regulation (and I did not remind myself of the wording of the regulation). I understand the intent of the regulation is to catch players who are misdescribing their multi-way bids: describing stronger options than they do not in fact actually open with the multi-way bid. The extreme example being players who play a weak-only multi but include a strong option in their description, in fact finding other opening bids with (say) 20-21 balanced or strong 4441 hands. This is particularly an issue at level 3 where a weak-only multi is not a permitted agreement. Does passing a multi with no hearts and six diamonds give evidence that the stronger options are an illusion? No. It is evidence that the player understands conditional probability: whatever the a priori odds on the various options in the multi were, once you hold this shape and these high card points the odds have skewed greatly towards a weak hand and a weak hand with hearts. A player should be able to back those odds and the regulations should not prevent him from "playing bridge". Robin

I don't think Law 25A requires the presence of the TD. Robin

Should this be East who wants to know what inference ... ? You do not say what the TD actually ruled. The ruling by East could be wrong: if North said "oops" as soon as he realised that he had bid 1♥, and bidding 1♥ was a mechanical error (not a change of mind) then North can make his intended call even though East has called. Robin

In England, East 's decision to Pass 4♣ (to see how the auction pans out) would not be classed as a serious error or a wild or gambling action. Robin