Sancho

No, because a face-down opening lead is a played card. Thus, an opening lead has already been made and there can be no further opening leads out of turn. If declarer puts a card face-up on the table now (thinking he was on lead himself and not having noticed his LHO's lead), that is a premature play to the first trick. Under L57C2 that card must be played to the first trick. If this would constitute a revoke, however, declarer can of course take it back. Matthias

Yes. Definitely. Even if you happen to disagree with some of Hamman's ideas about how bridge should be played (and they are certainly worth thinking about), that is only a small part of the book. The chapters about his rubber bridge experience, the legendary Bermuda Bowls etc. are an extremely good read.

Correct. But still, we have to check whether L25A applies, ie determine whether 1♠ was a mechanical error as in pulling the wrong card from the bidding box while intending to bid 2♠ all the time. If it was a "slip of mind" rather than a mechanical error, which seems likely, then we apply L31 to the bid out of turn. As the OP asked specifically about the penalties, I will spell the proceure out: First, South gets the option to accept 2♠. If he does, it is now his turn (again) and there is no further penalty. If he doesn't, 2♠ is cancelled and the auction proceeds at West's turn (who must now pass whenever it is his turn to call). As to the idea of not applying these laws because 2♠ was "harmless" or "innocent": It is actually possible to waive the penalties for a cause, but only upon request of the non-offending side (L81C8). Here, that point is somewhat academical because if South wants to steer the auction back into normal waters, he can just as well condone 2♠, and everything is back to normal.

This is not true. Suppose you hold ♠432, ♥432, ♦432, ♣KQJT. The opponents bid 1N-3N. Before you lead, partner shouts "Man, I have an AKQJT, so we'll beat this if you lead a ...", at which point he is friendly, but firmly silenced by the director. Now you put your clubs face down on the table, draw one of the other cards randomly and lead it. Of course, the UI did not explicitly suggest leading that specific suit. But we must obviously adjust the score if you happen to hit partners suit. The situation would be different if the hand in question was ♠432, ♥432, ♦432, ♣5432 because now the UI does not really suggest any suit over any other (I know that technically it still does because partner is still slightly less likely to hold ♣AKQJT, but I can't come up with a better example). But the original case we are discussing is much closer to my first example because even if you argue that partner won't have thought about a lead-directing double (which I do not agree with either btw), it is highly unlikely that (one of) his suit(s) is clubs. Thus, everything else is suggested, and if the player hits a succesful non-♣ lead, we must adjust although he still had guesswork to do. (Of course, we adjust only if a relevant BIT has occured. As I do not really understand the ACBL regulations on the use and non-use of the stop card, I can't comment on that. My point is solely about what is demonstrably suggested.)

Generally, I agree with everything that has been said. But this psyche is so weird that I would certainly ask North to clarify why he thought that it was a good idea to bid 1♠ in first position, vulnerable, with a hand that has opening strength. As long as he does not say anything exceptionally stupid, the score will certainly stand, but I find this procedure important to let people know that if they, for example, overhear something about a board and use that information in a very strange, yet effective matter, they can't easily get away with it without being questioned or the incident being remembered for the future. I am not suggesting that North did actually know something about the hand. But given that I have hardly ever seen such a weird psyche and that it really stroke gold here, the least that I can do is show that I care about the problem in general.

I am really surprised that the ACBL would publish such a statement because it contradicts L16. OK, I'll concede that "Duplicate Decisions" is apparently written for less experienced directors, and for those (and inxperienced players, for that matter) telling the player in question to just ignore any UI is a somewhat practical, easy-to-understand approach. But that does not make it right. It is a player's duty under L16 actively not to choose from logical alternatives one that could demontrably have been suggested by the UI. The laws say that he may not choose such an alternative (no matter what he would have done without UI), and "may not" is the second-strongest wording the laws provide (just short of "must not"). Thus, I did not vote in this thread's poll, as neither option is correct. I find it extremely surprising that there is such a lot of discussion over this point here and in the TD forum. And just in case anybody does not believe me over what the ACBL says in "Duplicate Decisions" :) , I will quote my own zonal authority, the European Bridge League, more spefically their last exam for aspiring international directors. Source: http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/directing/courses.html -> 7th TD course -> Starting test -> question 8: "In a competitive auction North on call hesitates long and passes. The TD is called. Explaining how to continue he should tell South to ignore the hesitation and to make the call he would have made without that hesitation. True/False" Starting test answers, question 8: "False. L16."

I find it somewhat obvious that pass is a logical alternative here (no matter under which jurisdiction). The interesting point is whether 4♥ (and, to some extent, 4♣) are demonstrably suggested by the UI. Is it impossible for partner to have something like ♠QJ9x (ie can't he have thought about doubling with an offensively useless hand)? I am neither saying that bidding on is not demonstrably suggested nor that it is. I have not thought about it enough, but it seems to be the most interesting point here. So, a double should clearly be disallowed (as it caters to all possibilities), but as to 4♣ or 4♥, it isn't so clear, even when we deem pass to be an LA. BTW, I think the worst way to present this kind of problem is to post it in a TD forum without specifing the UI-/MI-problem or whatever it is. It might be a good approach, however, to post the pure bidding problem in the appropriate strategy forum, where you will get honest replys without people speculating about the "real" problem. Then, carry the results of your poll here and post the complete case, asking for a ruling (if it is not clear after the poll).

Well, he got the right information about what South held in his hand. But that is fundamentally different from saying that it is the "correct" explanation, especially when playing with screens (without screens, this situation rarely occurs, and when it does, it does not usually lead to damage. It is possible, but unlikely). The Laws tell us to assume "misinformation" rather than "misbid" in absence of evidence to the contrary. So, as long as we cannot determine the actual meaning of 2♥ in their system, we have to assume that West was in fact misinformed (as long as this assumption is advantageous to N/S) which leads us to the score correction described earlier by Mink.

I agree.

So in fact West was told that 2♥ was a transfer, while East was told it was strong and natural (contrary to what the original post says)? That would make more sense because typically North and East sit on one side of the screen. Still, I'd really like to know the precise meaning of 1♣. And am I right to assume that we cannot determine the systematical meaning of 2♥?

I guess there's something wrong with the bidding; maybe West passed over the X, North bid 1NT etc.? OP, could you please clarify and add the precise meaning of 1♣? Thanks!

Interesting. I just re-read the relevant section of the White Book, and it seems that the correct ruling in EBU-land would be to adjust the score to 2♥x -800 for both sides, as the 3♦ bid is neither wild nor gambling (and there is no element of an apparent double shot), and its "irrationality" must be ignored. The adjustment I originally described is indeed the procedure used by the EBL (and presumably WBF); I can't speak as to the applicability of the CoP in the ACBL or other jurisdictions. So I really should have qualified my statement as to this being the "standard procedure" a bit.

Don't want to nit-pick, but how did you arrive at -980? In any case, that is not how weighted scores are calculated. Assuming a MP pairs event, you have to calculate the MP for every score that is part of your assignment. Then, you weight those MP by your percentages. The reason for this is easy. Assume a weighted score of 75% 3NT+1, 25% 3NT+2. All other tables scored 3NT+1. If you simply weight (.75*430)+(.25*460) and assign a score of 437.5, that would suddenly be a MP top against all the 430s, clearly not what you want.

Both :P . L40C says that the director can award an adjusted score if the opponents are damaged through misinformation. Well, they clearly are, because after the MI they could not do as well as they would have without MI. It's just that the damage they got through the MI directly was only 7 MP, while the caused the other 3 MP themselves. So 7 MP is what they deserve and what they get. OK, 7 sounds like a lot, but that is just a function of the frequencies I made up without really analyzing the hand; the principle is what matters here. This is the standard procedure for cases like this (I know precedences from EBL tournaments) and one of the reasons why L12C2 states that the director can assign either a contract or a score in matchpoints directly.

Generally, if and how laws change when screens are in use is a matter of regulation. The WBF screen regulations (applicable for World championships) can be found in their "General Conditions of Contest": http://www.worldbridge.org/departments/rul...Contest2005.pdf

First of all, we have to assume MI here from what we know about N/S's system. Second, the argument "EW acted irrationally by bidding 3♦, thus score stands" is methodically wrong. If we accept that there is any chance at all that West doubles 2♥ and East leaves it in, then we would have to assign at least a split score. But that is not all. If EW could have scored +800 without the MI, they would still be damaged even if they had bid and made 3NT. So, if we accept that 1) there was MI; 2) it is likely that, without the MI, the contract would likely (in the sense of L12C2) have been 2♥X down 800; 3) it was irrational not to reach 3NT in the actual auction, the correct ruling is the following split score: N/S score adjusted to 2♥x -800; E/W score adjusted to 2♥x -800 minus the part of the damage they caused themselves by not bidding 3NT. Say this is a pairs event with the following frequencies (I'll do the MP "European style", ie 2 for a win, 1 for a tie): 1x 3D (EW) 9 tricks -110 (this is our table) 3x 3NT (EW) 9 tricks -600 2x 3NT (EW) 10 tricks -630 The table score netted EW 0 MP. The score EW should have achieved after the MI (3NT=) would have netted them 3 MP. The likely score without the MI (-800) would have netted EW 10 MP. So, their total damage was 10 MP (they would have scored 10 MP without MI, but actually got 0), 3 of which they caused by irrationally stopping in 3♦. Thus, we assign a score of 7 MP for E/W.

Nope. As others have pointed out, it is generally accepted, and quite obvious from the wording of L16, that it is a player's duty to actively avoid choosing a suggested action if there are non-suggested, and less successful, logical alternatives after receiving UI. Simply doing what you would have done in the absence of UI is not enough.

Could those who argue that one is not under UI restrictions here please tell me what that means if I have reason to assume that partner does not bend over backwards to avoid use of the UI I gave him by huddling over 2♣ (not necessarily because he is a known cheat; he might be a beginner who knows nothing about L16)? Do I actually *have* to bid 3D if it is a logical alternative?