Lanor Fow

The fact that many people on here disagree with you, seems to suggest that it's not 'obviously' much better.

I'm not sure it's as clear cut as a lot of people are suggesting. I'd want to know whether the double of a p/c bid would be takeout of hearts, or show hearts. If it would be take out of hearts, unless I'm convinced that this player always asks I would say that the UI suggests a heart lead, as the most likely explanation for someone asking at this point (unless they always do) is they want to be able to double a artificial heart bid to show hearts. I haven't looked at whether there are LAs to the heart lead, or damage, but if both of those were satisfied I would probably adjust (if double of P/C is takeout of hearts)

Regardless of the alert regulations (personally I don't see what's so intricate about alerting all non natural bids below 3nt, which is the relevant bit here) asking about alerted bids will always convey UI, unless you always ask. Even if you always ask unless you know what it means, it will be difficult to convince people that this is the case.

The alert regulation for doubles might not be intuitive in places, but it's certainly simple, so I'm not sure that your claim that only SBs can understand it has any merit.

My apologies for not being clear. I don't think that there are automatically two LAs in an invite situation. Based on the hand (and AI of the auction) there may only be one option. There are two alternatives, but one doesn't have to be logical. I don't think that we should consider AI when looking at what is suggested by the hesitation, only when considering what LAs there are.

You don't have to look through it each time you make a call :)

Personally I've been taught that when determining LAs you should poll. If you are talking about AI, then that is to do with determining LAs so what you personally would do based on the AI is not sufficient. If you are talking about what is suggested, a poll isn't necessary to determine that (though I was taught to always consult in judgement rulings). In the first part of your post Aqua, you speak about going directly to what's suggested, and so don't need to poll, but in the rest you are talking about AI and whether to accept the invite, which seems much more to do with LAs than what's suggested by the UI.

In scenario 2, given the ruling that Blackshoe has posted, I would find it difficult to imagine any 4 level correction being artificial, given partner has to pass. In this situation, you normally look to place the contract as best you can.

This regulation woudl mean that to alert properly I would need to know Oppos skill level, what they assume to be standard (or not unusual) and their local standard meanings. I also need to know what Oppos think is my skill level, what I think is standard (or not unusual) and my local standard meanings. Practically this means that I cannot really assume anything from oppos alert or lack of, and they can't assume anything from mine. To me this makes the alert process pretty much useless. Most NBOs have this as a catch-all, and from the threads I've read on alerts, on this forum, bridgewinners and the forum that predates this, most of the disagreements seem to be about things in this catch all rather than more explicit alerting rules. It may be that there are issues with the intuitivite nature of the EBUs alerting strategy (the explicit rules they had on doubles used to be more complicated to make them fit more what poeple usually did, now they are simpler as most people used to get them wrong, but this makes them slightly less intuitive), but it has the advantage of in the vast majority of cases being simple, explicit and written down somewhere that pretty much everyone who plays tournament bridge (and most of those who play club bridge) know where it is. It is also not hugely long. Yes, there are some edge cases an grey areas, but these are much less than in a less explicit approach. Personally I prefer this.

I do seem to get my east/wests wrong when posting. West called the director, not east

ONly 16B talks about LAs, and 16B is UI from partner, which isn't applicable here IMO

Would it be relevant if the NOS were those who called the Director? As Blackshoe often points out when MI is realised the director must be called. The NOS often doesn't do this if there is no damage (otehrwise we would have many more director calls) but if the OS don't call the director, as they are meant to do, and then take inference from the NOS calling to then make the contract is this them not taking advantage of the irregularity not only of their side not alerting, but also not calling the director when they were meant to? I know that inmost MI cases there is no call from either side, but should the failure to do so from the OS lead to a ruling if it did affect things. We would apply such logic to other infractions not usually penalised such as use of the stop card. Whilst a director call might be authorised under 16a (which we discussed when I consulted on this) there is still 12A1.

It's worth noting that the first round of bidding, with regards to alerts, starts from when the first bid is made, rather than the first pass. p-p-p-1h p-4c Would still be alerted if not natural (I realise that a passed hand bidding gerber would be unusual, but a splinter is possible).

In a recent training course, we were supplied with stickers to this affect for our law books. There is a nice space for it to go.

If there is a known system hole such that you would open 1nt with a singleton because of this. Given the system hole is known I believe this would could as an agreement (implicit if not explicit)

I think regardless of the ruling, giving a player a PP for asking to speak to the director away from the table is incredibly harsh.

If north made the best explination he was able to give (something I don't agree with as "I tend to assume" should not be part of any explination in a live auction imo) then there cannot be any MI. Of course determining that it's the best explination he was able to give is not always easy.

At the table I ruled that the player still had a call. I didn't think the way the question was asked had lead to any usable UI, and indeed I wasn't called back on that issue. Noone seemed particulaly unhappy with the ruling given. I got the impression that whilst noone at the table knew what the ruling should have been (given the experience of one of the players, I imagine this was unusual for him) noone would have particulaly objected either way (not of course that that should affect the ruling given). Given that this was the EBU, the bidding cards were still on the table, so this wasn't simplified/complicated by removal of said cards, which it might have been in other juristictions.

Blackshoe, If declarer were to play ace of clubs then a spade, west could win the spade, play through a club which east could win and switch to a diamond for one off.

Weejonnie, perhaps I should have advised that speaking with me away from teh table wasn't a good idea, but given I failed to preempt the request, I didn't feel that having the conversation would make the situation worse than it being requested (and might help if I was called back on MI later). I'm not sure what you're suggesting I give E/W a PP for. Blackshoe, thanks for sorting the diagram for me. Yes it was west I offered the final pass back to, not east. I've edited the post.

Fixed east west issues in post

[hv=pc=n&s=skqjt73ht5dkj2ct8&w=sa86h964daq76c962&n=s54hakq83dt98caj5&e=s92hj72d543ckq743&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=p2sp2np3dp4sppp&p=c2cac3c8hah2h5h4hkh7hth6hqhjct]399|300[/hv] I'm not good with the editor, East was the dealer so North did not pass initially. If someone can tell me how to edit this I will. [Fixed. See below. -- ER] 2s - 10-12 6 card suit 2nt - alerted 3d - not alerted The first call is made at the end of the auction, where east is asking if 3d should have been alerted. 3d is described as showing the honour outside spades. Firstly do you think this is alertable? At the table I said it was and offered West his final pass back. AT this point he asks (before I can stop him) to speak to me away from the table. Away from the table he says that he would have doubled 3d had it been alerted. Given he didn't want his pass back I instructed play to continue, and asked to be called back at the end if necessary. I got called back at the end of play (given above), 4s having made. West complained that South had taken a line, based on the director call, that assumed he had AQ of diamonds. South shrugged his shoulders somewhat but didn't deny it. N/S contended that this wasn't unauthorised information. South said that there was an alternate line of playing east for the queen of diamonds but it didn't seem any better than the line he took. How do you rule? If it helps, a poll of two players on how they would play given bidding and opening lead had both taking the ace of clubs and switch to a spade. One of them considered the line of three hearts initially, but said it was too committal. Another played given the west hand, found the diamond switch to be obvious if they get in with a club.

In a swiss teams even today I got called to the table. There had been two passes since the last bid, then the person in the pass out seat says "Is it my lead?", His partner responds "Have you passed?". At this point the gentleman in the pass out seat realises he still has a call, and the director gets called. How do you rule? (Apologies I didn't note down the auction)

Have added the scoring

[hv=pc=n&s=skj87h65d7542cqt7&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1dp1sp1np2dp2sp]133|200[/hv] 1♦ was 5+ unless 4441 The 1nt rebid was 11-13 2♦ was NF, natural. Thanks in advance Edit: Scoring is IMPs