peachy

This was a bidding contest! There was no play, no defense, no opponents, just 16 hands collected from all over and auctions with a rare scripted opposing action in a few of them. I think the laws do not apply to a bidding contest and that the contest organisers have the absolute right to do as they please, with no regard to any bridge laws. Similar types of contests appear in many bridge publications, like The Bridge World or ACBL bulletins and district bulletins.

I would support having the first round with 15 boards only, rather than adjust anything. Throw it out for all bidders?

My point is relevant. It is a UI case and the laws to be applied in ruling are the UI laws. I would allow 4D, but not because of some idea that "there was no UI" or that "the UI should be ignored" or "that the UI became meaningless".

Does South have UI? Yes. North didn't alert an alertable bid. Once South has UI, his actions are constrained by the UI laws. Does the anti-system bid of 3NT - which is AI - void the UI? No. The UI does not disappear once it exists in an auction. In this case the AI clarifies the nature of the UI: North *forgot system* instead of *forgot to alert*, but the most frequent reason for non-alert by far is *forgot system* already so that clarification was not really helpful. What remains is to sort out the legal and illegal logical alternatives for South and rule accordingly. But I don't think any ruling that says South only has AI, or that the UI has disappeared, can be correct.

No adjustment even if your lead would have let them make. However, if the Conditions of Contest say something about "knowing your system" and what the consequences are of not knowing it in simple situations like first round of bidding in uncontested auctions, then a PP might be appropriate whether damage occurred or not.

2S. This is too strong for 3S.

I also support the idea of no notes and no convention cards. Perhaps at the table, there should be some time limit for bids as well?

peachy/lg62

This.

Thanks for the information. Official or not, I can assure you that your translation from Norwegian to English will be far more accurate than I could even dream of achieving! In your experience, are Norwegian players quite good at following these rules? At club level: NO At higher level: Yes And at any level the first thing I "investigate" when summoned to an allegation of BIT during the auction is if the regulation has been observed. If not I just let the auction continue without any rectification unless there is overwhelming evidence of improper and deliberate gross break in tempo for no bridge reason. If the regulation is not observed/followed/enforced, it has no teeth and would possibly have the side effect of reducing respect for regulations in general. Anyway, if it works fine, fine. The waste of time still seems too great for me.

For me, 1S-2H-3H-3S is revealing a doublefit. I also think it is more valuable to play it natural that way so that both sides get to know of the doublefit and can use that information for their bidding decisions. Then, if Justin were opener, and you were responder, getting to 6♠ would be easy :rolleyes: I was talking about the auction 1S-2H-3H-3S, not really the OP hand. Maybe I should have started a new thread...too late for that.

Thirty years at the club three times a week at an average of 0.5 masterpoints per week plus some occasional scratches at local sectionals and regional KO's does it just fine :rolleyes:

For me, 1S-2H-3H-3S is revealing a doublefit. I also think it is more valuable to play it natural that way so that both sides get to know of the doublefit and can use that information for their bidding decisions.

That is illegal. The Laws specifically require that you do not do that, unless that is the only logical action to take. In the posted case, Pass is logical. In the posted case, the UI suggests that 6S may not be the right slam. If I was always going to bid 6NT, why did I give partner a vote by 5NT in the first place. That's not how I interpret the laws. Your interpretation creates a number of problems. First, it creates instances where passing UI can actually be advantageous... for example if I hesitate before making a clear penalty double, partner is no longer permitted to remove it even if normally he would. Second, it forces players to guess what other players would do in situations just in order to be ethical, which is a somewhat ridiculous state of affairs. Third, it creates UI in the other direction; for example RHO opens, I make a slow pass, and partner balances... now since partner is disallowed from balancing on hands that are at all close (even if he ordinarily would), I have UI that partner has an "obvious balance" created from my own hesitation! Fourth, it creates disadvantages for "ethical" players -- suppose that in a situation I would always make call X, every player of my caliber would make call X, but because I have UI that suggests X I instead choose to "be ethical" and bid Y (mistakenly believing that "some comparable players might bid Y"). Now I obtain a bad result, whereas a "less ethical" player who simply bid what he was always going to bid (call X) benefits after a director's poll determines that Y is "not a logical alternative." Certainly it makes sense in a situation where you do not know what decision is right, or what decision you would make without the UI that you should choose the option not suggested. However, I think the particular reference to this in the laws is more of a guideline as to under what circumstances the director should adjust rather than an indication that players who simply ignore UI and make their normal calls are somehow "unethical" or "cheaters" just because they are not willing to (or capable to) accurately simulate a poll of comparable players before selecting a call at the table. No matter what you say, the law is clear. The key point that Law 73 makes is this: QUOTE When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. END (italics are my emphasis) In the posted case, it is clear to anybody that the 6S bidder was not sure it was the right slam to bid. In other words, it was obvious what the UI suggested. If Pass is a logical alternative, the player may not change it to 6NT because doing so is taking advantage of the UI he has. As to the various scenarios you give about "reverse hesitations" and other such shenanigans, they are illegal.

I think you've missed a point. An opponent draws an inference from a break in tempo at his own risk, unless it is a situation where the player whose turn it is to call knows or at least can be pretty sure that such a break will lead to a false inference — for example, hesitating with a singelton (Law 73D1). Either way, if it is done unintentionally the case cannot rise to the level of "improper deception", because per Law 73D2, improper deception only exists through a tempo break or mannerism when it is done deliberately in an attempt to deceive. I have inserted the antecedent: 1. It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, <when variations will not work to the benefit of their side,> then unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent, and at his own risk. There are two primary avenues where variations may [unfairly] benefit one's side [a] extraneous inferences taken by partner decpetive inferences given improperly to the opponents The law provides that if there is exists a deceptive [benefit to one's side] inference [as from a variation in manner] there is an infraction. You added a phrase to the law text. Here it is what the law 73D1 actually says: BEGIN D. Variations in Tempo or Manner 1. I t is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. Inferences from such variation may appropriately be drawn only by an opponent and at his own risk. END

That is illegal. The Laws specifically require that you do not do that, unless that is the only logical action to take. In the posted case, Pass is logical. In the posted case, the UI suggests that 6S may not be the right slam. If I was always going to bid 6NT, why did I give partner a vote by 5NT in the first place.

So do the methods include no way to show any invit hands unless with spade support?

Bid 2S Would not have doubled 1D Expect 2S making. Want to play 3HX but I doubt it will be happening because at east in IMPs I won't Dbl so 3H then, down 1.

Not.

If you play SAYC, it is natural, Explicitly so described in the SAYC writeup. I like it natural when there are at least two other ways (maybe three) to show the unbid suits.

Not playing wide-ranging Michaels, this hand is a problem. Stick with your system and bid 1S. (Or change system.) This is an intermediate hand: clearly not weak, and almost as clearly not strong enough to insist on game.

Indeed :P Or load a cc. Or agree that BBO 2/1 or BBO SAYC applies if undiscussed.

You are doing it just right. 5NT asked partner to pick a slam and he picked the slam. You have UI that his pick might not be the best choice. Pass is the legal thing to do. Had there been no UI, you would have been free to do whatever you wanted to do, but under the given circumstances, I would adjust the contract to 6S if you did anything other than Pass (and it was successful).

Don't pass. Bid some level of hearts, depending on what your partner expects or what agreements you have. If none, 3H.

I think 1NT (Forcing for 1 round by unpassed hand) is a necessity in 2/1 and that the system would be badly flawed without it.