mycroft

The problem comes when someone opens this hand (or better yet, the same hand with the majors reversed), and after quietly going down 1 in 4, or worse yet, making it, the expert opponents realize they can make slam. The comments - starting with "how can that be legal?" and going into how stupid it is (but it worked this time!) and and and...I think making it Alertable is a nice balance; let's see how many times they get to overstrength-preempt the experts when they know about it in advance. (Also, let's laugh at the experts when they complain about getting preempted and being told "well, you were Alerted to it". But inside only, please). And I'm happy they decided this was illegal in the limited games. Maybe if they don't get into the habit because it's not legal, they won't play it where it is legal (because, yes, it is bad bidding which isn't paid off by 2♣-2♥-p-4♥;4♠-5♥-X (making, or 6♠ off two cashers) because in the limited games, 2♣ is a shutout bid). Maybe the culture in Italy is to ask about this when 2♣ and then suit. It wasn't here.

Well, it's your game, not mine, therefore your ruling; but I bet it looks an awful lot like this: I believe that this is, if not direct misinformation, definitely not full disclosure; and I'd poll to see whether peers of west would double with that hand. As I said, I have my doubts, but I'd accept anything other than "pass, no other options" and "what about double?" "Well, that's a possibility, but do I really want a spade lead?" They are the NOS, and she wanted to do it before seeing how anything worked. I assume reasonable play led to -1, -100 for N/S. If it made, fine, I can see that too (but if it made because of the non-spade OL and inability to correct it after the explanation, we'll start there with the adjustments). Don't think that's egregious/double shot territory, even if we should be asking about this auction when North passes. Who knows, maybe they do bid this way with ♦AQTxxx and a card or two, willing to play 3NT if the diamonds run, but 3♦ over 2NT if they don't? Would East raise, either after the pass or after 3♦ was passed out? Actually I think so (but again, peers of East, treating the results from a NOS perspective). If it's invitational, he wants to let partner know he has enough spades to set up KJxxxx (what else could west be doubling on, with 12 and 11 and 12?); if it's weak, preempt them showing their suit in the auction. If after 3♦, well, the cards look to be about equal, and partner rates to have lots of spades and very few diamonds. And it does. Pretty much loses a club and two hearts. I'm not giving them game, but -170 seems straightforward. I expect I will be high in "if you'd explained all of your agreement, we'd have found out at the table, wouldn't we?" territory with this ruling. I'm not upset with that, frankly. This is part of blackshoe's "will get what's coming to them". Do it right, and the table decide; do it wrong, and you don't get the benefit of any doubt. It's not the good old 12C1e (not the current one), but still. As far as penalties are concerned, I assume in a club game I know the players. If their attitude to disclosure, or their attitude to having correct procedure explained to them warrants, "you give a poor explanation of your call that 'just happens' to help the inhibiting competition nature of it; you don't actually know what to Alert; and you waited until dummy came down to fix your explanation, thus stopping re-opening the auction or allowing a full knowledge opening lead. We're ruling 3♠+1 because it's reasonable to have happened; (even if we didn't, we're awarding 3♦-1 on the spade lead); we're penalizing you 1/4 board because all the mistakes you keep making in disclosure are, just coincidentally I'm sure, ones that benefit your side."(*) If it doesn't warrant yet, a similar discussion, ending in "learn your responsibilities or the next 'convenient' incorrect disclosure will get a 1/4 board penalty." And then discuss this with the other directors so they're aware. In fact, maybe discuss this with the other directors before deciding; it may turn out the immediate response is "yeah, I saw that in a call last week, and warned them that this is neither correct or fair." I may be too lenient with PPs that actually affect score(**); but especially at the club, I am balancing this against people not coming back if I'm too much of a hard***. Of course, what I'm balancing against is people not coming back if I let the Usual Suspects get away with their hoodwinking with just warnings. I have found that (especially as a player in the club I direct at, on the days I'm not directing) most people do well (or at least better enough) with warnings and me pointing out other examples where they may not have quite stepped up to the mark. Yeah, I think there's an onus on (at least experienced) players to not put up with half-***ed disclosure (witness my three questions against the Precision pair yesterday in three boards that I bet nobody else asks, conveniently for them); but they will do it against inexperienced players, too, and they won't even know that they've been played after the hand. When someone pulls them up on it, it's time to lean. (*) Why yes, I have been known to use sarcasm for emphasis, in addition to passive-aggressiveness. Why do you ask? (Note: it does seem to work well, when it's right to use it). (**) I have said here more than once that yeah, I also give out more score-based PPs for movement-damaging issues (especially as I tend to run webs with big games and alternating-direction stationary Howells for smaller ones) than I do for poor disclosure. I certainly don't feel like I should be handing out PPs for misinformation primarily caused by the Alert Procedure being non-trivial with no intent to deceive. It is only when the poor disclosure is deliberate, either because "I don't care to learn", "I don't care about these stupid rules", "Everybody is bad, why do you only care about me?" or worst, it's an advantage to give careful explanations and hope the opponents don't notice or know.

It looks like their 2♠ is initially a range ask, but also is their way of getting out in 3m. Fine. Explain that next time, and let West put her neck out if she wants. Or don't (because "we didn't say anything about our strength", or "but they get to say 'wants me to bid clubs' after Lebensohl 2NT or DONT double even though they frequently don't have clubs, what's the difference?" Note, at least one of those arguments I have sympathy for, but not the way they want), and get the TD called, and have her decide how likely and how effective the double would have been. In other words, as I said before, "if you explained properly the first time, we would know if West would actually have doubled, wouldn't we?"

Nothing in the Laws (except that they allow the ACBL to create system regulations). The old regulations (GCC at least) required it to be "a strong hand", and the definition of strong was effectively "they think it's strong". There was a problem with that, as you might imagine. The new regulations say: Basic/Basic+: must be Very Strong. Open/Open+: can't have less than Average Strength. Very Strong: 20+HCP (note: HCP does NOT include points for shape); or 14+HCP and within 1 trick of game assuming suits break evenly in the other hands, or at least 5 Control Points (A=2, K=1) and within 1 trick of game assuming... So allowing hands like your example is not a legal 2♣ agreement on the Basic or Basic+ chart (it only has 2 Control Points (K, K) and <14 HCP). Note that it is not legal to psych an Artificial Opening bid on the Basic/+ charts, and deviations that do not meet the "gross" level of Psych are not permitted if those deviations, if part of the agreement, would make the agreement illegal. So literally no outs here. On the Open/+ Chart, it is legal to agree to open these hands 2♣, but you must Alert your 2♣ openers (Artificial: do not Alert "a Very Strong Artificial 2♣ Opening Bid"), and explain when asked that it could include hands that have shape, but limited defence. Now the opponents, who can make 5 or 6 of either red suit, are not surprised. Note: it is still not legal to Psych an Artificial Opening Bid. All capitalized terms are defined explicitly in the Definitions at the top of the Convention Charts.

Thanks for catching that - I lost track of that exception. But yes, that makes it worse.

I agree with both. It's not Alertable. If North does not know that, then Alert, rather than this "oh, maybe this is Alertable?" nonsense. Won't be the first or last time someone Alerts something that isn't Alertable. But it's too late at 3♦ (or, at least, legally nothing more we can do than during the Clarification Period). And what if the response is "on a minimum, she wants to play 3♦ rather than 2NT. Still invitational, though"? Also, we're playing the "Psychic Ogust" game again. What part of "range ask" implies "invitational"? I mean, we all know it *does*, but what if it doesn't for them, and they're hoping to preempt to 3♦ in a way that "could be" dangerous to come in on? And what if they say "it asks whether I'm maximum or minimum, but she may not care about the answer"?

In the traditional case where immediately after the correction (at the wrong time), the hand goes up and "DIRECTOR!" (and yeah, I've done this a couple of times too), it is screamingly obvious that "I would have done something else if..." Now is that actually a problem, given that it was induced by the MI and by the failure to correct at the proper time? I don't think so. I've been known to be less than sympathetic to claims of "UI" when the response is "if you'd done things correctly, there wouldn't have been UI". Would the adjustment be based on "if West doubles 2♠, and East gets in, West having not led spades, isn't finding the switch auto?" Probably. So does it matter? Probably not. This is yet another argument, however, in favour of the EBU's advice: so, in this case, the person calling the TD should be South, and he should do it before correcting the explanation. Since the TD is already there, they can go through the motions without necessarily leaking information between defenders (or from defender to declarer). But of course, given the other "convenient" mistakes in procedure South has done, and given the consensus in the ACBL that "calling the director is the opponents' responsibility, if they (falsely) think there's a problem", failure to do this can reasonably be assumed.

Not sure I believe him, but he did say it *before* seeing dummy. Do we know what East's double of 1NT would have been? (side note: apart from 3♠x, 200 into no game, the problem is:[hv=d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1n(12-14)p2s(range%20ask%20or%20to%20play%203m)d3c(max)p3nppp]133|100[/hv]. (or the equivalent auction to 2NT). Do we really want partner leading spades instead of doing what her 8ish (10ish) count tells her to do?) N/S has made two infractions: misexplanation of the 2♠ call; failure to correct misinformation during the Clarification Period;and potentially a third (audibly wondering about the Alert of 3♦. Off-topic, but 3♦ is Natural, so it's not Alertable (unless it shows another suit as well); again, however, something that can freely be (and is encouraged to be) mentioned in the Clarification Period.) If this is their bailout-inna-minor as well as a range-ask, that is a pretty big miss. How often do they want to bail out rather than invite? My guess from my system (where we don't do this, but we have equivalent bailouts into either minor) would be about 60% invite-40% want to play a minor. Now, I'd believe West more if South had done what she should have done (and corrected *before* the opening lead), but even then, the damage is done. But they're the NOS, and it's not unbelievable. Allow West to change her opening lead (South might complain that now that he's seen dummy...Well, that's your fault completely innit?), "play the hand, call me back," meanwhile I go look at it and see if there's damage. *Strong* warning to N-S that they have to explain their actual system (I'm reminded of all the 1NT-2♠ "transfer" back in the day (that could be either minor) and all the other constructions that manage to hide "there could be a weak hand here" on puppets); frankly, in combination with waiting for the lead to be faced - frankly, waiting for the "no questions" to be asked - to correct, unless south is really new, it's actual matchpoint penalty time(*). But, as I said, even in the clarification period it's too late to correct, so I'm not sure how much additional damage it caused this time. There's some UI to East - more if West actually says he'd double at the table, rather than just call the TD and discuss it for a while away from the table - but again, I'm not that concerned. If somehow east gets in with the ♦A at trick 2 and finds a spade switch from Qx... But that's not a big deal, and anyway, we'd consider the spade switch as "obvious" in the "I'd double 2♠" auction. If we end up adjusting, and North/South make the "but he'd never actually *do it* at the table" argument, shrug and say "well, if you'd explained properly at the time, we'd know for sure, neh?" If we don't end up adjusting, be prepared to explain why. If it involves any part of "no, you actually wouldn't have doubled at the table", be really prepared to support that argument. (*) The number of times I have had dummy come down while telling *partner* what their bid meant, or declarer telling *partner* after dummy comes down (or after the hand! even better! "you know it means...") is legion. Truly, there is a disconnect in "the opponents are entitled to know your actual agreements" in many players. At my table it has been known to be answered with "and when were you going to let us know?" Peak passive-aggression, but sometimes it happens.)

I have argued repeatedly for "Laws, and case law, and annual summaries of relevant examples", like we get in many other sports (I read the amateur indoor lacrosse rulebook one day while I was timekeeping; one of my fellow directors also umpires baseball at the semi-pro and canadian amateur level, and not only gets this, but gets *tested on it* every year). I think the Laws should be clearer in some cases. This one - everybody's going to get it right intuitively at the table, the one time in the world a year it happens. I would prefer it if the Commentary explicitly was stated to be official WBF explanation of potential confusions in the Laws (and therefore treated as an appendix to the Laws); I can see why it isn't (but strongly hinted at). Those that want the Laws to be lawyer-proof and complete get to fight against those who already think the Laws (the words themselves, not the implementation) are too complicated for mere science Ph.Ds., MDs, and CPAs to dream of understanding (never mind the 100% knowledge from RL that "lawyer-proof and complete" is impossible).

We've joked about the "secret bridge olympics" in the past - maybe check on that for people's thoughts about how it would work. My concern would be the "Poisson table" system variations - "our carding is upside-down if the last digit of the board is in this row of the Poisson table. We change which row every game," (and of course in this construction we don't have to tell you). I've threatened to bring a fudge die (with 2 each of +, 0, -) to a midnight game, and roll it before every hand. Now, in that game, we'd make it clear what that meant, and of course there would be full disclosure of any Alertable calls. If none of that were there, what are you going to do when we open 1NT (never mind when partner responds 2♣)? Sure, if it's a 10+ board match, you might be able to work out what the different rolls mean. But then we can switch them up - say by rotating the result n times, n = board # mod 3, or just "top digit of board") But we're getting way off topic. Not that thread drift is new here.

And 800 won't be a near-zero anyway? You play in better games than I do. But 500 into 450, frankly even 500 into 980, is something I should be aiming for? To be more clear, obviously partner could have a better hand than that. But it could easily be 500 into game only. It could be 300. it could be into 450, so it's a dealer's choice. And yeah, it's not me, but these opponents have better chances at getting the overtrick than the pairs who didn't get an overcall. Maybe it's right, therefore, to go hunting for magic; but I still don't think I will, and I still don't think 800 will score that much better than 980 in an "average level club game". Do I think that 3♦ is a LA that could be influenced by the UI? Yes. Do I think that many "average club game" players would bid only 3♦ without the UI? Yes. Do I think that it's a poor call? Depends on my agreements about 2NT. Do we adjust? Well, if West is a good enough player that if I were to (at the bar, not the director of the game) tease her about "5 card support, no major cards, and *only* 3♦?" she'd get it, then yeah, we do. Because she'll be good enough that when (as the director) I say "it really makes sense to bid 5 right away and put them to it, you know 4 is cold" she'd reluctantly agree; and then I can point out how "if you have information from your partner's action that he may have missed North's opener, and actually has 20 flat, you can see how that might influence you into not 'taking the advance sacrifice', yes?" and from there to the ruling, whatever it is. If she's the kind of club player - even good one - that bids 3♦ because "partner told me to pick a minor, and I prefer diamonds to clubs", then maybe not - because 5♦ wouldn't have entered her mind even without the UI.

Absolutely they are. At the table, I will be happy to provide it and explain in detail. But the strategy on when we will use it, or what exact strengths, or ... they don't need that in real time. And if not me, there are definitely those who are quite certain that practise sessions and full system notes are something others pay for. And if it's good enough for Rodwell, who am I to say that, whether I would do it or not, others should not be allowed to make that choice?

You want "2 minutes for cross-checking", I get it. Fixed penalties, no judgement, no "attempts to rectify a situation rather than to penalize". The difference is that in hockey, there are 4 officials watching one game - 12 players. Current desired director count in the ACBL is about 1 per 19 tables; 76 players. So we're not going to catch every infraction; we're not going to punish every infraction; now the punishment is now dependent on the opponents knowing the law well enough to call. With "try to restore what would have happened at the table", it doesn't punish the people who don't know how many infractions their opponents inflict on them every game as much. It also doesn't trigger calls of "Bridge Lawyer" quite as much. Oh, and I'm sure that everybody knows their sport's equivalent of "who's the bastard in the black"(*)/"How could you miss that one"? But, seriously, penalizing revokes at trick 12? Penalizing putting a heart in with your diamonds three times as much if they run the hearts than if they just take the A? And while I am uncomfortable with what we have now, returning to "guess 1NT or 3NT whenever you bid wrong, get a top if you're right" is not in my wheelhouse. But maybe what is wanted is "you did something wrong, we get a good score." - so we apply a punishment (like automatic trick adjustment) to insufficient bids and bids out of turn. I mean, we can go with that. But see above. And misbids (as opposed to misexplanations)? Good luck getting any game if that's the case (but it's what you'd have to do if you take director's judgement away from law 75). (*) Me. Literally, and kind of proud of it. Born bar sinister (regularized 6 weeks later), and frequently (and currently) dresses all in black, especially when trying to be business-like. But still.

Webs for even is easy: first half: standard Mitchell. back half: "go back down the hill", (e.g. 16 tables, table 8 has 15-16, so 9 has 13-14, then 11-12,...) ending with 1-2, 25-26. You really do need 2 full sets. Webs for odd are also easy, if you remember the key: "take out a full Mitchell, even Web the rest." So, for 19, "take out" the 13 table Mitchell, leaving you with 6, so 3 up, 3 down at 14-19. But you need one set for the "full mitchell", and two sets for the "even Web". * you can cheat with 11, 15, 17, either building 3 copies of the needed boards, or asking the players to share as needed (especially useful with 11 and 15 where it's just the middle round at connected tables). You need too many "3rd copies" starting at 19 that it's pretty much not worth just building the third full set. WARNING: there is ZERO slack in a web. Make 100% sure you know exactly which boards go out to each table before you start, and make sure that you don't have an 18 and 2 halfs or the like. And make sure that everyone has bought an entry and is sitting down. Pretty much any mistake is not recoverable, short of "running another two sets" (or at least running another two sets of the high number boards). WARNING2: you can't run an odd table 24-board web (and you almost certainly don't have the movements for the even table 24-boarders). Best you can do is run the full web and cut off the last round. Doesn't gain much on the two-section idea. 17 is an awful number if you don't web.

And thanks to Jillybean for actually answering the OP's question. Apologies for my tunnel vision.