Poky

I'm a simple soul. Whenever I have UI I bid as I would have bid without UI. And I do not see any problem in it. I do not see any reason why the UI should prevent me to use the AI I have available. Is there any law saying that? But I could agree with you that some people are more skillful in using AI than others.

Director's job is to restore equity. Equity <= what would have happen if no UI was present (as when you play with screens). My assumption is, and I think is pretty real, that a decent pair (had it been a "no UI" situation) would have ended: - in 3NT, about 80% of times; - in slam, about 2% of times. If this is the truth, adjusting to "slam doubled -x" it is a horrible ruling and a very good way to chase people away from bridge tables forever. People aren't so stupid as your ruling would suggest. People tend to bid very carefully in suspicious spots (and this one is very very suspicious) and not to nail down slams with 25 points for -1400 or something like that. As a test, today I gave this board to one very good player from my country asking him what would have bid (having no UI)? 3NT was the answer. I asked why, and he answered "It seems my partner has 6-5". And he plays splinters in many many situations. And he didn't read any cheaters manifesto. ;)

Or perhaps you didn't notice it was said this was an agreement they had written on their card. ;) Why? Because I tried to emulate how should look a good bidding decision in a real situation, without any UI present? Thank you!

How do you call doubling 1♦ with bad 10 count and then doubling 3NT with the same hand (where the partner, who knows you have, say, 11+, for some reason didn't double)? You can try to do it frequently and, in the long run, by the expected value of this action you will see if it's WoG or not. ;) In other words, the truth behind the 2nd double frequently is: "Oh, look how nice situation has arosen, now I can safely double with my shitty hand, and: 1. If that's going down enough - nice; 2. If they make, the director will give me some decent score anyway - due the obvious UI situation and the misunderstanding." Whoever doesn't see a problem in that, I'm not sure bridge director is the right occupation for him.

Opponents probalbly play 18-19 2NT rebid but they upgraded a beautiful 17 count (as anyone should do). The first thing director should do is to check what's 1m-pass-2M in their system. If they have an agreement that's a weak-2 then it is clear 3♥ now should be treated as forcing. But obviously, opener's comment makes clear this is hardly their agreement, so, an adjustment to 3♥ could be in order as a slow 3♥ cannot suggest a weak hand.

1. 5♣. With just four he bids a "baronic" 2NT. 2. Trying to find the best spot. 3. 3♥ 4. No! 5. Bid 2NT, obviously.

Yeah right, maybe in Wonderland, and even there, only if people turn their brains off during the bidding. The first thing that should be clear is that West doubleshoted with a bizzare double - so his side cannot get any redress in any way. And what about NS? Well, the whole sequence looks very suspicious. Righty has shown the range of 11+, lefty say 4+, I have 9 and partner with maximum 16 honors left bids 3♠. Ok, that's borderline but possible. But, assuming a spade splinter and opponents that didn't bid spades, well, that's almost impossible. Moreover, righty has shown heart length by doubling 1♦ which reduces drammatically the chanches od 3♠ being a legitimate splinter. So, what else is possible, partner maybe found a creative way to bid a 5x6x hand? Hmmm... Who knows. Anyway, if the range of opener's action is {spade splinter, 6-5 two suiter, something crazy} with appropriate weight factors, the 3NT bid is the ONLY LOGICAL ALTERNATIVE (to be honest, supposing the bidder has an IQ above 45). Why? It is very easy to see: - in case a] it should be seen as a waiting bid hoping to hear about the club control (no much sense in playing a natural 3NT by a limited hand in a thin spot where you have a major superfit) - in case b] bidding 3NT shouldn't look much worse than 4♦, after all, the diamonds may be running + AQ clubs + spade A = 9; - in case c] 3NT offers most flexibility. And I didn't even notice the possibility that the responder would/could remember he (maybe) plays transfers and take this into account. Be honest, how would you weigh the odds about the possibility responder would remember in this strange spot the agreement he had (or hear about it) at least once in his bridge career, without any UI? I would say something about 97% of occurences. Maybe even more. Therefore, 6NTx has nothing to do neither with restoring equity nor with bridge nor with justice, but very easily it could be read as a little piece of sadistic director's behavior in a spot where the "damaged side" nailed themselves to -750 (or -550, dunno) anyway. Sorry for disagreeing with you. ;)

Nothing is forced by the system. Who said that? This is your assumption. Maybe even director's. But can you be sure that truth isn't somewhere else? Who said, say, that you cannot (pretty logically) rebid: - 4M with a weak-2 in that suit, - 4NT with (4441) and 17-18, - 5m (lowest minor) with (4441) and 19-20, - 5M with 41(44) and 21-23, - 5NT with 44(41) and 21-23? In my view, the only thing that really isn't fair is if the expert opponent (who was told 2♦ can be (4441) 17-23) cries and moans after returning the ♠K, before asking (at least) himself what will an opponent with an borderline (4441) rebid. What if opener had a weak-2 with 13 points and the A♠? You think you have a legitimate MI case? Please. People sometime make strange bids and that has nothing to do neither with their system nor with their agreements. Learn players to think and protect themselves better and everyone at the table, including the director, will have an easier life. Giving them back an nebulous adjustment isn't the right way to achieve that, whatever you think about it. Bridge director isn't supposed to be anyone's nanny. But he is supposed to restore equity as better as he can.

Well, "always going to rebid" it's a heavy assumption. And probably a virtual one. How do you know it? Did it happen before? I seriously doubt it. If this sequence never happened before when opener held (4441) and if partners never discussed what should opener do with (4441), this isn't and shouldn't be treated as their agreement. As the word clearly suggests, an "agreement" is somtething about what two people "agree", and this could be done in one of two ways: a. by talking about it (explicit agreement); b. by previous experience (implicit agreement). Sorry, but having an agreement "by future experience" is a little bit too (oxy)moronic for my taste. :rolleyes: By the way, if you are right, what's the agreement with 44(41) and 17 count? A slooooow 4♥ perhaps. :P

There is no MI. No adjustment. I could hardly see this one as a real problem. "What's the range?" question obviously refers to the 2♦>4♠ sequence which means "Weak-2 in spades". If the range of the weak-2S is 6-10 then, this should be the only correct answer. Opener bid 4♠ with 4144 as "least of evils" (supposing, probably not so wrongly if the range od three-suiter is 17-23, this would on long run be better than rebidding 4NT), not because this is a systemic treatment. Opener should not correct the explanation of "6-10" because this is the right explanation. What was the leader's and dummy's shape?

1A 4♥ 1B Pass, but no very much (do no consider neither 3NT nor 4♦) 2A Should have 18+ with 6+♥ 2B 5♦, trying for 7♥ 2C 4NT and 6♥

I assume expert opener. With 5413 opener will pass always. With 5431 opener will always double. With 5422 opener will double in 80% of cases (passing the other 20%). Therefore, 2♥ must show 5 hearts, since 64(21) hand are in 2♠/double/pass domain. But, if opener has 5 hearts, should he always bid hearts? I don't think so. With 5512 opener will bid 2♥ mostly, but this shape is highly unlikely. With 5521 opener should be inclined to double (correcting diamonds to hearts), except when holding minimal hand or bad spades (which we know, due to lack of minor-suit values, it is not a case). With 5530 opener will reasonably enough be afraid to double and will bid hearts practically always. Therefore, a maximal balancing hand would be: AKxxx-KQJxx-xxx-void. Even with a little as AKxxx-AKJxx-xxx-void opener should bid an invitational 3♥ (or double, 6 controls are good in defense even with a club void). I'm not sure that bidding 2♠ has a negative expectation, therefore, it should be a logical alternative. With ♣K8xxx in my hand (instead of K98xx), 2♠ would have probably been the best bid (3NT virtually unmakeable, 2M better than 2NT).

Who alerted 2♦? South? What thought South about the meaning of 2♦? Anyway, maybe I could rule MI. But "no damage" I do rule for sure. 2♦ could have been DONT/Meckwell and thus - an easy passable bid. East gets all fault. When you play antibridge, you usually get what you deserve.

West 100%. Not bidding 3♠ with an almost 4 loser hand to set-up a game force and investigating slam is an unforgivable error. After ...3♠-3NT-4♣.. things are much easier.

1♥ (1♠) 2♣ = natural, 10+ 3♣ = raise, 11-14 3♠ = cue, setting GF 4♥ = suggesting a game (implying 4♣, because with 6♥3♣ opener rebids 2 ♥) 4NT = RKCB for clubs 5♥ = 2 KC, no Q 7♣

Partner has (41)35 (Axxx-x in majors), lets say: x-Axxx-xxx-AJxxx, and wanted to play game (3NT/5♣) if opener has the 3244 shape. However, without the superfit, he sign-offs in what he hopes to be a 5-3 fit.

Double from South is negative. It is bid with any hand that has 12+ and wants to play 3NT if partner has a stopper. It is pretty standard. At least in the game called - bridge. Bluhmer is when you cue-bid with your own suit, not with opponents' suit.

With a slammish xx45 the proper opening is 1♣, not 1♦. Negative doubles are played. With a decent 1354 opener doubles 2♠. South didn't make a penalty double. It was takeout. He even didn't have a penalty double. This is the key of the whole story. Partner clearly showed 0454. In this circumstances, is 4♠ a classic cuebid showing wasted values, or it is a general way of showing a good hand, trying for something bigger?!? True. Faulty heading.

MP. [hv=pc=n&s=sj32hqjtdak93ck73&n=shak72djt852caj82&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp2d2s3c3sdp4hp4sp5dppp]266|200[/hv] Explanations added: 2♦= inverted, 10+ 3♣/4♥ = natural, suit Double = negative (double on 2♠ would be negative too) Other = undiscussed

Sure. Because if you don't beat 3NT - you let them score the game, and if you are beating 3NT, you dobule to push them to 4♣.

MP. They VUL. pass 3♣ pass 3NT Dbl pass ?? What kind of hand do you expect from partner's double? (You hold some 5323 hand, if that does matter)

1. 1♣ 2. 1♠ (playing 2♠ as "strong" is a horrible treatment) 3. No, I rebid 2♣. Spade void + reverse aims for problems. 4. 2♦, if I must. Then I can follow: ...2♥-3♥-3NT-4♥, describing my hand perfectly. 5. 1♣-1♠-2♣-4♠-pass 9. North 35%, South 65%.

♦10 sends a clear message.

North 100%. Bidding 2♥ is very bad bidding. He has 2 extra trumps. He has 2 singletons. He doesn't have a decent heart suit and this is the only thing that he has shown. Even a jump to 3NT as "undiscussed" is much much better than 2♥. ♠xxx♥KQJxx♦Kxxx♣x is a decent 2♥ bid. I can understand that someone errs by bidding 2♥. But defending this bid further, after the board, is pure catastrophe.

Ok. Let's try. The bidding went: [hv=d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1d1sd2s2n4sppp]133|100[/hv] 2NT was alerted. It was some kind of Good-Bad 2NT convention explained (from declarer's side of the screen) as "6♦ or 5♦5♣, minimum". Declarer (having 4-3 diamonds and seeing a lead of ♦J) took the only legitimate line that caters against 5-5 minors (and went down one). Opener had 1444 and was trying to bid a weak sign-off in hearts. Knowing that diamonds could be 4-2 declarer has another (winning) line available (having an extra entry to the hand, which he hasn't if diamonds are 1-5, as expected). The offending pair doesn't have a supplementary sheet with GoodBad developments explained, just a CC that says "Good-Bad 2NT". They suggest that the opener misbid (claiming that the sequence "...2NT-3♣-3♥" in their system doesn't even exist). They suggested to ask the other pair (in open room) what their agreements are (apparently, they all are playing the identical system). The main question (apart the AC formation cause) is - is it appropriate to use their teammates (playing the same match of 20 boards, but in other room), as a kind of "living supplementary sheeets" that would verbally give a convinceable evidence (directly after the match, not knowing what has happened in closed room) as a proof of their partnership agreement? Or this is a method that should be avoided? Anyway. The director didn't ask them anything. He just ruled that no MI was present (misbid from opener) without any evidence and the whole thing went to the appeal.