jallerton

[hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1sdp2cp]133|100[/hv] What do the following calls by West mean? 1. 2♦ 2. 2♥ 3. 2♠ In each case, please provide a typical hand. Thanks in advance.

You refer to the "original draft of this Law", but can you explain why this interpretation is consistent with 2007 Law 50E?

David: the pronouncement you have read with incredulity is not something invented by current or former editors of The White Book, or even by the EBU L&E Committee of which you are probably the longest serving current member. The offending paragraphs are marked [WBFLC] which means that they are taken directly from a WBFLC misinterpretation. Whilst I stick by my earlier contention that the 1998 minute should be superseded by the 2007 Law 50E (whatever that means), I think I understand the reason why it it still features in the current White Book. In October 2008 (so just after the 2007 Laws had come into force), the WBFLC published the following: The last sentence is confusing. Does "decisions in previous years" refer to the 2007 Laws, or to the 1998 minute as well?

Yes, when 20th century players make a mistake, they say "Sorry partner, pulled out the wrong card" rather than the modern equivalent of "misclick".

No, you are not, In post #12 I said: There was no equivalent of Law 50E in the 1997 Laws, and I assume that the 1998 WBF minute quoted by Campboy was intended to deal with that. Now that the penalty card UI/AI is dealt with in the 2007 Law 50E, the 1998 minute is superseded and we should be using the new Law 50E instead. Reading another of the 2007 Laws, I now know why I prefer my interpretation (a) over interpretation (b). The answer lies in the Law immediately above: Please note the part I have put in bold. It says "may lead any card". It does not say, for example, "may lead any card (subject to Law 50E2)". So I think the Laws say this: 1. The player can lead any card (Law 50D2). 2. The fact that his partner holds♠Q, and has to play it at the first legal opportunity, is authorised information (Law 50E1). 3. The fact that his partner is likely to hold ♠J (assuminng they lead top of sequence) and is unlikely to have an attractive sequence to lead from in another suit is unauthorised information (Law 50E2). 4. If the defence gained by this player knowing that his partner held ♠Q, we adjust the score to what might have happened had the penalty card not existed (Law 50E3). [Presumably a weighted score could be a possibility here - Law 12C1C.] 5. If the player fails to carefully avoid taking any advantage of the information about ♠J/attractivenesss of lead in other suits, then the TD may adjust the score under the general UI Laws (Laws 73C/12A1 and/or Laws 16B/12C].

Sorry? Are you saying that a player is supposed to assume that his partner be forced to play a particular card to this trick, but is not allowed to know which one? Or indeed to "bend over backwards", he is supposed to assume that his partner will be forced to play some other random card to this trick? That could be interesting. It sounds like you'll be awarding PPs to these two experienced TDs:

I agree that many websites have obsolete pages on rarely viewed of their websites. But I would expect someone from the EBL to have looked at their own home page at some point during the last seven months and to reccognise that it's more than a little insensitive to be highlighting the achievement of this particular team (whether they agree with the decision or not).

After all this time, if you go to the home page of the European Bridge League website , you can still see a picture of the "winners" on the 2013 World Seniors Bowl final with their medals. Not much point in stripping people of their medals if the Zone still leaves their photo on its website!

Yes. One of the TD's objectives on this hand is to establish the extent to which E/W play suit preference in this situation, but without making it obvious that he is asking a leading question. I think the TD should ask West to explain his thought process whilst defending the hand.

But why, Sven, do you consider that to be the important question given the wording of Laws 50E and 73C?

In 4th seat, one of the main purposes of overcalling here is to direct the lead (in fact the main purpose if the 1NT opening was strong), so I think overcalling here implies a decent suit rather than general strength. Stayman is bid on so many hand types with a major then the 'normal' Stayman hand type will be more commonly held than the raise to 2NT without a major, even when 4th hand has overcalled. Doubling the 2♠ or 2♣ response isn't risk free, and Opener should be ready to redouble with a good 4- or 5-card holding in the suit doubled.

I agree with your second paragraph (which follows from the wording of Law 50E), but I struggle to understand the legal basis for the conclusion stated in your third paragraph (even though most other replies agree with what you saying). Suppose, for example, that North holds ♠AK62 ♥J1098 ♦862 ♣84 against the auction 1♦-P-3♦-All Pass As North my choice of leads in order of preference might be: top spade, heart, trump, club, low spade. It's debatable how many of this leads constitute logical alternatives, but I'm sure that a low spade (my last choice of lead) is not one of them. It seems to me that there are two possible interpretations here: (a) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" means that I am allowed to know partner has ♠Q then I can lead whatever I like; or (b) If "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" does not include allowing me to know partner has ♠Q then I must 'carefully avoid taking any advantage of the UI' (Law 73C) and 'may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information' (Law 16B). In this case Law 73C tells me that I must not lead a low spade. Whichever of (a) and (b) is supposed to apply, I can't see the relevance of whether or a not a top spade lead is the only logical alternative.

I agree. This informative system will help to solve many defensive problems.

It's also amazing how many people seem convinced that their own methods are superior to all others.

You say it was a rulings question, but have you given a rulings answer? Which Law says that "At trick one, people are supposed to plan the whole play (or defense)."?

It's true that a double of 2♠ is higher frequency that a double of 2♣ when Responder has no major. However, a downside of the 2♣ response also gives the next hand a chance to direct the lead of any suit by doubling with clubs, overcalling at the 2-level in any suit other than clubs. It's certainly not silly to play 1NT-2NT as natural (particularly if you are not going to make decent use of a conventional 2NT). I understand that some Norwegian internationals favour this approach.

Someone invents a reasonable system, which many people learn. I think that playing 2♠/NT as minor suit transfers is theoretically worse than something like the structure described in post #11, but the net loss is relatively small. It might seem lazy, but it's often more practical to agree to play a system both partners are familiar with and to save the limited time available for discussion for competitive sequences. If I have to invite to 2NT through Stayman, I'm slightly more inclined to pass or bid 3NT on marginal hands, but if I have a down the middle invitation, I still think it's better to go via 2C rather than not invite at all.

Without making any assessment of the quantitative effect, I should point out that it's not just invitational hands with ♦ this method loses on. Whenever, Responder is game forcing or stronger, he no longer has the information about Opener's diamond enthusiasm at a low level. Playing 1NT-2♠ as a clubs or a raise to 2NT means that Responder doesn't know about Opener's club enthusuiasm at a low level, but then at least Responder finds out some different potentially useful information (min or max) in return.

How strong is the 'massive balanced' option?

It's permitted in EBU level 4 events, but freeing up a bid for Gh****m is more likely to lead a TD call for other reasons!

Perhaps I should put you in touch with Tony Forrester, arguably the United Kingdom's most successful player over the last 25 years. Tony rarely plays anything else over his 1♣ opening. Having played against it quite a lot, I can say that whilst it has some downsides, this system also has a number of upsides. For example, put yourself in the shoes of an opponent. After the uncontested auction 1♣-1♦[relay,no 5-card major]-2♣-3NT, you have very little information about declarer's shape. These hands are easier to defend when declarer has bid his (joint) longest suit during the auction. Ken is right: to make the most of an unusual system, you need detailed agreements about the continuations.

1. Depends on the version of Acol you are playing. Some agree to open 1♥ on this shape, some open 1♦ and a smaller minority 1♣. (a) 1♥-4♥ or Responder might start with a splinter if this is in range. (b) 1m-1♠-1NT-2♣-2♥-4♥. If a 1NT opening is 12-14, a 1NT rebid should show 15-17. This is not a perfect description of the hand, but it keeps all strains in the game and less can go wrong compared with reversing into hearts (yuk) or 1♦-1♠-2♣. 2. Assuming weak jump shifts not in use, 1♦-1♠-2♣-2♠-2NT-3♥-4♥. I reject a 15-17 1NT opening bid which has more flaws that a 15-17 1NT rebid. 1m-1♠-2NT-look for heart fit-.....4♥ (Depending on agreements) is not unreasonable. 3. 1♣-1♥(Spades)-1NT-2♦-2♥....4♥ (depending on agreements). Rebidding NT at the 1-level to show (17)18-19 is more attractive than rebidding at the 2-level.

Indeed. In UI cases, The TD should should adjust only when several conditions are all satisfied. As soon as the TD finds that any one of the conditions is not satisfied he can stop worrying and rule that the table result stands. So I would advise TDs to consider the easier questions first. Sometimes this approach will save several paragraphs of Lamfordian-like analysis.

Yes, declarer might make the contract by running diamonds, but doesn't that need him to read the endgame?

I'm naturally shy. Teammates didn't seem particularly impressed by the 2 IMP loss. In the other room, N/S bid to 4♠, East led a heart, and with the 3-3 ♠ break declarer soon wrapped up 11 tricks. The fascinating thing about this hand is that is probably only right to play for this type of 'misdefence' against good opponents.