jallerton

It might be a common agreement, but when South infers from his own hand that North does not hold ♦K, there are alternative explanations to a wheel having come off earlier in the auction. For example, 6♦ might be offering an alternative strain, as Paul suggested upthread. The UI demonstrably suggests that a wheel has come off, so Law 73C/16A demand that South bids on the assumption of a different logical explanation.

Yes, and that's a good lesson for TDs to bear in mind. Don't always take what the players say literally. Here "no-one" plays 5♣ as showing 0 key cards but denying 3 (unless there is an inference from the auction that the replier cannot have 3).

7♦ is not the only LA. I prefer 7NT which (as well as scoring more) is likely to be a better contract when hearts are 4-1 and diamonds not 2-2, especially with South declaring the NT and being protected from an opening spade lead through the AQ.

Excellent work. I like your ruling better now! As you know, your adjusted score is based on what you judge would have happened absent the infraction. So if you consider that South would always bid 4♥ given correct information, you don't give any weighting to South doing anything else, even if you believe that South made a bad call after the actual explanation given at the table. However, there will be times when the action taken at the table after the (mis)explanation supplied leads you to doubt whether the successful alternative action would have been found had the correction explanation been given. Then a weighted adjustment (or no adjustment at all) would be appropriate.

I think you've misunderstood, Ed. It's not possible to score +310. What the scorer does is to look up the matchpoints for N/S +420 and the matchpoints for N/S +50 N/S's matchpoint score on the board is 70%*MP(+420) + 30%*MP(+50). Occasionally, there are situations where it is appropriate to assign 'split and weighted' scores like ggwhiz suggests, but this would be unusual: it generally needs a SE(UttI)Wog action by the non-offending side, or a situation where both sides are offending, or a situation where both sides are non-offending.

The reason for my question about the timing of South's remarks was that your original post said: If you were in fact not called at the end of the auction then we have to deal with that infraction as well. I don't agree with your contention that: "NS had no reason to suppose anything was amiss until the hand had been played out" as far as North was concerned. North knows that 3♦ was not intended as game forcing as why did West pass 4♦? North also has such a strong hand that he can work out that there has been a misexplanation, misbid or psyche. Your ruling is certainly legal, although one can argue with the judgement. For example, if South bids 4♥, East or West might well go on to 5♦.

At what point did South make the statement to the TD that she would have bid 4♥: at the end of the auction, or at the end of the hand? As the TD appears to have established that there was misinformation, the TD should offer North the chance to change his final call. Was this option given? I'd expect North to want to change his final pass to a double, but presumably if South's statement was made as soon as the TD was called then there's an additional complication as North has to contend with the fact that this statement is UI.

Gordon's point is that even this is not a complete explanation. Presumably the 1♦ opening also denies whatever hand types would open 1NT and 2♣ in their system.

Why is 5♦ odd? If 5♣ shows 0 or 3 KC for hearts, doesn't this have to be 3KC to give North an opening bid with 5/6? Now South wants to be in a grand slam opposite the ♥Q does he not?

No, that is not my assertion. In the vast majority of cases where a player pulls out the wrong bidding card, he/she notices immediately and corrects, or attempts to correct, the call straight away without the influence of any other player. Assuming that the local bidding box regulations deem the unintended call to have been made at all, this is exactly what Law 25A is there for. I disagree. Read literally and interpreted sensibly, Law 25A could be fine. The problems come when there is a delayed correction.

I appreciate that you have great experience in flogging dead horses when it comes to bridge Laws! However... Are you referring to the WBFLC minute in which the footnote to Law 25A was added? I understand that the context of this agenda item is that it had been pointed out to the WBFLC that the suggested practice of allowing a change of call under Law 25A when 'woken up' by partner's alert was a breach of Law 73C. However, the minute itself makes no reference to this anomaly (indeed it does not even mention Laws 73C/73A1/73B1). The fact that these Laws are not mentioned at all in the minute (and that the footnote was added to 25A with no reference to 73) implies that these Laws are not superseded or over-ridden and cannot be ignored. The approach I suggested in post #8 above (allowing the player to change the call and then adjusting the score later if there has been damage) seems silly, but that is what the WBF Laws when combined with WBFLC minutes seem to require. However, I now see from the learned comments on this recent thread that type of situation is not even unique in the Alice in Wonderland world of WBFLC.

If I say to you: "Stop, there's a car coming" and you react by stopping, then we have communicated and you have participated in the communication (whether or not you thank me for my warning). Similarly, if North alerts South's call and South reacts to that alert, then North and South have communicated. That is explicity classified as being illegal under Laws 73A1 and 73B1

I agree that the alert itself is not an illegal act, so it would be quite wrong to issue a procedural penalty under Law 90 for it (the alerter was presumably alerting in good faith). However, if the partner of the alerter uses the alert as a method of communication, this is an obvious breach of the Laws I quoted (Law 73A1, Law 73B1) and also the Law you mention (73C). So following the issue of the footnote, the situation appears to be that the player is permitted to change his "unintended" call at the table under Law 25A, but if at the end of the hand it transpires that the alerter's side profited from being able to change from the "unintended" call to the "intended" one, then the TD should apply Law 23 (or 12A1) as rectification against the use of illegal communication.

This was the full deal. [hv=pc=n&s=sqj6542hjt542dj7c&w=sa983h3d8caqj9875&n=sk7hakq76dq95ct62&e=sth98dakt6432ck43]399|300[/hv] At the table, North found the winning lead of a top heart, gaining his side 8IMPs rather than losing 15, when the other room played 6♥x off two. Well done to those of you who duplicated this.

A good question. In my opinion, the lawmakers did not think through the consequences of this Law and its interaction with other Laws when they wrote it. This looks like a good answer. However: 1. For many people, looking puzzled or even angry is an involuntary reaction, so it seems harsh to punish this. If you handed out PPs every time anyone looked puzzled, the winners of many bridge events would be the only people who managed to keep a straight face throughout! 2. You are correct to bring up the subject of illegal communication. However, if you read the Laws concerned (my bold): you will see that although alerts form part of the legal procedures of the game, this is solely for the opponents' benefit and to use any information from partner's alerts, annoucements and explanations constitutes illegal communication. Yes, indeed. Now we have the unhappy situation where Law 25A and the new footnote allow a player to correct an unintended call* but in many cases such a correction will breach Law 73A1/73B1. So if a player chooses to change his call then his breach of Law 73 should be subject to potential rectification as well as potential procedural penalties. *whether a call really was unintended is another difficult issue for the TD to determine

JLOGIC didn't say that this auction was standard for players in general.

Whoops! I meant both minors, of course. I've corrected my post now.

I normally play a method which copes well with the 4333 hands. It's also quite easy to remember. Pass = to play in 1NT 2♣ = to play in 2♣ 2♦ = to play in 2♦ 2♥ = to play in 2♥ 2♠ = to play in 2♠ Rbl = strong hand, to play in 1NTxx or suggesting doubling the opponents if they escape. [Alternatively, if you prefer to play in a suit contract when Responder holds 2 4-card suits, you can choose to give up showings the strong hands and play redouble as SOS.]

a. This might depend on your style of responses. How light might you be to respond 1NT holding 3-card support? If you need 6 points to respond then there's less mileage in being able to stop in 3M. My partners have been known to respond on somewhat weaker hands, so I prefer being able to stop in 3M. Opposite a limit raise slam is possible but not that likely. If 3m is forcing then a jump to 4m could be played as a cue agreeing the major (or maybe it's better to imply length in the suit bid as well as 3-card support). b. I also prefer to play transfers here. Note that after 1♥-1NT-2NT, there's an extra bid available as Responder has denied spades. I like to play 3♣/♦/♥ as transfers to ♦/♥/♣ respectively whilst 3♠ over 2NT shows at least 5/5 in the majors minors.

I feel that the optimal approach is to declare and defend like Bocchi-Madala. Whilst there is theoretical merit to varying your NT range by position and vulnerability,in order to gain over the long term, both partners need to be aware of the knock-on effects to the rest of your system.

It seems to me that 5♦ is a logical alternative on the previous round and that the UI demonstrably suggested passing 4♠ over bidding on. Let's hope that the eminent panel has not been reading too many of your arguments about logical alternatives having to be determined "using the methods of the partnership"!

Let me rephrase your question. Do you prefer to play weak or strong NT openings? By the way, I think your suggested rebid structure after 1♣-1red works better in the context of weak NT openings.

[hv=pc=n&n=sk7hakq76dq95ct62&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d3c(Both%20majors)3h(Clubs)4h4n(Pick%20a%20minor)p6c6hpp7cppp]133|200[/hv] You may or may not agree with your earlier bidding. What is your lead against 7♣?

It depends. By not paying sufficient attention, a player might miss an inference from an opponent's mannerism. He might miss an inference so subtle that not many people would notice anyway. On the other hand, by not paying sufficent attention, a player might revoke. Revoking has been used in a WBFLC example of a serious error case, so presumably revoking is considered by the lawmakers to be one.

Correct. Note that after the 1♦ opening bid, 4♠ is unlikely to receive a helpful opening diamond lead. Having said that, it's quite possible that 4♠ is a better spot to reach than 3♠, because 3♠ will itself be too high some of the time.