jallerton

1. I prefer to use 3♦ as something else here (there are a few sensible possibilities) , but if 3♦ has to be a splinter in diamonds then it should be game forcing. Minisplinters are useful, but mainly only for the hand on lead. Although it's possible to construct hands where they help you to bid a thin game where the hands fit well, these are rare in my experience. 2. No, but it's useful for Responder to be able to use step 1 to ask for shortage in case Responder is interested in a slam.

I'd like to assume that we had discussed the meaning of 3♣ here. What is our agreement?

Is there some new trend to describe all agreements as "Kokish"?

[hv=pc=n&e=skt7h54d96432cj54&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1nppd(Penalties)pp2dp2hd(%22take-out%22)]133|200|1NT=(14)15-17[/hv] IMPS. You are East. 1NT is strong. The double of 1NT is penalties. The double of 2♥ is "take-out", not necessarily classical take-out shape, but showing a hand prepared to defend if his partner has a penalty double of hearts. What is your call now?

I agree with awm. It's a matter of style and system. Clearly if you haven't got a way of bidding the hand after 1♠-1NT then the 1NT opening makes more sense. With some partners I'd be more or less forced to open 1NT on this hand. With others, opening 1♠ would be fine.

The problem is when a player changes his mind and wants to change his call. Although this is not permitted under Law 25B anymore, all the player has to do is call the TD and say that the original call was a "mechanical error" or "unintended". Of course the TD will be reluctant to accuse the player of lying, and so abracadabra: Law 25A is applied and the player is permitted to change his call. This happened against me recently (certainly the first four of your points applied). The player in question was one of the main people responsible for setting the 'stop' regulations! I agree with Nigel. Anybody who believes that they have never come across an instance of someone trying to deliberately break the Laws/Regulations is naive.

What is our agreement about the 2NT bid?

A general case could be summarised as: Player A makes a call C holding hand type X. Player B (A's partner) describes A's call C as showing hand type Y (where Y is completely different to X). After making suitable enquiries, the TD determines that A/B have a concealed partnership understanding to play call C as 2-way, showing either hand-type X or hand-type Y. As I'm sure Andy will agree, two-way bids (such as a 3♣ overcall showing clubs OR spades and diamonds) are difficult to defend against. As I'm sure Andy will also agree, two-way bids such as this should be shown in the "aspects of system opponents should note" section of the EBU20A/EBU20B convention card. The EBU requires players to exchange convention cards with the opponents before the start of each round. So if the TD determines that A/B have a concealed partnership understanding, there will normally have been a breach of Law 40A1(b).

Law 40A1(b) would cover the most common misbids, such as forgotten two-suited overcalls and defences to 1NT. I wonder why you suggested making that assumption! By the way, Law 40A3 is relevant not only when a player makes a bid whose meaning has not been properly disclosed, but also when a player makes an alternative call, because then there is a CPU about the negative inferences available.

Unfortunately, Bluejak does not post to this forum very often these days, but I can report to you what I recall his view to be. The infraction is not the use of a CPU; the infraction is having the CPU in the first place. Thus "expectation before the infraction" would mean the expectation before the board has been started, on the assumption that the pair did not have the CPU. Winding back the auction to the beginning, we can say that now, in the general case, the possibile outcomes are numerous or not obvious.

WB 10.2 explains how to deal with two potential infractions on the same board. If there is a 'red' fielded misbid and there is also UI or MI, the TD adjusts for the UI/MI first. If this (possibly weighted) assigned score gived the non-offenders better than average plus, there is no further adjustment. If this (possibly weighted) assigned score gived the non-offenders worse than average plus, then assign Av+/AV- (with a standard PP if it was a psyche rather than a misbid).

It doesn't quite work like that. The current EBU White Book explains:

True, but you also miss penalties when the oppponents had been destined to select a minor suit or 1NT, and when Opener would have doubled 1♠ for penalties given the chance. Perhaps it's better to play 1♠ as 5+ spades; redouble as balanced(ish) or short hearts, 1NT+ as transfers.

My guess is that some of the people responsible for the new EBL non-appeals procedure were also instrumental in the inclusion of Law 93C(b) in the 2007 Laws. This seems more likely than some EBL official reading through his Law Book looking to see what changes can be made to the Conditions of Contest and saying to his colleagues: "Oh look what we can do now!".

"Rectification period"? Do you mean "clarification period"?

Law 12: West's slow pass was not an infraction. If there was an infraction here it was East's 5♣ bid. What would have been the expectation had East not bid 5♣? Presumably East would pass and North/South would declare 4♠ undoubled. If we're not sure whether 4♠ would have made 9 or 10 tricks, then in Europe we apply Law 12C1c and adjust to a weighting between 4♠ undoubled just made and 4♠ undoubled minus one. If this case had occurred in ACBL-land, we'd use Law 12C1e. Subsection(i) 4♠= is the "most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" so N/S are assigned 4♠=, +420 for N/S. Subsection (ii) 4♠=is "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable" for the offending side, so E/W are assigned 4♠= by North, -420 for E/W.

I agree with running to 1NT, but XX on the next round sounds like 1=4=4=4 (or maybe 3=4=3=3 if it's your style to double 1♠ on such hands). on a 2=4=3=4 shape, I prefer 1NT followed by 2♣ which I think should be the lower of two 4-card suits.

I agree with this. We hold a mini no trump, the opponents hold the boss suit and the vulnerability is such that we're not going to find a successful sacrifice very often. We'll often seem to "get away" with doubling in the sense that the opponents still end up in their normal spade contract, until we discover that our double has helped declarer to find the winning line of play.

Back to basics. The TD cannot adjust the score unless he judges that: (i) there has been an infraction; and (ii) he judges that the infraction has caused damage. The objective of score adjustment is to take away any advantage gained by the offending side from its infraction. See Law 12. So, Ed, I have some questions for you in this particular case. 1. Which call(s) might have been infraction(s)? 2. What would/might have happened, had that infraction not occurred?

Yes, that's why the correct approach would be to poll peers of East. However, I agree with Robin and Jeremy: the poll is likely to show that virtually all peers of East will bid 5♣.

That's not necessarily the correct conclusion to draw. TDs have many tasks to perform. Organising the tournament is a fundamental one and it's fairly easy to predict the amount of time which will be needed to achieve this. It's not possible to predict how many judgement rulings the TD will be asked to make, nor how complex those cases might be. In practice, a lot of judgement rulings are fairly easy to get right fairly quickly, in the sense that most decent TDs (or Referees) will reach the same conclusion. Most of these "easy" judgement rulings are not appealed. The problem comes when the judgement issues are complex. The players don't necessarily have time at the table to explain their case to the TD, and the TD might not have the time (or possibly the bridge expertise) to cross-examine the players. One flaw with the procedure is that usually only one particular TD attends the table and hears the players' arguments. Of course, he will consult with other TDs, but those other TDs will have heard the players' arguments second or third hand. If the original TD didn't take in or understand everything that was said to him, or failed to ask an important question, then the whole team of TDs is ruling with incomplete information. Contrast that with an AC. The AC will hear the facts and details of the original ruling from the TD, then the AC will hear from the appellants and their opponents. All of the AC membes can communicate with all of the players and makes an informed judgement based on what they have heard directly from the players themselves. Meanwhile, the players will feel reassured that they have made their points to the people who were responsible for taking the final decision.

Sounds like the equivalent of bridge TDs travelling to/from the ACBL.

Did you get the impression that the TDs were making more of an effort to get the ruling right in the first place, e.g. by telling the players how they were minded to rule, listening to further arguments and being prepared to reconsider? In other words, if this had happened two years ago, would the TD have just informed you of his initial ruling and advised you of your right to appeal?

I don't understand the "(and see C1(d) above)" part. 12C2 says it applies "where no result can be obtaned" whereas 12C1(d) only applies where a result already has been obtained but it's not at all clear what the score should be adjusted to. Maybe it's intended to mean: "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained, or if the Director applies C1(d) above, the Director awards an artificial adjusted score according to responsibility for the irregularity....." but the actual wording doesn't say that!

I think this may now be legal, because the 2007 Laws added: This doesn't give any indication as to how the artificial adjusted score has to be calculated!