jallerton

If you want a regular partnership of BBF posters to score up with Phil and Cameron, Frances and I are available.

Over 2NT shows a strong 4-card raise, Responder's rebids are: 3♣ game forcing relay, asking about shape/strength. [You can devise Opener's rebids according to taste/memory, but I'd suggest playing 3 of the agreed major as the strong balanced hand. This is the most common hand type and one where you'd most like Opener to be declarer without having to worry about retransfers later.] 3♦ shows a weak hand, retransfer to 3M. Opener can break to 4M on a very strong hand. If, exceptionally, Opener can still envisage slam opposite a subminimum response, she can make some other bid as a slam try. After 1♣-1♥-2NT, you can use 3♥ instead of 3♦ to show this hand type if you prefer. 3NT = Natural! Suggesting this contract opposite the strong balanced hand. {The advantage of playing 3NT as natural here is that we can agree that all other 3NT bids after the 1♣-1♦/♥-2NT rebid are conventional.) Others = slam tries, showing Responder's own shape. [You can agree to show shortages and/or side suits, according to taste.] You won't necessarily get a bad matchpoint score. At other tables, 4th hand will often protect and push you up to 3♣ anyway. Sometimes, responding light will stop them finding their making 3-level contract.

Does this mean that you now agree with Mike Swanson's suggested ruling in the scenario you mentioned in the opening post to this topic? Maybe no-one mentioned Law 75A becuase they stopped at Law 73, by which time they had already come to the correct conclusion. Law 75 seems to be explaining how Laws 16, 20 and 73C fit together, for the benefit of anybody who has not worked this out already.

The EBU's interpretation of this part of the Law is described in the EBU Orange Book, which says:

Playing 4-card Stayman, you have 3 sequences obvious available when you hold 5-5 in the majors: 2NT-3♥-3♠-4♥ 2NT-3♣-3♦-4♥ 2NT-3♣-3♦-3♠-3NT-4♥ One of these sequences should be forcing, one should be NF invitational and the other should be no slam interest. Which sequence shows which hand type is entirely a matter of partnership agreement.

Law 16B doesn't say "actual methods of the partnership" either, it just says "methods of the partnership". In isolation, I believe that both your and Campboy's suggested interpretation of Law 16B are equally valid. However, your interpretation of Law 16B is in direct conflict with Law 73C, whilst Campboy's interpretation is entirely consistent with Law 73C. Therefore, for Law 16B to make any sense, we should assume that Campboy's interpretation of Law 16B is the one intended by the WBFLC.

As I see it, the most important thing is to agree with your partner basic rules for whether you are playing attitide or count signals in particular situations. If all you agree is "UDCA" then of course there will be situations where one of you is giving reverse count and the other person interprets this as reverse attitude.

It doesn't say "agreed methods of the partnership", does it? Here it could be argued that South's method was to open 2NT on a strong balanced hand. South is a member of the partnership, so this is a "method of the partnership", albeit a particularly poor method when his partner is expecting a completely different hand type. The methods of the partnership presumably also include a general agreement to play 3♦ as a transfer to hearts over a natural 2NT bid. for example after the uncontested auction 2♣-2♦-2NT, or a 2NT overcall of a 2♦ opening.

It's very difficult to show everything playing standard methods. The correct approach on this hand is likely to depend on your methods on the second/third round of the auction. I like to have a way of showing a 3-suiter once Opener has showed a balanced hand, but if that is not available then bidding both black suits will at least focus partner's attention on her holding in hearts (the unbid suit). The problem with bidding a black suit followed by 3♦ is that you have a 4-0 or 5-0 disparity between the 2 suits you have not bid, so partner can't sensibly judge when it's right to play in 3NT. It's also helpful to know partner's tendencies. Suppose you decide to give up on 3NT and plan to show your shape via 1♦-2♣-2NT-3♠-3NT-4♦. If your partner tends to vary her tempo before bidding 3NT in this type of sequence, you know that you could become under ethical pressure. On balance, it feels best to respond 2♣ than 1♠ on this hand as you're quite well placed if partner does not rebid 2NT, and relatively better placed if someone bids hearts.

Yes, but I'll also often wish to discourage from a 2-card holding, particularly after trick one, when there is more scope for ambiguity whether count or attitude applies.

Really? The sequence 1♥-(3♣)-3♠-(P)-3NT is a serious suggestion to play in 3NT.

I Yes, there are ambiguous situations where the two partners may not agree whether count or attitude applies (or one is not sure which applies), but I don't see why this leads to his conclusion. The implication from his comments is that defenders are more likely to want to encourage from a 2, 4 or 6-card holding than with a 3, 5 or 7-card holding. Is this really true?

True, but you can balance that out by sometimes playing the Q or J on the first round from your actual holding of QJ97.

There's something about your username which suggests that your opinion on this matter may be somewhat biased!

Playing standard methods, this hand has enough playing strength and defence to open 1♠. It seems from some of his other threads that Jinsky is playing the Fantunes system (2-level openers are natural and about 10-13 points). Playing that style, 2♠ you should strongly consider opening 2♠.

Do you really believe your own argument? Could it possibly be the case that the WBFLC was commenting on a particular case where a call had potentially affected by MI, and that they consider it too obvious to mention that the same arguments applies to plays? Without screens, that is true, because the bidder would hear the incorrect explanation and would be obliged to correct it at the end of the auction under Law 20F5. If the bidder failed to correct the explanation, then we could potentially adjust for a breach of that Law. However, with screens, explanation must be provided only by the player's screenmate. Law 20F5 does not apply; it is "trumped" by the screen regulations permitted by Law 80B; and in any case Law 20F5 would make no sense when a player does not know what explanation was given on the other side of the screen or indeed whether any such explanation was sought. As you know perfectly well, this does not say "must" or "should". The word "may" is interpreted in the Laws as "failure to do so is not wrong". For a partnership of this experience, this auction would not have been regarded as complex or potentially ambiguous, so the regulations do not even encourage a confirmation of explanations.

There's no need for case law when the answer is contained in the Laws themselves. Laws 12B1 and Law 12C1(e) both refer to "had the irregularity not occurred". Here, the irregularity was the provision of the incorrect explanation. So if the irregularity had not occurred, the opening leader would not have known about his screenmate's erroneous thoughts; the correct explanation is all he would have known. Still not convinced? Well, there is a WBFLC minute on the matter:

Why does it have any self-serving element? At the table North could easily (and did) infer from the explanation she received and the sight of dummy that there had been a misunderstanding. If the TD had determined the South/West explanation to be the correct one, then it would have been obvious to rule no damage from the MI (South receiving a correct explanation and North knowing exactly what had happened before she had to play to trick 1). In practice, the TD determined that the North/East explanation was the correct one. This implied that South had received a wrong explanation and could potentislly have been damaged by this MI. No. Playing with screens, South receives all his explanations from West. Normally West explains accurately and South uses this information. If it later transpires that West has given a wrong explanation then we adjust to what would/might have happened had a correct explanation been given. If West had given a correct explanation, then South would never have seen West's erroneous thoughts. Your simulation makes the wrong assumptions. They can't have a 4-4 spade fit (in theory, at least!). If East can rebid 2NT with some 4=2=5=2 hands then surely he can also be 2=2=5=4, except that he'd be more inclined to supress the side suit when it is a minor. (22)6(3) is also quite a common shape for a 2NT rebid.

I've heard this advice too, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to agree with my partner to do this. Would such an agreement not be caught by the restriction on "encrypted signals"?

(1) Maybe, but it seems unlikely to me that this was influenced by the MI. More likely, I suspect, he had a split-second decision to make as to whether he could afford to waste ♦10 (if partner has switched from J87x(xx), this will freeze the suit and possibly expose her to an endplay) or to just make the clearer signal anyway. I think he would still have had the same dilemma, had he received the correct explanation of the opposing methods. (2) This line of defence was not suggested by West. He suggested that he would be more likely to play ♥J on the first round with the correct explanation, and that he did not do so at the table in case this was interpreted as suit preference for spades.

No, the opening leader was entitled to a correect explanation of the opponents' methods. The correct explanation was determined by the TD/AC to be the one given by declarer to his screenmate, namely that dummy had shown 5 hearts and had denied 4 spades; whilst declarer had denied 3 hearts but had not provided any information about his spade length. With this information, the opening leader "knows" when he has to choose his opening lead that his partner has at least 3 spades, often 4 and occasionally 5 (if declarer is 2=2=6=3 or 2=2=5=4 say). Hence it is not surprising to me that all the players polled by the TD led a spade given the correct information. Three out of five led a diamond? At which game are these strong players?

I object to this post. You make it sound as though every appeals committee member is corrupt. When I (and most people I know are the same) serve on appeals committee, I make an unbiased decision based on the facts of the case and the arguments presented by the TD and the players. I don't care who the players are; I know that one side (sometimes both) may turn out to be unhappy with the final outcome, but so what? That is normal in any arbitration process. In any case, your "everyone knows everyone else" arguments also apply to TDs. Does national level count as a high level? I have reviewed hundreds of appeals cases in the EBU. I don't always agree with the AC's decisions by any means, but overall there are considerably more TD rulings which are improved by the AC than the other way round.

What makes the EBL directors the best in Europe? I'm sure that they are all experts in how the Laws operate, but are they all experts at playing bridge? Different countries have different legal systems, but often higher courts rule mainly on matters of law. In bridge, appeals on matter of Law are heard by the Chief TD, because it is acknowledged that the (Chief) TD is the authority on the Laws. Appeals on a matter of bridge judgement are heard by an appeals committee, presumably because it is acknowledged that no TD is an authority on bridge judgement. Sometimes a further appeal can be made to the National Authority; in the EBU at any rate, the National Authority tends to only consider appeals on a matter of Law or principle; this is vaguely analogous to the higher courts in some national legal systems.

So if people dislike change and the change is confusing, why on earth do it? In August, BBO changed from a very organised system of vugraph commentary co-ordination, which ensured decent commentary on all of the major events shown on BBO, to an 'automated' system which results in far fewer commentators participating; those commentators who do turn out now go to whichever table they fancy, as there is nobody to guide them. I didn't like that change then; and I still don't like it now.

Will the players be given a full account of what evidence was gathered by the TDs and what reasoning they applied in arriving at their decision? Will the players who wish to appeal be permitted or encouraged to make representations to the 'reviewer'?