jallerton

I asked a very similar question a few months ago in this thread. There did not appear to be a consensus answer. Gordon's observation that "the Chairman of the WBF Laws Committee appears to take an approach at odds with the wording of the 2007 Laws" is interesting.

5♦ is declared by the weak hand; the natural lead is the ♠Q so the defence will probably be cashing the first 4 tricks.

Interesting. Weighted scores are not permitted in the ABCL. I don't consider it "likely" that South would have defended differently given the alternative explanation, but maybe it was "at all probable" that he would do so. That would lead to the rare situation of a split score being assigned: 3NT= for the defence and 3NT-1 for declarer.

Try this one Edit: I now see that Vampyr has just posted the same link.

Yes, during the bad good old days before 1st August 2006, we also alerted a 4♥ response to 1NT showing spades, a 4♣ overcall of a 3♠ opening showing 5/5 in hearts and clubs, and a 4♣ overcall of a 3♠ opening showing 5/5 in hearts and diamonds. Currently, players are not permitted to alert any of these and "almost no-one" thinks to ask about natural sounding unalerted calls.

The TD's ruling was as follows: "The result is not being allowed to stand, as we believe that NS have used UI, and we're replacing it with a weighted score as follows: 20% 4H-2 by North +30% 5D-2 by South +50% 5Dx-2 by South" Edit: polarity corrected.

Yes, that's a sound general principle, but it only applies if you want to offer both strains. It's not clear to suggest playing in a trump suit of ♠7543, especially when you have a potential source of tricks outside. Some people say they would pass after 1♥-1♠-2♠. I'd much prefer to play this hand in no trumps or hearts. Playing Acol, 1♥-2♣-2♥-2NT is fine. If I had to respond 1♠, I would move with 2NT if partner raised to 2♠. This hand is much more powerful than say 7543 Q2 A6 KJ642.

[hv=pc=n&s=sq96432h8dk3cq954&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1h1sppdppr(SOS)pp]133|200|Matchpoints[/hv]

Presumably the formula was determined by a committee.

Strictly speaking, you should be asking what actions "could demonstrably be suggested" by the break in tempo.

Yes, it is sensible (and quite common) to play that rasing to 4M denies an ace or king, whilst 3NT shows a king. Over 3NT, 4♣ asks which one. On this hand, when Responder gets to show ♦K with 4♦ a cue bid of 5♦ on the next round shows that he has ♦Q as well.

Declarer's LHO is on lead and starts thinking. Declarer shows his hand to his LHO only. Scenario 1. Declarer makes no comment. Scenario 2. When declarer is showing his hand to his LHO he asks "Does this help?" Scenario 3. When declarer is showing his hand to his LHO he says "I am not claiming" In which of scenarios 1, 2 and 3, do declarer's actions constitute a claim?

Subsequent to hearing North's explanation, the TD did ask East/West if they thought there had been a hesitation. West believes that he always holds the 'stop card' down for ten seconds (rather longer than most people tend to do). He agreed that there might have been a short hesitation between the 'stop' card being removed and the 2NT card being pulled out of the bidding box. East did not notice the 2NT bid being particularly out of tempo.

Oh, sorry. As most readers have probably already assumed, I meant to write "N/S convention card". I have edited the original post accordingly.

Do you mean time to give up weak NT? The same issues apply if playing 5-card majors and a weak NT.

An interesting idea. I agree that 1X-1Y-2Y can be an uncomfortably wide range playing weak NT. Theoretically, borderline 5m431 hands should not be opened 1 of a suit playing weak NT for this reason. Other players solve the problem (but create another) by raising to 3Y on fairly minimum strong NT hands. I have discussed some of these sequences with one weak NT partner. We agreed that 1m-1♥-2♥ would only be bid with 43(51) if we had enough to move over a natural and invitational 2NT/3m rebid from Responder; with a complete minimum 43(51) we would rebid 1♠ and pass Responder's rebid of 1NT/2NT/2m, for better or for worse. 1m-1♥-1♠-1NT/2m-2♥ still shows a hand too strong to raise to 2♥ directly, but the minimum for this is somewhat stronger than the same sequence playing strong NT.

No, original Acol was based on "bid what you like" as long as you have prepared your rebid. With two four card suits opening either suit was possible. More recently, partnerships have agreed which suit to open when they hold two four card suits. The "major before minor" style on strong balanced hands has some supporters, but is theoretically worse than opening the minor suit on such hands, in my opinion.

The auction (uncontested) was: 2♠ (constructive weak 2)-2NT (relay) 4♣ (6/5)-4NT (RKCB) 5♣(1KC)-6♠

I agree with Frances's first sentence: "a slow double suggests partner is off-shape, which probably suggests passing so I would consider adjusting if this hand passed successfully." Combining the slowness of the double with the authorised information that RHO did not raise, suggests that the partner's double might be based on longer spades than usual. They can't be allowed to play system where in tempo double = take-out, slow double = co-operative/penalty orientated!

[hv=pc=n&s=s52hqt43daj976c96&w=sqjt87h5dq3ck8742&n=sk964hak2dkt54cq5&e=sa3hj9876d82cajt3&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=pp2s2n(alerted)p3dp3nppp&p=sas2s7s4s3s5stskdkd2d6d3dtd8da]399|300[/hv] Matchpoint pairs, England. North's 2NT overcall was alerted, prompting East to ask the meaning. South replied "Both minors". When North bid 3NT, East asked about 3NT. South shrugged and advised East to check the N/S convention card. In the "defence to weak twos" section of the N/S convention card, it clearly stated "2NT = both minors". East led ♠A and continued the suit. Declarer won the K, cashed ♦K and played another diamond to the ace. He then cashed his winners in the red suits (with the aid of the marked heart finesse) and so the table result was 3NT+1, N/S +430. West calls the TD, claiming that North's bidding may have been affected by unauthorised information. If 2NT is natural, then presumably 3♦ should be interpreted as a transfer, he suggests. The TD asks North why he bid 2NT. He says that he knew that 2NT showed both minors, but because he had thought for a while over 2♠, he decided he ought to bid something and that a slow pass would put his partner in an awkward position. How should the TD rule?

Has anyone ever seen a declarer play the Q from dummy from Q108x when holding singleton J in hand?

Whilst I would have agreed with your interpretation of what the wording of the 1997 Law 12C2 appeared to say, the WBFLC had different ideas: So I would suggest that when the 2007 Laws were written, this Law was rephrased to clarify what the WBFLC had intended all along.

I agree, although I would describe the auction as abnormal, on the grounds that it does not come up very often!

Wrong. The AC's job is to review a TD's ruling, starting with the presumption that the TD's ruling is correct. Where a poll has been conducted by a TD, the AC should check the validity of the poll: did the TD ask the right question(s), was the right peer group of people polled, how many people were asked and what were the answers? If the poll is valid, the AC should not ignore its results.

If you really want this regulation changed, I suggest that you write to the Secretary of the Laws & Ethics Committee as soon as possible. The Orange Book is currently subject to a major review and next month's L&EC meeting will be considering any proposed changes.