jallerton

If ♠Qx and a balanced hand might be enough for game opposite, is it right to overcall 2♠ on this hand? 2♠ followed by 4♦ must be at least 5/5 and quite likely 6/5. However, I could easily have the same hand with a low heart instead of the ace, so I would back in with a double. I can imagine that pass might be a possibility for anyone who thinks that the bidding to date has shown this hand. I don't like 4♠ though. I've already told partner that I've got lots of spades and diamonds and yet partner chose not to compete further: why should I commit our side to declaring the hand? K98432 is not exactly a self-supporting suit.

Why? Declarer is entitled to know the agreements about defensive signalling, and it is seems entirely proper to ask as soon as the card is played, so he can take this information into account when he plans the play and makes subsequent decisions how to play the rest of the hand (it may or may not turn out to end up affecting his line of play). Furthermore, with dummy's AKQ tripleton winning the first trick, it will be clear in this case that declarer's play from hand at trick 1 is not going to be affected to the answer to the question. Are you suggesting that on every hand declarer should first spend time working out whether the meaning of a defensive signal could affect his line of play, and only if he decides it could does he proceed to ask a question about the defensive signalling? I haven't got much idea what is meant by "1st high card revolving; suit preference" so i would want to clarify at the earliest opportunity what this means and when this might apply .

If I had been declarer, and if the defensive carding might have made a difference to my line of play, I would have asked the opening leader what the trick 1 signal means in this situation. The convention card cannot be expected to apply to explain every situation, and declarer has a duty to protect himself where, as here, he can do so without putting his side's interests at risk.

Yes, you can avoid the problem (of tipping off information about the contents of your own hand) by alerting in both cases but then you are not following the regulation.

The problem with 5B10 is that it is not consistent with the general principles of disclosure of partnership agreements. I like the principles outlined earlier in the Orange Book: Now let's look at Orange Book 5B10 which currently says: Now when my partner makes a call about which we have no agreement, I am going to have to guess how to treat it, and my subsequent calls are likely to be consistent with that guess. 3B3 instructs that I must not make a statement as to how I interpret the undiscussed call. On the other hand, 5B10 tells me to effectively do the opposite, by virtue of whether I alert or not. For example, LHO bids 3♥ (natural) is some auction and my first time partner doubles. I've no idea from the auction itself whether the double is penalties or take-out. I rate my chances of guessing as better than 50/50 solely because I can look at my hand. Scenario 1. I have a singleton heart. I guess that double is penalties. Apparently I'm supposed to alert (5B10 says that I'll probably be deemed to have an agreement that double is penalties when I subsequently pass) and then when RHO asks what it means I say "no agreement". Scenario 2. I have a trebleton heart. I guess that double is take-out. Apparently I'm supposed to not alert (5B10 says that I'll probably be deemed to have an agreement that double is T/O when I subsequently bid) and then when RHO asks what it means I say "no agreement" So by following 5B10 I tell the opponents information about the contents of my own hand, but nothing about my agreements. That cannot be right..

Thanks for the replies. I posted this in "Intermediate and Advanced Bridge Discussion" as I was particularly interested in the views of intermediate and advanced players (though of course the views of Bermuda Bowl players are always worth reading). This hand comes from a teams competition at an English club. At the table, the 3♥ bid was alerted and incorrectly described as showing 5-5 in hearts and another suit(!). Placing the overcaller with short spades, declarer won the lead in dummy and ran the ♠J. This lost to the queen and the defence took the next three tricks also: ♥A, ♥ ruff, ♦ ruff (the 3♥ overcaller was 3=7=1=2). The TD adjusted the score to (100% of) 4♠ making, but E/W appealed, claiming that declarer might equally have played the 3♥ bidder for short spades on the correct explanation.

It will also lead to worse part-scores, for example when Responder has 4-card club support and has to guess whether Opener has clubs or not.

Moderator: please can you move the last seven off-topic posts into a new thread called "thread splitting"? Thanks.

[hv=pc=n&s=sak97hk72dq8ckjt9&n=sj865ht8dak643ca8&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1c3hdp3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs. West leads ♦2 against your 4♠ contract. Plan the play.

In MI cases, sometimes when a player of the non-offending side says: "I would have done XYZ had the opponents alerted/explained differently" it would be more accurate for him to say "I wish I had done XYZ" or "If I had known all four hands I would have done XYZ". Whilst players do sometimes take strange actions at the table, it's always a dilemma for a TD when a player claims that he would have taken an implausible action. Is the player making this up, or does he really bid like this? In this particular case, I would like to consider some more basic questions. 1. What was the infraction? The infraction was the failure to alert, as apparently required by the dubiously worded Orange Book 5B10 regulation. 2. What would/might have happened, had the infraction not occurred? If East had alerted the double, this would have prompted North (assuming he was considering acting at all) to ask about the meaning of the double. He would have been told "no agreement". Hence any putative adjusted score should be on the basis of North assuming that E/W have no agreement about the double, not on the basis that it was agreed to be penalties.

The main problem with this structure is that 3♣ covers such a wide range. Yes, opener can make an artificial game try in your structure to distinguish between 6-bad9 and good9-12, but that is all. If 1♠-3♣ shows a traditional limit raise, then Opener can still use 3♦ as an artificial game try, but now to distinguish (say) 9-10 from 11-12. Worse still, if 4th hand makes an overcall above 3M, Opener will have to guess as he does not have the luxury of a game try available as the partnership has not shown enough strength to play pass as forcing. Why's that an advantage? It's perfectly possible to include hands with 3-card support within the semi-forcing 1NT response. If Opener passes 1NT, that contract is often safer than 3M. It's also perfectly playable for 3-card limit raises to start with a 2-level bid. Not for long, as there is normally a clue fom the sight of dummy! Of more consequence is that your 3♣ bid will make Opener reveal information about his hand strength (from the fact that he bid 3♦, or from he fact that he didn't bid 3♦). This is not necessarily an advantage either. If the opponents are considering whether to protect, it's much harder for them when they don't know whether you have a fit or not.

I would pass out 4♥. I need more defence (aces) to double, as partner will pass much of the time. I need much more playing strength to bid 4♠ by myself.

What is the form of scoring? By the way, did 3♣ imply at least invitational values?

As 'Bye' tends to equate to 'average plus', the obvious 'Bye' score on a 20VP scale would be 12VPs. However, that's far too simple and rumour has it that the Committee favours using one third of the cube of Pi.

No. The TD's full statement of his ruling, as reported on the appeals form, was: His second sentence is the problem. Whilst it would have been ideal if North had known about (what the TD determined to be) "no agreement", E/W were in no way at fault for North did not knowing this. West did what the alerting regulations required of him. North did not ask about 2♣, so West could not offer any verbal explanation.

It would be quite wrong to "throw out any remaining boards at end of time" as that rewards slow play by the team which is winning (or whose players believe they are winning).

I look to see whether or not I have a second entry back to hand.

The 2010 "possibly inverted raise" case to which you refer has similarities with the 2012 case described at the start of this thread, but there is also a potentially important difference. In the 2010 case, the TD's statement of facts (reported to the AC and quoted on the appeals form) included the following: "The TD is convinced that E/W do not have an agreement." My argument at appeal was that, based on the TD's finding, there was no requirement to alert, hence there was no infraction, hence there should have been no adjustment. In the 2012 case described at the start of this thread, it would appear that there was no agreement about 3♦ and by the same argument, the failure to alert was not an infraction. In the 2010 case, the AC did eventually agree to an adjusted score. Why? One AC member felt strongly that a player would never bid 2♣ after 1♣-(1♥)-? intending it as forcing unless he had some reason to believe that partner would take it as forcing, and that reason was probably an explicit or implicit partnership understanding. This seems like a reasonable argument. Now let's look at the 2012 case again. When South bid 3♦ how did she suppose that North would work out that her bid was not showing diamonds? Based on partnership understanding? Probably not, because it's unlikely that the sequence or anything like it had come up before. Based on general bridge knowledge? Probably yes. To put in another way, if I had been South in the 2012 case, I would equallly bid 3♦ whether playing with a first time partner or with a partner I have been playing with for the last decade. On the other hand, I would only bid 1♣-(1♥)-2♣ intending it as forcing if I had specifically agreed to play it as such with that partner.

Personally I would regard the "taking blatant advantage of UI" to be the unsporting behaviour.

After a 2+ 1♣ opening, it can clearly workd out badly to raise to 2♣ with "only" 4-card support, so it can be handy to us double to show a hand with values but no convenient bid. After a natural 1♦ (or natural 1♣) opening, opener can just raise the minor with 4-card support, and on (depending on style) some hands with 3-card support also. Thus Responder can normally find something to bid, so the "values but no convenient bid" hands are a lot less frequent. Maybe that's the second reason, or maybe I'm just expressing the first reason in a different way. This misunderstanding must be quite common. It happened against me a couple of months ago and the opponents ended up in 6NT-8! I never found out what the actual agreement was, but there's does seem to be an obvious advantage to natural methods.

Do you no longer favour opening 2♦ on these 18-19 balanced hands?

What was the score?

You make some good points. I've been on a couple of ACs where we have had an observer at the request of the Chief TD. In each case, the observer was a trainee TD who was able to gain an insight into the appeals process.

Not necessarily. The most important feature of the location for an appeal is that it is somewhere quiet, so that the appeal can be heard without external distractons.

Yes, this is AI to East and West, but not to North/South Law 20F gives each player the right, without placing any obligation, to ask questions about the opponents' partnership understandings at his or her turn to call. Law 16A1 says that "A player may use information in the auction or play if: ....... [c) it is information specified in any law or regulation to be authorized or, when not otherwise specified, arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws and in regulations (but see B1 following);......" The "B1 following" (Law16B1) relates to "Extraneous Information from Partner" A question asked in accordance Law 20F arises from the legal procedures authorised in Law, so that is authorised information unless the question (or failure to do so) is by partner. This is just as well, really. Laws 16B & 73C tell me what to fo it I have UI from partner. Law 16C tells me what to so if I have UI from an outside source. But there is no Law that tells me how I shouls handle UI received from an opponent's actions. Yes, it might do, but East might reason that North/South might have a fair idea what 2♦ means anyway. On the other hand, if East inferred that South did not realise 2♦ to show diamonds, then East would presumably be more likely to assume that South had diamonds for her 3♦ bid, in the event that it had been correctly described as "no agreement". In that case, we might conclude little or no damage from South's failure to correct "yes, all natural" to "no agreement".