jallerton

Even better!

Don't worry, I suggested that to the L&EC at the same time, but that idea was rejected as well. It's good to read that this is alertable in Germany, The Netherlands, USA and Canada.

Not quite. The Law says that the RA gets to specify the manner in which partnership understandings are to be disclosed. That doesn't necessarily mean that the manner specified by the RA is "proper" or adequate.

Your partner is right that if you always ask in this position then the fact that you have asked does not provide any UI. However, if you already know (or think you already know!) the meaning of the alerted call, then there is no need to ask. When you don't ask, the only UI provided to partner is that you (think you) know the meaning of the opponent's call already. It does not give partner any UI about the contents of your own hand and consequently does not put him under ethical pressure. The only problem you might have with this practice is when someone asks for a ruling not realising that you always ask independent of the contents of your own hand. "Always ask" is still officially not recommended by the EBU. By the way, it is not just the defending side which becomes disadvantaged by the rules. I sometimes play transfer responses to 1♣ and have had the auctions: 1♣(alerted)-Pass-1♥(alerted, no questions asked)-1♠ = natural; whilst for the same opponents: 1♣(alerted)-Pass-1♥(alerted, asked and explained as 4+ spades)-1♠ = take-out of spades. One suggestion I made to the EBU L&E a few years ago was to abolish alerts on the first round of auction and to have a rule that all conventional calls on the first round are replaced by a brief announcement instead. So here it would go: 1♣(announced as "could be 2")-Pass-1♥(announced as 4+ spades). Now everyone knows what's going on immediately and a lot of time and hassle is saved.

Before August 2006, there was a requirement in England for the pairs to tell each other their basic systems at the start of each round. This normally took about five seconds. Since August 2006, this requirement has been abolished. Yes, the only requirement now is to exchange convention cards but I do not consider this to be a "proper way to disclose". In practice: 1. A lot of players do not look at the opposing convention cards. 2. When all four players do look at the opposing convention cards, this takes much longer than the simple verbal exchange of information. This is a particular issue for players who like to use up the whole of the time allowed for the round for the bidding and play. 3. It is common for at least one of the four convention cards to be missing (some partnerships did not start with two convention cards and even when they did: EW: "I left it at another table"; NS: "an opponent has walked off with my covention card"). 4. Worse still, sometimes a previous opponent's convention card is left at this table resulting in an unfortunate misunderstanding.

The other contestants' scores are going to be Neuberged anyway as soon as this table has not obtained a result on the board.

In another thread asking about the existing Laws: The current Law 16C says: Suppose that pair A (perhaps the playing TD referred to above) cannot play 2 of its scheduled 24 boards. The pair has averaged 65% on the other 22 boards of the session. Awarding an artificial score of 50% on two unplayed boards in a round artificially reduces their overall score to say 63.75%. In the same movement there is a scheduled sitout for some of the other pairs. One such pair, pair B also averages 65% on the 22 boards it actually plays, and Pair B ends up with a final score of 65%, 1.25% ahead of Pair A. Presumably PrecisionL's idea of "not played" means awarding the pair 0 matchpoints out of 0 for this board, i.e. the contestant's overall percentage is determined solely by reference to the matchpoints scored divided by the maximum available on the boards actually played. This sounds like an excellent idea to me. Wouldn't it be better if the Laws allowed for this?

If you used this authority, would knowledge of this defender's cards be authorised or unauthorised to (i) the other defender; (ii) declarer? If authorised information to both, declarer and one of the defenders will be playing the hand double dummy. Will your judgement of "normal play" depend on whether declarer takes a normal (single dummy) line rather than a double dummy line (and the other defender, similarly)?

Interesting. The L&EC advised you to disclose the 6322 13-counts but not the 5332 14-counts. Also the "we don't specify the exact form of words which must be used" seems to be in contradiction with the wording of the Orange Book quoted above. Maybe you could announce your 1NT opening as "15-17 or Rule of 22".

I call him back.

Law 16D2 refers to "an offending side" and "the non-offending side". Which is the non-offending side here? Or is the withdrawn 1♦ bid unauthorised to both sides?

Did the TD ask East to explain the reason for the 2♥ bid and pass out of 3♠? If so, what was the reply?

Now this is getting confusing. The "auction" is over but the "auction period" is not.

It's all a matter of timing. I know that some organisations have twisted the wording of Law 25A, but I always like to read the Law itself. When was the intended call made? If, as seems quite likely, the 'stop' bidder had reached the stage of taking some bidding cards out of his bidding box before his partner had fiddled with the Bridgemate then he is still in the "until his partner has called" period. However, reading further in to Law 25A we get to: Law 22 says: The OP says that this was the "final" round of the auction, suggesting that someone had already made a bid. Thus it appears that the Bridgemate user's antics are a red herring: there had already been three passes (the second of which was unintended) and the auction is over.

OK, my previous post was (obviously?) incomplete or unclear. North/South can infer that either: the explanation of "take out" was incomplete; or the explanation of "take out" was unclear; or the explanation of "take out" may have been the extent of the E/W agreement, but their agreement of the meaning of continuations was incomplete. If they care, the best way for North/South to find out which of these applies is to ask a follow-up question.

Literally, a take-out double is a double which partner is expected to take out, i.e. remove to another contract. Thus all you can infer from the original explanation is that East is not expected to pass 1NTx. Perhaps it is, but if North/South are reasonably experienced they should know to ask a follow-up question after an obviously incomplete or unclear explanation. I could not find any definition of "take out" on the ACBL website, but here in England we have the following definition: This definition does not really envisage a take-out double being made of a NT bid, but if the auction (1♠)-P-(1NT)-dbl crops up I describe it as "take-out of spades". On the auction shown in the opening post, perhaps "take-out" was the full extent of the E/W agreement with East and West having slightly different ideas as to what suits lengths were implied by the subsequent bidding.

Thanks for the replies. I was South. In the event, as soon as the TD arrived at the table and saw the auction, he asked West to talk to him away from the table. I don't know what was said, but when they returned to the table the TD explained that the bid was being changed to 3♦ without penalty. The evidence available to me was that West had taken a long time to select his call and that once he had placed the 2♦ call on the table, he looked down at his bidding cards for several seconds before anybody said anything. Hence, it appeared to me, that had he intended to have taken the 3♦ call out of the bidding box in the first place, he would have noticed that he was looking at the wrong bidding card (afterwards, I discovered that my partner had come to the same conclusion). However, as the TD had already conveyed his ruling to the table, it seemed that making this point to the TD now would be inappropriate, as it would give the appearance of arguing with his ruling. I know that some authorities recommend otherwise, but speaking as the player's opponent, I approve of the sentiment that it should be unusual to take the player away from the table.

Only if the player claims to have mispulled do they get another chance. With bidding, it is irrevocable (apart from self-declaration of mispulls and other unconscious acts) when you remove it from the box.

Re question 1, is there a recommended standard form of wording for the TD to use when asking the question?

The following start to an auction occurred at my table yesterday: North 1♥ East: 3♣ South: Pass West: 2♦ For a couple of seconds, all four players seemed to stare at West's 2♦ bidding card. Then East tapped on his own 3♣ bidding card and East now pulled out 3♦ and placed it on top of the 2♦ bid. North/South now called the director. A few questions: 1. Suppose you are the TD. In order to attempt to determine whether or not the 2♦ call was "unintended", what exactly do you say to whom? 2. Do any of the players have the right to tell the TD why they believe the call was, or was not, unintended? 3. The TD has to make a judgement as to whether or not the call was unintended. Do the players have the right to appeal against this judgement? 4. If such right of appeal is available, are North/South entitled to know the exact wording of any discussion away from the table between the TD and West?

I agree that the person giving the verbal explanation has committed an infraction, but what do you expect the screenmate to do? Is the failure to wear earplugs an infraction?

Interesting. To extend this principle, suppose Responder is 1444. Are you suggesting that the auction might start 1♠-2♣-2♠-3♦? If so, it would be dangerous for Opener to ever give preference to 4♣.

Bid naturally, or cue bid to show a game force and ask for a stop. Sometimes Responder can pass the double, of course. 2♠

Your are confusing "Acol", a general approach to bidding which has been around for over 75 years with "Standard English", a system devised about 15 years ago by Sandra Landy, intended to be a standard system to be taught to beginners. Acol can be played with a weak or strong NT opening (the most popular version of original Acol used both: weak NT when not vulnerable and strong NT when vulnerable). In common with the Acol "bid what you like" principle, if outside the 1NT opening range it is quite possible to open 1♦ or 1♥ on the quoted hand. 1♦ is more scientific as it leaves the partnership more room to find a fit. I agree with other posters: I would pass after 1♦/♥-P-1NT-P (this is not going to make 9 tricks too often on the likely spade lead) and I would double to show a strong NT type hand after 1♦/♥-P-1♠-2♣. If you play weak NT, it's useful to have a call available to show a strong NT having opened 1 of a suit and support doubles are a lot less useful.

I think you are asking slightly the wrong question. The anomalies of Butler scoring arise from the use of the "datum" score in the IMPing, not because the IMP scale being used is wrong per se. For example, consider a 20 table Butler Pairs event, in which the datum is calculated by throwing out the top and bottom scores and then averaging the rest. On Board 2, a routine cold 4♠ contract, 19 North/South pairs score +620. The other N/S declarer has a blindspot in the play, 4♠-1 and scores -100. The datum is +620, the first 19 pairs score 0 IMPs and the pair in 4♠-1 ends up with -12 IMPs. Board 4 is also a routine 4♠ contract, reached by every North/South pair. This time 10 Norths make the contract exactly, scoring +620. The other 10 Norths misguess a 2-way finesse and record 4♠-1 for -100. This time, the datum is +260, the first 10 pairs score +8 IMPs and the pairs in 4♠-1 ends up with -8 IMPs. So going off in 4♠ on board 4 costs 16 IMPs, whilst going off on board 2 costs 'only' 12 IMPs. If you normalise/fiddle the IMPs scale to reduce the swing on board 4 to (say) the intuitive vulnerable game swing figure of 12 IMPs then you will also reduce the swing on board 2. Ideally the swings for going off in 4♠ should be the same on the two boards. My solution would be to use a real score, not a mean average score, for the 'datum'. The real score could be the modal (most common) score on the board, the median score or even double dummy par. Whichever of these is used, the IMPs will be more akin to the IMP swings one might expect at teams-of-four, the form of scoring for which the IMPs scale was devised. It does not matter if the modal scores are duly favourable or unfavourable to N/S, as each N/S pair is comparing its IMP scores against the IMP scores of the other pairs in the same direction.