jallerton

[hv=pc=n&s=sj2hjt8daj863cj76&w=sq65h6542dq94ct32&n=sakt84h93dtca9854&e=s973hakq7dk752ckq&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sd1n(alerted)p3cdp3hppp]399|300[/hv] This recently played hand (in England, screens not in use) was reported to me by the West player. South's 1NT bid was systemically a transfer to clubs, but South forgot the agreement and intended his 1NT bid as natural. North did remember the agreement and duly alerted the 1NT bid. The hand was played out in 3♥ and declarer drifted a couple off, N/S +100. The TD was called. The TD ruled that the table result should stand. The basis of the TD's ruling was that although South's Pass over 3♥ may have been an infraction, there was no damage from the infraction as (according to Deep Finesse) ten tricks are available for North/South in both clubs and spades. East/West appeal on the basis that: South's Pass in an apparently forcing auction looks very strange; it's not clear what contract would be reached if South had bid on; and If she had been left to declare 4♠or 4♣, North might not have played for the actual favourable lie of the cards. South (who can probably recite Law 73C word for word) stated that he knew he was in possession of unauthorised information, but didn't know what the UI suggested. He also observed that East had bid strongly. How would you rule if you were on the AC?

I'll bid 3♣ on any of the hands I consider to be worth a game force opposite what partner has shown. Quite a few of these look like game forces opposite 8-10 but the quality of the pips could make a difference in some of these cases. As explained on one of your other recent threads, if I have anything less than a game force, I'll start with 2♣; I shan't miss game very often as partner has an easy false preference available if he is non-minimum with a doubleton spade (partner can't be non-minimum with 1-3 in the blacks as that hand would start with redouble).

I prefer to play 2NT as an unspecified mini-splinter. Partner can bid 3♣ to ask if he wants to know which shortage. With a 'pickup' partner I wouldn't assume any particular meaning. I would make a guess based on the rest of our basic system/agreements.

With an invitational hand Opener can: Raise to 2NT with a balanced or semi-balanced hand jump to 3♠ to invite with 6 (or 7) spades bid a second suit at the 2-level, then bid again on the next round over partner's raise or (possibly false) preference bid.

If you think this rule should be interpreted in the way you suggest, why on this thread have you posted the AC's written comments and (at least implicity) criticised the lack of detail in explaining the AC's decision? If your partner thinks this rule should be interpreted in the way you suggest, why has she made a public criticism of the AC in the opening post of this thread? Moreover, it's not as if she has given anonymity to the people she has criticised. In a couple of other recent threads, the opening poster was widely reprimanded for giving away identifying information about the parties involved.

In what sense did we disagree? Even if you couldn't be bothered to read all of the details (somewhat disappointing given that you were person who asked the original question!), the "I agree with Gnasher" phrase at the beginning should have been a clue.

As redouble is available for stronger hands, a 9-count would be a maximum, not a minimum for 1NT. Since when has a take-out double implied 13HCP? In my view, it makes little sense to play 3♣ as a 1-round force. What's partner supposed to do on a 2443 minimum? Bid 3NT which is game anyway, or choose to play in a 7-card fit at the 3-level? Surely you should either play 3♣ as game forcing or as invitational, non-forcing, though in the latter case you need another way to deal with the game forcing hands.

Good point, I got my words the wrong way round, now corrected (I think). I clearly need someone to proof-read my posts at this time of night!

What's the "EBU L&A Committee"? Does that stand for English Bridge Union Logical Alternatives Committee? If the UI demonstrably suggested passing over bidding on then your partner's Pass was of course illegal unless Pass was the only logical alternative. Sometimes a TD/AC will disagree with a player's judgement about whether a particular non-suggested action was a logical alternative or not. Slight differences in bidding judgement are part of bridge, so a rectification score adjustment does not necessarily imply that the player has knowingly breached Law 73C. However, if, in the opinion of the AC, Pass was not even a logical alternative, then any argument to the effect that Pass was the only logical alternative would seem to be way off the mark. In that regard, I can understand why the AC would be minded to issue a procedural penalty.

Yes, unless there has been a specific partnersip agreement to the contrary, Responder's bids should have the same meaning as in an uncontested auction. It's still possible for the opening side to have game on here.

a) I play 1NT as conventional with some partners, but when 1NT is natural, it shows about the same strength as an uncontested Acol 1NT response (though the lower limit is a smidgen stronger, as partner will be getting another bid now anyway). Ergo, opener's rebids are the same as after 1M-Pass-1NT-Pass. In the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a jump in a new suit over 1NT is normally played as natural and game forcing. So the minimum would be about an 18-count if 5-4 in the two suits; a little less in terms of high cards if more distributional. The maximum would be a hand just short of a 2♣ Opener, although if playing Acol Twos, those hand types are obviously also excluded. b) I agree with Gnasher. In this sequence, Opener can Pass and bid his suit on the next round to show a stronger version, but as even a direct bid of 2♣/♦ would tend to suggest 5/5, a direct 3♣/♦ bid sounds like 6/5. I suspect this should be forcing, or only passable with a complete misfit.

Since you mention it, most of the posts to this topic belong in other threads. Perhaps one of the moderators could set up a new thread about announcements in response to 1NT and move most of the replies there. It's a shame because the original poster has raised an interesting issue.

As you say, "in theory". Perhaps that is what Bluejak means by "all that BLML stuff". I suspect it would take a Lamfordian construction to come up with a hand where anyone might try to, and succeed in, gaining from knowing this information. Quite apart from anything else, how would the player even know that the cards had not been shuffled or other disturbed from the play order at the previous table?

I agree with Ed's basic reasoning. If the TD adjusts for the second infraction, then the effect of his adjustment becomes irrelevant once he also adjusts for the first infraction. Therefore, for East/West the TD should assign a score (or weighted scores, if appropriate) based on the normal consequence of their infraction, i.e. what would/might have happened if 1NT had been alerted. However, when assigning a score for North/South, the TD also needs to consider Law 12C1b: As far as the first infraction is concerned, North/South is the non-offending side. The failure by North and/or South to comply with the UI laws is a wild action and is subsequent to the (first) infraction. Thus North/South should be denied redress to the extent that any of their illegal calls has disimproved their partnership's expected score, considering the effect of each illegal call separately. The TD should also consider procedural penalties for North/South.

I hand out DPs to both pairs for the two rude comments above. This penalties are automatic in EBU events under a code known as "BB@B".

But Law 7C is a "Secretary Bird" Law which is of no practical use except when the board has been passed out or perhaps when there has been a claim at trick 1. After a hand has been played out, the main reason for you shuffling your cards is to comply with this Law; it doesn't help in this regard if your partner shuffles your cards.

OK then, how does 4♥ make an overtrick? I don't think the TD should consider a low club opening lead from West, as apart from being of dubious merit, such a lead would appear to be a breach of Law 73C.

Why? As far as I can see, there is no Law which requires, or even permits, declarer to shuffle dummy's cards. On the other hand, Law 7C seems to require you (dummy) to return to the table to shuffle your own cards at the end of the play period.

How do N/S make 650 in 5♥? If you are "disallowing" the 5♣ bid, shouldn't you be considering the play in 4♥? As a TD I would start by: (i) ascertaining how many tricks were made in 5♣x; and (ii) polling peers of West over 4♥. What was the form of scoring?

It depends on what they have agreed to do in this situation. Both count and attitude are potentially useful here. I can't think of anything specific about this hand to suggest that count is right. If the opening leader has AJxxx or similar and declarer rises with the king, he wants to know: (i) has partner got the queen? (Attitude signals will help to answer this). (ii) is the suit cashing from the top? (A count signal might help to answer this, but there again it might not: if partner plays a highish spot card, we might not be able to distinguish between 2 and 4.) By the way, if a queen wins in dummy, the location of the jack will often be known by inference or may not be of much interest to the opening leader, so count is usually going to be relatively more useful. I like Smith Peters but it might not be possible to rely on such a signal here: partner may have a singleton (or an ambiguous doubleton) in the suit led.

I agree. When I visited a Scottish congress last month, I was pleased to see that the blank SBU convention cards available outside the playing area looked a lot closer to the EBU20A than the EBU20B.

I disagree. In my expereience, most players are able to summarise the key features of their system in a sentence or two. By contrast, even if my opponents have mananged to bring both copies of the unfortunately designed EBU20B, which apparently considers the responses to 1NT the most important area to disclose, I have to look on two different pages just to work out what opening bids they are playing! Many players find it helpful to know their opponents' no-trump range on all of the hands where they do not open 1NT!

There's not much point in redoubling unless you are intending to respect a penalty double of 2♦ from partner. Given your hand, it is far more likely that the opponents will choose your doubleton that one of your 5-card suits. Even when they do choose one of your 5-card suits, "stupid" partner will often rebid spades or introduce his diamond suit before you have a chance to double. By the way, I think that it is fairly clear to double 2♦ for penalties on Opener's hand. Those top cards scream "defend", the singleton heart means that any high cards partner has in the suit will be better for defending than declaring, and the auction and lack of spade pips suggest that there could be several spade losers playing in 3NT or 4♠.

The idea of using 2♥ and higher bids as to play is fine, but if 2♣ asks for 4-card majors, you should use 2♦ to ask for something else, for example 3-card majors. Gerben's "condensed transfers" make a lot more sense than so-called "forcing Stayman", in my opinion.

By the way, if you are playing a mini NT, why use your two cheapest bids in response to ask for the same information?