jallerton

A few old-fashioned players use double as penalties here, but it's more common these days to play double as take-out: extra values and no clear bid.

6NT was selected at the table. Partner held x AK10xxx QJ8x Jx so 6NT was the right contract. Hearts and clubs were both 3-2 so all three slams were making on the actual layout. At the other table, the auction was 2♥(8-11)-3♣-3♦-3♠-4♣-4NT-5♦-6♣-Pass

That's a good suggestion. Would you mind passing that on to the WBFLC?

What was partner's hand exactly?

1♠, then 4♠ when partner competes to 3♠.

It's very close so whether I bid 5♣ or 6♣ it will be very reluctant. If you force me to choose, I'll go for 5♣. There will be a trump loser more often than people think. Like Fluffy, I am curious about the lack of spade bidding. Partner may even have made an off-shape double holding 3 spades in which case he presumably has 4 hearts and that does not leave so much room for the minor suit cards we need.

I find this difficult to believe. It seems clear that the lawmakers intended "unrelated to the infraction" to attach to (only) "serious error" because they have gone out of their way to order the words in the way they did. In fact a construction of the type you suggest: "has contributed to its own damage by a serious error or by wild or gambling action (unrelated to the infraction)" is ambiguous as it is not clear whether the wording in brackets relates to the part preceding the "or" or not.

I am less enthusiastic about 6♣ than everybody else. Whilst 6♣ is virtualy cold opposite: ♠xx ♥Kxxx ♦KJxx ♣AQx, partner could have: ♠xx ♥Kxx ♦Kxxx ♣AQJx which requires a 3-3 diamond break or a red suit squeeze. Partner could also have any of: ♠xx ♥Qxxx ♦KJxx ♣AQJx ♠Kx ♥KQxx ♦Kxxx ♣QJx ♠xx ♥KQxx ♦KJ10xx ♣Ax when 6♣ is virtually no play.

What do you have in mind by "anything else with a small time limit"? Suppose a TD observes that there has been an insufficent bid by the last player to call. Does he say nothing until the next player has called? Suppose a TD observes that a defender has exposed a card which ought to be classified as a penalty card. Does he say nothing? That doesn't sound like rectifying the irregularity to me.

I disagree. OB 5G3h says one should not alert "An ostensibly natural new suit rebid that may on occasion only contain three cards". As I understand it, this covers situations like bidding (uncontested) 1♦-1♠-2♥ on say Axx AQx AK10xxx x ,which many players would bid playing with any partner, discussed or not. On the other hand, if a pair agrees to play a forcing 1NT response, Opener is forced by the system to bid 2♣ on a 5323 or a 5233 shape. These represent a singificant proportion of 2♣ rebids in this sequence. I play this system with one partner. My opponents might reasonably expect an unalerted 2♣ bid to show 4+ clubs in this sequence, and I therefore alert 2♣ when it comes up.

I agree that partner is quite likely to hold ♥AK, but even if this is the case and hence she lacks ♦A, she will probably hold ♦Q to make up her opening bid. Even if she doesn't hold ♦AQ, it will not be at all obvious for LHO to lead ♦A against 6NT if he is the owner of that card.

When you say 5NT is "choice of slams", do you mean choice of small slams? If so, how do you plan to get to a grand slam? It's not obvious that partner will also cue ♦A over 3♥ on your auction. I wouldn't have chosen 3♥ myself, but the player who bid it explained his reasoning to me. He wanted to be in a grand slam (presumably 7NT) opposite ♥AK and ♦A and a nice simple way to find out about this is to agree hearts then use RKCB. He was concerned that if he bid something else, it might become harder to find out about ♥AK and ♦A later. In an ideal world, you want to be able to find out all of: 1. Whether partner has ♥J and/or a 7th heart 2. Whether partner has ♣J 3. How many clubs partner has. 4. Whether partner has ♦A 5. Whether partner has ♦Q 6. Whether partner has ♠Q Maybe a series of relays would help. In the absence of a relay system I would bid a natural 2♠, but I would not be confident that I would be able to find out everything I needed to know.

If you don't like Pass over 3♦, try writing down a few possible hands for partner and consider what your side is making opposite such hands. If partner is short in diamonds (as seems likely) then he will strain to reopen with shortness. If he passes out 3♦ then he'll usually be lacking in the high card department and there will usually be at least 4 losers in hearts. Meanwhile, with 4 likely defensive tricks, we only need one from partner to go plus against 3♦. If he has a doubleton ♦ the defence will normally start wih a diamomd to the ace and a ♦ ruff then it will be a struggle to make 4♥. Curiously, the only time when bidding 3♥ might lead to an otherwise unreachable 4♥ is when partner had ♦xxx in diamonds and the opening leader with a diamond void cannot reach his partner's hand. However, even then we rate to get +300 or so and the loss is restricted to 3 IMPs. Much more likely is that bidding will just convert a plus score into a minus one.

Would he? What would he expect you to do over that on a minimum hand with 2-3 or 1-3 in the majors? It seems better to double for take-out on hands with 4 hearts and to preserve 2♥ for hands with 5 hearts.

In fact the auction at the table was Pass-Pass-1NT[15-17]-Pass-3NT-All Pass. The opponents play strong club and open most balanced 11-counts or equivalent.

It's relevant for assessing whether damage exists (see my IMPing example above). That might be true in some sequences where there is no conceivable meaning for a bid. But here where Opener has shown 23+ balanced (with no uppoer limit apparently) there are various possible reasons why Opener might bid 3NT, even if the meaning of the call is undiscussed. What would you assume partner had playing with screens? Anyway, the lack of alert gives North the specific UI that South has interpreted 3♦ as natural. That would not be apparent from AI even if you were certain that partner had not interpreted 3♦ as a standard Jacoby transfer.

That's not strictly true, Gordon. 30mph was the standard limit for built-up areas in the UK, but on thousands of urban streets the speed limit has been cut to 20mph within the last decade. Meanwhile on lots of other roads where the speed limit was 40mph it has been cut to 30mph. I'm struggling to think of any UK roads on which the permanent speed limit has increased during the same period! As far as 'stop' cards are concerned, most players keep the card down for at most 3 seconds. When challenged they claim that they did hold it down for about 10 seconds. When I hold down the 'stop' card for (what I consider to be) 10 seconds I am sometimes reminded by an opponent that I have "forgotten" to pick the 'stop' card up!

The players are not ready to start the auction until they have inspected their cards and assessed their hands.

It depends what hand types bid 1NT. If you play 1♠-P-2♠ as "constructive" so that 1♠-P-1NT includes hands with 3-card support weaker than a raise to 2♠ as well as limit raises, then: 1♠-P-1NT-2♠-dbl(good hand)-2NT-3♠ sounds like the weak raise to 2♠. The limit raise hand can either jump to 4♠ or double 2NT.

So why did you?

Good point, Robin. Perhaps Paul could provide a compilation of these problem hands and send them to the Regulatory Authority for its advice and consideration.

Not correct. The screen regulations I have read direct that the screen is put down before the players take their cards out of the board. I have only come across one player who insists on following this practice (it takes a little longer as the players have to wait for the tray to be on their own side of the screen before they can take out their cards) but that is what the regulations require.

Presumably weighted scores are allowed in Isreal. We need to consider the possible legal auctions and attach and probability to each occuring assuming the UI laws had been adhered to. We then need to consider the likelihood of each possible final contract making. Let's say 6♥ and 6NT are judged equally likely to be reached, with the former making one half of the time and the latter making most of the time. Let's also give some symapthetic weighting to the non-offending side and assume that 6♦ will be reached occasionally. We might end up with something like: 35% of 6NT= by N, N/S +990 +20% of 6♥ by N, N/S +980 +5% of 6NT-1 by N, N/S -50 +20% of 6♥by N, N/S -50 +20% of 6♦-3 by N, N/S -150 We then needs to IMP these potential score with the other table's result of N/S +480. Weighted IMPS 35% of 11 = +3.85 20% of 11 = +2.2 5% of -11 = -0.55 20% of -11 = -2.2 20% of -12 = -2.4 Total weighted IMPS +0.9 As +0.9 IMPS is better than N/S achieved at the table, we conclude (if these weightings are used) that there was no damage from the infraction, so the table result is allowed to stand. We can still give North a PP, of course: that assessment should be independent of any rectification adjustment.

Perhaps the Bulletin misreported the opening lead at the table. West has both black sixes, so perhaps he actually led ♠6. Would the 6 be the systemic lead from ♣1062 for this pair? By the way, it is possible in theory that East would defend differently at trick 2 on a club lead depending on whether he had doubled 2♣. The inferences from the choice of opening lead are different.

It is improper to ask "solely for partner's benefit" (Law 20G). However, it could be argued that if asking here is trying to prevent damage from an opponent's potential irregularity, the question would be for the opponents' benefit (helping to prevent a misinformation adjustment against them later). However, it's a bit deep for the AC to suggest that West (i) ought to conclude that the unalerted 2♣ was Drury; and (ii) ought to take into account the possibility that partner might have doubled an alerted 2♣ Drury bid.