jallerton

It has to be a direct 3NT overcall here. How often do you have a double stop in their suit? Playing in spades, we shan't be making any extra tricks from ruffing diamonds in dummy. If you double then bid 3♠ over 3♥ the chance of partner being able to bid 3NT is not much more than 0%. Double then bid 3NT over 3♥ is an improvement, but partner will pull too often as she'll be under the impression that you hold at most a single stop (I might bid this way with something like ♦Qx or singleton ♦K). Over the 3NT overcall, I prefer to play: 4♣ Enquiry, asking about hand type 4♦ Flint: sign off in game somewhere 4♥/4♠/5♣: Natural, constructive In my view, Flint is superior to transfers here as if you play the latter, the 3NT overcaller has to guess whether or not to break the transfer on a reasonable hand. In theory, the responses to the 4♣ enquiry should be different over each 3-level opener, but to keep things simple, we bid 4NT with a minimum balancedish hand, cue with a good balancedish hand or bid a new suit with a source of tricks there.

Careful, Jeremy. It would be particularly embarrassing if you were to be "called before an ethics committee" as Ed puts it.

Although my question was addressed to PaulG, i'm happy for it to be answered by any Paul, Stefanie or Andy. Can you name any WBF competitions where this has been the case?

A few thoughts: 1. The TD should ascertain whether, from North's point of view, 4♦ would be a retransfer. If yes, the TD should ask North why this call was not selected. 2. Interestingly, if North does bid 4♦ showing, from South's point of view, a single-suited slam try in diamonds South would probably now bid 4♥ (whether it is Kickback or just a cue bid). North would probably pass this. 3. If North/South reach slam, it is quite likely to make (unless a plausible auction to 6♦ can be constructed!) . If South is declarer, a minor suit lead gives away the contract immediately. On a passive lead, in most variations, West will end up being squeezed in the minors.

Can you name any WBF competitions which are played without screens, Paul?

As to the ruling itself, it's always worthwhile looking at the relevant Laws. As there was no instruction to the contrary by the Director, Law 20F required explanations to be given by the partner of the bidder. Whilst, it is commonly agreed that East didn't understand everything North meant by his explanation of South's 4♣ bid, I believe that East understood (correctly) the meaning of South's bid: that 4♣ was an asking bid which did not show anything in particular. North's duty is to explain the meaning of South's calls. It is not North's duty to explain the meaning of his own prospective calls. The problem in this case arose because East did not know or understand the meaning of North's 4♥ bid. This was principally because: (i) a single-suiter in hearts was one of the likely hand types for a 2♦ opener, so it is natural (especially for those who do not play complicated conventions themselves) to assume that a subsequent 4♥ bid shows hearts. (ii) 4♥ was not alerted. (iii) East did not ask South to explain the meaning of North's 4♥ bid. Perhaps one of the L&E members in favour of not alerting surprising conventional bids can confirm, but it appears that there is an onus on East to ask about all calls above 3NT if the meanings thereof may affect her actions. If this is the case, then it seems that it East is the only person who could have acted differently to ascertain the meaning of 4♥, so we have to rule no misinformation from South and no adjustment.

Did you mean to use the plural of "advantage"? The L&EC minutes did not record why the decision was taken to stop alerting over 3NT. I presume that the rationale was to reduce UI to the bidding side when it has had a misunderstanding (I cannot think of any other advantages, but maybe Gordon or Jeremy can enlighten us). However, this unfortunate practice can give (different) problems to their opponents. If the rules cannot protect both sides, why should they favour the side that does not know its own methods?

You decided that there was an infraction and that East would not have bid 4♠ had the infraction not incurred. On this basis East's bid was directly related to the infraction. Thus it can't possibly be a "serious error (unrelated to the infraction)". I don't think having a misunderstanding over a sequence your partnership has never seen before can count as "wild or gambling" either. By the way, South hasn't promised particular length in both majors. He could be 2-2 in the majors with a strong hand if a weak 2 typically delivers a 6-card suit.

Why are you so reluctant to comment? We would value being able to read your views on Laws & Rulings more often.

Perhaps a more relevant analogy would be a 2♣ Stayman response to a 1NT opener. If that is described as "asks partner to transfer to his 4-card major, if any", how would/should this be interpreted?

This was the full deal. [hv=pc=n&s=s6h6da632cakqt842&w=saqjt8hk98dj98c63&n=sk97432h754dktc75&e=s5haqjt32dq754cj9&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1sp2h(Forcing%20to%202S)5cppdppp]399|300[/hv] The winning defence is indeed to play a spade to partner's ace and for partner to play a trump back. Whilst it's true to say that I spotted this at the table, I have to admit that I was the declarer which made it somewhat easier! In practice a trump was played at trick 2 and I followed the line suggested by Justin. It was good teamwork by BBO forum posters to come up with the correct line of defence, but I'd have been very impressed if my opponents had found the winning defence at the table. Interestingly, as Andy hints, had the ♦10 been swapped with ♦2, the contract could still have been made even on the recommended defence. It's a pretty ending. After a spade to the ace and a trump back, declarer runs the trumps without attempting a ruff in dummy. In the 4-card end position, West has to hold on to two spades so can only keep two red cards. If he bares ♦J his partner is exposed to a 2nd round diamond finesse. Alternatively, if he keeps 2 diamonds he has to abandon hearts. Now ♦ to the K, ♠K squeezes East in the red suits.

As you play this 4♣ bid yourself, David, please can you let us know exactly how you describe this 4♣ bid when it comes up?

Assuming that we play a double of 2♦ as showing diamonds, partner would have to be the one sleeping to have chosen a diamond lead from a 4=1=4=4 hand.

In fact, someone had already said something about this. You had!

This was an Acol sequence. 2♥ was forcing to 2♠ so partner's pass was non-forcing. If partner had doubled 5♣ that would have been penalties. If anyone doesn't like the double they should pretend that this is a defensive problem against 5♣ undoubled!

[hv=pc=n&n=sk97432h754dktc75&e=s5haqjt32dq754cj9&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1sp2h5cppdppp]266|200[/hv] IMPs. Partner leads ♥8, you win the ace and declarer follows with the 6. What do you play at trick 2 and why?

Surely it's a matter of judgement whether this hand is worth a game force or not. In my judgement it isn't worth a game force, but if both partners think it is and both keep the auction going to at least the level of game with a 0-count opposite then who are we to argue? If they describe it as game forcing and then proceed to have the auction 2♣-2♦-3♦-Pass, then that's a different matter.

If you had challenged them on this point, Gordon, I suspect the pollees would have admitted this meant at least 5-6 in the majors. The TD has to rule based on the available facts, and I agree that the absence of an alert of 3♠ is significant.

As I understand it, a new version of the Laws is published every ten years or so. It seems that, sometimes, footnotes are added to the existing Laws. Is the purpose of these footnotes merely to clarify something in the original version of the Laws? Or can a footnote be used to change the original meaning?

Fluffy, you forgot to mention your own excellent posts. Mike, you didn't mention your own excellent analysis. Justin, you didn't mention your own contributions, which must win on sheer volume of instructive information. I knew we could rely on somebody to mention himself!

Are N/S appealing against the adjustment, the penalty or both? What is their stated basis of appeal? Whilst it is true that the explanation is inadequate, it's not clear that it should be interpreted the way West did. On this auction, two suits have been "bid": clubs and hearts, so there is some sense in which "the other two suits" are diamonds and spades. If two suits had been shown, then "the other two suits" could easily be referring to the two unshown suits. However, in this case, there is only one "shown" suit as far as I can see: Responder has shown 4+ spades whilst Opener has not shown any suit. Of course Opener may have long clubs for his 1♣ opening, but there again he may not. Consider this similar situation. North/South play a variant of Precison Club. North opens 1♦, 0+ diamonds in their system. East overcalls 2NT, described by West as "the lowest two unbid suits". As South, do you: (i) assume East has ♣+♥; (ii) assume East has ♣+♦ ; or (iii) ask West which two suits he actually means?

That's not correct, Stefanie. Law 16B1 defines the term: In England, further guidance is available from the EBU White Book: As per the above interpretation, 5% is not a significant proportion, so the 5% action is not a logical alternative.

Really? Last week, I looked through the convention cards from the 24 pairs whose teams made it through to the quarter finals. According to my counting, 16 of these pairs played as penalty orientated and the other 8 played double as showing some sort of 2-suiter or 1-suiter.

In Germany, if a defender does ask his partner about a possible revoke, are there any standard penalties and/or rectification procedures?

If you have no idea if either of your proposed adjustments would be legal, perhaps you ought to reconsider your use of the word "so".