jallerton

Yes, this reads like a rewrite of the Law. However, the new New Zealand "interpretation" is no more illegal than the approach which has been encouraged by the WBFLC and adopted in many other jurisdictions. The wording of the Law: uses "same meaning, or a more precise meaning"; it does not say "similar meaning", The part in brackets say "such meaning being fully contained within"; it does not say "such meaning being mainly contained within..". I agree, but if the WBFLC issues an "interpretation" which is plainly contrary to its own Laws and the Regulatory Authority asks its TDs to adopt this approach, what is the poor TD to do?

This raises the question of whether players should alert a call in a particular sequence against opponent A but not against opponent B, on the basis that the meaning may be "unexpected" to opponent A but not to opponent B. Whilst I think the answer ought to be yes in some situations, I believe that the official EBU answer is no. In the Spring Foursomes, I'm sure that there will be plenty of pairs playing 1M-P-2M as constructive and plenty playing two-over-ones as game forcing. However, I'd be surprised to find anyone else playing Mike's hybrid two-over-one responses.

Yes, in my view. Both have suffciently potentially unexpected meanings. You certainly need to alert one or the other. Any natural and forcing meaning is not alertable.

Not in my view. Consider if the TD thinks there are two tricks that would likely have gone the other way: now look at the wording. Consider the first trick: according to this it gets transferred. Now consider the second trick. Surely the same applies? After the board has been "rescored" for the transfer of the first trick, does the Law allow for the board to be "rescored" again?

To answer my own question, 2♣x was declared at two other tables. Played by East, on a low spade lead, declarer was held to 2 tricks. Played by West, on the inferior lead of ♥A, declarer managed to scramble 3 tricks. At this table, a trump was led through dummy. South will win, put partner in with a major suit ace and North will play another trump, followed by a 3rd round of trumps. Now the only likely results are down 6 (-1700 as E/W are vulnerable) and down 7 (-2000) depending on whether declarer makes a spade trick.

Was the hand played in 2♣x by West at any of the other tables? If so, that will give you an indication of what might have happened at this table, had play continued.

I agree with Gnasher: it depends on what agreements we have got about potentially analogous sequences. What do we play after (1♣)[2+]-1NT-(P)-? What do we play after (1suit)[natural]-P-(P)-1NT-(P)-? What do we play after (1♣)[2+]-P-(P)-1NT-(P)-? If, in the light of our actual agreements, I think that "natural, weak" and "clubs" are both significant possibilities, then I'll bid 2NT. If partner has clubs, he'll bid 3♣ or 3NT. If partner has spades, he might interpret 2NT a natural with a spade fit, but I don't mind that: opposite ♠AJ10xx and litle else, 3NT could easily make, whilst if he has a bad hand with spades, he can sign off in 3♠. 3♣ is another possible call to hedge my bets, although I prefer the more flexible 2NT. The uncertainty about the meaning of 1NT makes life more complicated. If I judge from my partner's question (UI to me, of course) that he might think my 1NT bid is a 2-suiter then perhaps a bid of 2NT now (which "confirms" the natural nature of the 1NT bid) is not permitted by Law 73C. Therefore if I consider 3♣ to be a plausible action, that is the call I should make.

"Could have known" comes into it, because that is the expression used in Law 23: That was an infraction of Laws 73A1 and 73B1 and also Law 73A2 (South's double was not made "without undue hesitation"). The player "could have been aware" that this irregularity could well damage the opposing side, so it is Law 23 which tells us to adjust. It seems to be that because the application of Law 23 has provided indemnnity to the non-offending side, Law 12A1 does not apply, technically speaking.

It is very common for declarer to be down to one card in the suit led at some stage in the play. If declarer breaks tempo in such a situation and a defenders draws the inference that declarer "must" have another card in that suit and is damaged by drawing that false inference, then this Law is clearly relevant.

If the opponents have a 5-4 diamond fit or a 5-4 heart fit, then I assure you that your side will have at least an 8-card fit in another suit.

Players throughout Norway will be relieved to know that a TD call does not lead to an automatic adjustment! It still works for me.

Another (perhaps more serious) disadvantage of that method, Andy, is that you only have the 3♠ puppet and 4-level responses to cover both all minor suit slam tries and all slam tries with 4 spades, not 4 hearts. I suspect you'd be better off putting the slam tries with 4 spades through your otherwise underused 3♣ bid.

Have you ever come across the concept of "breaking the transfer"? Many players would consider excellent support for the suit partner has shown as being a reasonable cause for bidding 2♠.

Compared with 3♣ 4-card Stayman, this method of bidding over 3♣ will sometimes give away less information, but sometimes more. If Responder is merely seeking a 5-card major opposite and Opener holds 4 spades, that information is given away in the sequence 2NT-3♣-3♦-3♥-3♠-3NT. 4th hand gains the ability to double an extra conventional call too. However, I am more concerned that you "like a lot" the idea of 2NT-3♦-3♥-3♠ as "any 5-4/5-5/4-5 in majors". Unless their 2NT opening guarantees 3 cards in each major, or they prefer to play seven card fits in 4major to 3NT, they are going to struggle always getting to the normal game contract after this start.

Did South pull out the 'stop' card before pulling out the 2♦ bid?

What assumptions did you make about the West and North hands in this simulation?

No. As far as misinformation is concerned, the TD should assume that the non-offenders receive a correct explanation of their opponents' methods (imagine that they have access to their opponents' system file). Sometimes when playing with screens one player receives a wrong explanation from his screenmate. The screenmate may use the explanation given and is also entitled to rectification if damaged by the incorrect explanation. However, it does not follow that, when screens are not in use, East is entitled to know North's incorrect explanation of North's own bid; as long as South has explained the bid correctly, there is no misinformation.

It's not in the Laws per se, but the concept of "Imagine there were screens present" is useful in determining what your logical alternatives are based solely on the available authorised information. If you decide that you, and your peers, would not have considered any alternative action to call Y, had you been playing with screens, then the Laws permit to choose action Y when playing without screens, even if you have UI which could demonstrably suggest action Y.

Before asking any of those questions, you should first ask West why he bid 5♦. If he explains that he was cue bidding in support of spades, proceed with your questions above; if instead he admits that he was "using" the UI then your questions are not really relevant.

No, Law 16B would be used if it were judged that North had not obeyed the UI rules. In this case there has been no breach of Law by North. Here, South has (quite possibly deliberately) created UI to the benefit of his own side. I agree with mycroft that Law 23 was created for this sort of situation. Applying the "Probst cheat test", it morally right to adjust, and furthermore the Laws I mentioned above give us a legal basis for adjusting. What more do we need? [if law 23 did not exist, I'd be advocating using Law 12A1 instead!]

Well, we haven't been told who originally posted the hand on the New Zealand TD forum. I think you need to look at the earlier parts of Law 73: Although North would have not realised at the time, South was using tempo to communicate with him. That was an infraction of Laws 73A1 and 73B1. South's double was not made "without undue hesitation". This was a breach of Law 73A2. Having established that these Laws have been breached, use Law 23 to adjust.

No, the "school of thought" in Surrey, The Wirral, Cambridge and elsewhere is that players should dislose their methods properly to the opposition. Mycroft gives an eloquent explanation as to why one might hold a 1=5=5=2 shape and want to make a "take-out" double in this situation; many theorists (including you, I suspect) would regard 3♦ as forcing after 1♣-(1♠)-2♥-(P)-2NT-(P) or 1♣-(1♠)-2♥-(P)-3♣-(P). Yes, xx Axx J9x AKxxx has more defence that some other hands that might bid this way, but the AAK will also be very useful when declaring the hand (and even the diamonds will be pulling their weight if, as we are told by someone who plays double as "take-out" in this position that the second double implies length in diamonds. However, to suggest that this hand with a trump "stack" of a low doubleton is "a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date" is quite amazing. If you are playing the double as showing a balanced hand, or "competitive" or "co-operative", then it is your duty to describe it as such, when asked. In this case, the opening post explains:

This hand (with the cards slightly changed) has already been discussed on this thread started by Gerben.

Yes you are right, I did mean 16A3. I have edited the quote above as suggested, for clarity. It has already been generally agreed earlier in the thread that the UI demonstrably suggests: 3♦ over Pass/3♥/4♥; and Pass over 3♥/4♥; and 3♥ over 4♥. Sorry for not stating this explicity as part of my reasoning.

I am glad to read that you have now come round to the view I was expressing on the very long thread. You can't include both 3♥x and 4♥x (unless you think West would bid 4♥ over 3♥) in your weighting as that would be Reveleyesque.