jallerton

Yes, of course East-West do need access to a North-South system file, but the 1♥ bidder must draw all inferences from the bidding of East, West and South on the assumptions that he own 1♥ bid was natural and explained as such. If you were West, you might come to that conclusion, yes. But if you were North, you would not know (or be allowed to know) that West could know of a possible North/South misunderstanding. Therefore, it would not occur to you that West might be lurking with a strong jump overcall in spades or similar.

As this fine convention was on their convention card, it seems very likely that North was "woken up" by the alert and remembered at that point that they had indeed agreed to play this convention. Law 20 tells us that players have the obligation to explain their partnership agreements to their opponents. This applies even though, for the purposes of his own bidding, partner's alert and explanation are unauthorised information.

You seem to have overlooked the implications from the fact that (for the purposes of his own bidding) South is not allowed to know that they might have had a misunderstanding; therefore he is not allowed to take into account the fact that E/W may be trying to be clever and cater for a N/S misunderstanding. Imagine that screens are in use and that North and South have access to an E/W system file. Responder has bid hearts naturally, his LHO has bid clubs in response to RHO's take-out double and partner has now jumped to 3♠. If RHO really has a strong jump overcall he will surely double 3♠ (whatever 3♠ means).

Bluejak has already stated his view on the case in this thread, Poky. Unfortunately, it got buried in between a lot of fairly irrelevant arguments. In my view, Bluejak tells us exactly the right approach to adopt in this type of case. He said: I asked a player who has partnered both North and South rather more than they have played with each other what possible meanings he attached to 3♠. He said that in competition the only suit(s) in which splinters apply are ones which have been bid by the opponents. [He also mentioned that "serious 3NT" does not imply in competition either.] I suspect that North/South had not explicity discussed the meaning of a jump reverse in competition. A slight variant on Bluejak's bidding question is therefore: if you held this hand playing with screens (or on BBO) and you had no agreement about the meaning of 3♠ what calls do you seriously consider? My answer: given the lack of spade bidding from my opponents (especially these particular opponents) it is virtually impossible that they have ten spades between them, so I am virtually certain that partner has not intended 3♠ as a splinter. The only logical meaning I could come up with is a strong hand with 5 spades and 6 diamonds. Hence the only call I seriously consider is 3NT. The TD ruled that there was no logical alternative to 3NT. We presume therefore that the TD consulted with and/or polled several independent players and found that less than a significant proportion of them seriously considered anything other than 3NT. If I had been considering appealing (or if I had been on the AC) than I would be asking the TD to explain how he arrived at the "no logical alternative" judgement. If his methodology was sound, it is unlikely that an appeal would be (or at least should be) successful.

Suppose that one of North's smaller hearts had been the jack, i.e. declarer does have 13 tricks on top. Would you still give declarer a PP then for failing to state a line of play?

I consider normal play at this level to count your tricks properly before claiming. Presumably at the point when he claimed, South thought that he had 13 winners; in that case it is entirely normal to cash them in any order that doesn't involve leaving stranded winners in one of the hands.

Doesn't it make a difference in what order he cashes his 12 "aces"? Suppose that he plays his 4 real aces at tricks 1 to 4 than plays a heart to the King. Now he is off when East discards on the 2nd heart.

I wonder if the TD made it sufficiently clear to those polled that 3♥ was non-forcing. I can construct some 2NT rebids where it is percentage to bid on over a 3♥ sign-off, but for sure this isn't one of them. The UI does not necessarily imply that Responder considered 3♥ to be forcing. Maybe Responder was deciding between a 3♥ sign-off and an optimistic jump to 4♥ (in which case the slowness of the 3♥ bid suggests bidding on). Could Responder have a weak hand with a 5-card heart suit, say ♥QJ1087 and little else, and be trying to decide which part score out of 2NT and 3♥ is more likely to make? I suspect not.

I like your decision to award the nurse average plus, presumably on the basis that she was not at fault for the board being unplayable. In fact, the nurse is as much at fault for the board being unplayable as is a playing TD in the scenario in this thread and yet you advocate giving the playing TD "A" in that case.

In the 2010 European Championships, two of the three pairs from Israel seem to have been playing 4th highest and MUD. The third Israeli pair was playing "low from 3 or more cards". Convention cards from all participants of that event can be found at:Ostend 2010 Convention Cards

If your agreements against suit contracts include 4th highest from Hxxx and top of a doubleton, then it is probably more awful to: (i) lead low from xxx. You're already leading low from Hxxx, Hxx and (presumably) xxxx. Now if you lead what appears to be the lowest card in your suit, partner can't tell the count (3 or 4) OR the attitude. (ii) lead top from xxx. "Top of nothing" was in vogue about 50 years ago, until people got sick of seeing their partners following suit on the 3rd round when they were hoping to give a ruff. MUD falls within your "mixed signal" category. Partner has more chance of working out the attitude than do users of low from xxx, and more chance of working out the count than do users of "top of nothing".

West can't be 4441 with a singelton club, as the 1♣ opening was natural or balanced. Did anyone ask West what he thought the double of 2♣ meant, I wonder. I suspect West intended it to show clubs and East was not on the same wavelength. If the correct explanation really was "no agreement" then you should only adjust for misinformation is you consider that this misunderstanding would not (or might not) have occurred after a "no agreement" explanation. In normal circumstances, it's fine to use your gut feeling to make some strange bids, as long as you have an understanding partner, of course. Once you have UI, the problem is that the UI has helped you to arrive at your gut feeling. Now it is not acceptable to "keep going with your instinct" unless the calls and plays you make also comply with Laws 16A and 73C.

In that case, with your "other" partner you are playing something close to what is referred to in the U.K. as "2nd and 4th" (your honour leads are different than standard U.K., but that doesn't make any difference). Middle-Up-Down is the best option from xxx to be consistent with your other agreements. It is true that if you play 6 then 8, partner may not be able to tell the difference between H86 and 862 but there is a similar ambiguity if leading the 2 from 972. With Adam, your leading system against suits (3rd and low) is count based, so it makes sense then to lead the lowest from xxx. No leading system is perfect of course, for the simple reason that there are more messages you may wish to convey that there are sequences in which you can play the cards.

I agree. We need to know the rest of Elianna's leading agreements (including any differences between suit and NT contracts) before we can usefully answer the question.

If it was clear that your agreement after a natural 1♣ opening was that 2♣ showed both majors, then why did you tell us yesterday the following?

Many players would expect an intervention to show a better hand at red vs green than at other vulnerabilities. However, it seems that your partner is obviously familiar with your personal style of bidding! I think you are being naive if you draw such inferences from your opponents' failure to alert doubles, particularly when the meaning you infer is an unusual one. In fact, even if you knew the opponents to be avid readers of the EBU Orange Book, I'm not sure that you are even technically correct: As there is no agreement about the 2♣ bid showing clubs, I don't think that 2♣ "shows the suit bid" and hence (d) should apply; i.e. a double showing clubs is not alertable.

If your partner (North) leads a spade against 3NT, isn't that likely to let the contract through? East will presumably exercise his option under Law 50D2[a] and you may well choose a heart rather than a diamond. Now he has the tempo to knock out ♣A and come to 9 tricks.

Did West or East ask about the 2♣ bid? Do E/W really play double as take-out over a "no agreement" 2♣ bid here? If South thinks he has shown both majors, wouldn't North work out himself that "something like 10xxx, x, AQJx, xxxx will play rather well in spades" and, perhaps, jump to 3♠ or even 4♠ on such a hand? From South's point of view, North's expected spade length over an unalerted 2♣ bid is higher than over an alerted 2♣ bid. Therefore, the 4♠is demonstrably suggested by the UI. As Pass is surely a logical altenative, I would "disallow" the 4♠ bid.

Without knowing the answer to this question or the reasoning behind the initial TD ruling, and without the benefit of consultation/polling, I can't be sure what I would do if I were on the AC. However, my gut feeling is that if the 3♥ bid showed a limit raise with 4 trumps rather than a semi-pre-emptive one, that would not make bidding 3♠ any less attractive. What did the AC decide?

Was a verbal explanaton of the 2♦ bid sought and given, prior to the explanation of the 4♦ bid? Or was the meaning of the 2♦ bid gleaned from the E/W convention card?

Try this page on the ACBL website

If a top is 20, do you give yourself 10 MPs out of 20? If so this board is contributing to your score, making your overall perecentage closer to 50%. To avoid any influence from this board, you would have to give yourself 0 MPs out of 0 for this board. Is that legal? Suppose that you were playing against the playing TD, whose knowledge of the hand made the board unplayable. Would you accept the average plus awarded to you by the TD? That is fine, as long as the TD call does not happen on the first board of the round! I agree. Cases where the TD learns enough about the hand to make it unplayable in the context of a club evening should be rare. Most players have not turned up to hang around for seven or eight minutes making very quiet conversation.

If the 2♦ bid could usually be expected to deliver five diamonds and a 4-card major, then the pass of 2♦x is reasonable. On the other hand, if it will often be only 4-4 (as will certainly be the case if their system does not allow them to play in 1NTx) then the decision to play in a 4-2 fit rather than a 4-3 or 4-4 (partner can have spades, remember) looks like a "red" fielded misbid to me. Perhaps this has happened before, or perhaps West showed a reaction to East's alert and explanation, giving East the UI that they were not on the same wavelength. Anyway, the first thing the TD should do is to ask East to explain why he passed over 2♦x. Did the TD ask this question and, if so, what was the reply?

It seems a bit harsh to imply that the TD is "partly at fault" for the board being not playable. Many playing TDs will expect to score several percentage points lower than when not directing anyway, because they cannot devote 100% of their mental energy to the action at their table. I think they deserve the average plus to which they appear to be entitled in these circumstances. The main reason not to is to avoid moaning from other players, most of whom do not appreciate a playing TD's problems.

Joking aside, "any defence" to artificial opening bids is allowed, so if that 1♠ overcall is permitted against a Strong Club it is also permitted against a Polish Club.