jallerton

Of course, the failure to include this convention on the convention card was a breach of regulation. Bluejak suggests awarding a procedural penalty for it (which I don't mind, as long as consistent penalties are given to other contestants with equally incomplete descriptions of agreements on their convention cards). But as Bluejak states that "it looks like disallowing the double is correct" it would appear that Bluejak agrees with my contention that the E/W UI was not "caused" by N/S. Maybe I have different standards than other people, but on the facts given: (i) If I had been (a non-always asking) West, I would have either passed over 2♣ in tempo without asking, or if I decided to ask, I would have taken the ethical pressure off partner by doubling 2♣. (ii) If I had been East and my partner had implicitly shown values in an unauthorised manner, I would have passed out 2♣ even if I thought that there was a reasonable case for doubling in the absence of UI.

So you really think that a 1NT opener would pull 1NTx holding 4-4 in the majors? At least that explains why the person you asked about something else was already in fits of laughter!

I understand why as West you " would certainly want to compete to two major every day of the week at matchpoints opposite 14-16" but that argument is equally true given the actual explanation. It is far more attractive to double on the West hand than on the East hand, in my opinion.

On that basis, it would be inferred that Smith and Jones don't have many agreements at all. At a practical level, I suspect that most EBU members who look at the Orange Book would assume that if their own convention card is filled in with the same level of detail as the Smith & Jones example, then it is sufficiently complete.

It depends on the size of your writing/font size. On the EBU cards, because I play the same defence to strong and weak NTs, by combining these boxes and writing small, I just have room to explain the meanings of initial actions by non-passed and passed hands. However, there is not room for me to show the responses to these initial actions. I show these responses on my WBF card, which has rather more room. Unfortunately, the EBU does not encourage full written disclosures of agreements; in most EBU events (including the Year End Congress) it expressly bans the use of WBF convention cards.

I agree with Nigel that the answer to this case is not so obvious. I also agree with Bluejak that West should have been asked at an early stage why he bid 4[clubs} initially; this might help us come to a conclusion. Irrespective of the merits of the TD/AC decision, now that we are reliably informed that North "was still loudly arguing the case the next day" I can agree that "Order of Ponting" has been truly earned!

There have been a few instances of this type of auction recently and I am a little concerned that there is no consensus view on where the line is drawn. Why would you have classified this as 'red' rather than 'amber'? Do you agree with the wording of the White Book paragraph quoted by Campboy, or would it be better/clearer if this said 10HCP (or 9HCP) rather than 11HCP?

That chain of logic is quite a stretch. Players who do not complete their convention card properly could be aware that they might be providing misinformation, but it's probably never occurred to anyone before now that advantage could be gained in the manner you describe. In any case, had West instead looked at the convention card and found the information required, his partner would presumably have seen the reading of the convention card and still have received the UI that West was interested in the meaning of double/2♣ (The Year End Congress is not played with screens). Assuming that West is not an "always ask" person, the problem was caused by West. If West is not going to double 2♣ on being given the actual explanation, I can't see what different meaning of double would have persuaded him to act. In that case, passing in tempo without asking would have avoided giving partner any ethical problem. It's also interesting to note that another way to avoid this situation is for East (the 1NT opener) to ask about the double of 1NT. It's hard to accuse East of conveying UI of significant extra values or any particular suit holdings in this position.

Your questions need to be considered in reverse order, so I'll answer b ) first. It is right for North to bid 5♠ if either N/S can make 11(+) tricks in spades or N/S can make 10 tricks in spades with 5♥ making. North has no defence at all, and combining this information with the fact that South didn't double suggests that it will be right to bid whenever spades makes at least 10 tricks. If South was considering bidding 5♠, that obviously makes it more attractive for North to compete with 5♠. What if South was considering doubling? In that case, the slowness of the Pass implies extra values without 3 certain defensive tricks. But the more values South has, the higher the expected number of tricks available in spades becomes. Even if South has the apparently wasted ♥A, an opening heart lead allowing a fruitful club discard is a possibility. So 5♠ is demonstrably suggested over Pass. To answer (a),it is necessary to determine whether Pass is a logical alternative. I would ask the North player to explain the reasoning for his bid. I would also perform a poll of other "top" players at the event, if possible.

Are you trying to tell us that East and South were the men? Well, it depends. If West always asks in this type of position (and East knows this) then East has no UI, in which case no UI adjustment should be considered. On the other hand, if West is known to follow the EBU recommendation of only asking when s(he) is thinking of bidding, then East has UI to suggest that West is not completely devoid of values. Even at this vulnerability, double "could demonstrably have been suggested" over Pass by this UI and Pass is a logical alternative. Hence the contract would be rolled back to 2♣ by South. As it is not clear how many tricks this contract might make, a weighted score would be appropriate.

Nigel, you seem to have overlooked the point that if North had a pre-emptive jump shift response in spades, he would definitely have passed the raise to 4♠. Therefore, West can eliminate that hand type from the North hand. There is no logical layout consistent with this auction where partner has a spade void. In any case, although mjj29 does not seem to know the full facts of the case, North should have corrected the explanation before the opening lead was made. If North did not correct the explanation, then the TD has yet another infraction to consider!

The AI suggests that a spade lead is a bad idea. If one were allowed to take into account the UI (that partner potentially has length and strength in spades) in addition to the AI, a spade lead would still a bad idea. However, the worry exists that West's line of thinking was simply "I'm leading partner's suit" without stopping to think whether leading "partner's suit" mIght be a good idea, let alone whether it might actually not be legal to conclude that partner's suit was spades. This means that the spade lead would appear to be a breach of Law 73C, even if it can be argued that Law 16A does not apply. By the way, I don't think that West's lead should be considered a "serious error" akin to a revoke, because revokes are (usually) accidental infractions. Here the apparent "use of UI" is quite deliberate. I'd far rather call the deliberate decision to make a lead "wild" and/or "gambling" and to split the score on that basis.

Is West's lead a clearer use of UI than North's 5♥ bid?

It's an interesting bidding situation from North's point of view. If you are suggesting that because North passed on the first round, he was bound to pass on the second round, then I have to disagree with you. When your side has been heavily pre-empted, I suggest making use of all available sequences. If North can rely on East bidding 4♦ over 4♣ - Pass then North has almost twice the number of sequences available. Pass then 4♥/♠should have a different meaning to an immediate 4♥/♠. Pass then double should have a different meaning than an immediate double [The possibility of West raising to 5♦ should not be of concern as there are very few hands for Responder that would want to play at the 4-level in clubs but the 5-level in diamonds.]

What was the basis of your ruling? What was the basis of appeal? It's not possible to assess the merit of the appeal without knowing the answers to these questions. The only thing I can say at this stage is that "It's Christmas" is not an acceptable reason for returning the deposit.

That is indeed the question to ask. Furthermore, West can be fairly sure that, unless the both spades are precisely 6313 around the table and the opposing diamonds are 2-1, the opponents are cold for 4♥. As well as Law 73F, don't we also need to consider Law 73D1? Here West should be aware that a pause before the pass could work to the benefit of his side, so the Law tells him to be particularly careful. The word "otherwise" in the third sentence of 73D1 suggests that a tempo variation of the type described previously (in the second sentence) may itself be an infraction.

So if you were offered sufficient money, would you (attempt to) represent your country at bridge? If you were offered even more money, would you (attempt to) represent another country at bridge?

Law 9A3 says: Once your partner had completed his designation "ace of clubs", a card had been played from dummy (an irregularity, as the lead was not in dummy) so you violated the first sentence Law 9A3. More interestingly, suppose you had been a split second earlier; on hearing partner start to say "a" you warn him that his own hand is on lead. Now, if you have managed to prevent partner from completing "...ce of clubs" then perhaps he has not yet designated a card in the form required by Law 46A and hence you have been successful in your attempt to prevent your partner's irregularity (a practice explicity permitted by Law9A3).

I think it depends. If someone comes from country A, but moves to country B to work or study for a fixed period only (which could be several years), then that person still regards country A as "their" country; country B is just where they happen to live for the time being. On the other hand, if someone decides to leave country A forever and does not intend to ever return there (other than for holidays and business trips) then they will probably no longer regard country A as their own country. So if the next Bermuda Bown final is Canada vs USA (and you are not involved), you would support USA. As a matter of interest, what about other sports? When Canada played against USA at Ice Hockey in the Winter Olympics earlier this year, which team did you support?

You raise some good points about what the rule perhaps ought to be. However, as the rules stand, the potential Monaco players are not attempting to circumvent the rules, they are merely taking advantage of them. There no point in attaching any blame to these particular players, as plenty of other players have already taken advantage of the same rules.

This incident occurred at a local club. South and West have been described to me as "little old ladies". Does that affect anyone's atiitude towards awarding procedural penalties? What are the consequences for failing to call the TD you are aware that an opponent has committed an irregularity? Law 11 says: I understand that declarer was aware of the exposed card (the penalty card), but not of any other irregularity. Under Law 11A, it seems to me that South may (should?) forfeit her right to take advantage of the Law 50 penalty card rules. .....but as South was apparently not aware that (i) the originally played card had been restored to West's hand and that (ii) a non-played card had been added to West's pile of "played" cards, why should South be punished in any way for that? So, it looks to me as though a relatively simple and legal ruling would be: 1. ♣K is restored to the original trick, because Law 45 tells us it was "played". As Robin says, even if it was inadvertent, the King is a major penalty card and would have to played to the first trick. 2. Although the attempted substituted card would have been a penalty card has the TD been called immediately, South has forfeited her right to take advantage of the small club being a penalty card at that time (and it would be impracticable to rewind the play by several tricks). 3. At the TD's option (I think), the small card could become a penalty card now. This will make little difference as West would probably contribute this small club to this trick in any case. 4. West should receive a procedural penalty for changing her card illegally (and for not calling the TD). 5. South could also receive a procedural penalty, but it would have to be for a lesser amount that West's; in the club/LOL context, maybe a warning would suffice.

Football is a good analogy. As long as the player and club agree (and any league ruled are adhered to), anyone can join a football club. Similarly, as long as the club agrees, anyone can join a bridge club. Representing one's country at football is rather different. As I understand it, you can only represent a country if you were born there, or if one of your parents was born there. It is not possible to 'flip' between countries almost as frequently as UK members of parliament manage to 'flip' their main homes. If football were to adopt the WBF/EBL "bona fide residence" rule, then the England football team would suddenly become one of the best teams in the world.

I can understand the "amber" classification. However, I do have a question. Suppose that the facts has been slighty different in that East had explained the 2NT bid as "I'm not sure. Either it shows both minors or it shows 19-21 balanced.". Do you still consider the 3♣ bid to be a potential "amber fielded misbid"?

Yes, indeed. In such situations, it would seems better to ask a follow-up question. For example, here when you are told that 2♠ is a range enquiry in response to the double, you could ask "Does that still apply even after the double?" In England, we have some guidance from the EBU Orange Book. So we could confirm our strong suspicion and avoid the MI by asking my suggested follow-up question, but would that count as "waking the opposition up"? If so, then Bluejak's suggestion of calling the TD might also wake the opposition up, so maybe we can get away without doing that either.

My contention is that the E/W bidding is clearly not "unrelated to the infraction" so whether it constitutes a "serious error" is quite irrelevant. To have a bidding misunderstanding is not "wild", nor is it "gambling", nor for that matter is it a "serious error". No, that does not follow. The Law does not require the non-offending side to have played perfect brdge subsequent to the irregualrity before they are permitted redress.