jallerton

(1) is perfectly relevant. If a declarer is not alert enough to find the straghtforward line of establishing her 9th winner earlier in the play, then that level of alertness should help the TD form a view of the likelihood of the declarer finding a more advanced play (an endplay) later in the hand. Re (2), are you suggesting that is the norm to accept claims without question and assume that the claimer is always right? As the declarer will well know, the best time to consider the vailidity of any claim is when the claim is made, whilst the cards are there and the hand is fresh in everybody's minds. Re (3), are you suggesting that dummy is now allowed to assist his partner with declarer play?

No, it isn't. Although Laws 70 and 71 in the 2007 Laws may fit the description "identical with the previous Law 69B with updated wording" (in both of these Laws, in both the 1997 and 2007 versions refer to "normal* plays") there has been a change to the threshold in Law 69B. Under the 1997 Law 69B, a trick could only revert to the non-claiming side for "the loss of the trick that could not, in the director's opinion, be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. However, under the 2007 Law 69B, a trick reverts to the non-claiming side "if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had play continued."

The 1NT opening showed 14-16 balanced and 2♦ was (I think) just a transfer to hearts. The 1NT opening was a psyche. They were 81 IMPs down with 8 boards to go in a knockout match. Most teams would have conceded at that point. But if you decide to play on with the intention of winning 81 IMPs in 8 boards, you probably need a big swing in on every board, so there is a logic to trying a series of off-centre actions.

So the facts are: 1. Declarer had missed an earlier opportunity to make her contract trivially. 2. When East claimed, declarer did not see any reason to contest the claim. 3. Even several hands later, the winning line had not occurred to South; it needed North to point this out. On this basis, it does not seem to me "likely" that South would have found the winning line had East remained silent. I note with interest Robin's observation that this new Law 69 has not been tested much in practice. However, we have got some theoretical guidance: the views of WBFLC Chairman, Tom Kooijman are published in the EBU White Book. He gives this example: I think that his case 2 is analagous to Chris's County Knockout case.

For North/South, described in the opening post as a "pick up partnership", it is not "wild or gambling" nor it it a "serious error" to have a misunderstanding about the meaning of a second round double. So splitting the score is just wrong. But should the score be adjusted at all? Whilst I agree with Gerry that it is best to play pass as diamonds and rediuble as no preference, I would guess that very few club players have thought this through. The TD should perhaps poll some club players of East's standard, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the number of people who seriously consider passing is less than a "signifcant proportion" making Pass not a logical alternative for this particular player.

Sorry, I don't quite follow this. I agree there. Let's say that the auction has started 1♣-1♠-2♥and that Responder has a weak hand with 4-card heart support. Playing Lebensohl, the full auction is something like 1♣-1♠-2♥-2NT-3♦-3♥-4♥ and Opener (declarer) has not given away much more information to the defence about his hand. A bonus is that with a huge hand, Opener can show that he has slam interest even opposite a non-FG Responder below the level of 4♥. Playing transfers, the full auction is something like 1♣-1♠-2♥-3♦-4♣-4♥. Opener is too strong to complete the transfer, but feels obliged to make a further hand description (cue bid or patterning out depending on style) in case Responder has a good hand. That is helpful for the defenders, so bad news for declarer. Responder will learn that anyway, when Opener does not show great interest after 1♣-1♠-2♥-3♥. In fact, we seem to have more losses than gains. I agree with Straube that transfers work best when partner normally completes. For example, in the non-reverse sequence 1♥-1♠-2♣, there would be more of a case for playing transfers, as Opener will be completing the transfer a lot more often to cater for partner having a minimum response. However, I also agree with Frances that each sequence is different.

Declarer didn't know the card was changed. She knew an attempt had been made to change the card, but believed that attempt had been abandoned when challenged.

The example you cite from the EBU White Book is not an EBU example. The section is headed "[Ton]" which means that it was written by Ton Kooijman, Chairman of the WBF Laws Commission [though it is made clear elsewhere that these are the personal views of Mr Kooijman, not necessarily also those of the WBFLC itself.] However, it is possible that someone had pointed out to the WBFLC the potential for different interpretations of Law 64C, as it has issued a statement on this matter.

A correspondent writes: The facts: Declarer, South, had Qxxxx of a suit in Dummy and the bare 10 in hand. She called for a small one from dummy and East played the J. West was asleep and thought the J was the lead, so seeing Dummy's Q she played the K. She realised her mistake, panicked, and attempted to substitute a small card. The Director was not called. There was a little discussion and when the trick had been turned E led the A. Declarer was also asleep and accepted the lead, while still believing the K had been played. When she later attempted to cash Dummy's Q she was upset to see the K reappear. Now the TD is called to the table. How should the TD rule and under what Law(s)?

It would be nice to think that we are all playing the same game, so I don't think that the application of the law should change according to the jurisdiction one is in. However, as Robin says, different authorities sometimes have different ideas on what the Laws actually say; this can lead to different "interpretations". For example, it is 100% clear to me (and, I believe, to the English Bridge Union also) that Laws 16, 73 & 12 do not permit Reveley rulings. However, I understand that during each of the last two World Championships, the WBF Appeals Committee amended a TD's sensible ruling arising from the alleged use of UI to a weighting including a percentage of the table result. It would therefore seem that the WBF Appeals Committee has a different "interpretation" of these Laws.

If North/South have had a discussion about this sequence, however long ago it may have been, then East/West are entitled to know about it (with suitable caveats). South might take this information into account in his own bidding, so East/West should be allowed to as well.

Well, if South judges that North has adopted Ed's suggested approach of only reminding East about the lack of announcement when North's action at that turn may be affected, then South does have UI. If South's actions are restricted by that UI, then North/South could become damaged by East's failure to comply with Law 20F5.

The Orange Book makaes it clear that all 1NT openings (and also all 2 of a suit openings) must be either alerted or announced. To fail to alert or announce such a call before the next player has called is an infraction (misinformation). Law 9A3 says: When "North looked interrogatively at East", he was attempting to prevent an irregularity. It seems unlikely that this attempt to prevent an irregularity provided any information to South about the contents of North's hand.

Maybe, but you should really be comparing 25+ balanced with FG unbalanced including hearts. The latter is more common in my experence.

When Opener holds the flat hand, Responder has a fair idea of the partnership's combined assets. When Opener holds hearts, why will he know where he wants to play when the auction has reached the 3-level and he has no information at all about Responder shape or strength? As commonly played (where 2♠ is virtually) forced, Kokish copes well with the strong balanced hand but messes up the auction when Opener has hearts.

In response to the original question, I think it is most common to play all bids as natural here. Natural bids work fine (as far as "right-siding" is concerned, there are only two strains unbid, and the declarership of the most likely final resting places has already been determned). If you have the sensible agreement that a positive response is usually forcing to 4NT, then Responder can just raise to 3NT on a 5332 shape.

Whilst there is a case for playing a 2♥ response to 2♣ as a (double) negative, this is hardly universal. In Bridge World Standard, 2♥ is a natural positive response to 2♣. BWS has not been revised since 2001, so has there been a change in American expert practice since? In the most recent (2009) Bermuda Bowl, of the six pairs representing USA, two played 2♥ as a natural positive, two played 2♥ as an artificial positive (2 controls) and the other two played strong club.

I agree, especially with the suggestion that N/S need to be interrogated about their methods. A surprising number of Multi pairs have not discussed the meaning of 2♦-(Pass)-3♦ and I suspect that even more have not discussed the meaning of 2♦-(Dbl)-3♦. Quite a few pairs play Pass (some play Redouble) to show diamonds and I'd want to know exactly what N/S had agreed (or not) about all of these sequences. I'd also want to know what strong options were contained in the Multi. Depending on the answers to these questions, I might well reason as follows: 1. It is difficult to imagine that anyone would want to psyche a 3♦ bid in this position. 2. At the point where he bid 3♦, North may have had it his head that 3♦ was some sort of cue bid asking partner to bid his suit. 3. North/South probably did not have a firm agreement about 3♦. South's failure to show his support* for diamonds is significant evidence of this. 4. Hence we should probably be treating this as a misinformation case. On the other hand, if the TD is satisfied that N/S really do have this agreement, then the psyche looks close to Red; unless South is confident that his 3♥ bid is forcing, it makes little sense. * I think that the best call over a natural and forcing 3♦ bid is 4♥, as logically a jump to 4♥/4♠ should show the suit bid and ♦ support.

Did you carry out a poll of peers of North? If so, what were the results?

How does the TD determine whether or not West's actual reasoning was as follows? "I am not sure why South hesitated. Without the hesitation it might be a bit dangerous to bid here, but the hesitation gives me a great 2-way shot. I'll pass. If South has a near raise to 2NT, I'll avoid -200 or worse; if South was deciding on which part-score to play when in theory it was right for me to bid, I'll call the TD and ask for an adjustment."

If the L&EC has come to a judgement on what constitutes a "demonstrable bridge reason" in this sequennce, then it is a shame that their decision is not recorded in the EBU White Book. The White Book gives some useful guidance about hesitations during the play, but there is nothing about hesitations during the bidding. Many posters have suggested that there is no "demonstrable bridge reason" to think with the actual hand (a weak 3235 shape). If they are right, is there a "demonstrable bridge reason" to think with: (a) A 2533 3-count? (b] A 2236 3-count? (c] A 4432 3-count (considering using Stayman and passing the response)? (d) A 4333 3-count (considering using Stayman and passing the response)? (e) A balanced good 10-count/bad 11-count (considering a light raise to 2NT)?

These are very good questions, which the TD not only could ask, but should ask. Really? Suppose that a player opens at the 1-level on a hand with 6HCP. Presumably you still conclude that you "have prima facie evidence they are playing an illegal agreement, and in general you just rule it back". Perhaps you need to reconsider the TD rulings on many of the EBU psyche reports forms!

In response to the original question, the answer is contained in the EBU Orange Book: Although the 3-card major responses might come under the definition of "natural", they certainly have a "potentially unexpected meaning", so should be alerted under (B) [if not (a)]. I don't agree with Nigel about the 3433 hands in response to 1♠. These 2♣ bids are natural under the above definition and the normal Acol meaning is not a "potentially unexpected meaning" in Acol-land!

The text you quote relates to Level 2 events. Most EBU events are played at Level 3 or Level 4

(Not really.) Without the UI, you might double to try for +300 against the +140/+170 you were about to collect in 3♠ when partner has a 5233 minimum. The UI suggests that partner has either extra shape or extra high cards, and as you say partner will probably bid and make a vulnerable 4♠ in either case if we pass 4♥ round to him. The one thing that might put partner off bidding 4♠ is if we double because then partner would envisage heart wastage and less offence opposite. Therefore, it seems to me that Double "could demonstrably be suggested" over both Pass and 4♠, so as long as Double is judged to be a logical alternative* this is the action Responder should take at this point. A weighted score might still be appropriate if Opener has a hand where he might pull 4♥x and/or the number of tricks 4♥x might make is unclear. * this is where polls come in very handy. It is all very well for some experienced TDs to rely on their own judgement, but no-one thinks of everything and often polls and consultations give the TD additional information which is helpful in forming his judgement ruling on whether a Law has been breached and how.