jallerton

I've never really understood why the term "subject to proper disclosure" appears only in this particular regulation. Shouldn't all partnership agreements be subject to proper disclosure?

It is generally accepted that the minimum high card strength for a one-level opening bid depends at least to some extent on distribution. Unfortunately the clause in the regulation makes no acknowledgement of this fact. My logic for 12+ is that with the least distributional hand possible, a 4333 shape, "the normal high card strength associated" is 12+ HCP (Yes, it is permitted to agree to open a 4333 11-count, but it is not normal to do so. My logic for 8+ is that is the absolute minimum permitted and I can construct extreme distributional hands on which it might be considered desirable to open at the 1-level. However, as I mentioned earlier, there is also a case for 9+, 10+ and 11+; I see that a case has already been made for each of these criteria in the replies we have had to this topic thus far. Interestingly, if an interpretation of this clause of the regulation were ever to be the subject of an appeal, I don't think the AC should ever be entitled to over-rule a TD's reasonable interpretation of this regulation, as the AC would not have any grounds for ruling that the TD was demonstrably wrong.

The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee has spent several meetings developing this rule, including providing an extensive definition of how the term "clear cut tricks" is to be interpreted. Unfortunately, despite Bluejak's best efforts, the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee has failed to provide a definition of "the normal high card strength associated with a one-level opening". Worse than that, the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee has positively refused to provide a definition of this term when asked to do so. Everywhere else in the Orange Book, "high card strength" is measured using the 4-3-2-1 point count. A case could be made for any of 8+HCP, 9+HCP, 10+HCP, 11+HCP and 12+HCP (in my view using either the first or the last of these would be most logical), so it is up to the individual TD to decide. This could lead to the bizarre situation where it is legal to agree to open a particular hand (such as the ones quoted by Robin) with a Benjamin 2♣ opening in one EBU Level 4 tournament, but it is illegal to agree to open the same hand with the same convention at another EBU Level 4 tournament (just because the TD happens to be different).

As Gerben's blog explains, "Dutch Acol" includes opening 1♥ on this shape. In original Acol, the choice of opening bid was partly governed by Opener's rebid, so this shape would open 1♥ only if it happened to be in range for 1♥-2♦-2/3NT. I agree with dan_ehh that the 4+♣ explanation should have been corrected by the opening bidder before the opening lead

If you don't carry out a poll, how do you determine what the logical alternatives are? Polling fellow directors is only useful if the fellow directors are considered to be peers of the player who bid 3♠.

In EBL (European) and WBF events there are fixed seats in the mixed pairs (done as suggested to have a man & woman on each side of the screen), and in the mixed teams which also requires two mixed pairs. In EBU mixed pairs events there is no restriction on where you sit; and the EBU mixed teams event is a pivot teams where you only need to have at least one person of each gender on your team. The logic behind the fixed seating arrangements sort of makes sense for the reasons Gnasher suggested, except that in the EBL & WBF events there are quite a lot of client-pro pairs with a pro woman, which somewhat changes the balance.

Sorry, my mistake; I was under the impression that Mr Richardson was the Chief TD of the WBU. Elsewhere on the WBU website, e.g. here suggests that he was the Chief TD there but it does not say when. I have also read on the internet that David himself used to be the Chief TD of the WBU, but it is not clear who has that role now.

Of course, if "someone posts something" on (say) this forum then of course there is no reason why others should necessarily follow the poster's views. But this situation is rather more than just "someone posting something". This guidance has: been uploaded on to the official Welsh Bridge Union website is headed "The 2007 Laws - Interpretation and Guidance for the Welsh Bridge Union" is credited as having been written by the Chief Tournament Director of Welsh Bridge Union Hence if the guidance is not "official", it gives a very good impression of being so! The WBU website does also refer to the EBU White Book. It says: This tells us that the EBU White Book contains "commentaries" and whilst there is the implication that the English White Book is a useful source of reference, there is no statement to suggest that it is officially used in Wales. Most readers would assume that they should follow "Interpretation and Guidance for the Welsh Bridge Union" in the first instance. My understanding is that all of the eminent TDs you list above direct in both English and Welsh events. Naturally, players would expect them to use English regulations and interpretations of Law when directing in England, but equally players would expect them to use Welsh regulations and interpretations of Law when directing in Wales.

Perhaps it is my mistake. I was under the impression that you were a member of the Welsh L&EC. According to the WBU website: Welsh Bridge Union website Clicking on that link, there is useful guidance on the Welsh interpretation of several of the 2007 Laws. It says the following about Law 16B1: This guidance also seems to ignore "seriously considered" actions. In fact, it looks as though Welsh TDs are being given the same "worrying" guidance as those from New Zealand.

The use of "significant number" rather than "significant proportion" is not important; in context it is clearly meant to be the same thing. The actual proportion is a matter of interpretation by the Regulatory Authority. There are other countries which use 1 in 4, notably one where Bluejak is a member of the Laws & Ethics Committee! However, I agree with Bluejak that applying this significant proportion/number to what people would actually bid, rather than what people would seriously consider, is an illegal regulation. Whilst this would have been OK under the 1997 Laws (in which the term "logical alternative" was not defined) it seems that whoever updated the New Zealand handbook for the 2007 Laws had overlooked what the new Law actually says.

I agree. I would poll 10 players to check which call(s) they seriously considered.

The link explains what agreements are permitted under "The ACBL General Convention Chart". Does the same restriction on 1NT openings apply at the ACBL Nationals (Spingold, etc.)?

I would like to agree with you 100%. However, in Duplicate Bridge we have the not so wonderful Law 9A4: and (in case you missed Law9A4) the point is repeated in Law 72B2: though the causal reader might reasonably wonder why the cross references are different. Law 62A says: but it would appear that in the case in this thread the revoke had already been established. Law 79A2 : is not relevant to this case. So why are so many people suggesting a PP for "cheating" (a term which directors are strongly advised to avoid)? It is not clear to me why the violation of Law 65D mentioned by Jeremy should attract a PP: Law 65D says what a player "should" do, not what a player "must" do. Law 65D explains the penalty/rectification for failing to comply: the player jeopardizes his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke. The only Law which could suggest a PP is Law 72B3: However, as Jeff Rubens eloquently points out in this month's Bridge World, there can be a fine distinction between failing to "draw attention" to an irregularity and "concealing" it. Are players expected to be aware of all of these Laws and of the distinction between them?

I don't see why this is an obvious consequence at all. If the WBFLC wanted its suggested Law 27 procedure to also be applied to Law 26, it had an obvious opportunity to say so; the fact is that the WBFLC did not make any such statement or implication. Law 27 talks about the "meaning" of the IB (which as you rightly point out is a somewhat dubious concept) but Law 26 does not use the word "meaning". Instead Law 26 asks the TD to consider whether the call "related" to a specific suit or suits. I would like to suggest an alternative approach. Let's consider why we have Law 26A and Law 26B. Because a player should not be able to attract a particular lead having shown a suit illegally, without having mentioned the suit in the legal auction. To whom has this unauthorised information been submitted? To the insufficient bidder's partner [iBP], of course. So common sense would suggest that if the IBP has interpreted the insufficient 2♦ bid as "relating" solely to diamonds, then declarer should be given the option to prohibit or require a diamond lead; whilst if the IBP has interpreted the insufficient 2♦ bid as "relating" solely to hearts, then declarer should be given the option to prohibit or require a heart lead. How does the TD discover how the IBP has interpreted the IB? The TD should ask the IBP [not the person who made the IB] how he has interpreted the withdrawn call and the TD can then form his own judgement on the plausibility of the answer. If the TD is unable to determine that the withdrawn call "related solely to a specified suit or suits (and no other suit)" then he applies Law 26B.

Here we agree, and I commented in another post that East is entitled to know (s)he is not on safe ground. She does not have UI and I accept that she may well bid 5C over 4S as a two-way shot. But West does have UI, and will (is obliged to?) take that as encouraging (the stated methods, stronger than 4NT) and will surely press on, possessing a diamond control. West would indeed take 5♣ as "encouraging" showing a medium strength hand in context (weaker hands bid a "discouraging" 4NT whilst stronger hands bid slam or make a grand slam try). My understanding of the E/W cue bidding style is that (assuming clubs agreed) West would have already shown her ♦ control with her 4♠ cue bid after East had apparently denied a ♦ control when she bypassed 4♦. You are quite right to point out that West still has to have regard to the UI at this turn to call (1♣-1♠-2♣-3♥-4♥-4♠-5♣-?). As Robin pointed out in his initial reply, the UI suggests bidding more, not less (as the UI suggests that East may controls in spades and/or diamonds after all) so if passing 5♣ is a logical alternative (I suspect that it is) West is obliged to do so.

If Responder did bid 4NT, it is not 100% clear what Opener would do now as she would no longer be able to hedge her bets properly. Probably the closest bid to hedging would be 5♣ (obvious enough if clubs are trumps, optimistically hoping that the ♠ void is worth a key card if hearts are trumps), but perhaps East should now have to assess the relative likelihood of the two possible meanings and come to a decision on how she is going to treat 3♥.

If a new partnership had discussed minor suit auctions to this level of detail, they must have skipped discussion of splinters and proceeded directly into the more subtle situations. I am sometimes a little sceptical in the sense that when something does not make sense (to me), the likelihood has increased significantly that it may not be true. Here, a new partnership actually having the described agreement but not having a splinter agreement is in that genre. Did they have system notes? Yes! East/West were a new partnership for the weekend. West agreed to play East's system with another partner (not her most regular partner, but one who had written out a few pages of system notes), with one specific simplification. These system notes specify 4NT/5m discouraging/encouraging in minor suit auctions and 4NT RKCB in major suit auctions, but do not mention anything about Responder's rebids after 1♣-P-1suit-P-2♣.

It is strange how East-West have such precise agreements over whether 4NT or 5C is stronger, but did not know whether 3H was a splinter. That seems improbable to me. Also what does 4H mean, and it is an interesting bidding question as well as a rules question? It clearly denies a first round diamond control, and denies Kx in spades, but why did East not bid 4C if he lacked a diamond control? I guess it is some sort of picture bid like x AKxx Qx KQ10xxx. West should bid 4S over it, as he has the ace of spades and king of diamonds. Clearly 5C (or 4NT) is not "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of the UI. However 4S does not excite East, who can see wasted values there. But with bad trumps (he still thinks hearts are trumps), he will sign off in 5H for now. West will go back to 6C, but why should East pass that? Does that not sound like a further grand slam try in hearts, something like AKQxx AQJxx KQx none? The problem with UI auctions is that they rapidly go out of control, and I recall Burn-Price bidding to 6H, after a 2NT opener showing 5-5 in the minors was not alerted, showing admirable ethics along the way. I would have no problem with 100% of 7Hx - 7 on the normal QD lead. And the AC is quite entitled to give E/W a worse result than the TD, as I think another thread showed. Hang on, Paul. There are a few flaws in this chain of events. 1. If West bids 4♠, would East really bid 5♥? According to the opening post: Whilst the TD/AC should always be sceptical about potentially self-serving statements, actions speak louder than words and the fact is that (apparently without being in possession of any UI) East chose to pass 5♣. If she had been confident that 3♥ was natural, then she would have recognised 5♣ as an obvious cue bid and engaged grand slam force. Hence we should believe her doubt about the meaning of 3♥ and assume that she will be continuing to try to hedge her bets during the subsequent auction. On this basis, over a 4♠ cue bid the correct call looks to be 5♣: if partner things clubs are agreed, an encouraging 5♣ bid is about right on values; whilst if partner things hearts are agreed, she is cueing her lowest (1st or 2nd round) control. East now hopes that her partner's next call will be one of Pass/5♥/6♣/6♥ to clarify the trump suit. 2. Although West is still in possession of UI once the hypothetical auction reaches 7♥, it is just possible that there may be no logical alternative to removing the contract out of a 4-1 fit? 3. If West is forced to declare 7♥x, why should the AC assume that South, a non-offender, will lead out of turn? Perhaps the number of tricks in 7♥x should be weighted depending on the perceived likelihood of the various "lead out of turn" options being exercised!

I believe the agreememt was Italian cue bidding (cue the cheapest control first even if 2nd round). Many players at this level would be reluctant to cue bid a shortage in partner's suit, although I would guess that this point had probably not been explicitly discussed.

[hv=d=e&v=e&n=sj954haq103d3c9763&w=sa10762h7dk92ca1084&e=shk865da1074ckqj52&s=skq83hj942dqj865c]399|300|Scoring: IMP 1C(1)-P-1S-P- 2C-P-3H(2)-P- 4H-P-5C-P- P-P[/hv] (1) Alerted, natural or balanced [playing 5-card majors] (2) Not alerted E/W were a new partnership and this sequence was undiscussed. West hoped/expected that her partner would interpret 3♥ as a splinter. East was aware of two possible meanings for 3♥ [splinter and natural] and says that she bid 4♥ "as 3♥ might have been intended as natural". Table result: 5♣= by East, N/S -600 after opening lead of ♦Q TD's Statement of Facts The TD was called at the end of the hand by North. If 3♥ had been alerted, he would have doubled for a heart lead. Also, he stated surprise that E/W stopped in game after the cue bidding sequence. West stated that she interpreted 4♥ as control showing. When asked why she had not bid 4♠ over 4♥, she replied: "My partner had not cue bid 3♠ or 4♦ so I felt we were likely to have 2 losers." TD's Ruling 80% of 6♣-1 by E, N/S +100 +20% of 5♣= by E*, N/S -600 *by different route: 1♣-1♠-2♣-3♥-4♥-4♠-5♣-P Details of Ruling The lack of alert of 3♥ is UI to West. Laws 16B1, 12C1c, 73C E/W Appealed Basis of Appeal 1. [West] Assuming that partner has interpreted by bid correctly, she has denied a control in diamonds or spades, in which case I may not even be worth a slam try. In fact our agreement is that 5♣ is more forward-going than a discouraging 4NT, so I had made a mild effort. 2. [West] Since I knew we had no agreement about 3♥, how can there be any UI? 3. [East] If I had been in 6♣, I might have made it on the actual lead of ♦Q. 4. Had North doubled 3♥, East would have passed and the problem would not have arisen. Comments by N/S [south] I might have led differently against 6♣, particularly if my partner had doubled 3♥. How would you rule if on the AC?

I'd be worried about anybody who couldn't construct a plausible layout where an opening heart lead is necessary to beat the contract.

Yes, I would have worries, but nothing more than that in the first instance. What did North say when asked why he selected this opening lead? Note that North should not lead the Q on the second round from an original holding of KQJ10.

The word "peer" itself does not appear in the Laws, but I suspect you are referring to Law16B1b: So when TDs talk about "peers" they are referring to people of the same class using the partnership's methods. Whether "class" is supposed to be interepreted in the narrow sense of "standard" or in a more general sense, e.g. "the class of expert frequent BBO posters whose partners psyche a lot" is not immediately clear.

Sorry, David. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. If, hypothetically speaking: (i) the player were allowed to know that partner had alerted 2♣, he would want to bid 2♥; and (ii) the player were allowed to know that partner had not alerted 2♣, he would want to bid 2♥; and (iii) the player did not know whether his partner had alerted 2♣ or not he would want to bid 2♥ then the UI from the alert or lack therof cannot possibly have affected his bidding and there can be no breach of Law 73C (no advantage taken of any UI).

It is not a good analogy, but since North and East are screen mates it would change everything. There may be no UI, but there might well be undisclosed information from partnership experience. North will have been alerted to the nature of 2C. When it comes back to him, the OP has a statement by North that he would have passed it out with the proper information. This might not be the thing to do if opener had, in fact, psyched. Should East volunteer, for instance, that his partner has never psyched in her life before North acts? Playing with screens is a very good analogy when considering the effect of UI, as it is a very good way of asessing the logical alternatives; similarly, when polling players to assess logical alternatives we do not tell them about the UI. Playing with screens is not always such a good analogy when considering the MI aspects, because in theory a player is only allowed to know about the opponents' agreements and sometimes a player receives additional information from his screenmate as a quirk of the screen regulations.