jallerton

I can see that if I have no choice about what to do, then I can't breach 73C. But it can hardly be said that East has no choice in this case. What would you bid if partner had alerted, explained the 2C as inverted and then passed? Do you believe you have no choices to make? Perhaps you just meant to explain how AI could narrow choices, without relating it to this post. By the way, 73C does not mention 'demonstrably suggested'. If we decide that 73C, despite what it says, is exactly equivalent in its effect to Law 16, then I don't mind, because then I have one process to understand: I might wonder why we have both Laws but that is another matter. The bottom line for me is that I view the OP as describing a blatant violation of Law 73C. Of course I can be wrong (though not just because you don't like my attitude). Many posts relate to MI or to Law 16, or to inadequacies in the stated reason for appeal, or to what it means to say someone has an agreement. I just wonder why the TD and AC chose to ignore or discount Law 73 in their decisions. I can't see that they are allowed to do that, and I'd like to understand because currently I regard myself as bound by 73C. Consider the three different scenarios: 1. Playing without screens, partner does not alert 2♣ and then passes. 2. Playing without screens, partner does alert 2♣ and then passes. 3. Playing with screens, partner passes 2♣. It is my contention that this East would almost certainly have bid 2♥ in scenario 2 or scenario 3. It is matter of fact that this East did bid 2♥ at the table (scernario 1). Law 73C says:- If it is judged that the player would have made the same call in both the other two of the three possible scenarios above then he has clearly not taken any advantage from the UI.

I disagree with this. If screens were in use, East would not have the UI of the lack of an alert of 2C. Here he does, and must "carefully avoid" taking any advantage of this UI. I think all bids, or a redouble, after North's double are demonstrably suggested, and Pass is the only 73C compliant call. Why? Imagine for a moment that you are in East's position and you happen to know from authorised information that partner has psyched. What do you know about the hand? 1. Partner probably lacks opening values, but you know nothing about his shape. 2. Both opponents are limited to an extent (RHO started with a simple overcall. LHO has passed twice) so the opponents' bidding and East's own strength suggest that this is a part score deal. 3. E/W are not vulnerable at Pairs, so -50 or -100 will be better than conceding a making part score. Hence Pass would be a poor choice of call, in my opinion. In which suit should East compete? East doesn't know, because West's shape is not known. Is there a solution? Yes: cue bid the opponents' suit and hopefully partner will bid 3♣ if he has some length there (East's 2♣ bid is authorised to West) and otherwise West can bid his longest suit!

Bluejak is correct: we should look at Law 25. The call was not unintended, so Law 25A is not in point. Instead we consider the 2007 version of Law 25B: The "modification of rectifications" section of the Screen Regulations says: This leads to two questions: 1. Was the attempted change of call an irregularity? If so 4(ii) implies that in this case the substituted call may be accepted by offender's screenmate (his RHO). 2. Just because Law 25B says that the real LHO may accept the change of call, does that give the LHO a right to choose whether or not to accept it?

When they conflict, which one takes priority? I would have thought The Laws of Bridge should. Well the Orange Book psyching regulations are based on the EBU's interpretation of Law 40. Which takes priority out of Law 40 and Laws 73/16?

The term "destructive" means different things to different people, but surely this is a term to describe how the bid is used rather than carrying any implication of what it actually shows. Whilst the lack of description on what the bid shows might be misinformation, it is unlikely that the opponents would be able to successfully claim damage, as they could have asked a follow-up question if they had wanted to know what, if anything, the bid actually showed.

Actually, no there probably isn't: Could there just possibly be a link with this thread ? I refer to my short post on that particular thread.

I agree with Ed that we need to look at the screen regulations. As the thread is decsribed as "England", I presume that this case comes from the EBU Premier League; as far as I know this is the only English event played with screens. The Conditions of Contest for that event include the following potentially relevant sections: and and

IMO, the director should ....... You were asked what you would call as a player in this position. Players cannot call the TD and ask him to conduct a poll!

How has "the WBFLC's interpretation of their own Law" been communicated to tournament directors? Is there a WBF Minute somewhere, or is this just an "interpretation" that spreads by word of mouth between leading TDs?

This is not clear to me at all. If the player realised only as a result of his partner's action (alert, announcement, whatever) that he had misbid, then as far as I can see he may not apply to change his call under Law 25A. My memory is not what it was, so I cannot be sure. But the reason we rule this way, apart from the logic in the Laws and other things mentioned here, as I understand it, is because the EBU L&EC instructed the TDs to do so. Now I know we are both on that Committee, but the problem is that the instruction was made before I joined the Committee, ie a very long time ago, but still a time when I would have thought you were on that Committee. I have read the interpretations given here. I am not sure they are really convincing. But an interpretation handed down from on high is to be followed. We might argue it if it is definitely seen as wrong by everyone, but where as often happens different people have different views, it seems reasonable to follow the authority's interpretation. I agree with the principle of following the Regulatory Authority's interpretation when the meaning of the Law is unclear or ambiguous. However, if the EBU has an official view on this matter, shouldn't it be disclosed in the EBU White Book? I have just had a look at the White Book sections on Law 25 and Law 73, and I cannot see any refernce to this situation. So we only have the "Red Book" to go on. Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C seem clear to me: they imply that the mis-bidder can not use any information received from partner's alert or other communication. No-one has yet answered my question as to why Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C do not apply; unless anyone can do so satisfactorily then Mr Burn's interpretaion must be the only legal one.

and Law 73 would suggest that you are right to have that concern.

The AC decided as follows: Board 11 (the 3NT hand) would have been a routine adjustment had the diamond lead gained any advantage. However, no appeal had been made against the TD's ruling on Board 11. Instead the AC had been asked to consider an appeal against the ruling on Board 16 (the 1♥+2 hand). The correct opening lead from the East hand against 1♥ is not at all obvious; indeed there is a reasonable case for leading any of the four suits. Thus the AC was unaminous in considering an opening spade lead to be a logical alternative. Unfortunately, the AC could not come to a unaminous decision on what opening lead(s) "could demonstrably be suggested by" and/or would "carefully avoid taking any advantage of" the UI. Two AC members believed that the nature of the questionning suggested clubs and that therefore East's opening club lead should be disallowed. The other AC member believed that West asked questions because he was considering protecting and that he might equally have asked the same questions had he held, say: ♠AQx ♥ Qx ♦xxxxx ♣xxx Fortunately, ACs are not required to reach unaminous verdicts. Therefore, by a vote of 2 to 1, the TD's ruling was left to stand.

If you followed that principle, you would always be ruling "no agreement" when there has been a misunderstanding. If they both agree that they have discussed and agreed the sequence, then surely the logical conclusion is that one of then has forgotten: then N/S would be entitled to know the real agreement. In the actual case, I suspect that there was no agreement and the actions/statements from East and West were based on what they each thought the bid ought to mean (from their own bridge knowledge). Apparently East said to the AC "for me, 2NT was two-suiter"; he did not say ""for us, 2NT was two-suiter".

The AC found this to be a difficult case as there were a few issues to consider. 1. Unauthorised information East has UI. As I mentioned earlier, without the UI, there are two logical possibilities from East's point of view: either partner is not on the same wavelength, or he has psyched his 1♣ opening. It seemed to us that if screens were in use, East would take an action (such as 2♥ or redouble) which caters for both possibilities and hence he is perfectly entitled to do the same thing here (or, to put it another way, there is no logical alternative to taking such an action). 2. Misinformation - was there an infraction? The AC took up PeterE's suggestion and asked the TD to explain why he had ruled there to be an infraction. He reiterated that he felt N/S ought to be entitled to know about the "no agreement" but could not explain why this meant E/W ought to alert. The TD kindly lent us his printout of the Orange Book. One sad AC member knew the relevant Orange Book references and asked the Chairman to consider paragraphs 5B5 and 5B10: Had West subsequently acted on the basis that 2♣ was forcing, them according to 5B10, he would have been obliged to alert it. However, as West was plainly interpreting the 2♣ bid as non-forcing, a corollary of OB 5B10 is that he was under no obligation to alert the call. Hence the AC concluded that if there was no agreement about the meaning of 2♣ then: the failure to alert was not an infraction; and if there was no infraction then the table result should stand. 3 What was the real E/W agreement? The TD was "convinced" that E/W had no agreement about 2♣ but was he right to be so convinced? The AC asked East and West whether this auction had ever come up before, to which they replied "no" (perhaps the TD had already asked the same question to explain his finding of "no agreement"). However, the AC reflected that: (i) East/West had been playing together for several years [if the players had not been known to the AC, then this is certainly something the AC should have asked about]; hence (ii) East and West must have played thousands of boards together; hence (iii) notwithstanding the reports of East and West, the not unusual sequence of 1♣-(1suit)-2♣ must have come up several times before for this pair, in all probability. (iv) if the sequence really was undiscussed, would East really have risked a 2♣ bid when he had an attractive less ambiguous call (2♥) available? It was therefore determined that E/W probably did have an agreement. In accordance with Law 75C, the AC ruled on the basis that the agreement had been misexplained, i.e. that 2♣ was forcing. Whilst we believed that North would now be inclined to pass out 2♣, we were happy to leave the 20% weighting of -460 as even given the explanation of “forcing” North might have protected anyway (after all, from his point of view, Opener might have psyched - he has just passed a forcing bid!). Maybe if we had not spent quite so long discussing the principles, we might have spent more time discussing the weighting, but as it was we left the TD's weighted adjustment to stand, but with different reasoning.

This is where different laws and regulations can lead to different conclusions. The UI might suggest that a player is obliged to act as you say, but the Orange Book regulations on psyching suggest that you should never assume that partner has psyched unless nothing else makes sense.

That is the law. Not because of a WBFLC interpretation but simply from the clause in Law 25A: "until his partner makes a call". If the "pause" should be measured from the moment the unintended call was actually made this clause would be meaningless. Thus the "pause" is measured from the moment the player becomes aware of his mistake regardless of how he became aware of it. (AI or UI is not a relevant question in this situation.) Sorry, I don't understand that reasoning. Following that logic, in any competitive auction, if West bids something and North passes slowly, it is always legal for South to double on the basis of Law 19A1 alone. I was under the impression that South has to consider Laws 73 and 16A as well when selecting his choice of call.

The player would not be basing their call on such other information. The player has already decided on a call without the assistance of any UI, but now realises that the intended call has not been made. Thanks. So what I think you are saying is that Law 16A3 does not apply to a substitution of a call. However, moving on to through the Law Book I get to Law 73: So I ask another question: why do Laws 73A1, 73B1 and 73C not apply?

As you have discussed this before, perhaps you could enlighten us why Law 16A3 does not apply.

It is difficult to establish what the actual E/W agreement was in the absence of any convention card, and in the absence of one of the players. The CoC specified that all players should have convention cards, but as one TD commented, "we would have no tournament if we enforced this." The TD therefore has to fall back on 75C and: "the Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation, rather than Mistaken Call, in the absence of evidence to the contrary." There was no evidence to the contrary. Indeed West's hand suggested the opposite - that 2NT was alertable. North is therefore entitled to this information before the opening lead... As I mentioned earlier, the TD/AC should make every effort to gather evidence. Presumably East was present when the TD was originally called, so the TD had a chance to ask East his opinion on the E/W agreements. Yes, it's harder for the AC without East's presence, but that shouldn't stop them trying. I would ask West (i) how long East/West had been playing together, (ii) whether this sequence had come up before and (iii) whether 1NT-P-2♦/♥-2NT had ever come up before in this partnership. Yes, the TD/AC might have to fall back on Law 75C and "presume Mistaken Explanation", but that it not the same as presuming that East/West actually have an agreement, or that North is allowed to know the contents of the West hand. As you state yourself that "the most likely was no agreement" the TD/AC might reasonably conclude that the actual explanation of "natural" was a mistaken explanation and that "no agreement" was the correct explanation. In that case North is not entitled to know any more than "no agreement". Perhaps one of our Croatian readers can tell us whether or not "no agreement" should be alerted in Croatia.

E/W, like 95% of pairs in Pula, did not have a convention card. I would agree with you that the most likely was no agreement. West prefaced his statement to the AC with "For me ..." East did not attend. It is necessary for the TD to determine the actual E/W agreement in order to rule properly on this board; if the TD has not done so then the AC should attempt to determine the agreement (or lack thereof). If it is determined that there was "no agreement" and the AC agrees with the TD's decsion to "roll back" the contract to 3NT, then "no agreement" is all North is entitled to know about when selecting her opening lead. She cannot draw the conclusion suggested upthread that West necesarily has ten red cards; indeed from her point of view, why can't West hold a 2NT opener?

I have one other question. What did the TD determine the actual E/W agreement to be? [For many pairs, I suspect that the answer would be "no agreement"!]

Hilarious? Let's just say that 8410 shapes and 9-card suits are relatively rare and that the original poster is very good at devising unusual puzzles.

OK, but did the TD explain why pulling to 4♦ could demonstrably be suggested by the two elements of UI? Did the TD ascertain from West exactly what West believed 2NT to mean at the point when he selected this call?

Probably it is my English, sorry. I was under impression that words "dual message" mean that one played card gives two messages in the same time. If played card means "I like clubs, I don't like spades" it is the "dual message". But I am failing to see how message "I like clubs" could be called the "dual message approach” depends on particular agreement I used to deliver this single message. No, there's nothing wrong with your English. With diamonds as trumps an agreement that: ♠2 means I like clubs ♠3 means I like spades ♠8 means I like hearts is indeed a single meaning for each individual card. There would only be a dual meaning to even cards if your agreement was, for example: ♠2 means I like clubs AND I do not like spades ♠3 means I like spades ♠8 means I like hearts AND I do not like spades As has been eloquently explained by Mr Burn, there is a very good reason for not permitting odd/even signals when following suit. However if the authorities wish to ban the first agreement I have outlined then they have not achieved their objective if all they are doing is banning "dual meaning" meaning signals.

I don't believe either interpretation makes sense. Why are you "comparing" anything to anything else? You simply look at what the UI suggests. Quite simply because comparing the information you know with and without the UI will tell you whether or not the UI would make a particular call or play seem more attractive, i.e. whether it "could demonstrably be suggested".