jallerton

I still don't get this bit. The extraneous information, taken in isolation, does suggest a particular action - it suggests bidding 4♠. Are you saying that "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play" actually means "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play other than what was already suggested by the available AI"? There are perhaps two ways of interpreting Law16B1(a). 1. In what I believe to be the practical interpretation we compare: [a] information available to the player from all authorised sources; with the information available from the combination of all authorised sources and the particular piece of unathorised information. In your example, [a] and are exactly the same, hence my conclusion that the UI does not suggest anything at all. 2. Under the alternative interpretation, it is suggested that we ignore the authorised information completely. In that case we would have to compare: [c] the particular piece of unauthorised information; with [d] no information at all. Considered in complete isolation (i.e. without reference to any authorised information), partner's alert and explanation are actually close to meaningless in terms of what they suggest we might do. Perhaps a different example might reinforce the point. The most common type of UI is a hesitation. So under interpretation 1, we compare: [a] my hand, both sides' system and the auction to date; with my hand, both sides' system, the auction to date and the fact that partner hesitated. and I do not choose any logical alternatives suggested by Under interpretation 2, we compare: [c] the fact that partner hesitated; with [d] no information at all. But for [c] and [d] we are not considering any authorised information such as the auction or our hand! Partner hesitated but about what we do not know, and hence no action from us could demonstrably be suggested now. Of course, it would be absurd if interpretation 2 prevailed as TDs would very rarely adjust the score under Law16 (though perhaps they might still be able to use 73C). Moreover, Laws 16B2 and 16B3 would be redundant. Hence I believe that Interpretaion 1 is the only sensible practical interpretation.

There are two Laws to consider: In the example you cite, where the UI does not tell partner anything he does not already know from AI, then there cannot possibly be any actions which are "taking any advantage"of the UI. Hence Opener is not constrained by Law 73C. Note the list commencing with a "remark" is preceded by "for example" so just because "expected alert" is not in the list that does not imply that expected alerts are not UI. In fact Law 16A confirms that alerts are not authorised information. However, in this case, where Opener was already sure of the meaning of 3♠, the extraneous information did not suggest any action at all. Hence no logical alternative "could demonstrably have been suggested over another" and Opener is free to bid whatever he wishes. Change the facts and make Opener only (say) 75% sure how 3♠ is going to be interpreted. Now it is theoretically possible that Opener could be contrained by the UI which now provides reassurance that 3♠ has been interpreted as Opener had hoped.

As it happens, it doesn't matter exactly what West thought the redouble of 1NTx showed; the TD can be fairly certain that he did not think it showed spades. Therefore, the deduction that East could not have 4 spades was made using East's explanation in combination with the auction. Such a deduction could not be made based solely on the auction (on the contrary, the auction alone suggests that East has either 5 spades or 4 good ones). Hence there is fairly blatant use of UI and the TD should adjust the score to 2♠x by East making the requisite number of tricks. As Bluejak points out, the TD should weight the score if he is not certain how many tricks 2♠x would make, but 2 off looks about right to me on the obvious trump lead.

Did the TD ask West why he bid 2NT? If so, what was the reply?

In which country was the hand played? The TD should have polled players of a similar standard and style, restricting his sample to those who agreed with (or at least didn't object to) the 1♦ bid. This would have enabled him to assess whether or not Pass was a logical alternative. Assuming that Pass is a logical alternative, The TD would then need to assess what action(s) the UI suggested. In my view, the UI suggests that partner has extra values with no clear bid, so he probably lacks primary diamond support. Does that make bidding 2♥ more attractive than an in tempo pass, at this (favourable) vulnerability?

Robin seems to have identified some weaknesses in systems currently used in multi-section EBU tournaments. In my view, if a pair has been warned about something (e.g. slow play, being noisy, dubious ethics) then there needs to be a mechanism for sharing this information with all of the other TDs, so that a repeat offence with be dealt with consistently, not based on the random factor of which TD happens to take the call on the 2nd occasion. The TD mentioned that he had been asked to rule on Board 11 and then both sides were keen to present their version of the facts on that board. Anyway, ignoring Robin's additional information which was not available to either the TD or the AC and just going from the facts reported in the opening post, I have a question for people who "disallow" the opening club lead. West asked about the meaning of a 1♦ opening as well as of 1♣. Given the same auction and UI (but perhaps a different layout), suppose that East had found a successful diamond opening lead when other less successful logical alternatives were available. Would you have adjusted the score then too?

What would double of 2♣ by partner have meant? Why does it seem clear that partner has at least 4 clubs? Partner has doubled 1♣ and then passed on the next round. In principle, partner has shown a hand with relative shortage in clubs and support for the other three suits.

I suspect that the regulation to which David refers is paragraph 3E of the Orange Book: Note: this had been toned down compared with what is used to say. Phrases like "may be" and "less likely" give the TD more discretion than previously, but there again not all players and TDs are aware of the change to the wording! If Gnasher always asks about alerted calls early in the auction then his regular partner will know of this practice and will know that he is not at all constrained by UI considerations. So is Gnasher's side safe from any UI adjustments after his questionning? No! If the TD does not know him, the TD will judge that UI has been conveyed by his question on a particular hand. Of course Gnasher will say "I always ask" but the TD may reflect "I've heard that one a few times before" , discount what to her sounds like self-serving evidence, and proceed with her adjustment. Does that mean that the regulation is wrong? Not necessarily, but the challenge for anybody who does not like it is to come up with something better. [One of my suggestions, rejected by the EBU L&EC, was to abolish all alerts on the first round of the auction and replace them all by announcements.]

2♥ was a legal call at the point of time when it was issued. So it is allowed information according to Law 16A1a. Yes, it was allowed information at the point when the call was initially made. However, as soon as the call was withdrawn, Law 16D took over and the information from the withdrawn call became unauthorised for the offending side.

OK, what do you think of this answer? 1. Apply Law 27 as in any normal insufficient bid case and ask the players to conclude the auction and play. If necessary, apply Law 27D to adjust the table result. 2. At the end of the hand, consider whether there is any damage from the first infraction (the non-STOP): judge whether the auction might have been different had the jump bidder's LHO been shown the STOP card. 2[a] If there is no damage from the non-STOP infraction, the (27D adjusted) table result obtained in step 1 stands. 2 If there is damage from the infraction, then: (i) the non-STOP bidder's side's is given an assigned adjusted acore (weighted if necessary). (ii) the other side is deemed to have taken a wild action (not taking care to see what bid was actually made) and so under Law 12c1 should be denied redress for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted, which in this case would be keeping the table score. 3. The non-STOP bidder should be given a warning or procedural penalty (if he had previously been warned) for failing to use the STOP card.

Knyblad, in the strange world of Law27, it is perfectly acceptabe to use UI from the insufficient bid after a correction of a natural bid to the same strain at the lowest legal level: Law27B1(a) tells us that this information is authorised.

East said that 2♥ was showing a good hand and asking for a stop. He said that he knew 2♣ had not been interpreted as inverted because partner had passed a forcing bid. The TD should only adjust for a fielded misbid or psyche if there is sufficient evidence of an unauthorised, undisclosed agreement. I don't which call you consider to be "fielding", but you should appreciate that East is entitled to draw inferences from the auction. When there is no possible hand consistent with all of West's actions to date then the only logical conclusion is that at least one of West's calls or plays is not as East first believed. I agree with Bluejak that because of the theoretical possibility of partner having psyched, it is clearly not 100% that partner forgot about inverted raises or didn't think they were on here. But how much less than 100% will depend on the partnership experience. Imagine that I am East playing with screens. Scenario 1. I am playing with a brand new partner. In our short system discussioin, we agree to play inverted raises without further discussion. On an early board I elect to bid 2♣ after 1♣-(1♥) hoping that partner will take it as forcing. When partner actually passes, I will become 99.99% certain that we are not on the same wavelength and, frankly, there is no logical alternative to basing my subsequent bids on this conclusion. Scenario 2. I have been playing with this partner regularly for the last ten years. I know we play inverted raises in this sequence and the sequence 1♣-(1suit)-2♣ has come up dozens of times before. When partner actually passes, now I shall consider partner having psyched the 1♣ opening or having "taken a view" on a subminimum opener a significant possibility. In the actual case. there were no screens so East had UI, hence: Scenario 1. East has UI, but there is no logical alternative to assuming that partner is not on the same wavelength about the meaning of 2♣. Hence East is perfectly at liberty to bid 2♥ or anything else that he thinks might wake partner up. Scenario 2. East has UI, but now he should base his subequent bidding on the other logical possibility of partner having a suspect 1♣ opening.

So during the auction and play, 2♥ is not UI; but at the end of the hand, we now say 2♥ was UI (Law 16D) and see if RHO used UI (Law 16B) and adjust as if 2♥ had been UI. What does the TD tell RHO? It is not illegal for you to use information from 2♥ but nevertheless if you do use information from 2♥ in a way that would be illegal if 2♥ were UI then I will adjust the score as if 2♥ had been unauthorised information. How is this any different in practice than saying the information from the changed call is unauthorised? Is there anywhere else in the laws that information becomes unauthorised at the end of the hand and we retrospectively apply Law 16B/D? Word fail me: but I hope they won't fail dburn. I too agree with Bluejak's decision to not include this in "Simple Rulings". It seems to be that 2♥ is a withdrawn call and that the 2♥ bidder is a member of an offending side. So the answer to Bluejak's first question is yes, under Law 16D2. Please note that Law 21B2 as quoted above by Robin merely says "without other rectification" which does not mean "without any adverse consequences whatsoever". The second question is more interesting still. Do the replaced calls "form part of the legal auction"? If so, hearts were specified in the "legal auction" and hence by virtue of Law 26A1 the Law 26 lead restrictions would not apply. However, the 2♥ bid would still be UI, so the partner would have restrictions during the defence based on demonstrably suggested logical alternatives.

I was on the AC. One procedural question I was going to ask is whether the action on Board 11 was valid evidence for the purposes of the ruling on Board 16 (the 1♥+2 hand). Since the TD had presented details of Board 11 during his statement of facts at the appeal on the Board 16, I presumed the answer to be yes. But if the answer is yes: 1. Why was the information available to the TD from the previous matches not also made available to the AC? 2. As the pair had already been warned about the potential for transmission of UI in this way, why did the TD not give them a PP when it was later ruled that they had transmitted UI and then breached Laws 73C/16?

No, West did not ask about 1♣ at his first opportunity. He asked when 1♥ was passed round to him, i.e. the point at which he was apparently considering protecting. I can't tell you exactly how the question was phrased, but I do know that E/W were not native English speakers and thus I suspect there would not have been much scope for East to draw inferences from the exact wording of the questions.

Why? Would the TD's ruling have been different if you had known?

Perhaps Peachy does not understand my English terminology. A "relay" is an enquiry, asking partner to describe his hand further with some pre-defined responses. Here the 3♦ bid showed diamond length but only 3 spades, most typically a 3541 shape. A bid which asks partner to bid step 1 to create more sequences is referred to as a "puppet".

A correspondent writes: So, for example, the auction goes 1♥-2♠-2♥ and when the 2♥ bidder is asked why he bid 2♥, he says that he had a raise to the 2-level and "knew" that 2♥ must be a sufficient bid when his RHO had bid without a STOP or alert. What do you do as TD?

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=s8hak92dkj98c10962&w=sj62hq8d65432caq8&e=s109753h1076da10ckj5&s=sakq4hj543dq7c743]399|300|Scoring: MP P-P-P-1♣(1) P-1♥-P-P- P(2) Board 16 (1) Alerted (2) Before passing, West asked the meaning of 1♣. He was told that it could be a short as 2 as N/S play 5-card majors. West then asked about a subsidiary question on which minor suit holdings would open 1♣ and which would open 1♦.[/hv] Opening lead ♣5. East/West cashed 3 rounds of clubs at tricks 1 to 3 and switched to a spade. East later won a trick with ♦A but that was all for the defence. N/S +140. The TD was first called three boards later. N/S were unhappy with the selection of the opening club lead on this deal after West's questioning. Initially they decided to give East/West "the benefit of the doubt" but they were now concerned about this board after playing Board 11 (see below) West said that he was considering protecting with 2♦ or with a double and wanted to know the E/W system before coming to a decision. The TD adjusted the score to 1♥+3, N/S +170 on the basis that a spade lead was a logical alternative to a club and the latter may have been suggested by the questioning. E/W appeal. East does not see why the questioning should suggest a club lead. She thinks that although beginners would lead a spade, it was obvious to someone of her (international) standard that partner could not have spades when he did not bid the suit or make a take-out double at any stage. N/S say that a spade is the normal lead from the East hand. Suppose that you are on the AC. Is what happened on Board 11 at all relevant to this appeal? Do you wish to ask any more questions? If not, do you allow the appeal? Board 11 was as follows: [hv=d=s&v=n&s=sj84ha872d86cj987]133|100|Scoring: MP 1H-P-1S-P- 2S-P-2NT(1)-P 3D-P(2)-3NT-P- P-P (1) Alerted (relay). No other bids in the auction were alerted (2) West asked about the meaning of 3D before passing. The East hand is shown above. East led a diamond against 3NT, finding her partner with: ♠A32 ♥KJ ♦K1095 ♣6432[/hv] Apparently the choice of opening lead did not affect the number of tricks 3NT made on board 11.

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sqj8hqj10643dak6c4&w=sk1053hk7dj74cakq10&e=sa6ha85dq102cj9873&s=s9742h92d9853c652]399|300|Scoring: MP P-1C-1H-2C- P-P-dbl-2H- P-3NT-P-P- P [/hv] Table result: 3NT+2(W), N/S -460 E/W play 5-card majors. 1♣ is either (i) natural or (ii) 15-19 balanced with 2+ clubs. East intended 2♣ to be forcing; West interpreted it as a non-forcing limit raise. North claims that, had he known that 2♣ was intended to be forcing, he would have passed out 2♣. The E/W convention card confirms that E/W play 1♣-Pass-2♣ as an inverted raise but does not mention the auction 1♣-overcall-2♣. TD's Ruling The Director awarded a score of 80% of minus 150 to the North-South pair, 20% of minus 460. Basis of TD's Ruling Having spoken to East and West, he was "convinced" that they did not have an agreement about the meaning of 2♣. This, in addition to the fact that East-West did play 2♣ as forcing if North had passed, was all the information to which North was entitled. In those circumstances North might bid again but would probably pass – the weighting assigned to the respective probabilities was that North would pass four times out of five. Basis of Appeal East/West appeal, saying that (i) they are not sure what they have done wrong ; (ii) N/S misdefended 3NT to allow it to make 11 tricks and (iii) the TD's adjustment has turned a very good score into a very bad score for them. Suppose that you are on the AC. Would you like to ask any more questions? If not, how do you rule and why?

I agree with Robin that the present recommended approach to Law 27 is unsatisfactory and is in need of urgent review. This is underlined by Bluejak's report that three different members of the WBFLC gave him three different answers to a fairly fundamental question on what the LHO is or is not allowed to know. Maybe it is time for regulatory authorities to appreciate that there is no obligation to follow any "recommended practice" and review their approach entirely; that review should start by considering the wording of the Law itself, rather than that of a contradictory WBLFC minute. If, as Law 27 seems to assume, it is possible for an insufficient bid to have a meaning at all, then presumably that meaning is known to the insufficient bidder's partner; hence there is an implicit partnership agreement and their opponents have a right to know that "meaning". Thus one possible procedure would be for the TD to send the insufficient bidder's partner away from the table to allow the insufficient bidder to explain the "meaning" of his bid to the opponents as well as to the TD. The TD could then advise these three players which calls, if any, would not silence the insufficient bidder's partner. When the partner returns to the table and a legal substitution is made, the TD will of course advise him whether or not he has been silenced!

Sven, you are a genius! Most tournament directors have difficulty knowing what Law 27B1 really means and yet you are able to make a player who had just had a problem complying with the more basic Law 18B/C gain a perfect understanding of Law 27B1.

I do not understand this. There are plenty of things published in EBU publications. If they are not published by the L&EC, or by Max Bavin specifically in his role of CTD of the EBU, or by the Tournament Committee, or by the Board, or by the General manger in that role, and so on, then they are not official views. Jeremy has published a column in English Bridge for many years, including many years before he was on the L&EC. Are you seriously suggesting it is either official, or that an official body checks it for accuracy? Your analogy is a good one, but I disagree with your conclusion. Many of the queries in Jeremy's column relate to the application of Laws and EBU regulations. The answers are in the official EBU magazine and that fact by itself is enough for most readers to assume that his answers will be correct. Those readers who are also aware of Jeremy's esteemed position will have even more reason to know that he is an expert on the subject. In answer to your last sentence, I have reason to believe that his column is checked by the Chairman of the Laws & Ethics Committee! [Yes, Jeremy's column has been going for quite a while, but I believe that Jeremy has been on the L&EC for many years also. Maybe Jeremy can confirm which started first.]

I have rather lost the thread here, but can we get away from Law 27. Do you object to players asking and being told the score for 3 down doubled compared with 4S= during the auction? Do you object to declarer being told of the lead penalties associated with a defender having a major penalty card, before defender's partner gets on lead? Do you object to declarer being told that a defender must play a major penalty card when it is legal, before the first legal opportunity for the card to be played (at the defender's turn to play)? I believe that there are two possibilities: 1. If one believes in the "Cult's" strict interpretation of Law40C3(a), then one should object to all three of your scenarios. 2. If one does not believe in the "Cult's" strict interpretation of Law40C3(a) and that the TD's job is to tell the players what the Laws actually say, then one should not object to any of your three of your scenarios. What I object to is people insisting that Law X must be used in one situation and then pretending that the same Law X can be interpreted differently in another.

So, let's get this straight. The WBF recommended procedure is for the TD to aid the technique of the offending side (by telling the insufficient bidder which calls, if any, fall within Law 27B1), whilst the TD is forbidden from letting the member of the non-offending side know the same information.