jallerton

Congratulations on accumulating so many green points each year. I think the way to treat you and your wife fairly in this regard would be to make the fine a certain percentage of your lifetime tally rather than a fixed amount. If David has 2,000 green points then he would receive a deduction of say 10% of 2,000 = 200 green points. If his wife has 90 green points then the deduction for her would be 10% of 90 = 9 green points. For repeated frivolous appeals there could be an automatic relegation down to the previous master point rank. I quite like this idea (apart from the AWMW which seems unnecessary if you are applying the other sanctions).

The vulnerability certainly makes a difference. As I implied earlier, I consider competing to 4♥ vulnerable to be very unwise against opponents who understand the concept of a pairs double. Mind you as it now transpires that North is not well known to some of the English TDs, maybe North did not himself appreciate that East and West were of "good standard" and hence did not share my expectancy that 4♥ would be doubled. The following hand appears on the EBU website: Board 22 Dealer E EW Game [hv=d=e&v=e&n=s7hj875d763ckq964&w=sqj8h43dkq9842c52&e=sak10432hk62d105ca8&s=s965haq109dajcj1073]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] from which I deduce that the 4♥ bidder was not vulnerable. Now considering only the AI, saving for one off against 3♠ makes a lot more sense, although I would still be concerned as North that partner would not be able to give preference to clubs at the 4-level. If the UI is considered to suggest hearts then of course this concern about partner having to revert to clubs at the 5-level becomes less relevant.

I don't think South's actual hand is particularly important for the purposes of the ruling* and I approve of the original poster not showing all four hands when presenting the original problem; at the table North only knew of his own hand and of the table action and auction to date. What is important is knowing what inferences, if any, North drew from South's questions. It does not matter if South's hand happened to be inconsistent with what the UI might suggest. North is legally obliged to "carefully avoid taking any advantage " of the UI/must not choose from amongst logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by it. * though for the record, I believe it was close to ♠xxx ♥AQ10x ♦AJ ♣J10xx rather than the shape you suggest.

I think that is rather ambitious. I doubt very much whether many non-experts construct hands opposite. I'm certainly not capable of doing so. All I can do is use my experience to evaluate my hand in general terms against what I know from the auction, use what tools I have, LTC, LTT, and decide how many tricks I am likely to make in offence or defence. If I asked you why you made a particular call, you would be able to explain to me in terms of whatever tools you use; that's absolutely fine and then I would then be able to understand your reasoning. The actual North player has told the AC that 4♥ was 100% obvious. This is not at all obvious to you or to me, so we need to understand why 4♥ was obvious to him. Similarly why did 4♥ "feel like the right thing to do"? If I were North, I expect partner would like to hold 4c♥ suit almost all the time. In practice, double is the best call on many hands with 3 hearts, so I would only expect partner to hold 4+ hearts say 70% of the time. Both opponents know that their partner has implied some defence and that you have produced an unconvincing, limited auction. We are told that this is a good standard game, so I would expect both opponents to appreciate the need to double for one off at MP Pairs to protect their +140. Even if you do escape a double, you may still concede 200 by going 2 off in 4♥ or 5♣ undoubled. That is the number of expected tricks if you swear by the "total number of tricks" theory without adjustments for potential double fits/pure hands.

In that case, I'll ask North to give me a few example South hands opposite which 4♥ is the right thing to do. I might also ask South why he asked about the 2♥ bid, to try to establish whether this particular South is in the "always ask about alerted calls" category or the "only ask when thinking of bidding" category.

The first thing to note is that is it not approriate for the AC to retain the deposit. The TD has informed E/W that there was a case for ruling the other way, so an appeal cannot really be regarded as frivolous. I cannot say how I would rule without knowing more information. Did the TD ask North why he bid 4♥? If so, what was the reply? If not, the AC should ask this question. Depending on the reply, the AC should then cross-examine North to establish why it is such a good idea to make a vulnerable save against the opponents' partscore. Alternatively, if North considered his hand strong enough to bid game opposite a minimum take-out double, the AC would confirm the meaning of 3♣ (presumably NF) and then ask why North had not made an alternative call on the previous round if he considered this hand to be worth a game force.

Some posters suggest that there may be no logical alternative to a diamond lead. The TD should perform a poll of West's peers to test this assertion. There might also be case for finding out the auction at other tables; I'd expect this auction to be duplicated a fair amount of the time and this would give the TD some poll results in real life conditions. The poll results will tell the TD which alternatives leads are "logical" and hopefully restrict the number of lines of play the TD has to consider. It's hard to construct a plausible line of play leading to 11 tricks (surely ♣A will not be led at trick 1), so it is not clear to me why any percentage of 3NT+2 was included in the TD's final ruling.

If I had been on the AC I would have been disappointed that East was not available at the appeal. On hearing his explanation for the 6♥ bid, I would ask him to confirm whether 3♥ was forcing and, if not, would ask him to explain why he was not on the previous round "assessing my cards to be a not quite so tough game." I would also talk to him about what odds he thinks he needs to bid NV games and slams at the prevailing form of scoring. During these discussions I would hope to get to the bottom of what really was going through East's mind when he decided to bid 6♥. [One thought occurs to me. I seem to remember hearing somewhere that "barometer" scoring is quite common in Norway. Could East perhaps have heard about the contract at another table? Pure speculation on my part, but a more likely expanation than East coming up with some clever calculated gamble based on probabilities and the IMPs scale]

As in all potential UI cases, the TD should ask the 6♥ bidder why he chose this call. [if the TD did not ask this question, then the AC should make sure that they do so.] Unfortunately, the opening post does specify whether or not East was asked this question and, if it was asked, what reply was given. Whilst the TD might well conclude that there has been no breach of Law 16A (as nothing was demonstrably suggested) he might also decide, having heard the player's reasoning, that there has been a breach of Law 73C. Assuming that the TD judges East to be good enough to appreciate that it is highly unusual to make any call other than pass over 4♥, then he might reasonably conclude that East has not "carefully avoided taking any advantage from that unauthorised information".

I think it depends on (i) whether we have any general agreements which could be relevant to the meaning of this double and (ii) the actual sequence. With a new partner, after 2M-(3m)-X I would alert the double and say when asked: "no specific agreement, but this double is often played as penalties" In other sequences I might alert and say when asked: "no specific agreement, but the following other agreements could be potentially be relevant............" Yes, because as this double is expected to be passed on the majority of hands it is not a "take-out double".

As Robin explained earlier, West was under the impression that East had forced to game. With ♠Jxx, would West have much interest in defending 3♠x at unfavourable vulnerability? If not, presumably West would bid 4♥ over 3♠ from South.

It is the case that most applications did not get accepted this time. There was some sympathy for this one but only a few months ago the L&E had consulted on changing the alerting regs. regarding doubles and the message from the club committee and others was loud and clear. DO NOT change anything at this stage. So we didn't. However I would think this probably does have some chance if the application is repeated. I think it is a good idea so that's one vote already! As I understand it, what the Club Committee did not like was the idea of making a major change to the alerting rules (and indeed one which arguably goes against the whole principle of alerting) relatively soon after the last major change on 1st August 2006. Matt's proposal would not have affected the alertability of 99.99% of doubles. As for the other 0.01%, I suspect that most club members (and perhaps also most Cub Committee members!) would expect take-out doubles with highly unexpected additional implications to be alertable already. To put it another way, Matt's proposal is not to make any change to the principles behind the current alerting rules, merely to correct an unintended effect of the original wording.

I am confused. Your first two paragraphs suggest that you found that West had not called within her normal tempo.

As North has shown two specific suits, then the term "take-out" sounds as though it is suggesting partner takes out into one of the other suits. Here North has shown both majors and the "take-out" bidder has both minors. What is the problem? If West had described the double as "take-out of hearts" then N/S could reasonably expect East to have shown 3+ spades, but that was not the explanation.

Bluejak is still correct. At an EBU event yesterday, the TD came up to my partner to ask what a particular section of the Orange Book said, explaining that the version of Orange Book on his computer was not the most up-to-date one. Later, I walked past the TD's table and spotted a hard copy of the White Book. Had the TD invested a couple of ink cartridges in printing out the recently introduced 2010 White Book? No, of course not. It was the 2006 version, that being the latest version which has been properly published in book format.

If my partner has made a WJO in spades and I hold ♠Ax, I feel I can ask wihout putting my interests at risk. In the very unlikely event that the bid is described as natural, I'll make a penalty double. I don't see what damaging UI is conveyed by my question!

Of course the overcalling style affects the likely defensive prospects against 4♠, as well as the prospects for making 5♣. In this problem, we can assume that the overcaller has a light overcalling style fom the fact that Advancer bid only 4♣ on the first round.

Robin is correct about the procedure (of course). In this case, where it is so implausible that 3♠ might be natural, when the TD is called at the end of the hand he should have regard to a paragraph in the Orange Book:

It may be common to "pattern out" in some partnerships, but that is probably not relevant here. If N/S do not have an agreement as to what Opener's 2nd call shows, it is highly unlikely that they have discussed what Opener's 3rd call shows!

That was one of the arguments he later gave. A suggested auction with the correct explanation would be ..... The TD should pay more attention to what North and South said when the TD was first called. Just as it is easier for us to construct an auction to slam looking at all four hands, it is also far easier for North and South to do so knowing the same thing. If South's bidding was affected by the misexplanation, then South should have been able to tell the TD how he would have bid differently and why. If North's bidding was affected by the misexplanation, then North should have been able to tell the TD how he would have bid differently and why. But the correct explanation was "no agreement". Would you suddenly be happy to risk a misunderstanding over 4♣ now? Yes (as long as the hand was from outside the ACBL.) If having heard the facts you consider that slam may or may not have been bid given the correct explanation, that's exactly what you should do!

The TD needs to consider potential misinformation, unauthorised information and the fielded misbid regulations. Misinformation The explanation of 1NT was found to be correct, so there cannot be any adjustment for misinformation. Unauthorised information Unless, West showed any form of surprise when 1NT was not alerted, East does not have any unauthorised informaton. West does have unauthorised information as at the point where he bid 1NT, he was expecting that bid to be alerted; the lack of alert woke him up to the fact that 1NT did not actually show both minors at all. However, it is hard to see how West's subsequent bidding and defence could have been affected by the UI, so no adjustment is appropriate in respect of UI. Fielded misbid regulations I believe this hand comes from England, where there are special regulations for "fielded misbids", which are treated similarly to "fielded psyches". The regulations are contained in the EBU Orange Book: East's explanation for the lack of double suggests that he would have made the same deduction with an unknown partner, so this does not provide any evidence of an undisclosed partnership agreement. In this case, East's failure to double 4♠ is hardly unreasonable, so I would classify the misbid as Green or possibly Amber. Either way, the score should not be adjusted, as the regulations only permit an adjustment for Red misbids and psyches (unless this has happened before in this partnership, in which case 6B6 above tells us that we can adjust for repeated Amber misbids).

1. Yes because of previously mentioned items such as searching and availability in up to date form 2. Yes. The cost of printing is significant and unlikely to be offset by sales. Re: 1. An electronic version is certainly useful for searching for specific words, but a paper version is more useful for reading about particular topics, particularly if you happen to be at a bridge venue, as most TDs tend to be when asked to give a ruling. Re: 2. How much did it actually cost the EBU to print the last White Book? How much does that work out to be per copy?

I would have doubled if partner had passed over 4♥ in tempo, but the problem is far more difficult when partner takes a minute to pass, as the slow pass demonstrably suggests that I bid on. I would have to wonder how obvious double is: the hand has good defence, but you had been planning to pass out 2S. I did a simulation of South’s problem and was surprised quite how much double does gain: if LHO bids 4H on most hands with a decent 7-card suit, double gains about 3.4 imp/board on average over the 20 hands I looked at. [Maybe this just proves that it is wrong for 4th hand to jump to 4H here without considerable playing strength. East may have thought that this was obvious, hence the reason why he could not envisage 5H going more than one off] However, my simulation does not help South in the present situation. Players do not have access to simulations at the table. Nor, crucially, are they able to poll their peers to determine whether a non-suggested action is a logical alternative. It is ironic that a South who tries to do the ethical thing by changing his intended double to pass loses unnecessary imps when it transpires that he could have "got away" with doubling.

The term "incorrect rectification" is a little strange, but if nothing has been done to rectify something which ought to have been rectified, I'd consider the doing nothing to be "incorrect"!

There are two reasons for this. The first is that some will be more reluctant than you to pay for a copy. With previous OBs they have also gone to the tournament players as well as clubs and directors. The second is that it is easier to keep it up to date in online form. The Laws being worldwide change only every 10 years. The OB typically has some minor modification each year. All the laptops taken by directors to EBU congresses have electronic copies of both White and Orange Books on them and I think that many clubs will find it easier to use it this way(searcnig, for example, being quicker and simpler) if they use a computer for scoring. So what is the primary reason for ceasing to print the Orange and White Books? 1. The EBU Board and/or L&EC thinks that these publications are better in electronic form. 2. The EBU Board considers this to be a good way to save money. 3. Other (please specify).