jallerton

No, all this proves is that a sample size of four is not big enough to determine with sufficient confidence that a particular action is not a logical alternative. [However, a sample size of four may turn out to be sufficent to conclude with sufficient confidence that an action is a logical alternative.] Well, the TD or one of his consultees might know the player in question, or he may be able to make a fair estimate of the player's standard from other factors, such as the player's position in the current event. There may be evidence of the player's system and style on the convention card. When you say "formerly", do you mean pre 1997, when the wording of this Law changed? Under the 2007 Laws, there could be an adjustment under Law 73C if the TD determines that this particular South's bidding was influenced by the UI. That is why the TD should ask the player immediately why he doubled. Let's consider South's mindset during the auction. Partner opens 1NT. At this point, South comes to the quick conclusion that he will transfer to spades and pass the transfer completion of 2♠. He will not give any consideration whatsoever at this point as to what he might do if LHO makes a jump overcall. LHO now puts the 'stop' card on the table followed by 4♥. Now we come to the critical few seconds. Scenario 1. If as South I decide, before North has finished obeying the 'stop warning'* that I am going to double 4 ♥, then when it later transpires that (rather surprisingly) partner was considering acting I shall know that I can double without breaching Law 73C. However, I now need to consider whether or not Pass is a logical alternative, as I also need to comply with Law 16A. Scenario 2. If I have not decided for sure what to do by the time it becomes apparent to me that partner was considering acting*, then I determine that double would be a breach of Law 73C and so I shall pass out 4♥. I would also note that I have seriously considered both pass and double, so both are logical alternatives and that I need to pass to comply with Law 16A also. * the time period will vary from partner to partner. I am lucky enough to have some partners who adhere to the 'stop' regulations properly, which will give me ten seconds or so; but with other partners I know I have less time, particularly if LHO picks up the 'stop' card prematurely (or does not bother to use it at all).

IHowever, the board has been played, so no such rectification would be possible in any case. I think 12C1 takes precedence unless the director cannot assign a score (12C1d, for example). But I think that should be rare.I think Law 12A2 could be in point as "no rectification can be made that will permit normal play of the board" , i.e. they cannot bid and play the hand again once the players have already had an auction and play period under the "abnormal" conditions. I'm not sure why you think 12C1 should take precedence, but if you read it carefully and apply it to this situation: you may come to the conculsion that the TD is not "able to award an assigned adjusted score". If you consider the parts of Law 12 which you didn't quote, you may see that there are other ways to arrive at Robin's conclusion: There has been an incorrect rectification of an irregularity because the TD was not called. 12A3 does not specify whether the adjusted score has to be artificial or assigned. If West had called the TD at the proper time, N/S would either have had the opportunity to play a substitute board or would have received average plus.

A few years ago, the EBU changed to using pre-duplicated boards in Swiss Teams events. Whilst this has the advantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands at the end of the set, it has the more fundametal disadvantage that players from different matches can discuss the hands about to be played by other tables during the set.

I disagree. As Robin says, a result was not obtained through "normal play". Law 16C3 is not relevant because that applies "when the UI is received after the first call in the auction has been made", whereas in the actual case: West breached Law 16C1; that is the breach for which we are adjusting. If West had called the TD at the proper time then the TD may have been able to arrange for a substitute board. When the TD was eventually called, it was too late to do so. Thus North/South should get average plus (Law 16C2(d) and Law 12C2(a)), but I think Robin may have been a little too generous to East/West: West is at least partially at fault and/or a PP is appropriate for the failure to call the TD earlier.

73 In what way?

Without further information, I am inclined to agree with Greenender. However, before reaching a decision, the TD should do the following: 1. Ask South why he doubled 4♥. 2. Ask East why he redoubed 5♥. 3. Conduct a poll of peers of South as a bidding problem at South's second turn to call. Each peer should be asked two questions: (i) What call would you make? (ii) What other calls, if any, would you seriously consider?

The results of the poll suggest that the failure to double was an unusual action. An inspection of the hand and auction suggests that the failure to double 5♣ was an error, quite possibly a serious one. However, if the TD determines that this particular West would doubled 5♣ with correct information, then he is ruling that the "serious error" would not have arisen without the infraction. Hence the "serious error" is not "unrelated to the infraction" and both sides get the score from 5♣x-4. Of course, if the TD determines that this particular West would not doubled 5♣ with correct information, then the infraction has not caused any damage and the table result should stand for both sides.

Well, Ed, another section of the Orange Book is also relevant: This demonstrates that the pair playing this method mentioned in the opening post are complying with the spirt of the alerting rules. I don't think anybody should be criticised for over-alerting unless the Orange Book makes it 100% clear that one should not do so. True, but most opponents would not look at the convention card, and if they ask a question it will be "what range is 2NT?" to which the reply "20-22" would not be deemed by the EBU to be misinformation (to find out the surprise about the distribution as well, the opponent is supposed to ask "what did 2NT mean?" or "please explain the auction").

What do you think? I think that you have quoted one relevant section of the Orange Book, not the relevant section of the Orange Book. Yes, 5F1 defines the 2NT bid as "natural" for alerting purposes. However, we need to look at the alerting rules themselves: It is normal to open 2NT on 5332 shapes in range; many people will consider a natural 2NT to be the best opening bid on certain 5422, 6322, 4441, and even some 6331 shapes. It seems to me that if a pair has decided to use (say) a Multi 2♦ followed by a 2NT rebid to show a natural 20-22 opener with a 5-card suit somewhere then their 2NT opener (20-22, but denying a 5-card suit) has a potentially unexpected meaning and should be alerted, according to 5E1(b]. And quite right too: as an opponent, I'd certainly want to know that declarer does not have a 5-card suit when I am planning the defence!

You state that we have to accept the TD's finding of fact. The TD's finding of fact included the meanings of the calls as stated in the opening post and East's explanation of why he bid 4♠. It also included the fact that West thought for 3 minutes before bidding 5♦. You can't just choose to believe one of the facts and ignore all of the others, just to suit your argument! There is also your favourite Law 73C to consider in this case. Only East knows for sure what was going through his head at the point where he bid 4♠ and whether the slowness of the 5♦ bid may have "woken him up" in any way.

The nature of the game of bridge is such that players are forced to take gambling actions on every hand. Virtually every call in the auction and many lines of play are gambles to some extent. Therefore the wording of Law 12C1b implying that non-offenders should be denied redress for merely taking "gambling" actions is very poor, in my view. People often misquote "wild or gambling" as "wild and gambling" and Bluejak is quick to correct them. However, as it would appear that all "wild" actions are also "gambling" I don't think the misquoting makes much difference. I rather like the Danish wording, as it seems to me that this better reflects the circumstances in which the law-makers intended redress to be denied. A "wild" action normally occurs when a player deliberately does something off-centre. "Wild" actions include, but are not limited to, double shot attempts. If a player is trying to do his best but does the wrong thing, he has usually not taken a "wild action"; he has made a mistake. If the mistake is fundamental, it could be classed as a "serious error", although then the TD would then need to consider whether or not the "serious error" is "unrelated to the infraction".

West has the UI that [a] East has heard a result at another table and East is concerned that it may affect his own bidding on this board. If East had heard that someone had made an overtrick in 1NT or had gone one off in 3NT on some board at some other table, it is unlikely that he would have bothered to mention it; games and part scores are sufficiently common that such knowledge is unlikely to provide any meaningful UI. Just because Mrs Muggins couldn't make 3NT at another table does not mean that it is necessarily advantageous to prevent East's clever partner from declaring 3NT on what may well be a completely different auction. On the other hand, if East has heard that Mrs Muggins has bid and made slam, East will know that this it probably is advantageous to bid the slam and that the unauthorised information may cause a problem. Hence West can take an educated guess on what East might have heard. Can you explain this a bit further, please? Law 12A2 says that: Given the information East has from outside sources, is "normal play" possible?

Indeed I would. ♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx is a (close to) minimum 3♣ bid for me (a borderline 3♣ bid for John). Correct. A minimum hand with 2 key cards will have less interest in slam and sign off in 5♦ more quickly. Hence the 2 minute pause demonstrably suggests a stronger hand, such as the hand held which contains the AK of trumps and a side ace. I was not involved in the Norwegian Premier League, nor do I know any of the players at the table, so I do not understand why you consider anything I have said on this thread to be "self-serving". Do you also think that the TD's comment was also "self-serving"?

The TD was told that 3♣ showed "extra values" but this was a statement made to the TD by E/W, which (I speculate) could probably not be substantiated on their convention card or in their system file. Unsubstantiated potentitally self-serving statements provide evidence, but this evidence should not be accepted as a fact; such statements need to be viewed with a degree of scepticism; so the TD should make further enquiries and seek alternative evidence where available. What we do know in this case is that ♠ 4 ♥J5 ♦AK1095 ♣AJ863 is significantly better than a minimum 3♣ bid (so significantly better than just "extra values"!), because holding this hand West thought for 2 minutes before signing off in 5♦.

On the second example hand I would also bid 3NT over 3♥ playing my methods, as I play 3♥ as asking for further hand description. However, the meaning of 3♥ for the actual E/W pair was described in the opening post as "asking for a cue bid", so playing their methods it is presumably systemic to bid 4♣. If these hands are also borderline playing the methods of the actual E/W pair, then East should try to cater for them in his subsequent bidding. Once he receives UI implying that West has extra values, East is now obliged to cater for these borderline/minimum hands in his subsequent bidding.

The TD is correct. The "simple" rule is that doubles of natural suit bids are not alertable if they are for take-out. Your opponents on this board had an unusual style, certainly, but there is no "potentially unexpected meaning" in the alerting rules for doubles. On the other hand, when asked about the meaning of the double, they should give full details of their agreement and if they play a non-standard version of take-out double they should say so.

No, but it would first be good to know the TD's ruling and the basis of that ruling. Note that North and East are screen-mates, so it would seem unlikely that East would deliberately describe his own pass as lacking a ♣ stop.

I agree with most other posters. North has bid 4♣, presumably non-forcing, so surely can't be considering bidding 6♣ to make. It is also unlikely that he was considering saving in 6♣ as (i) he has already pushed the opponents up one level and (ii) 5♣ was doubled, which suggests caution about competing further. Fair enough, but doesn't the double of 5♣ strongly suggest that Opener does hold good defence against clubs? Why should pass by North be forcing? If anything, the auction suggests that the hand belongs to E/W, not N/S. Perhaps if East had passed over 5♣, that might be played as forcing. Passing out 5♠ on the South hand just looks like the normal action to me.

I suspect that you are correct, but unfortunately this drastic reduction will be achieved as a result of the EBU's policy of encouraging clubs to disaffiliate. If the Orange Book is not going to be available in printed form, what will happen in the future when pair A calls the TD claiming that pair B's system may be permitted? Is pair B supposed to have brought a laptop so that it can show the TD the relevant permission in the on-line Orange Book?

Well, if you North Americans wish to play a game very similar to bridge, then why should we in the rest of the world object?

This is a good summary, but as Paul points out, the TD needs to be sceptical about any potentially self-serving statements and investigate further where necessary. On this deal, one of the key questions for the TD to get to the bottom of is what exactly is meant by: "3♣ = natural, non-minimum" I also play 2♥ in this sequence as "Invitational+ with 4+ diamonds". I would expect Opener to bid 3♣ on: [a] ♠Qx ♥x ♦KJ109x ♣AJ10xx ;or ♠x ♥Kx ♦KJ10xx ♣ AJ10xx and I could legitimately describe both of these hands as "non-minimum" in that, once partner has shown 4-card diamond support, they have significant extra playing strength compared with some hands which might have opened 1♦. A sensible question for the TD/AC to ask is: "how far is 3♣ forcing?". If it is forcing to game, then perhaps Opener is marked with 3 key cards and Gordon is right that bidding slam is "evident". However, if 3♣ is not game forcing, I would suggest that both hands [a] and are consistent with the authorised auction and that therefore passing 5♦ is a logical alternative. There is further evidence to suggest that the TD's ruling was correct: 1. Opener thought for a long time before making the weakest call available to him. Ergo, Opener must have thought that his hand was better than whatever he had shown so far. 2. As others have pointed out, there is an inference that Responder did not consider his hand worth 6♦ once partner had bid 4♣, else he would simply have jumped to the small slam at that stage (Opener having denied ♠A apparently).

I suspect this deal comes from Spain, but as they are holding their trial for Ostend at the moment, they may have been using standard EBL screen regulations. It seems that East must have interpreted the double as penalties, but as they are not a regular partnership, I suspect that they did not have a specific agreement. The duck would work if West had started with a 2524 shape. Whilst East would be more likely to pull the double holding 5-card club support, he might have been expected to have pulled the double to 3♥ on his actual hand.

Appeal number 7 of EBU appeals 2007 strikes me as being very similar to appeal number 1 of EBU appeals 2008 2008 EBU Appeals Booklet where, with the noble exception of Jens Christiansen and Eric Landau, all the commentators were baying for the deposit. I recall this case was discussed on one of these forums recently, although I can't find it now. Can someone tell me what the essential difference is between these two cases? In the 2008 case, declarer (North) had a trump suit Axxxx in hand and dummy had KJ9x. He cashed the ace (both followed low) and led a small one on which East played the 10. "North stated that East had hesitated before playing ♦10, an allegation strongly denied by East, who said he had played in his normal tempo, which he attempted to demonstrate." The essential differences in the 2008 case are: (i) there were disputed facts; the TD ruled that no hesitation had actually incurred. (ii) At the critical point, declarer has seen three of the four missing diamonds and knows that there are only two possible layouts of the diamond suit left: East (the hand under the KJ9x) has to have started with either Q10x or 10x. Declarer knows East would have nothing to think about whichever holding (Q105 or 105) he had been dealt. North knows that East knows without having to think about it, that there is no point in playing the Q with KJ left in dummy. Contrast that with the other three cases mentioned in this thread. In these three cases the declarer was missing the ace in the suit led and the hesitation gave the misleading impression that the hesitator held the ace in the suit led. P.S in the 2008 appeal, only 8 of the 13 commentators stated that they would have kept the deposit. 3 said they would have returned it and the other 2 did not state their opinion on the matter.

For the benefit of those who haven't got time to look at the appeal in detail: The table result was 4♠-1. The TD (Bluejak) let the table result stand but gave a PP to a defender who had taken "3 to 4 minutes" before playing from three remaining low cards in the suit led. 5 commentators [bS, NT, RG, RB and perhaps EL] agreed with the TD 8 commentators thought the score should have been adjusted for the offending side to 4♠= of whom 6 [AG, FH, JA, JBC, PL, RH] advocated adjusting to the same score for the non-offending side, whilst the other 2 [bR, TG] would have preferred a split score [defenders conceded 4♠= , whilst declarer keeps her 4♠-1] I was under the impression that 8 out of 13 constitutes a majority!

Well, it's hard to argue that this hand is an 11-count. But it's also hard to think of a hand improving quite so much during the auction. Still, pass is seriously considered by a significant proportion, of whom some actually would choose the action; so I agree that pass is a logical alternative.