jallerton

Yes, but as North is entitled to assume that West has bid legally, he might also have reflected that West must hold extreme distribution in order for pass to not be a logical alternative. But anyway, let's assume for the moment that the West hand is less distributional, by swapping one or two of East's spades with one or two of East's red cards. Now even Geoffrey Boycott's mother would make 5♠ for +450 and unless E/W can take 5♦x at least three off in practice [which seems unliklely] then the winning action is to bid 5♠. Matchpoint pairs is a difficult game. What do you mean. exactly? Let's make the far from clear assumption that North has already decided during the auction that he is going to ask for a ruling. Now he has the choice of: {a} passing and ending up with the score from defending 5♦x or, if the ruling goes in his favour, an assigned score from defending 5♣x; and {b} bidding 5♠ and ending up with the score from declaring 5♠ or, if the ruling goes in his favour, an assigned score from defending 5♣x. Clearly, it is in North's interests to take whichever action out of pass and 5♠ he believes will maximise his table score. Whether he opts for {a} or {b} he will still have the "double shot" of calling the TD. Bluejak has confirmed in other threads that the "double shot" of calling the TD to investigate a potential infraction is perfectly legal. I take it from your comments that you consider 5♠ to be clearly inferior to pass (though I suspect that if you were to poll peers of North, you might discover that 5♠ is a logical alternative!). Maybe you would even go so far as to say that bidding 5♠ in this situation is bad bridge. However, that does not mean that you should consider denying redress to the non-offenders. The EBU White Book makes clear: In the context of this auction, if the North were to pull the double of 5♦ to 6NT, that would be an example of an action markedly worse than bad bridge, in my opinion. Then North would know that he was doing something severely off-centre, i.e. 'wild or gambling'. In making his actual call of 5♠, the TD has no reason to believe that North was not trying to do his best; bidding 5♠ is simply nowhere close to 'wild or gambling'.

Yes, the Law refers to "significant proportion". In England, the following guidance has been given by the Laws & Ethics Committee: I found some TD guidance on the ACBL website, but the guidance on Law 16, logical alternatives just refers to "significant proportion" ; so presumably ACBL TDs are given some latitude in interpreting this phrase. In the actual case, I agree that a spade lead appears to be demonstrably suggested {maybe some DONT players can confirm how they play, but I would presume that 2♠ says: I don't care what your suit is, I want to play in 2♠ rather than being some 'pass or correct' bid}. Over a penalty double a non-forcing 2♠ bid would tend to suggest a weaker suit. I agree with everyone who says that a poll is needed to determine whether a spade lead is a logical alternative. My feeling is that it certainly ought to be as one of the plausible layouts where it goes off is where partner has ♦Qx and either ♠A or ♠K over dummy's ace. The original poster asks whether the appeal has merit. To answer this type of question, we need to know the basis of the TD's ruling. For example, if the TD had already taken a valid poll, from which he had concluded that a ♠ lead was a logical alternative, then the appeal would indeed be frivolous. I am unimpressed by: Does West never lead partner's suit when he knows that dummy has a stop? An alternative theory would be to assume that neither North nor South can have particularly strong spade holding as neither has seen fit to double 2♠.

Robin, the way to give people an incentive to obey Law 20F5 is to let it be known that procedural penalties will be automatically applied when they do not! By the way, I think the situation is different where the NOS might have wanted to change its final pass in the (original) auction. Say the auction goes (with North dealer) 1♥-3C-P-P-P. If a misexplanation of the 3♣ bid is not corrected at the end of the auction, I believe that for the purposes of evaluating any adjustment to North's second call (and any subsequent auction) both the misexplanation and correct explanation should be available information for North/South because now we are adjusting for damage for a breach of Law 20F5(i).

My reading of the Laws agrees with Bluejak's interpretation: The infraction is the failure to alert. The "expectation had the infraction not occurred" is surely based on what would/might have happened had North alerted and explaining correctly; in that hypothetical situation E/W woud not have had any information available from North's failure to alert and would not have come to your "logical conclusion".

Whilst I am prepared to believe that this particular East would have passed out 3♣ if he had known that both: [a] 3♣ showed spades and diamonds; and North had forgotten the agreement, I believe he is only entitled to know (a). What the TD should do in all MI situations is to ask the player who claims (s)he might/would have bid differently to explain why and to assess the plausibility of the statement East gives at the time. What reasoning did East give to the TD in this case? The potential UI adjustment on this hand is not at all obvious. A lots of factors would need to be considered. From South's point of view: 1. Was 3♣ forcing? Perhaps some Gh****m players can tell me what the normal call playing this system would be on ♠AKQJxx ♥ x ♦KQJ10xx ♣ none. 2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, is South allowed to infer from the pass of the forcing bid that North has made a mistake, rather than taking a gamble with a long club suit? 3. What strength does 3♣ show? If South has considerable extra high cards for his bidding to date and the answer to either question 1 or question 2 is no, it's probably at least a logical alternative for South to act again. Furthermore, passing would be demonstrably suggested over (say) an action double by the UI, as passing is more likely to stop North bidding 5♣ on the next round, and the UI suggests that 5♣ is probably a silly contract. From North's point of view: 1. What strength did he think 3♣ was? Perhaps it's easier to ask what strength would a natural 3♦ overcall would be for North/South. 2. Why did he pass 3♣?

Did the TD ask North why he bid 3♦? If so, what was the reply?

In traditional Acol after P-(1♠)-P-(P)-1NT-(2♥): Without much in the way of values, pass. With a good hand for defending, double for penalties. With values and a reasonable 5-card minor, bid that suit. But with values and no good suit to bid? An unbiddable hand! Quick thinking players might pass in tempo, but there are plenty of players who would take several seconds to work out that they have no convenient positive call to make before passing. The slow pass demonstrably suggests a hand with values and no convenient bid, the sort of hand on which you or I might make a take-out double. And what would you call as North after: P-(1♠)-P-(P)-1NT-(2♥)-Dbl[T/O]-(P): Would you consider bidding 3♦ perhaps? So there's your answer: 3♦ was a response to the "take out pass".

This is exactly why 5B10 does not make sense. There is a legal obligation to disclose all agreements to the opponents and whenever West knows anything potentialy useful from partnership experience then he should share that information with North and South. On the other hand, when there is no relevant partnership experience and West is completely in the dark as to the meaning of East's call, then that is all North and South are entitled to know. In practice, the one piece of information West might use to guess how East might have intended his call is the contents of West's own hand. That is definitely not information to which North and South are entitled. Here West was going to act as if there were no agreement, so you are correct as long as "no agreement" is considered not alertable.

This is wrong within the EBU. The Orange Book says so Sven's inerences are, I believe, correct. I assume that paragraph 5B10 of the Orange Book was written with experienced partnerships in mind, as they often have agreements about related sequences which may be relevant in determining the likely meaning. This regulation makes little sense in a situation where a partnership has no explicit or implicit agreement about either the sequence in question or any potentially related sequence.

I agree with most of the AC's comments. Whilst they have certainly improved on the TD's ruling, they have not followed through their logic quite far enough. Comment B is correct and 3NT would almost certainly make 9 tricks on the lead of ♦Q. However, comment A is also correct. Without the benefit of seeing all four hands, North rates to be relatively short in diamonds and it looks normal to lead the suit in which the opening leader's side is known to hold a 9-card fit. On a spade lead, normal play leads to 10 tricks. Even allowing for sympathetic weighting to the non-offending side for the possibility of ♦Q lead and/or a very lazy play be East on a spade lead, an appropriate weighting for the score an assigned 3NT contract might be: 25% of 3NT = by E , N/S -600; plus 75% of 3NT+1 by E, N/S -630. However, when the matchpoints from this weighting are compared with the matchpoints from the table result of 5♣+1 by E, N/S -620, it seems likely that the scorers would conclude that there is no damage from the alleged infraction. But was there an infraction at all? True. Also true, but in order to merit an adjustment, pass would also have to be demonstrably suggested by the UI. I agree with the scepticism of Frances, Robin and Paul on this point. In all UI cases it is imperative for the TD/AC to consider all likely hand types which could give rise to a hesitation. Whilst I agree with Bluejak that East's hesitation suggests doubt, it is not clear from the UI what makes East doubtful. West's actual hand has two potentially useful features which may be just what East was hoping for if he has guessed to bid 3NT on a good hand without an obvious route to 9 tricks on his own. It is important to remember that an adjustment under Law 16A can only be made when the UI demonstrably suggests one logical alternative over another.

No, I do not agree with the ruling. If South had been given the correct explanation of "no agreement", South would almost certainly assume that West had a natural 2NT overcall, on the basis that virtually everyone plays that way. Therefore, I believe that this particular South would have made the same lead as he did at the table. The table result should stand.

What was the auction (including range of any NT bids)? What did West discard on the 4th and 5th diamonds?

A few points here. If the TD returns to the table and explains his ruling, is it appropriate for a player to ask the TD to revise his ruling, or should the TD simply refer the player to his right to appeal? At the table, 3NT made 11 tricks but that was played by South. If you share Bluejak's view that South is permitted to bid 3♠, 3NT would end up being played by North. With the other hand being dummy, the defensive problem is different and there is a possibility that the defence would find the cashout. Hence it would seem appropriate to subdivide the 3NT by North into weightings of 10 and 11 tricks. Finally, if Bluejak is entitled to growl at his consultant for not noticing something, is not the consultant entitled to growl back at Bluejak for not noticing the same point?

Are you sure? Whilst partner's explanations and alerts are unauthorised for the purposes of the calls and plays you make, this information is authorised for the purposes of determining the correct partnership agreement to explain to the opponents. Although West clearly intended 2NT to show the red suits originally, if following partner's lack of alert, he remembers that the actual agreement is natural, he is obliged NOT to comment on the lack of alert; if partner now bids, for example, 3♥, he should alert it and explain "transfer to spades", even though for the purposes of his own bidding he will assume that 3♥ was natural preference. If the correct agreement is "no agreement" then presumably he does not need to "correct" the lack of alert, although as Robin says, any "15-18 balanced" explanation should be corrected to "no agreement".

Does the WBF definition of "strong" relate to high card strength or playing strength (if so, what is a hand of average playing strength)?

It's a good thing that it didn't matter as it is the TDs, not the North player, who appear to have made a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) in this case. North's 5♠ bid converted a virtually certain -550 into a better score for his side (even if your reported table score of -500 is accurate this time; 5♠x looks to be -300 at worst). How can an action which improves one's score be a "serious error"? I suppose that some "wild or gambling" actions might improve one's score, but it would be very unfair to describe a winning competitive decision in such a way.

Well, what the TD should do in this situation is to establish what a passed hand live 1NT overcall would mean to East. I'm certain it does not mean: I have a balanced hand and a maximum pass. When "average club players" have made this bid against me they have had a 2-suiter. [They normally have 5-5 because for a passed hand 1NT because with lesser distribution a take-out double is available; and there is no point is risking going for a penalty with an unnecessary 2NT overcall just for the sake of it.] If the concept of overcalling in NT to show a 2-suiter is completely alien to East, then maybe you could argue that the delayed 1NT simply conveys the message that West miscounted her points, in which case the UI provides the same information as the AI. But I don't think many TDs would buy this argument. I agree that some club players might be less inclined than I to jump to 5♣ on a weak hand with 6-card support for partner. What the TD should try to do is to poll peers of East (other players in the club of similar standard) to see what they would bid in this auction [without the comment from West]. I'd be very surprised if any of them bid 2♠. Let's say that you are right and none of them jump, making 2♣ the only logical alternative for East. If East bids 2♣, West will presumably interpret this as Stayman (or Keri, if that's what they play). Now we have to work out how the auction will go with West thinking the auction means one thing and East another. If they play Stayman followed by 3 of a minor as forcing, then they are likely to end up in 3NT.

But in your partnerships (and the partnerships you know) would 1NT be natural after Pass-1♦-Pass-1♠-? As it makes little sense to bid in this position on a balanced 11-count, 1NT is normally played as a 2-suiter (specifically the other two suits when Opener's and Responder's bids were natural). If I were East I would deduce the following from the authorised auction: 1. from the passed hand 1NT that my partner had 5/5 in hearts and clubs. 2. that the meanings of my continuations are natural, not my normal system of transfers over a natural 1NT. 3. that the opponents are cold for at least 4♠ 4. that my logical alternatives now are 4♣ and 5♣. As the UI suggests that (i) the opponents may not be making 4♠ after all; and (ii) our side is unlikely to make game in clubs, I consider the UI to suggest lower club bids over higher club bids and I deduce 5♣ to be the only legal logical alternative for East. It looks as though North will double and the contract will still make 9 tricks, so as TD I adjust to 5♣x-2 by East, N/S +300 for both sides. Hence the discussion about whether East might pass 2NT is not relevant!

E/W did have an agreement. However, you are correct to say that there was MI, because the correct explanation was: "we've agreed to play our 2NT overcalls as 'unusual', although we did not have time to discuss what this means". Given the correct explanation, North and South would both assume (as East did) that 2NT showed both minors, which is exactly what they assumed when given the actual explanation at the table. Hence there is clearly no damage from the MI.

In my view, only the second approach is correct. The problem with the reasoning of the first approach is that the information from the display of the defender's card is only authorised in the time period between its initial play as provided by Law 45A and the completion of the trick as defined by Law 65A. Any subsequent exposure of the card by partner provides unauthorised information. Although there has been a breach of Law 66C, the breach of this Law has not in itself caused any damage. The potential damage only occurred if the partner was deemed to have not complied with Law 16B and/or Law 73 at a later trick.

I don't think that North's double should be classified as wild or gambling. He has two aces outside spades plus the king of trumps and might reasonably expect the contract to go off more often than not. However, I wonder if it would be plausible to reason as follows: 1. From the table auction it seems that this particular North doubles more often than many players. 2. Had West passed rather than bid 4♣, it is not unreasonable to double 3NT on the North hand. 3. Therefore, had West passed rather than bid 4♣, there is every chance that this particular North would have doubled 3NT on the North hand. 4. 3NTx would probably have made an overtrick, scoring -950 for N/S. 5. The actual table score was presumably also -950 for N/S, as it is hard not to make an overtrick in 5♣x. 6. Therefore no damage from the infraction, even if pulling 3NT is deemed to be one.

The opening post says "agreed slow", so let's rule on the basis that East's call was out of tempo, Sven. If you want to translate this into a Norwegian problem, assume that East paused for significantly longer than the Norwegian regulation demands. I'm a little surprised to see this in the Simple Rulings forum. It is not immediately obvious whether certain actions are demonstrably suggested by the slowness of the 3NT bid. Perhaps the reason for the TD call was procedural. Apparently, the players had entered the score in the Bridgemate as only 11 tricks but were still confused about how the score of 850 was arrived at!

I agree with this. Time permitting, the TD should try to observe this particular East during the next few hands he plays (even in the next match, he will probably have a RHO who does not hold out the 'Stop' card for the full ten seconds) to establish whether he really does "top up" pauses for stop warnings as a matter of course. The TD should ask West why he bid 4♥. The answer will be interesting. When facts are disputed, the TD must determine the facts using balance of probabilities". West's inconsistent 4♥ bid is a fairly strong indication that West had "noticed" a pause (whether East had actually been considering bidding or not) and in the absence of stronger evidence to the contrary, I'd be inclined to rule that there was one.

North's pass was the third consecutive pass in the (original) auction so East did not get another call! Perhaps I should have made it clear that screens were in use.

The only potential legal effect of the law violation was to provide unauthorised information to the player's partner. As Law 16A "provides indemnity" for unauthorised information from partner (when demonstrably suggested logical alternatives exist), Law 12A1 does not apply.