jallerton

Unfortunately, it's not a universal principle. In the 2004 European Championships in Malmö, the following sequence occurred: N - E - S - W 1♣-2♥-Pass-Pass Dbl-Rdbl-Pass-Pass- Pass 1♣ was natural (although potentially short if 18-19 balanced) 2♥ shows 4 hearts and a longer minor suit, opening values. Rdbl showed extra values South's 2nd pass meant that he wanted to defend 2♥xx. N/S did not alert the pass (they both thought it was the natural meaning) but West assumed that the unalerted pass was neutral and passed. After North had also passed, West established the real meaning of the pass and called the TD. The TD decided that the failure to alert did constitute misinformation and allowed West to change his call. Edit: cross-posted with Robin! The same thing occurred to us at the same time!

Indeed it does, but in the sequence given, only a neutral pass neither unexpectedly conveys values, nor specifies suit holdings. Now I see the problem. The wording of the regulation is ambiguous. I interpreted the word "unexpectedly" to attach only to "convey values", whereas you interpret it to mean "does not [unexpectedly convey values[ or [unexpectedly specify suit holdings]." Even taking your interpretation of the wording of this section of the Orange Book, it is still a matter of judgement on every particular sequence as to what is expected. For example, you consider that the "expected" meaning of 2♦(majors)-(X)-Pass is to show ♦, but is Opener expected to pass out 2♦x with (i) any hand or (ii) only with tolerance for ♦ or (iii) use his judgement? Which is expected? Are you sure? What about this related sequence? (1♦)-2♦(majors)-(X)-Pass. It's still technically best for the pass to show ♦, but is that the expected meaning? Does it make a difference if 1♦ was Precision and potentially only a doubleton (or even a void)? What about 1NT-(P)-2♣-(X)-Pass? Or 2♣[strong]-(X)-Pass? Or think up your own sequence. Many partnerships will have agreements for these sequences (plenty won't, of course) but even though many might think they are playing the "normal" meaning, not all of these "normal" meanings will be the same! Just because the passer's partner believes that a particular meanng is not unexpected (or not even "potentially unexpected") then he cannot be sure that his opponent has the same expectations. Hence it would be wise to alert whenever there is a partnership agreement for the pass, in case someone considers it to be "potentially unexpected". Similarly the opponent cannot be sure that the passer's partner has the same idea as he of what may or may not be "potentially unexpected" and it would be naive to draw a definite conclusion of the exact meaning of a pass from a lack of alert in this situation.

I'm a little surprised at these answers. The "expected" nature of an agreement does not determine whether or not it needs to be alerted in the EBU. Rather than coming up with a ruling based on what you think the alerting rules ought to be, why not read the Orange Book itself? A pass which shows diamonds after 2♦*-(dbl) specifies a suit holding, and therefore is not "natural", according to 5F[c]. A pass which is "not natural" must be alerted according to 5E1(a). On the other hand, unless it shows something in particular, such as guaranteeing equal length in the majors, a neutral pass comes under the definition of "natural". It is not alertable under 5E1(a). It could be argued that this neutral meaning is "potentially unexpected", in which case it would be alertable under 5E1. However, as different people find different meanings potentially unexpected, and few people (even some national tournament directors!) get the alerting rules correct all of the time, I really think that South should have asked about the pass before calling if the meaning affected his bidding. I would not adjust the table score, because even if the failure to alert is deemed to be an infraction, no damage was caused thereby. The alternative meaning (♦) definitely would have been alertable so any claims that he assumed an unalerted double to show ♦ when he couldn't be bothered to ask should be resisted.

Dummy is not permitted to claim and yet dummy has claimed? hmmm... Axman has a point. Originally, I had thought as you, Stephanie. No, more, I had thought that the claim laws themselves excluded a claim from dummy. But they don't. So I was wrong earlier when I said dummy's statement isn't a claim. So the statement by dummy certainly qualifies as a claim. Perhaps that's an easier route to a ruling. Sven has suggested 16B1, but I don't like that one much because it leaves open the argument — which declarer made at the table — that there's no LA to playing the nine. So I like mine better - the infraction was dummy's participating in the play, the relevant Law (43) provides no rectification for this infraction, Law 12A1 allows us to adjust the score, so we do. No need for 16B1, or for the claim laws.Although dummy's statement might fall within the definition of a claim in Law 68A, dummy's statement is not a valid claim because dummy is not permitted to participate in the play (Law 43A1©). Hence I prefer your initial answer. A PP to dummy (Law 43B1 specifically refers us to Law 90) and an assigned score based on what the TD judges might have happened absent dummy's infraction. This does not necessarily follow. Think back to the last time you played bridge. Going through the hands, you may consider that you had no logical alternative to most of the calls and plays that you made. However, for some of these "no logical alternative" actions, it might have taken you several seconds' thought before you worked out why the action you eventually chose was demonstrably correct. The fact that it took you several seconds to reach that conclusion does automatically not make any other action a logical alternative. Are you quite sure about this? Declarer's LHO might have found the "expert defence", the "beginner's defence" or the "intermediate's defence". Or she may have played a card without thinking. Even assuming that declarer is aware of all of this, he has to judge which scenario applies at the table. What we do know is that declarer had not worked out what to do in the period between LHO's trick 12 lead and dummy's illegal statement. Thus the TD cannot be certain whether declarer would have come to the "correct" conclusion in the normal course of events before playing from dummy. As the TD cannot be certain what would have happened absent the infraction, the TD must assign a weighted score because that it what Law 12C1© demands.

Er, isn't that hand "rule of 23" rather than "rule of 25"? As you say, the playing strength of single-suiters is underestimated by "rule of X" the hand valuation! Strong playing strength hands without the high card points to open 1♣ are certainly a problem playing strong ♣. The interesting thing is that the Laws & Ethics Committee includes at least two members who have played Strong ♣ systems in regular partnerships, and they must have been aware of hands like this when they decided upon the wording of the regulation. Some players would be wanting to open this hand with a Benjamin 2♣, but since 1st August 2006 that hasn't been allowed either.

As far as I can tell, the requirements for a strong-only 1♣ and the strong option of a two-way 1♣ are identical at level four, so this shouldn't have anything to do with it. WellSpyder seemed to be expressing concern that some traditional systems may not be permitted in England. I was just making the point that if played in the traditional manner, the 1♣ opening bids in Precision Club, Blue Club, Swedish Club and Polish Club are all permitted at EBU Level 4. Of course the 1♣ openers in some "strongish" club systems such as Moscito and the version played in Finland are not currently permitted. As I mentioned earlier, the L&EC has rejected applications to permit such systems in the past, but maybe it is time for someone to ask them to reconsider.

I've not seen Barry Rigal's book on Precision, but I have two other traditional textbooks on Precision. In Precision Bidding for Everyone (Goren & Wei), it is explained that the correct opening bid is 1♦ on: ♠AQ ♥none ♦KJ1095 ♣ KQ10973 In Precision Bidding and Precision Play, Terence Reese is slightly less strict. Although he explains that it would be a mistake to open 1♣ on: ♠5 ♥AK10974 ♦KQJ86 ♣4 he goes on to say that: Interestingly, Reese's exceptional hand both conforms with the Rule of 25 and contains eight "clear cut tricks", whilst the hand on which it would be a "mistake" to open 1♣ does not meet either of those criteria. In "either or" 1♣ systems such Carrot/Swedish Club and Polish Club then the traditional minimum strength for the strong option is 17, 18+ or 19+HCP so the EBU's 16+ minimum does allow slack for judgement upgrades when playing the traditional versions of these systems. You appear to be playing a variation on the Swedish Club with the strong option devalued, which is why you seem to be running into problems.

Why? You have admitted earlier in your post that your partnership already has an implicit agreement to upgrade "good" 15-counts. If the EBU is to regulate the minimum strength of permitted agreements at all then it needs to use certain yardsticks, preferably ones which are capable of being easily understood. The EBU chooses to use HCP and "Rule of X". Let's take the "Rule of X" in the context of 1-level opening bids. Most traditional opening bids will comply with the "Rule of 20" - a 4/4 12-count, a 5/4 11-count or a 6/4 10-count. Maybe some "Rule of 19" hands will be considered opening bids, for example a 4333 12-count or a 6322 10-count. But what if you have a hand with good intermediates or honour structure that you feel is worth a point or two more? No problem, because the EBU has set the agreed minimum strength at Level 4 (in 1st/2nd positions) to be "Rule of 18". I suspect that the bar is set there to allow partnerships to agree to open 1♠ on hands such as: ♠AJ1098 ♥A1098 ♦973 ♣4 rather than the average "Rule of 18" hand (though clearly a side effect of the regulations is that one may agree to open a hand such as ♠Q6543 ♥J7542 ♦QJ ♣Q). So I agree with Helene. With the regulations as they are, the best strategy is to agree to set your mininum strength slightly higher than the permitted floor. Then if you or your partner chooses to upgrade a hand, the upgraded hand still meets the minimum criteria. If you really wish to be able to open "Rule of 24", 15HCP hands, then I suggest that you write to the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee to ask them to relax the requirements for the strong version of 1♣. Mind you, you'd need to come up with some persuasive arguments, as this has been considered on previous occasions: Since then, we have had a slight relaxation with the "extended rule of 25", but the Committee has clearly been aware of hands such as: ♠Q106 ♥AKQ1054 ♦A8 ♣84 and ♠KQ65 ♥ none ♦AJ754 ♣AJ43 when it came up with the current boundaries.

♠ K5 ♥ KQ97 ♦ AKT963 ♣ Q Auction: 1♦-(2♣)-Dbl-(P)-? I would bid 3♣ showing an unspecified game force. Over that: If partner bids 3♦ I'll bid 3♥, natural If partner bids 3♥ I'll bid 4♣, showing a good raise to 4♥. If partner bids 3♠, I'll bid 4♦, natural

Yes, it is plausible that North might remember that 2♣ was conventional from partner's 3♥ bid, but North might equally conclude that his partner has a long heart suit. To answer Robin's questions. I would bid 4♥ (rather than 3NT or 4♦) over an undiscussed 3♥, so yes, 4♥ looks like a logical alternative. Once 4♥ has been doubled, I do not think that as many as 20% would seriously consider redoubling for business, so Pass looks to be the only logical alternative at that stage.

Has the WBU provided any guidance to its TDs on the interpretation of the term "serious error"? The WBF has suggested that what constitutes a "serious error" may vary depending on the standard of the player concerned. My initial reaction was that for anybody who thinks 2♥ might be the correct call over a negative double, miscounting trumps should not be considered to be a serious error. Still, maybe 2♥ is played as forcing in some parts of Wales; I'd have to consult some very good Welsh players about that and ask the actual South why he did bid 2♥. Bluejak explains that South is a "very good player" but it is clear from this hand that he is not playing his best. Is this the same player who was "very tired" during last year's Welsh Cup semi-final? This does raise a serious question. Suppose that a very good player is ill and can hardly concentrate. Should his threshold for "serious error" be judged by his normal high standards or by his level of play on the day in question?

Not strictly true: So yes, the Stevenson 1♠ Opener is a HUM, but no the Precison 1♦ Opener is not. However, I would suggest that the Stevenson 1♠ Opener is not the only HUM licensed (sorry, David, permitted) at Level 4. How about the following? 1. Agreeing to open 1 of a major is permitted on any hand if it's forcing and promises a hand conforming to extended rule of 25. 2. Agreeing to open 1 of a major is permitted to show a [semi-]balanced hand in a specified range but must not be forcing.

I think Nigel makes a very good point. As an Appeals Adviser, I'd like to receive an unbiased and complete version of the facts, including knowing why the TD ruled the way he or she did. Of course the players will have someone to talk to and they will then be able to receive more sensible feedback. There's nothing worse for an Appeal Adviser than, having advised a pair that they have good grounds for appeal, to discover later that the appeal was frivolous because some pertinent facts available to the TD and the AC had not been mentioned to the Appeals Adviser. One of the stated reasons for the Appeals Adviser system is to reduce the number of frivolous appeals. This objective will not be achieved if the Adviser is given inaccurate or incomplete information.

Simpler for whom, Jeremy? I expect that the idea was to make the Multi easier to defend against by ensuring that the opening side could rarely, if ever, pass out 2♦. The 'wait and see' defence is still popular in some quarters.

Of course you have to play the queen in tempo, but that is irrelevant for my point. The point is that it has been stated repeatedly and boldly ;) (see quotes below) that you don't have a decision to make when you started with QTx. The 10 is always the right card from that holding. And I have stated repeatedly that that is simply not true, proving it with an example where the Q is the correct play and the play of the 10 is wrong. Actually, no. In the quotes you made, it was stated that the player would have no reason to think on the second round from Q10x. Nobody actually stated what the correct card to play would be, but in case you're interested, I'd expect: (i) 99% of players to play the 10 in tempo deeming it automatic that 'second hand plays low'. (ii) 1% of players to play the Q as a falsecard. You agree with me that a falsecard would have to be played in tempo, so that any decision to make this falsecard would have been made either instantly or before this trick had commenced. (iii) 0% of players would stop to think on the 2nd round holding Q10 left under dummy's remaining KJxx. [by the way, in your example playing the Q should not beat the contract so I don't see how it 'proves' that the Q is the correct card.]

So you say that from both holdings the play of the T is automatic? Wrong! The Hideous Hog or the Rueful Rabbit might well break an ice cold contract. Your silly play of the 10 could cost two (!) tricks, Ignoramus! But if South plays the ♣Q (whether with intent, like the Hog or because he had the ♣T sorted with the spades like the Rabbit) he has a sporting chance to beat the contract. So don't tell me that you don't have a choice what to play from QTx. Now you will say: "But Rik, East has ♣Ax instead of ♣Axxx." That is true, but defenders holding QTx (and faced with a decision) don't know how many clubs declarer has, do they? So they will have to make their decision without knowing whether East has Ax or Axxx. Rik No, I'll say: Rik, if you want to pull off this brilliancy, I suggest that you play the queen in tempo.

Indeed it is. The problem for the TD is that he will never know the player's intention. Hence I agree with the sceptical Norwegain approach, as outlined by Sven, to players who hesitate when they have not got a decision to make at their current turn to play. Back to the actual case. The defender would have nothing to think about whichever holding (Q10x or 10x) he had been dealt. Declarer surely knew this, so there is no reason for him to draw a false inference from the alleged hesitation. Hence there is no damage from the infraction and no reason for the TD to adjust the score. However, what I would do is to assess a proedural penalty on the defender, to discourage the repetition of such behaviour.

I had read the Laws, which is why I took the trouble to quote the ones which had been breached. You quote Law 73D1. The sentence you have put in bold contains the word "unintentionally" so does not legalise the deliberate play of a singleton out of tempo. We are talking about when a player has only one legal card to play. There is nothing to think about; to wait ten seconds before playing the only legal card is prolonging play unnecessarily.

LHO was not aware that he spent ten seconds. RHO admitted that LHO took approximately ten seconds to follow with the ten. Is LHO claiming that he paused for a period of under ten seconds, or is he claiming that he has played the card in tempo? I disagree. If a player has only one card left in the suit (and if the player only has Q10 left under dummy's KJ for that matter) then any hesitation is undue. In the story you recount from the Spring Foursomes, unless the defender had not appreciated that it was his turn to play [in which case an apology would have been appropriate] then several Laws were breached.

I know that BBO has been developed primarily for playing bridge and that the program is written to stop people making infractions such as insufficient bids, calling or playing out of turn and revoking. However, the BBO Vugraph coverage is reporting what has happened at a "real" bridge table where players' brains cannot be quite so well trained. For example yesterday in the Lederer the auction started 2♦-Pass-1♥ which next hand chose to accept. This became the start of the legal auction, but the Vugraph operator had no way to display the real auction. Is it possible to adapt the software to allow insufficient bids, calling or playing out of turn and revoking (no doubt with an "are you sure?" warning) at Vugraph tables?

Before ruling I ask the player to explain why it took him ten seconds to play the 10.

sorry posted as the wrong person again

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sahj1098d1098532c86&s=s62hkq7654dqckq107]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1♣ P 1♠ 2♥ 2♠ 4♥ 4♠ P P 5♥ P P dbl P P P[/hv] 1♣ = not a weak NT, no 5-card major, not 4-4 in the minors (i.e. natural, or 15+ balanced) 2♠ = promises four spades 10 of spades lead, Ace, King, low low diamond, low, queen, ace 2 of spades, ruff, {random middle spade pip} 10 of diamonds, low,.... Ruff it or run it? Why?

In your scenario, in order for the innocent side to "obtain a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred", two things needed to happen: (i) the infraction; and (ii) the revoke defending the illegally reached contract. Therefore the damage is "because" of (i) and "because" of (ii). Hence the "because of an infraction" condition of Law 12B1 is satisfied. Let me ask a question as well: Does the WBF Code of Practice (issued whilst the 1997 Laws were in operation) still have any legal force? The wording to define damage is slightly different: I'm not sure if it is intended to mean something different in the 2007 Laws or not. However, the example would seem to answer Robin's question, if the Code of Practice is still valid today.

If, having received feedback from the pairs concerned, you felt it necessary to adjust from 6♠= reached via an illegal route to 6♠= reached via a legal route, why did you not give a procedural penalty for the 4NT bid? Surely that would be a clearer way to get over the message of what you think of the player's "failure to follow the Laws".