jallerton

1. Yes, I agree with adjusting back to 4♠. Given East's raise to 4♠, North can hardly have been considering doubling 3♠ for penalties, ergo a pause in excess of the normal 'stop' period implies that North was considering competing. Hence South's 5♦ is demonstrably suggested by the hesitation. It's hardly obvious for South to go to the 5-level by himself so Pass is surely a logical alternative. 2. 4♠ might make 12, 11, 10 or even (on a very bad day) 9 tricks so it is clear to award a weighting ruling. Maybe 9 tricks (which needs a ♦ lead or switch and misguess in ♣) is sufficiently unlikely to be included in the final ruling, but it would also be reasonable to assign a likelihood of say 10% to this result.

One player told me recently that he always sorts his cards at the end of the hand. If he shuffles his cards before sorting them, is he complying with the Law?

The wording of this Law is very clear and leaves very little scope for "liberal interpretation". The guidance currently on the EBU website explains the meaning of Law 27B1b quite well:

North was claiming to have misbid. Of course this does not necessarily mean that North has misbid; the TD has to review other evidence (e.g. the convention card) and have regard to the direction given by Law 75 in determining whether there is deemed to have been a mistaken bid or mistaken explanation.

I agree with Bluejak that we need to confirm the meaning of West's double of 3♥. If penalties (as seems likely) then surely North's pull to 4♦ exposes the fact that North has misbid or psyched; with hearts North would surely pass and play in 3♥x. Hence South's pass of 4♦ should be categorised as 'green' and there should be no adjustment to 60/40. Of course we need consider North's bidding in the light of the UI and I like the TD's weighted ruling as outlined by Barrie.

I agree. We need to know what a 3NT bid would mean and how firm the partnership's agreements are in this area. If they have specifically agreed that Opener is expected to use discretion and that 4♠ is the medium action [a sub-optimal method, if you think about it] then probably the UI does not demonstrably suggest bidding on over passing or vice versa. It really depends on their agreements. If not sure on what hands partner might bid 4♠, it seems percentage to bid Blackwood and bid slam opposite and ace and ♠Q. But if the partnership has agreed to play what I consider to be a superior method, 4♠ should deny a side suit ace (else cue bid) in which case passing is the only logical alternative lest partner hold something like: ♠Qxx ♥Qx ♦QJ10xx ♣KQx when 4♠ could be the limit of the hand (OK, 4♠ may not make either on a really bad day but perhaps the opponents can take only one ruff, and yes 4NT is cold but it is impossible to get there). It depends. Having established what agreements they have, I'd ask the player why (s)he bid 6♠. If I conclude that the player inferred only from the UI that partner must hold ♠Q and an ace, then the 6♠ bid is illegal. Conceivably, is pass is not a LA, we might rule no damage from failing to bid 4NT(would get to slam after 4NT-5♦-5♥) but assess a PP for the 6♠ bid.

Committee's Comments: [The reference to 'at all probable' is because the 1997 Laws were in force] Committee's Decision: What do you think about the AC's decision, in particular the decision to award a procedural penalty?

Where have you been since August 2006? In EBU Level 4 events (used for most tournaments in England) there are arguments whenever someone opens 2♣ Benjamin or similar light and one of their opponents has heard of the Rule of 25/Extended Rule of 25/Modified Extended Rule of 25!

This deal comes from a WBF event, so the AC is permitted to award a weighted score.

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=sj8743h972dk108cq6&w=sa952hq83d43cj1054&e=sqhj10654daq9652c9&s=sk106hakdj7cak8732]399|300|Scoring: MP 2♦(1)-3♦(2)-P-3♠ P - 4♠ - P - P P[/hv] ¹ Weak, can be six cards and 5 of another ² N/E: Majors S/W: Asking for stopper Table result: 4♠=(N) West called the director, claiming he could have bid his second suit if he had received the explanation that 3♦ asked for a stopper. TD's ruling: Misinformation, Damage, Score changed to 5♥ doubled, 1 down, N/S +200. N/S appealed. North explained that in fact the explanation he had given should have been the correct one, but that since he was not able to prove this conclusively, he accepted the ruling on misinformation. North asked to consider two other points though: firstly, that he thought it unlikely that East/West would defend up to th five level, and secondly, that he thought 5♥ should go two down, or even three. East stated that he would certainly have shown his second suit, but was barred from this by the explanation that South held both majors. How would you rule if on the AC?

Well, I think the agenda is a matter for the Chairman and Secretary of the L&EC! The L&EC minutes of 12th February seem to explain the problem: The minutes then record: but the argument of those voting against is not recorded.

Well, the exact wording of that particular part of the regulation is: "subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks". It seems to me that there is little point in the L&EC spending a long time (re-)debating whether or not a hand such as: ♠KQJ108765 ♥ QJ102 ♦J ♣ none counts as "eight clear cut tricks" unless they also define what they mean by "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening". Without such a definition, it will still not be clear to TDs whether or not the hand quoted above is supposed to fall within the Orange Book definition of "Strong". I would suggest that the term "normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" can be defined in rather more simple terms than the one that may or may not have been agreed for "eight clear cut tricks". As the concept of high card points (HCP) is widely understood by the EBU membership and is used elsewhere in the Orange Book, the L&EC simply needs to agree on a number, presumably one of 8,9,10,11 and 12.

What seems "blindingly obvious" to some people is not so obvious to others. For example, it seems "blindingly obvious" to me that the correct personal pronoun to use when referring to a participant in the National Women's Teams is "she", but you and several other posters seem to prefer to use the word "he". So although I happen to agree with your view that passing 4♠ is the correct call on the North hand, the correct course of action for the TD is to poll peers of North after the auction 1♠-3♣[strong jump shift]-4♠ to assess whether pass is in fact a logical alternative for this particular North. Correct. It is only possible to field a misbid if a player caters for her partner having deviated from their agreement. If there is no agreement in the first place, there is nothing to deviate from. This reminds me of a Brighton ruling posted on this fourm a few weeks ago (the thread seems to have mysteriously disappeared) where the auction went something like (1♠)-1NT-(P)-2♥-(P)-2♠)-(P)-3♥-All Pass. 2♥ was described as a transfer, responder had a weak take-out in hearts. Apparently the TD ruled fielded misbid, but I think that this ruling would only have been correct if the TD had established the pair to have specifically agreed the transfer into the opponent's major as showing the suit. The overwhelming likelihood is that the pair had never discussed the situation, in which case there was no agreement and hence no misbid to field. In such cases the TD just needs to consider the UI and the MI (the correct explanation was probably "no specific agreement"). Probably not. In auctions like this a slight hesitation normally just suggests that the player was spending a few seconds deciding what her partner's last bid was supposed to mean!

Yes, congratulations to Gordon and David, and to Martin Lee and Neil Morley who have also been promoted. A question arises: are we going to get another "Senior Consultant Tournament Director" or will this category disappear?

In the Bermuda Bowl final, BBO had one table with English commentary, one table with Italian commentary, with several thousand kibitzers at each table. Many of the kibitzers at the Italian speaking table might have preferred to see commentary in English (and vice versa). Is it possible to send the vugraph feed to more than one BBO table, to allow the same table to have two separate sets of commentary?

So is it permitted at EBU Level 4 for a partnership to agree to open 1♠ in 3rd position on all of the following hands? ♠Q32 ♥Q32 ♦Q32 ♣Q432 ♠Q32 ♥Q32 ♦Q432 ♣Q32 ♠Q ♥Q432 ♦Q5432 ♣Q32 ♠Q5432 ♥Q ♦Q ♣Q65432 ♠none ♥QJ432 ♦QJ ♣Q65432 ♠QJ432 ♥none ♦Q65432 ♣QJ If so, it this permitted because Opener is deemed to be bidding constructively, or because a pre-emptive opening bid which can have 0,1,2,3,4 or 5 cards in any of the 4 suits is deemed to be easy to defend against? By contrast, as I understand it, a partnership is not permitted to agree to open a natural 1♠ on: ♠A1098765 ♥K109876 ♦ none ♣ none

I agree with Ivan's point that the number of tricks that would/might have been made in 4♥ may or may not be the same as the number of tricks actually made at the table in 3♥. Often it will be correct, or at least plausible, to take different lines in the two different contracts. It is also not unknown for a declarer, having assessed that his side has missed a good game or slam on seeing dummy, to play the lower level contract carelessly and find a way to go down in that (particularly embarrassing if has has already criticised dummy at trick 1 for 'underbidding' !) . Perhaps this is what happened in the actual case. To answer Jeremy's question we need to look at the Laws themselves. Law 16A (authorised and unauthorised information) tells the TD when to adjust the score. It says: But what is "damage"? Fortunately, this term is defined by Law 12B1: In this case, the table result was 3♥-1, +50 (say NV) to the innocent side. The "expectation had the infraction not occurred" was, according to Jeremy's assessment of the situation, close to 100% of 4♥=, -420 to the innocent side. Therefore, per the above definition of "damage", it seems that damage does not exist in this case and that hence the table result should stand.

The website you found is correct about Miss and Ms, but not about Mr and Mrs, in U.K. English at any rate. United Kingdom usage favours omitting the full stop in abbreviations which include the first and last letters of a single word, such as Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr and St; the idea is that the full stop directly replaces something (the missing letters at the end of the word). Where the omitted letters are in the middle of the word, the logical way to denote this would 'M.r', but this would read awkwardly and is not used.

I haven't got much experience of playing artificial responses to 1♣. However, it does seem dangerous to play any system that requires the same response to 1♣ on a 3325 shape as, say, a 3352 shape. If 4th hand makes the hardly unexepcted overcall of 2 of a major, the opening side has a problem. From Opener's point of view, Responder could have 2 or 5 clubs; from Responder's point of view, Opener could have 2 or 5 clubs From Opener's point of view, Responder could have 2 or 5 diamonds; from Responder's point of view, Opener could have 2 or 4 diamonds (maybe even 5 if you open 1♣ on 5332s with 5 diamonds). I may be unduly influenced by my natural upbringing, but I can't see much wrong with: 1♠ = 4+ diamonds 1NT = natural NF with 4 or 5 clubs, no game interest opposite the minimum balanced range. 2♣= forcing with clubs, game interest opposite the minimum balanced range. or 1♠ = 4+ clubs 1NT = natural NF with 4 or 5 diamonds, no game interest opposite the minimum balanced range. 2♣= forcing with diamonds, game interest opposite the minimum balanced range. I agree that 4414 hands of intermediate range are a problem when Responder shows diamonds (unless playing weak NT openings) but these hands are infrequent and the partnership can agree on the best distorted rebid to make on such hands.

I have a question for those who use Opener's transfer completion to 1M as showing (usually) a minimum balanced hand. It seems that Responder's continuations at the 2-level are similar to what you play(ed) over a natural 1NT rebid. However, the difference is that Opener has nobody has yet bid NT and there is a possibility that Responder will end up declaring 3NT/2NT. Which of these statements best reflects your expereience of this method? 1. We don't care about which hand declares NT and the gains from Responder declaring seem to cancel the losses. 2. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably lost more than we have gained from playing the "wrong way up". 3. We don't particularly cater for Opener declaring NT but we have probably gained more than we have lost from playing the "wrong way up". 4. NT declarership is not a problem because Responder can always make a conventional call to ask Opener to bid NT.

In my view, this is the most well-reasoned post and quite similar to the thoughts of the opening leader at the table. If declarer has 7 running clubs and both major suit aces then the contract is cold anyway (except in the unlikely event that 5 diamonds tricks are cashing), so assume he doesn't have that. The bidding suggests that declarer has a spade stop in addition to running clubs. If he has a spade tenace over partner then a spade lead will often set up declarer's 9th trick. The poor quality of the heart pips may well not matter because the defence will often only need one or two heart tricks. Of more relevance is the fact that the 3NT bidder rates to be relatively short in hearts and correspondingly less likely to have both the ace and queen in the suit. The opening leader's partner has written a hand simulation program. The program was run assuming partner to have a 1♠ opener and declarer to have 7 clubs to the AK and a spade stop. The results were as follows: Spade works 15 times Heart works 26 times Low diamond works 20 times Ace of diamonds works 23 times Club works 14 times. [in fact those cases include 11 where any lead works and a further 12 where no lead works. There are 13 cases where a heart lead works and a spade doesn't, but only 2 where the converse is true.] So if your spouse's simulation program demonstrates that your opening lead was correct in theory, then that is certainly not grounds for divorce!