trevahound

I can't make a ruling until I poll it. I find a few similar players to E, and give them their hand and the auction with perfect tempo by everyone. If E's are passing the perfect tempo double, or most are at least seriously considering it (I suspect most pass the double), I adjust. Slow doubles usually express doubts about defending, in my experience, but I won't know if passing is a LA without a some questioning of others blinded to the problem.

This isn't a complicated ruling, and this director is ignorant if he thinks the quality of director advice on these forums is poor. However -- I believe it's wise to not take a bad ruling at a club game personally, or be so worried about justice and being vindicated that you lose perspective. Most clubs do not have access to directors of the caliber on these forums. Most club directors (at least where I am in ACBL land) make very little. In our club, we make far less than minimum wage when you consider set up and tear down time, and it's as much volunteering as working. It's fine to explain why you think his ruling was wrong. IF the club supports appeals (and they are not required to, and many/most here don't), you're fine to ask for an appeal, but when you've pursued it that far, let it go. It's just a game, and if you got a poorer score than you deserved that evening, it doesn't make you a poorer bridge player in any way. As a club director I appreciate hearing why you think I've made a mistake in my ruling, but if you've shown him that, and he's not agreeing, and the club's fine with that, we're done with what we can/should do. There is no regulating authority that's going to overrule a club's ruling on a hand. I've received many poor rulings (some particularly poor) over the past ten years or so. C'est la vie. I've appealed once, and that's only because the director in question was telling me I'd have to pre-alert all my opps that we responded ultra light to opening bids, just because partner responded with Axxx xxx xxx xxx once. I didn't care about the ruling on the hand, but that sort of pre-alerting would be nonsense, and misleading to future opps.

We give what we consider count here, unless there's a strong reason not to, and we only show even (or encouragement) with two, and treat four as odd/discouragement. So, it's count as in 2 or fewer, or more than 2, not as in odd or even numbers. I bet you could call it attitude instead of count, and say we only encourage with 2 or fewer. You say tomato, I say parsnip.

I wonder what E thinks of his partner's doubles when he thinks this hand is little enough that he should run? If South's slow pass is agreed to or otherwise established, I would adjust to 2nt-1. There is no way on earth pass isn't a LA after opening a medium-weak NT, and squirming or longer thinking definitely suggests not passing over passing. If North is experienced, I think this is flagrant enough to adjust and issue a PP, and I rarely feel that way. Edit: As to whether or not the pass should be alerting, I don't know where you are, and I'm not sure I even know the answer for where I am (ACBL land), but the pass after the announcement of transfer seems self-alerting to me (like a cue bid) -- unusual enough that opps should be alerted to something unusual and ask otherwise. I mean, what would they expect the non-alerted meaning of pass there to be?

I see your point, and absolutely agree with the common decency that we don't have to cause unnecessary offense, period. So, do folks have to continue to play bridge after an infraction to retain protection? How much better would you make the East hand before passing 3m became so wild and gambling that you felt they contributed to their own poor score? One more J? One more Q? Bear in mind, you're red at teams. I don't like individuals who try to lawyer their way to an undeserved score. It's probably not relevant that I find that distasteful. But I have seen (and been on the wrong side of) multiple rulings that essentially boil down to whether or not the NOS get a double shot. Here, the offending side's irregularity seems so minor (who's on firm ground with every partner they ever play with on this?), and the NOS seem so likely to understand that N/S may not be on firm ground here, and E takes such an extreme position given the circumstances -- that all seems relevant, to me. It seems like E might be saying, "I don't need to bid game, as I'll get it awarded to me afterwards after we ask awkward questions of our opps who will step in it while trying for full disclosure".

It sounds to me as if N explained that he believes their agreement is natural, not conventional, when two different suits have been bid. Did the director determine what South thought? In other words, did South think he was bidding according to their agreement, or that he thought they had no agreement about this situation and was hoping to be on the same page in an undiscussed auction? That's not an infraction, I believe, but we don't know what South would say yet. I would also like to question East a bit. His partner opened a minor, vuln, and he has basically a strong NT, and gives up on game (vully, teams) at 3m? What does he expect a minimum opener by partner to look like? I would imagine passing 3m to be so unusual and gambling that I become less sympathetic to requests for redress, but I'd be happy to hear why I shouldn't feel that way. I open as light as anyone in these parts, and that's still a GF opposite anything I'd open 1m with in first seat hot at teams. C'mon. Sure, partner could have Kx of ♠ instead of ♥, but they could split, or not be led, or 5m could be on. I am not yet convinced that passing there is "continuing to play bridge".

1♠ for me, and not at all ashamed.

Forgive my ignorance, here, please, but what would one assume an unalerted 3♦ to mean? I would presume that if it genuinely wasn't alertable, it was a second suit, and by definition of my first call likely to be only 3 cards in length often. Or is W arguing that he'd only double if it did show honors? Seems like he might want to double only if it was not alerted, not other way round. And W is on lead. I sometimes find myself on lead when I've made a lead directing double, but I don't call folks over from other tables to brag about it. :) Cheers, Brian Zaugg

My nt is 10-13, so after the equivalent auction, 2nt is 14+ balanced and GF, 2M is natural and unbalanced, as is 3♣ if ♦ is our suit (1rndF), and 3m is unbalanced and minimal. Jumps are shortness and generally somewhat slammish. Kickback would be on, if one had that kind of freak. In any case we're forced through 3m. Cheers, Brian Zaugg

I don't think Cappelletti is efficient or wise vs str NT, but if that's your preference you can trivially play it and keep 2M as natural (doesn't promise a minor on the side). Instead of 2♣ meaning any one single suit, use 2♣ as one minor, or a M/m two suiter. This leaves 2M as natural (I'm a big fan of that regardless of the rest of our structure), and with the M/m two suiter you start with 2♣, pard puppets to 2♦ (to play if partner's suit is diamonds, else waiting), and you rebid 2M over that. Pard can respond 2nt to that if he wants your minor (or, alternately, you could agree that 3♣ by partner is pass or correct). Mike makes some excellent points about what we're trying to accomplish vs various NT ranges, and how that should affect the methods we select. Reread his post. Brian Zaugg

3nt. Someone has a heart stopper. And I'm running if doubled, unless partner plays XX = doubts (not my preference).

Art, did you read it as a t/o double of 1♥? I don't think any would object. Here I need to tell partner I had 3 diamonds mixed in with my hearts.

Thanks for the replies, all. I was the opener, South's double was preceded by a very long bit and some apparent agony, and then LHO (North) who is a friend and mentor (and a platinum life master) bid 5♥. We were not harmed or damaged in any way, but I wanted to know if passing was an logical alternative with his hand, as not passing was absolutely clearly suggested by the table UI. I would have passed, but these situations are hard at the table, and passing might not be logical at all. Thanks again - Brian Zaugg

This is my first time trying to post a hand and a poll; apologies if I have the wrong forum or poor technique. Club game, matchpoints, strong field for a club game, all experts at the table. You are 2nd chair, all vuln. [hv=pc=n&n=st54hkt98632dtc53&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1d(14%2B%20if%20balanced)p3d(Preemptive)4s5dppdp]133|200[/hv] Your call. How close is it? Thanks in advance. Also, better posting technique is welcome as well. Brian Zaugg

Double, but 3nt over pard's 3♠. 3nt might easily win though.

3♥ at any scoring and any colors. How else is partner ever to know we have a fit? Defending 2♠ when both opps have bid spades is a serious loser. Partner will know that and strive to protect, but will never dream you have four hearts with two honors and a normal opener.

I strongly disagree with the ACBL's prohibition. However, as a director even absent that prohibition I would not accept any sort of description of the 1♣ opener as "strong, artificial, and forcing", or "precision style", or "big club", or anything like that. I'd prefer to hang my hat on misinformation rather than a psyche or not. If this hand fits their description of a 1♣ opener, their description needs to include it, or at least brush the edges of it. I think the overwhelming majority of people, including myself, would consider this a psyche if their agreements for a 1♣ opener are strong/artificial/forcing.

In my experience, playing transfers and a weak nt is a case of two great things that go horribly together. The weak NT puts pressure on the opps that transfers largely remove. As one of the other posters noted, I also think 1nt - 2♣ // 2♠ - 2nt includes invites with 5 hearts, with opener bidding 3♥ "on the way" if accepting.

I like it as balanced very much, but this is in a baby NT context, where the 1nt rebid will be 14-16, and with xyz. Responder needs much less to invite, and few 4/4 spade fits are lost. You do lose the 6-8 opp 14-16 4-4 spade fits, though. Everything has some sort of cost. Many of those are lost over the field when they start as str NT then pass. It's awfully valuable for responder to know if you're balanced where you fit in your NT ladder, or if you're unbalanced what your shape is. I think the same roughly applies to the medium NT (12-14). I am much more agnostic about it when I'm playing a str NT -- no idea which is better over time, whether to bury my shape or to risk losing the spades on partscore deals. Guess that's another reason I so strongly prefer baby NT. If I didn't open 1nt, partner never needs to cater to that hand.

Well, South is playing for a layout I'm having trouble picturing. Give N 11 high (and they are not playing a big club or anything), E 15 (14?), S 8, and W has what for their invite? 6? I don't think it's fair to expect us to "disbelieve" opp's explanations, but on the other hand, do we have to be at the table at all? Either someone psyched, or someone's wrong on what their agreements are, by simple math. You can say that's irrelevant, and I ask as a follow-up at what number of hcpts by S does it become relevant? 10? 12? How to decide?

I was consulted about this hand after this session (I play at the same club game with Jeffford76, it's definitely the best game in the Seattle area). Some questions I'd like to see discussed are "is it possible for W to have a 2nt natural invite, given N's opening, E's overcall, and S's hand?". How much to we require the NOS to protect themselves from stated agreements (via a lack of alert and nothing on the CC) when the rest of the auction makes it highly unlikely the stated agreement is correct? How much does south need to hold to know something isn't right? And if that's the case, is failing to double fielding partner's presumed psyche? How about when we know partner would never psyche against a pair this weak/inexperienced? I'm curious how to handle the above questions in this sort of situation.

These aren't quantifiable things, and our language misleads us into thinking they are quantifiable things. Similarly to polygraphs -- you can't measure discrete quanta of something that doesn't come in discrete quanta, and isn't truly a thing. My judgement on a given hand is not it's point count, or where the honors are located, or what my stated agreements are, or who my opps are, or what their methods are, or the state of the match and or event, or the way qualification is determined, or the fortitude of my partner, etc... but it's all these things and more. So, each affects whether or not I consider it a psyche or just good judgement when I open on whatever, bid whatever, or heck, even pass with whatever.

My understanding of correct procedure is to read the relevant sections of the law to the table wherever possible. This seems to be impossible here, as the law book goes out of it's way to not say what to do when a call is artificial and names no particular denomination. My understanding of directing is I won't need WBF Law Committee minutes close at hand, nor will I need to keep up with them. I'm not even sure if they're recognized as authoritaritive in the ACBL. I suppose my answer to the table next time is, "The Laws don't cover this situation specifically. Laws 32 (and 29) deal with what to do if your call names a strain, or if your pass is artificial, and from that we must make inferences. I'm told to infer that since one can't repeat a denomination that wasn't implied in the first call, that any call at all by you at your correct turn to call will bar your partner for the duration. You're entitled to know that when you make your change of call, so don't make any takeout doubles. :) I can't show you where the ACBL has contemplated this in writing, but it is the consensus of those I've been able to ask." Extremely dissatisfying, but I'll go with it for now. Why is no one at the ACBL ashamed of the position they put club directors in? C'est la vie.

So, how do we instruct W at the table? Obviously W can bid 2♣ (what west chose at the table given our uncertain directions), but 1♣ didn't specify clubs. And what laws or other authoritative text can we share to support that? 31A and 29C have ample opportunities to tell us what to do when W's call is artificial, and apparently choose not to.

Hi, ACBL-land, fairly strong club game. This is probably a very simple ruling, but I have carefully read and re-read my 2008 Lawbook and 2008 Duplicate Decisions and plain English doesn't seem to be coming to my rescue. At our club game last Tuesday night, we had an unusual situation come up more than once, and found we were not happy with our reading of the appropriate laws. I think maybe we're missing something somewhere. Guidance appreciated. At one table, with South dealer, and East and South chatting (everyone friends), West pulled the 1c card out of the bid box, reached for the table, then noticed he wasn't dealer and withdrew it instantly. Neither E nor S noticed, but N (who was chatting with W) noticed and saw what it was -- and N also knows that E/W are playing a big club. Even though they shouldn't have, they both said not a word while waiting for S to open, so that if S had passed there would be no problem. However, S opened a nebulous diamond (they're also big clubbers), and now W called the director, and explained the situation without mentioning first what they intended to open (to reduce UI if possible). Law 31A was read, and 29C referenced, but neither seem to say what to do when no strain is shown by the artificial call. In multiple places the lawmakers seem to go out of their way to say what happens if a pass is artificial, and could easily have said what happens if a bid is artificial, but it appears they did not. The non-offenders won the evening, so the ruling hardly matters, but no one felt confident what it should be. Could someone please point me to something authoritarian showing what happens when someone accidentally opens a strong artificial opening in 2nd seat, not accepted, and 1st seat opens? Also, just out of curiousity, in another scenario completely, would it be non-slimy for 1st seat to psyche an opening bid with garbage knowing 2nd seat had a big artificial opening in this sort of scenario? That isn't at all what happened (South wasn't even aware of West's actions until the director call), but what propriety or law addresses this? Thanks! Brian Zaugg