Chris L

This was board 16 in Group C in the first session; in our match all four tables played in 3NT, making an average of +2; the "datum" score on the butlers was EW +650 so EW might well have scored +1150 in 3NTx.

We seem to have reached a consensus that a look, question etc is capable of transmitting UI depending on the circumstances, which (in the absence from the Laws of anything along the lines of Mycroft's proposal) would seem to be right in principle: after all there is no difference in substance between the situation posited by Bluejak in the OP and a situation where the range is announced but North didn't hear it (possibly because he wasn't paying attention) or (as might have happened at a table I was kibitzing in the Tolle qualifier) it was announced in a language with which North was unfamiliar. I also like Gnasher's suggested solution.

I'm not sure they are, since my previous post assumed that a "request", however framed, for the missing announcement was capable of transmitting UI to partner and that UI suggests bidding (or doubling) rather than passing. South will know whether his partner is a fully paid-up member of the "Always Ask" club. If he is, then he would be foolish to make the worst 2♥ bid ever seen. And a procedural penalty on EW is certainly warranted whether or not UI has been transmitted.

I assume the point of the original post was to discover whether members of this forum think that a new variant of the so-called "French defence to 1NT" works when there is a breach of the announcing regulations. If North is merely playing policeman, maybe he should leave that to the TD (or wait until the end of the hand). But he has a real problem if he has (say) a hand that wants to get involved over a weak NT but not over a strong one. Whether he asks, looks (with or without a dollop of contempt) or just sits there hoping that East will remember his obligations sooner rather than later, if he eventually passes when told "15-17" and South then acts on a less than classic hand for whatever defence they play, no doubt EW will cry "foul" and seek an adjustment. My inclination would be to adjust where South's bid is particularly gross but not otherwise - or, in marginal cases, if it is thought that the rules should be applied uniformly, impose a procedural penalty on EW which deprives them of the benefit of the adjustment.

So what sort of hand would bid a natural 3♣ rather than make a (non-alertable) double of 2♣?

In my considerable experience of playing online: (1) Most rejections of claims are either ill-founded or caused (automatically) by a player leaving the table, or losing connection, before accepting; and (2) They frequently come from players who have complained about the pace of play in the preceding five minutes. But when all's said and done it's only a game, almost always with nothing at stake (not remotely in Bill Shankly territory) so why get worked up about it?

In EBU-land, the Orange Book (Paras 11C1 and 11C9) provides that the minimum requirement for opening 1 of a suit is 11 HCP or - at Level 2 - Rule of 19 and - at Levels 3&4 - Rule of 18 (subject in either case to a minimum of 8 HCP). Thus, any hand with a nine card suit and at least 8 HCP may be opened one of that suit. Whether it is good or bad bridge to do so is irrelevant. In the absence, in the Orange Book or elsewhere, of any definition of the "normal high card strength associated with a one-level opening" it seems to me that 8+ HCP must be normal, since otherwise players are left entirely to the views of individual TDs as to what constitutes "normal" - which in principle can't be right and may be influenced by that director's view of what constitutes good (or bad) bridge.

My then partner & I started playing the Multi about 25 years ago. It showed a weak 2 in either major, a strong 2 in either minor or a strong balanced hand. There was something in the Orange Book (may still be there but I don't have it readily to hand as I type) about responder being expected to explore game opposite a possible strong hand. We were playing in some local Swiss Teams tournament. Partner opened 2♦. I had looked at our opponents' c c before the round started and noticed that their defence to the multi was to pass initially. I alerted partner's bid and RHO proceeded to subject me to a cross examination of which the late George Carman QC would have been proud. Having established to his satisfaction that our agreements didn't include "Pass" as one of my options, he passed. I was looking at ♦AKxxxx and out. I was as certain as I could be that partner had a weak two in ♥ or ♠ and that RHO was looking at The Tate Gallery so I passed. LHO was already in possession of a wheelbarrow full of U.I. but RHO put the matter beyond all doubt when he said "What? I thought you said you couldn't pass?" and called the TD who ruled that I was perfectly entitled to pass in the circumstances. Partner made 2♦ exactly with the oppo cold for 7♣. Team-mates came to score up having stopped in 5♣, the more expert of the two blaming the other for this apparent disaster and were surprised to gain 12 IMPs on the board. A couple of years later we encountered the same oppo in a KO teams match. They were still playing the same defence. Early in the match, partner opened 2♦; I looked at RHO and their card and we all fell about laughing.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=skt9hajtxxxdckjtx&w=sjxxhkxd9xxxxcaxx&e=saxxxxhdakjtxxxc9&s=sqxhq9xxxdqcqxxxx]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] This was the full hand. At the table, W bid 6D which was one off; on a H lead, ruffed, and SA at T2, it might even make if S isn't awake enough to unblock SQ. NS reserved their rights; as North was the TD on the night, it was agreed that I would give a ruling - I often play (and direct) at the club in question but am stuck at home at the moment with a broken leg! My immediate reaction, like Campboy, was to pass - partly because I can't be doing with all the grief that bidding on in this situation seems to generate. At the table, like one or two others who have replied, I wouldn't have had the problem in the first place as I would have bid 5D on the previous round - and, as E on the actual auction, I would probably have bid 4S over 4H. I consulted an occasional partner, whose standard is way above that at the club and he, like Lamford, thought 6D was near automatic - first because he considered 5H almost certain to make and secondly because 6D was bound to be cheap and might even make on a good day. Whether any or all of these thought processes occurred to the actual West I don't know. So far we have had at least one vote each for Pass, 6D and double. Personally, I would have thought that the one bid demonstrably suggested by the UI is double - surely E can't have been thinking of bidding 6D?

In a weekly duplicate of average club standard you hold, at green, Jxx Kx 9xxxx Axx. LHO opens 1H as dealer and the bidding continues (2D)-4H-(P)-P-(5D)-P-(P)-5H-(P)-P to you. Needless to say, partner has "tanked" over 5H. Your call?

In EBU-land, we have had "Announcements" for some three and a half years and I think they have worked well. One area which has caused problems is what constitutes a "strong" hand. From 1st August 2009, the Orange Book provides (Para 10 B 4) that it must be one of the following ("Extended Rule of 25"): a) 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, or b) any hand meeting the Rule of 25; or c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs In practice, of course, b) and c) cause no problems. Guidance is given as to what does, or does not, constitute eight clear-cut tricks (one is to assume a void in partner's hand and the second best suit break). My question is concerned with the first half of a) - what constitutes the "normal" high card strength associated with a one-level opening? Is it an objective test? If so, what is "normal" in these days of light openings? If not, do the words "subject to proper disclosure" have the effect of incorporating the partnership's agreements (as shown on their convention card) about one of a suit openings - so that if an opening bid of one of a suit requires (say) 11 HCP, they can't announce as "strong" an opening bid of (say) 2♥ which has 10 HCP and eight clear-cut tricks?