minimonkey

So it seems that: 1) A split ruling would not have been appropriate here - because either there was an infraction or there wasn't 2) The meaning of the word 'evidence' in 21B1B is pretty important. Whilst I have been told that 'rock solid' evidence would be needed at some tournaments to avoid the directors ruling against me (a philosophy which, from the TD's perspective, I'd imagine is attractive as it reduces the amount of case-by-case judgement involved and therefor accusations of favouritism) the term is not defined in the rules (or at least nobody has defined it yet) - so it is up for the director in the specific circumstance to define what counts as sufficient 'evidence' on a case by case basis and there is no right answer?

Thank you for your replies - as I said above, I was sat West on the hand. My thoughts are these: Firstly; it is important for me to say - I don't believe for a moment that my opponents were even the slightest bit unethical on this board or otherwise. They were complete gentlemen, joking and being pleasant even when I was getting frustrated with the ruling. I don't want anyone to leave this thread with the impression that I feel I was 'done' through some sharp-practice. I am being told I accused my opponent of cheating - I don't believe I did, and if I did I am truly sorry. What I did do, which was a mistake in retrospect, was use the word 'cheat' twice (clearly a bad idea). The circumstances were 1) I said 'I know it might feel like I was accusing you of cheating...' when my opponent (in a friendly manner) interrupted 'Well don't. Let's enjoy the rest of the hands.' I wanted to express that it was the ruling I had an issue with rather than the player. 2) I think I also asked the TD a question along the lines of 'What if my opponents were cheating?' - a far better phrasing of which would have been 'I believe my opponents are acting ethically - but under the rules are you meant to give them the benefit of the doubt in this situation?'. Again I will empathise - I believe my opponents were acting using best ethics throughout and were a pleasure to play against. Secondly; I believe that the process set out by Jeffery Allerton (with the outcome that 6S= would not stand without a system file showing 3C to be natural) is what would happen at an international event. It is worth asking - Why do I, someone fairly unfamiliar with the rules, feel this way? The reason is this; I have played two European Championships. At the start of the championships you are given the option to lodge a system file with the tournament directors. The reason given for why you want to do this is the exact situation that has come up on this hand - unless you can fully demonstrate the 'true' agreed meaning of the bid you will not be given the benefit of the doubt as to whether you or your partner were correctly describing the bid. Thirdly; I believe the well completed convention card is definitely circumstantial evidence that NS do not play checkback in this auction (with the case made stronger given the new information, to me, in PaulG's post above). That said - it would be wrong to assume that any convention card is a complete, continually updated and perfect reflection of players' methods. Relatedly - I don't know what NS discussed and agreed about this auction, and I cannot know that it is South who remembered their discussion correctly rather than North. The questions left in my mind I might ask to the organisers are: 1) Do you agree with my view as to what the process and likely outcome would be at an international competition? 2) If so - is it reasonable that the Scottish trials for these international competitions place a lower burden of proof on the infringing party when it comes to this type of situation? 3) If so, and with reference to this particular hand, is the evidence that NS do not play checkback here so strong as to flip the ruling from the 'international' outcome to 100% the other way? Thanks again Frazer

I was West. On my side of the screen the 3C bid was not alerted and I did not ask about it explicitly - as I assumed it showed clubs. The 4C bid looked more like it might be a cue for diamonds - so, even though it wasn't alerted, I asked the question about 4C then to make sure I understood the auction. 3C as Checkback by North is a debatable choice - but, given North's written description, there is no doubt about what it's intended meaning was. I have things I would like to say - but won't say them quite yet to avoid any biasing of future commentators.

This hand occurred in the Scottish international trials last weekend. [hv=pc=n&s=sj52hakt54dt54ckt&w=saq943hj62d972c54&n=sk876hdakq83caqj6&e=sthq9873dj6c98732&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp2d(Not%20GF)p2n(Weak%20NT)p3c(Disputed%20Call)p3dp4cp4dp6dppp&p=sts2sas6d2dkd6]399|300[/hv] 6D made on the play shown. The event was played with screens. On the W/S side of the table the 3C bid was described as natural (not alerted and not asked about, 4C was asked about and described as natural). On the N/E side of the screen the 3C bid was asked about and described as Checkback (written response confirming this). On the play a spade was led. W won the ace and, thinking declarer/N held something like Kxx - AKQJx Axxxx, returned a diamond. As such the slam made rather than going off - as it would have if W had given E a spade ruff. At the end of the play the difference in explanations came to light. S stated that 'Natural' was the correct explanation for 3C and that describing 3C as Checkback to E was the error - so W had had been given correct information throughout and the result should stand. The NS pair had a well filled in, detailed, convention card which does not mention Checkback being played over 2NT (but does mention, for example, 2-way Checkback over 1NT). The card is linked below: NS Detailed Convention Card The Tournament Director ruled that the result should stand (6D making) - as West had been given correct information throughout the hand. Do you agree?

3NT seems wrong. If clubs are worth 7 tricks then 3NT wins, fine. In the more likely instance clubs are worth 6 tricks then 5C feels like a very superior contract to me whilst 3NT will really struggle.

Me too. But not sure I count yet with my low post count.

I know it is not a real reason but I would bid 4H here for sure if I saw it. Why? Because I know if it happened to me I would just laugh and tell the story to other people, it is a good one. Seems like a fun way to play. Frazer

1D-1S 2S-2NT 3NT I know it is not good but my partner and I play 2NT as an invite with only 4 Spades.

As far as my poor undergrad stats knowledge gives variance of 1 outcome of a mutinomial =number of hands* prob playing the hand* prob not playing the hand This makes the rough 95% confidence interval 25% + or - sqrt(number of hands* 18.75%) I am sure this is wrong B) If you want to see if 2 partners are different the 18.75% should be replaced with (% of hands played by the partnership/2)* (1- (% of hands played by the partnership/2) Anyway I am sure this sheds light on nothing but my ignorance.

Zia and Cohen seem to play bridge under different circumstances. Like me Cohen seems to play bridge in sports centers, conference rooms, and other places with a janitor. Zia on the other hand only plays in venues which have waiters to ask...must be nice.

I think you guys are missing a trick. Paul also posted this hand on hos blog and my first thoughts were the technical line of starting with 3 rounds of diamonds to find if somone could be 5-4 in the majors before I made any more decisions. Anyway there, as here, I found that South started with 3C and 2D. However discarding the 2Cs instead of 1C and an idle 5th in a major made me think that S was 4-4 in hearts and spades, leading to the obvious squeeze when I cash a club. I wouldnt reccommend this line against strong S players who have thought about their discards on the 3rd diamonds but If they have played in tempo I think this is a 90% inference. Frazer

I also enjoyed this hand even though I misread the OP I thought E had the QJx of spades. In that case I will make you lead a club...and then make you lead a club too.

Guess I will dissent, X over 1D is pretty clearcut. I would bid 1S over 1C but not really sure why, I would rather have those spades in the auction than those hearts. Spades probably won't plat too well on diamond forces mind. No real logic behind this choice, just what I would do as I attempt to overcall 1S as often as possible.

At the table I bid 3NT and got a flat board, the opponents were 1 off in 3D at the other table Partner held something in the region of [hv=s=saxhaxxxdaj98xcxx]133|100|[/hv] I suppose I could have been taken 2 off on a spade lead but as the 3C was based on AKJxxx the doubleton club was led and the spade switch wasn't found. Frazer

Well I am not bidding 3NT or anything else, the question for me is pass or Double again. I think I would pass. Question: Is partner meant to pass with few values hoping we can take it off? ie. is xx Axxx xxxx xxx a pass or a 4H bid after the 2nd double?

[hv=d=e&v=n&s=st9xht9xdkqtxcqtx]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 3C-P-P-3D P--? Is this an easy one or are their options?

I got laughed at by some friends for not having a system in this situation. They said I had to play: 4C= Inquiry 4D= Signoff Somewhere 4H+= Slam try but Non Forcing Over 4C (Forcing to 4NT) 4D=15/16 HCP 4H= 17/18HCP 4S=19/20 HCP 4NT= 21+ HCP 5C/D= Stopper and this running minor Admittedly this dosent help a bit on this hand but thought I would share anyway.

Yes this would be an issue in what I wrote, I think i could just about convince people that stayman was a catchall (no 5H/S or 6C/D or Some Other Shapes or 9+ HCP no 4cM) but I like awm's solution better of allowing any forcing response.

I really like amw's list. It says (to me) all constructive opening bids are allowed and defines constructive bids as those which show 10+HCP. I also think he nailed the problem with allowing unrestricted responces and came up with the nice solution of allowing any forcing bid. The one point I would object to is I would change this to (2)Any opening or overcall which guarantees four or more cards in a known suit. Seems weird to me to allow things like 2H=4+H 4+S but not allow 2D=4+H 4+S.

When I first started lurking in these forums I was fairly attached to the idea that people should be able to play whatever systems they wanted, Forcing Pass, everything. However having read some of the discussions I became convinced that that was a bad move, even for people who like to tinker with systems. Why? Because Ferts ruin your ability to deploy your own fun gadgets whenever they are opened. In any case I was wondering what rules I would write were I the one in charge of all that kind of stuff, so I gave it a go. My objective was to write as few rules as possible, allow experimentation, whilst still keeping what was allowed in the boundary of what most people seem to know and like. This is what I came up with: System regulations All system regulations apply for the 1st round of the bidding, following that anything is allowed as all players have had the opportunity to speak. Doubles and redoubles are allowed to take any meaning at any time. Opening Bids Any Opening Bid is allowed if: It shows 4+ Cards in a specific suit It shows 15+ HCP It shows a balanced hand of a certain strength Or any combination of the above Overcalls Any overcall is allowed if: It shows 4+ Cards in a specific suit It shows 15+HCP It shows a balanced hand of a certain strength Or any combination of the above Responses Responses are allowed if: They show 4+ Cards in a specific suit They show at least a 7+ card fit with opener’s known 4+ card suit They show a certain point range with no meaning beyond negative inferences They are Game Forcing This list would make illegal: multi- pre-empts, precision 1D openers on (41)35 shapes and are probably subject to abuse in ways I haven’t thought of. Anyone else got any opinions or a simple list of rules they would like to see implemented? Frazer

Shockingly I was the junior at the other table. Having read this thread I think there is a very strong case for double to be either GF or willing to pass whatever Partner bids, almost lebensol style. I will suggest this to my partners.