sfi

The problem is that it's really hard for players to be unbiased once they know more about the hand. When West gets the additional information and calls the director, they already know that South has a weak hand with a long suit, and can easily convince themselves (subconsciously even) that they always would have doubled to show spades. The director takes that into account, but has to consider whether they actually would have done that. Hence further investigation, often including a poll. Remember, the laws say that "the Director in awarding an assigned adjusted score should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the infraction not occurred." If the director thinks West may have only doubled half the time, they are perfectly entitled to give a weighted score based on this assessment.

Hence the "related question". The point was about the timing of when an exposed card becomes a penalty card and whether it impacts options on opening lead. If it doesn't yet happen during the clarification period, in neither situation should opening leader have any restrictions on which card to play. I suggest that is contrary to both laws and player expectation. Therefore a card exposed during the clarification period (your scenario) immediately becomes a penalty card. Of course, mycroft did the sensible thing and found the law clarification that said the same thing.

You can only allow West to change her lead before dummy has been exposed (47E2a), and therein lies the problem with South's explanation after the opening lead. I would be very likely to issue a procedural penalty, and it would not take much experience from the player before it is more than a warning. If South corrected the explanation before the opening lead, East would have the option to change their last pass. I suspect there is no reason for them to do so, which means we play the hand out and assess potential damage, both from the information before the opening lead and when West was talked out of a double.

These are established revokes. Since the defender did not win the trick on which they first revoked, one trick will be transferred to the declaring side at the conclusion of the hand since the defence wins a subsequent trick. (64A1) The second and third revokes in hearts do not attract additional automatic trick penalties - it's only one trick total at the end of the hand. (64B2) The director looks to reconstruct the hand without any of the revokes - how many tricks would declarer have won if the defence had followed suit. The director also needs to consider what would have happened if only the first revoke had happened, and then what would have happened if only the first two revokes had happened. Sometimes it's a later revoke that really helps the defence. Much of the time doing this is straightforward, but even if it isn't that's part of what the director is expected to do. Not unless the director really cannot work out what would have likely happened without the revokes, and awarding A+/A- should be the director's last resort.

It would be fairly simple to make the change you suggest, but I think it is a change rather than a clarification. And I'm not convinced it would be an improvement. In a related question, let's say the partner of the opening leader accidentally exposed an honour during the auction. The card will become a penalty card (24E). Your change suggests that there are no lead restrictions because the exposed card is not yet a penalty card - is that "better"? I would suggest that it is unreasonable for a card exposed during the auction to be treated differently to a card exposed during the clarification period, so either both or neither should already be penalty cards once the auction has been completed.

I'm also giving up on the club finesse. Even at matchpoints I'm happy to trade a club trick for chances elsewhere.

A cursory reading suggests: The opening leader is a "defender" once the auction is completed. (necessary for 16D1 and 41A to make sense) The exposed card is a penalty card (Law 50). If it is an honour, it is a major penalty card. Otherwise it is a minor penalty card (Law 50B). If it is a major penalty card, it must be led. Otherwise opening leader may play any card they like apart from another card below the 10 in the same suit as the exposed card. If it is a minor penalty card and remains on the table, the usual restrictions apply. It seems the critical point is that there is a defending side the moment the auction is completed.

Unless I'm missing something, have them complete the hand. Then transfer one trick to the declaring side at the end of play and look to see whether the revokes cost declarer more than one trick. Only the first established revoke incurs an automatic trick penalty (64B2).

That's because we're talking about different laws. Footnote 19 is referring to the specific situation when declarer revokes, and either wins the trick in their hand or in dummy. It simply clarifies that declarer and dummy are different "players" when determining the adjustment. Law 64B3 covers the situation where dummy revokes, and tells us there is no automatic trick adjustment when this happens. Any adjustment due to a revoke by dummy is covered by 64C.

It means that if declarer revokes and wins the trick, two tricks are transferred to the other side at the end of play. If declarer revokes and dummy wins the trick, only one trick is transferred. Of course all the other provisions still apply.

Remember the good old days? Back when someone would submit a play hand, people would offer various lines of play and then eventually Rainer would come along and post the right line. He was a good cheat code to have on the forums. :)

I don't see why it should matter assuming you can sort out the hand types in some way. I play something similar to David - mostly opener will rebid at the two-level and let partner clarify what they have. Since you're not losing any ability to exchange information, you don't need to change which hands you will force to game on.

They're both derived from the WBF regulations, but I think the ABF has added some detail in areas like this. Given that the person in charge of the ABF regulations is also heavily involved at the WBF-level, the detail is likely to be consistent. But they aren't quite the same.

Isn’t there something about alerting natural bids with potentially unexpected meanings? That’s why I would expect an alert for 1NT. After all, a stopper is rarely required to make 7 tricks if you have enough in the other suits. The reason most people show a stopper is because their real target is 3NT. If you really think about it, having 1NT show 15-18 (or whatever range you want) is itself conventional. It’s just so common that the collective bridge world has redefined it as natural and defined a truly natural interpretation (I think we can take 7 tricks) as conventional. And we even regulate which types of hands can make this natural bid. But that’s a different rabbit hole to fall into.

I would not be willing to play without that option, but as usual YMMV.

Just as long as you can show a game-forcing hand with 4+ support in some way - that fourth trump is really important in giving declarer flexibility. I am reminded of my claim that the Dutch lost the last Bermuda Bowl because one pair didn't distinguish between 3- and 4-card raises on board 29 in the last set. Here's the vugraph archive.

Good news!

1. What is the logic behind the implied suggestion that South would be less likely to double if 1NT may not show a stopper (I would have thought it slightly more likely, if anything)? I can see an argument that responder may be talked out of competing later in the auction on some hands, but that doesn't look plausible here. 2. Yes I'm comfortable that the potential lack of stopper does not stop it being natural. Particularly at the level of competition you're talking about, suggesting this is anything but an "overcall in no trumps which is natural" seems like punishing advancing players. Especially given that it's a 2+ 1C opening. I'm not arguing 1NT is the "right" bid. But that's not the question the director needs to answer.

First I would like to find out what the E-W agreements are in the analogous situation, where East opens 1NT, South makes a penalty double and West bids 3D. Even if the card says "systems on" I would not expect 3D to have the same meaning after the double as in an uncontested auction. My guess is the system card doesn't cover this auction, so I need to ask E-W. But we do have some evidence (the 3D bid and the lack of an alert) that suggests it would be natural and non-forcing - as it would be for many pairs. If they really are playing transfers over the double, 3D might even be the only way they can play a diamond partscore. I would also like to ask N-S about their agreements about the double and whether it's forcing. My guess would be that it's not forcing at this level even if it is in some auctions. So there's no reason to think that N-S violated agreements in a way that might jeopardise an adjustment in their favour. How about South's objections? East is certainly allowed to bid 1NT on this hand, and East is allowed to choose an action that doesn't meet South's approval. If it doesn't show a club stopper, then it probably deserves an alert. Was there damage from the failure to alert? I'm struggling to see it - clubs only has 8 tricks and I don't see a way N-S stop in 4 even if it's matchpoints. Did East have UI? Let's presume there was a hesitation, but particularly at the experience level you've given us it's not clear what it suggests. Logic tells us it's not forcing since West could have redoubled or bid clubs with a good hand. So even if there was UI that suggested passing the same message seems to be reflected in the AI. So unless I'm missing something I think all the TD needs to do is tell E-W to alert their 1NT overcall if it doesn't show a stopper. Less experienced players sometimes have more variation in their actions, and there's nothing wrong with that.

You can’t play Scamp outside the Vanderbilt and similar events either, can you? The 1D and 1S openings were problematic a few years ago.

Yes, both scamp and spam are independently playable, although if you know one it’s pretty straightforward to pick up the other.. Scamp is allowed in most club games in Oz, since it’s a red system. The use of spam is more restricted, mostly to the major national events and probably not in all of those.

Fairly close, although I don't think it's quite the latest layout and about half of the "normal" second page has been removed. If you're interested, you can find the template at http://www.abf.com.au/member-services/system-cards/abf-convention-card-pdf/. It's an editable PDF file which is designed to print one double-sided page.

Really. Among other things "SC" = Strong Club and "SP" = Strong Pass in these systems. Plus I played it for several years.

SCAMP isn’t a strong pass system.

We only alert minimum length with the 1C opening - 1C is always announced in one way or another. Our only other announcement is the opening 1NT range.