sfi

According to Miller's Law, we can only remember 5-9 things at a time. So that has to be the starting point. However I also want to be able to remember: - not to revoke - what our signals are - how to declare - my partner's name - where I parked my car That only leaves space for about two conventions. If partner insists on Stayman and takeout doubles, that's pretty much the system right there. If we add RKC and new minor forcing, then I have to walk to the event and what's-his-name can give me a lift back.

I think I have it right. [hv=pc=n&s=s74hajtdtckqj9862&w=skj653h75dkj3cat5&n=sthkq9432d987654c&e=saq982h86daq2c743&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=2c(Precision)2s3d(Hearts%2C%20not%20alerted)4s5cp5d(I%20have%20diamonds%20also)p(Partner%2C%20your%20decision)p(Agreed%20hesitation)dpp5h(Did%20not%20mention%20agreement%20of%203D)pp(Explains%20MI%20after%20bid)dppp]399|300[/hv]

The only way for the score to be adjusted to 5D is for West to pass with the correct information. As you say, that does not seem likely given East's pass was forcing but I would give West a chance to convince me that would be the right action. I would be inclined to adjust to 5H undoubled, since the double could easily have been influenced by the strange bidding. As director I would also warn South about their obligation to inform the opponents about alertable bids whenever they remember. South should also have called the director at that point, which would have given E-W additional options.

I was starting to think exactly the same thing.

Can you explain under what conditions you believe -570 is an accurate ruling? It's not even a normal bridge score, so on the face of it your claim that this is what this law says does not make sense. The current law says that NS+620 for both sides is the correct adjustment if only 500 is available against 4Sx. That's really straightforward. That's also what law 12C1B says. If you think otherwise, you are misreading it. These players are, broadly speaking, supporting the current law and discussing the conditions under which it applies.

I can't see the results on bridgebase, but the data here and the comments there both support a completely different position than your interpretation. To me it says that most (7/9) people think SEWoG considerations never matter if the unauthorised action was going to result in a worse score for the non-offending side. It also says 6/9 of the people think the bar for SEWoG should be much higher than "not playing perfect defence". That is what the current laws do. Yes. That's how the adjustment currently works. SEWoG considerations only come into play when: - The offending side takes an action for which an adjustment is warranted. - The non-offending side was going to get a better result than they would have in the contract you (as the director) would adjust to. - The non-offending side damages themselves via a serious error, wild, or gambling action. In your poll, if E-W can only get +500 in 4Sx, then the contract would be adjusted to +620, no matter how many tricks they stuff up. If they could have gotten 800 and managed to blow 3 tricks in something that was judged to be a serious error, etc., then their score would be adjusted accordingly. I'm still not sure what you are arguing about. Your latest post seems to be supporting the current laws.

To summarise, you adjust the number of tricks taken in the contract (assuming there are two options) that gives the non-offending side a better score? Adjusting for illogical actions in a contract that was never played doesn't seem to have anything to do with trying to restore equity. So I don't see an improvement over the current approach (which most people think is already fair) and it's going to be a nightmare for directors to try and explain this to all sides. You also have to remember, we're not talking about adjusting when the defence missed a ruff or two. The decision has to be really bad to adjust using SEWoG principles. It's simply not going to come up that much and it's entirely reasonable that they cost themselves points when they do.

Your approach is still not right. It has the same outcome in this example, but will not always be correct. As I understand it, you are suggesting that if the non-offending side blows a trick through SEWoG play, then the result of the original contract would be adjusted. I.e. in your example they gave up 2 tricks defending 4S, so they receive a score of 4D-2 rather than 4D= Is that correct? If so, this is a deeply flawed approach. If not, I have missed the essence of your proposal.

I don't think the self-inflicted component is calculated the way you think. My understanding is you would adjust the IMP (or matchpoint) score rather than the raw score. For simplicity, assume the other table passed in the board in your example. We can all agree that E-W get -130 or -4 IMPS. N-S's serious error cost them 12 IMPs (+3 -> -9), so their adjusted score is -8 IMPs (+4 for the +130 minus the 12 for the self-inflicted damage). When such a score adjustment applies, this seems reasonable if a bit complicated. I don't understand where -100 comes from though - that just seems like picking a score out of the air. But mostly, I agree that the adjustment would be +130/-130. The defence needs to be pretty bad for N-S to not get full rectification.

A key component seems to be matter of intent, since the laws say it is a "deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length". The example I'm thinking of works better with a strong NT range, so let's assume 15-17. If someone decides to open a 12 count with a good 6 card suit, there is a fair argument that they genuinely intended to evaluate their hand as strong and balanced. That looks like a deviation to me. However, if they open a featureless 13 count then I would treat that as a psyche (assuming they haven't forgotten their NT range).

3D looks like a reasonable response, intending to play 3D or 3H. It's the obvious bid if South was expecting 3C to be (or potentially be) a conventional enquiry. Yes, N-S should sort out their system, but everyone has seen disagreements about follow up bids, particularly if it's not a regular partnership or if they have recently added the convention. I'm not sure why you consider this deliberately random. This type of convention is fairly common in Australia, and pass or correct responses are normal. The only strange thing is North's understanding and explanation of 3D. There may be a case for adjustment due to misinformation, but throwing the rule book out the window to try and punish the pair is hardly likely to serve shevek's game well.

Typically, all suit bids are pass or correct, with 2NT being a forcing enquiry over 2H or 2S. Opener then bids 3 of the lower suit with bottom of the range and the higher suit with top of the range. The most common agreement over 2NT is that 3C is the strong enquiry. You give up playing in 3C, but you gain ways to show good hands (3C and then bid your own suit is forcing; setting the suit at the four level is forcing, etc.). All good one-suited hands either go through the relay or bid and rebid their long suit. That means that you generally can't play a part-score in your own suit after partner opens an RCO two. Here's some description of the convention. Bids like this seem to have become less popular in Australia over the years, probably because players have become better at handling them. Even so, the original hand is one where the 2NT opening was going to make it rather more difficult for the opposition to bid game.

Now with a shape like 3-4-4-2 we're going to be forced to the 4 level on a fair few hands where partner has hearts and clubs. Similarly, if I have 4-4-3-2, I can't be sure of playing in 3 of partner's major in your system.

From the Tournament Regulations:

That's the normal meaning of 3D in this sort of an auction. I've played this convention many times and never felt the need to discuss this sort of a follow-up because that's what everyone would take it to mean. North's explanation is just odd and would suggest to me that they don't understand the convention properly. The original post did explain the meaning of 2NT, although somewhat cryptically for non-Australian players. It's likely that 2D is a weak single-suited hand with one major, 2H = majors or minors, and 2S = reds or blacks (known as RCO Twos). Mostly these are played as weak with at least 5 cards in each suit, although some people will play it to show 5-4.

I wasn't asking for E-W to say what they would do differently - I was claiming that I don't see what they would do differently. West is clearly not competing over 3D. East is clearly not bidding over 3NT, having passed initially. Would either side double? Maybe West will, but West could well have doubled anyway. No chance E-W are getting to game after this start though.

South is willing to play in the 5-3 heart fit if partner has hearts and clubs. 3D may be misguided, but it's hardly insane. Playing 3D as a game interest relay is, to me at least, the bizarre part of the auction. But once North opens 2NT and South chooses 3D it's hard to see how E-W are damaged, no matter what the true explanations are.

One of the top Australian players was written up for the queen lead a couple of years ago. Unfortunately the layout on this particular hand was: [hv=pc=n&s=s953&w=sAQT84&n=sJ62&e=sK7]399|300[/hv] It really depends on where you expect the honours to be and whether partner is likely to have an entry and another card in the suit.

We've definitely played against each other on more than one occasion. ABF rather than BFACT regs control CBC events though, but this is probably veering away from general interest to the rest of the forum readers. I can discuss next time we're both at the club, or send me email - my address is in the CBC book. The brief summary is that it looks like you need to give one month's notice (not one week) to the tournament secretary before playing a yellow system.

Yellow systems are frequently allowed, so it's worth checking to make sure. I don't believe our club or state tournament regulations restrict what you can play in open events, as long as you post the system a week ahead of time.

It's still not clear. Have you given us the hand that bid 4S or the hand that passed over 1H (which might require modification of the hand diagram)? Did both East and West look at the convention card, or did that happen only over the 1H opening (which means the wording should be changed to to 'whilst west was looking at the CC')? Was the only hesitation over 1H (which the previous modification will also fix)? Assuming one hesitation, after the opening bid, and we are seeing the hand that bid 4S, there certainly is a reason to investigate. IMO, pass is clearly a LA and the hesitation suggests values without a clear bid. This means that 4S could demonstrably have been suggested by the agreed hesitation, so I am likely to adjust the score to 4H=. The actual reason for West's hesitation is irrelevant - it's the information it conveys at the table that is important.

But what I explained was the obvious bit dictated by bridge logic. What they cared about was the "something", so saying that we had no agreement would have been functionally equivalent.

Sometimes you simply have to make it up on the fly. It is impractical to simply sit there and do nothing when the partnership does not have an agreement, and this behaviour would in fact violate Law 17C. In those situations (and one of them came up last night) I will happily tell the opponents what our agreements are that may affect partner's decisions, but they don't get the benefit of assuming we have an understanding when we don't. The example from last night was 1NT - 2C; 2H - 4D. I explained Stayman and that we had no agreement about 4D but that it was clearly slammish with a heart fit and saying "something" about diamonds. Everyone was on their own about what this "something" was, and my partner and I were in fact on different wavelengths entirely. Trying to then claim that we in fact had an agreement when we both knew we didn't have one and both knew we were making it up as we went along would have been a very odd conclusion to draw indeed.

I would like to bid Stayman and then over a 2D response ask for a 3 card major. If I can't do this, how do I show a 5/5 invitational hand in this system? Is that what transferring to hearts and bidding 2S shows? Over a 2M response to Stayman I'm bidding the obvious game.

It doesn't look like this is correct. The system notes show this as a minimum (13-15 point) hand, so opener could pass a 3D rebid. Responder cannot pass 2NT though.