gordontd

Have you misread the auction?

This hand actually came from a ruling, but I think it's shown its own interest apart from that. Now I'd like to ask what people think would be suggested if partner's double had been very slow? (Mods feel free to move this if you think it's now too off-topic).

The original paper for the EBL & EBU on implementing L27 said: While I think this paper is no longer considered to be the definitive position on L27, that's only because the WBFLC had asked for a more liberal interpretation, which I don't think affects this point.

I'm surprised by this view. I can see nothing in Laws 9, 10 or 27 to disallow this, and it's something I often do.

I'm not sure how this relates to the given situation when partner has opened 1NT.

You make some unwarranted assumptions. There is no reason why TDs can't be polled if they are peers of the player, and I've commented before that they can often be very good people to poll because they haven't played the hand. Having polled them, there is no reason not to then show them the whole hand and have a discussion with them about it. Hence they can be polled and also be part of a discussion about the hand. That's what happened in this case and that's why I worded it like that. It happened at the end of the evening when there were few tables still in play and by the time the North player (who was very disruptive and difficult) had allowed me to get on with the job of making a ruling, there were no players around I could ask, but there were some TDs who were peers of the player, in the sense that they were about the same standard as him (which I think I am too) and were prepared to accept the auction as given. Sometimes the "sufficiently large amount" can be quite small: if it seems clear to me as a TD that pass is a logical alternative, and I poll two people, who are peers of the player, and they both say that they would pass, that is enough to establish that pass is a logical alternative. My memory of what happened in this case is that it was something like that, though there may have been more of us by the time the discussion happened. Many more polls & consultations have taken place since then, and they often start with showing a colleague a single hand and giving him/her an auction. As soon as there's any doubt or difference of opinion, then we're off to find players, sometimes to poll, sometimes to consult with. It does depend on the nature of the case which questions should be asked or what discussions instituted.

It's not hard to tell in this instance because East has told the whole table he didn't see the 1NT bid. So NS simply have to ask what 1♣ - P - 1♥ would mean.

[hv=pc=n&s=s92hk5da632ckt874&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=3sdp?]133|200|IMP pairs[/hv]

This is a problem with polling - which is not to suggest that we should not do it. Players and AC members usually know the outcome by the time they consider it, and that's one reason why it can be a good start to ask TDs instead, if they are peers of the players in question, because they haven't already played the hand. Best of all is when there are two events going on using different boards; then we can get players without too many preconceptions. However, it will always be the case that those polled are aware of a reason behind the question, and some find it hard to disregard that. Personally I don't find it hard - I can usually answer the question without needing to guess the back-story, but I know lots of others can't seem to do that. Sometimes though they will guess wrong - they'll think it's a UI case when it's an MI case for example, and directors can encourage that by asking questions about earlier parts of the auction than those they are interested in.

It looks to me, having read the two posts, as though he most likely misread what you wrote and saw an extra "not" in it.

1996 is not in the last 20 years?

The existing award under L86A is +/-3IMPs (not 3VPs), and there's no need for that to change under the new scales.

Orange Book 4H6 Take-out doubles

Hmm, if that's what they're saying, they're saying to open all 4-4 14-counts (not 12 counts, which only add up to 20). I don't think even Roth needed to be told that!

It says: LOL - they think opening a 5-5 12-count is opening light!

You would be misinforming your opponents whenever the double was not alertable.

Indeed - neither of them has much interest in that.

Rebid 2♠, and pass any minimum rebid (2NT, 3♦) that your partner might make.

That's SAYC?

I wonder if you're thinking of 27B1a? When the new laws came in, Max Bavin wrote a paper about L27 which was widely circulated, in which he commented that it was general bridge knowledge that in making a 27B1a substitution, players might well distort their hand a bit in order to avoid silencing their partners. He said that this was permissible, but that 27D was there as a backstop in cases where this allowed players to reach a contract they couldn't otherwise have reached. The most obvious example of this is when a player makes an insufficient natural bid of NT; clearly, making it sufficient will be a distortion, and there's no prohibition on using that knowledge to underbid in the subsequent auction, but you might end up with a 27D adjustment if you have gained from it. But when it comes to 27B1b, the underlying principle of it is that there shouldn't be any more information transmitted by the combination of insufficient bid and replacement than there would have been if the replacement bid had been made initially. It is true though that a parallel with the 27B1a situation I mentioned above might exist, as you've identified, though in practice I have never seen it happen.

X

It sounds clear that South is aware there is still one trump out, and therefore that he is going to draw it when he's in.

Yes - the preface in the American version deleted the bit in the Preface that starts: "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors..." Nice vote of confidence from the ACBL for their directors!

What contract are you going to choose if partner responds 5♦?

Ah, so when the OP said the previous trick, he was of course talking about the current trick!