gordontd

That's not what the laws tell us: No mention of whether or not that part of the CC is filled out.

There are a number of well-qualified directors here, but I think we expect more of them than that they just claim status.

West was clear that he had broken tempo (I was the director), so I would have ruled on the basis that there was UI, had I been called back to the table. Then I would have polled a few people to see what they would have done with the East hand in an auction with no tempo-break, and I would expect that to show Pass as a logical alternative at this vulnerability & form of scoring. But I wasn't called back.

Chaource.

You may well also need to know about 1C-1S/2D-2H, 1C-2H-3H, 1C-2S-3H & 1C-2NT-3H

The other thing that occurs to me is that since that guidance was given we have been told to take a more liberal approach to allowing replacement calls, and Max has been reported as saying that the original document is out of date and no longer valid.

And yet he was the one who introduced the most recent auction and said "Now 2♥ has no meaning..."

Then we should have further debate about it, though I don't think the possibility of calls with absolutely no meaning had been considered when the original debate took place in advance of the laws coming into force. I've certainly asked a couple of our senior colleagues (though I'm not completely certain which ones) whether they think we should allow any replacement if we really are convinced the insufficient bid is without meaning, and I thought they both agreed. To my mind, if the Insufficient Bid + Replacement Bid provides no more information than would the Replacement Bid by itself, then it seems to fulfil the requirements of the law, and I remember a point like this being made at the original EBU TD weekend on the new laws back in 2008(?) Maybe RMB1 and mamos would like to continue this discussion?

We do generally say that, and it's a helpful aid in most circumstances. But it's not what the Law itself says, and in this unusual circumstance (where people make calls with no meaning at all) I think we need to go back to the original text.

It certainly seems to satisfy the requirements of the Law itself: a call with a meaning has a more precise meaning than a call with no meaning. But I would want to investigate a bit further as to why responder chose to make this meaningless bid, and check that it really did have no meaning at all.

I played a version of Vienna, known as "Stern" at the Jain community centre in Mombasa. It used the Bamberger 7-5-3-1 point count, so players would say things like "well I couldn't open it - it was a very poor 18-count". Other features were five-card diamonds, distributionally strong three-bids, and (I think) a forcing artificial 1NT opener. Very few auctions started with a bid other than 1♣ - even when they could, players seemed to forget about the other openings.

I think you'll need to give us a little more information before you get helpful replies.

In the Acol case, 1♠-3♠ shows a four-card limit raise, and the delayed raise shows a three-card limit raise, so all of those other hands need to go through 3♣. I think you've correctly identified one of the weaknesses of the system.

a) When playing a weak NT, or a French style where a 2NT rebid shows a strong NT, 2NT is forcing so the catchall is 2♠. b) In Acol, 2♦ does not promise a rebid, but a new suit by opener is a one-round force. Some play that 2/1s are forcing to 2NT, but it's not a common treatment. c) Playing that 1♠-2♦-3♦ is NF, you have to do something else to force: some will rebid 2NT (forcing) even with support; splintering to 3♥ is another option; playing a 3NT rebid as showing something like 5242 15-17 is also a possibility. d) In Acol after 1♠-2♦-2♥ nothing is forcing except FSF. (These answers assume a fairly modern style of Acol - traditionally even fewer sequences were forcing).

Standard being...?

The point is whether there is any more information contained in the Replacement Bid + Insufficient Bid than in the Replacement Bid without the Insufficient Bid.

Well the full hand and auction were: [hv=pc=n&s=sq873hkjt853dt4c9&w=skth6dak9832cj853&n=s6ha7dqj76cakqt74&e=saj9542hq942d5c62&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2h3d4hdp5cdppp]399|300[/hv] I suppose in retrospect I was guilty of making a "Queen of Hearts" double - hoping it would mean what I wanted it to mean on this hand. I thought I was asking partner to pass unless his hand was quite unusual, whereas he thought I was asking him to bid. North must have thought all his Christmases had come at once - how often do you have a trump stack of AKQTxx to double a five-level contract?! We had a great group of team-mates who were amused rather than annoyed when we scored up with a -1700, and we still managed to win both the match and the whole event. I'm not sure that I would have found the winning action in any case, since I would have been tempted to bid 4♠ if I thought the alternative was to pass. It does seem a shame that we aren't able to take the +500 that's there.

The wording used in the original EBL & EBU advice was: “Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?” In the situation where the insufficient bid has no meaning at all (because, for example, the player is thinking of another hand altogether and simply pulls out a bidding card without thought), then any hand which might make the new call might also have made the old call - which adds no information to the auction.

If the insufficient bid had no meaning, then any replacement bid would have a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

You can't see the results before you vote, can you?

This discussion was the reason I posted this hand (and the spectacular outcome, which I'll post later!) In spite of playing together about once a month for a few years, I don't think we've really hammered out the details of these doubles. Our cards says "Level to which negative doubles apply: 4D (higher doubles show cards)".

[hv=pc=n&w=skth6dak9832cj853&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2h3d4hdp]133|200[/hv]

For once the lawmakers have prepared for an eventuality before we've seen it happen, and you think they would be better just hoping it doesn't? I drop a card on the floor that I'm about to play as defender, and having difficulty reaching it I say "small diamond". Then, as I pick it up, I realise that the wrong word came out my mouth, in the confusion of my exertion, and it was actually a small club - both in my mind and in fact.

Extras without four hearts. Something like a 4324 16-count. 3♥ shows four hearts.

You're missing out defenders, who were presumably meant to be included (although in practice I've not seen this law used by them).