gordontd

It was completely clear to me that her partner was right, and I think it also seemed so to the original poster and his partner (they can correct me if I'm wrong about that).

I don't think a trump suit missing Qxxxx can ever be said to be "cold" for a grand slam.

When I first saw the auction I thought it must be a strong club auction, because that would have made perfect sense. But no, they were playing simple Acol and there was nothing to alert. As mentioned above, the lady was playing in an unfamiliar partnership as a substitute, and I think her partner was as frustrated as anyone else at not being able to fathom what was going on. Certainly she could give no reason why 3H should have been a transfer, and she had apparently bid 1D rather than 1S because she had been told to respond by bidding suits in ascending order. By this stage of the event she also appeared to be finding the whole thing hard work, and might have been feeling a bit bullied by some of her opponents (not the original poster and his partner I must stress). Looking at some of the responses in this thread, I wonder if the original post inadvertently gave the impression that I just came to the table and made an off-the-cuff pronouncement. Nothing could be further from the truth. When I was first called Trevor and his partner wanted me to record a psyche. At that point they didn't realise they had been damaged - they thought they were getting a good score and they didn't seek any adjustment. I talked to their opponents and it was clear that the call had been a misbid and not a psyche, and so with the agreement of all concerned I decided not to record the hand. Later, when they had seen the frequencies and realised that they had got a poor score, they asked me to look again at the hand which I did. I asked further questions of their opponents about their system, looked at their convention card, discussed it with my colleague on site, and then phoned RMB1 and talked to him about it - in particular the degree of evidence required by L21B1b. Only after all this did I give the ruling.

Actually it's not that simple. Imagine my partner opens 1NT and it is doubled, but I fail to notice that and bid 2H intending it to be a transfer. My partner will not alert (because our agreement is that it is natural and so not alertable). That lack of alert might well wake me up so that I notice the double. Although I'm not allowed to use this UI in my choice of calls should the auction continue, I am allowed to use it to avoid giving the opponents misinformation in my explanations. So, I'm not supposed to tell them that there has been a failure to alert, because there hasn't been.

I spoke to both players and their opponents at some length. I examined their simple system card. I discussed the matter with one of my colleagues, particularly with regard to the degree of evidence required by L21B1b, and I made a judgement. That's what we're meant to do, isn't it?

What gives you the idea that I didn't investigate? Please note that, as stated in the original post, "dummy doesn't have a clue", was not my phrasing in my ruling. However it was clear that she was out of her depth (she was playing as a substitute in an event for which she hadn't qualified), and I had more calls to her table than to any other during the weekend, and spoke to her and her partner at some length. So, I got a fair idea of what was going on.

You are entitled to know the opponents' agreements. You are not entitled to know that one of them has misbid (though you may use the information if you are given it). You are not entitled to know that they have had a misunderstanding (though you may use the information if you are given it). I gave the ruling, in consultation with one of my senior colleagues who regularly posts here. It was clear to us that the pair had no such agreement to play 3H as a transfer, but that the player in question had been confused and misbid (both with 3H and with 1D). That being the case, the original poster, for whom I have great sympathy, is not entitled to a notification of a failure to alert, because there was no agreement and so nothing to alert.

The trouble is that your opponents are having to defend against (a_or_B) or c) when one of you is playing (a_or_B) and the other is playing c).

I'd have thought it was more a matter of partnership misunderstanding :D

North made this point to me, extremely politely after I had given the ruling, and I do see what she was getting at. In particular, she wasn't sure that a natural 3D bid was available to her in the pass-out seat. However I do think that to pass out a two-level redoubled contract when the opponents have a big fit falls within the scope of L12C1b, and I said to her then that I thought she should bid 3D and trust that the Laws would protect her if she had been fixed by misinformation.

Jeff Smith's Swiss Pairs Scorer is excellent, free, and has a users' document available to download. http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jasmith/

I agree that tells your partner to alert. It also implies that, since your actions were not consistent with having such an agreement, your partnership might not be considered to have an agreement. And that is what I think L21B1b tells us.

I ruled on the basis that the original alert and explanation constituted misinformation, supported by L21B1b which I mentioned above: I think it's clear that the pair had not discussed and agreed the application of their new overcall structure to this situation, and appending a caveat to the explanation to the effect that the two players might have differing views of the auction, does not in my opinion remove the misinformation.

In general I agree, though I do remember when I had broken my foot in several places and was directing on crutches, being called to the far end of a crowded room. When I got there the player said he had just wanted to see how I negotiated the obstacles.

With one partner I play transfer rebids after a 1NT (NF) response to 1M openings. I think the idea originated with Gold/Townsend. It allows you to handle various kinds of strong problem hands.

Most players (even playing Acol) play that a reverse after a two-level response is forcing to game. Even if they don't, responder has a 10-count opposite his partner's 16+, so there should be no question of passing 4D.

Well you must do as you did if you think the one agreement applies in the other situation (though I must say that it wouldn't occur to me that when I agreed to play Leaping Michaels over a two-opener, it might also apply over a one-opener). But when it turns out that your partner hasn't made the same assumption it seems inevitable that you will be deemed to have given misinformation, and expressing uncertainty at the time of the explanation doesn't really help your opponents at all. It's actually harder for them to defend against a bid that shows C or S+D or S than against one that shows C or S+D. I must stress that I have no doubt about the ethical motives of all at the table, and I was impressed by the grace with which everyone accepted my ruling. However I'm not convinced by the argument that has been presented in this thread that the explanation that was given is sufficient to deny your opponents redress. For those reading who don't already know it, my ruling was that EW had misinformed NS and so their score was adjusted to 50% of 4S= & 50% of 5Dx-1. I agree with those who think that North's final pass was "wild or gambling" (although I have no doubt that was not her intention) and so I allowed NS to keep the table score. This ended up being one match where the hybrid points gained didn't add up to 14 - the score for these three boards was 2-4! Finally, may I say what a pleasant day it was, and in what a friendly and enjoyable spririt it was played?

But the explanation was that they didn't have a firm agreement. So the explanation was correct. I don't think that's really satisfactory. Introducing the idea that it might be one thing (without having any really firm basis for that idea), but then adding that it might be natural, simply introduces uncertainty and creates a situation that is very difficult for opponents to deal with.

If this full explanation was given at the table, I would probably rule that the result stands. It seems to be a full description of their agreements. Isn't this why we have L21B1b? They have an agreement to play something in a different situation. They haven't discussed whether it applies in this situation, but one of them hopes it does and the other doesn't see it that way. That doesn't seem like an agreement to me. And, while the intent was doubtless to be helpful, adding in the possibility that the call might be natural after all, simply makes it even harder to defend against.

Or one major and a minor.

Doubtless I've missed something completely obvious, but I can't see how this is true of the given hands.

This hand came from the Cambridge University President's Teams, which I directed yesterday. Several of those playing in it regularly post here, so they will no doubt correct any details I might have wrong. [hv=d=s&v=n&n=skjhdakj654ca9873&w=sat875hkt6dqckqj6&e=sq9432ha98dt82ct4&s=s6hqj75432d973c52]399|300|Scoring: Hybrid 2♥ - 2♠ - X - XX P - P - P[/hv] Scoring is a mixture of Point-a-Board (Board-a-Match) and IMPs converted to Victory Points - each three-board match had a total of 14 hybrid points available. 2♥ was weak. 2♠ was intended as natural, but was alerted and it was explained that EW (who enjoy system!) had recently changed their overcall structure and a 1♠ overcall of 1♥ would have shown ♣ or ♠+♦. East thought that this also applied here, though he did mention the possibility that his partner might just have spades. X showed an interest in penalising EW. XX showed interest in playing in 2♠xx if West happened to have spades. West's pass showed spades. North passed on the basis that if West had spades he also had diamonds. 2♠xx made 10 tricks.

There's no prohibition on responder having more than five cards in his suit.

I think it is. The damage was caused at least as much by his own inattention as by the lack of alert. L12C1b says: Is the part in brackets satisfied? Had there been no infraction, the failure to notice the first pass would have had no effect.

We have enough trouble getting the wording of laws changed when it matters - let's not bother when it makes no difference at all