greenender

Thanks to all for their replies. Double was slow, but not that slow, and my partner and I (E/W) were uncertain as to what it might suggest. 4♥ was very slow indeed, and we felt that it suggested that N didn't have the good hand we thought the bid suggested. Glad to see that most posters agree with us here. At first we felt that there was a nasty taste given the ghastliness of N's 4♥ bid after a 3NT response that neither of us would have chosen (although I see that it is a popular choice), but since the 3NT bid was in tempo, and there was no other noticeable UI, we didn't pursue it. Only afterwards did we consider that we should have focussed on S's actions. N held ♠KJ63, ♥J9876, ♦J9, ♣A2, and 4♥ was solid by playing W for the ♠Q. 3NT is off if S takes the first diamond, but if he ducks, E needs to switch to ♣s to beat it. Anything higher is relatively defender-proof. As E, I held ♠752, ♥-, ♦KQ10542, ♣KJ83. I guess that rather than worry about what might have been, I ought to look forward to the opportunity to play a long match against N/S!

[hv=pc=n&s=sa84hkq43da76c974&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=3dppdp]133|200[/hv] 1 A What is your call as South? B What other calls do you consider? 2 You elect to bid 3NT. Partner bids 4♥ (W and E both pass) A What do you think partner has for this sequence? B What is your call now? C What other calls do you consider? IMP scoring. First division County League, so no mugs around, but not experts as such. E/W's style in first seat at green is aggressive, but not totally wild (you can expect a reasonable 6-card suit at least).

My practice is to say "sorry - I don't know whether to alert the double without checking on the meaning of 2♠". Nobody has ever objected to this that I can recall (although I suppose that somebody who had declined to alert 2♠ because they knew jolly well it was natural, might raise an eyebrow). The alternative is to alert* and if asked explain as above: if no questions are asked, then you ask about 2♠ at your turn and withdraw or confirm the alert accordingly: if RHO would have acted differently had you not alerted he may get his call back (although he would have been wise to ask about the alert). *because an alert always provides less specific information than a non-alert, and tends to prompt a question which enables the whole thing to be sorted out.

On the rare (ha-ha) occasions when I misbid partner is normally there with the correct explanation, and provided that the SC is sufficient evidence for the TD not to rule MI, the law takes its course without adjustment (ignoring UI considerations, which are not my current concern). Say, however, that we change a bit of the system, which then doesn't come up for a while, and when it does I misbid, forgetting the change, and partner misexplains, and tells the oppo that I hold what I actually happen to hold, but not what we have agreed that I should hold. At some point I remember the agreement. Now it is easy if I am a defender. I wait till the end of the hand, and I say something along the lines of "partner's explanation matched my hand, but actually our agreement was such-and such, and we both forgot". What if I'm declarer or dummy? If I correct the explanation, then the defenders are going to take the inference that I've got what I've shown, not what I've got. So I either say nothing, in which case one of the defenders always seems to pick up the SC and notice the discrepancy, or I correct the explanation with a disclaimer to the effect that I actually hold what partner said, which is not provided for in the laws. Or I do exactly what I would have done as a defender, which is to let the defence proceed in peace, believing I hold what I actually hold, and come clean at the end of the hand (or sooner if a defender notices the discrepancy). Is there a correct answer? Does it matter? I am reminded of a story about the late great John Collings. Partner explained one of John's bids as "either A or B". When he became declarer John informed the table in his inimitable style that his ox of a partner had as usual got it wrong. He had shown "A or C". The defence proceeded on the assumption that John held "C", or at least "not B". When it turned out that he held "D", all hell is said to have broken loose. (Sorry, I don't know what options A to D actually were).

This is pretty much what I suggested, but I think the TD was less impressed with North's argument and ruled that the table result should stand (largely on the grounds that "fewer points with East" does not necessarily add up to "more points with South"). Of course fewer points with W "does not necessarily aded up to" more points with S. But it doesn't have to. With 15-17 with W there are 4-6 for S and E combined. With 11-14, it's 7-10. S presumably still has 0-5 of those (as he passed 1♥), but his chances of having something useful have increased somewhat. I agree with wank with the modification suggested by jallerton, and would be more inclined than others to adjust on the basis that N might have taken different action with the "correct" information. Perhaps 20/20/60 rather than 10/10/80.

Agree. Bluejak will no doubt correct me if necessary, but I believe his view is that whilst specific reference to the concept of a fielded misbid is almost exclusively an English (and probably Welsh B) ) phenomenon, what is actually going on when a misbid is fielded, properly analysed, is an infraction of Law anywhere.

Posted before I saw Lanor Fow's response. We seem to be largely in agreement.

1. On the face of it, no, as W seems to have had no reason to think that E had forgotten the system change, apart from what seems to have been a mere hunch. However... 2. If W is going to act as if 2♦ had an alertable meaning, she would do well to let the opponents in on the secret of the agreement (or, here, former agreement) that formed the basis of that decision. What W should really do is to take the action indicated by her hand opposite whatever 2♦ is supposed to show in the new system (presumably, as a passed hand, natural and weak, although some would play it as fit). In that context 2N with a balanced minimum does seem a little odd. 3. Strictly, no. N/S are entitled to know E/W's agreements, not the contents of their hands. However, some players believe it to be actively ethical to say something along the lines of "whilst our agreement is actually that this is X, at the time I made the bid I was labouring under the misapprehension that it showed something else". Whilst no doubt well-intentioned, my experience is that these type of confessions tend to make life even more difficult for the NOS, and should be avoided. 4. No. N/S have had the information to which they were entitled. 5. The TD was right not to adjust for MI, since there was none. However the TD was wrong to say that changing N's call was at his own risk and precluded any further consideration of an adjustment. Had there been MI, the TD was right that if N changed his call, then there was no longer any basis for an adjustment on the basis that N might have taken different action at that turn with the correct information. However, offering a change of call to the NOS does not preclude an adjustment for earlier damage, if for example the NOS might have taken different action earlier with the correct information, or if the OS might have taken action tainted by UI. Here the TD should have investigated whether W had any UI (from body language, for example), rather than acting on a pure hunch. The fact that W found an unusual action opposite a misbid warrants an investigation of whether there was UI, or whether the misbid has been fielded, but does not justify a knee-jerk conclusion that there must have been an infraction on the basis of the discredited rule of coincidence.

Whilst I am sure that the failure of N to disclose that S had a history of forgetting Smith Peters constitutes MI, I would not adjust. I feel that declarer has perhaps been guilty of sloppy thinking in focussing on the Smith Peter issue in defiance (as I see it) of the bridge logic. Whilst I accept that the logic is to give count in this situation as a ♥ continuation cannot be right, at least a substantial minority of players probably do not think this way: if they have agreed to play Smith Peters, and they don't want the suit continued, they play a discouraging Smith card, even if the sight of dummy tells them that partner knows not to continue the suit, so that a count signal would be better. So I think that declarer is, in principle, allowed to take the explanation at face value. But on this particular layout declarer knows that an encouraging Smith signal is implausible given his combined holding, so he should look a bit closer into the position. Who on earth leads from Qxx or Qxxx through a bid suit into a strong 2NT rebid? It seems to me to be a recipe for trashing the whole suit (just give partner Jx or similar). A short suit lead, on the other hand, whilst not everyone's cup of tea, may pay dividends. Partner may be sat over the bidder with a developable holding, or if declarer, as well as dummy, has honours in the suit, the lead may still be safe.

Long ♠s doesn't seem likely, in view of the failure to open a weak 2, except... Partner is marked with 4 ♥s, except against those who are likely to open 1NT with a 5-card major. (RHO is known to do this by agreement in his regular partnerships, but was playing with a pick-up partner). Accordingly, the likeliest reason for the tank in passing out 1NT (for that is part of what happened) is that partner has a borderline Astro or Landy bid with both majors (the pair concerned were actually playing some version of Astro). The other part of the problem was that partner, who is a thoughtful player, played his (as it happened) singleton ♣ without a care in the world, whereas experience suggets that with the ♣A he would have paused at least momentarily whether he intended to win it or duck it. So there is UI that it probably isn't the ♣A that partner has ducked. In addition, what do you make of partner's ♦7 at trick one, playing standard signals? From 7xx he could (should?) have played his lowest. If he has ducked the ♦A, then declarer has a ♠ stop, and it is at least plausible to play for your ♠'s to be an entry for your ♦ tricks, rather than for partner's presumed ♦A to be an entry to his ♠s, particularly given that playing for ♦ tricks doesn't give declarer a ♠ trick he couldn't win on his own. I felt (as declarer) that the combination of the slow pass-out and the relatively (for this player) fast ♣ had made it much easier for W to play ♠s from the top, thus holding the contract, whereas a ♦ continuation would have led to nine tricks. There was no ruling as I was directing, and it is my philosophy, for the most part, to let judgment rulings go when I'm a playing TD.

Thanks to all for replies. I ruled that result stands, as I felt that the logic was as jdonn puts it: indeed, for myself, I would probably have been more likely to double this particular player after the tank. Shows what I know about psychology - in discussion afterwards E confided to me that she had been thinking about the implications of 3♦ (as 2♦ would have been natural) and wondering if she had enough to try 3N. She didn't, of course, far from it.

S's conclusions about E's tank are at his own risk, except if E had no demonstrable bridge reason for said tank, in which event there does not need to be any intent to mislead. Most players in this particular club would be very chary about reading anything into this player's tanks, on the grounds that often enough there is no correlation between her slow tempo and any demonstrable bridge reason to think. Whilst I personally find her a frustrating opponent because she wastes so much time, I wouldn't go so far as to say that her BITs are free of significant information.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s975h742dkj5ckqt3&w=sajhq3dqt864cj952]266|200|Scoring: MP[/hv] S opens 1NT (12-14) in third seat and everybody passes. As W you lead your fourth highest ♦, which runs to the 5, 7 and 9. Declarer plays the ♣8 to the 5, K and 4, and plays a ♥ from dummy to the 6, J and your Q. You play standard count on declarer's leads. What do you play now? What other plays do you consider? (It will be apparent that there is some UI flying around, but I'm not going to tell you what it is at this stage).

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sa7hqt65da872c865]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] N opens 1NT (12-14). E passes, you pass as S. W bids 3♦ which is passed back to S, but only after prolonged thought from E. As S, assume that you play double for penalties in this position. Does the long pause for thought by RHO make you more or less likely to double? You need to know that RHO is a notoriously slow player at the best of times, and has been known to agonise over decisions where most players of her basic standard (moderate to good club player) would see little problem. Still, the pause was long, even for her. Two alternative scenarios: 1. E/W are playing some variant of Astro, so 3♦ was the cheapest way to show the suit. 2. E/W are playing natural or Landy , so 2♦ by LHO would have been natural. Your thoughts?

I quite agree with bluejak that it is surprising that the TD ruled without investigating whether the 2♠ call was unintended. My own form of words is along the lines of "at the moment you went for the bidding cards, what call did you think you were making?" IMO this is slightly superior to "...what call did you intend to make?" notwithstanding that the Laws use the "intend..." construction, as it minimises any problems from the terminological problem identified by iviehoff. I am vaguely surprised that the lady readily persuaded the AC that it was unintended, as my experience is that, particularly for players who play natural weak twos some of the time and Multi the rest, such errors tend to be momentary system forgets rather than slips of the hand. So dburn is right. I confess I would have been hard pressed to think of a reason to refund LHO's appeal deposit. Whether or not the 2♠ call was unintended, all roads seem to lead to "result stands". Moreover I find it unedifying for players to appeal against their own rulings.