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.

I'd quite like to take this one slowly. Let's assume from the result in "part 1" in Simple Rulings that the AC readily concludes that the TD should have allowed the correction to 5♦. The AC must then produce an adjustment on the basis of TD error. This means projecting what might have happened: - if the IB had been corrected to 5♦; and - on the basis that both sides were non-offending. This means that in a weighted scores jurisdiction, both sides are entitled to the benefit of a sympathetic weighting. In the ACBL both sides are entitled to the most favourable score that was likely. All projected scores, weightings etc. must, however, take into account the fact that S has UI from the alert of 3♠, and that his actions are constrained accordingly. What this means in terms of an actual adjustment I don't know, but whilst I could well imagine the table result standing for E/W, I could also imagine N/S being given a result which gave them at least some percentage of threading their way through the shark-infested waters to some other contract.

And possible lead penalties, of course.

I don't like denying redress for a late TD call when the basis of possible adjustment is not affected by the timing of the call. Blackshoe has determined that W's explanation was wrong, so there was MI. If the TD had been called as soon as E revealed the problem, then it was too late for S's 2♥ call to be changed. I agree with declining to adjust a score when the timing of the TD call makes a difference to whether the call the NOS say they wouldn't have made with the correct info can be changed or not, but that isn't the case here. On a separate issue, this is one sort of example on which I consider the ACBL's refusal to countanance weighted scores produces an unfortunate result. If the TD considers that S might have passed with the correct information, but is not convinced that she would have, then he can - elsewhere, at least - and routinely does - give N/S part of the benefit of defending 1NT instead of going for the dreaded -200 in 2♥. In the ACBL you have to let E/W get away with it, or allow S the full benefit of an assertion that some find implausible (except of course if passing is not within the scope of "likely" but is within the scope of "at all probable", when both sides get the worst of it).

What worries me about this hand (assuming that 4♥ to show a 2-suiter is an alertable agreement: otherwise there's no issue, as has already been said) is that S bid 4♥ but did not alert it to his screenmate. Perhaps S was just insane, but one has to be pretty insane to bid 4♥ on 5-1-1-6 distribution unless one thinks that it is a better than even chance that one's ox is going to take the bid as denoting a hand that is at least vaguely consistent with what one actually holds. If one thinks that partner has a better than even chance of being on the same wavelength, then regardless of explicit agreements, one is banking on the existence of at least an implicit agreement. If such an agreement is alertable, then one should alert (in circumstances, i.e. with screens or online, where one alerts one's own calls), notwithstanding that one may be in some doubt as to the security of the implicit agreement. This is the screens corollary of the advice to alert partner's call when one isn't sure, but is planning to take it as having an alertable meaning. So I agree with Lanor Fow: S clearly though he was showing a two-suiter. N saw it differently. There is sufficient evidence of a disagreement for me to rule MI. And a PP to S for failing to alert, unless he can produce a doctor's note that he is truly insane.

No. There is no obligation to draw attention to an irregularity, and no obligation to call the TD unless someone has drawn attention. It would have been better had bluejak's attempt (on the last major revision of the OB) to get the alerting status of such cue-bids reversed, but I agree that the overwhelming likelihood is that the failure to alert has been forgetful or lazy, rather than that partner should have assumed that 3♠ was natural. I think partner has been a bit of an idiot, frankly. If he wanted to double 3♠ with Ax, then he should either have done so without further ado, or have checked about the 3♠ bid and then doubled when he found out the agreed meaning. Calling the TD when he did, coupled with the UI from his other extraneous goings-on, has put you under totally unnecessary pressure to no good purpose. Since partner did seem to hold ♠Ax, I will charitably assume that his antics were not founded on the desire to get you to lead something else, on the footing that you would be ethically constrained to lead a non-♠. If that were the case, of course, I would recommend that the player concerned be swiftly consigned to the ranks of ex-partners, or indeed ex-players.

I don't think you have to be as extreme as that. Clearly a player who would never have considered 4♣ on the previous round is not a member of the peer group for the purposes of assessing logical alternatives, but most people can put themselves in the position of someone who has made what they consider to be an inferior call on a previous round, and express a valid opinion for polling purposes. So I think the TD when polling should say something about the earlier auction, along the lines of: "you're stuck with the earlier auction: if you really can't envisage being in this position because you wouldn't have bid like this so far, then let me know". I might well have bid 4♣ myself, and can certainly live with it. I would now double and would not seriously consider any other call. I made my decision as to the right level for ♣s on the last round, for better or worse, and it is not carefully taking no advantage to reconsider that decision in the teeth of UI. I cannot envisage passing. I have much better defence than I might have, and partner has made an overcall at the 2-level.

If E thought that it was standard to play 2♣ as majors, why did he add "or a very strong hand"?. I don't get to defend against Polish-style 1♣ openings that often, but I can't see why it should be standard to play 2♣ as majors, let alone what E actually said, which seems a very odd defence. I think it is difficult to judge the extent to which the MI may have affected things without knowing some of the inferences from the methods N/S were playing, but if 2♠ was GF and 3♠, as a consequence, probably stronger than 4, S's failure to cue-bid seems bizarre, whatever explanation he has had.

I have to say that as a player I really hate these situations. My philosophy is to claim wherever possible (except against some players, where experience or instinct suggests that claiming will waste, rather than save, time). If I am not in a position to claim, but a defender says something like "are we playing these for a reason?", then I really hate having to work out what that means for my possible lines of play. As a TD I am therefore inclined to very tolerant of players who claim to be misled. It seems to me that a lot of players have an instinctive reaction that a player who makes such a remark cannot have a key card, and for the most part, since players do not generally set out to deceive, that reaction is justified. I am not therefore inclined to rule against a player who may have been deceived, just because deeper analysis may lead to a conclusion that he should not have been deceived. For most players the remark seems to switch off the "deeper analysis" function. As far as campboy's question goes, I don't think this happens much in the real world. I appreciate that he was adapting the situation in the OP to raise the question. Perhaps an invented example may have been better, because I can't see why E should assume that N had five trumps, nor why N should assume that such an assumption on E's part was the reason for E initially thinking that his side had no further interest in the deal. But to answer his question, I think that declarer has been materially misled if the ultimate conclusion he draws, leading to a choice of the unsuccessful line, reduces his chances of getting the position right, regardless of whether it depends on an intermediate conclusion which is in fact warranted.

Although not as convinced as bluejak of the Zargishness of the double, I agree with his ruling. When we bid 2♥, we did not intend to drive to game. Still less did our actions to date demonstrate a commitment to drive to game. So we do not "have to" double to protect our previously expected score. What has happened since? First, pesky LHO has wandered in at game level. This is AI, and suggests that partner may have little wasted in the ♥ department, and somewhat increases the likelihood that partner has a ♠ fit. This will persuade quite a lot of players not to pass, but I am convinced that enough will still pass for this to be a LA. Second, partner has in weasel fashion told us that it is wrong to pass out 4♥, without being man enough to double or bid on himself. Is doubling carefully avoiding taking advantage of this UI? No, it is not. And for completeness is double suggested? Yes because it caters to whatever partner's borderline action was. If he was thinking of doubling himself, he will float it; if he was thinking of bidding 4♠, he will do that. Fairly close as a bidding problem, but as a ruling, with the modern fierce definition of LAs, not close.

I was going to reply to Jeremy's post to say that declarer's statement (as to crossruffing at the end) precluded a ruling on the basis of cashing trumps, but then I noticed something rather more important. When the claimer's statement is impossible to implement in its entirety, what do we do? Do we follow so much of it as we can until it breaks down, and then assess normal lines of play for however many tricks remain, treating such remaining elements of the claim as may be possible to implement as evidence of claimer's state of mind, but not as binding? Or do we implement as much of it as we can, regardless of whether it happens before or after the breakdown? Given the requirement to do equity as far as possible to both sides, I believe the first must be correct. Given that the statement breaks down at the first trick, as discarding a ♦ on a ♣ is a revoke, I think the director only follows the claim statement to the extent of cashing a ♣. Thereafter we are into unstated lines of play, so what claimer said about the ♦s only after the flaw in the claim was pointed out is irrelevant. Instead, the law requires a ruling on the basis that declarer does not get the ♦s right, notwithstanding that the claim statement included the cashing of two top ♦s. This is because declarer's play in the ♦ suit needing two tricks is not at all analogous to the normal play needing three. However, I still regard the statement as to a crossruff as sufficient indication that to rule on the basis of cashing the trumps before getting the ♦s wrong would be too harsh. Of course, if you follow as much of the claim statement as possible, regardless of the point of breakdown, the projected play is to cash two ♣s discarding one ♦, then cash two ♦s. The claim then breaks down irretrievably as there is nothing to crossruff, but hey, the third ♦ has come good so the contract makes. So at then end, down one, wtp, but not without interest.