Coelacanth

North was roughly 3433 with 9 or 10 HCP. About what you'd expect for a raise of partner's 'strong' NT to 3NT. East had a very shapely hand; I think he was 6-4 or 7-4 in the majors. South had a normal unusual 2NT: 1255 and about 8 HCP.

So much for posting this under "simple rulings". I want to make clear at this point that on my first visit to the table, I did not tell North that she could not bid 5C. I told her that she had UI that suggested 5C, and that if she chose that call over a less-successful LA and this damaged her opponents, there could be a score adjustment. There's been some suggestion in this thread that perhaps double would be the only LA not suggested by either instance of UI. (UI1 says to bid 5C and not pass or double; UI2 says to pass and not bid or double). The reality is that double was never going to be a LA for this particular North. Even if she believed that her partner held 16-18 balanced, there was no way she was going to double an opponent who bid 4S all by himself at IMPs. I doubt double ever even occurred to her. Nor did 4NT, whatever that would have meant.

You're completely right, of course. I didn't state that well. Having their score changed from +200 to -500 was perceived as fairly severe. Since none of the infractions was a deliberate attempt to violate the rules, we felt that a stern warning and a reminder about correct procedures was more appropriate than an actual PP. Another factor which may be relevant is that this was the last match of a long day's swiss, and this table was in the round-robin. Essentially this match was competition for 48th place out of 50, and all the players just wanted to finish up and go home. So a PP would not have added much impact, and since we did make clear that a repeat of this behavior WOULD result in a PP, we decided a warning was sufficient.

Thanks for the discussion, everyone. Here's how this played out. I was called to the table following South's attempt to prevent North from bidding. I first explained that there is a correct time and place for correcting partner's misexplanation of your call, and that South's comment earlier in the auction was not that time. I also admonished South that her attempt to prevent North from bidding was, while surely well-intentioned, most improper. I then carefully explained the ramifications of South's earlier UI to North, making clear that she had UI suggesting a 5C (or 5D) call and that if she made such a call and this damaged her opponents, the score would likely be adjusted. North then passed, ending the auction with East declarer in 4S. I instructed the players to play the hand out and to call me back if they thought they needed to. I was called back at the end of the play. The result of the hand was 4S -2 by East. East was insistent that, because of South's table action at the end of the auction, North should be required to bid 5C. (He had seen the West hand during the play, of course, but was probably not up to the full analysis to determine a likely result had North bid.) I instructed them to score up 4S -2 and took the board to review with my colleagues. Our consensus was that everyone shared blame here, even West who had said nothing during either of my visits to the table but who failed to call me at the time of the original UI. We thought that it was clear that NS's actions were much the more egregious. We thus ruled that there would be no adjustment due to the original UI (North had passed where 5C was suggested). We then dealt with South's reach across the table, which we considered a grave violation of L73. Since North, by her own admission, was attempting to bid 5C, we decided to impose that call on her for purposes of determining an adjusted score under L12. We felt that 5Cx -2 by North was both the most favorable result likely for EW and the most unfavorable at all probable for NS. We thus assigned this result for both sides. All four players were given a reminder to call the TD when any irregularity arises. I also reminded them of the appropriate time and method to correct partner's misexplanation. I also strongly admonished South for her actions at the end of the auction, explaining that such behavior would be subject to procedural penalty more often than not. We decided not to assess a PP in this case because South was contrite and apologetic about the whole thing, and the score adjustment was by itself quite a stiff penalty.

ACBL Regional "Gold Rush" Swiss Teams (players are limited to 750 MP) [hv=d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1s2np3n4s(See%20text)pp]133|100[/hv] The auction proceeded as shown. Following the 3NT bid, E asked N about the 2NT bid and was told "strong, 16-18 balanced". South immediately reacted to this; I don't know exactly what was said, but it was now clear everyone at the table, notably including N, that 2NT had been intended as Unusual, showing the minors. This is the actual NS agreement and S did indeed hold the minors. No TD was called at this point. E basically knew what was going on and chose to bid 4S. Two passes followed and N, being generally unaware of her responsibilities with regard to UI, began to reach for the bid section of the bid box. She was about to bid 5C when South physically reached across the table to prevent her from bidding, saying something like "No, you can't bid here". At this point the TD was finally called. It seems that N is in possession of two conflicting pieces of UI. (1) She knows from partner's earlier response that 2NT was Unusual, not strong. This UI demonstrably suggest that she bid 5 of a minor (other LA's perhaps being pass, dbl, and 4NT natural). (2) She has UI from partner's lunge across the table which demonstrably (to say the least!) suggests passing. I'll share the final outcome later, but I'm interested in what approach you would take as TD when called to the table at this moment. These are (obviously) not experienced players, and there is no suggestion that South's actions were a deliberate attempt to violate the Laws. However, if you wish to discuss the size of the book that you would throw at an experienced South player here, please feel free to do so.

Wow, so much for a "simple" problem. Lots of opinions here, and not at all unanimous. At the table, I bid 2♣ with the problem hand, and over 2♦, I bid 2NT invitational. (We play a direct 2NT over 1NT as natural, so we don't have to go through Stayman to invite in NT; thus, my sequence promised at least one 4cM.) Partner bid 3NT and went down 3. As you might expect, the opponents found a heart lead and managed not to block the suit. The winning action is to bid 2♣ and then pass 2♦. (Partner had ♦AKxxx). In discussion after the match, I suggested that I should have found this. Both partner and one of our teammates thought that I had an obvious pass of 1NT. I think I'd bid 2♣ again. But I'd pass over 2♦ and correct 2♥ to 2♠, which we play as weakish.

IMPs, 7-board matches [hv=pc=n&e=sq964h6d863ckq975&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1n(15-17)p]133|200[/hv] Is passing obvious here, or is this close to a 2♣ call? If you would pass, how much better would this hand have to be to get you to bid 2♣?

[hv=pc=n&s=sakj5hjt4d9874cq5&e=st632h76dj62cak43&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1hp1n(Forcing)p2cp3hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] Sorry, the orientation of this diagram is confusing. You are East; South is the dummy. IMPs You lead a top club and cash a second one. Playing standard signals, partner follows up the line with two low clubs and declarer does likewise. And now?

Ok, thanks everyone. I was just checking to make sure I wasn't insane, as I was the only person at the table who thought West had clubs. I was North. West was bidding Michaels with a weak 5611 hand. East never thought it was anything but Michaels, as he bid 2♥ with 2254. My partner had clubs, so he knew West had shortness there. <shrug> We ended up with a 65% board for +130, but 3NT was cold for a shared top on a non-heart lead. I should have opened 1NT with ♠Qxx ♥987x ♦AQ9 ♣AQ9 and avoided this whole mess.

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=pp1cp1d2c]133|100[/hv] NS are playing Standard American where 1♣ shows 3+ clubs. Assume EW are also playing basically standard. The call in question is West's 2♣. (1) Absent any specific discussion, what should 2♣ show? (1a) Is this similar to what 2♦ would have shown on the same sequence? (2) What would 1NT, Dbl, or 2NT show in this sequence (instead of 2♣)? Again assume generally standard methods with no specific discussion. (3) Playing your choice of methods with your favorite partner, what does 2♣ show for you? (4) How would this be different if West were dealer (so South was unpassed)? If North were dealer (so West was unpassed)?

I don't think the meaning of 1NT is "fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid", and thus allowing 1NT under 27B1b is inappropriate. However, if the level of your game is as you describe, it's understandable and not entirely unreasonable. On an unrelated note, I am amused by the quoted text below.

Thanks for the input so far. Consider the following hypothetical continuation. [hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp1d1h1sd2d2h]133|100[/hv] Let's say you are East. I don't know East's actual hand, but let's say you are short in ♥, have no ♦ fit with partner, but have enough values to want to compete here. Maybe you are 6115 with about 8-9HCP and failed to open 2♠ because you don't do that with a 6-5 hand. Assume South's double was not alerted. You don't know a ton about NS's methods and style, but you know that both of them are experienced enough to know that support doubles, Rosenkranz doubles, or other conventional doubles would be alertable. (4) If you are considering bidding here, would you ask about the meaning of the double, or would you be concerned about clarifying the auction for your opponents? (5) If you did decide to bid here, and the double turned out not to be what you thought it was, would you feel entitled to an adjustment: (5a) if you didn't ask about the double? (5b) if you asked about the double and were told "undiscussed"?

Last night at the club, a player asked me about this auction. I don't know the vulnerability or form of scoring, but please comment if you feel they matter. [hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp1d1h1sd]133|100[/hv] The call in question is South's double. (1) What are the possible, or at least commonly-played, meanings for this double? (2) Absent specific discussion about this sequence, is there a default (based on "GBK") meaning for this double? Assume ACBL. (3) Again ACBL. Which, if any, of these meanings (from (1) and (2)), are alertable? Thanks for your input.

Not sure about ethically, but the Laws are very clear on this. You could have bid 3♦ with no further rectification (L27B1a). You could not have doubled (L27B3). You could have made any other sufficient bid or a pass, and the auction would have proceeded with your partner being forced to pass at every turn. (L27B2)

This wasn't the actual auction; South (in your diagram; at the table he was actually North) had the opportunity to overcall 2♠ at his 2nd turn. I think 3rd hand (who held five spades) bid some kind of artifical 2m checkback over 1NT. Or maybe he bid 2♥ with KT tight. The player who claimed to be talked out of his 2♠ overcall held ♠QJxxxx ♥Jxx ♦Qx ♣Jxx. Not my idea of a 2-level overcall when the opponents are in a strongish auction, but it takes all sorts. In the end, once it transpired that they were not damaged by any MI (in fact, declarer would make one MORE trick with a spade lead than he did on the actual diamond lead), this turned into one of those mildly-distasteful "I'm not asking for an adjustment but these guys need to know that they can't get away with this" director calls. Well, now they know.

ACBL There is a pair in our club who plays an opening 1NT as 12-14 in the context of an otherwise "standard" system (ie. no big club). This is fairly unusual for Flight B club players, at least in this part of the world. A consequence of this NT range is that opener's 1NT rebid (as after 1X-(P)-1Y-(P)-?) shows 15-16 HCP. They tend to go out of their way to use this sequence, thus avoiding some otherwise awkward rebids. They generally alert the 1NT rebid, and when asked simply describe the expected strength. During a recent game, opener held ♠void ♥AQxxx ♦Kxx ♣AKxxx. He opened 1♥, and responded 1NT over partner's 1♠ response. This right-sided the notrump, and they reached a cold (from this side of the table) 3NT. At the end of the hand, opener's RHO called me to the table and complained that he had not been alerted to the fact that the 1NT rebid could be any shape. Upon questioning, the pair in question acknowledged that they make this rebid with pretty much any hand of the appropriate strength. Opener's RHO (holding a weak hand with long spades) complained that, had he known opener could be void of spades, he could have interjected a spade overcall and thus attracted a spade lead from partner. Questions: (1) Is this style (rebidding 1NT on hands of almost any shape, including a void in responder's suit) typical among those who play a weak NT? (2) Given that this pair do bid this way by agreement (both thought that responding 1NT with a 0535 16-count was the normal action in their system), should this be disclosed? If nobody asks about the alerted 1NT call, would this be something to bring up before the opening lead (assuming they are the declaring side)? (3) On this particular hand, there was no possibility of damage (3NT was cold for 10 tricks on any lead). If, on some other hand, a spade lead would set the contract, would an answer of "15-16 HCP" with no mention of possible shapes constitute sufficient MI to consider an adjusted score? Thanks.

ACBL Regional Swiss Teams, 7-board matches [hv=pc=n&s=s5hkt9dat65caq976&n=sakjhqjdqj94ckt53&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1d1s2sp3cp3dp3hp3sp4cp6cppp]266|200[/hv] Spots approximate You decide to open the South hand 1♦ to avoid an awkward rebid should partner bid 1♠. Partner's cue-bid was a general game force, I think. (I was East on this hand; if 2♠ was a limit+ diamond raise there's no way North would bid 3 nonforcing diamonds with his hand.) Apparently partner didn't trust your hearts enough to bid 3NT; nor did you trust his spades. So you end up in slam. Not the worst slam you've ever been in. The overcall seems to suggest that the spade is onside but the diamond is off, so you are looking at down one unless someone ducks the ♥A or LHO favors you by leading away from the ♦K. Well, a small diamond does hit the table and you assess your chances. The play proceeds: diamond lead ruffed by RHO small heart, won by LHO with the ace diamond ruff by RHO another heart, ruffed by LHO another diamond ruff The good news is that you've successfully drawn trumps. Unfortunately you are down four before you even get in. 3NT made five at the other table on a very different auction. East, holding ♠T87 ♥8765432 ♦void ♣J84, opened 3♥ in first chair.

My favorite win was probably a single board. Regional Swiss teams playing against much more experienced opponents. (Not naming names, but one of them is the president of the ACBL.) This is the last match of the day with both teams in contention for the overalls, but needing a good result in this match. This was the auction: [hv=d=w&v=b&b=4&a=3s4d4s(After%20considerable%20thought)5dpp5s(More%20thought)ppp]133|100[/hv] I was South, holding something like 1=3=4=5 with the ♦Q and maybe the ♣JT. Partner led the ♣A and dummy came down with ♠AK tight, basically solid hearts, and some random minor suit cards. 2=6=3=2 or similar. At trick two, partner underled his ♦AK-fifth to my queen, and I returned a club for him to ruff. Declarer had a singleton diamond, so this is the only way to set the hand. 100 vs 650 at the other table was a nice pickup. We went on to blitz the match and my team won the 'X' strat of the A/X Swiss for my first regional win of any kind.

This is how I ruled. 2♣ makes 10 tricks on most lines of play.

Thanks, everyone. The reason I posted this was that I wondered if this is one of those "experienced players are expected to protect themselves" situations. NS are typical older ladies you'd find in many clubs. EW are much more experienced. East in particular is a past national champion and also an ACBL tournament director. Neither of them called me to the table when North put down the dummy (North held a full opening bid with 5 decent clubs). West's LHO opened the bidding and failed to bid on following a simple raise. West's partner failed to act over 2♣; I didn't ask if they were playing OBAR BIDS. West had approximately 5 HCP. Should West have worked this out? Where did she think all the points were?

[hv=d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1cp2c(See%20below)pp]133|100[/hv] ACBL, IMP scoring if that is relevant 1♣ is natural, 3+ cards, SAYC style 2♣ is an inverted minor raise, natural and forcing, NOT alerted West, assuming from the lack of alert and from South's pass that 2♣ was weaker, chose to balance with a weak and shapely hand. North now got back into the auction. NS reached 3NT which is a pushy contract but cold on the lie of the cards. No director call was made during the hand. West approached me after the round and asked me to review the situation. I was able to establish with certainty that inverted minors is NS's actual agreement and that South simply forgot this. How would you rule?

[hv=pc=n&s=shkj84dkqjt7caj86&w=sk8ht975da6532c75&n=saq63haq32d98c943&e=sjt97542h6d4ckqt2&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2sd3sdp4hpp4sppdppp&p=dkdad9d4c5c3ckcadqd2d8s2cqc6c7c4c2c8s8c9d3s3s4]399|300[/hv] The auction and play above were at my table; I was East. You may or may not agree with our auction or my line of play. Anyway, the play proceeded as shown above. Diamond lead won by the ace; club to the king and ace; diamond ruffed; club queen; club ruff; diamond ruff. I decided I may as well ruff the last club, so I led it and called for dummy's spade king, prepared to concede down one. North underruffed with the ♠Q! Obviously a miss-pulled card; I think she was trying to overruff. I had figured on picking up some IMPs opposite 4♥ making at the other table, but obviously +590 was going to be a big win. I don't know the auction at the other table, but I suspect EW were silent. The contract was SIX hearts by North. Declarer won the spade lead in hand, ruffed a spade in the dummy, and led a high diamond. (With no opposing bidding she had no reason to suspect a 5-1 split, but I think she should have drawn a round of trump first anyway.) West won the ♦A and continued diamonds. For reasons known only to him, instead of ruffing in with the setting trick, East discarded. Instead of -100 and -100, we were +590 and +1430. Amazing.

I was not on lead; I was West. Partner led a club, and after declarer scored up 590 in 2♥X +1 (it can be held to just making for the same zero matchpoints) partner asked why I would make a penalty double with such a hand. The winning action is to just let them play 2♥; holding it to 8 tricks (really not difficult, although we didn't manage it) would be a shared top. EW can't make anything on the hand, despite holding half the deck in high cards. Well, we could probably make 1NT from the west; if north leads a low heart from ♥AQJxxx, we have a double stopper. (East had ♥Kxx).

Wow, lots of diversity of opinion here. I think the two quotes above come closest to describing the intent of the doubler at the table. West's hand is limited by the failure to bid 1NT the first time or to pass 1♥X for penalty. Thus, the double should show interest in competing (we have half the deck or more in high cards) with no clear direction. The actual hand was ♠KJx ♥108x ♦K10x ♣J9xx. Would you have bid 1NT the first time? Would you have gone quietly the 2nd time?

[hv=d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1hdp2c2hppdp]133|100[/hv] Matchpoints How would you describe West's double on the continuum of penalty/optional/competitive/takeout/whatever? What kind of hand (shape/HCP) is West likely to have? Would your answers to these questions be different with different vulnerability? This was just a random hand in a club duplicate, so nothing much depends on the outcome, but we did have a difference of opinion.