Coelacanth

This is what I assumed at the time (I was the 2♥ bidder). This is what I decided they must be playing when RHO (the 1NT bidder) took out to 3♣. It turns out that this is what doubler was doing. After the hand she berated (mildly) her partner for bidding 3♣ after she'd "shown 5 spades". All's well that ends well. The complete auction was [hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d1n2hdp3cp3sp4sppdppp]133|100[/hv] Despite the fact that I didn't have my bid (I had basically ♥QJT-seventh and out) this was set one trick for a good matchpoint result.

Matchpoints, none vul if that matters [hv=d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d1n(15-18)2hd]133|100[/hv] 1NT was natural. How do you play this double? In a "standard" SAYC or 2/1 structure in the ACBL, what is the default meaning (if any) of this double, and are there any other common agreements? Which agreements would be alertable?

IMPS, 3-board matches, weak opponents [hv=pc=n&s=skq2h8743daqj6ckt&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=p1n(15-17)2h(Natural)d(%22Penalty%22)p]133|200[/hv] Partner's double, nominally for penalties, might just be a good (in context) balanced hand and not necessarily a huge heart stack. What call do you make? Note the conditions. Do you make a different call at matchpoints? In a longer match? With different vulnerability? Against expert opponents?

North's pass of 3♥ was forcing. Thus, South's double says: I am keeping the auction open because I must not pass. I do not have spade support, a rebiddable diamond suit, or sufficient heart cards to bid 3NT. With this knowledge, North is expected to know what to do.

As always, thanks to everyone for their replies. I probably should have mentioned that we were not playing 2/1. Partner would not be interested in any subtle inferences about my heart length anyway; he had a heart void. The hand was approximately (my hand repeated for convenience) [hv=pc=n&s=sjhakjt82dj8cqj75&n=s865hdakq72ca9843]133|200[/hv] At our table, I declared 4♥ on the lead of the (singleton) ♣2. I flew Ace, crossed in diamonds, and played 3 rounds of trump. My RHO didn't think I could have (only) 6 hearts and (as many as) 4 clubs, so he exited with a spade. Making 4. At the other table, the auction was something like: 1♦-1♥; 2♣-2♠; 3♣-3♦; 3♠-6♣. My teammate thought opener was showing the ♠A, and thus led a heart from ♠KQxx ♥Qxx ♦xxx ♣KTx. Making 6. I think any reasonable set of agreements should let you stop in 5♣ with these cards; time for more discussion with partner.

IMPs, vul vs not [hv=pc=n&s=sjhakjt82dj8cqj75&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1dp1hp2cp]133|200[/hv] (spots approximate) Methods: 2♠ is an artificial game force, ambiguous as to spade holding 3♠ would probably be interpreted as a splinter by partner, but you have no explicit agreement about this sequence 4♣ would be ambiguous; you have discussed playing Minorwood with this partner, but have not added it to your card It looks like you might belong in any strain except spades. How do you proceed?

This is really the heart of the problem. Absent a pre-alert (which would not be required in any case), players who play such dual defensive methods are put into the position of having to ask a lot of questions and providing partner with UI. I think the practical effect of the new regulation will be that nobody will play such methods anymore. Any artificial defense will be deployed only against a purely artificial 1♣ opener.

OK, I did check with Mike Flader, and I stand corrected. As long as it is non-forcing, an opening of 1m which can be shorter than 3 cards is an Announcement, not an Alert. Obviously if it is forcing or carries other unexpected distributional information it's an Alert. He also clarified that the (new) prohibition of artificial defenses applies only to the 4432 case. If, by agreement, your 1m opening can be a singleton or void, the opponents may play anything they like against it.

I think the bid/pass decision here can only be made with knowledge of partner's preempting style. Unless said style is extreme in either direction I think both pass and 5♥ are LA's here.

It is non-forcing and is, in fact, an offer to play the contract of 1♣. I don't think this is a massive distortion of the word natural. Someone did a frequency analysis and figured out that only some small percentage (I don't remember the exact figures, but it was on the order of 10% or less) of 1♣ bids will be a doubleton using this method. The "may be short" 1♣ opener is much more likely to be a 4-card or longer suit. I'll grant you that 1♣-All Pass is a very infrequent auction. (In fact, it's so rare that I always ask for a review of the bidding when I am on lead against it. :lol: ) Infrequent is not the same as impossible, however, and a 1♣ bid which shows the willingness to declare 1♣ seems "natural" enough to me.

Again, I think the distinction between "could be as short as two" and "may be short" is not particularly meaningful and is more likely down to careless editing of the notice in the Bulletin than anything else. I have always been told that a non-forcing, ostensibly natural 1♣ or 1♦ call that may be a singleton (or void!) is an alert, not an announcement. On checking the Alert Chart this is not made explicit, so perhaps I am mistaken. I will ask Mr. Flader for a clarification when I see him tomorrow.

Not sure why I missed this post earlier, but this is not correct. There is no change to either the definition of "announceable" agreements nor to the form of the announcement. If you open 1♣ with 4=4=3=2, you announce "may be short" or "could be as short as two" or whatever. If you open 1♣ on 4=4=4=1, you Alert. (I have seen pairs announce this, which I find aggravating.) The only change that came into effect on 1 January is that on the GCC it is no longer legal to play an artificial defense over the 4432 short club. In other words, a non-forcing 1♣ opener that may be as short as two cards is explicitly defined as natural for the purpose of which defenses are permitted.

RHO has also violated Law 65 - Arrangement of Tricks, which stipulates (among other things) that each player "turns his own card face down". (emphasis mine) I would thus have no trouble adjusting under Law 23. 11 tricks to declarer.

Law 20F5(b) covers the case where an erroneous explanation is corrected at the end of the auction, and refers us to Law 75. 75A clearly states that the information from partner's explanation is unauthorized, and you must avoid taking advantage therefrom (Laws 16A and 73C). 75B says that if the misexplanation damages the opponents, the Director should adjust the score. As Director, first I would determine whether the misexplanation itself caused damage (as, for example, by preventing the opponents from finding their spade game). If so, I would adjust the score under 75B. If there is no such damage, I would consider whether your line of play might have been influenced by the unauthorized information. Did your (unauthorized) knowledge of LHO's spade holding suggest a line of play when a less-successful logical alternative existed? Did you then adopt that line of play? If so, I would adjust under 16A.

This obviously depends on how soundly you play your overcalls. The Snapdragon double essentially says "partner, I have the 4th suit and some values. If you don't fit the suit I am showing, if you rebid your suit cheaply we will at least be in a playable contract." Thus, the sounder your overcalls, the lighter your Snapdragon double can be, and vice versa. You don't want to end up in a weak 5-2 fit at the two level with 14 combined HCP.

I agree that my OP kinda looks like this, but in reality it's nothing of the sort. What happened at the table was that North broke tempo over 5♦ and South bid 5♥. The director ruled the contract back to 5♦ making (this is the ACBL where you can't give weighted rulings). The whole room was in 5♦ making 5; I just posted the question here to see if anyone in the universe would find the lead which sets the contract. The winning lead is a club. South has ♠8xxx ♥8xxx ♦x ♣AJT9. (I did say he was a known lunatic) You need to lead a club to get partner in to play a spade before declarer can set up a discard on the ♥K. I didn't expect anyone to find this lead (at least not on this auction) so this confirms that 5♦ making 5 is the right ruling.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. There is a thread about this sequence over in the Laws forums; the double was intended as Support but not alerted. Of course the South player claimed he would have done something differently over the double had he known it was support and not "takeout". I guess I'm old fashioned; absent further discussion this looks to me like a penalty double. I have diamonds and clubs, probably 5-4, and enough extra values to make me think that my passed-hand, vulnerable opponent has made a grave error. Maybe this is a terminology issue; to me, it makes no sense to play a "takeout" double when there is only one unbid suit. But it sounds like what some are describing as "takeout" is one of those "do something intelligent" doubles: extra values, desire to compete, no clear direction, might or might not have clubs, might or might not have spades. I would call that a "competitive" double.

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=p1dp1h2cd]133|100[/hv] I don't play support doubles, so I don't know if they would apply in this auction. If you're playing that, and they do, then obviously this is a support double. If you are NOT playing support doubles, what does East's double show here? Assume SAYC or "standard" 2/1, whatever that is.

[hv=pc=n&n=skj753haqjt5d2c76&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1d2d3d4s5dppp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoints Feel free to comment if you would have bid your hand differently. Partner is a known lunatic, so despite the vulnerability he may have a very poor hand for his 4♠ call. What do you lead? What other leads seem reasonable?

OK, thanks everyone, I just was wondering if I was losing my mind. I was not called to this table and asked for a ruling; the NS pair approached me after the session just to clarify whether an alert is required. When I next encounter this EW pair I may bring this up with them.

A pair approached me after tonight's club game (ACBL, field of mixed quality) and described the following auction to me. I'm not sure of the vulnerability. [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=2hdp4c(Gerber%20%5B%21%5D)p4dp4sppp]133|100[/hv] 4♣ was Gerber, and was understood as such by both East and West. East's 4♦ bid (which may actually have been 4♥; the NS players didn't make this clear to me) was some kind of ace-showing response. The fact that 4♣ was Gerber did not come to light for NS until after the hand had been played; it was not alerted at any time. In the discussion after the hand (which I was not present for), EW maintained that they had been told by several directors that 4♣ Gerber is not alertable. NS were a bit put out by the failure to alert, but were not claiming damage in any way. Questions: 1) As I read the ACBL alert procedure, this 4♣ should require an immediate alert. It's alertable because it's not over a natural notrump call; it's not a delayed alert because it is on the first round of the auction. Am I missing something? 2) There was no damage on this particular board. Say, for example, South could make a lead-directing double of 4♦. If 4♠ makes on a heart lead but goes down on a diamond lead in this scenario, would you adjust? Keep in mind the context of EW having been told that their auction is not alertable.

OK, I'll bite. (Note: I am definitely an intermediate player) Win the ♠A and follow it with the ♠K, showing a doubleton. Then underlead in diamonds for a third round of spades from partner. Ruff high to promote partner's ♥Txx. If declarer has a stiff spade or diamond void, this is not going to work so well. But the auction seems to be consistent with partner having 5341 and declarer having 2524. No, if declarer had 4 clubs they would be in a club contract. Partner must be 5332 and declarer 2533.

(first off, note that it says ACBL in the topic description, so in order to eliminate any ambiguity, yes this was an ACBL club game) The ACBL-published guide to the new (2007) laws, available on the ACBL website, says in part I personally don't find East's director call objectionable. I think many players would rather not bother with "reserving their rights" and just get everything clarified straightaway. Or, as someone said upthread, 'laziness'. Rather than focusing on this specific hand, and whether there were LA's to the 3♠ call, let's assume that there WERE LA's. Is the consensus here that the TD should adjust despite the fact that EW did not claim damage?

[hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1h1s2h2s3hp(After%20some%20thought)p(Summoned%20TD)3sppp]133|100[/hv] In this competitive auction there was a slight, but discernable, BIT by North after RHO's 3♥ call. East summoned the TD (me) and asked for protection. North agreed to the BIT and the auction continued. As it happens, I had just played this board the previous round, and I knew that 8 tricks were the limit for both sides. (Playing in 4♠ as North, a defensive error allowed me to escape for one off.) Upon returning to the table at the end of the round, I asked West something like "I assume that you weren't damaged on (this hand)?" He agreed that they would not be seeking an adjustment. "You're not making 3♥", I noted, and he agreed. Upon looking at the (electronic) traveler at the end of the session, I discovered that NS at this table had made 3♠ for +140 NS! This scored zero matchpoints for EW. Apparently they looked at the South hand (when it came down as dummy) and decided he "had his bid". I don't have the exact hand in front of me, but it was along the lines of ♠xxx ♥x ♦AKxxx ♣QT9x. Not the worst 3♠ bid I've ever seen, but pass is clearly (IMO) a LA. I don't know how the play went, but I am certain that EW's defense did not rise to the level of SEWoG. Taking into account the agreed BIT, the LA to the 3♠ call, and the careless but not SEWoG defense that allowed 3♠ to make, if EW had recalled me to the table asking for an adjustment to 3♥ -1, I would surely have complied. But they didn't ask. Maybe they were embarrassed by their defense. So my general question is: as a TD, if you believe that an adjusted score is warranted, but the (putatively-) damaged side does not ask for redress, should you go ahead and adjust anyway?

Lots of good ideas here. Thanks. The auction at the table was less than scientific. [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1np2c2spp6n(After%20considerable%20thought)ppp]133|100[/hv] Making 7 for an average-plus. Only one pair bid a grand. West has ♦J9xx so 7NT is not 100% cold, but after the spade lead and 6 rounds of clubs, he not unreasonably let go a diamond at some point.