Coelacanth

Thanks for noticing that I had E and W backwards. I've corrected the OP. East explained 4♣ as keycard before North's double. This is obviously well before the 6♠ bid and is UI to West. You're correct in that East's extraneous comment that he had mis-responded came after the final pass.

ACBL Club Game, MPs [hv=d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1n(15-17)p3s(Alerted)p4c(Alerted)d5c(See%20below)p6sppp]133|100[/hv] I was summoned to the table after South's final pass. 3♠ was alerted. I'm not sure if it's alertable; it was strong and natural with slam interest. No explanation of the bid was requested or offered. West's 4♣ was intended as a control-bid with slam interest, but upon questioning by North at his turn was explained by East as keycard (for ♠, although the trump suit was not specified in the explanation and North was under some confusion about this). North doubled 4♣ as a lead-director. At the end of the auction North asked about the 5♣ call and was told by East that she didn't know what it meant. At this point West volunteered that he had mis-responded and was attempting to show two keycards plus the trump queen (his actual holding, as it turned out). North called me to the table and was looking for protection due to (perceived) MI regarding the 4♣ call. He claimed that had he known 4♣ showed values in clubs he would not have doubled. Note that he asserted this before seeing dummy. I was unable to establish what EW's actual agreement regarding 4♣ was; this specific auction had not been discussed and each partner was applying a different meta-treatment ("4♣ is KC Gerber after we open NT" and "cuebid controls up the line in a slam auction"). As it turned out, the MI was irrelevant; EW will make 12 tricks on any lead. In particular, 12 tricks were made after South duly led a club. 12 tricks would also be made had South made her normal lead (a diamond) absent the double from North. [Question 1]: I stood at the table and watched the play of the hand. North misdefended fairly egregiously; on his actual defense it's possible for West to make 13 tricks; this would not be possible had South led a diamond. Whether his defense was SEWOG bad I'm not clear; if we assume that it was not, and West did make all 13 tricks, would you adjust based on MI? [Question 2]: West has UI that her partner has interpreted her control bid as a keycard ask. On the other hand, the 5♣ bid is evidence that West has not interpreted 4♣ as a control bid. Is West's final call constrained by UI? Are there any LAs? Is 6♠ demonstrably suggested? Any thoughts?

This is clearly a L45C1 situation, not L45C4(b), so the Ace is a played card and cannot be retracted. To answer your question about when 45C4(b) might apply to a defender...I have on occasion played against visually-impaired players. Generally, each player vocally names the card he is playing as he plays it. In your scenario, if the East player had detached the ♦Q and started placing it on the table, but actually named the ♦A (perhaps in anticipation of winning the final trick with it), I think he'd be allowed to change this inadvertent designation under 45C4(b).

I should have been more clear...prone to 'senior moments' AND issues handling the bidding cards.

Here's a real-life example from the other night which may help to muddy these waters further. ACBL club game, bidding boxes in use, we had the following auction with South dealer: [hv=d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1d1h1s2h2s3h4spp5hpp]133|100[/hv] South, my partner on this auction, is in his late 70's and is prone to 'senior moments'. In particular, he is somewhat awkward in the handling of bidding cards. For example, he frequently replaces them in the bidding box upside down or out of sequence; I normally have to 'straighten out' his bidding box at least once per session. In the passout chair in the given auction, he bid 5NT. This might be termed an "obvious" mechanical error. Clearly there is no bridge hand which would bid only 2♠ and pass over 4♠ that could bid 5NT here. Once apprised of the mistake by the opponents, he made a 25A correction to 5♠, I made 5 and nobody gave the incident with the bid cards any further thought (until I made this post, obviously). Some in this thread have advocated for an "all bids stand as made" approach, disallowing ANY change of an unintended call, even one as obviously inadvertent as the example given above. I think this is too extreme a position. Certainly, if I were EW, I would not want to "earn" a top board by forcing my opponents to play 5NT on this auction. On the other hand, allowing a change on this auction forces TDs (who are not generally present at the table during the original auction) to make judgments about "was this call unintended?" and "was there a pause for thought?". Clearly some lines must be drawn somewhere, but I don't see how TDs can be expected to rule consistently given the current wording of L25. Does it make sense to separate the "unintended" and "pause for thought" components of the law? So you might, for example, permit any change of an "obviously" unintended call regardless of any pause for thought. (This would require a perhaps-impossible-to-formulate objective definition of "obviously"). Or you might alternately allow any immediate change and not require any standard of intention. One thing I do think is clear is that the Laws should incorporate strict and (very probably) different guidelines for bidding boxes vs spoken vs written bidding and/or screens vs not.

Thanks all for the words of wisdom re: doubling minor-suit partscores at IMPs. This is why I'm "Intermediate" I guess. I would have bid my hand the same way with one fewer club and one more diamond, so I still think partner's 3♥ was an error.

Thanks for the interesting replies. My own personal answer to the questions I posed were: (1) Double seems perfectly normal (2) Partner has denied as much as Hxx in either major. He is thus either (a) single-suited with diamonds or (b) has both minors (3) Based on (2), pass seems clear. If partner has hand (a), we have a likely make in 3♦; if (b), we are setting 3♣, possibly doubled The problem hand, held by my partner, bid 3♥. This was not a success when I tabled this dummy: [hv=pc=n&n=sq9hjdkqj75ckq974]133|100[/hv] The opening lead was the ♣A, followed by the ♥Q. We lost 3 tricks in each major along with the club. Would you have passed 2♣ doubled with my hand? At matchpoints I always would but at IMPs I chickened out.

In a somewhat analogous sequence (1♦-(2♣)-X-(P)-?), this same partner bid 2♥ on ♥Jxx just last week, so the inference of no chunky 3 card major is probably a good one.

[hv=pc=n&s=st8753hkt7532dacj&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1c1d2cdp2d3c]133|200[/hv] Double was responsive. 1♣ showed 3+ cards. Partner's overcall style is quite disciplined. (1) Do you agree with your double? If not, what bid would you prefer? (2) What are some likely hand-types for partner? (3) What call do you make?

Just to put a postscript on the whole discussion... I did finally have a word with the person who'd made the original "accusation". She was extremely contrite. "It had been a frustrating session...I just said it without thinking...realized immediately that I shouldn't have...I know very well that he's not trying to cheat..." The two players in question have made their peace, and that should be an end of it AFAIC.

On the assumption that 2NT over 2♠ shows the strong-notrump hand, the only reason for West to make this bid in the revised auction would be that he had a hand describable as both an unusual NT over 1♠ and a strong NT over 2♠. Perhaps something like ♠Kx ♥Ax ♦KQxx ♣AJxxx. I am not suggesting that 2NT on these cards is a good bid on either auction, merely that it's the only hand that I can imagine that would want to bid 2NT on both auctions. If West has the minor two-suiter hand without strong NT strength, he has no reason to bid 2NT (or anything else) over 2♠. He wants to show partner a minor two-suiter, and he has already done so, so he would simply pass. If he does bid 2NT with the minors-only hand, he's simply made a bad bid. In any case I don't see any legal issues arising from bidding 2NT no matter what he holds.

ACBL Club Game Between rounds I was approached by a player who reported an untoward comment by an opponent. Like many players, this person (the one who approached me) is in the habit of placing his bidding cards somewhat haphazardly. The opponent suggested that such placement could be used to signal partner. I promised to have a quiet word with the accusing oppenent after the game, but unfortunately she left the playing site before I could do so. At this point I don't know the exact nature of her comment; it could be anything from "you really should get in the habit of placing your cards neatly. If you don't, some future opponent might accuse you of communicating with your partner by means of the placement of the cards" to "you are obviously cheating by communicating the contents of your hand to partner by the way you place the bid cards". I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. I'm looking for general advice on how to handle such situations. Let's say that rather than approaching me privately, the "accused" player had called me to the table during the auction. (I put "accused" in inverted commas because, having known this player for over 20 years, I am 100% confident that such a scheme would never occur to him.) I imagine a conversation proceeding along the lines of: Accused: she has accused me of signaling my partner by how I place my bid cards Me: is this true? Accusor: I just said this is a possibility given the fact that he places them differently every time Me: do you have any reason to suspect anything 'fishy' on this particular auction? That is, has his partner taken some unusual and successful action? Accusor: well, no, but on the previous board they reached a very pushy slam which was absolutely cold Me: ok, please carry on with the hand. If something like this happens in the future, please involve the director first. So, as I said, some general advice please. Is the accusing player due a PP, a stern talking-to, or a friendly talking-to? Should I be suggesting to the accused player that he place his bid cards more tidily? (I can find nothing in ACBL Bidding Box Regulations which addresses this) Should I be talking to our District Recorder? Any other thoughts? Thanks

This is correct, of course. What I was referring to is the fact that on this particular auction, South's exposure of one card has enforced a pass on his partner. This had the effect of preventing North from competing on a hand where he otherwise would. It also commits South to an opening lead that he likely would not have made had North been allowed to bid. (There must be a corollary of Goldwater's rule that says a player who doesn't know whether the auction is over is probably not making the best opening lead.) West's exposure of 13 cards has had absolutely no impact on the result of the hand.

I think south's "lead" falls under the purview of L24B as a "card prematurely led". This will enforce a pass on North so the contract will indeed be 2♠ by East. Since L24 makes South's lead a major penalty card, he must lead it anyway. The only part of this that "feels wrong" is that West's facing of his entire hand during the auction is subject to no rectification. Suppose, however, that south's card was accidentally exposed and was a non-honor. West, assuming that it was the opening lead, still puts down his hand as dummy. North decides to overcall 3♣, East must pass per L24C. If South passes and West balances with 3♥, suppose North competes with 4♣. East is not barred (his L24C-enforced pass only applied to his "next" turn to call) but his knowledge of the entirety of partner's hand is UI. Let's say EW are not vulnerable and East has opened a "quirky" weak-two with 6=5=2=0 or the like. Given that partner's 3♥ call is AI to him, it may well be that pass is not an LA and we must allow East to bid 4♥. 4♥ makes; now is there any adjustment? Yes I know this whole thing is far-fetched.

The topic title derives not from the difficulty of the ruling but from the fact that I actually woke up in the middle of the night thinking about this scenario. First round of a matchpoint club game, East deals and opens 2♠. South and West both pass. North has removed his cards from teh board but has not sorted or even looked at them. When the auction reaches him, he's still fumbling around, arranging his bid box, trying to figure out where to set his drink, etc. Unfortunately, when he picks up the Bridgemate to enter in the player numbers, the rest of the players (also suffering from first-round distraction) assume that he is actually entering in the contract of 2♠. South leads a card, unfortunately face up, and West tables the dummy. North finally returns his attention to the table, realizes something is very amiss, and summons the Director. How do you rule?

The strike zone is defined objectively. The call on any particular pitch is subject to the discretion of the umpire, just as a safe/out or fair/foul ruling would be. This is not a situation where the umpire is assessing the pitch on its aesthetic merits or degree of difficulty. He is simply making a determination of ball or strike based on established, objective criteria. This has very little relevance to the question of whether bridge is a sport. Count me in the "who cares" camp.

Well actually I think this is the winning line. RHO has ♠Kxx ♥Tx ♦AJxx ♣Hxxx (not sure if he had the king or queen of clubs). If the play goes ♣A ♠Q winning ♠A ♥A ♥K ♥Q - if RHO ruffs in you ruff the ♣ return, ruff the last ♥ in dummy and run the ♦10. So RHO discards on the ♥Q. When you lead the ♥9 and LHO produces the jack, you ruff and now RHO has some decisions to make. Does he overruff and tap you with a club, or does he discard?

Interesting ideas, BunnyGo. I must admit it did not occur to me to duck the first club. A low spade to the Queen at trick two will win. Spades are 3-2, hearts are not 5-1, and the club honors are split, if that matters.

I'm neither Advanced nor Expert, but I was playing in a Flight A/X Swiss and my opponent at the other table IS an expert. Imps, obviously, with none vul. You reach 4♠ by South on an unopposed auction. How do you play the hand on the lead of a club? [hv=pc=n&s=saq983hkq93dk84c5&n=sj54ha65dqt95ca62]133|200[/hv]

This is a more thorough ruling than that which we received at the table. You could make a case that West may have made a Law 29A acceptance of South's pass, so that the auction stands as pass pass pass with East now to call. In this case there would be no UI to worry about. The ruling we were given was along the lines of "ok, let's start over. East, go ahead and make your normal bid and we'll let the auction proceed normally. Call me back at the end if you think there's still a problem." UI issues turned out to be irrelevant. East had a strong NT, and bid up to 4♥ after a transfer sequence. Perhaps still distracted by all the confusion, she badly misplayed the end position and went one off.

Swiss teams Board 1 was passed out. As the players returned their cards to the board, discussed who might be able to make what, etc., the TD arrived at the table to speak with East, who happened to be the tournament chairperson. They had a brief conversation, during which all the players took their cards from Board 2 and began the auction. After three passes, North (me) grabbed and briefly displayed a pass card and began to return my cards to the board. East immediately protested. "Wait, what happened?" As you have by now figured out, East's pass card from the Board 1 auction remained on the table. After sorting his cards on Board 2, South saw the card, assumed it was East's call on Board 2, and duly passed. The TD was recalled to the table. How would you rule?

Most of the NS pairs were +50. I just re-checked and NS were vul; the only pair to do better than +100 was +950.

Thanks everyone for the replies. I was North and considered this a "do something intelligent" double; considering that the opponents have shown a nine-card (at least) heart fit and partner has bid a natural notrump, I could hardly have a heart stack, could I? My hand was something like ♠AQJx ♥void ♦JT98x ♣AKT9. South, who subsequently described my double as "100% penalty", passed holding something like ♠Txx ♥8xxx ♦A ♣Q8xxx. We took the ♦A, 2♦ ruffs, and three top tricks in the black suits to set the contract one trick for a fine matchpoint score.

I'm not 100% on the details of the EW agreements. I do know that W thought she was showing more than a simple competitive raise; in otherwords, she doesn't have a 7-count with 3 hearts. East is a known maniac, so West's bid shows either a 4th heart or close to limit-raise values.

In "Standard American" (I don't know if this is specifically addressed on the Yellow Card, but in any case the pair in question was not playing SAYC), what is the meaning of North's double on the following sequence? [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d1h1n2hd]133|100)[/hv] West's 2♥ call suggested a four-card suit (support X was available). 3♥ would have been pre-emptive, so 2♥ suggests at least some values.