campboy

I do not think 70E1 applies here, as I read "accept from claimer any line..." to mean "accept that he would definitely take that line". On the other hand, 70D1 certainly does apply: the claim statement does not give a line of play, and taking the second finesse is certainly "normal".

I imagine the players did not realise it was abnormal, and so I wouldn't expect to find anything more than "lebensohl" on the card. Even assuming you have that agreement, though, I would think it reasonable to see that auction and realise that partner could have a hand which forced him to make an anti-system bid.

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sq98654h9dk62ck75&w=sthkt743d543cj843&e=sa3ha8652daj87cqt&s=skj72hqjdqt9ca962]399|300|Scoring: IMP -----2♠ dbl pass 2NT pass 3NT dbl 4♥ all pass[/hv] This is from the B team in an inter-county teams-of-eight competition. 2♠ was announced as "weak". 2NT was not alerted, but was lebensohl; EW have the agreement that doubler always bids 3♣. West called the director at the end of the auction, and said that 2NT should have been alerted. South was offered the chance to change his final pass, but declined. Can't remember what the table score was; I think it went one off. Director ruled that there was UI which suggested 4♥, and that pass was a logical alternative, so adjusted the score to 3NTx-2. West initially wanted to appeal, on the basis that AI from the anti-systemic 3NT made it clear that East had forgotten, but decided not to risk his deposit since the match wasn't at stake. What would you do in an AC?

Where did you get that from? I have never heard anyone suggest that it is forcing, and certainly in traditional Acol fewer bids are forcing than in most modern systems. The only reference I have to hand is Crowhurst's 1974 book 'Precision Bidding in Acol', which lists this sequence as non-forcing.

If partner had not passed initially, I would agree that it is not clear whether he was deciding between 2NT and pass or between 2NT and 3NT, and that nothing is demonstrably suggested. As it is though, I don't see how he could have been considering 3NT. (anyway, agree that I would not be adjusting here as there is no damage)

I wasn't saying he should bid 3NT because it is his normal bid -- though it is -- but because it is the alternative which is not suggested by the UI. If the UI suggests partner has a bad hand for his bid, as here, the way to avoid taking advantage is to act as though partner has a good hand for his bid.

Eh? The hesitation suggests partner is weaker than he might be, so it suggests passing. If he wanted to avoid use of UI, he should have bid 3NT; no-one would adjust then (even if it makes).

Sharing isn't really a problem if you have 3-board rounds. But it is possible to play all rounds without sharing if the number of tables is a multiple of 4, with a double weave Mitchell.

I think that is exactly right -- this double should be the same as (2♦)-3♦-(3♥)-dbl. Whether they are both penalty (my choice) or both takeout is less important.

I would think it would be a reasonable idea for opener to rebid 2♠; most of the time 2♥ will have been intended as a transfer, so this gives partner a chance to pass a level lower or invite.

Yes, you just need to attempt to change as soon as you realise what call you made. After all, law 25A allows a change after LHO has called, which would make no sense under the "same stroke of the pen" interpretation.

Bidding pads make it much harder to make an unintended call, so bear in mind that any regulations you read may be designed with bidding boxes in mind. In that case the "no pause for thought" should be from the time you notice which card you pulled out. I am always sceptical about people who claim that they didn't notice which card had come out, but I suppose it does happen. I think the regulation you quote is terrible, because it suggests the director should look at the hand when deciding whether to allow the change. He shouldn't.

Ah, ok, hadn't thought about considering it as a strong/non-strong combine. Also, when I said +4/-4 I was thinking it was teams-of-8.

Eh? We are told they have a history of opening 2♣ on hands which don't meet the requirements and they have done so again. Seems pretty clear that they have an implicit agreement which is not permitted. The fact that they don't have an explicit agreement isn't something they can continue to hide behind.

No, because the average is not exactly in the middle of the range.

I would think that whether this constituted a BIT depends mainly on the speed of the 7♥ call. A fast 7♥ is probably a surprise and 5-10 seconds thought looks normal. On the other hand, if South took some time to bid 7♥ then West has enough time to be ready for it (and what else can South be thinking about?), unless he has a difficult decision.

Ok, they are playing an illegal method, and have been warned about it before (they clearly have an implicit agreement). So, as the results on the other boards don't look abnormal, give +4/-4 IMPs and award a PP to the offending side of 1/2 VP (assuming there are VPs).

Well, you have to establish whether 2♣ was a deliberate deviation from partnership agreement, or permitted by partnership agreement. In the first case there is no infraction. In the second case, they are using an illegal method, and standard EBU procedure is to give an artificial adjusted score unless the table score is better for the non-offending side. Teams of 8 makes it a little more complicated. Basically, you would award the team not at fault +4 IMPs on the board, and the team at fault -4 IMPs, but if the scores on the other three boards suggest this has deprived NOS of a likely better score.

Sorry, post was wrong because I misread cardsharp as saying he watched these players. (deleted)

Well, you did say in the first post it was agreed there was a break in tempo. Had the original post merely said "it was agreed that the double took 5-10 seconds", I would have questioned whether that constituted a break in tempo. How quick was the 7♥ bid?

Oh, yes, I forgot that East couldn't ruff the third round ;)

Agree that it seems clear that 7♠ is suggested and pass is an LA. Diamond lead seems unlikely but not impossible. Is a weighted score permitted? If so I'd do a lead poll; if not director's ruling looks right.

Eh? How has the OS gained from the IB? I don't see any reason to think the auction would have been different without it.

What are red points? But yes, score stands, and your suggested "solution" would be entirely unfair. Opponents need to learn to be happy with the frequent tops he will be giving out, and accept the occasional bottom with good grace.

I don't see why the new example makes much difference. Basically, you are not going to notice until you attempt to play a spade from hand. There are perfectly reasonable lines where that would be too late (playing the extra trumps first, or just cashing the ♠A when in dummy).