campboy

What is the actual agreement for NS? If 2♣ systemically is majors, but South has misbid, then there is no reason for South to say anything. On the other hand, if South thinks the explanation is wrong then he must correct it at the end of the auction (before the opening lead).

I'm going to go along with "partner must have forgotten". I can't imagine a hand that can bid again after 2♠ that wouldn't double or bid 2NT (or something similar) last time. If I'm right I shall be annoyed since partner must have twisted my arm in order to get me to play the wretched convention in the first place :rolleyes:

I've heard this term used to describe doubles of opening 1suit which show 15+ and normally don't have shortage in the suit doubled (in conjunction with 1NT overcall for takeout).

Well, I play systems on after a 1NT overcall of an opening bid with some partners and I have no idea whether that would still apply if it was a 1NT overcall in the sandwich seat. This player presumbly has even less idea than I do since at least I do play that 1NT is natural here. If this auction came up with no alerts I would assume that the 2♠ bid was intended as natural (even though I am confident that (1♣) 1NT pass 2♠ would not be). [edit]I also play the same style of transfers so spades -> clubs.

Yes, that happens at some point. You get dealt a weak hand with bundles of tricks which is too extreme to be covered by your system, so you bid it in some way or other. Fine. But after that -- after the first time that happens -- well, you both know what you are likely to do if you get a "hand type that you can't describe by system". You have explicit agreements about normal hands, but you now have an implicit agreement about the rest.

If we are really talking about 12-card suits then I have wasted my time in reading this thread. But I think people are talking about really extreme hands, and exaggerating. And the worry is that someone will apply what is said here to a 10-card suit, or a 9400.

The only reason the word "normally" is used in the regulation is to make it clear (which it does) that it is the points most people associate with a 1-level opening that are required, not the points you personally associate. It is the association, not the hand, which needs to be "normal". Since an agreement to open at the 1-level on fewer than 8 HCP is not permitted, it is clear that whatever number of points is "normally associated", it is at least 8. The L&E committee recently discussed changing the regulation to give a specific number of points instead, but this was narrowly defeated. I think that it should have been changed.

The specifics of the hand someone made up aren't really the point. There is some level of freakishness where you might reasonably claim "never come up before". If I am called as TD for such a hand, it is overwhelmingly likely that it will be near the lowest level of freakishness where that is the case. It is not worth thinking about whether I would act differently as TD if it is a 12-card suit rather than a 10-card suit; it won't be.

If I were called as TD, I would ask you what your partnership's normal opening with such a hand is. In this particular case the hand is so extreme that you might reasonably say you had never held such a hand before, so you have no agreement. Fine, but now you need to discuss it and agree on an alternative, otherwise you have a de facto (illegal) agreement to do the same thing next time. tl;dr You can't say "we don't have an agreement to open such hands" and coincidentally break your agreement whenever such hands come up.

Well, as I hope my previous posts made clear, I do not think anyone is "contemptible" for trying to legally profit from an opponent's error, whether or not I would do the same myself. However, in my last couple of posts I wasn't commenting on the main issue. You asked the difference between errors which are "part of the game" and those which aren't. I think the distinction between the two is clear. Incidentally, your opponents get average+ on any boards you miss, so yes, they do profit.

It has occurred to me that there is a very simple way to see if an error is "part of the game". Is the player allowed to get help from outside the game to avoid making it? A disabled player can have someone else hold and play his cards, but you can't ask a kibitzer to stop you bidding out of turn.

Is getting lost on the way to the venue and missing the first session "part of the game"? It is certainly an error. But bridge is not a test of navigation, any more than it is a test of being able to hold your cards without dropping them. "The game" is about making calls and plays. Errors in making calls and plays, whether they are infractions of law or just poor bridge, are part of the game.

If an opening bid has an alertable meaning according to the card, but is not alerted, it is quite possible that the card is wrong or you are looking at someone else's card. Therefore I would ask. (Actually, with some partners I would have had to ask at the start of the round since we play one defence against siege-style 1♣, which can be a 2-card suit even in a hand with 4 diamonds, and another against the more common style of 2 cards only if 4=4=3=2.)

You were looking in the wrong place -- it is the Orange Book (section 3D) which deals with this. In the first case, yes, you are right. North must give the partnership agreement for South's call, even though he knows (as do EW, by now) that South intended it as something else. Also, the information that South has forgotten the system is unauthorised to North. South, when he hears the alert of the "transfer", will probably remember that 2NT shows the minors, in which case he should correct his explanation at this point (and the TD should be called). OB 3D8: "If as a result of partner’s explanation a player realises he has forgotten the partnership agreement and has therefore misbid, he must continue to call as if in ignorance of the correct meaning of the call, until it is obvious from the auction that something is amiss." Here, since the 2NT opening has no strong option, a 3♥ bid from North would make no sense, so I think it is obvious from the auction what has gone wrong -- or at least, it is obvious to South. North is still constrained by UI to act as though South has transferred. However, suppose North opened 2NT on a strong balanced hand, and partner alerted "weak, minors", as before, only this time the explanation is correct and North misbid. While North, again, must continue to bid as though 2NT was natural, he should explain South's calls according to the actual agreement. OB 3D7: "It is proper to use any unauthorised information which has been made available by partner to help a player to decide to alert and explain the partnership agreement as accurately as he can, but of course unauthorised information must not be used to help in the bidding and play." As for the example where misbid and misexplanation coincide -- well, it is quite probable that no-one will realise. However, it is still possible (albeit very unlikely) for EW to be damaged by the misinformation, even though it is a more accurate description of the hand than the correct explanation would have been.

I think this falls foul of #1, so is a HUM.

Well, I would certainly avoid looking in the first two cases, and in my experience the overwhelming majority would do the same. In the last two cases, if I was sufficiently aware to know that it wasn't their turn, I would say so without really thinking, but I would not expect others to do the same. Bidding or playing out of turn and making insufficient bids are certainly errors of bridge, and it seems right for them to cost. Dropping cards is an error of coordination.

Well, there are other bits of the regulation to deal with normal forcing pass systems but I suppose it would be possible to play some sort of two-way pass which isn't covered by these, but is covered by #2.

Isn't the first of those -- looking at an opponent's hand in order to see cards -- a violation of 74C5?

Good point -- I had failed to spot that the double would have changed North's response. This does make it pretty unlikely that 5♠ would be bid.

No, it isn't. It's a dropped card; it does not come under 45C1 since it was not "held", it was dropped. It is, however, a penalty card (assuming you are defending), and since you have not yet played to the trick there are the normal penalty card restrictions on what you may play. The reason why there are different rules for the two situations are certainly not a "hold-over". It is simply that partner does not get any information from seeing a 5NT card fall out of your bidding box, as he already knew it was in there. When a defender's card is exposed, however, play cannot always continue normally.

The problem is that the TD did have an up-to-date OB including 2009 updates -- and this specifically says "KQJTxxx is 5 tricks". He showed this to the player at the table when making his ruling.

I expect we shall get a definitive answer from bluejak, but here is a link to the L&E minutes for those who want to read it for themselves. All the relevant stuff is on p4.

Firstly, 3♣ wouldn't be intended as natural, but "pass or correct". Secondly, I don't think North should be assumed to know any more than "3♣ is pass/correct if 2♠ is natural, [insert meaning] if it is a transfer". So I agree that doubling 3♣ is not at all certain.

The current rules on minimum permitted agreements for artificial strong openings in the EBU are: Hands which have 16+ HCP OR meet Rule of 25 OR 8 clear-cut tricks and enough HCP for a 1-level opening. The old rule of "Rule of 25 AND 14+ HCP" was replaced by the above. The TD involved was definitely working from an up-to-date printout, as he quoted the "KQJTxxx has 5 CCT" directly.

I just heard from a correspondent who was ruled against for opening 2♦ (edit: Reverse) Benji on KQJTxxx AKx xxx ---, which he believed had 8 clear-cut tricks. The updated Orange book on the EBU website contains the following definition: It also gives examples, which include "KQJxxxx = 4 tricks, KQJTxxx = 5 tricks". However, these differ from the same examples in the L&E minutes of February, which give 5 and 6 tricks respectively. Barring a trump promotion, those in the minutes seem to be correct. Is this an error in the OB?