CamHenry

This is the last round of a club pairs game; you're coming in with 58% and second place. Your basic system is Acol, as is the opponents'. North (LHO) deals and opens your suit. Your call? [hv=pc=n&w=sakq9hakq986dajtc&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hpp]133|200[/hv] If you double, the auction proceeds: [hv=pc=n&w=sakq9hakq986dajtc&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1hppd2c2d3c]133|200[/hv] Now what?

"Don't lead anything, P; I'm going to be on lead"? "Don't lead anything; I want to lead out of turn"?! :)

Hasn't anyone here studied formal logic? "Lesser players play this" does NOT imply that "those who play this are lesser players". There are both world-class and thoroughly mediocre players who use 1NT=15-17 balanced, for example. Admittedly, David's phrasing was not at his most tactful ;-)

... is that where the unicorn went?

You can't: see law 23. If you could have been aware that oppo not being allowed to play their normal system ("no agreement is legal"), then you cannot gain by the irregularity.

I play, and direct, at a fairly quiet little club in England. In general, there's something of a culture of people trying to sort out rulings at their own table, and the director noticing when voices are raised and things like "Of course I didn't revoke, I had a singleton!" are broadcast to the room as a whole. On one occasion recently, however, I was called over as director. The dummy was something like: [hv=pc=n&n=sk4hdck975]133|100[/hv] The call was because declarer, leading from dummy, had said "The king of spades, sorry clubs"; this was clearly an attempt to change a designated card. Both opps agreed readily that there had been no pause for thought, and that the change of play was entirely OK by them, but had said "let's just call the director to be sure". There's hope yet.

I confess I am curious about this use of "automatic". To me, if a raise is automatic, then passing is either never considered or at the least never selected. It's therefore not an LA. Of course, it is possible for pass NOT to be an LA without the raise being automatic: the choice could be between a raise to game and a slam try, for example. Formally: Raise automatic implies pass not an LA. Pass not an LA does not imply raise automatic. The test for the automatic nature of the raise is sufficient, but not necessary, for pass not to be an LA.

This may not be quite practicable as a playing TD, and (to my mind) is also liable to foster the attitude that the TD call is punishment in and of itself. Not something we want. I would, however, ask how the auction/play proceeded. Henry

Followup to that one is: "Given partner's propensity to raise at the slightest provocation, should I have made a call more conducive to underbidding?" :)

OK, the majority view is 3♠, with some consideration for showing the ♥ fragment (either by 3♥ or X). Partner's hand was: ♠QJx ♥Kxx ♦AJx ♣Qxxx and he raised my 3♠ to 4♠, going one off on a high diamond lead and (when I ducked) a heart switch, then a club return. 3♦ goes 1 off every time, sometimes 2 off, which means you need best defense to beat the missed partscore. I'm glad it wasn't an easy problem that I got wrong!

This argument is why I considered double, which this partner consistently views as takeout-focused (and yes, he'll bid 3♥ or 4♥ with 1=4=3=5).

Agreed, but I'm playing bridge in strong jump shift territory, and it's been enough of an adventure introducing things such as 2/1. In the unfortunate absence of intermediate jump shifts, what would you recommend here?

[hv=pc=n&w=skt9542hqj7d43ca5&d=e&v=e&b=6&a=1cp1s3dpp]133|200[/hv] Matchpoint pairs. Playing 2/1 (and a prepared club rather than better minor), partner opens 1♣. RHO passes, and you feel quite comfortable bidding 1♠. LHO then jams the works with 3♦, which is passed around to you. If you enquire, RHO is uncertain about the agreement but says (unprompted) that it's natural and "I think it's weak". Please rate (and give reasons, if you will) the following calls: Pass Double 3♠ Other

... and if they do, it's probably a ZT violation!

In many cases, it is not clear what should be done. If the 2♦ bidder thought he was opening, this might be a weak 2: announceable in the EBU and not alertable. It might be that he thought he was bidding a natural, signoff 2♦ after a 2♣ overcall. It might be that he didn't see the overcall and was transferring (apparently alertable where you play, but announceable here). It might even be that he wanted to bid a forcing 3♦ and just forgot that he needed to bid at the 3-level to make it sufficient. Importantly, his partner cannot know what the insufficient bidder meant, and therefore I would rule it non-alertable. It is plausible that all meanings of the bid would be alertable, with or without the interference: in one partnership, I play 1♣ as a limited opening hand without a 5-card major. Suppose the auction starts: 1♣ - (1♠) - 1♦. Here, 1♦ would be an artificial negative without the interference; 2♦ would be limited, non-forcing and therefore (by EBU rules) alertable. My belief is that, in addition to calling the director, I should explain both of these potential meanings to the opponents - they are, I think, entitled to as much information as I can give them about the situation.

Apparently my meaning was unclear - I said that if we accept one trick to the defence, we should then award three.

I think we're missing an important point here: if declarer is silly enough to play hearts from the bottom up, he's silly enough to check for an outstanding trump "just in case". He then loses three of the remaining tricks, as E pitches a small diamond on the spade then wins the ♥K, with two diamonds left to cash. I don't see how it is possible to justify a ruling that declarer loses exactly one trick in this situation.

I'm not convinced they would play 3NT - the auction would likely end with 3♥, and the post-mortem would contain West saying "I couldn't bid 3NT, I only had a minimum, and the hand with spades was sitting over my AQx so I've only got one stop". Never mind that E is showing a decent hand, you can't double for penalties any more, and the lead's coming up to you, and that the hand showing spades is the weak one. These are not the sort of concern I see raised at this club. My view was that 3NT was not considered automatic on the west cards, even by players here who have more understanding of the fact that the 3♥ bid (as opposed to a pass, or a double of 2♥) shows some values. That's why I didn't rule "no damage".

I think you're giving too much credit to the players in question: it is not a strong club. E told me at the time that she'd have bid 3♥ over 2♥, and reaffirmed this afterwards. The score after the infraction was NS +140, rather than NS +50 or +100; I do not see how this is a gain to EW.

Oppo should be aware that more than one meaning is alertable. According to the Orange Book, "5G4: The following doubles must be alerted: ... © Any 'competitive', 'co-operative' or 'optional' double." It seems to me that if the doubler could have a flat hand with 4 cards in opener's suit, this is sufficiently optional or card-showing that it should be alerted. It sounds like your partner's doubles mean "I have an opening hand with no suit I'm willing to overcall", and is unexpected enough to be alertable.

S has limited her hand and they have an agreement not to pull the double on decent hands. N is maximum for his pull, with KJxxx/ATx/xx/xxx, so might find a double of 3♥. I play with the N in question at times, and he's not prone to making penalty doubles of anything other than 1NT and game contracts. It is plausible N will compete to 3♠, but unlikely - he's already demonstrated that he has doubts about the strength of the hand, and on the sequence likely to have arisen (where E bids 3♥ over 2♥) S will never reveal the 4-card spade support (would you, when partner's weak and you have KQ9 of hearts over the bid?). As for the director error - I am attempting to follow "resolving doubtful points in favour of the NoS", and whether NS would compete to 3S or EW bid 3NT are both doubtful points.

OK, there's no clear consensus on the bid at this stage. The actual ruling is on a misinformation case. The auction had run: [hv=d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1nd2hp2sppp]133|100[/hv] 2♥ was not alerted. I was called at the end of the auction, when S said "I should have alerted 2♥ as a transfer". E said that, with correct information, she'd have bid 3♥ over 2♥; since this was before she had any idea of the full layout I see no reason to doubt the statement. Obviously the correct ruling is that she can take back her final pass, and then she probably balances with 3♥. Unfortunately I'm rusty, and denied her this option, so now I have to make a ruling. 3♥ goes either 1 or 2 off, while 2♠ made 140 at the table. 3NT goes badly enough that, if it had been a clear-cut bid on the W hand, I'd have ruled "no damage". Is this ruling correct (modulo my failure to get it right first time!)? Thanks

[hv=pc=n&w=saq2h73dk76cakt95&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1nd2h(Transfer)3hp]133|200[/hv] None vulnerable, N deals; matchpoints. 2♥ is alerted; partner asks and is told it's a transfer, and then bids 3♥. You have no agreement about what a double would mean here, and therefore you can't deduce what 3♥ shows in any detail. Do you bid 3NT, pass, or find some other call?

Somewhat off-topic, but I've never really understood this ACBL idea of directors "owning" clubs. In the EBU it's all about committees of volunteers, etc.

In that case, partner's pass sounds like it's a balanced minimum (as he'd show a stopper or a secondary suit if he had one, and XX with a big hand). The method I like here is "notional Lebensohl" - assume the auction has been 1NT - (2H) - ?, but you have some additional information. In this method, I bid 2NT, then 3NT after partner bids 3C. I think that describes my hand quite nicely. Unfortunately, if you haven't discussed partner's pass after the double, this looks like a bit of a risk(!). I've still got enough values that I want to play 3NT if there's a heart stop around, and without discussion I'd expect 3♥ to ask for one. The risk is that partner takes this as showing a stopper, but bridge logic seems to say "if I had a heart stopper I'd bid it to protect the tenaces/minor honours". In particular, since I have Jx rather than Jxx, I don't want to play 3NT this side. If partner denies a heart stop, I probably subside in 4♦. We're likely to be missing two cashing hearts, and the odds of partner having enough top diamonds, spade king and there being no slow black loser are slim.