CamHenry

Assuming you mean North here, I don't know how likely it is. NS have been playing together for years, and still haven't agreed whether 2♥ is forcing or not in 1♣-X-1♦-1♠-2♥.

[hv=d=w&v=e&s=sa8742hk5dat8ca62]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Auction (dealer W): W N E S P P 1♥ X 2NT* 3♠** P P P *: alerted, when asked, explained as "no agreement, but without the double and as an unpassed hand it's a good raise" **: agreed hesitation Questions: - does S have an LA to pass at his second turn to call? - is passing demonstrably suggested by the hesitation, gurning and muttering perpetrated by North before bidding 3♠?

That sounds unbelievably harsh: what if it's a short knockout, for example, and you're eliminated at 7pm. You're not allowed a beer down the pub with team-mates while you do the post-mortem? Wow.

If XX shows spades and another, Campboy, it's plausible that E bid 2C "in case we can get out safely". If it's undoubled, it's likely to be OK; if it's doubled, or it's not actually W's second suit, you can run away later.

Let's see. North passed prematurely: this gives UI to South that North has a rubbish hand. This demonstrably suggests passing, which South did: the fact that the rest of the room sees fit to balance with the South hand implies that there are LAs other than pass. South has, consciously or not, taken "advantage" of the UI. On the other hand, NS did not get a good result, and are unlikely to have done worse than they did if S had balanced. I'm not adjusting, but as a director I will have a quiet word with NS. If this isn't the first time, I'm taking some matchpoints away (PP). As W, if S is known to be aggressive and passes this hand, I'm going to call the director. I'll have to be tactful about it, because it's close to saying "you cheated your way to this 20% board", but I believe I should call.

I'm allowing the 3♣ bid on the grounds that I do not believe it to be demonstrably suggested. The tank could be "do I use garbage Stayman here?"; it could be "will we make one more trick in my major suit?"; it could be "am I strong enough to invite game?". I suspect that a poll would find pass to be an LA; if I held this hand I'd definitely consider passing now.

1: this is a permitted agreement, as it's a strict subset of the range of permitted agreements. 2: It's legitimate, I believe, to announce it as "12-14, may be 4-4-4-1": this is not one of the announcements listed in the OB, but given you can say "12-14, may contain a singleton", it's perfectly legit to be more specific.

My understanding of the rules here is that it's an attempt to (further) prevent concealed understandings. If you play, for example, 1NT is ostensibly 12-14 but may be a weak hand with long clubs, and agree never to use Stayman with game-forcing hands, then 2♣ becomes a control for that psych: and you're either playing an illegal agreement (the 1NT opener in most parts of the world) or a concealed understanding (illegal everywhere). If you're allowed to play this 1NT opening, then that use of 2♣ is permitted provided you disclose the whole affair properly.

My understanding is that it's opponents' VPs against the rest of the field. That means 25-5 is no different from 25-0 for calculating that team's weighting for you, but makes them contribute more to the tie-break for other teams. In short, 25-0 remains better than 25-5, and I think that's one of the few areas everyone will agree is desirable! :rolleyes:

mjj29 and I play a strong diamond, but our absolute minimum IS ER25. There are bad ER25 hands that we downgrade, but very few (it would have to be singleton kings, quacks all over the place, and a six-card suit to the jack, or something similar). ... but it's a strong diamond, so Bluejak's money is safe.

Without evidence to the contrary, we presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken bid. System cards are a convincing form of evidence, but are not the only form. Unless EW both say it's to play, and there's evidence that they've bid it to play in the past, I'm ruling MI. Let's see what happens if it IS an MI case. South presumably passes, West passes (because HE still thinks it's to play), and North most likely passes as the evidence suggests that his double would be takeout. Contract is therefore 2D (E), which goes 2 or 3 off (maybe 4 on a bad day). I therefore sit and consider which result is most likely in 2D(E), and award both sides that score. If the jurisdiction permits, I may award a weighted score under Law 12D. It's worth noting that, if N doubles 2D for penalties, E is entitled to pull to 2H - at which point we're back in the auction at the table, so I give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS.

I play a strong diamond system, with 1H as a negative. After 1♦ - 1x or 1♦ - 2x, we play X by responder as positive, GF (thus creating a forcing pass/penalty double situation). Responder's pass is weak, while bidding shows a semi-positive (and NT shows a balanced/semibalanced hand with a stop). With a semi-positive without a stop, we cue. The disadvantage of this is that we sometimes end up trying to decide whether to double 3♠, bid 3NT, or bid game in a suit - we know we've got values for game but not whether we've got a fit. Fortunately, the frequency with which people have a spade fit AND bid it AND we haven't got a clear decision is low enough that we don't lose much here. After 1♦-P-1♥-foo, we play as if the foo-bidder has opened foo, except that jump overcalls are strong. Double is takeout, overcalls are natural (and could have somewhere else to play), NT is natural. With a good balanced hand and no stop, we double. Pass from opener shows a minimum balanced hand, usually without a stop: Lebensohl is on if 2NT is sufficient at responder's turn. An example: 1♦ - P - 1♥ - 2♥ P - P - 2NT* *: Lebensohl, as if it's gone 1NT-(2♥)-2NT

Chiming in a little late here... Have you considered describing it as "strong, usually 18-21 HCP"? That would (a) fit in boxes and (:) be entirely true. As for a full system file: Matt and I carry one around with us, but it's rarely referred to. It's useful when we need evidence to say "yes, that pass is definitely forcing" or "that double was penalties, therefore the explanation given was correct", but no-one reads it. (We used it last night to work out what Matt's double had meant; I'd got it wrong and we defended 3CX+3).

As Campboy says, it's unauthorised. However, there may be no adjustment necessary - it's a fairly common agreement that after a 5♣ or 5♦ response, 5M means "raise if you have the higher number". If the person who bid 6♥ here had 4 keycards, then I rule no adjustment.

I am unfamiliar with RGB posts. What are they, and where can I find them? In the system design contest, how did you determine a winner? RGB is rec.games.bridge; you can find it on various newsservers or on Google Groups. Searching the archives is possible but not trivial on Google.

Replying to the actual question here, rather than to the debate about alerting-of-doubles. I am not an expert player, yet I would take it as bridge logic that the double is penalties and would be surprised when it wasn't alerted. If I was going to run away from a penalty double, I would ask what the double was. If I'm told it's penalties, I say something like "Oh, it's alertable then - but don't worry this time". As a director, I'd say any experienced player - a strong club player, or someone who plays with moderate success in tournaments - should have asked rather than assumed. I'd give redress to a novice here, but none otherwise. The exception would be if the OS were known to the NOS, and known to be fully reliable in alerting.

This is what was ruled at the table (I was North, and had just bid on autopilot because I wanted to open). I agreed with the lack of a non-silencing call for me, but neither Matt nor I was certain about whether I had to reveal what the bid was to partner. It was clear that I must reveal it to oppo. It seems to me that the laws could treat a bid out of turn (not accepted, and not repeatable) the same way as an insufficient bid: so a natural call could be corrected, and an artificial call could be corrected if an equivalent _or more precise_ call could be made. While that wouldn't have helped me on this hand, it could be usable. For example, if a weak-only Multi was opened out of turn, a weak jump overcall in a major could potentially be substituted.

I'll have to remember this if I'm ever playing in Germany! In England, "semi-balanced" means 5422 or 6322, but excludes hands with a singleton.

There are two situations possible: where the 1NT opening could contain a singleton by agreement, and where it is not expected. If it is not expected, then opening 1NT with a singleton is legal, but is a deviation from the agreement - and if this happens often enough, it can become a partnership agreement. In the EBU it is permissible to open 1NT with a singleton by agreement*, so long as you disclose the fact to the opponents. We announce the range of 1NT, and there's an additional announcement required (so you may say "12-14, may contain a singleton" when partner opens 1NT). It is my understanding that the ACBL forbids opening 1NT with a singleton, at least at the lower levels of competition. Doing so therefore constitutes an illegal agreement, and the pair playing such an agreement gets the lower of their score on the board and average minus (40% at MPs). Summary: it's not acceptable worldwide, and you'll need to look at the local regulations. I don't think there's a requirement about the rank of the singleton, but you may wish to impose your own. *: The EBU forbids opening 1NT with a singleton at Level 2, which is generally used for novice events.

I don't like a diamond; I think declarer has the A. I think he also has the HK, we've seen the HJ, so he's not got the CA and a spade honour. I'm going to play ace-jack of spades.

2: In my opinion: NO. RHO may swear on the Holy Bible that he would always bid 3♠ with this hand; that doesn't help him. The UI conveyed from LHO clearly and demonstrably suggests some action by RHO so every player I know to be the least ethical will PASS with this hand and then tell LHO a lesson afterwards. An agressive player might very well bid 3♠ even when red with his hand, but an ethical player would definitely not in this situation. This is the only part of Sven's answer I'd question. It's clear that action other than pass is demonstrably suggested, of course, so we have to assess whether pass is an LA. For my class of player, aggressive but not very aggressive, pass is an LA even if I'm desperate for a swing. For someone known to bid on tram tickets, maybe it isn't. The difficulty the director should have (if he were ruling properly) is finding people whose bidding is comparably aggressive. I doubt you'd find many people who are truly "peers" of this RHO, given his bidding aggression; that means that you should poll as best you can and give the benefit of the doubt to the NOS. I'm inclined to roll it back to 3H, as I suspect that even aggressive bidders would consider/select Pass with that hand.

I find the implication that the omission to discuss our system was faked rather insulting. We have not agreed a meaning for the redouble in 2H - 2S - X - XX, but we do have a general agreement that redoubles show values except of 1NT doubled. In that case, West's explanation would likely have been along the lines of "undiscussed, but it shows values or spade support". In a later post, David, you say: "so East should not have done what he did." The "what he did", I assume, refers to my explanation "this is what 1H-1S means; we haven't discussed whether or not it applies here". If my understanding of your meaning is incorrect, please let me know!

One quick point: while I get the impression from your last post that you're playing in Italy, you will need to look at the system regulations. I play a strong minor system in England, and the EBU rules are that it has to show at least 16+ points - even if you give full information, 15+ is not allowed unless it's a very distributional hand (10+ cards in the longest suits, for example). If your local authorities will let you play your 1C as 15+ if balanced, then that may well solve some of your difficulty!

Disclaimer: I have no official capacity within the EBU, and I am posting as an individual who may be wrong. That aside, my understanding is: - Curtain cards are allowed if that's what you want to use; they're not required or even encouraged. - If boards are fouled, and unrecoverable, you have two options - either play it as a distinct board for the second half of the movement (if you have 5 scores with one layout and 5 with another, for example), or award Av/Av to pairs deprived of the opportunity to gain a valid score (if it's fouled in the penultimate round, for example). In any case, if you can determine who put the cards back in the wrong place I'd recommend a PP - 10% of a top the first time around.

I was East. It was only after Matt made his 2♠ overcall that I realised we hadn't discussed whether our artificial overcalls applied over higher-level openings; these overcalls are not generally permitted so we were playing them for the first time. That goes some way to explaining why we hadn't discussed their applicability here! I don't recall the detail of Matt (West's) explanation of my redouble. He definitely said that I was happy playing in 2SXX if he had spades; I believe he didn't say anything either way about his diamond suit/shortage/unspecified. Would it have helped matters if he'd said "As Henry says, we haven't discussed whether artificial overcalls apply here. If it's an artificial overcall, he's happy playing in 2S opposite the option with spades and diamonds; if it's a natural overcall, he's showing an undefined strong hand"? That would have been the most complete disclosure available, yet would probably be even more confusing. The alternative position we could take as EW is simply to say "no agreement" and clam up, but given we have agreements in similar situations that could apply here, it seems unfair to do so. On the actual ruling, I agree that we didn't provide as much information as we could have done, and if I'd been directing and uninvolved in the case I don't know that I'd have ruled any differently.