VixTD

I think beginners like MUD because they like the idea of conveying their holding to partner on the second round. I think any signalling system that takes two rounds to convey a message is too slow. The message has to be got across (as far as it can be) with the first card. In the same way beginners like to signal length with 9743 by playing the 4, then the 3. Advanced players learn they should play the 7, then the 3 (or the 4).

Thanks, everyone, for your comments. Mikeh, it's the "declarer would have played the queen" clue that I was missing. In the UK fourth-highest leads are common, and from xxx I and many others favour the top card against no trumps, but Cherdano is right that MUD leads are common, particularly in partnerships that don't like to take the trouble to learn one method against suits and another against no trumps. (I don't like MUD in any situation, but it's less odious against suit contracts.)

This hand came up in an online EBU virtual club matchpoint game: [hv=pc=n&s=saqthj4daq97cakj7&w=s984ha8532dkj3c52&n=sk52hq6dt852cqt94&e=sj763hkt97d64c863]399|300[/hv] It was played at nine tables. At one South played in 3♣, but at the other eight South was in 3NT. Assume the bidding was 2NT - 3NT; there are no clues to the distribution. West led either ♥3 or ♥2, according to agreement. You can see that EW can take the first five tricks, but not surprisingly that didn't happen at all tables. Five Souths made 3NT, one with an overtrick, when dummy played low at trick one and East put in the nine. Of those Easts who played the king at trick one, one blocked the suit by returing the original fourth best 7. Two returned the 10, but one West played the eight (!) at trick three to undo all the good unblocking work. Those who blocked the suit had the last laugh when East switched to a diamond to try to reach partner with the last heart and declarer took the finesse for two down. Is there any guide to whether to play the nine or the king at trick one? Is it just a guess? I can see that one works when partner has led from Axxxx and the other when they've led from Jxxxx.

Yes, OK, I think you're right in this case, although I would say you have to show that North knows it could well be favourable, not will be favourable. If it's only wrong when you move all West's high cards to South, it's quite likely to be favourable.

I don't think this is enough. Others have commented on the threadbare nature of North's hand, so don't you think that North could have known that forcing partner to pass 2NT would work out well for their side? Let them play it out in 2NT, but then adjust the score under laws 27C and 12C to 3NT-2.

Sorry for replying late. I don't know if I would alert an insufficient bid if no one had drawn attention to it. I might well wait to see if no one notices and bids over it. I don't think this is a problem as we can't really have agreements for insufficient bids. If attention has been drawn to it I might alert, particularly as we're expected to alert if there's any possibility the call could have an alertable meaning. I would not volunteer any further information unless the opponents asked, at which point I would explain what any similar (legal) sequences would mean.

Whether playing the card first called for makes "bridge sense" or not is irrelevant - that's not the criterion that applies. In the classic example where declarer leads small towards AQ in dummy and calls "queen" when LHO has played the king, we do not allow a change of card, even though playing the queen under the king is a silly play. The queen was (in all probability) the card declarer intended to play. The laws and commentaries refer to allowing the change of "an unintended designation". If we accept that designations can either be intended or unintended, with no other possibility, doesn't it follow that if you don't allow the change in this case, you are saying that the designation of a small card was intended? (OK, strictly speaking that there is insufficient evidence that it wasn't unintended, because in cases of doubt we rule against the offender.) What I am trying rather clumsily to say is that I find it easier to decide what to rule if I ask myself: "Was the small card the one that declarer intended to play when they called for a card?" rather than "Was the designation unintended?" It may well be true that declarer's mind had wandered and that they had lost concentration, but I don't think any of that means that they intended to play a small card. I tend to routinely allow the card to be changed in these cases unless there is evidence that it could have been an intended designation. That declarer immediately corrected themselves before anything else happened to indicate that playing small would be a poor choice is evidence enough that the small card was not the one intended.

In the EBU I would certainly alert such an insufficient bid, if one or more of the possible intended meanings was artificial, even if some or all of them should be announced. Then the opponents can ask, and I can just explain the relevant parts of our system that might apply, and they can try to guess what's going on, and little or no unauthorized information would be transmitted. It's easier to do this where we have a regulation that requires "don't knows" and "possibly artificial" meanings to be alerted.

In England and Wales we have:

I'm surprised that what looks like a fairly run-of-the-mill (although not necessarily easy) ruling in a league game where "average" players are competing has become a possible appeal to the National Authority. From the sparse information given about the TD and the referee's decisions it looks as if they both may have failed to do an adequate job, or at least not explained themselves clearly. I don't think the speed of declarer's play to trick one is particularly relevant (although excessively speedy play is poor form). If East needed time to consider their play to the second or subsequent tricks, they should have thought about it (for as long as it takes) before quitting trick one, not during the play of trick two. Deciding whether to signal with otherwise insignificant cards is not considered sufficient reason to pause during the play of that trick (WB8.73.1). If the TD really is convinced that declarer will play the nine every time without the hesitation, their giving of some proportion of 3NT-1 doesn't make sense to me. Is it possible (despite what they said) that they thought they might play the jack regardless? Were they thinking that West might win, continue spades and that declarer might play a heart before unblocking the diamond? The referee's conclusion that the hesitation does not indicate possession of the diamond ace may be bridge nonsense (and I agree with Lamford on this), but it's also legally irrelevant. The law that applies here is 73E2, which does not concern itself whether the inference the non-offender has drawn is a sensible or logical one, just whether an innocent player has drawn an inference and thereby been damaged, and clearly that's the case here. The TD (or the referee) should poll some players of similar standard to North and assess the likelihood of playing the nine after an in-tempo play from East, and assign a weighted score based on the probabilities (which may well be 100% of 3NT=). If either the players or the TD had mentioned on the appeal form the question of whether thinking at trick two was legitimate with only small cards, the referee should have commented on it. (If none of them did, perhaps they should have.)

Law 46B3(a) notwithstanding, it is unusual for declarer to call "small" when switching to a different suit without specifying the suit, so that makes me think that declarer's intention was to play a small diamond when they said "small". If they had intended to play the heart next, "heart" would be the normal shorthand designation. However, it is entirely possible that what was in declarer's mind the whole time was to cash the heart and "small" slipped out inadvertently, or declarer said "small" intending it to refer to the heart, so I would try to find out the precise order and speed of events, when and how declarer reacted when they realised the diamond had been played, and allow declarer to change the card if I am convinced their other intention was incontrovertible.

Lots of (particularly elderly) club TDs can manage something akin to the 1997 insufficient bid ruling of allowing the call to be accepted and if it isn't, allowing a no-penalty change to the lowest legal call in the same denomination if both the insufficient bid and its replacement were "incontrovertibly not conventional" (the attendant problems of ascribing a "meaning" to an insufficient bid notwithstanding). The 2007 laws introduced the concept of the intended meaning of the insufficient bid, which has now been removed, so it's better to skip that version of the law book entirely. There's nothing wrong with the service I've been giving them, I follow the (much lauded) EBU club directors training course and role-play ruling simulations. They won't be confused when a better trained TD gives a proper ruling at a congress, because they know that the ruling they are giving at the club isn't actually correct, they just know it is the best they can manage in the few minutes available to them to get play going again at the table where a problem has occurred and allow the game to finish. Is that really so terrible in a club game? What do you suggest? Forcible retraining of less-than-perfect TDs, or sacking of the only person in the club who's willing to give up their time to helping to organise the game, is like insisting on applying the letter of the laws of association football in a children's kickabout in the park.

I instruct them to allow everything the (current) laws allow, including this. The problem is not what I'm teaching them or the way I'm teaching it (contrary to Ed's less-than-charitable opinion), but the students' inability to understand or apply the laws, in particular to manage the three categories of comparable call, on top of the "lowest legal call that specifies the same denomination" of law 27, and then under which circumstances lead penalties and an adjusted score should be considered afterwards. The best some of them can manage is "do you want to accept the bid?" (yes or no, answer now), followed by "you have to make a comparable call" when it's not accepted.

I don't think I've ever met anyone as po-faced as you, Ed. Many of the club directors I train have a long-ingrained understanding of how to deal with insufficient bids under the 1997 laws, at least as to which replacement calls are allowed without silencing partner. They cannot understand the 2017 laws, and get completely bogged down trying to apply them. If the outcome of their attempt to apply the 2017 laws would be worse (further away from the outcome intended under those laws) than the outcome of their attempt to apply the 1997 laws, wouldn't it be better for them to apply the 1997 and get on with the game? I do say this to my students, but I still try to teach them how to apply the current laws, so you can put your soap-box away. Training club directors has to make a compromise between perfect judgement and application of the laws, and the best practical result you're going to get under the circumstances. What you want out of club directors is someone who can run and score a duplicate tournament, apply the laws fairly and make sure the players have an enjoyable time, as far as possible. Worrying whether they've extracted the last drop of meaning from laws 23A, 50E or any of the other impenetrable laws for which you need to put in far more hours study than are available on a basic directors' course to understand is not something we should be doing.

WBFLC has stated that their main target is to allow boards being played out for fair results as far as possible rather than have to award artificial adjusted scores. In the old days of bridge a non-offending side could simply demand a re-deal whenever an irregularity occurred, this is obviously not satisfactory in modern duplicate bridge so now we have several laws on how to rectify various kinds of irregularities. Law 23 is one such law and I disagree that it is so difficult to apply, but it certainly takes a competent director to understand and apply it correctly. This is no different from other laws in the book, and that is why we have commentaries to the laws for anybody to study and training courses for those who want to become a director. This is fine for those directors such as you and me who want to go on training courses and study commentaries, but what about the majority of club and regional directors who don't? I train club directors in the UK, and they find understanding and applying law 23 the hardest part of the job. I have said (only half-jokingly) that the 2017 version of law 23 should be regarded as the equivalent of a heavy-goods vehicle - only TDs with a special licence should be allowed to drive it. Less qualified TDs should just apply the 1997 laws on insufficient bids; they'd do much less damage that way.

It would be easy to understand if that were what the law said, but it doesn't, it says "...is comparable if it defines a subset of the possible meanings attributable to the withdrawn call". I'm not the only one who struggles with the wording "defines a subset of".

I agree that this is often a useful thing to do, but it's important to remember that the intended meaning is not the only attributable meaning of a call, and even that the intended meaning doesn't have to be an attributable meaning, if what the offender intended was so bizarre that no one else would think that could possibly be what they were thinking about.

I can see that the WBFLC might attribute the meaning of "Stayman, asking about major-suit holdings" to a 2♣ bid, even if it's in response to a 2NT opening bid, because that's what 2♣ commonly means in response to a 1NT opening bid. Responder has obviously got something muddled, and the level of the opening bid, or how high he needs to bid in clubs to supersede that bid are two of the things he could have muddled in his mind. A player cannot intentionally bid 1♣ in response to anything, and will never bid 1♣ to ask partner about their major-suit holdings, so I struggle to attribute such a meaning to 1♣. A player who responds 2♣ to 2NT does not have to be thinking that clubs outrank no trumps, or that two is a higher number than three, which are very difficult mind-sets for an experienced bridge player to get into. They just have to be thinking: "I'll bid Stayman" and reach absentmindedly for the 2♣ card without connecting it with the information that partner has bid no trumps at the two level, a much easier mistake to make. I agree with everything else you've said, including that asking offender away from the table what the intended meaning was can reveal an attributable meaning that you wouldn't have thought of yourself.

If it was an unintended call you would expect the offender to have said something to that effect by now. You could try taking them away from the table and asking something neutral such as "how did you come to bid 1♥?" and see what they say. This doesn't look like an unintended call to me. Pescetom is right to look for possible meanings of 1♥ other than the obvious (trying to open or overcall in hearts), but law 23 refers to the meanings attributable to 1♥, not the intended meaning of 1♥. I find it difficult to attribute the meaning of "Michaels cue-bid" to 1♥, just as I struggle to attribute "Stayman, asking for majors" to 1♣. Calls at the one level can never have these meanings.

I would want to know if the pair make a habit of opening light like this, and if so make sure it is disclosed properly on their convention card (or in some other acceptable way, if they don't have convention cards). If NS had been informed correctly, what difference would it have made? Remember that they are not entitled to know that the bid is weak, only that it could be weak. A takeout double looks more normal on the South hand whatever the strength of the opener, after which North is likely to end up playing in 3NT, with a better chance of making it. I can't see that the choice of action by South is affected by the agreed minimum strength of the opening bid, so I would allow the score to stand, and make sure EW know about the requirements of proper disclosure.

Law 72 states that This is interpreted, certainly in England, to mean that deliberately playing badly to improve your chances in a later stage of the competition is not illegal or unethical. The White Book states: The approved solution is to design the contest so that teams are not in this position, so they don't know their score going into the last few rounds. This may not be easy. I share the view that none of these actions are obvious acts of "dumping".

Not these days, although of course it used to be the norm for final results to be posted without hand records, in the days before duplimated boards. I can't think of any instance when the results would be published without making hand records available. The reason I would include this error under law 79C2 is that it is a minor error that would not be immediately apparent without seeing the hand records (unlike, for instance, a misboarding in which complete hands had been swapped round). Some revokes could also fall into this category. The director would have to be sure of the facts, though, and not just take one side's word for it.

In a typical EBU Swiss Teams tournament the correction period for errors of score entry or calculation by the players (e.g. entering "+2" instead of "+1" in the bridgemate) expires 20 minutes after the score has been made available for inspection. (Law 79C1 says this cannot be shorter than 30 minutes unless required by the special nature of the contest, but that's another matter.) These days the scores are normally uploaded to a website or shown on a screen at the venue as soon as they are calculated, but even if they aren't, the director will be happy to print off check slips or personal score records on request. This counts as making the scores available, even if half the players have left the venue as soon as the last card is played and don't avail themselves of the opportunity. The White Book of EBU regulations (section 2.5.1) states that this 20 minute (or 30 minute - in any case, the shorter correction period) applies to fouled boards. There is a longer correction period, which would typically be 48 hours or so, which applies to errors by the TD or scorer (e.g. the TD calculated a score adjustment correctly but made a mistake when entering it in the scoring programme). Of course, you don't have to follow EBU regulations elsewhere in the world, but it gives you an idea of how some national authorities regulate these matters. There are some contests where the shorter correction period would apply to the session rather than the event, providing the players have 20 minutes non-playing time to check the scores. Even though the shorter correction period specifically mentions fouled boards, in your case I think the director could apply the longer correction period (with the approval of the tournament organizer) if they were satisfied that the facts you presented were correct, that the two cards were swapped in one set of boards, and that it was played in a different state at the two tables. This would require corroboration from the other team, or evidence from inspection of the boards themselves, to ensure that it is beyond reasonable doubt. This seems to be covered by law 79C2.

That's not the correct ruling. There is a law that specifically covers this situation:

Yes, indeed, and if all players paused for thought at trick one they wouldn't be able to. In a lot of the club games in which I play I am almost the only player who pauses after a jump bid (STOP cards are generally flashed briefly and returned immediately to the box), and the only player who pauses routinely at trick one. I'm out of line with everyone else, yet I'm the one who's following proper procedure. Sometimes declarers and partners read something into this that they shouldn't (partners are usually trying to avoid any undue advantage) and the director is called. I then find myself (quite unfairly) having to defend myself for my normal behaviour. If I'm called to rule on a hesitation problem in the auction at another table I will be sceptical if a player claims they were just observing the STOP procedure when I know full well they normally ignore it. I'll be equally suspicious of claims that "I can think as long as I like at trick one!" if I know they often don't. Here the Rabbit is following normal expected procedure by taking a few seconds to think at trick one (even if his thinking is not very effective). To rule against him I'd need evidence that he doesn't do this consistently and that Charlie can read something into his tempo. If the TD thinks they have sufficient evidence then they should so rule. I think the solution could be to have a compulsory pause at trick one. It needn't be a fixed length, just long enough to allow the players time to think about something. No one else will know whether it's the choice of card to this trick, the whole plan of the play, or a combination of the two that they're considering. Of course there's still potential for villains to play singletons in five seconds, from a small doubleton in eight, from holdings with an honour in ten, or whatever, but opportunities for cheating in this way are available elsewhere too. We're trying to cut down the inadvertent use of unauthorized information.