duschek

Thanks. I had never interpreted that statement in that way. I thought it referred to doubt as to whether the call is alertable, not doubt as to what the call means. Well, it does, doesn't it?

Suppose now that 3♦ is not alerted, and you are summoned as a TD. The non-alerter states that it did not occur to him that partner also played transfers after a redouble. However, it is a fact that this particular situation remains undiscussed in the partnership. Would you rule MI?

Suppose the 3♦ bidder intends to show hearts, and his partner is not in doubt that it shows diamonds. As I understand your quotes, the player is not expected to alert. However, whether the call should be alerted or not, i.e., whether a non-alert could lead to MI, should depend solely on the partnership agreement, I believe. Where does this lead us to?

The bidding goes (2♠)-X-(XX)-3♦. We play transfers after a pass from RHO. However, we have not discussed the situation after a redouble from RHO. Should we 1) alert 3♦, because it would have shown hearts after a pass and we are unsure about this sequence, or 2) not alert 3♦, because we have no agreement?

I overlooked that declarer revoked at trick 10, so I agree that two tricks should be transferred, i.e., the defenders get the last four tricks (unless the TD decides that it is not within normal play to lead the other spade at trick 11, but I agree with Robin). Because the defenders have not yet made a call on the subsequent board, the revoke is still rectified. I also agree about the PP, since that should be issued whether or not declarer gains from his strange techniques.

Two tricks for the defence via Law 71. In addition, deduct some points from declarer's score for using the old expert trick of claiming without showing his cards, hoping that the defenders will not admit that they are not 100% what everybody has. This is not the way to play the game. Edit: Before the letters come pouring in, whether or not declarer is required to show his hand when claiming, in this case it could easily be a deliberate violation of Law 79A2.

I agree. Otherwise everyone should stop claiming. I would allow the claim if the clubs split. Declarer probably believes there are only the ♣8x missing and would certainly play the clubs from the top. If clubs were 3-0, I would base my ruling on declarer playing the ♣10, ♣9, ♣7, the defenders making all diamond tricks available, declarer discarding ♣6, ♠K, and if possible misguessing at trick 12.

ACBL, remember, no weighting allowed. 3♣ making, then :)

Obviously, West's pause is illegal. Making it legal would mean that you could always claim that you were thinking of psyching, or trying to remember your system, when a hesitation is likely to deter the opponents from bidding. Playing Lebensohl, South has a clear 3♣ bid opposite a balancing double, and North probably has an equally clear pass. It seems to me that the defenders must break the spades before all the clubs are gone, or South will only lose three clubs and a heart. Therefore, if we think that North would have doubled, given no BIT by West, we must adjust the score. You could go for a one-sided 3♣ making, or you could mix in some weighting for 3♣ down one and the table result. I would probably prefer something like 25% of 3♣ making and 75% of the table result.

For me it usually works well when I ask a question such as "why did you bid 1♥?" This practically forces the player to explain what went on in his head, which may help me decide whether to apply Law 25A or 25B.

Sorry, I was not making myself really clear. Let me try to rephrase. Suppose declarer changes his play, not being in accordance with Law 47. Somehow he manages to convince the defenders that he is allowed to do it as long as no opponent has played to the trick. After the play has finished, the defenders approach the TD to verify declarer's statement as to his rights. Everybody agrees on the facts, and declarer gracefully accepts any PP. Since the change of play was clearly not allowed and cannot be accepted by the defenders (unless I have forgotten some other Law), must the TD determine an adjusted score based on the original play, or can he use Law 11A to decide that the defenders have forfeited their rights to have the irregularity rectified? Or can he do either, based on judgement?

I think this is attacking the problems in the wrong order. I think we should begin by asking East about the reason for passing, then, if relevant, have a chat about UI and consider adjusting the score.

A situation like this came up in a recent Danish league game. At this level, I would expect players to call the TD rather than believe the opponents and would probably rule that the non-offending side had lost its rights. At most other levels below I would not expect anything from the players and would almost certainly adjust the score. However, this thread made me wonder whether the Law 11A ruling is legal at all. A change of call can be accepted via Law 25B, but how about a change of play?

Now suppose that when LHO says the card has been played, declarer replies that he can show his cards without being penalised (we have all heard that one before). So declarer changes his play, and the hand is completed. Would you change the ruling made by the players at the table?

There might be a problem with East's pass over 4♦, holding Kxx in a suit introduced on the three-level by his partner. Obviously, it is a big surprise for partner to bid 3♠ when he could not bid 1♠ during the first round of the auction, but at least you have to consider whether East has a logical alternative to passing.

That was the original definition issued by the WBF-LC. However, there are examples which were probably intended as legal but which were illegal by this definition, such as 1♣-(1♠)-1♥... oops Double, and 2NT-2♣ Stayman. In the meantime, the WBF-LC decided to loosen the requirements for applying Law 27B1b, which is reflected in the Beijing Meeting Minutes. Not really a concise definition, but that is what they have provided us with :ph34r:

Depending on who "we" are. There used to exist a practice that if the TD was at all in doubt, he should automatically rule in favour of the non-offending side and let a committee sort it out, the reasoning probably being that the TD could not be expected to be capable of handling judgement cases nearly as well as committees. The Danish Bridge Federation have made it clear that the TD should always try to reach the correct ruling, even if it is debatable and could be seen as being in favour of the offending side (I believe this is also current WBF/EBL practice).

Give South at least six hearts and a void in Diamonds, and North will never pass a 2♦ transfer, regardless how good diamonds and weak hearts he has B)

This is not "any" UI case. It is a UI case where the player received no UI from his partner. Do you mean that this player should avoid taking advantage of the UI anyway, which may very well give him a bad score? If so, what can he do to get the A+ he deserves from Law 16C2c, being a non-offending side?

To me, this sounds like the player can use the UI as he wants, receiving an adjusted score (A+) if he may have gained from it. Obviously, he is not expected to avoid this, risking a bad score. I think it should be even more clear than the non-existence of a logical alternative. If the judgement whether there are logical alternatives not leading to 7NT is not obvious, I will award A+. As an example, a couple of years ago a player approached me telling that he had heard something about a hand which could be the one he was currently bidding. I asked what he had heard and told him to continue bidding. It turned out that they reached the correct contract, his partner opening a strong club and using relays before placing the final contract. Here I let the score stand.

I agree. It is clear from the auction itself that West interpreted 2♦ as a natural bid, though hard-hitters usually make up a hypothesis that opener could have a doubleton heart with a good five-card suit in diamonds. This type of sequence comes up quite often among players of less than league standard. It is frustrating for the opponents that these players escape from their bidding misunderstanding in an auction where they are doubled. Question two, however, is whether the opponents can claim damage from misinformation.

Today I was involved (as a player) in a ruling in the Danish League. The ruling is irrelevant here, but a question came up... My partner had explained a call to his screen-mate without being asked. The TD said this was illegal, although he could hardly think of a case where this could damage the opponent. What do you think of unsolicited explanations behind screens?

Part of the problem is that ethical players with no firm understanding of the Laws do not realise that when the UI was not transmitted by partner, they are not required to avoid taking advantage of it (but should immediately call the TD). It is interesting whether the player can still get his 60% after the hand when he explains to the TD why he did not bid 7NT.

I did, thinking that nearly everybody plays 3♣ as the negative bid, as is the case here. I am now told that this is not the case in your area.

2♦ undoubled. Obviously, North has something. Obviously, pass is a logical alternative. As a committee member, I would vote for keeping the deposit if N/S just want to argue whether pass is a logical alternative. Down two, because it is clear that declarer got confused about the ♦K because of the double, which he would not have after a pass from South.