duschek

[hv=d=e&v=b&n=skq964h7dkqj3caq4&w=st8752hakj964d8c6&e=sa3hqtdat975c9853&s=sjh8532d642ckjt72]399|300|Scoring: IMP W N E S -.-.P.P 1H.X.2D.P 4H.X.P.5C P.P.X.P P.P[/hv] The bidding requires a bit of explanation: 1♥ promises at least 5 cards. North's double shows an overcall in spades, with no upper limit on the strength. East correctly explained 2♦ as natural. However, West did not see South's alert of the double, and she explained it as a sound heart raise. Norths second double shows cards, takeout-oriented. Obviously, South is to blame for West not noticing the alert of the transfer double. However, it turned out that West's explanation would be wrong even if the double were an ordinary takeout double! The correct explanation after a takeout double would have been a goodish hand with a 5-card suit (i.e., more or less the same as in the actual case). How would you rule? a. given the facts as stated. b. if West did notice the alert.

No luck. Jens did not recall exactly what was discussed. However, he felt fairly sure that we never had a regulation which stated how removing the bidding cards should be interpreted.

... to which I replied, even before the above was written: ... or, as David would probably put it: Whether we think a law is unfair or not is outside the scope of this forum; it is a matter to be discussed with the WBF-LC :)

If cancelling the board from the inadmissible double, the TD will have to consider the auction so far and decide on an adjusted score. For example, the legal auction might have made a favourable result for one of the sides very likely, and in that case I think you cannot just reward that side with an A or A-. If the likely outcome cannot be established, you might resort to A-/A via Law 12C1d (it seems to me that the side not making the inadmissible double gets an average, but I am not sure at all about this).

OK. Jens is directing tomorrow at the Danish League matches anyway, so I might discuss the matter with him. However, first I must complete a match, followed by TWO appeals cases that my team is involved in. I might present the cases here when the smoke has cleared, so that our readers here can get some practice :angry:

Of course there is no Law [though I understand Denmark has a relevant regulation]. I think we have no regulation which, perhaps conditionally, translates the premature removal of bidding cards to a pass. Did I cause confusion through a previous post of mine, or is your understanding based on something else, e.g., correspondence with members of the Danish LC?

It is not how I would normally calculate the self-inflicted part of the damage. But your way of thinking is certainly reasonable, and I see that maybe I should change my view. It seems to me that the wording of Law 12C1b cannot stand on its own. A method of calculating the adjusted score should be published so as to avoid disagreements. Whether this is an issue for the WBF-LC or the RA I cannot tell.

Agree with Robin. Among logical alternatives, only 4♥ is legal so we must adjust the score based on a 4♥ bid by North. I think it is reasonable to adjust to simply 4♥ doubled with whatever number of tricks it would likely get (which could then result in a weighted score).

If the TD would have adjusted to 4♥ had it gone down in a more normal fashion, and in his opinion going down is a serious error, he must adjust the score to 4♥ making for E/W, then use Law 12C1b to let the score stand for N/S. However, whether the TD likes the "serious error" part of Law 12C1b or not, he cannot just ignore it in a secret wish that it weren't there.

If a player removes the bidding cards in the passout seat, it generally is a different way of saying "I pass". That I would count as passing, as if the player had actually placed a green bidding card on the table. However, in this case the players did not intend to pass or in any way imply that they have passed. I would not even apply Law 25A, as the players have not called. They have removed the bidding cards in the belief that the auction is over. Consider the following analogous case: South dealer, bidding goes 1NT-pass-2D-pass (2D=transfer). Now West removes his bidding cards and leads a card against the 1NT contract which he believes is being played. Would you rule that West has passed out of turn?

That wouldn't cover a 1♠ response to a Precision 1♦. OK, so I will have to generalise. I would recommend changing the wording of the regulation to whatever reflects the desired meaning :)

In that case, I would recommend changing the wording of the regulation to "a natural opening bid of one of a suit" or the like. Clubs are definitely a suit, so 1♣ is an opening of one of a suit, Precision or not. It is necessary to follow this path when making a ruling, regardless what was intended by the regulation-makers. As was stated in a recent thread here, we cannot know whether the entire board of regulation-makers thought they agreed to a meaning other than the meaning actually implied by the wording, so should assume that they meant what they wrote.

Actually, Law 20F does not require 100% that explanations be given by the partner: The opponents are entitled to a correct and accurate account of the agreements. They will most likely get it if given by the partner of the caller. If one player on the declaring side has given an incorrect explanation, his partner must correct it as soon as possible. The opponents are not entitled to indications that a player has forgotten an agreement, though they will get such an indication if the error occurs during the auction. Therefore, no damage can occur if a correct explanation is given by declarer or dummy, whoever is able to give it.

I find it obvious that alertability depends on the meaning of the previous auction. Consider the following auction: 2♣-(pass)-2♥. In Precision, 2♥ is probably either non-forcing or forcing for one round. In standard bidding, 2♣ being a strong artificial bid, 2♥ is probably game-forcing. Should 2♥ be alerted if it is not forcing to game, or if it is forcing to game? (in case you say "neither", we can probably find a different example with the same point).

The Danish alert regulations are basically a translation of the WBF alerting policy.

These aspects cannot necessarily be separated. You might: 1. Tell what you know about partner's hand, or 2. Tell what each of his individual calls showed and which negative inferences are available from him not choosing alternative calls at each turn. Technically, the two are equivalent. In practice, option two often provides information which is more complete and precise, but also more complex.

I don't think I have ever seen anybody alert it in Denmark, and I would not expect it either. My partner and I have switched the meanings of responses to 1♣ completely, so we don't have the problem :)

It is certainly not uncommon for an author of a bridge book to write, say, "declarer runs the clubs" when declarer holds the AKQJ864. These authors and all their readers have probably never realised that there are people out there wondering why on earth you should allow the opponents to make a trick with the doubleton ten when you could just play the ace, king, queen instead of running the suit, starting with the four :(

I believe that there are several uses of "non-offending" where that term should be read in the context of a specific infraction. So in this case, it means that no side should be able to gain from a revoke, and the score is adjusted otherwise. I certainly do not believe that it means that by committing an infraction, you lose protection against subsequent infractions from the opponents.

Agree with the majority here - I judge West's 4♥ bid to be independent of the explanations, so score stands.

Whenever the player believes that 4♣ is the cheapest available cuebid. That is part one of our analysis - which hands would make the insufficient bid? Part two: Which hands would make the substitute call, absent the insufficient bid? In this case, exactly those would make the insufficient 4♣ bid, excluding those with no heart control. I agree. In this case, there is no lower ranking bid, but assuming our heroes believe that 4♦ denies a club control (which may or may not be the case), 4♥ promises a club control as well. Seems I have some third thoughts, then :blink:

Hands with a club control, with or without a heart control, bid 4♣. Hands with a club control and a heart control bid 4♥. Hence, any hand that would make the replacement call would also make the insufficient bid. In other words, the replacement call has a more precise meaning than the insufficient bid.

If 4♦ is a cuebid, denying a club control, and 4♣ was an attempt to simply show a club control, then 4♥ seems to have a more precise meaning than the insufficient 4♣, in that it shows a club control and a heart control (or even, if it is the last train, simply a club control, which will not be a problem either).

The word "when" could be read so as to indicate that the cards should be turned as quickly as possible after the trick has been completed. However: This Law clearly states that it is correct procedure not to turn your own card before you are finished inspecting the other cards. The other cards being still visible can improve your thinking process, and the Law does not in any way discourage this practice.

Just in case you need another vote: Count me in on the "West was damaged by his silly double - no adjustment" side.