karen4

Yes, I agree

Yes it was raised, and is a good game only going off on a ruff and was flat (2♦ wasn't opened in the other room). I'm not suggesting there was any 'understanding' between them or any deliberate attempt to convey or use unauthorised information. However, IF this situation gives rise to unauthorised information, I don't feel it's clear that 3♥ should be allowed. As a general comment, not at all related to this match or this pair, I do feel that if there is no unauthorised information in this situation then the announcement system is open to abuse. I have occasionally come across people whose hearing seems to get worse as their hand gets better :(

Yes, I did notice this, but you were talking about me and my partner in a public forum so I think I'm justified in asking you to explain your comments. It was not a cantankerous match at any point, the atmosphere was good and I don't know why you assume otherwise. Reservation of rights and asking for a ruling does not usually create an atmosphere and didn't in this instance. No-one phoned anyone asking them to "take sides" as you put it, though it's not the phrase I feel is appropriate in relation to asking for a ruling, and if a director had been called I have no doubt it would have been in the same spirit as the rest of the match, which was friendly. In fact, I offered to post this on behalf of all 4 of us as we were all curious as to whether it was generally felt this situation may convey unauthorised information.

Yes, I am aware of this. Are you suggesting that I should have shouted loud enough to be heard above her chatter? (Not a loaded question, just clarifying your comment). What have North / South done to be referred to as 'problem players'? Not asking West to be quiet earlier, which could have led to a bad atmosphere and an accusation of more experienced players trying to intimidate someone who was nervous? Not shouting the announcement loudly enough? Or are you suggesting in private matches we should ignore potential unauthorised information issues?

That is correct. We did not call the TD. It was a privately played match and there was not TD available, so we agreed the facts and reserved our rights. The contract went 1 off on a ruff, so there was no damage. I just wanted to see peoples' views on whether this situation, where someone doesn't hear the announcement of an announcable bid or the partner forgets to announce, can convey unauthorised information. My view is that it most definitely can, but not everone agrees. If I am in this situation where I don't hear an announcement or someone forgets to make one, I don't feel an urgency to ask. I wait until the end of the auction and can't see any reason for not doing so.

It was not asked in such a way that it showed interest particularly. He said later that the sole purpose of asking was to try to stop his partner from talking, which was consistent with the way he asked. His exact words were 'it was intended as a polite way of saying 'shup up partner''. However, he did turn up with a flat 14 points with 3 low diamonds, and from previous admittedly not extensive experience of playing against his partner I would not usually expect her to bid with the hand she had.

Playing a county level league match in the UK with IMP scoring converted to VPs. Starting with South (me) the bidding went Pass Pass, 2♦ opening by North. I was trying to announce this as weak but West was chattering away (as she had been for most of the match. Yes, I know we should have asked her to stop earlier, but we hadn't and we were where we were). Eventually East asked what it was in a voice loud enough to make her be quiet and I told him it was weak. I bid 3♦ and West now bid 3♥ with Kxxx/A9xxx/x/Kxx. We had no hand records so I don't have the pip cards. I have some questions related to this situation: 1. Given the 2♦ should be announced, does the question convey any unauthorised information? 2. If the answer to this is generally "No", had West's bid had been completely off the graph, would there be internal evidence that it conveyed unauthorised information. 3. How normal do you think the 3♥ bid is (for a player of her standard, which is weak) 4. Would you adjust?

E has QT85/J982/KT64/A. EW vulnerable, NS not, matchpoint pairs. West is dealer and opens 1S. E bids 3S, X by South. West hesitates (hesitation agreed) then passes. 4H by North and E bids 4S. East is the strongest player at the table, West is the weakest. NS are aggressive bidders (you may or may not consider that relevant) When East was asked why he bid 4S he said: 1. He was between 3 and 4 in the first place 2. He now knows his partner has at most 1 heart Do you allow the 4S bid?

EBU land

Sorry, original post edited. I meant 3♦ of course

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=sqjt64hj98dt7ck64&w=s52ha753dk6cqt987&e=sa973hq642d4caj32&s=sk8hktdaqj98532c5]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] South opens 1NT third in hand. Their agreement is 12-14, semi balanced, may contain a singleton honour. North bids 2♥ transfer South bids 3♦ which shows diamonds (no minimum number asked or specified) and a singleton spade and is non-forcing. The convention card backs up that this is their agreement. This is passed out West leads a spade and declarer makes 9 tricks. West is aggrieved as he thinks the club lead that he would have made if not informed that South had a singleton spade would have worked better. Any views

They didn't. This discussion took place out of academic interest in the pub afterwards.

I'm afraid I can't remember the exact hand, this was just a discussion in the pub after, but but South was very strong, North did not have another action opposite a non-forcing pass. There was only 1 error.

South probably would have questioned it if he had considered it a questionable sequence. However, an unalerted 1NT overcall by a hand he did not realise had passed would not look strange.

I assume this is not a response to the original problem. In the original problem South thought the situation was that West overcalled 1NT as a non-passed hand. I personally would never consider asking whether an unalerted 1NT overall by I hand that hadnt originally passed was natural (though I hope I would notice that he had passed originally :blink: )

North assumed the 1NT overcall was not natural as he realised West was a passed hand. South assumed it was natural as it was not alerted and he didn't notice West was a passed hand. I can't remember the actual hand but South had a 5-5-2-1 5-loser hand and N/S had the agreement that pass was forcing if the 1NT was natural, and that a forcing pass then pulling the double showed a good hand with shape, whereas an immediate bid over 2C showed a weak hand with shape. It was actually on their card so whether you think it is a sensible was of playing, I'm sure that it is actually what they do. The comment about protecting themselves by asking is a little unfair in my view. If I open 1 of suit and get an unalerted 1NT overcall by a non-passed hand, which is the situation South thought he was in, I would never ask. I would assume strong and balanced and I have yet to be damaged by not asking. I think the only question is whether South's carelessness in not noticing West was a passed hand is sufficient to mean he does not get redress for the failure to alert.

They must miss a lot of slams if LHO passes with that huge hand. Even if RHO may have a weak hand, surely he will sometimes have a decent hand. Why didn't LHO make a move....

I was given this problem after a club game. The auction was, starting with West: P-P-P-1S 1NT(1)-X-2C-P(2) P-P (1) Meant as and taken as the minors, but not alerted (2) Would be forcing if the 1NT had been strong and balanced South did not register that West was a passed hand and therefore without an alert took the 1NT to be natural. If this had been the case his subsequent pass would have been forcing. N/S can make 4♥ which is trivial to bid. How do you rule? On the one hand he should know that West is a passed hand and so have the inference that 1NT is not natural. On the other hand, he is entitled to an alert, and the alert would have woken him up.

It was in England as everyone seems to have worked out. Sorry for the omission. I suppose when we asked 'takeout double?' we would have expected more of an answer than 'yes'. I can't imagine ever having asked this question and received this answer, then picking up the convention card and looking for it on there to see if there were additional information.

In the national pairs regional final we had the following auction 3H - X - XX - 4D P - P - 4H Passed out The X was not alerted and when asked was just described as takeout The hand turned out to be: Qxx AJxx Txx Jxx When questioned about their methods the pair maintained that double was takeout, and both felt that this hand was a normal takeout double at the 3 level for them. There was no damage on the hand (a) we would probably ended up in the same spot as we would have if we had known that the doubler could have 4 hearts and an 8 count and (b) there was no damage in the play and © it did not seem to be fielded We spoke to a director whether they should be alerting these double and disclosing that it may be an 8 count with 4 trumps. We were told no as it is up to them what they consider a takeout double & just because we don't agree this qualifies doesn't make it alertable. He said he would ask they to put something on their card, but this seems pointless to me. Most people would just ask if the double were takeout and be told it is. Views?

Sorry, I should have said this is EBU-land. The 1D can be passed if opener is weak with diamonds.

Playing at a club I don't play at often, against a pair I had never met, we had the following uncontested auction against us 1C-1D 3D- all pass 1C was any unbalanced 11-19 1D was any hand up to 6 points (ie, we don't have game on partner) [hv=d=w&v=n&w=s83hk6dak874ck875&e=skt754ht9873d32c3]266|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] We actually got an average board. However, it raised the following questions for me: 1. Is this system illegal? 2. It looks very much to me (without accusing anyone of anything and without having any other experience of how their auctions tend to progress after this) that the 1D bid is an invitation to partner to make whatever psyche he feels like. Incidentally, it was really hard work getting an explanation for the 1D bid.

I've been requested to post this hand from the YC last Monday. [hv=d=w&v=n&n=sajt9htdt9763cakj&w=sk7642hj5432dq54c&e=sq85hk8dakj8c9654&s=s3haq976d2cqt8732]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] P 1♦ P 1♥ 1♠ P 2♦(1) 3♣(2) P P(3) 3♠ 5♣ all pass [1] UCB [2] Later said to be forcing by South [3] Slow, admitted reluctantly Any thoughts

I think that the problem is finding a rule that prevents this. Whatever rule you come up with is going to be arbitrary to some extent and is going to prevent some freak hands opening 2♣ that some people feel should be allowed and / or allow some that people feel should not. I think the laws and ethics committee have done a pretty decent job with the current regulations and having a rule that are not perfect is preferable to not having a rule at all and allowing the 2♣ or 2♦ strong artificial openings to be abused.

That's actually a pretty good guess :( He had [hv=s=shakqj3dt9632ca97]133|100|[/hv] Not a game invite in my view, though as it lies 4♥ is actually cold