AndreSteff

[hv=pc=n&s=s7hkqj76dt52cq983&w=sqt9542hdq3cakt74&n=s6hat8543da9864c6&e=sakj83h92dkj7cj52&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1s3c4s5cd5hppp]399|300[/hv] 3♣was not alerted, North meant it to be Ghestem, but the Systems card mentions only weak jump overcalls. North did not correct the lack of an alert before the play began. 5♥went two down. EW think they are damaged because they can make 12 tricks in spades and ten in clubs. North justifies his 5♥bid with the the "common knowledge" that you may run from a Ghestem misunderstaning with a singleton. NS play for the seventh consecutive time with each other, and played together irregularly before that. West justifies his final pass with the fact that after 5♥everybody knew what was wrong and that he was afraid to damage his rights to obtain a score for 5♣doubled if he bid again. How do you rule (it is teams scoring by the way B)) ?

I recommend a pre-alert for this trio of NT openings, but do not alert the 15-17 range during the auction to avoid the confusion that arose in my OP. 13-16 certainly is alertable as it can be weaker than 14HCP's. Best of luck in Alkmaar, usually some pretty strong players contend!

Sorry for the misunderstanding. EW play a non alertable 15-17 NT, except in 1st and 2nd seat non vulnerable, then they play the alertable 9-13 variant. In Holland an alert on a 1NT opening will 95% of the times be due to the weak variant (anything between 9-14 HCP). While I agree that South should have asked, I cannot hold it against him that he forgot that the "weak" NT was reserved for 1st and 2nd seat only, when West obviously did so too!

Any 1NT opening that can contain less than 14 points must be alerted. There are no fixed rules for pre-alerts at this moment, but warning about the different strengths according to vulnerability and position is certainly recommended as nearly everybod plays a fixed 15-17 or 14-16 NT.

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt2h862dak732ct&w=sq64h53dj6cqj9865&n=sk753hkjt9dt8c742&e=s98haq74dq954cak3&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=pp1ndrp2c2d3cp3nppp&p=d3d6dtdqd4dkdjd8dah3c2d5d2s4s3]399|300[/hv] Teams. 1NT: alerted dbl: opening values rdbl: alerted: asks partner to bid 2♣. Before the match starts EW duly alert that they play a 9-13 1NT in first and second seat while non-vulnerable. However, on the twelfth board West alerts the third hand 1NT opening. South assumes a weak NT and does not ask. NS play a different defence against strong NT than against a weak NT: Against a strong NT they play DONT. The double now merely shows values. Before the play starts East explains that his NT was strong and that his partner should not have alerted. No one calls for the TD at that time. The play: 4th highest diamond for the Ten and Queen. East returns a diamond, after which South clears the diamonds by playing Ace, King and a small one. On the ♦K North plays the ♣2, a possible signal for hearts (they play that an odd discard is a strong positive signal, an even card is a weak Lavinthal preference). After South fails to continue spades 3NT is made. After the play the TD is summoned. NS state that they might have found their spade fit with the correct explanation (a direct 2♦ over a strong 1NT shows 54 diamonds and a major) after which it is unlikely that EW will play 3NT and if they do, that NS will have a better chance of beating 3NT. The TD asks after EW's methods: West would have passed the first time after a 2♦ internvention because bidding on the three level would show a stronger hand. She might have bid 3♣ after a projected auction of 1NT-2♦-pass-2♥-pass-2♠-??? How should the TD rule? If you want to know; the result on the other table was 3♣=

Of course! I surrender B)

Perhaps unwise from me to go against the opinion of the heavyweights, but I too cannot understand the statement "Clubs are good" as anything else as : "I will play the King next, dropping the Queen". As this happens to be so, declarer would escape with thirteen tricks on my watch. Please expose the fallacy in this reasoning. I tried to understand ivieoff's reasoning that on seeing RHO follow suit on the second round of clubs declarer would realise that the suit would not be divided 1-2, but I failed.

In this case it is better to have the the TD apply Law 31,then to having the 'Law 25' TD telling partner that he may not use the information that opener has a hand, that is in retrospect too weak to qualify as a one level opening (and thus that he may not pass, given his earlier 2♣ call) But that is beside the point: Foregoing Law 25 because it enables cheating is, for me, not a good reason to pick a different Law. It may well be, that the WBFLC follows your advice and changes this, but at the moment it is not obvious that we should do so.

I will try to go with your example. First: it is a lot more unlikely that opener will correct his mistaken opening bid of 1♠ to 2♠ once partner has made a response other than pass. A bid of 2♠ meant as correction of a mistaken 1♠ will make partner's 2♣ response insuffcient, whereas a correction to 1♥ does not. Then you pose that a player with malintent could try to convince the TD that his actual 2♠ rebid out of turn was an attempt at correction of a mistaken 1♠ opening, in order te prevent the rectifications of Law 31. I would say to that, that I do not think we should presume malintent, but that we should believe a player's statement. In the case given it would be very easy to check the truthfulness of the player's statement, indeed by looking at his cards. But that can just as well be done after the play has finished. As a 2♠ rebid will almost always describe a different hand than an original 2♠ opening, it will be easy to unmask the deliberate deception of the TD and then we will act accordingly... :angry:

Please clarify why because Law 25A2 specifies that no change is allowed, Laws 27 etc. do apply? Why couldn't I uphold that the attempt at correction is not allowed, Full Stop? After which Law 16 applies (as it would after applying Laws 27 etc). Opener has not made a second call, he has corrected his first one. I see no difference between what he has done now and an outcry of: "OMG, I made a terrible mistake, I should have opened hearts."

It is very likely that I would not adjust: It depends on the type of player North is: does he always ask after the meaning of announced/alerted calls? EW started this problem, so NS deserve the benefit of the doubt So investigation: Yes, adjustment: Not very likely

Exactly about this interpretation I have a difference of opinion with a renowned TD. Other responders do not seem to support handling this through Law 27, but Only through the Laws 25 and 16D. Or am I mistaken?

The Auction: 1♠ pass 2♣ Opener now sees to his horror that while he meant to open 1♥ he has bid 1 ♠ and removes the spade leaflet from his pile of bidding cards. How do we deal with this? If we disallow the change does a Lead rectification apply?

Of course! But it is very likely that all EW declarers will have had knowlegde of a long heart suit in North. To me it would feel awkward to assign a percentage of ten tricks in spades and then to find that no one in the field has managed to collect that many, unless the auction on this table would be likely to be so different from the other ones to explain that.

I do not understand this objection for this particular hand: I find it quite difficult to judge the outcome of a spade contract. Making ten tricks is playing double dummy possible, but so is keeping the contract to nine tricks for the defenders. Finding that the frequency table does not show ten tricks in spades would convince me not to weight this possibility in the case I would adjust.

would be the single word "illegal". I do not think the ruling to be necessarily illegal, it contains a miscalculation. The following reasoning, to which many will not agree, would surely be legal?: Without the misinformation EW could have reached a spade contract 50% of the time. (Law 12C1c) With the misinformation the normal result would have been 3♦+1 The difference in MPs between these two scores is the damage for which EW are entitled to redress. EW contribute subsequently to their own damage by bidding 3NT, a serious error. (Law 12C1b) EW now get the score in MPs for 3NT-2 augmented with the difference in MPs between 3♦+1 and 50% of the MP scores of 3♦+1 and 50% of the MP score of 9 tricks in spades.

The play: Small heart for the King and ruff. Ace of spades, small spade for the King. Small heart for the ten and ruff. King of clubs for the ace. Small heart for the ace and ruff. Diamond to the king. Queen of spades. Diamond to the ace. Two more high clubs. Down one while a diamond finesse would have brought the trick count to ten.

Thanks for your ruling David. My bad, I tried to express that South asked West what 2♠ meant. There were no screens and we are talking about the higher level ordinary club players here. NS scored 47% on the hand and your adjustment leads to a score of 58%. The actual contracts played were: 4♠+1 3x 4♠= 3x 3♠= 2♠+1 5♠-1 4♠-1 2x 2NT-2 NS 4♠-2 2x 4♠-3 3♥+2 2x 4♥=2x This list reflects the score of all tables, from the beginners to the higher level players and most of the time the auction will not have included a two suited overcall.

As North thinks that East holds five diamonds he can play west for the ten or queen singleton. Playing him for the singleton ten is better of course, but is playing him for the singleton queen so bad as to deny North redress?

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sa9762hdaj9ckqj73&w=sjt3hakt2dqt765c6&e=sk8hq8763d4cat542&s=sq54hj954dk832c98]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] The auction: 1♠ 2♠* pass 3♥ 4♣ pass 4♠ all pass 2♠was Ghestem for the clubs and hearts, but was misexplained by West to South as Hearts and Diamonds. Misinformation is established. North went one down (EW fail to find their club ruff and declarer postpones drawing the last trump until the clubs are established) because he judges that the Queen of diamond cannot be onside and plays for the drop. After the play North states that: he would never had bid 4 ♣ had he known East held them. he would have made 4♠ had he known that East held 5 clubs rather than 5 diamonds Some polling of other players confirms that quite a few would have bid a second time with the explanation given, but that none of them bids a second time with the correct explanation. So, what adjusted score to give?