MinorKid

More like 5♦ 6♦ here if I am responder playing with a new player, though not surprised to see some tables go 5♦ 7♦ given that six card suit w AK and those entries with the hope that the leader dont have the ace and the suit be good.

If the double is substituted from an insufficient bid as comparable call, then auction proceed as normal. If it is not comparable call, then offender must replace it with a final sufficient bid or pass that offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. (2007 Laws)

Indeed, in some situations there does not exist a comparable bid nor a fair lowest sufficient bid, such as, 1♦ (3♠) 4♠ (5♠) 4NT The lowest sufficient bid cannot be applied here as 5NT should have another purposes in most system. Nor there is any comparable bid that has the similar purpose of 4NT bid which should be blackwood. Furthermore, the intention of this behavior is clear that offender is going to slam and checking on key cards solely rely on the convention. Finally and most importantly, a use of blackwood tells partner a lot of his hand (e.g. at least 2nd round ctrl in every suit), allowing auction to continue will gain a lot of advantage. Therefore, the almost all directors will have no option but to slience the partner. Back in this case, the intention of the 3♣ IBer was not clear, he would use it as stayman, where one alternative will provide after the advance, or he would be thinking of response to the lebonsohl 2NT, in that it had no meaning at all and any sufficient bids would all be comparable bids (see 23A2). Futhermore, the use of stayman does not nessary have either major which may also be the start of some special sequence, while the response of lebonsohl dose not tell anything. So I cant see any advantage gained in both case. So the rule that forbids partner is all too harsh to be applied here. However as a punishment, maybe designating a specific call for stayman would work. (A wrong for a wrong)

Please have a look on "LAW 27 B. Insufficient Bid not Accepted If an insufficient bid in rotation is not accepted (see A) it must be corrected by the substitution of a legal call (but see 3 following). Then: 1. (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest sufficient bid which specifies the same denomination(s) as that specified by the withdrawn call, the auction proceeds without further rectification. Laws 26B and 16C do not apply but see D following. (b) except as in (a), if the insufficient bid is corrected with a comparable call (see Law 23A) the auction proceeds without further rectification. Law 16C does not apply but see D following." 2. except as provided in B1 above, if the insufficient bid is corrected by a sufficient bid or by a pass, the offender’s partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call. The lead restrictions in Law 26B may apply, and see Law 72C. ... D. Non-offending Side Damaged If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non-offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred. Although the 4♣ may not be a comparable call for the artificial 3♣, but in any circumstances it does not bar partner from bidding.

How about x replacing the 3C as comparable call, and that partner is not allow to convert it to penalty? (Puntative Retification) How about a pass replacing the 3C and the TD tell offenders partner he has no intention to use stayman? (Neutral Retification) So that auction can continue for both parties.

Dup

I have to say that on some strange hands and unscientific auctions which depends on a large portion of luck, it is difficult to restore equity after a leak of information from a irregularity.

May north require lead from the correct leader and allow any lead (Leaving the Ace as a penalty card.) but then ask director to apply law 16C2 if something goes wrong? Does this right forfeits if north had chosen a restriction?

Maybe we can't exchange this by law, north still have to choose himself. so i suggest to resolve the damage caused by OLOOT at the end of play.

You are right.

Conclusion: South can (before anyone aware that the Lead is out of turn) - spread his hand - ask north to table his cards. South cannot - draw attention that the Lead is out of turn - call director As for the ruling it seems a little unfair to NS that the options lies on north. In my opinion it may be south who chooses the options as the bidding indicates that south has the captaincy throughout the auction. As in the case of OLOOT dummy could become declarer and declarer could be dummy so i can't see why the rights among them could not be exchanged.

Thanks, fully answered. I guess it follows that if north summon the director he will be putting limitation himself (As far as i know, after the director having explained the five choices <See law 54A-D, 50D2(a)(b)>, he cannot be helped with his decision from his partner). So in this case it w'd work for south to say "ok i take it from here, table your cards" or just to table his hand before north shout for the D. :rolleyes:

[hv=pc=n&s=shat642dakqt943cj&w=sakj96h53dj2caq83&n=sq54hkqj98d8ckt94&e=st8732h7d765c7652&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1s2hp7hppp]399|300[/hv] Suppose West has faced the ♠A out of turn, could South summon the director? Could he/she accept the lead by voluntary tabling his cards before North say so? Before he is permitted by North he insists on tabling his cards, then are there any penalties against the declaring side? JUDGMENT 001 The violaton the West committed was Opening Lead out of turn which is not a procedural offence. The charges against south was 1. 43A1 summoning the director as (presume) dummy 2. 90B take actions before the director explain all matters. He plead guilty for the second charge. 002 The law 43B1 is not explicitly state a presumed dummy rather than a dummy to have no right to summon a director. This point of favour is given to south. Therefore he is acquit to the first charge. 003 If it is a casual game, it is fine for south to do so, though I personally not prefer doing it or seeing it happen. 004 In a serious game, doing all of this are not ethical, as one can assume that attention will be drawn at once by North/East once the lead is made after such a simple auction. North is then given options, then the job of rectification is complete. 005 Furthermore the part south involving into decision by suggesting himself to spread his hand is against the law 9B & 90B and is subject to procedure penalty. 006 North shall make choice solely on his own without assistance. It is north who is responsible to make the most beneficial choice. It is south who create a risk that is bearing to his unscientific final bid. 007 Thereby this court dismissed the acceptance of the lead. Without the acceptance this court will allocate score based on damages, advantages and balance of probabilities. 008 The choice of North is also dismissed to calculate for probability, the grounds are that 1. Had the OLOOT did not occur north would not be involved into this dilemma and 2. The rejection from north will result in a trump lead which provide the same result.(See 011) 3. The auction , and the ♠A all suggest the lead of spade. 009 In normal play the presence of a Spade lead has a high chance and no claims of damages caused by the ♠A could be reasonable. 010 Had the lead been the ♣A the decision and responsibility is entirely up to north to understand the situation base on partnership experience and style. As suggested by pran claim of damages is not applicable. 011 By evidence presented by representative of South player, they concluded that in a normal case East will lead partner's suit 90% of the time. He will lead a trump against a grand slam 75% of the time. However, he is aware that against this kind of contract based on such kind of auction it may require a special lead but it is unsafe to conduct. He is also aware that a special lead can also be asked for by West's "Lighter's Slam Double", which ask for suits other than partners or trumps. 012 West did not signal East of a special lead. A Spade Lead will (90%) be a normal outcome. He may lead a trump for another 10% of the time. Based on this the fines on the scores based on probabilities is dismissed. Disposition 013 For the reasons above I restate as a warning that a presumed dummy is also a dummy and is subject to compliance of law 43. I sentenced N/S a 1/4 board penalty for the second offence. However the table result is symbolically penalized (1%) unfavourable for the possibility of advantage gained by such act. 014 The whole case can be appealed. Thank for all counsels effort and contribution. CASE CLOSED

Recently spoken by my friend that Hong Kong housing condition are so poor that one cannot literally do anything feasible given such cramped space. He rent in a cramped divided flat that is already small for people of 10. The whole room is fully occupied by his bed. What really meant he cannot do anything is that he cant stretch his arms without hitting the walls nor to make a little noise without causing nuisance to neighbors. That is because he cant afford millions of dollars for a flat in private building nor ten years quitting a high salary job for government housing. He bet on two million dollars to purchase a private flat on a rubber bridge game in a ladies night club. Once we play in the ladies night club against a pair of advanced Psychology graduates and i faced a situation as below (V vs NV & We have had a small minor suit slam ahead of Them). There were no screens. [hv=pc=n&s=shakjt42dat532caq&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p1d(10+HCP%204%2Bdiamonds%20unless%204432)7s(Paused%201%20Min)]133|200[/hv] Partner opens 1♦ that normally promises 11+HCP 4+d unless 4432, RHO then paused for about a minutes and then she wind up with 7♠ ! Wow ! I do feel what he meant "one cannot literally do anything feasible given such cramped space" is about! Honestly speaking i was about to announce that i am going to bid 8♦! Just as the people in divided flats used to saying "I am going to live in the street!" Before I was about to say something stupid, I ask LHO whether we agreed that she come up with the 7♠ after some time and she said "Well, don't you have to think in bridge huh? Don't you think Girls think differently than simple minded boys?" I was really upset that the damage can be taken to such extend, like giving up a majority of area of your bed to someone else in that divided flat. :( I then asked LHO on what RHO 7♠ would mean and "Natural and Standard" was the reply. I felt i have to do something, what is that?

----2♣ 2♦ 4♦ 4N 7♦ 4N : RKCB

I don't like 4♦ trump cue as we have kcb and we indeed need 4♦ to be a hand-over button for more accurate cue bids.

4NT RKC Blackwood (D) :P (Junior Level)

The overcall is too heavy, can't explore slam for me.

With the false fit jump ,the opponent would have to plunge based on false info. On the other hand, I do not object south going 7♥ via a blackwood bid. He need to know if there is 7NT available. I dont think north will plunge 7NT over 7♠ himself not even on our own 7♥.

Hand 1: South may deceive opponent with ♣ fit jump or ♦ splinter, where both are the reverse description of the actual hand.

IMO 5NT work better as an overcall than as an opening, namely the Condensed Unusual No Trump

11 HCP + 2 DP (5-4-3-1 [(5+4)/3 - 1]) + 3 TP (8-card fit[(8-7)*3]) + 12 from partner give a sum of 28. Given partner 4 card trump for +6 TP (9-card fit[(9-7)*3]) could only value to 31. Through the two aces , King-Ten support, and singleton may increase control value of your hand (+2+2+1+1)*3 - 11 =7 >0 which bring the evaluation value closer to 33 but bidding slam is 50-50 for me. On the downside pard's hand may have the shape exactly to this. I bid 5♦.

It would be a specified or semi-specified two suiter capable at least 50% chance of small slam. On the other hand, all example below may show two suiter ranging from 50% small slam to a likely grand slam. Responder should bid the grand if he thinks he has all the right cards. For example, 1X - any - 6Y (50% small slam, e.g. missing one ace and one king of different suit) 1X - any - 3Y - any - 6Y (75% small slam, 25% grand slam on its own, e.g. both suit missing kings) 1X - any - 3Y - any - 4Y* - any - 6Y * Y must be a minor (75% small slam, 25% grand slam on its own, both suits missing some quarks) 2♣ - 2♦ - 3X - any - 6Y (small slam is certain, 50% grand slam on its own, e.g. missing one keycard) 2♣ - 2♦ - 3X - any - 4Y* - any - 6Y * Y must be a minor (small slam is certain, >50% grand slam on its own, one suit missing some quarks) In addition to play strong two , ACOL: 2X - any - 6Y 2X - any - 3Y - any - 6Y 2X - any - 3Y - any - 4Y* - any - 6Y * Y must be a minor (may provide specified details) Note that opener skipping Blackwood, Exclusion Blackwood and Control cue bids that would mean the hole should be the long suits themselves. Through the some gambling may be involved by the opener style.

Kaitlyn, IMO 5NT works as well in an overcall, probably better than as an opening.

In case you are wondering, My system often happen to have to play in 6 of the problem suit, which means that opponent may lead our second suit, then take a ruff after we lost a trump A (or K). Quite often we get a bottom score. So I can see Vampyr's point. Of course on the 7 level this problem dose not exist. On the other hand, there are several ways to show any of such kind of two suiter X, Y. X has a higher rank than Y 1X - any - 6Y 1X - any - 3Y - any - 6Y 1X - any - 3Y - any - 4Y* - any - 6Y * Y must be a minor 2♣ - 2♦ - 3X - any - 6Y 2♣ - 2♦ - 3X - any - 4Y* - any - 6Y * Y must be a minor In addition to play strong two , ACOL: 2X - any - 6Y 2X - any - 3Y - any - 6Y 2X - any - 3Y - any - 4Y* - any 6Y * Y must be a minor which make me wonder why we need a system so specified to one and only one missing keycard. :unsure: