PeterAlan

Coming late to this, but I would bid on by whatever relevant methods we happened to be playing, at MPs as well as IMPs. But I think Pass is a LA, as evidenced by what happened at our table, where our opponents did just that after what was, I think, an identical sequence. +660. Mind you, they may have thought they were just consolidating the round, because we'd just converted what should have been an outright bottom for them on the previous board into an outright top by misplaying it. N had doubled 4H, which wasn't made, but his opening HA lead crashed his partner's K (giving an opportunity for +1), and it was clear to them that the contract was always there on a better line, so he may have been feeling a bit more cautious on this next hand. Just speculation on my part, and obviously not a factor in a judgment ruling on this hand, but nevertheless what can happen in real life.

I'm not sure if you're replying to my earlier post, but if so the difference would be that the case of "other than the suit doubled" describes a state of affairs that could exist, but happens in this instance not to, as opposed to one which as posited by you could never exist.

Alternatively, and arguably more in accordance with everyday linguistic understanding, the phrase "other than the suit doubled" means that regulation © only applies in the case where a suit has been doubled and has no application otherwise. I note that, on your interpretation, any lead-directing double of such a NT contract would be alertable, whatever suit lead it was calling for.

My first post was hasty - I didn't give sufficient weight to the "any distribution" aspect, and I certainly agree that as we play the game now E/W's explanation should have made this clear. I still don't have much sympathy for N's play, though! I've looked a bit more carefully at the hand, and W can always make 6♠ even if N plays low when W leads to ♠A at trick 2, by eliminating N's holdings in the side suits and then endplaying him in ♠. It's quite possible to find this line after ♠Q falls under the A, and provides further justification for VixTD's weighting.

Frances, thank you for the trouble you've taken with your long and considered replies above. Forgive me for continuing the debate just a little bit further. I suppose it depends on your perspective. Mine (for the purposes of this thread) would be that I have little sympathy for N: he made unwarranted assumptions about what W's hand contained because the collective mindset of bridge encouraged him to do so. Life doesn't offer guarantees, and the game shouldn't either. I'm all for full disclosure, appropriately interpreted. I'm worried when it leads to an ill-defined collective orthodoxy, the boundaries of which are unclear, and departures from which are punished. I'm relatively new to the tournament game - maybe my view would be different with much more experience. But that might just be a sign of coming to love Big Brother. There will always be a place for judgment rulings in the game, but I worry that we've got to a point where the basis on which they're made in the tournament game has become too based on extensive experience of that arena. We're in danger of that becoming more-and-more like the Glass Bead Game of Hermann Hesse's novel, for experienced and specialised afficionados only. Perhaps it's time to apply Occam's Razor to these rulings, to avoid multiplying unnecessarily the criteria considered, and to change our approach to one where we strive to adopt as simple a basis of decision-making as possible. Here, we are concerned essentially with what is "unexpected". As you say, The problem with this general test is that it feeds on itself: as the criteria considered in a judgment case become more-and-more detailed, the more there is for players to be surprised by. Also, the narrower their viewpoint and the more closed-minded they are, the more there is to be surprised by. I realise I'm quoting you selectively, but when we have judgment rulings based on things like: coupled with perhaps we're not seeing the wood for the trees. The trap, which I suggest we're falling into, is that what's "expected" becomes a collective Groupthink (which slowly evolves over time), the current boundaries of which are determined in rulings from time to time by the High Priests and Priestesses consulting the entrails (as above), while the newly-initiated can only look on in wonderment, and hope that in the fullness of time they'll properly appreciate what's going on. It doesn't matter much what the criteria are, so long as they're simple. In this case I've suggested, as has iviehoff, that a NT rebid that suggests playing there should not be regarded as "unexpected"; if this requires opponents to adjust their thinking about what distributions this might embrace, then so be it. Who knows, it might even open their eyes to some possibilities in the game that at present pass them by, and lead to better, or at least more varied, play as a result. However, if instead you'd stuck with I'd probably be right with you. I think, however, that the first meta-test (until a denomination has been agreed, if a bid doesn't suggests a possible place to play then it has an "unexpected" meaning) has such wide applicability that it should be more fully embraced. And that would be my answer to your

I'm sorry if I was being unduly provocative, and if it was inappropriate in a thread about a particular hand I apologise. But at least it's produced a healthy discussion about what is regarded as "unexpected", and I found the responses very interesting. My personal view is that it's important to take a straightforward and practical approach to what players can expect a ruling to be based on, and I'm not sure that the subtle gradations of differences between, for example, what Frances would expect to be alerted and what she would expect to be offered in explanation but not initially alerted, aren't just a bit too nuanced: look at all the discussion about possible singletons above. What I'm hinting at is that, in the interests of greater simplicty and clarity, we could cut through these nuances of what might or might not be regarded as "unexpected", and the differences that different TDs might adopt in approaching that question. For a NT rebid - and I would distinguish between a rebid and an overcall on the one hand and an opening bid on the other, though in places Frances lumps them all together - I suggest that the primary test should be "Is it suggesting a place to play?". If it is, fine, and opponents should be prepared to play against any distribution reasonably consonant with that. If not, then it is "unexpected". It seems that this is essentially the same position as iviehoff's.

So for you the boundary might, or might not, lie somewhere between a singleton and a doubleton, depending on your parameters (which we haven't begun to explore) for deciding what's "unexpected", but a void's definitely out. We're not getting very clear answers, are we? E/W think another TD's told them otherwise. See what I mean about arbitrary boundaries? And if you're DIC I'd better alert every 1NT rebid my partner makes after a 1-over-1 sequence just in case she's 4-4-4-1, singleton in my suit. And people who play a 1 or 2 NT rebid as always balanced had better make that clear, in case someone might think they might have a singleton and allow for the possibility. This leads to a mass of extra alerts, questions and explanations, not to protect the N in this case (you're probably ruling against him anyway), but so you can still score E/W -1. I think a more robust view about misinformation is warranted - provided 2NT shows a willingness to play in NT, I don't think you should be ruling misinformation just because it's not one of the 3 balanced shapes.

An interesting sideline on the play is that, if W has a ♥ loser, then either (and most likely) he can't get it away on a ♦ or ♣ in dummy, or, if he can, N won't get in before he does. In the first scenario, N's ♠10 guarantees the trump trick, but loses the second trump trick that applies in either scenario if partner has the ♠Q as seems likely from the auction, whether the 5♥ bid is actually explained or not. Of course, if W has just a singleton ♥ and does get it away N can still complain about being misinformed ... :( And W surely can't get 2 ♥s away.

OK, let's posit a hypothetical equivalent situation where W has just a singleton ♥, and N claims that for an explanation of just "15-19" he was expecting at least 2. Do you rule misinformation in this case? If not, why not?

Yes (weeks ago when I was consulted on this ruling) Is this rhetorical? I thought there was only one possible infraction. North is arguing that he was misinformed by the explanation: the infraction (if there is one) is misinformation. No, it wasn't totally rhetorical. You say the infraction would be misinformation, but the information given was entirely accurate - as far as it went. It said nothing about the distribution of the hand, but you're presumably ruling misinformation because you felt something should have been said about that. But then we start getting into grey areas about where the boundaries are - exactly what would you regard as correct? Does one, for example, have to say "15-19 balanced" if that's what it always is? If not, why not? Becase you implicitly expect that? What about a singleton in partner's suit? Do I have to alert partner's 1NT rebid every time in the sequence 1X-1Y-1NT just in case she might be 4-4-4-1 and singleton in my suit? Are you going to rule against me if I don't, that's what she has, and someone calls you? And if a singleton's OK but a void is not (a) who says so, and (b) why? This is a rebid we've got here, not an opening. I don't think you can impose, for ruling purposes, arbitrary boundaries about distribution without being prepared to spell out what they are, just as is done with 1NT opening announcements. And if you're not prepared to do that, then the rulings become dependent on "well everyone knows that's where the boundaries are", and that's not good enough.

Have you decided there was an infraction? If so, just what was it?

Emphatically No - N's trying it on. Quite apart from the fact that the 2NT rebid may well be made with shortage in partner's suit, and it's by no means unknown for it to be a void, especially if partner's 2♥ over 1♠ guarantees certain minimum values in the suit, it's quite wrong to play ♠10 on the first round - play low instead. If declarer has ♠KQ he isn't going to take a first-round finesse of the 9, and if he goes up with the A your J10x remains good for a trick. And if he'd done that, N/S will make 2 trump tricks, however W plays.

I think we may be slightly at cross purposes. My point is, and always has been, that in order to determine whether 3♦ is a LA we need to know what methods E/W are playing - most of the posters seem happy to provide an answer to the LA question without ever considering this, and I think that's a mistaken approach. On the assumption that they're playing a fairly standard form of Truscott, my view is that 3♦ is not a LA, for the reasons I've given. You don't agree, and that's fine. But we know from the original post not only that E said ♦ & ♠ but also that W actually made a 1NT overcall (probably the wrong one) on the hand she actually held, so it's not wholly speculative to make the reasonable assumption that, whatever their methods may be, they are methods that allow for overcalls to be made on that sort of hand.

I'm not arguing in favour of these methods - I'm arguing that if they're being played then 3♦ is not a sensible bid. It's 5 down on a top ♥ lead and a ♦ switch overtaken by N. I'm not claiming that double dummy defence is that easy to find, but once dummy's displayed it's surely clear that trumps are 4-4 and N/S want to draw them. I didn't spend any real time trying to manufacture a particular hand, I just switched W's cards around and adjusted N/S's to fit, giving N 4 ♦ (a) to fit the 2NT overcall and (b) to fit an auction where N/S decide to penalise rather than bid on. You can give N a ♦ fewer and a ♠ more and it's still -4 on best defence, but N/S might bid on then. If you're looking for saves opposite that type of hand, play methods that show that type of hand and not others as well. Otherwise, it's just a lottery. A very thin justification for a risky action - not good odds at pairs. If N's got the pointed suits for the 2NT bid, who's got the ♥ except S? ♣ won't be his primary suit. I won't prolong the argument further, but my point remains: most of the justifications for a raise to 3♦ are implicitly based on playing different methods, whether the proponents realise it or not.

Sorry, my Dutch is not good enough. There's a 2-trick penalty for the revoke (Law 64A1) and the other side gets a trick with the ♥A as well. It shouldn't be more than that.

I think we're given a bit more than that in the OP: in particular, that their methods countenance a two-suited overcall on W's ♠43 ♥A743 ♦Q3 ♣K9876. The thing is, this sort of slogan just becomes self-fulfilling: if enough players believe it then it is by definition true. But it's based on the unstated and probably unrecognised assumption that W has something different from what W, I stress again, has actually shown in the methods that the partnership appear to be playing. All these comments seem to me to be from players who don't play these methods and don't understand them. Playing Truscott commits you to the 2-level in one of your suits in order to be disruptive; going beyond that is a different kettle of fish. Bidding 3♦ on ♠Q3 ♥765 ♦9865 ♣AJ102 opposite ♠K9876 ♥Q3 ♦A743 ♣43 (ie the hand W has shown) when LHO has opened a strong ♣ and RHO has bid 2NT over partner's interference is not in my view a logical (small l) alternative. It does nothing to obstruct N/S's constructive auction, and just gives them a "Head I win, Tails you lose" chance to extract 800+ if they have great defence to a ♦ contract. Once that's recognised, it's not a Logical Alternative either.

(Actually, I think it's East's.) (my emphasis). To repeat a point made earlier, a poll is surely meaningless in the absence of knowing what methods E/W are playing. I've said it looks to me as though they may well be playing Truscott as a defence to a strong 1♣, since that uses 1NT as the overcall to show ♦ & ♠ and is a relatively common defence here (I played in the event in question - it's Board 34 if anyone's interested). Partner and I play it, though it doesn't come up that much where we play, and if you're not employing it regularly it's easy to get the non-touching 2-suiter bids the wrong way round. I'd put money on that being what's happened here - W was trying to show ♥ & ♣ and got it wrong. If this is what's going on, then 3♦ does not seem to me to be a LA. Let's look at the auction if W hasn't misbid (as in my post above, swap round W's ♦ & ♥ and ♣ & ♠ to give the hand she showed in the auction). If your methods are to put in a call like this on a hand like W's what does 3♦ by E over 2NT by N achieve? You've already created about as much disruption to N/S's auction as you're likely to manage, you're hardly taking away any bidding space, and you're putting your head on the block if N/S have very suitable hands for penalties. Of course, if E/W are playing something different - say, W's guaranteeing 5-5 - then the picture changes and it may well be helpful for E to show support (though the evidence of W's bid is that not what's happening here). So until we know what their methods are, the question of whether 3♦ by E is a LA must remain moot.

This is just saying that where there's UI you're not allowed to make the right choice, and that's not the law. The question is whether bidding on to 4♠ as opposed to passing 3♠ "could demonstrably have been suggested" by the failure to alert 3♣, and I can't see how it was.

Oh, I agree as 10-loser hands go it's quite a good one but that still doesn't make 3♦ a reasonable bid in my book. And that ♣ combination loses some of its strength with S quite likely to hold KQ. We can go into the +s and -s in all sorts of detail, but I was just trying to give a quick view on why 3♦ is not for me. To give you some idea, let's swap round W's ♦ & ♥ and ♣ & ♠ to give essentially the hand she bid. Modifying N/S acordingly, we might well have something like [hv=pc=n&s=sj54hakjt2dqckq65&w=sk9876hq3da743c43&n=sat2h984dkjt2c987&e=sq3h765d9865cajt2]399|300[/hv] That's 3♦ -5 by E.

But the posters don't seem to have applied themselves to the question of what methods E/W were playing. If E/W are playing Truscott or similar (ie W's hand may well be quite limited and no more than 4-4 in ♠ & ♦), then those polled should take this into account, and then, to repeat myself, I don't think that 3♦ is a LA.

First, and just to get it out of the way, is it correct to assume (as I think we're all doing) that the explanation took place after W's 1NT and before N's 2NT? It looks as though E/W are playing Truscott and W has picked the wrong non-touching 2-suiter bid (X shows ♣ & ♥). If they are, then at this vulnerability it would be quite normal for W to bid on 4-4 - it's not a 5-5, maybe 5-4, type 2-suiter - and I'm with bluejak (congratulations on winning the event BTW) in thinking that to bid 3♦ on E's 10-loser hand once N has gone to 2NT is more madness than LA. And that's without ascribing any particular meaning to N's 2NT bid, whatever that might be showing in this auction: the fact that N's prepared to commit N/S to the 3 level coupled with S's strong ♣ opener surely makes it too likely that -800's on the cards. E has just 1 trick and enough trumps to guarantee an 8-card fit, and that's all. Assuming Truscott's being played, it also kills any notion of W having a strong NT overcall. I would have thought that, playing a strong ♣ system, N/S would have some agreement about what to do after Truscott-style interference, but presumably were winging it (relying on meta-agreements if you prefer) after an exposed Truscott misbid. Here, and despite W's misbid being apparent to all, it appears that N intended to show values with cover in W's putative suits and S wasn't on the same wavelength and trying to show the same cover. I think they were the architects of their own misfortune, albeit fixed somewhat by a misbid - neither had any reason to suppose that the other stopped ♣. If we rule that E hasn't fielded W's misbid, then it's just the rub of the baize.

The issue in the OP was about whether it was OK for S to do the scoring - I don't see anything that says that it was an E/W that raised the question - but, in the absence of any Law or regulation that specifies who should be doing it, like you I can't see any reason for it to be any business of E/W which way round it is. The personalities of the particular Norths and Souths, their tendencies to hog Bridgemates (or not), etc would be more significant table-by-table factors I would have thought. Occasionally, both travellers and Bridgemates are in use (for example, if the Bridgemate wireless connection is iffy, or if there's a requirement to fill out travellers for a sim pairs), and it can sometimes save a bit of time (though is marginally more likely to incur errors) if one of N/S does the traveller and the other the Bridgemate.

When I'm a scoring N, I try to do this unless I've already had a remark from E/W about who will verify. However, I don't always manage this, and when I'm just automatically going through the motions without thinking about it (which is all too easy to do) I'll occasionally not comply with such a request the next time (embarrassing when a female W is the designated verifier for all the reasons above). I suspect that there may be another factor at play - I'm right-handed, keep and key the Bridgemate on my right, and put it on the table with my right hand. Doing that, when extending my right arm to put the Bridgemate on the table it's physically easier / more natural to move it across my body and leave it slightly in front of E than it is to place it in front of W. I think if I were a scoring S I'd have a slight bias to inviting W to verify both for that reason and because as N I'm familiar with the player on my left being the commoner choice of verifier.

Barmar, Vampyr was just posting a terse reply that she thought she could abbreviate without misunderstanding. Missing words as italics above, I believe. I could have added "whether he's sitting East or West" if you really want it spelled out.

I'm no expert in the history of transfers, in the theory of bidding, or in the wider use of transfers in modern methods, but you've said this twice now and it doesn't agree with my understanding. Yes, it may be helpful to right-side a contract, but surely the principal purpose of a simple transfer over a 1NT opening is to enable the responder to describe her hand more fully by getting opener, who has pretty much fully described his hand by the 1NT bid, to keep the auction open by making responder's first bid for her, thus enabling her to make a second bid - possibly Pass, possibly something else - to describe her hand further. The view that it's appropriate to restrict the use of the term "transfer" to a bid that shows one suit only would seem to fit well with this.