Article by Max Bavin, EBU Chief Tournament Director, expanded and updated July 2005 by Nick Doe, who was at that time secretary to the EBU L&E Committee

We receive much correspondence regarding the legality of bidding sequences such as:

Case 1.	North	South
	1NT	2(a)
	2	3
	Pass
	(a) 2 is ostensibly a transfer but it transpires that South has a weakness take-out in diamonds.
Case 2.	North	South
	1NT	2(b)
	any	3
	Pass
	(b) 2 is ostensibly Stayman but it transpires that South has a weakness take-out in clubs.
Case 3.	North	East	South	West
	1NT	2(c)	Pass	2
	Pass	3	Pass	Pass
	Pass
	(c) 2is ostensibly Astro (or a similar conventional defence) but it transpires that East has a diamond one-suiter.
Case 4.	North	East	South	West
	1NT	2(d)	Pass	2
	Pass	3	Pass	Pass
	Pass
	(d) 2is ostensibly Pinpoint Astro (or a similar conventional defence) but it transpires that East has a heart one-suiter

(The distinction between cases 3 and 4 will be made clear later).

Unfortunately "is it legal?" is a simple question to which the answer is far from simple. It may be clearer why this is so if you consider that a number of different things may possibly have happened when a player's bid in one of these sequences is explained as meaning one thing, and his hand turns out to be something quite different. Taking case 3 as an example there are four possible scenarios:-

A. The explanation is a correct statement of the partnership agreement, but the bidder has forgotten the system. In other words, the actual partnership agreement is that 2is Astro, showing Spades and another. E, however, has forgotten and bids 2thinking that it is natural. Here there is no infraction in the first instance - it is not an infraction to forget the system, although there may be unauthorised information consequences.

B. The explanation is incorrect. This time it is W who has had an aberration - perhaps he plays Astro with other partners - E's bid of 2 showing diamonds is in accordance with the actual agreement. Here there is an infraction - giving misinformation about the agreed methods.

C. E/W have an agreement that the bid is two-way - initially it is treated as conventional, but if the suit concerned is repeated, it cancels the previous message and becomes natural. The initial message of 2seems to be "I have Spades and another", but the message of 3is "cancel the previous message - I have diamonds.". In reality this is more than somewhat misleading - the full message of 2is "I either have Spades a and another or just Diamonds- - please await clarification". Here there is an infraction - giving incomplete or misleading information about the agreed methods, and in addition those methods may or may not be permitted.

D. E/W do not have an agreement that the bid is two-way. E knows perfectly well that 2is supposed to show Spades and another, but he has been dealt Diamonds, and does not know how to show diamonds . He hopes that W will get the right message if he bids 2then 3. This is effectively a psyche, and there may be an infraction if the psyche is fielded.

Depending on which scenario applies, one or more of a number of different legal problems may arise with these sequences. You can find each of the detailed answers by clicking the relevant case number on the menu to your right.