mfa1010

Yes that is also my life philosophy.

Yes I agree absolutely. It is a part of the conspiracy theory that in practice S will get a lead directing double less often, if he "forgets" to alert a conventional bid until after E has bid (passed).

2♦ could be multi or both majors/strong or ♠/strong or whatever legal. International regulations in force, so 3♣ is alertable. But you can assume any conventional bid, the exact sequence is not the point. South would hate a club lead. Therefore he would hate a thin lead directing double as well. So if he could just catch east napping just a little over 3♣, it would be sweet. East could of course claim to change his pass, when the alert comes, but he will tend not to. Because pass then changed to X will give a lot of info away to the potential declarer, and maybe also because of pride...

[hv=pc=n&s=sajt2hakj6dkq6ca3&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2dp2sp2np3c(slow%20alert)p]133|200[/hv] MPs 2♦ = Something weak or a big NT 2♠ = Pass or correct opposite a weak hand 2NT = I have the big NT 3♣ = Puppet stayman 3♣ is alerted, but the alert happens to be slow. It comes just at the time when east has put his pass card on the table in normal tempo. Do we have a problem? Rate My Paranoia ... :)

Yes, but in the two weekends only (fri-sun).

I see now that the topic has the subtitle "Denmark". We do however have pretty clear (although complicated) regulations to handle this. This is wrong. Under Danish regulations a weighted score or even an artificial score is explicitely allowed here as the hypothetical score for NOS without their serious error. Presumably to be used when the number of tricks is hard to judge.

In Denmark we do like this, but I don't know if this is homebrew or adopted standard from elsewhere. For OS and the rest of the field, the matchpoint table is the one that includes the adjusted score for OS (680), so: Board MP table: For NOS the starting point is also this (0 mp). But then we deduct what the serious error cost. In example 1 (50% 500, 50% 800) the serious error cost 5,5 mp as correctly calculated by the emailer. [50% from -6 to -5, and 50% from -6 to +4] So NOS get 0 - 5,5 = -5,5mp In example 2 (100% 800) the serious error cost 10 mp. [From -6 to +4] Since the serious error cost more than the adjustment of 6 mp [from -6 to 0], NOS keep the result of -6 mp, which they would have got if they had entered the table result (300) in the mp table. They can't lose more.

Disagree with not showing spades on the first round. This could easily have been a normal deal, where we belong in 4♠.

Pass. Bidding is too dangerous when they have advertised that whatever they have in diamonds, it is likely off side. 5♦ could be extremely expensive, if we are unlucky, say xxx, AKx, AQxx, xxx. That is likely to be -1100 against nothing. Pard might have doubled if we belonged in 5♦.

Is it? The way I read Law 50, this power is only about prematurely exposed cards, not cards that were played. Law 67 says that the defender's withdrawn revoke card becomes a major penalty card. -- I would treat this as a simple revoke for the reasons chrism said.

Agree, but the question is more about partner's bid after 5♠-p-p.

We don't know who picked up their bidding cards first. And even if we knew, aren't we on thin ice if the ruling depends on that detail? --- Anyway, I think we have to deem VOID all what happened after N+E decided to pick up their bidding cards. The bidding never finished. Declarer played through in 2N although the bidding had reached 3N when it was abrupted. We can't let NS "keep their bad score", because it was not bridge what happened after the infraction. What we have is that the bidding started 1D-p-2N-p-3N-p and then cut - no bridge from there with both sides at fault. That is how I would rule. The problem is then what score to assign. After some thought, I'm going with the artficial score, based on 12A2. When we have no non-offending side, I don't see how we can use normal corrected score, since there is no damage on an innocent side inflicted by an offending side. I don't think we are empowered to use 12B+12C, except for the reference in 12A2 to an artificial score. So my ruling is: 1) If the board has not yet been played at the other table: Av- for both sides. 2) If the board has been played at the other table: Law 86D applies. I'm giving an adjusted score measured in imps. Say 3N always has 9 tricks, and that's what they got at the other table: That is also where this table was headed, so it will be -3 imps for both sides. If they were +1370 at the other table: +10/-16 imps respectively for the board (+/- 13 imps, minus 3). But this is very tough. I think the laws are really letting us down here. Right. But where is ... "the director elsewhere in the laws empowered to simply award an adjusted score" ... in this case? I don't see that the statement applies. Our last resort seems to be 12A2, since we can't let them finish the bidding and play the hand in the right contract. That is too late.

While I agree with your view, Rik, I do think that the laws are regrettably vague about how to handle this, when both sides has blaim.

Oki. That information means imo that 3♥+4♣ implies a little less in diamonds than if 3♦ had been NF. Because with a forcing 3♦ available we could also bid 3♦+4♣. But still a direct 4♣ is CLUBS and 3♥+4♣ more flexible.

If west has a club, I go deep in hearts playing him for 12 cards in ♠+♦. Only 6-5 or 7-4 is unlikely for a 5-over-5 flyer like that. If this was right I make 6♣ even if west's trump singleton is a low one. If west doesn't have a club, I would also go deep in hearts, but now I won't make, because I have been forced and don't have entries to take all the finesses.

If he thinks the likely shapes through, he should be able to find the 6♣ bid. Ofc it is easier to say when we know opener's hand, but still. From partner's perspective defense against spades will get 1 rounded trick at most and need 2 diamond tricks to beat 5, which will often not happen. Dummy could easily have a doubleton (diamonds 5422) or the diamond ace. Meanwhile there may be a shot to win 6♣.

I remember a hand from our national mp qualification a couple of years ago. My partner was playing a marginal slam, and after having ruffed 2 losers in dummy succesfully he needed to get safely back to his hand in a side suit to pull the last lurker. After a minutes-long, agonizing deliberation he chose one of his two possible re-entries and it held without being ruffed. In triumph he spread his hand "I have the rest". He didn't say anything about the trump, but his hand was all tops from there. Should he have said "pulling the trump"? No doubt. Should the defense have had a trick? I think not. Even the cleaning lady at the toilet knew what that hand was all about.

3♣ and 3♦ would be nonforcing over 2♠. So imo 3♥ then 4♣ after partner's 3N shows a flexible slam try, while a direct 4♣ is CLUBS. If partner bids 4♦ over a delayed 4♣, I would take it as natural, and my 4♠ over that as a cuebid for diamonds.

Agree fully with your approach. My initial thought was to rule him to cash out for -1 also at imps (when the ♣J would have dropped). Cashing out for -1 may be a bad risk/reward judgement, but "normal" play does include something that is quite bad. But maybe that is too harsh. At mps it does seem like the right ruling, though.

In Denmark we have regulations (based on 70E2) that a declarer is deemed to always cash a suit from the top (when he thinks it is good), and ruff in with his lowest trump (when he thinks there is no danger of an overruff). So this case would be clear: the rest for declarer. Had declarer had ♦942 with the ♦7 outstanding to his right, he would also have got the rest. First he would have been deemed to ruff low, and then he would be deemed to run his suit from the top.

So is this so obvious that you don't need to say why, or are you having fun with us?

4♣. I don't see why I should give up on slam with 9 tricks + a good kicker and a partner who opened the bidding?! Did he deny a hand as strong as xxxx, Kx, Axxxx, xx? My hand is powerful so I'm inviting slam.

5♣ every day in the week.

I don't know what "a wash" means, but I take it that you are cancelling the board in spite of they did bid the hand to 3N before the screw-up. Would it also be "a joke" not to cancel the board, if the result at the other table were 6♦= +1370? This is a terrible and sad situation. One of the biggest challenges for our great game is that we need to reduce the distance between directors and players. Sometimes players feel that directors are on a different planet, issuing incomprehensible rulings based on little known regulations. Which btw is one of the reasons that directors are not always being involved when they should be.

I disagree with "imaginative" rulings like 3N was taken back. It was not. The ruling should reflect what really happened. The play as it went should be cancelled, since the players were playing in different (and wrong) contracts. N&E are equally at fault. I disagree with blaming W for opening the screens. We have two options. 1) To cancel the board and award artificial score 2) To adjust the score to 3N (the contract bid but unfortunately not played) with some number of tricks, maybe weighted under 12C1c if various outcomes in 3N were possible. I would go for (2). I don't see any reason for liking a punative split score, but I might want to give PPs, especially if N&E are experienced using screens.