AlexJonson

You'll be able to tell me which Law I'm breaking as a team captain, Nige1?

Nige1 Let's look at the human aspect. I might argue that talk about ethics implies the human aspect. Your opponent makes a faulty claim, 7NT is always simplest. You 'know' the claim is faulty, and requires a finesse to make, and that if you asked the player to play on, they would make the contract, for sure. You know that you(?), dburn(?), Jeremy(?), various others would say 'tough luck, one off'. Maybe dburn would find a way of making it seven off. Nige1, if you are in the 'tough luck' camp, your other objectives are out of the window. Because, as a team captain, I will say to my players 'never worry about the opponents mental energy, don't claim until it is overwhelmingly obvious'.

This may, or may not, be my only opportunity to agree completely with Lamford.

The Laws say of tempo: 'However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side.' Here the TD will have to reach a judgement about the situation based on the evidence from the players. I think he will be entitled to conclude (not that he necessarily will) that the variation of tempo was serious enough, and the consequences predictable, such as to require a remedy.

I had a lot of sympathy with Sathyab. Yours is a very interesting general problem. Unfortunately I can't imagine doing anything on your poor hand.

I think you will find if you read the remaining posts that posters have radically different understandings of the meaning of 'optional double'. Otherwise why anyone would consider bidding 4D opposite a strong balanced hand escapes me. You can't add up logical alternative votes (IMO) among people who understand the auction very differently.

Inadequate disclosure.

My choice is call the Director (as North). As East I get a new agreement or a new partner.

So do we all, but not very often on this forum mate.

West is certainly compromised since the remark implies comfort with defending. If you can deconstruct the remark to mean something else, I can't. Does it matter? Possible, but not likely.

The continuation of your post, where you explain, Nigel, the easy solution that meets your requirements, is entirely missing. What is the solution?

If this was teams, then as South I would bid 3S and we would play in 3NT. At Pairs I don't know, because I've never understood Pairs all that well. I could pass for 800 v 600 +. Big risk since it could be 500 v 600. Then it could be +200 v part score. How do really top class players resolve this at Pairs? I think personally, this is a Bridge hand and not an ethics hand.

Perhaps as well as having a 'Change the Laws' forum, we could have an 'Interpret the Laws forum'.

Pran I understood we were considering the TD analysis for adjustment purposes - with the constraint that N/S/E know what is going on and West doesn't, unless he can wangle an argument that it became obvious. Therefore the players are out of the equation and the bidding and play after 2NT are entirely in the hands of the TD. (Apologise if that is not the scenario). I expressed the view that with West in the dark and East not using that fact, the TD should probably place EW in some dire contract, since I think that is the likely outcome with the constraints described. I'm taking the legal constraints as given, since I'm not an expert, and this is not a 'changing the laws' forum. My passing remark about 3C was based on the 'monster' East holds, where I think he may well have to bid after 3C (edited from 3H) for ethical reasons. So, although I was happy with your original ruling, if it is determined that you can't rule that way, I think the likely alternatives are much worse for EW.

Sort of my point David. EW seem to me overwhelmingly likely to play the contract - in 2NT doubled or redoubled, 4H, 5C, 5H doubled or redoubled or 6H doubled. Add in variations in the play and you have a long session to decide the adjustment. One contract I think completely implausible is 3C by EW.

So we object to 3H-2 because we want 2NT redoubled -2(?).

So, is the conclusion 'no Sewog' and we completely agree with Pran's decision? This may be obvious to you all, but I thought I would just say it.

I believe that you are right about the percentage of claims handled by the players themselves exceeding 99% - in fact I suspect you could add a decimal point and a number of nines. So I guess that the question is whether the apparent difficulty of legally codifying claims situations, leads on balance to a positive outcome. Some of the posts on these forums suggest that elimination of interminable debate may not be one of the gains. But if you are saying that a major effort to rewrite claims Laws is a low priority, I would find it hard to disagree.

Or just remove any mention of claims from the Laws. Allow the players to manage it. I admit that a lot of entertainment would disappear from the forum, but would the game be the worse?

Thanks dburn. I think this brings things back to the OP. For that matter, if you look back, it is more or less what I said. It is quite possible though not certain that North has no LA to bidding 3H (I partly borrowed that from hotshot). That's why I was interested in South's logic for coming back to life. Of course, it's also possible you might conclude that North and South both bid correctly, but South's explanation was incomplete and led to the 2S bid. Finally it's possible you might conclude N/S did everything correctly.

While this has been so far a very interesting topic, it is certainly the case that it has 'drifted' a long way froom the origninal post.

I didn't think it was your own auction, just the auction you posted. But, give it one more post and you can almost certainly start and finish this thread.

You are correct (in my opinion- not necessarily all posters). But I can call the TD or even appeal if I believe I have a reason to do it. This auction from Aguahombre is so suspicious, I think even nnn.. would call the TD if he bothered to read the problem.

Valid question Gordon.

Your first time post under this name in this forum? Any posts here or elsewhere under alternatives?