alphatango

FWIW, I polled 5 pairs at my most recent duplicate who finished their rounds early at various points in the evening (field size = 13). Average club duplicate, quality not high. None played a multi 2♦ opening (methods were split between three weak twos, and strong 2♣+strong 2♦+weak 2s in the majors). I offered the auction 2♦-(Pass)-4♣-Pass-4♥ (modified from the OP), and explained that 2♦ showed a weak two in either hearts or spades. I did not volunteer an explanation of 4♣. Me: "What do I have?" Four of the five pairs asked what 4♣ showed. (One pair did not ask about the 4♣ bid, and responded "Hearts, no club support.") Me: "It asks me to transfer to my major." All four pairs then said that I should have a weak two in spades.

EDIT: Misapprehended the temporal ordering. Post revised. Do we believe that West would always choose to change 2♠ to pass? He wasn't offered the option at the table. Maybe we should consider giving NS some percentage of West balancing 2♠, possibly leading to 4♥+2 depending on what we find out about NS's system. Am surprised that they have the agreement that 2♦ is forcing (even on a weak hand with diamonds)...but if that's really their agreement, then perhaps pass is not an LA any more. It would certainly not warrant a PP. EDIT: Even if 2♦ is not forcing on a weak hand with diamonds, I still don't think pass is an LA when holding Kxxxx in partner's apparent suit. 3NT doesn't look that far away (even Txx-xxx-Qxxxx-xx has chances on a spade lead). However, I think 3♦ is an LA, and the UI suggests all other sensible actions (X, 2NT, 3NT) over it. Where the auction goes from there (i.e. whether South "wakes up" after a 3D rebid) is not clear, of course.

West, of course, should have been offered a chance to change their 2♠ call (21B1a)...

Well, almost. There is the minor matter of "among the class of players in question"; namely, those who would overcall 3♣ in the first place.

No. All of 2NT (15-17), 2NT (15-19), and 2NT (18-19) would be forcing, and the opponents would expect it to be so. That eliminates clause 3.2.2a. Nor is the agreement as to strength sufficiently unexpected to qualify under 3.2.2b. I assume they do not normally alert the 2NT rebid, but that would be worth investigating. There being no apparent UI, result stands. Is the auction suspicious? Not enough info, but it will be highly dependent on other agreements. Do all hands with a second suit bid it over 2NT, or only hands with slam interest? What about extra length (e.g. ten cards in the red suits)?

They may have done poorly in choosing a clear rather than a borderline example. :) However, I think a declarer claiming all the tricks with only one suit left is equivalent to "cashing" that suit, hence from the top down. (For the record, that means I would also award three tricks to declarer who claimed all the tricks holding 652 as their last three cards with the 3 outstanding.)

For the record, in Australia (presumably the jurisdiction involved in the OP): So declarer gets all the tricks here.

(Expressing no opinion on the merits, but...) Are they? It sounds as though the TD ruled (point of law) that he was allowed to consider declarer's second statement. It seems to me that for technical correctness, the AC (who clearly disagreed with the director on this point) should have firstly recommended that the TD reconsider that part of his ruling, and secondly ruled itself on the validity of the revised claim. But perhaps all that is too much to ask of a committee?

Sorry, my previous post was written quickly and imprecisely. I was indeed aware of that law, and what I meant to ask was: 1. In the current scenario, are we satisfied that the UI that partner has two hearts does not suggest one play over another (and so, assuming West gets the subsequent play right, the defenders make one trick)? (The situation may be different if East had exposed all of his cards, of course.) 2. In the hypothetical scenario where the claim is for all the tricks, no concession has taken place, so 68B2 cannot apply. Does West have any way to avoid a "careless or inferior" play being imposed upon him in the adjudication of the claim?

Almost. It is not clear whether third hand is allowed to pause (say, with a singleton) even if declarer has paused appropriately. But it is certainly a big step in the right direction. In some of my partnerships, where both of us consistently pause at trick one regardless of the position, I've added a "Third-hand defensive pauses at trick one may be unrelated to current play" line to the pre-alert section of our system card. I'm hoping that's enough. (I think it goes a fair way towards not misleading the opponents, anyway.)

1. Suppose West immediately objected to the claim (more precisely, his partner's concession of a trick), not on the basis that they were entitled to a different number of tricks, but solely to avoid being required to make a "careless or inferior" play. Is that permitted? Would we now allow defenders their trick? 2. If the answer to 1 is yes, hypothetical follow-up: Suppose, in an alternative position, defender East claims all the tricks, but the claim is flawed; defenders can still get all the tricks, but it depends on West's choice of plays (from among normal lines). Can West still immediately object in order to save his side's trick(s)?

From what I read, "convincing evidence" is not the standard required by L75C. Rather, if there is any evidence that there is a mistaken call, then the parenthetical sentence in L75C does not apply and the proper standard appears to be L85A1 ("balance of probabilities").

That seems sensible, except that when a declarer says "I have five clubs and four diamonds", it suggests that he believes he's cashing winners (and so would be awarded nine tricks here, assuming the appropriate 70E2 "top-down" regulation). Or are you saying that 70E1 overrides this?

Fair enough. I'm not sure I agree that's what the law says, but I think I understand why you and Ton are interpreting it the way you do.

I think that Ton and jhenrikj are arguing that where: Revoke 1 by NS is established Revoke 2 by EW is not established (and is corrected) then, at the end of play, we apply 64A to Revoke 1, and 64B does not apply because Revoke 2 was never established. I'm not sure which words in the law are being used to support this view, though. It seems to me that 64B applies whenever 64A is invoked. (By the way, I do not think 64A is overridden by 62D. I think it is overridden by the wording of 64B6: no 64A rectification "if it is a revoke on the twelfth trick".)

Hmm, thanks for reminding me about Ton's commentary. Unfortunately, he seems to directly contradict the laws on this point; and as I understand it, the commentary is unofficial. I assume this means we have to rule strictly according to the book until the WBFLC issues an official correction of some sort. I don't really understand his reference to "the heading of Law 64B", which in my copy is "No Rectification".

I was called to the table recently, and informed that a defender had revoked. I discovered it had been established, and explained the relevant laws. Play then continued until trick 12. At this point, declarer revoked by ruffing with his second-last card, then led his last card. The defenders drew attention to the revoke, so I required that it be corrected (62D). I was about to transfer the appropriate number of tricks for the defensive revoke (two, in this case) to declarer, when I hazily remembered something about revokes by both sides. Checking TFLB, I found 64B7: "There is no rectification as in A following an established revoke...when both sides have revoked on the same board." It appears, then, that once declarer revokes here (even if he doesn't establish it!), he is no longer entitled to the 64A rectification, but is limited to the 64C equity adjustment. So I ruled that the equitable one trick only was transferred. Did I miss anything?

(For reference, I would not adjust in the other thread.) It seems to me that if opponents have been damaged (and I express no opinion about that yet), this hand requires an adjustment. Declarer's "demonstrable bridge reason" relies on him always asking the follow-up question -- if he does that, I would argue that it is unusual enough that it should have been disclosed to opponents (perhaps on the system card). Regardless, I might well check with other opponents, etc., to find out whether he really does always ask. That would be relevant to the question of a PP.

Actually, I expressed no opinion on the merits of the question (because I had not yet considered it seriously), and thus I do not believe I have (yet) demonstrated any misunderstanding of the law. I will attempt to do so below. :) (I pointed out a possible play by West which I found interesting, and I agreed with CSGibson that if a discard had previously been made in the suit, East would have far less (no?) reason to duck. The former is not relevant to any ruling; the latter is potentially relevant for denying redress if we decide that an adjustment is in order.) * * * Since my opinion appears to be invited, here it is. :) For the record, I do direct, although I hope that my arguments are judged on their logical merits rather than on the basis of any directing experience. On the question of whether South had a demonstrable bridge reason or not, I do not think the table director's view was manifestly incorrect, and I would defer to the judgement of the person who was there. Suppose, arguendo, that we decide that South did not have a demonstrable bridge reason to hesitate.The "false inference" drawn by the opponent must also meet some unwritten standard of reasonableness, else I would be able to get an adjustment when I led towards AKJT987 on table, LHO hesitated, and I lost the finesse to Qx. I do not think that there is a sufficiently strong logical connection between the hesitation and the idea that declarer must have 3=2=0=8 rather than 1=2=2=8. There is at least as much reason for thought with the latter shape as the former. There is no decision to be made (on the first round) with the former shape; with the latter you are at least deciding between LHO being weak enough to duck the SA and RHO being weak enough to not return a diamond! East took the view that 3=2=0=8 might have something to think about while 1=2=2=8 would never think; I do not believe that view is correct. Is it nevertheless reasonable enough to meet the unwritten standard? I don't know, because it's unwritten. :lol: (We might do well to clarify that standard in a future edition, of course, but that's for a different forum.) In the absence of a clear standard, I think East's view is sufficiently wrong that I would not adjust. * * * (Hmm -- if I were East and declarer hesitated, I might wonder whether he had mis-sorted his 1=4=0=8 and was now trying to figure out how many tricks he needed to play for!)

I pointed out that West could rise with the SJ on the spade lead to prevent East from having this decision. Failure to do so is not SEWoG. However, as CSGibson points out, had West pitched a spade on the second round of trumps, there are now no layouts where the duck will gain, and East's duck might well be in SEWoG territory, depending on how strong they are.

*ahem* Obviously, East was deceived not by declarer's hesitation, but by his partner's failure to take the no-cost play of inserting the jack, preventing this situation from arising. :lol:

Is this the thread to which you refer, bluejak? Or is there another one out there for which I should be searching?

I think there is a significant difference between: Situation A: There is a prior agreement (explicit or implicit), which is violated, and Situation B: There is no prior agreement, and a player nevertheless uses that call (hoping that partner will be on the same wavelength from general bridge knowledge, or that he will be able to clarify his hand later in the auction). For example: If I agree a 12-14 NT with partner and open a 16 HCP 1NT, that is situation A -- I haven't (necessarily) established a new implicit agreement by violating my previous agreement. But if I have no agreement with partner as to the strength of our 1NT opening and choose to open 1NT with a 16-count, that is situation B and does establish an implicit agrement (our 1NT range is now known to include 16-counts, although the rest of the range may not yet be defined).

If LHO is entitled to know what "free replacement" bids are available, I think IBer's RHO is also so entitled. It seems a bit silly otherwise -- the decision LHO makes about whether or not to accept the IB may be dependent on that knowledge, and RHO shouldn't have to guess what LHO was trying to do. IBer's intention is a separate matter: I think it is AI to NOS, but NOS are not necessarily entitled to know what the intention was. (Same approach as misunderstandings: the fact that they are having a misunderstanding is AI, but you are not entitled to that knowledge.) (Of course, if one adopts the paradigm, as (I think) the EBU has, in which one determines the "free replacement" bids based on IBer's intention, then yes, NOS are entitled to that information via the knowledge of the meaning of the free replacements available to IBer.)

I'm still not convinced that the available replacement calls should depend on IBer's intention. But I argued that point in the "Meaning of insufficient bid" thread. Of relevance is that I asked in that thread what information IBer's LHO is entitled to before accepting or rejecting the IB, and bluejak (here) said there was no consensus even among the WBFLC. (FWIW, I am in favour of telling NOS at least what free replacement bids are available.) Note that if one chooses to give that information to the NOS and believes that the replacement bids are dependent upon IBer's intention, one should probably give the info to the NOS away from the table (or send IBer's partner away). This avoids transmitting UI in the case where the IB is subsequently accepted and IBer's original intention is not already clear.