c_corgi

My first thought is that this South who is experienced enough to know exactly what "standard" means is also experienced enough to check that the opponents do too.

I think he is entitled to change his mind. Also that he is entitled to pause for thought. But if he wishes to do so, then he should follow his incomplete designation by clarifying what is happening, such as "King, no: I need to pause for thought while I reconsider this card." Otherwise, if he pauses without good reason, the opponents cannot be faulted for assuming he did not intend to complete his designation.

Ah yes, this is better. Not sure about the double squeeze bit: I think it only works if declarer realises that East had 5 diamonds to start with, otherwise he will pitch his H8. When trumps are 4-1, there are extra squeeze chances from cashing the HA before crossing to draw the last trump if it doesn't look likely to get ruffed.

Why "pause for thought"? "Sufficient pause that the director deems him culpable for any confusion that arose" seems both sensible and the obvious way to interpret the current laws.

I think it is better to ruff only two spades in dummy: King of Hearts, Ace of Spades, Spade ruff (9), Diamond to Queen, Spade ruff (Q), King of Clubs, Club to Jack. With the Ace of Hearts still in hand, there is the option to draw the trump and ruff out diamonds if trumps break. If they don't, we can draw last trump and guess the diamonds if the singleton was the 10 or attempt a coup against 10xxx with West.

Thank goodness for that: I was worried the thread might have to be moved to another forum for a moment.

This doesn't sound right at all. Firstly, when RHO has opened 1D and LHO is making natural NT bids without trying to penalise majors, partner's Diamond bids don't sound like an attempt to play there, so pass is never an LA. Secondly, it is actually Pass which is suggested by the UI: the UI tells South that a wheel has come off and the only way to prevent the same thing (partner trying to sign off in Diamonds) happening over and over again at every level is to Pass. South's Pass is actually using the UI to prevent the misunderstanding spiralling further out of control. The only way out is for North to remember the agreement without receiving UI himself. The above suggests that South is allowed to run from 4DX because partner cannot be attempting to play in Diamonds opposite Michaels on this auction. Actually the failure to run is not "avoiding taking advantage of the UI" it is "avoiding taking further advantage of the unethical Pass on the previous round". Without the Pass, heart bids look like cue bids with Diamonds agreed; with the Pass they look like a place to run to. Admittedly the auction interpretted as strength-showing cue-bids by North also sounds unlikely, but the UI constrains South to interpret it as such. From North's perspective, Souths repeated heart cues with Diamonds agreed is likely to look odd and he has a reasonable chance of working out what is happening at some stage. So South's best chance is actually to avoid transmitting UI and keep on bidding hearts as required by ethics :) Edit: cross posted with ahydra, who essentially said much the same, although I don't see why 5H is necessarily the level where EW start doubling in direct seat, or why North would necessarily pass doubled cue-bids in Hearts if they did.

Assuming it is consistent with their methods, I think it is automatic for West to Double 2H. This comes with the usual caveats regarding whether this West really does always Double in these situations. I can't see any reason why they would get too high, or that 3S would be defeated if played the other way round. On the other hand, bidding 2S does appear to be rather naughty and would be inclined to issue a PP to East while awarding the table result to both pairs.

As if it were not messy enough already, I suspect East's 3D is also an infraction: Pass looks like an LA and acting rather than passing is suggested by partner's question.

What was the final contract?

I suspect you are overstating the similarities between yourselves and the pair at the table. The situation in the original thread was: 1. They play a similar system to you. 2. One of them bid 3NT, which was both slow and horribly wrong. [You or your partner probably don't do this]. 3. Partner of the 3NT bidder moved. He may or may not have made a good case for doing so, but it was not clear from the evidence in the thread. [You would probably have made a good case even in the absence of system notes]. 4. The director ruled in their favour. 5. So did the appeals commitee. 6. A thread was started questioning the A/C ruling. The scope of the thread grew to question the means by which the ruling was reached, but since we don't know what evidence was considered and how it was used, many people felt that we could not draw any real conclusions. 4, 5 and possibly 6 suggest there is no alienation. 2 suggests that even if there is it is not you who is alienated. In any event, it is the nature of rulings and appeals that somebody will often feel aggrieved. If you did get ruled against in this situation, the blame belongs with partner's 3NT bid rather than the laws.

Whatever the options available, probably the only one that is not an LA is 3NT. However any combination of actions that doesn't add up to at least a slam try is also not an LA.

I think it is the "class of players in question" phrase that is confusing here. If you can completely understand all the thought processes of the player at the table, then: a) the "class of players in question" is probably reduced to just that one player; b) you have a very good basis for determining what (and how frequently) that player would consider and do in the absence of UI. I think the goal should be to approximate the proportion of the time that, absent UI, the player at the table would consider and select a particular action. The "class of players in question" should be sufficiently restricted that L16B1b takes on this meaning. In reality, you cannot completely understand his thought processes. You may be able to find out sufficient information that it is clear whether there were or weren't LA's. You may be able to find out sufficient information that you can identify a group of players with similar traits in the type of situation in question to poll. Either of these outcomes will trivially result in a sensible ruling. I suspect that what often happens in practice is that "class of players in question" is interpreted too loosely (or maybe too literally) as "players of a similar level of experience and/or results", a poll of whom may well contribute nothing towards a sensible ruling, but is simply percieved as the process to follow. I hope nobody would conduct a poll of such "peers" and as a result impose an LA on the player in a situation where he was able to provide a flawless logical argument showing why, for him, there was no LA.

They come from trying to determine the player's own thought processes. Considering what other players would consider or do is just a way of modelling those processes in case of doubt or to be thorough.

On the contrary, the "class of players in question" means players who would be likely to get into the same situation as the player whose decision is being investingated, and use the same thought processes when they get there. It does not mean players who average the same score in the weekly duplicate. I think this is what Aguahombre is getting at. The class of players in question may well be pretty much unique to the player at the table, which is why polls should only be used as a guide as Bluejack keeps telling us. Perhaps the situation the inexpereienced player encountered at the table was exactly analogous to a situation he was discussing over dinner the day before with his friend who is an expert. The expert explained why a particular decision was correct and the thought processes involved. None of the points the expert made had previously been considered by the inexperienced player, but afterwards he was comfortable with the logic and keen to implement his new knowledge at the table. What is a logical alternative for this player has been changed by the conversation over dinner: if the situation had come up last week, he would have had an LA to the winning action (in fact the winning action would not even be an LA) but now the winning action is automatic with no LA. His overall abilities as a player are still much the same, but it is his thought processes in the situation encountered at the table that are taken into account.

"Most" I can live with; regarding "obviously" we will have to disagree! I agree the correct line of reasoning should be followed rather than jumping to conclusions, but I didn't notice anyone not following it: certainly by post 21 things seemed on the right track.

As far as I can see, the following are true: 1. The director is obviously correct. 2. Everybody here understands why this is the case. I am still not sure what you are saying. Do you disagree with either of the above?

What about a player who has become unsure about whether his (or partners for that matter) explanation is wrong? It seems reasonable to wait for the end of the hand and find out rather than giving opponents information to which they are not entitled. But if it turns out the explanation was wrong, the opponents were entitled to the correct information. Were they also entitled to the correction and hence knowledge of the misunderstanding? I would think so, but then how would you distinguish this situation from the one you describe, where he says nothing because he hasnt realsied there is a possibility of being wrong?

His extension of your preempt (the AI) does suggest you pass. I do not see any way in which the UI supports the decision to pass, but as others have pointed out, it is very clear why it makes bidding again more attractive.

I don't think the analogies with football are valid: football and most other sports make little effort to restore equity in the event of foul play or similar, which is precisely why a player will deliberately incur a red card to save a likely goal. Bridge should avoid going down this route. In many situations an expert player will have an advantage over a novice. If both are in the same situation, with UI which prompts the novice to take the winning action but was irrelevant to the expert, there is a problem. If we say "there must be a level playing field, the novice is permitted to take the expert action here", the novice has been allowed to cheat in order to close the gap in ability. If we draw the line anywhere else, such as the expert is constrained to take a novice action, the effect is the same even if the process appears less distasteful. Therefore the laws are correct in that the ability (and indeed style) of the player must be taken into account.

I said county not country. But I am probably assuming greater familiarity with the UK than I should. A county is a bit like a US state only much smaller and less autonomous.

I don't see why it is unexpected. If everybody is taught that the only way to play is to bid hearts first without understanding why or having a genuine reason to, that is a failing of the teaching not the alerting. If people do understand the reasons behind it, which since you want to limit this discussion to experienced players seems likely, then there is no reason to expect one way or the other. If at some point 85% of the players in a particular county start playing a strong club, that is no reason to make different alerting rules for use when playing against pairs from that county, even if they consider a natural 1C opening to be "unexpected".

In a thread full of deep-fried Mars bars and what constitutes the midlands I am surprised it was my post you found irrelevant. A pair who have learned the responses to basic Stayman and correctly deduced that it doesn't matter which major they bid when holding both (aside from deciding which to play in with two 4-4 fits) may not be aware of the inferences of a pair who play non-promisory Stayman and are constrained to bid hearts first. I see no reason why they should be less entitled to an alert than a pair in the premier league playing against a known system geek who happens to play a variation which constrains him to bid spades first. This suggests that everything should be alerted in all but the most familiar circumstances, but as Barmar says, this is self-defeating. So it follows that neither variation should be alertable: the pair playing basic Stayman must learn to enquire about the nuances of the opponents system, whereas the premier league pair should have already done so.

Maybe not SeWoG, but perhaps it was itself an infraction as Cascade suggests. Is this addressed by the laws or regulations?

There must be a default position to cater for two pairs who play different methods when it would not occur to either that there was an alternative. It is unreasonable to expect the alert system to be designed specifically around the proclivities of ones own system and those who do just have to learn better.