c_corgi

Surely declarer's statement is (from the director's POV) nothing more than a tool to determine what was in declarer's mind when he claimed. It is often the only evidence available, but L70D3 is an example of another possible source of evidence. If declarer tells you what was in his mind when it was against his interests to do so, it seems like reliable evidence which it would be ridiculous to ignore.

Even after the amendment I dont see why "taking a finesse for the overtrick" should be interpreted as "I will run the jack of clubs to set up my twelfth trick. On the second round I will try to make an overtrick by playing for the drop."

I think declarer's statement is equivalent to "I will play for and make an overtrick when the KC is with West." Had he not claimed, he would likely have noticed the danger in repeating the finesse, but that is his problem: 1 down. Note that it is reasonable to think of it as repeating the same finesse (against the KC) rather than taking two separate ones of running the jack and small to the Q, so the semantic argument is unconvincing.

L46B1-5 do not apply when "declarer’s different intention is incontrovertible", which it surely is here. His objective was to designate dummy's lowest spade, but he actually called for "two" intending the 2 of spades. Since the 2 of spades is not in dummy, L46B4 would apply, so declarer could then designate any card of his choosing from dummy without being restricted to the lowest spade. Whichever laws are applied, I don't see how the 2 of diamonds can possibly be played.

Then I shall try to be more explicit :) Using Ahydra's example of AQ over the king. With AQ in declarers hand and the K on his right, LHO leads the suit and RHO plays the king. My understanding is that there is a distinction between: 1. Declarer intends to play the Ace, but looks down and finds the Queen on the table instead 2. Declarer intends to win the trick as cheaply as possible, but miscalculates, momentarily thinking that the Queen will have the desired effect. I think in case 1 he is allowed to change the card and in case 2 he is not. In the OP case declarer's intent was to designate dummy's lowest spade. He did not momentarily think that designating "any two you can find in dummy" would have his desired effect of leading a low trump from dummy. His designation was unintended and he is therefore entitled to change his card.

That definititon of "unintended" seems quite consistent with this situation being an "unintended designation" for the purposes of 45C4b.

Is there a formal definition of "unintended designation"? I would think that L46 suggests that when a designation is incomplete or eroneous and that declarers intent can be gaged then declarers intent wins. Just because he intended to say "two" doesn't mean that any two you can find in dummy is his intent. This situation is not analagous to the Blackwood response IMO because the intent referred to is to play a particular bidding card (5D) or playing card (dummy's lowest spade) rather than to express the systemic meaning behind it.

It is clear that declarer's intended designation was dummy's lowest spade, so the change is allowed. I don't see why declarers carelessness should forfeit this, although maybe a warning for violation of 46A is in order.

If passing 2SX is not an LA (this is questionable), then I don't see how passing 3S can be. Either it is possible for partner to have a lot of spades for passing over 1C or it isn't. If it becomes possible after the 3S bid then it was possible at the 2SX stage, so pass would have been an LA. What were South's hearts? It seems odd that he had good support for spades and didn't correct to 4S over 4H. Hearts was ostensibly North's third suit. Maybe the dreaded fielded misbid?

Whatever the form of wording, I would have said something to the effect of "I double but consider pass to be an LA". I would not feel comfortable answering the question without mentioning pass as an LA. It seems unlikely that if peers of Bluejack are being polled they will fail to realise the underlying issue no matter how carefully the question is phrased.

Indeed. It seems clear now that for Bluejack pass was not an LA. For me it marginally is. I wasn't in Scarborough, but if I had been (and been in Bluejack's situation) I would imagine that the TD would have polled much the same group of people as for Bluejack. Worse, he might have polled me for Bluejack or vice-versa, which would mean that pass would be more likely to be deemed an LA for Bluejack than for me, when it should be the other way around. Incidentally, is there an onus on a player to self-regulate his actions in these UI situations? I would have thought that if I think I have an LA, then I have one, but instead it appears that it is only an LA if the poll determines that it is.

f) could lead to illegal communication issues if, having seen partner's lead and dummy, you sometimes decide not to ask after all. That would suggest that asking requests a switch if partner gets in, whereas not asking means the lead is satisfactory.

The fact that East asked the question when his attention was called to it suggests it was pertinent. That means N/S disclosure hasn't been good enough. In that case there is some fault on both sides. Of course if the question wasn't pertinent then it doesn't imply that N/S disclosure was lacking. How to rule is another matter and I don't know the answer.

I would like to double and I think it is likely to be a long run winning action. While I have good defence for my bidding to date, I still have a perfectly normal hand for it. The hesitation has removed the downside of double. I would pass because I consider it to be an L/A. If I doubled and it went to ruling, no outcome of the poll would surprise me. Did all those calls other than double and pass appear in the results? If so what did North think of the director polling the perpetrators as his 'peers'?

Certainly L40C1 can also be read that way and - if it is - carries the same wider implications.

This interpretation seems to me more sensible than disallowing the 2S bid. However, it still comes from interpreting L40A3 as: "If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then that call will be rolled back" rather than "If a player makes any call or play that is based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, then he will be subject to the rectifications prescribed in L40C1". Such an interpretation has wider implications than fielded misbids, for instance (uncontested): 1NT - 2C* 2H - 3NT 4S *Stayman, but not disclosed (by announcement, alert, convention card or whatever was required). If we use the former interpretation to justify fielded misbid, we cannot apply it selectively and must therefore also use it to disallow either 2C or 4S (maybe 2H as well) on the Stayman sequence. Does anybody actually do that?

You have: 1. A known 10 card diamond fit 2. A likely 10 card spade fit for the opponents 3. A known double fit with the K of parter's suit 5D over 4S seems automatic in these circumstances. I suspect selling out to 4S would have fewer advocates if partner had been dealt x AQJxx AKxxx xx, where at least one of 4S and 5D rates to make. Why would we ignore the rest of the auction? North is entitled to open 1S if he wants to. He does not lose any right to rectification as a result.

Attempting to play 4H may be fair enough, but selling out to 4S on the presumed double fit is fielding.

It sounds from OP like they do play Bergen over opening 1M and East was extending this to overcalls. In that case ahydra is correct, the meaning of 3NT over Bergen in uncontested auctions is extremely relevant. If they use it as an option to play then clearly pass is an LA. If not then they probably play it as serious or non-serious or something else, in which case it may get complicated, but pass would not be an LA.

I do not see how invoking L40C1 as directed by L40A3 is "despite" the law. Since L40C1 contains scope to rectify damage and also to punish offenders the infraction is not being permitted. Surely creating a regulation to treat an infraction in a different way to that prescribed by the laws is acting despite the law.

It refers to debate further back in the thread, which was too lengthy to repeat. The conclusion was that L40C1 gives the director the power to rectify damage caused by non-disclosure in the form of an adjusted score. It could be interpreted very literally to mean that the director could further adjust for the effect of using the undisclosed convention. I presume that is what you consider criminally stupid, in which case we agree, although your feelings are stronger than mine. The problem is that for the fielded misbid to be based on L40C1, it is necessary to use the literal meaning of L40C1. On the contrary, I think Law 40C1 should be applied. This allows the damage to be rectified in the form of an adjusted score against the non-disclosure and a PP to the offending side if appropriate. I hardly think assessing a PP is permitting them to break the law. What it does not do is make fielded misbid an automatic infraction. In my view that means it should not automatically be an infraction (although it may be in the case of UI etc) and a regulation that makes it so is effectively an instruction to directors to break L12B2.

We probably cross-posted, but to clarify: couldn't a defender face his hand for other reasons, such as to contest the claim?

Also, even if L63A3 is meant to imply that a defender can agree to a claim by facing his hand, I am not sure that it implies that facing his hand constitutes agreement. Another possible way to agree to the claim is orally, but that does not imply that any oral communication would constitute acceptance of the claim. Surely intent to accept the claim is required, in a similar way to a faced card being a lead if intended as such but not otherwise.

It would not be inappropriate for the EBU to think the laws should be followed, but I don't see how the fielded misbid regulation helps that. I think I addressed the point you are making in the recent "LA" thread: your #73, my #74.

When you fail to follow L40A3 then L40C1 applies. It seems to me fairer to say that only the EBU enforces a literal and inappropriate interpretation of L40C1 rather than that the rest of the world doesn't enforce it properly.