weejonnie

But what to? If the ♠2 is played and the ♠3 not seen then RR 'knows' Charlie only has one spade and no doubt will then lead another ♠ for a ruff, 'knowing' that Charlie will then cash his Ace for one off - thus not needing to have to guess which minor suit to lead. (which would also depend on Ch Ch needing to hold AQ of said minor. So I think there is certainly an element of 5♠+1 to be considered. Maybe a good player would get a worse ruling than RR since it can be argued that RR wouldn't think of the above

My brain hurts! Could we argue that as 2♠ is a comparable call, there is no rectification for the original IB (27B1b), but the new IB is subject to law 27 starting from scratch - in which case 27B1a is then operative - so that partner isn't silenced? Compare and contrast with, say 1♥ - 2NT(a) - 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♠, where a non-comparable replacement call is initially made.

Yep - but Law 23 may bounce back to law 30B2 if the call isn't comparable - and then 10C4: there is nothing in the rectification under 30B2 that gives the director the right to award an adjusted score. Law 12B2 applies.

There is a difference in that law 23 is more specific and tells us how to handle the situation after a comparable call. Only after we decide that the offending side has gained, after a comparable call, due to the assistance of the infraction then we apply law 12. If a comparable call has not been made then we can go directly to law 12. Again from the article quited above "In determining whether to adjust a score under this law, I suggest we compare and contrast the following two statements; 'without the assistance gained through the infraction' and 'had the infraction not occurred'. The former of course being precisely what law 23C actually says and means, the latter most definitely being precisely what it does not say or mean." This is a consequence of law 23B "B. No Rectification When a call is cancelled (as per Law 29B) and the offender chooses at his proper turn to replace the irregularity with a comparable call, then both the auction and play continue without further rectification. Law 16C2 does not apply, but see C following."

If a defender then there may be UI considerations. I think you are allowed your fingers provided you do not use them - after all the game would be a lot harder if all players had their fingers and thumbs amputated before being allowed to play. The law is vague - the main result is to provide entertaining stories of a London Bridge Club. I would say that (in the EBU) the club is the RA - and so can specify what aide-memoires are allowable. For instance: in supervised novice sessions, it would probably be a good idea to allow the contract to be displayed - this actually is only a time saver since anyone can ask at their turn to play what the contract is and if it is doubled/ redoubled. Certainly in the EBU the procedures on Bidding boxes (Blue book) state that all calls "should be returned to their boxes" at the end of the clarification period. I think a TD should use his or her common sense. Writing down the contract and opening lead before the first trick is quitted, is probably OK - provided the scorecard is not referred to again. Deliberately arranging dummy to convey information is, IMHO not permitted (other than the trump suit), as a) it is a memoire b) dummy is providing UI to declarer and c) dummy cannot participate in the play.

I was paying the people who read these discussions the compliment of assuming they knew whence that comment came.

South didn't gain from the infraction since she couln't make use of her systemic call. North of course didn't gain either since there was no additional information available. The good result was obtained by good luck. (From an EBU article based on e-mails by Max Bavin) Let us also consider in more detail the concept of 'assistance'. The infractor himself can hardly gain any assistance from his own infraction; in fact, most likely all he's got himself is a load of hindrance and several unpalatable options available to him. The player who MIGHT have gained assistance is the infractor's partner, as when the subtle difference between the original call and the valid replacement assists him in taking the winning decision. Hopefully this line of thinking might be helpful; it certainly answers what is sometimes referred to as the Prague case* [score stands - no assistance gained through the infraction]. ... Only if South could have known that the POOT would damage opponents would an adjusted score be available. If this isn't clear, an example of assistance would be e.g. a NT bid showing 15-17 replacing one that showed 14-16. (Which I would regard as similar): because the player can't have 17 points (known because of the COOT i.e. infraction) partner does not make a game try - and 3NT would have gone down. * The Prague case is one where a player called 1♠ out of turn and then (to make a comparable call) bid 2♠ with an unsuitable hand (too weak) after a 2♣ call intervened. Partner jumped to 4♠ which made/

Maybe East should have asked South if he agreed that he had UI from North's table manner. South's call is allowable if a pass after intervention shows values. If it isn't then we have to see what South's LAs are - and also if EW are damaged (which may depend on whether East would overcall 1NT (playing a WNT) or 1♣) It is unfortunate that North did not know the law about being able to correct a mechanical error (you don't even need to do it without pause for thought these days) Misbidding is not a breach under RA rules - just RWs.

I would have the hand recorded - unfortunately the size of ChCh's record forms' folder is approaching that of War and Peace. I do note that Ch Ch does not deny hearing anything about the hand and it is possible he heard about the hand elsewhere and deduced that it applied to this one. ("How Could I?" is a phrase often used to deflect questions.). If I was accused and innocent, my answer would be of the form "Certainly not" (or something stronger). There is, regrettably no evidence (other than the actual result) that Ch Ch received EI, just speculation. Bridge relies on the honesty of (the overwhelming majority of) the players. There is still no prescribed rectification for a breach of Law 73B2. (I can't remember there being s 'snake' in the menagerie - almost without exception the characters are mammals/ birds.)

Law 21 - No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding. I had a case today where declarer won a trick with ♥A and then said 'Jack'. The Jack of hearts was in dummy - and so was the ♣J Declarer's RHO played ♣Q and his LHO played ♥Q (which takes the trick) RHO then led ♠6

yes - I was writing a reply a few hours ago and I decided mid-reply that 1NT was not suggested by the knowledge that partner had an opening hand with Spades (other than South then admitted that the reason why he bid it was to help his partner make his next call). Again I think a psych isn't demonstrably suggested by the UI since with 9 points there is a good chance that the hand belongs to your side anyway. (Obviously North did not pick up the psych as he went straight to 4♠). However I think the fact that South showed some values by his 1NT call is not carefully avoiding taking advantage of the UI. His aim seems to have been to help North judge how high to go or to reassure him that a spade bid would be safe - unfortunately North took him at his word and bid game! Fortunately it made.

The original defence to 4♠ was the lead of the ♠Q - I think that much less likely against 2♠, since on the actual bidding West is marked with a Yarborough and East looked for a safe lead. (IMHO) (Just for clarification - I don't believe in DF analysis being used to work out the results of the play of a hand. We try and work out possible lines, some of which may result in 9 tricks, some 10 or some 11 - and then we sympathetically weigh them in favour of the NOS). An experienced player can do that better than I can.)

I think it is pretty obvious that we cannot allow South's 1NT call since it is based on UI (As south conveniently confesses). Although 16C2 is quoted (information from withdrawn calls is UI to OS AI to NOS) Law 73C also applies (which is the foundation for pps after egregious abuse of UI). (There are two classes of UI) 16B - UI from partner (mannerisms etc) 16C - UI from withdrawn calls and plays I am perfectly willing to allow 2♠ as a comparable call - opening hand 5+ spades is pretty similar, I do not think that NS are going to get to 4♠ since it appears it was only bid by North because he thought South was showing a strong hand. (This is subject to polling of course) - so my default position is that we roll it back to 2♠+3 with a PP for NS. Although I haven't looked at it, EW might defend 2♠ differently from 4♠ so if an expert says there is a fair chance of only making 10 tricks then that should be included in the result. (Deep Finesse says 5♠ only makes on a black suit lead - that is indicative but not sufficient per se to make a weighted ruling)

Was the 'Stayman' bid alerted? i.e. was it part of their system. This seems to be a case of either reverting the contract to 3♣ (if the bid were ostensibly natural), or North bidding 3♥ if 3♣ was Stayman - and then work out what South would do. We need to know agreements before we decide whether we keelhaul NS or hang them.

I think the only question is whether "and was pretty sure RHO had the king, but(!) it was not a 100% thing" would mean that playing the 10 was a logical alternative. (Under 45D -> 16C)

With regard to the OP. If NS have an agreement that North will only either bid 2NT, raise hearts (or possibly bid 4NT/ 4C asking for aces) then South knows something has gone wrong. Since Law 16 specifically refers to the methods used by the partnership then I think I would have to allow the rebid - although it feels at first glance like 'unauthorised panic'. South would have to be very convincing though! "You have shown 6 hearts - suppose your partner has 7, 8 or 9 spades, do you have any way for him to show them?"

In the EBU 3Z C 1 At the end of the auction the calls should remain in place until the opening lead has been faced and all explanations have been obtained, after which they should be returned to their boxes. If the hand is passed out then the passes are immediately returned to their boxes.

Just wondering how the declarer's side can make the last pass of the auction. Even if there was a poot and a defender missed his last pass the last passes are cancelled.

I would say that they could appeal to the DIC. If this turns out to be a matter of law then it would be adjudicated to be director's error. Certainly a playing director could well be compromised - even more so if he has to take time to work out what conventional bids mean for the partnership. My gut reaction is that unless the TD has clear evidence that the call is NOT comparable he should rule it comparable and then adjudicate under 23C/ 27D as Gordon says. This is just trying to be practicable. This is one of the new problems the playing TD faces - he has to make a judgement call, then and there to allow play to continue: he cannot leave it until the end of the session/ when he has played the board himself.

As usual the court is out on ChCh but he is usually presumed guilty unless proved otherwise: he didn't draw attention to the irregularity and there is no indication that he intended to do other than lead to the final contract. And whilst Law 72B1 is there, it would be very difficult (as in many of these sorts of cases) to prove that my suggestion would be a deliberate infraction since most players have seen the same happen - the only difference being some indication of the final pass without it being made. (It can be refuted very easily by Dummy paying attention and noticing that the final pass had not been indicated)

Of course 'dummy' didn't expose anything as according to this logic there isn't a dummy. (A premature lead is not an opening lead) Dummy 1. Declarer’s partner. He becomes dummy when the opening lead is faced and ceases to be dummy when play ends. 2. Declarer’s partner’s cards, once they are spread on the table after the opening lead. Declarer the player who, for the side that makes the final bid, first bid the denomination named in the final bid. He becomes declarer when the opening lead is faced (but see Law 54A when the opening lead is made out of turn). I think that I would have to accept OO'S verdict, allow the auction to go on, and ChCh to keep his score. HOWEVER. It is not impossible for a player to know of this option and deliberately make an 'opening lead' without doing anything to indicate passing. If 'dummy' puts his cards down without checking that passing is indeed his intention then the player could see that finesses etc are are/not working and then make a call e.g. double/ sacrifice appropriately. This is obviously an extreme case, but in other competitive auctions ChCh might know a lot more about his partner's hand. (At least it would resolve any ethical problems for his partner after a slow double :rolleyes:

Blue Book (unless the Griffins have moved abroad due to Brexit) 3Z C 3 Some players do not always complete the auction properly by laying a pass card on the table in the pass out seat. Usually this does not cause a problem. When a player acts in such a way as to indicate they have passed and an opening lead is faced they have passed. An action may be deemed by the TD to be a pass (e.g. general ‘waft’ of the hand, tapping cards already there, picking up the cards). White Book 8.22.2 Failure to use a pass card correctly The L&EC considered what happened when players did not properly complete the auction by playing a final pass card. It was acknowledged that many players at all levels do not always complete the auction in the prescribed way (examples included touching a pass card already on the table, sweeping up the cards before any lead has been placed on the table). But it was confirmed that if a player acted in this way and a lead had been faced then in accordance with Law 41C the play period had begun irrevocably. I hereby rule that the action of leading the A♠ is deemed to be a pass as well as an opening lead.

Well the laws state 24B. Single Card of Honour Rank or Card Prematurely Led If it is a single card of honour rank or is any card prematurely led, offender’s partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 72C when a pass damages the non‐offending side). and although not quite the same "10C3. When these Laws provide the innocent side with an option after an irregularity committed by an opponent, it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action." I don't even know why you have ethical problems. The auction wasn't over. You are fully entitled to take into account mistakes (or infractions) that the opponents make and, as a result, change the call you would have made for another. (You should regard any call you make as being a function of your hand and the state of the game. The state changed with the premature lead - ergo your function generates a different call.) Should north be permitted to escape to 6♦? All things being considered, I think he should. The redouble indicates that the opposition have got unexpected strength and/ or distribution (unless bluffing). This is AI, and without any surprises it must switch the odds enormousely against standing the XX. (usual caveat about polling).

I think a poll would be done and if there is evidence that some players would find the diamond lead then a weighted decision made.

OK - so partner says (bridge logically) "I know I am supposed to shut up but I really don't like NT, let's play hearts". I am now more predisposed to allow 6N ("When facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" JM Keynes)