KingCovert

I don't think anyone would ever argue that issues like this are larger problems than say the ability to blatantly cheat. There are many voice call solutions that allow for screen-sharing that would easily facilitate cheating, and I don't think there is any practical way to prevent that. But, I do think that the culture of claiming without a required stated line of play can lead to situations like this where it now becomes very difficult if not impossible to prevent some unethical behaviour. I think many are simply willing to live with it in order to save time on claims, and that's fair, and one isn't really going to be able to force players to change their behaviour. But, in an instance like this, where there is sufficient evidence to say that this is an abuse of the way that claims work on BBO, I think it's possible to rectify the abuse by adhering to the actual laws on claims as opposed to the developed culture of BBO. It seems strange to me that BBO culture takes precedence over the laws when a ruling body makes an actual ruling (which it makes based on the laws). I've probably beaten all horses into extinction at this point on this topic, but, it is a somewhat interesting topic. Sorry! :)

Well, if you think that partner has anywhere near 19-21 HCP with any regularity when you might bid 4NT quantitative, then, I suppose you have a point. Keycard just seems like a dumb agreement. Perhaps that's because I play Inverted Minors and Criss-Cross when I play 2/1. I just can't think of any serious auction where I'd ever bid 4NT here, but, if I ever felt like it would be right, it would be on some 2NT opener type hand, and I'd want it to be quantitative.

Perhaps you mean that it doesn't apply here, but, if you mean that it isn't required, you're simply wrong. As for whether it applies here, it seems silly that the absence of a director should allow for a result that can only come from further perverse violations of the rules. LAW 70A is pretty clear that the director is supposed to adjudicate results as equitably as possible, but, against the claimer if necessary. There may well be no director at the table, but, the review board when given all the information can surely determine what the correct ruling would have been if there were in fact a director. Perhaps that's the way it is, but, if so, that's incredibly stupid.

I don't think SB concurs that play should continue. Thus, all four players don't concur. So, I'd expect that Law 70 therefore applies. (I guess you did quote all the segments of the law that I thought relevent lol... whoops.... well hopefully the formatting helps.)

Hmmm, well, South surely has either the A♠ or K♠, and I don't think North is bidding 6♠ off two aces. So... The A♦ and A♥ are marked. Not shocking, most don't open 4♠ with outside aces in 1st/2nd seat. Given the quality of our diamond suit, it seems likely that North has a strong side-suit to provide a source of tricks. It seems like hearts, but, possibly clubs. If the hearts are cashing such that declarer can take enough diamond discards, that's a threat. So, you could lead the 6♠, some heart, K♦, or A♣, and possibly a small club if you're really crazy. I think if partner has a heart trick, then, I'd wager that we're defeating this contract anyways. Soooo... I'm going to assume that they don't. A 6♠ lead, K♦ lead, heart lead all allow the potential for diamond discards on cashing hearts, so, I'm seriously considering a small club here. Yeah, it's the 2♣ or the K♦ for me. I think, in a moment of inspiration, I might lead the club. I'm used to partner telling me how dumb I am though when I do things like this. Hahahaha

Honestly, I don't agree with anything you've stated here, but, my bigger objection is that you've failed to provide any alternative bid in the sequence or an entirely different sequence. I can't find any use for your post, because, it is entirely vague. Are you suggesting that North should bid 4♠ with that hand? Opposite a potential void? Should North bid 5♣ directly? 4♣? Pass? Which of those bids do you think justifiable? And are they really more justifiable than 3♠? You're right that 3♠ is not forcing, and any time partner passes 3♠, if your partner is any good, it's probably the best decision. I don't really understand the desire to remove partner's judgement from this situation.

I guess I didn't really articulate what I was saying all that well, or we've sort of latched onto (what I'd consider) irrelevant word selection. Obviously the law may deviate somewhat in the EBU, but, I imagine it's much the same. BBO claim mechanics are perverse. They're made that way to facilitate the gameplay when random people online don't agree and there is no director to adjudicate, think of a casual game on the platform. But, actual laws require that if the claim is contested, declarer needs to state their line of play. I fail to see how declarer can defend claiming 13 tricks, and choosing to lose trick #1. The undo is irrelevant in my mind, because, it happened after a failure surrounding claim mechanics. The result should have been adjudicated to be 6NT-1, and would have been so, if not for the perversion of the process by BBO. This action therefore would have terminated the hand, thus making the following actions irrelevant. Every line that starts with the A♠ results in declarer losing at least 2 tricks. You might say that declarer failed to declare a line of play in the first place, but, given the evidence, declarer could not reasonably have declared a successful line of play.

To be fair... He's still wrong... Just not in the way he thought. :P

Let's look at the implications of the auction once 3♠ has been bid: South has enough playing strength to double. South has 4♥ and 5+♣. South has seemingly 2-♠. North has 6+♠. North has 3-♥. North has sufficient values to bid 3♠ freely. I really fail to see how 4♣ is a sign off. It seems like a sincere attempt to improve the contract. It's certainly not forcing, but, I'd say that possibly every hand partner passes with is going to be a good pass. I understand your criticism, but, I also think that it's poorly thought out criticism. I think you'd struggle very hard to deliver me any deal that suggests playing strength for both North and South in a suit contract, an inability to bid NT, the lack of a heart fit, takes into consideration the length implications of the auction so far, and now North can have a club void? Both players should be keenly aware of their playing strength in this auction, it's really strong. Both players are certainly pushing to improve the contract, but, have yet to find the best fit. It's for this reason that I say that 4♣ seems to me to be an attempt to improve the contract, not a sign off. North with those values in clubs has absolutely no problem raising 5♣. But, what contract would you like to play if North had a hand like this? [hv=pc=n&s=sahaj92d6cqt98762&n=skqt952hk75d42cj3]133|200[/hv] In spades, and on a spade lead, you've got 2 diamond losers, 2 club losers, possibly a heart loser. Whereas 4♣ looks incredibly solid.

I think this is a good criticism. Honestly, the auction didn't occur too much, because, as you could imagine, the amount of times you legitimately have such bids at favourable vulnerability (because unfavourable vulnerability sounds like an absolute scoring nightmare) are rare. It's hard for me to say that any methods would be particularly effective if both opponents are psyching, to be honest, but, yeah that would be quite difficult to handle. I think I could make the following adjustments: PASS: 0-4 any shape OR (10+ HCP AND no 5-card suit). Double: 5-9. No 5-card Suit. New Suit: 5+ HCP. Transfer bid showing 5+ in the suit. Seems like it would work better. This should make it so that a PASS and then double in pass out seat is basically telling Opener to set the contract or leave it in for penalty.

I guess, considering how claims are supposed to be conducted you could find an interesting ruling... You could quite easily argue that the initial claim of 13 tricks and the requested undo strongly suggests a line of play. Declarer failed to provide a line of play when claiming, and in the absence of a state line of play, it may well be up to the review board to determine what line of play they feel Declarer intended when claiming 13 tricks. Upon further consideration, it actually seems rather unreasonable to me to award 6NT=. I think our thought process is being somewhat polluted by how we know claims to be treated on BBO, as opposed to how claims are supposed to be treated under the law. It's my understanding that a line of play is required? Am I correct? Given the consecutive failures by Declarer, I think such a description is not only unbelievable, but, I'd say leans towards dishonest. I'd be shocked if either RR or ChCh dared to issue an objection to a ruling that was 6NT-1.

I used to play: Pass: 0-4 or 10+ HCP. Double: 5-9. No 5-card suit. Suit: 5-9. 5+ cards in the suit. You could conceivably play this as a transfer. This kept the bidding nice and low. I found it very effective. I can't recall the meaning of a NT bid or a cue-bid, I don't think they were really agreed bids. You could conceivably play it as two-suited and stopper showing, there seems to be enough room. Cheapest NT: Two-Suited. Cue-bid: Shows a stopper with balanced hand. I chose that allocation because, why not? You're surely not playing NT after having 2 five card suits. EDIT: I guess, you might need to declare to guard the stopper, although, it is well positioned on the auction? *stream of consciousness*

Well, penalty would be somewhat silly here. So, I just figured, 4 hearts and no logical cue bid. I think the bidding of 4♣ over 3♠ tells the spade situation later. EDIT: To be fair, if I'm not playing a Canape system, then I'd be playing 2/1 and I almost never can really have a penalty double after opening 1♣... So, in this sense, penalty seems stupid. But... I believe in your system, you could legitimately have a diamond holding.

Continue with: X, 3♦, 3♠, PASS, 4♣, 5♣, 6♣ ? It's pretty gross, I'll admit... But, seems like it shouldn't really matter which cards partner holds for their 5♣ bid, they should all be good. No way partner can seriously be valuing something like the K♦. I wouldn't fault partner for having something like, K♥ and AJX♣ though. I think, to some extent, you're always going to have to go to 6♣ on probability/prayers. Sometimes it'll be wrong, but, there's really no good opportunity to agree clubs and check for AK♣ and simultaneously find out about partner's spade length. Something has to give. Unless you had somewhat specialized agreements. I like playing Canape a lot, but, alas, that doesn't meet your requirements.

I'd imagine that a standard treatment for 4NT in this situation would be quantitative. GIB seems to have it defined as 1430, so, okay. 2 keycards can mean the K♦ is one of them, and you have to cater to that. It's a truly poor auction though. First of all, 12 HCP + 16 HCP = how much HCP? Why do you think you have slam at all? There's really no reason to suggest you're taking any more than 10 tricks at this point. And, you'll never have a clue what contract is correct after bidding 4NT. 6NT is considered mandatory at 32 or 33 HCP, depending on who you ask. It can make on less, but, generally you need a good source of tricks. That's quite a ways from the 12 HCP that is required for the 1♦ opener. It seems that your enthusiasm caused you to jump the gun on this one. Unfortunately for you, you got the result that your auction deserved, but, perhaps this will really hammer home this particular mistake such that you don't make it again.

Yeah, this was my thinking as well, but, perhaps not. I suppose it depends on the 2-4-5-2 hand, I certainly wouldn't feel inclined to rebid 1NT with a minimum and such shape. I couldn't say with any certainty, so I sort of dodged it. I guess my difficulty here is that I don't know if partner has the A♥ or a good diamond holding. I can't know. If partner has the A♥, then, I can perhaps afford to give declarer a club trick, PERHAPS. But, if declarer has the A♥, I need to switch to diamonds immediately. And, if declarer has both red suit aces, well, I've got to pay to something, and I choose to let declarer win when partner has 5 clubs. I guess.

I'm with Johnu on this one. Splinters really are best played as a limited range, I like 11-13. Otherwise the auction goes 1♥ - 4♦, and sometimes you have both players wondering if they should continue. It's somewhat silly. Now, I have heard and agree that it's poor to bid Jacoby 2NT with a shortage. And, I tend to agree. Perhaps this is a situation where you delay showing support for hearts. 1♥ - 2♣ - 2♠ - 4♦ ... 1♥ - 1♠ - 2♠ - 4♦ ... If partner doesn't have spade support, you can find a 3♥ bid somewhere (making sure you've established a game force) and look to cue-bid.

Yeah, unsurprisingly you raise some good counter points. I have no issue with rulings during the bidding phase as I think that all the relevant information is public and displayed. It's the play of the hand that causes a lot of issues in my mind, because, there is hidden (or yet undetermined) information and recollection issues etc. When players have the choice (this is the key word for me) to raise an issue, I think this introduces problems. As for plays/lead out of turn, I think, to the extent that these are somewhat obvious irregularities and fundamentally break the hand, I don't see as much potential for abuse or misinterpretation of the law here. Although, when someone mindlessly follows to that lead out of turn... *sigh*. I certainly don't purport to have all the solutions (and I know you're not holding me to that standard) to the problems of the law, but, it seems that the current approach to lawmaking is fundamentally flawed. I guess, I was just simply trying to say that, it's faced, it's played, and outside of a lead/play out of turn (where there is be the ability to accept/reject or have it as a penalty card) it should be established without exception or possibility for even the director to allow correction of it. I think it simplifies the law somewhat. Or, perhaps, it simplifies the ways that players will interface with the law? Something like this. Perhaps it is not legal to do so, I'm not well educated on this, but, I have had directors allow for the correction of an accidentally faced card due to mechanical error. I agree with you whole-heartedly, but, I think the problem is that too many players are ignorant of the laws and this usually leads to more social solutions that center around what is perceived to be fair, as opposed to what is deemed to actually be fair. It's problematic. Interesting and disappointing to me as well. I've recently had a partner get very upset and decide to give up the game of bridge due to the nonsense surrounding how players like to police the game, and the fact that the rules allow for these inconsistent sorts of behaviours. We were playing at a really high level, so it was somewhat upsetting.

Partially correct, but not quite the right take away I don't think. Instead of counting top tricks, which is the recommended way to approach No-Trump contracts, you often want to count potential losers in suit contracts, this hand clearly has 4 losers. 2 hearts, 1 diamond, and 1 club loser. You need to find a way to alleviate yourself of (in this case) one of these losers prior to actually losing them all. Hence the ruff of a heart at trick 2 or 3 is required.

I personally don't utilize the confirm mechanism. And, I think many others refuse to do so as well. It's a frustration/annoyance every single time it comes up. Misclicks aren't common enough for me to warrant it, I find. In fact, I really only misclick on my phone. I was considering talking about this in my initial post, but, does anyone else find it problematic that players are capable of creating irregularities like this? This is always something that has bothered me about the laws of bridge, they're sometimes really low quality. I think it ends up being this way out of a desire to create a positive experience or to correct irregularities, but, I think it could be argued that irregularities during play of the hand should simply never be handled until after the hand. End of story. Even if it completely botches the rest of the play. You could simply make the law that cards that are faced due to mechanical error must stand out of fairness to the opponents, even if unintended. It is just a game, and, this avoids any issues of malicious intent. It also prevent situations like this where players can potentially (not trying to accuse anyone) selectively raise the relevant laws when it benefits them, or choose to be "generous" when it benefits them. These acts are irregularities that really shouldn't be possible, perhaps it would be okay if every table had a dedicated director, but, that's not the reality. If the mechanical error is itself an irregularity, then an adjustment after the play would be required as well. It's doubly punishing to the perpetrator, but, such is life. Again, it's just a game, try not to make mechanical errors and you'll be fine. The reason I bring this up is because this really bugs me in one particular legal occurrence. In the ACBL, defenders are allowed to confirm with partners when they don't follow suit that they are indeed not revoking. "Having none?" is common. The problem is, players are inconsistent at asking this, and often when they're asking this they end up implying things about their holding and declarer's holding in the suit. It's simply UI. It shouldn't ever be legal to ask this question, because you cannot trust players to behave consistently. They're often unaware of the UI implications. And so, in the attempt to prevent an irregularity, you create irregularities. I think the biggest justification that the laws are low quality is in the fact that the majority of players don't know the laws. They're too complicated, and convoluted, such that only an expert in them can properly enforce them. But, players ultimately end up having a large influence in when they are enforced, because it's players that call the director. I know it's a pipe dream, but, I'd like it if the laws were calibrated to simply accept that irregularities completely distort the hand, and should not be rectified but instead simply penalized or the result adjusted. I'm sure many will have good counter-arguments for why I'm wrong, but, this has been a source of frustration for me in the last year. I'd be interested to hear some counter-arguments and commentary on why it is how it is.

I'd like to add in this separate post that there are some opportunities to play the A♣ and then return the 6♣ in an attempt to deceive declarer into ducking allowing partner to win the J♣, partner would need the A♥ or A♦ for this line. I think a strong declarer should figure out that there is no downside to playing the Q♣ in such a position, and it can be beaten with optimal play. So, it's an interesting thought, but, I'm not sure one can reasonably entertain it. EDIT: I suppose, there is also some merit in switching to spades and seeing of declarer squeezes themselves? I thought about this earlier and forgot (got caught up creating various layouts). I'll leave this to someone else to investigate.

I think that first instinct would simply be to play A♣, K♣ and 6♣ unblocking the suit and cashing 5 club tricks off the top! Except, if that were the solution this likely wouldn't be posted here. And, this reality is somewhat polluting my thinking. It wouldn't be strange for south to misrepresent having a doubleton in clubs if they had some other weakness. 1) North seems to have 5 cashing spade tricks.** 2) If south holds the A♥, they've got 3-4 cashing heart tricks too. 3) If south holds the Q♣ and A♥, declarer has 9 tricks on A♣, K♣, 6♣. **: Unless partner has JT53♠. This makes 1NT a strange rebid. I'm dismissing this possiblity. So, let's look at a few possible layouts. [hv=pc=n&s=sj3hj53dakj72cj83&w=st5hat84dq96cq974&n=sakq96hkq7d54ct52&e=s8742h962dt83cak6]399|300|Declarer has no hope. 4 club losers and the A♥.[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=sj3hj43dak762cq83&w=st5hat85dqj9cj974&n=sakq96hkq7d54ct52&e=s8742h962dt83cak6]399|300|Declarer needs only to establish the 2 heart tricks, and take 5 spades, 2 hearts, and 2 diamonds. This is not beatable against optimal declaration.[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=sj3hat3dkj762cq83&w=st5hj854daq9cj974&n=sakq96hkq7d54ct52&e=s8742h962dt83cak6]399|300|This hand requires a diamond switch at Trick 2.[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=sj3ha543dkj76cq83&w=st5hjt8daq92cj974&n=sakq96hkq7d54ct52&e=s8742h962dt83cak6]399|300|This hand also requires a diamond switch at Trick 2.[/hv] [hv=pc=n&s=sj3hat53da9762cq8&w=st5hj84dkqjcj9743&n=sakq96hkq7d54ct52&e=s8742h962dt83cak6]399|300|I suppose this hand fails to a diamond switch. So would any better hand without the waste in the black suits, which really means with even better diamonds. I think partner would lead diamonds though, perhaps?[/hv] I think, what it likely comes down to is that partner has a well positioned diamond holding. I think examples like the one with KQJ♦ may well start with a different lead. Probably the best line of play is to play the K♣ at trick one, and put a small diamond on the table. The 10♦ is equally as good, but, I think it's possible declarer may misplay diamonds if we let them. Rather than banking on partner holding exactly AQ9(X)♦, I'd like to give declarer the chance to play the J♦ instead of the 9♦ over my 3♦ switch. Partner should return a club for a second finesse. EDIT: I think it's possible for declarer to have something like AQJ♦ and a diamond switch simply does the work for declarer, where breaking clubs might be better, as declarer can't gain their second diamond trick before losing 3 clubs, 1 diamond and say the A♥. But, this is a tough one. You can easily get it wrong.

I would bid 4♠ immediately at this point. After a 2♠ rebid, I don't think there is any sequence in which I would be confident to play anything other than a spade contract, and I refuse not to play game on this auction and with this hand. It won't always make, but, declarer won't have to make any guesses in the play at least. You would assume that at worst there is only one potential finesse that could fail. It should have really good odds. Probably ~70%, that's enough for me.

Fascinating situation. I know in the ACBL that dummy has the right to prevent any irregularity. So, if this is also the case in the EBU, then, it would seem that Dummy was within their rights to prevent an Undo? It seems like an illegal Undo would in fact be an irregularity? I'll leave that judgement to those that are actually educated in directorship.

It is not ideal, I'd rather cuebid, but I'm also worried partner might reasonably interpret a cuebid as 4-card support after they introduce a new suit. But, consider what it conveys: 1) Exactly 2 card support. 2) A hand that is unreasonably strong for their pass. 3) A hand that did not want to bid NT over 2♣, therefore a hand that wants to play a suit contract. Now, partner can pass 3♠ in such sequences. 5-2 fits are perfectly okay. I'd be happy to play in a 4-3 heart fit in game here, if partner deemed it right. You seem to think that 7-card fits can never play well? Why? That seems like incredibly narrow thinking. This hand is surely going to score better (on average) in a 5-2 or 4-3 fit than in No Trump.