dburn

Hang on a minute. 1♦-Double-1(natural)♥-2♣-2♠ is natural and not forcing? Well it was said by the bard: and all of you who credit that could sit down on an opera hat and never crush the darn thing flat you skeptics Don Marquis, archys life of mehitabel

Just wondering - are there players against whom failure to falsecard would constitute a Grosvenor Gambit?

Mind you, I am encouraged to find that my learned colleagues are now of the opinion that it is not the Director's job to play the hand on behalf of someone who has claimed. Hitherto, this has not always been the case.

Burn's Third Law states that you cannot make 3NT on a cross-ruff. It is based in part on the lemma, stated here without proof, that you cannot draw trumps if there aren't any. As to the actual ruling, a strict application of Burn's rules for adjudicating claims suggests down twelve (declarer is bound to win the first trick, but is considered to do that with dummy's ♠A, then pitch ♣A on a low spade from the table, after which he can lose the remainder without difficulty). If this is considered overly Draconian, I might accept down one.

Purely as a matter of interest, was 2♣ alerted?

Would duck the first heart, win the second and play a diamond towards the nine. What happens, and how quickly?

It is certainly possible that without UI, North might have wondered where all the spades were and concluded that partner had more than one of them. But without UI North is a free agent - he can conclude what he likes and bid what he likes (although I would wonder what, among the "stuff" that North-South play, the uncontested auction 1♦-1♠-3♠-3NT might mean; there are those who do not play it as non-forcing). But with UI, North knows that South is supporting North's "spades" (and may not have any heart support at all). That being so, he is simply not allowed to bid 3NT and hope that South will pass it (why in blazes did South pass it, anyway?) because there are always (or almost always) logical alternatives to the presumption that partner has forgotten the system. 3NT was basically another case of unauthorized panic - "partner thinks I have spades, so I had better bid something that suggests I don't want to play in spades". Note that this is different from "standard UP", where you bid a suit because partner doesn't think you have it even though you've shown it, but the principle is the same.

I have looked at the earlier thread, in which low to the eight then low to the ace was (as far as I can see) not considered in mikeh's analysis. It might have been, because it loses only to stiff jack, stiff 10 and J10 doubleton with East whereas low to the eight then low to the nine loses to KJ, K10 and J10 doubleton with East. Since a specific singleton is less likely than a specific doubleton, the former line is superior to the latter if West will always, or often, "forget" to play his honour on the second round from an original holding of J76 or 1076. Fred's analysis of AQ9 facing five low concluded correctly that West should always (or sufficiently often) play his honour from those holdings on the second round, and as far as I can see the same is true in the original problem. In both cases, of course, low to the nine then low to the queen is hopeless - though whenever my opponents do it, I always have J10 doubleton offside. How about yours?

I don't expect that 1♦-1♥ showed spades. They were probably playing transfers only over takeout doubles of 1♦ (or at least, one of them was). This is horrible. North simply cannot bid 3NT after 1♥ has been alerted as spades. Why shouldn't East have a lot of black-suit cards, and have decided to bid clubs because North has just bid spades? Why shouldn't West have a strong jump overcall in spades, and be passing 3♠ just to see what will happen (he knows that North-South are in the middle of a cock-up, but they don't). I don't know about 6NT doubled down three, although I understand the reasoning behind it and could well imagine giving part of it as a weighted score. But "result stands" is... well, it is not even wrong.

Not sure how irregular this partnership is, but if it has used splinters before I'd say it was using one now. This is a little surprising given my distribution, but that is not my business; I will alert and explain 3♠ as shortage with heart support and game values. Of course, if this not very regular partnership has used (or discussed using) transfers over takeout doubles in the past, then an alternative explanation is possible. If North actually alerted 1♥, then matters become more complex.

Requiring three tricks from: ♣AQ98 ♣5432 and with enough entries, side stoppers and so forth to play however you wish, you lead the deuce - six; eight; ten. When later you lead the three, West plays the seven. Should you: [a] play the nine play the queen [c] play the ace [d] use some randomizing device to decide among possibilities - none is superior to both of the others.

Great idea, and great lesson. One small point, Fred, if I may. This was the first thing a television director told me when I made some programmes on events such as the Sunday Times tournament, for which I wrote my own scripts and read from them to record the commentary: When people converse, or talk impromptu, their voices rise at the end of sentences (listen for yourself). When people read aloud, their voices fall at the end of sentences. So, if you don't want to sound like a lecturer reading verbatim from a prepared script - in other words, if you don't want to remind people of their schooldays by sounding like the worst kind of teacher - make sure your voice follows the pattern of "normal" speech by ending sentences (or clauses) on an upnote.

Exit with a club, I guess, and hope to squeeze West in the majors.

It occurs to me that the current regulations may best be summarised as: "Don't Ask. Don't Tell." If the United States Army has abolished this precept, surely the English Bridge Union can do likewise.

What for? So that you can use it to say: instead of what you previously said, which was: Or perhaps you would like the strength to read, so that you will understand that the original post made no mention whatsoever of the auction, and this conclusion: is not supported by any factual evidence whatsoever. Nor, of course, is it refuted by any factual evidence whatsoever, but the correct answer to the original question was not "artificial adjusted scores are awarded" nor "play continues normally", but "it depends on what the auction was". Since we don't know what the auction was, we don't know what Gerben should have done. Keen observers will have noticed that I have in the foregoing assumed that it is rational to apply Law 17 to this position at all, despite previously having referred to this as "absurd". It is absurd, and it is my opinion (and that of the Chief Tournament Director of the WBF) that Law 17 does not apply in this position. But if it did, it would be important to apply it correctly.

And which part of Law 17 permits the award of an artificial adjusted score? Has the offender made a different call from his cancelled call? No. Has the offender's partner made a call after the offender's cancelled call? No. Is there any other provision in Law 17 for the award of an artificial adjusted score? No. All that has happened is that East has led and South has put down the dummy. So what? In truth, there really isn't a problem. If the auction has been 2NT - all pass, and it would have been 2NT - all pass even if West had been looking at his real hand, then North ought to be allowed to play in 2NT and the the Laws permit him to do so. (What I wrote earlier about UI to East was probably nonsense, if as the OP said West has revealed nothing about his real hand.) If instead the auction had been 1NT-pass-2C-pass-2D-pass-2NT-all pass, then Law 17 requires that there should be an artificial adjusted score even when the auction would have been identical had West been looking at his real hand (because West's first pass is cancelled and East has made a call subsequent to it). This is ridiculous, of course, but being ridiculous does not preclude something from being in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge.

The original post said only "North is declarer in 2NT". It said nothing about the auction, which for all I (and you) know may very well have been 2NT - all pass. Do you (and Sven) contend that Law 17 "clearly" applies to this auction and permits the award of an artificial adjusted score?

Is it? Suppose North opens 2NT and everybody passes. Then, per Law 17, West's final pass is cancelled. Presumably East's opening lead is also cancelled, and so is South's display of the dummy, but these are questions to be dealt with later; for the moment, we appear (absurdly) to be trying to apply Law 17. So, West looks at his actual hand, and passes again. Now, none of the conditions in Law 17 for awarding artificial adjusted scores obtains. Offender's LHO has not called over the cancelled call (he can't, because the auction is over). East has likewise not called over the cancelled call (he really can't, because not only is the auction over, even if it were not it would not be his turn). Still (absurdly) trying to apply Law 17, we find that: It didn't. So, North gets to declare 2NT. And East has a lot of UI about West's hand, or West has a lot of major penalty cards, or both - but there is no question of applying artificial adjusted scores when the conditions for so doing are not present.

I can see plenty. The opening bidder, by alerting and then bidding 4♠, illegally informed partner that he had a weak two bid in spades and not a strong two bid in spades. If I had responder's hand and partner showed a strong two bid in spades, I would bid a slam (and so would almost anyone). The fact that I have to guess which slam to bid, because our methods appear to have deprived us of room to investigate, might encourage us to adopt different methods in the future. But in the present, I cannot pass four spades without cheating.

Oh, the genie is already out of the bottle - players in pairs tournaments can print matchpoints by capitalizing on the misdemeanours of some jackass to "achieve" average plus for both sides. This, like some of the weighted scores that get flung around, is no more than a sop to obviate complaints; no one is actually going to moan overmuch about getting either a 60% board or their session average if greater. 50%, on the other hand... but we're one step ahead of the shoe shine, two steps away from the county line, just trying to keep the customers satisfied.

I am not sure about this; the Lawmakers have left it to the discretion of Regulating Authorities to decide what constitutes "serious error, wild or gambling action". Recent and highly commendable efforts by Frances Hinden have ensured that the EBU now has comprehensive guidance on the question to the effect that if your opponent is a cheat, it does not matter if you are a moron. If the ACBL wants to continue to say that "failure to play bridge" may be a serious error unrelated to an infraction, I believe that it may legally do so (and at a personal level, I will continue to applaud its stance).

Sure, but the TD might also consider that North-South would not have reached 6♦ if South had not known that East had ♦Q. So, possible results should perhaps also include games for North-South. I am not entirely clear in my mind as to the point at which the TD can no longer deem normal play of a board impossible. It does not seem to me at variance with the Law for a TD to allow bidding and play to be completed, and then say "well, that wasn't normal bidding or normal play, so I shall cancel the board in retrospect" [Law 16C2c refers]. Since the auction is not given in the OP, I am unable to form a judgement as to whether this would have been a wise course for the TD - but I think it a legal course. Whereas it is obviously not a good idea for the TD to give one ruling, then another, then collude with the players in the reaching of some compromise, I confess that I have a great deal of sympathy with the TD and the players in the actual case. I could even accept the compromise ruling, were it not for my implacable opposition to VPs being arbitrarily added to the economy because of the misdemeanours of some jackass. 16-6 should have been 14.5-5.5.

Since bluejak and I do not always agree entirely with one another, the net effect of having neither of us contribute tends to be the same as the net effect of having both of us contribute, except that the latter takes longer to peruse. However, on this occasion I do agree almost entirely with my learned colleague. Certainly a Director should only very rarely award artificial adjusted scores such as A+ or A- in cases such as this; he may do so only if attempting to award a weighted score (where these are permitted) and judging that the possible outcomes are "numerous or not obvious" [Law 12C1d]. Instead, the Director should consider whether North's bid of 5♥ is an infraction: if it is, it should be cancelled; if it is not, it should be allowed to stand; and the table score should be adjusted if necessary. North has the UI that South does not know that 4♦ showed hearts and was intended only to have South rather than North declare 4♥. Thus, North knows what he is not entitled to know: that South is actually raising North's "diamonds". The question is: would North know that anyway? Suppose (as one should generally suppose in such cases) that North and South were separated by a screen, so that from North's point of view the auction is impossible - he is staggered when the tray returns with 5♦ rather than 4♥ in front of South. May North assume that South has forgotten? Or must North assume that his partner bid 5♦ knowing full well what 4♦ meant, and act accordingly? The method of resolving this question is not clear. There are some who believe, not without justification, that North must in fact proceed as if South had explained 4♦ as "hearts, not necessarily more than game values" and then bid five diamonds over it. This has never struck me as altogether satisfactory, because it implies that North is in effect permitted to take advantage of the UI that partner has actually remembered the system. Others believe (as I do) that North must proceed as if he had not heard anything at all from the South quarter with regard to 4♦, and is allowed to guess or deduce that South has forgotten the methods. The first school would disallow 5♥, the second school would condone it. Until more official guidance on the question is given than we have at present (although some might exist of which I am unaware), any given ruling may depend on the school to which the Director or the Appeals Committee belongs. The difference between this and the Ghestem case is that in the former, the table auction is impossible - South can't have a 2NT opening that bids 5♦ over what is in effect a sign-off in 4♥. In the latter, a South who hears his partner show the red suits might nevertheless want to play in 5♣ - that auction is not impossible, even though it might be implausible (particularly if South has passed at some previous opportunity to bid).

If North-South "use UI" to bid 5♥ over 4♠ by East-West, and East lets through 5♥ by revoking, can he claim that this serious error was "related to the infraction" because if the opponents hadn't cheated he would have been dummy at 4♠ and thus not had a chance to revoke?

Would bid 3NT - would consider 4♥ but not for very long. If partner then bid 4♥ I would bid 5♦. 4NT is natural, not Blackwood, and 4♠ shows four of them and can be passed.