dburn

Oh, sure he should. With x Ax Axxxx AKJxx, he would have no business trying for slam at all. Lucky he did, though, or we would not have reached six clubs. What's that? We reached 6NT instead? Well...

And responder knows that opener has the jack and ten of diamonds? How does he know that? It isn't wrong to bid these to six clubs. Only Don Kersey would know to bid them to 6NT.

Not at present. Indeed, I do not recall the suggestion ever being made at an EBU Laws and Ethics meeting, although it is not without merit. We have it, and as far as I know we have adopted it from a WBF (and quite likely EBL) recommendation? I know of no such recommendation - the procedures laid down by the WBF and the EBL are almost exclusively for events played with screens, where the problem does not arise. The only occasion on which I recall learning of the idea was when I served on an Appeals Committee with the late Nissan Rand, who suggested that it was proper for any player to pause, without being held to transmit UI, in the round of a competitive auction that followed a skip bid (the case in question involved the five level, not the three level, but the general point is the same). Again, the idea seems to me to have considerable merit, but I fear that to introduce it in England would be an extensive and irksome process.

If giving count, I believe that the "standard" for standard count players is to begin with the second highest. Of course, any two cards you play will be consistent with a doubleton, and it does not matter whether you play highest or second highest first as long as you do so consistently. This is wrong and is also an antiquated way of thinking. Imagine a situation where partner is missing say J5432 of a suit in a count situation (for simplicity's sake). Ignoring what we play from 5432, we can see that: The 5 is always from 2 or 4. The 4 is from 2 or 4 or J54. Consequently, the 4 is a more ambiguous card since it incorporates a 3 card holding which defeats the point of count parity. So, if you had a choice of what is a better card to play from 5432, would you choose the 5 or the 4? Obviously the 5 as it is the least ambiguous. This is why with 4 small you should always play the highest affordable one. Beginners are taught to play 2nd highest from 4 small so that they don't blow a trick signalling with the highest one (it's hard for a beginner to tell when 9 from 9xxx blows a trick, and when it doesn't). It should be "obvious" that the higher the spot you play from 4, the more readable it will be as an echo. The clearer the signal, the better. In this case, playing the 6 from 8642 playing udca would obviously be a terrible mistake since it adds in a possible doubleton for us (86 doubleton). That makes partner more likely to go wrong and try to give us a ruff. Up to a point, Lord Copper. At least when I play the five, my partner knows he can give me a ruff - when you play the five, yours doesn't. I use the word "you" in a non-specific sense here; you personally, I know, believe this to be an attitude position, and I do not say you are wrong. But if I were ever to play with you and insisted that this was a count position, and you agreed on the grounds that it is better to humor a madman than to upset him, I should be grateful if you would play the five from 5x and the four from 5432. You probably began with more brain cells than I in the first place, but even if you didn't, you certainly have more of them left.

If giving count, I believe that the "standard" for standard count players is to begin with the second highest. Of course, any two cards you play will be consistent with a doubleton, and it does not matter whether you play highest or second highest first as long as you do so consistently. As far as I know, there is no corresponding "standard" signal for UDCA players. Symmetry suggests that one should begin with the third highest, but there may be technical disadvantages to this. Whether or not one should give count is debatable - one gathers that jdonn would only play in a fashion consistent with a doubleton if he actually had one (that is, he is really playing attitude and his signal is designed to tell partner whether or not to give him a ruff). Perhaps if his partner wanted count, his partner would have led the king.

Not at present. Indeed, I do not recall the suggestion ever being made at an EBU Laws and Ethics meeting, although it is not without merit.

You don't want to raise hearts? I don't want to raise hearts if, following LHO's double of 2♦ showing "majors and points", partner might not have hearts. Perhaps partner is showing a heart guard but no spade guard for notrump purposes. Perhaps partner expects me to realise this, since partner did not respond 1♥ to 1♦ nor redouble 2♦, which partner might be expected to do with length and strength in (at least) one of the majors. Mind you, the whole thing is a bit of a puzzle - could not LHO have doubled one diamond to show "majors and points"? The only reason I can see for not doing this is that he also has diamonds, which leaves him very short in clubs. This means that we won't make whatever it is we end up in (as we usually don't when we open a weak three-suited hand and do not find a fit in short order). Still, I'm not going to pass a forcing bid, and I guess I have a spade guard of sorts, so I had better bid 2NT. I don't like it, but I'm not paid to like it.

Because, given that West doesn't have very many points, his "takeout bid" is likely to be a genuine three-suiter - that is, he will have at least twelve non-hearts. For a "Michaels" bid he needs only ten non-hearts. I suspect, without performing tedious calculations, that a man who can have at most one heart is more likely to have no hearts than a man who can have at most three hearts.

In the same way you always do. It really ought not to be necessary to raise a large flag with the word "JOKE" on it to make it clear that no one is actually accusing your partner of anything at all (other than taking, shall we say, a slightly conservative view either of her own hand or the likely content of yours, or possibly both).

Not only would that not have been a very good result, South would presumably have been fined for attempted fielding of a psyche.

That if the overcall on a doubleton could be made as a matter of partnership agreement, it required an alert. Did it not occur to East-West to wonder why South had passed three spades?

This deal occurred in the Pachabo, the competition for the champion teams of English counties. [hv=d=e&v=n&n=s109743hq1065dq73ca&w=sj862haj9dkj964c7&e=sa5hk843dacj98543&s=skqh72d10852ckq1062]399|300|Scoring: BAM[/hv] Gunnar Hallberg, who has just shown it to me, describes it as the most amazing hand he has ever seen. Why?

If West knew the NS system, West might just bid four spades (as jallerton would, and as I would if I knew that South would bid 2♥ with long spades). Of course, if West had asked about the unalerted 2♠ and received the answer "it doesn't have any meaning in our system", he would have bid four spades at some point in the auction. But owing to blindingly stupid English (and therefore Welsh) regulations West can't do this (or at least, he will think that he can't do this owing to blindingly stupid ways in which the aforementioned blindingly stupid regulations are stated). North-South plus 110, East-West plus 620, the Laws and Ethics Committee minus both of those scores and costs in the case of at least several million pounds.

Because it is a self-serving statement for which (in my opinion) there is no supporting evidence -- North's line does not appear (again, in my opinion) to be any more desirable with the information he got than with the information he should have gotten. It is not a question of what is desirable; it is a question of what is induced. The mindset of people judging the question afterwards is emphatically not the mindset of the player given MI at the table. Of course declarer's play on the hand in question does not stand up to analysis, but that is not the issue. The issue is: would he have made the play had he not been misinformed? In the actual case, it is certainly open to the Director or the AC to judge that North made the play he did not because he was misinformed, but because he was doubled. Thinking, wrongly, that he would not have been doubled by an East who had only ♥QJx, he went astray for a reason that had nothing to do with the MI as such, and then tried to claim redress afterwards on specious grounds. That at any rate appears to me to be what jdonn is arguing, and what the AC eventually found, and I would gainsay none of them. I say only that it is important to consider to what extent the player at the table was misled by MI, and to allow him redress unless the line he followed was ridiculous whatever the true state of affairs. I should also say that RMB1's remarks are entirely correct: if a side is guilty of a serious error even though misinformed, it does not obtain redress for the damage caused by the error (though the other side collects the score it would have obtained had the error not occurred).

Burn's Law has acquired a certain wholly unjustified popularity among BBO commentators and spectators following an article I wrote many years ago that can still be read here. It was recently reprinted in the English publication Bridge Magazine, somewhat to my dismay, for I find myself in a position similar to that of the American humorist Gelett Burgess. Achieving overnight fame for a piece of doggerel splendidly entitled "The Purple Cow: Reflections on a Mythic Beast Who's Quite Remarkable, at Least" and consisting of the lines I never saw a Purple Cow. I never hope to see one. But I can tell you anyhow, I'd rather see than be one. Burgess was plagued in his declining years by people who would recite this verse whenever they encountered him. Eventually he penned the following retort, which I have used myself from time to time: Ah yes, I wrote The Purple Cow. I'm sorry now I wrote it. But I can tell you anyhow, I'll kill you if you quote it. People have often used the expression "Burn's fit", usually followed by the words "to be hanged". It is a lasting tribute to the urbanity and good humor of Larry Cohen, however, that he has not been among them.

Oh, they become intertwined in a great number of cases, of which the current case is but one example. My belief is, though, that they become intertwined far more often than they should. The correct procedure, or so it seems to me, is for a Director or a Committee to consider in order: [1] Was there MI - that is: had an explanation been given or withheld that could reasonably cause a player to form a significantly false picture of an opponent's hand? [1a] If not, then the score should not be adjusted. [1b] If so, then [2] Did the MI cause a flawed action to be adopted, an action that would not have been adopted without the MI? [2a] If not, then the score should not be adjusted. [2b] If so, then [3] Was that flawed action a serious error, or a wild or gambling action? [3a] If so, then the score should not be adjusted [3b] If not, then the score should be adjusted.

It seems to me important to distinguish between two cases: [1] Declarer's play was not caused by the MI [2] Declarer's play was caused by the MI, but it should not have been - he should have played differently despite the MI. In neither case should the score be adjusted, but in case [2] the only option available to an AC that does not want to adjust the score is to say that declarer's play was a "serious error" or "wild or gambling action". In the actual case, if the AC decides that declarer's play was not a serious error, then it must adjust the score unless it believes that the play was not caused by the MI. That is: it must flatly disbelieve North when he says "if I hadn't been given the MI, I would have played differently". Note that this is not the same thing at all as deciding that even though North was given MI, he should have played differently; to do so is to hold that case [2] applies. Well, North was given MI, and he made a play that he says he would not have made had he not been given that MI. On the facts as presented, I believe him. It was a poor play, and I would consider it a serious error by a US triallist, but that is not the issue, for the AC did not consider the play a serious error. The issue, then, is: why did the AC not believe North? To say that the AC consulted a lot of other people who would not have played as North did is not a valid reason at all for believing that the MI did not cause North to misplay, only for believing that the MI should not have caused North to misplay. Either what North did was a serious error, or the score should have been adjusted - the AC cannot have it both ways (and neither, despite their luminescence, can jdonn or bluejak).

As a hypothetical exercise: suppose that instead of explaining West's bid as "takeout", East had explained it as "two- or three-suited with at most a singleton and often a void in hearts". Would North be entitled to redress for his line of play?

So I can understand your position, in your example: If Wests says "I will make ♣A" (implicitly conceding three spades), and East objects, does play cease? If West says "You will make three spades" (implicitly claiming ♣A), and East objects, does play cease? It depends on the form of East's objection. If East merely says "play on", then West has not conceded (so he has not claimed) and play continues (both East and West may have UI at this point, so the Director must be called before play actually does continue). If East says "I can ruff a spade", that is not a claim (because he has not stated that his side can win a specific number of tricks), so West has not conceded and play continues as above. If East says "I can ruff a spade and then we get the ace of clubs", that is a claim of two tricks, so play ceases and both claims (West's and East's) need to be adjudicated. West's claim can be dealt with quickly, since it has been superseded by East's (if you like, play has continued per Law 68B2 after West's claim up to the point at which East claims, when play stops). East's claim must be judged according to whether the Director considers it illogical for East to play a diamond rather than a club after ruffing the spade. In the actual case, East claimed three tricks, and the Director must determine whether it would be illogical, solely on the AI that East posseses before West's claim, to allow West's ♠Q to hold.

Is this the EBU position? The white book is not explicit. So, if a defender explicity concedes a trick and implicitly claims one, and defender's partner objects: there is no concession? and no implicit claim? and play continues? But, if a defender explicitly claims a trick and implicitly concedes one, and defender's partner objects to the implicit concession: there is a claim? and play ceases? I do not think this is how we (EBU TDs) have been instructed to rule. Imagine a position like this: [hv=d=n&v=n&n=sakqhdc4&w=s432hdca&e=sh2d32c2&s=shdakqck]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv] Hearts are trumps and the lead is in dummy. West says "you get three spades and then I get the ace of clubs." East objects, so play continues and East ruffs a spade lead from the table. The knowledge that West has ♣A is UI to East, and the Director may rule that unless there is no logical alternative to a club play, East next plays a diamond and the defence ends up with one trick. In the actual case, however, East has not merely objected - East has claimed. Play ceases, and both claims must be dealt with according to the relevant Laws.

No, I'm not. The WBFLC minute refers to a case in which a defender concedes a number of tricks, thereby implicitly claiming those tricks he does not concede. But in this case the defender has explicitly claimed a number of tricks, and that claim has to be treated according to the Laws. Bluejak and I had this discussion a very long time ago, and Max Bavin became involved; we concluded that "a claim is a concession" does not mean "a claim is one and the same thing as a concession" but "a claim is, inter alia, a concession".

If anyone ever gave any thought to anything, absolutely the last thing they should do is "leave it to the TD to sort it out". Instead, they should write Laws in such a fashion that whoever the TD is, the matter will be resolved in the only legally permitted manner. But this would mean that TDs had nothing to do except put the tables up and take them down again, and there would be no International Bridge Laws Forum. Whether or not this would be a Good Thing is left as an exercise for the reader. Meanwhile: West has made both a claim and a concession. Though East has objected to the concession, the claim remains to be dealt with, so that play does not continue. Those who say that "there was no concession and hence no claim" are... well, I will use the word "wrong" rather than some unparliamentary language, though I am tempted to place the words "not even" before the word I have chosen. Whether or not East would have ensured that his side took the last three tricks given that East has UI as well as AI about the actual position is unclear. My inclination would be to give declarer a trick, but I could imagine being persuaded otherwise.

Oh, it is never silly to attempt to work out what the words in the Laws mean. It may be fruitless, because once you have worked them out there is a tendency for people to say "that is all very well, but it is obvious that when we used a word with meaning X we actually intended meaning Y". But in this case there isn't really a problem - "intently" is the adverb from "intent", and "intent" as an adjective means [per the OED] "having the mind strenuously bent upon something; earnestly attentive, sedulously occupied, eager, assiduous; bent, resolved." Confusion with the notion of "purpose" (per "intentional" as opposed to "accidental") is just that - confusion. The Laws prohibit you from looking at an opponent "with your mind strenuously bent upon something" - in this case, discovering something about his cards that may assist you in the play. It does not matter for how long you look, nor for how long your mind is bent (yes, I know, but spare me the jokes). You may not do it at all, let alone peer under a screen to do it.

The total number of possible legal bridge auctions is a rather imposing 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,122,697,557. Now, suppose my partner and I have detailed agreements about a couple of million of these. Do you suggest that if any of the other 128,745,650,347,030,683,120,231,926,111,609,371,363,120,697,557 arises at the table, we should alert?

If the 3NT was *unusual*, it needed an alert. What the partner of the 3NT bidder is going to do, is irrelevant to the alertability of the 3NT, right? Not quite right. If 3NT was minors by agreement, then it needed an alert. But if it was not discussed, and partner happened to have ♠AKQx so that he knew it was not natural, he was under no obligation to alert it.