dburn

It is possible that blackshoe might wish to edit his post so that, for the most part, "West" becomes "South" and "East" becomes "North". Once this is done, I will have to edit mine. That's the biz. But West, as PhilKing correctly suggests, is indeed entitled to know that 3♦ was a heart raise if (and only if) 3♦ really was a heart raise by agreement. The OP suggests that there was no agreement; if there wasn't, then that is all the information to which West is entitled. In those circumstances he might or might not bid 3♠.

Oh, first seat red is the ideal time to psyche. Indeed, for most people (including aguahombre's partners) it is quite possibly the only time to psyche.

The AI from the auction is that South (who did not know West would bid again) wanted to play in 3♦ facing a limit raise in hearts. North should act as if this is the case, not as if South would not want to play in 3♦ had he known that he was facing a limit raise in hearts. The fact that South didn't know this is UI and may not be used.

A dim memory stirred, probably of a Bridge World snippet. What follows is my own reconstruction and may be flawed, but I seem to think that the original was sound. ♠AKQ10 ♥32 ♦J5432 ♣32 ♠432 ♥A4 ♦A109876 ♣AK The opponents will lead a heart against a diamond contract. Now, assuming BAM scoring: if they are in five diamonds at the other table, you should be in six diamonds because that will make more than half the time; but if they are in six diamonds at the other table, you should be in seven diamonds because that will make more than half the time six diamonds will make; but if they are in seven diamonds at the other table, you should be in five diamonds because seven diamonds will make less than half the time. So, five diamonds is a worse contract that six diamonds which is a worse contract than seven diamonds which is a worse contract than five diamonds. Auctions involving breaks in tempo suggesting (or not) any number of diamonds over any other number are left as an exercise for the reader, though not a very difficult exercise.

Oh, I don't mind people bidding without enough points. It's the modern game. But I thought South had to bid 2♦ at his second turn to show 11-13 balanced with a four-card major (that's what the annotation in the OP says, anyway). If he could have raised diamonds, rather than having to show four spades, then he might have bid 3♦ after which 3♠-3NT would be a normal enough conclusion to the auction. I expect the system isn't really as it's been depicted, because this would be bonkers, but another part of the modern game is that people play bonkers systems. It occurs to me that "suggested" is probably the wrong word in Law 16. We don't want to spend any more time pointing out smugly (and almost always wrongly) that a slow invitation doesn't suggest anything. As an erstwhile chair of the L&E I did once remark that the slower a call, the less happy the caller was that it should conclude the auction - but this was simply based on many years of experience, and remains more firmly based on many more years of it. What we do want is people not to do things that they wouldn't have done had partner acted in normal tempo. Maybe "demonstrably influenced".

North had an opening bid facing an opening bid, and he invited game rather than bidding it. Does he need an ace more than an opening bid to have more than a minimum invitation facing an opening bid? Of course he had a maximum invitation, and South (who had no extras at all) should not have accepted it.

On the surface: West has said "We don't have any more tricks" and East has said "Yes we do". This demonstrably suggests that East has ♥K or a black-suit ace. It does not, as far as I can see, demonstrably suggest which of these holdings East has, but it does demonstrably suggest that West should not play a diamond. Since a West who thought that her side really did not have any more tricks might logically play anything, she might logically play a diamond, and I would rule on that basis.

One could, I suppose, rely on an older meaning of "information" - "that which informs one's actions". If East hears declarer call for the two of clubs from the table, this will "inform" East's decision to play ♣Q from his hand. Law 47E1 could then be invoked; indeed, even pran seems to suggest that this Law is appropriate if East is "genuinely misled".

Curious, this. The consensus appears to be that: there is no actual rule of the game preventing a player from participating if he has prior knowledge of the hands that have been dealt. Has it never occurred to anyone that there should be? Or is it really the case that "the rules aren't designed to prevent out-and-out cheating"? If so, are not the rules rather feebly designed? Is there some other game or sport that has rules allowing "out-and-out cheating"? If not, why not? In passing, I am not sure that I know what pran means by "a perfectly shuffled pack of cards". Sally Brock and I differ as to whether six or seven imperfect riffle shuffles are enough to destroy information. Poker dealers believe that washing the deck, then riffling thrice, then box-cutting is enough. Hans van Staveren may have been the first to collect enough entropy to overcome the PRNG phenomenon, but even that...

I am, I think I have remarked, Terrifically old. The second Ice Age was a farce - The first was rather cold. But either I have gone completely gaga or the White Book has. On the one hand it says: "partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from KQJx when partner’s penalty card is the Ace)" and on the other hand it says: "However, they may not act as though they know partner has that card." when no one would actually lead low from KQJx unless they knew that partner had the Ace. What jallerton says about what the WBFLC published in October 2008 is illuminating. Not that it casts any light on what should happen when players have penalty cards - indeed, it casts that question further into darkness - but...

Until I read (with more or less total incredulity) the White Book's pronouncement that it's OK to go around underplaying KQJ when your side has committed the infraction of producing the Ace as a penalty card, I had thought that: "Knowledge of the requirements for playing a penalty card" meant simply that you were allowed to know that partner played a penalty card because he had to; you did not have to treat (say) the 10 as the start of a peter, or as an encouraging signal, because you were allowed to know that partner had to play it. "Other information derived from sight of a penalty card" meant simply that you weren't allowed to know what the card actually was until partner had played it (just as if it weren't a penalty card at all, but had remained concealed in his hand until he exposed it in the normal course of leading or following suit). I still think that's what the law says. Has the WBF made any pronouncement?

I see. So, we have a bunch of rules that specify what happens when someone has a penalty card. And then we adjust the score as if he didn't have a penalty card. Wonderful game, bridge. Must give it a try sometime.

I am not sure that pran believes the score should be adjusted, under Law 50E or any other. I myself believe that it is faintly ridiculous to allow a player to do something on the basis that we will then adjust the score as if he had not done it. True, many of the laws are ridiculous, but we should try to conceal this fact from hoi polloi.

In that case, I haven't misinterpreted your position and I do not agree with it. Suppose that the only successful defence is for East to win the first spade. At a table where East does not have a penalty card this defence may or may not be found; at a table where he does it will certainly be found.

I don't believe so, but I am sorry if if have misinterpreted your position. Perhaps a more specific question will help us focus on the relevant issue. South, declarer in a heart contract with plenty of trumps remaining in both hands, leads a spade towards ♠Jx on the table. West has ♠AK43 and East has ♠Q as a penalty card. Now, West has no logical alternative to playing a spade, since revoking is not considered in that category. But he has logical alternatives among the spades he might play. Not knowing that East has ♠Q he would consider playing high, in case declarer had it; knowing that East must play ♠Q to this trick, he might well choose to play low. May he do the latter? Or, put another way, if he does the latter and his side obtains an advantage thereby, should the Director adjust the score?

You are allowed to know that partner has to play the queen of spades. You are not, however, allowed to know that he has the queen of spades. Pran, who cannot grasp this point, is talking rhubarb, but he should be forgiven for this because the point is not all that easy to grasp.

I'm not sure I would. Law 16A begins by giving a list of information that is authorised. This includes: Obviously, this is there to allow players to use "information" such as "lead top of major-suit doubletons against notrump" or whatever it is you're supposed to do nowadays. But the Laws do not preclude the use of the information that someone is glad he bid on over 4♠ on some deal, unless that deal is one that the player is playing or has yet to play. Law 16C1, on which I relied when ruling on this case, expressly says so.

If 2NT showed three hearts, then 3♥ would presumably show slam interest since one could bid 4♥ with "game only". But the OP says that 2NT is consistent with 2=2=5=4 without good diamonds; though I am not certain why one could not bid 3♣ with that shape, no doubt there are excellent reasons.

Slow 4♦ shows extra values, no diamond control, the kind of hand that will make slam facing three aces but might go down in five facing one. Prototype is KQ fifth in both majors with the jack in one or both, two low diamonds, stiff ♣K. Suggests bidding more than 4♥ only with three aces, but opener might well do that anyway.

Whether facing a card from a hand you don't actually hold on the deal is an opening lead or not may be regarded as an abstract question, but the situation I described did arise in actual play, and someone had to give a "practical" ruling. He looked at the actual West hand, which would have done nothing but pass in any auction where East had not made an unconditionally forcing bid, and told West to lead from it. This wasn't legal, but it was "practical" enough, and the players accepted it and got on with the game. When he asked me about it, I read the Laws. I observed that the only Law covering cards from a wrong board was Law 17, clearly headed The Auction Period. I know as well as anyone that the headings are not part of the Laws, and that if this was the only Law covering the situation it should be followed as far as it could be followed. I observed that it could give rise to the (to my mind) ridiculous position that different cases would be treated differently depending on who had the wrong cards. As a practical matter, it would be sensible for this Law to be reviewed in the course of preparing the 2017 edition of the Laws. Also, Law 1 should be tightened.

It ain't so, Joe. Law 1 fails (crucially, although the significance of the omission has not been important until now) to stipulate that the 52 cards in a pack should all be different. What West led is a card as prescribed in Law 1, which his shoe would not be. Since it was a card, it was an opening lead. Of course, the trouble stems from the fact that what constitutes a "card" is far from obvious. What, after all, is "the seven of diamonds"?

Well, the Definitions say that a lead is the first card played to a trick, and that the opening lead is the card led to the first trick. Law 1 defines a card, and what West led met that definition. The fact that it was a card he was not supposed to hold on the current deal does not, in my view, legally prevent it from being regarded as an opening lead.

South opens 1NT and all pass. Both East and West (on this board) have 4-3-3-3 nine counts and neither of them would bid. West faces a lead and East claims (correctly) to have the card West has just led. Now: If West still has his hand from the previous board, Law 17 mandates the award of an adjusted score; but If East still has his hand from the previous board, Law 17 allows the board to be played. This is: [a] what was intended by the lawmakers; ridiculous; [c] both. Select whichever seems to you to apply.

Law 17 refers explicitly to the auction period. It makes no provision for the discovery of the wrong cards after the auction period is over.

The auction is over and West faces his opening lead. Before dummy is spread, East says "I have that card". West still has his hand from the previous board. What is the correct procedure?