dburn

To be clear about this: the question was the meaning of a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening. Now, the partnership had agreed to play that a 1♠ overcall of a 1♥ opening had some artificial meaning. It had not agreed to play that a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening had the same (or any other) artificial meaning. It is all very well for the 2♠ overcaller to claim, with hindsight, that had he thought about the matter at all his partnership would have formed such an agreement. But the fact is that he did not and it had not. Well, West bid 2♠ in accordance with his partnership agreements. East alerted and spoke to some agreement that did not exist, thereby conveying to North a totally false picture of what the West hand might contain. To me (and, I presume, to Gordon), it beggars belief that this should be considered "adequate disclosure", or anything at all but out-and-out misinformation. I say again: if East knew that 2♠ was artificial, but did not know what it meant, his efforts at disclosure might have been what Law and regulation require. But the fact is that he did not and they were not. Like Gordon, and (as far as I can judge) like North and South, I have no doubt that East and West were attempting to act from the purest of motives - East in particular was trying to "be helpful". But when attempting to help a lady across the road, it is advisable to be sure [a] that she actually wants to cross the road in the first place and that you are certain of what the road looks like. Otherwise, when the lady ends up (as she did) under the wheels of a bus, you may expect short shrift from Lords Rainsford and Burn when we try you for manslaughter (or perhaps, in these interesting times, "personslaughter").

This position is perfectly covered by Law 46B4. (The call for a trump in a NT contract is void.) It is not at all clear to me that the position is "perfectly covered" (or covered at all) by Law 46B4: For this Law to apply, it must be shown that there is some card for which declarer has called, but that card is not in dummy. But when declarer says "ruff", and there are no trumps in dummy, for which card (indeed, for which suit) has declarer called? Even when there are trumps in dummy, one imagines a position like this (such as could easily arise from something akin to the conditions of the actual deal): Declarer leads a spade, and asks dummy to ruff. Dummy picks up a club, whereat declarer says "no, no - ruff!" The contract is in fact 6♣, but declarer thinks it is 6♥, and his "different" and "incontrovertible" intention (see Law 46B) was that dummy should play a heart to this trick. As far as the Law is concerned, should dummy be considered to have played the club or the heart?

(Emphasis mine). A perennial discussion topic on BLML. It was regularly suggested that the WBFLC remove the superfluous word "logical" :) But that would have been a "logical" simplification, probably anathema to some law-makers :(It's not so much a question of removing the word "logical". What the Law probably ought to say is that the player "may not choose any action that could demonstrably have been suggested by the extraneous information, unless there is no logical alternative to the chosen action."

I imagine that as dummy, I would ask "ruff with what?" This question will probably not alert declarer (yet) to the fact that there are no trumps - he will specify a "trump" with which to ruff, and that will become a played card. If on the other hand I were to sit there doing nothing, this might be construed as communication something to declarer about the play, a violation of Law 43A1c. There seems to me to be a case for an addition to Law 46 in order to cover this specific position.

Interesting notion. If I ask my opponent to give me a hundred dollars, and he refuses, can I call the Director and ask for a ruling under Law 74A2?

This is something that's been bothering me for a long time. I've been informed by several pundits, including David Stevenson and Grattan Endicott, that this law does not mean what it literally says, and that if a player who has UI chooses an action that is not an LA, and that action is successful, he has violated this law, even though a literal reading would say otherwise. :blink: :angry: The ACBL now has a regulation to the effect that any action chosen at the table is a logical alternative, because it seemed logical to the player who chose it, and that player is a representative of his class of player.

Sorry - that was my fault. Apologies for intemperate language.

I think it is exactly that simple. The player believed that she was making a transfer at the time. She may have been confused, tired, out of her depth etc. The only reason she woke up was because of the failure to alert. This is clearly UI for her. Why does she not correct at the end of the auction? Because East-West are entitled only to knowledge of the North-South methods, not the North-South hands. If the Director is satisfied that 3♥ was not a transfer by partnership agreement (and he seems to have investigated the matter thoroughly and efficiently), then he should rule that there has been no misinformation and that there are no grounds to adjust the score. East-West certainly seem to have had some bad luck on this deal, but equally certainly they did not receive a bad ruling.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Yes. I had thought, when 3B10 was introduced, that it was the wrong idea; and maybe it is, in theory. But then I realised that as a practical matter, my partner and I can defend against (a) or (b ), and hope to get a good result; and there will be times, when we have in fact been given misinformation, that we will get a favourable ruling. But I cannot hope, with any partner, successfully defend against (a_or_B). I do not know what I would do if I were given this explanation. I might be forced to ask the opponent to choose one. Am I permitted to do that? No, of course not. What you need to understand is that because bridge is increasingly being played by people who do not know their own methods either because they are too old, so that they forget, or because they are too young, so that they think it is a lark to play Suction over 1♥ without bothering to discuss what happens over 2♥, Laws and regulations tend to operate in favour of the demented, since this is the category to which most players belong. OB 3B10 was put in place in order, as Bluejak rightly says, to "be helpful" to those who preferred to play their bridge as if they could expect that when an opponent bid something, it had one and only one meaning. It was a sensible regulation, even though it was illegal. But that was then, and this is now. If your opponent burbles that a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening, or a 2♥ response to 1NT doubled, "might be this, or it might be that", you may draw some comfort from the words of Hilaire Belloc: So grin and bear it, Stupid, do not bleat. You hungered after Progress years ago; You wanted Science, and you’ve got it - neat; You certainly desired Hygiene, and lo! You have it now, and mutter in your woe Of bitter knowledge dearer bought than gold. These are the things that people do not know - They do not know, because they are not told. but that is all you can do. The lunatics have taken over the asylum, and they have done so with (apparently) the full consent of the medical staff.

What defence do we play to a weak no trump, and how aggressive is partner when it comes to using whatever that defence is? Whatever the answers to the above questions, I would bid 3♠. I don't understand pass (we could be cold for game, or for 3♠ when they can make 3♣), and I don't understand double because I really don't want to see partner's face when I put this dummy down in 3♥ opposite four low in both majors.

3♣ for the moment. Our best slam (whether six or seven) might be in clubs even when partner only has four. Silly to commit to notrump at this point. Which minor would partner open with four cards in both, by the way?

Mine are "modified Larry Cohen", who said that pass is forcing only if the janitor thinks it's forcing. My janitor doesn't play bridge, so I don't assume any pass is forcing.

As a general rule, at IMPs (or for money) one should double only if one judges that the contract is more likely to go two down than it is to make. I don't see any reason to suppose that this is the case here. And yet... if I don't double, partner might not lead his stiff spade, whereas if I do double, he will (or at least, he should). Still, even if he does, they're not down yet. Would pass at the table, but would listen with unconcealed admiration to the successful doublers in the bar afterwards.

One may then summarize the Winstonian position as: "X is true" iff (sic - look it up) there is someone who believes X, and iff it can be shown to others who may initially disbelieve (or be agnostic about) X that a contradiction follows from the assumption that not-X; while "X is the case" iff physical (or "empirical") phenomena are incompatible with X not being the case. That is: X may be the case without X being true (the nature of X may be such that no one has any grounds on which to base a belief or a disbelief in X); also, X may be true without X being the case (there is no reason to suppose that merely because everyone believes X, they must necessarily be correct). In short, nothing is "true" unless there is someone to whom it is "true". This position is characterized by different philosophers in different ways; laymen who may have wandered in are encouraged to research such various topics as Bishop Berkeley, tabula rasa, fallibilism, and the German Talmudists of the eighteenth century. The last of these will direct you to the "wrong" Isaiah Berlin, and your assignment will be to show why he was wrong or - alternatively if you believe in the Excluded Middle, but simultaneously if you do not - why he may have been right.

Well, Cascade's post says (inter alia) that: but this is simply false. The truth is that: for p>50% we need [P(partner thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was thinking of making a slam try)] plus [P(partner not thinking of slam try) * P(12 tricks given that partner was not thinking of making a slam try)] > 50%. It is this second factor that, as it seems to me, you and Cascade have vastly underrated. I understand the difference between "zero" and "effectively zero", but I also understand the extent to which 43% is greater than 0%. Still, as you say, we do not appear to have much quarrel with respect to the legal principles involved. As to my own credentials, I have won an event or two and I have for quite some time been a member of (and a quondam chairman of) the Laws and Ethics Committee in England. David Stevenson even bought me a drink once. I must return the kindness some day.

I state here without proof that: Now, would this be true if there were no intelligent life in the Universe?

Not that I wish to discourage experimentation, for I am in the minority who firmly believe that within reason, anyone should be allowed to play whatever they like. But I am curious: suppose I have ♠KJxx ♥xx ♦Axxxxx ♣x and the bidding proceeds 2♥-2♠-4♥ to me (where 2♠ shows either clubs, or spades and diamonds). What call should I make? Similarly, suppose I had ♠AKQ10xxx ♥xx ♦Kxx ♣x and the bidding followed an identical course. Would 4♠ be "pass or correct", or would it show spades? Of course, these problems would be the same if the opening bid were 1♥ and the overcall 1♠, but I confess that the possibility of their arising at all would be sufficient to convince me that these methods might not actually be very much use. Double game swings due to judgement are one thing; double game swings due to stupid methods are another. But your assumption that "you lose" if you do not know your system is, in essence, correct: you will fall foul of the requirements for disclosure mandated by Law 40, and you will be (as you were in the actual case) ruled against under Laws 21, 23 and 75. Whether or not you "deserve to lose" is something of a subjective issue on which I make no observation, but your assertion that your loss is "not supported by law" is simply false.

If it makes you feel any better, I am happy to concede that if West has a bad hand, East will probably not make six hearts. I do not believe I have ever denied it, but if you think that I have, I hereby set the record straight with apologies for any confusion I may have caused. But none of this matters. The question is simply: given that East knows (illegally) that West has a hand on which 4♥ is not a clear action, what should East do to maximize his expected score on the deal given also that if he bids a slam, his bid will not be cancelled by the authorities? The answer to that is obvious: he should bid a slam, because it will make considerably more than half the time.

My point is that L16C gives us three criteria which must be met before we can adjust: - The NOS must have been damaged - There must be a less successful logical allternative - The selected action must be 'demonstratably suggested' by the UI Your views seem to suggest that in all cases where the first two are met you would adjust, since the mere fact of the UI leading to a successful action must ipso facto mean that the successful action was suggested. This is clearly wrong, or why include that condition in the law at all. Hence, I am trying to ascertain under what circumstances you would not adjust based on the 'demonstratably suggested' criterion. Thank you for the clarification, but I am still struggling to understand. If the UI "led to a successful action", then of course that action was "ipso facto suggested"; I cannot place any other construction on the meaning of the verb "to lead [to]" in this context. But perhaps you mean "if the UI were followed by a successful action, I would always rule that the action must have been influenced by the UI even though there was no component of the UI that demonstrably suggested the successful action". If this is actually your point, perhaps I can answer it simply by saying that: if in the case of 1♠-slow 3♠ the form of scoring were matchpoints (or BAM), I would not necessarily rule that a 4♠ bid on a marginal hand should be disallowed if game were to make. That is, I might be persuaded by an argument of the form "I did not know whether partner's BIT indicated that his call was aggressive or conservative, so when I bid game I was just guessing." Chances are that I would not be so persuaded, because my (fairly extensive) experience leads me to conclude that almost no one ever acts slowly in the hope that partner will "guess" to pass; the slower a call, the less happy its perpetrator is with the notion that it should be the final call. But I do not discount the possibility altogether.

You see, as Sherlock Holmes remarked, but you do not observe. If I had: ♠KQJxx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣xxx I would pass after 1♥-1♠-3♥, and I would not consider my choice atypical. Chance of slam: roughly 43%. The same is of course true of a different "horrible hand": ♠xxxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣KQJxx That, in essence, is why your "numbers" are fatally flawed - you completely ignore the possibility that even if West was thinking about passing 3♥, bidding 6♥ may still be the winning action. Not that I base any part of my argument on anyone's numbers in any case - I do not. I say only that any subsequent East who plays bridge in Norway should bid 6♥ with this hand, because since the people who ruled on the current case appear to have mislaid the brains with which they were born, 6♥ is more likely to gain than to lose.

The auction proceeds "pass - pass - pass - pass". West wants to see South's cards - perhaps in order to determine what might happen in the other room, perhaps in order to determine North-South's style for future boards. Should South grant this request? If he does not, should a Director summoned by West compel South to reveal his hand? Show your working, with particular reference to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge or to anything else that you (mistakenly) think you know.

Nor in mine. East-West had not agreed that a 2♠ overcall of 2♥ showed anything other than spades, and any statement to the effect that it did (or even that it might) is misinformation. Contrary to jdonn's view above, East was not doing anything remotely helpful - instead, he was creating confusion where none would have existed had he just acted as the law requires. Sadly wrong: the confusion is caused by following the Law. The players were telling him about "relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding" as they should. No, they should not. The partnership had an understanding that 1♠ over 1♥ was artificial. The partnership had no understanding that 2♠ over 2♥ was artificial (if it had such an understanding, West would not have bid 2♠), so East should not have done what he did.

This statement seems to me ridiculous. If the BIT conveys no information about partner's hand it cannot suggest any bid over any other bid. I'm still interested in whether there is any situation where there was a BIT leading to a successful action with an LA where you would consider the successful action not demonstratably suggested. Many things seem to you ridiculous that are in fact true, and many things seem to you true that are in fact ridiculous. You cannot help this, but you should perhaps make some effort not to flaunt the matter in so public a fashion. It is trivially true that the knowledge "partner has a problem" can suggest a bid over another bid even though you do not know what partner's actual problem is. As I have said, if you hear the auction 1♠-3♠ and do not know whether partner had acted aggressively or conservatively, it is clearly correct (if you can get away with it) to bid game. You will need to rephrase the second paragraph of your post; I am afraid that as it stands, it makes no sense to me at all.

If I had bid 2♠ showing club or diamonds and spades, it was not alerted and then my partner bid consistently with that explanation and we reached a good contract as a result, what would you do then? Given the rest of our system and what we do in other systems, this was at least as likely to happen. This dismays me somewhat; are you and your partner in the habit of entering events without having a clue what the methods you have devised to make life miserable for your opponents and the organisers actually are? But the answer to your question is straightforward enough: if you had no agreement to the effect that a 2♠ overcall showed other than spades, then your partner should [a] not alert a 2♠ overcall and not act as if it showed other than spades. If he did [a] but not - that is, if he failed to alert 2♠ and then acted as if he were not necessarily facing spades - you would be considered to have a concealed partnership understanding and dealt with according to the relevant Laws, which regrettably seem not to impose a twenty-year prison sentence and a fine of several million pounds for the offence. If he did but not [a] - that is, if he thought it helpful to inform the opponents that you had agreed a deranged method over one-level openings and that "therefore" a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening might not be based on spades, but then acted according to the actual partnership agreement and bid as if he were facing spades - you would be considered to have given misinformation and dealt with according to the relevant Laws, which regrettably... If he did neither [a] nor - that is, if he alerted 2♠ and then acted as if he were not necessarily facing spades - you would also be considered to have given misinformation. Strictly speaking, you would be guilty of misinformation even if the overcaller turned out not to have spades; if each partner happens to "guess correctly" that the other believes a method to apply that has not in fact been agreed, it is technically misinformation to say that an agreement exists. But since this would do no harm, there would (regrettably) be no penalty for the offence.