dburn

I have not commented on the issue of selection bias because (as the original arbitrators considered, and as is true) the issue is not particularly relevant. It may or may not be the case that this West bids 4♥ slowly only when he has a marginal slam try; that the Norwegian federation actually has the resource to follow this West around for many years and observe his tendencies in similar positions is [a] unlikely and immaterial. Sure, many cases come to committee purely because the NOS got a bad result at the table and bring the case to court only on the grounds that, as A P Herbert remarked, "it is a principle of [English] law that a person who appears in a police court has done something undesirable..." He continued: "...and citizens who take it upon themselves to do unusual actions which attract the attention of the police should be careful to bring these actions into one of the recognizable categories of crimes and offences, for it is intolerable that the police should be put to the pains of inventing reasons for finding them undesirable." Now, the auction 1♥-1♠-3♥-4♥-6♥ is certainly an unusual action which will attract the attention of the police. True, it will almost always attract such attention only if 6♥ makes (a vigilant North or South should bring the matter to the attention of the police even if 6♥ is doubled and down three, but not all bridge players are so public-spirited). But the police will (rightly) not concern themselves with the question of whether West's actual BIT was based on a putative slam try or a putative pass; they will (and did) concern themselves only with the question of what West's BIT "demonstrably suggested" to East that he should do. Sven and others argue that the BIT, in and of itself, contained no suggestion as to how East should act one way or the other. But under these assumptions (the first of which is proven, albeit a posteriori, the second of which is arguable but not really all that arguable): [1] If East bids 6♥, then whether he makes it or not, the result will be allowed to stand; [2] 6♥ will "almost always" make if West has a marginal slam try; then a game-theoretic East "should" bid 6♥ since his expectation from doing so (as opposed to passing 4♥) is positive, because 6♥ will make some of the time even when West has a marginal pass of 3♥. Perhaps this is what East had in his subconscious mind when he said words to the effect that it might be "a tough slam" but that he "always bid those". In short: bidding 6♥ is a logical alternative demonstrably suggested by the UI from West's BIT, even though the BIT conveys no information at all about the actual content of the West hand. Blackshoe's apologetic to the contrary, that is what I meant when I said that the actual ruling was wrong in law; what Sven has not fully grasped is that the question is not actually one of pure "bridge judgement".

Suppose that the auction had begun (4♥) 4♠. Would it have occurred to East that the 4♠ bid showed "either clubs, or spades and diamonds"? Would it have occurred belatedly to West that this is what the bid "should" show? It really is not open to East-West to say that because a 1♠ overcall of a 1♥ opening shows clubs or the pointed suits, "therefore" the agreement "might" be that for all (or some) n>1, a n♠ overcall of a n♥ opening also shows clubs or the pointed suits. In my view, it is something of a dereliction of duty for a partnership to enter even a semi-serious tournament without knowing what it means when one of them bids 2♠ over an opening 2♥, but as yet there appears no actual legal requirement to do so. I say once more, as Gordon said: if East-West had not explicitly agreed that a 2♠ overcall of a 2♥ opening showed either clubs or the pointed suits, any statement to the effect that it might is misinformation. I believe also that the Director should have given more consideration than he did to the extent to which East-West's shenanigans had fixed North. It is true that I would not have bid North's cards as she did, but it is not necessarily a "serious error" not to do what I would do (indeed, as has been amply demonstrated over the thirty years and more that I have been playing bridge, the converse is more likely to be true).

Not really. ♠Kxxxxxx ♥Q and the rest at your discretion is enough.

The terms "analytic" and "synthetic" may assist you. Or, of course, they may not.

Would double as East, but would bid 1NT as West. Important using this style for East not to jump to 3NT with some 19 count or other - bid 2♠ first to let partner get out in 2NT if he has the "nightmare" ♠QJxx and nothing. Since I would also double 1♠ with such as ♠xxx ♥AQxx ♦AKJx ♣xx, I really don't want partner bidding 2♣ on four to the ten, and I certainly don't want him bidding 2♣ on three low because he isn't strong enough to bid 1NT.

If that were actually the case, Sven and Bluejak would be wrong in law; if the probability that partner is thinking about bidding six outweighs the probability that he is thinking of passing three, then bidding six is demonstrably suggested. However, even if it were the case that the two probabilities are equal, Sven and Bluejak would still be wrong in law; as jdonn and I and others have pointed out, the mere fact that partner is thinking of doing one thing or the other makes bidding six more likely to win IMPs (or avoid losing IMPs) than passing four, and is therefore also demonstrably suggested. The actual expectation for bidding six is of course [expected IMP gain for bidding six] * P[the score will not be adjusted to making four with overtricks]. The latter probability is of course 1 if you cannot make six, but at least in Norway it is now known also to be 1 if you can.

Well, one can say at any rate that 6♥ is much more likely to be successful in Norway, because if it makes the result will be allowed to stand whether partner had a borderline slam try or a borderline raise to game. I leave it to those with greater mathematical competence than mine (which is to say, almost everyone) to make the required modifications to the Bayesian equations.

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. This confusion completely fixed North, who wanted to double clubs if that was what West actually had; by the time it became clear that clubs was not what West had, North could not clearly bid diamonds naturally because that might have sounded to South like a cue bid in West's "known second suit". You may say that North could have anticipated these complexities and bid diamonds over 2♠ anyway, but why in tarnation should she be required to perform any such convoluted thinking simply because her opponents were a pair of nutters apparently playing a method that neither she nor they actually knew? The position is to be contrasted with, for example: (2♥) 3♥, undiscussed. East knows that he does not know what West intends by 3♥, but he knows that it is not intended as natural. Here, it may be helpful for East to say "we play (1♥) 2♥ as Michaels and we play (1♥) 3♥ as asking for a stopper, but we have not discussed (2♥) 3♥." (Chances are that this won't actually help anyone except West, but at least East can retire to his attic with the gratifying feeling that his duty has been done.) In the actual case, East misspoke to a non-agreement, an offence that one hopes in the new political climate will soon be punishable by death at the very least. As to what West should have done: he should have explained redouble as whatever meaning it would have had after (2♥) natural 2♠ (penalty double). But perhaps East-West had "forgotten" to attach a meaning to this sequence also. Some people, you see, play it as SOS...

This is one of the most extraordinary statements I have ever heard. If the Laws are not designed to prevent cheating, what in blazes are they designed to do?

It may help to consider jdonn's argument in the more familiar context of 1M-slow 3M (limit raise). Assume that opener has a hand that would (if such things were legal) bid three (or even two) over a raise to 2.5 but bid four (rather than three) over a raise to 3.5. Assume also that opener has no knowledge whatsoever of partner's tendencies - that is, a slow raise to three is exactly as likely to be a raise to 2.5 as a raise to 3.5. Now, the UI in itself does not demonstrably suggest one thing (passing three) over the other (bidding four). But the IMP scale does, when combined with the UI - the reward for bidding four is greater when right than the cost when wrong (especially vulnerable). That is why we say that even when other things may be equal, what is "demonstrably suggested" by a slow raise is that partner bids on. In the actual case, where the question is not game but slam, the IMP scale is less decisive - the reward for bidding a slam when right is equal to the cost for bidding one when wrong. However, since even when partner was thinking of passing three, you might still make six (imagine partner with ♠KQ10xx ♥xx ♦xxx ♣xxx for example), bidding six is still with the odds and still "demonstrably suggested".

The wording of the Law you quote makes it completely clear that there is a pair of actions involved in playing a card. On the contrary - the wording of the Law makes it completely clear that there is only one action involved in playing a card from dummy. Declarer may name the card or may pick it up himself, but as soon as he has done one of those things the card has been played. Otherwise, the following is possible: declarer calls for the seven of diamonds (a card that is in dummy); before dummy picks up that card, dummy's LHO plays a diamond; the Director is called because dummy's LHO has played out of turn. Do you believe that this is what the Law says should be done? No, of course you don't, and nor does anyone.

But the explanation was that they didn't have a firm agreement. So the explanation was correct. No, it wasn't. If they did not have an agreement to play that 2♠ showed (inter alia) spades and diamonds, then any explanation to the effect that 2♠ showed (or might show) spades and diamonds is not correct. And clearly they did not have such an agreement, otherwise West would not have bid 2♠. It is one thing to forget an agreement; it is another thing altogether to invent an agreement and then claim that it pre-existed. This East-West pair ought to have been disqualified, and probably executed.

Nor would I, but one needs to make some allowance for partner's passed-hand status. For example, if I thought my opponents might make one spade facing a passed-hand penalty pass of a double of one heart, and that our side could make no higher contract, why would I double them in one heart? For that reason I would regard pass here as forcing. I would not pass even so (and nor would I bid 2♥, because partner might well pass that and it might not be our side's best spot). Put me with jdonn in the 3♣ department.

When asked how he managed to find successful actions so quickly, Skid Simon (perhaps not quite in Meckstroth's class, but certainly a great player) replied that he had a natural gift for realising in seconds that he would not know what to do if he thought for several hours.

Would bid four and shrug if it didn't make. Would have bid 3♣ on partner's actual hand, but that would have got us to game also. Have never understood this "pass shows extras" business. If you don't have extras you pass; if you do have extras you make some descriptive bid that shows them.

To return to our discussion: You do not play that 2♦ promises five, nor do you play that opener's raise to 3♦ shows extra values, nor that it shows more than three diamonds. Nor do you play opener's rebid of 2♥ as "catch-all", nor do you play any other simple rebid by opener as artificial. No doubt you are a poor benighted heathen for not playing any or all of the above, and no doubt the next time I see Robert Sheehan (my partner on this occasion) I will point out to him that he is an unreconstructed Luddite - though in fact there is little need to do this, since Zia already does it about four times a day. You elect to bid 3♣, partner bids 3♥ (defined as no more than "fourth suit forcing") and you (I presume) bid 4♦. Partner bids 4NT, you bid 5♠ and partner bids 5NT. This invites you to bid a grand slam if you think your side can make one. Otherwise: you may show a king outside the trump suit that your bidding has not hitherto revealed; or you may sign off in six diamonds. What call do you make?

If, of course, they want a major wrong to be righted, they call for Batman.

I see no particular reason why a defender who can accept a lead from the wrong hand at trick three cannot accept one at trick thirteen. There may be a moral distinction to be drawn, but the Laws do not deal in those. It would be open to declarer to argue that her call of "diamond" merely specified what dummy should discard on the queen of spades. But if declarer really thought that the lead was in dummy and was asking dummy to lead a diamond, then dummy has led a diamond and either defender may accept that lead as the Law provides. I fear that jdonn's suggested list may soon reach epic proportions. For myself, there is nothing in Law 1 to which I would take exception, and Law 77 is also more or less OK. The rest of them, however...

In regards to this case the law is an absurdity. Is it? The relevant Law says this: Now, there seems here to have been not just one call from the player with the wrong cards, but several calls. Moreover, those wrong cards have been exposed as dummy, rendering the play of both this board and the next impossible. The Director may adjust the score and award penalties at his discretion according to his allocation of fault - absent any other considerations, North-South should receive -3 IMPs for each of the two fouled boards. However, this is a case in which the Director should exercise his powers to assign a different adjusted score if the facts warrant it. For example, if East-West have reached a cold slam missed at the other table, the adjustment should reflect this unless North would not have passed throughout with the cards from the correct board. I don't think any of this is particularly absurd.

Very well. Partner bids 3♥, and you bid a "well-placed" 4♦. This was the sequence actually followed at the table, but I was not feeling quite as smug about it as I might have done. For example, might I not bid the same way with: ♠AKxxx ♥xx ♦Qx ♣AKxx?

Not sure I understand it either - certainly didn't consider bidding it. A question that became relevant in the later going was this: suppose you have ♠AKJxx ♥x ♦Qx ♣QJ10xx After 1♠-2♦, should you bid 2♠ or 3♣? Addendum: let me rephrase that, since I cannot bear the smartass answer "yes, you should bid 2♠ or 3♣." Which of 2♠ and 3♣ should you bid?

Oh, we didn't have much in the way of sophistication. For example, with: ♠xx ♥AQxx ♦AKJx ♣xxx we would respond 2♦ to 1♠. I don't know what you would do, but it seems to me that you must have to perform some contortions if 2♦ "delivered a 5 card suit".

[hv=d=s&v=b&s=sakj53hjdq96caj43]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] You, South, open 1♠ and partner bids 2♦, game-forcing. What call do you make?

I am not quite sure I follow any of this. There is no real question of the 2♦ and 2♠ cards being stuck together, so when this person opened 2♠ it was because she had forgotten the methods. She cannot be allowed to change that under L25A: she meant to open 2♠ when she opened it; and however long it took her to realise that it was the wrong opening bid in her methods constitutes a "pause for thought", because she did some thought during it. There seems also to be some suggestion that it is OK for players to give their own rulings at the table if and only if the irregularity is one frequently committed by bluejak. This is not actually the case. However, by giving his own ruling at the table the player next to speak had in effect accepted the substituted call under L25B1, so the result should stand.

Mourinho's job was to win the tie, not the match. In this he succeeded, and how he went about it was his business. Do you think he ought to have picked a side that would try to score another three goals?