dburn

It has just struck me that there may be a problem with the wording of Law 16B1b. Suppose in the present case that the partnership agreement was in fact Michaels - East had forgotten when he overcalled. Now, the Law says: When polling other players, does one give them the East hand with the explanation "your partnership method is Michaels but you have forgotten"? No - one gives them the East hand with the explanation "you are playing 2♦ as natural". Yet this seems contrary to the actual words of the Law. In the present case, one interpretation may be that the East-West partnership methods are in fact that 2♦ is undiscussed (East thinks 2♦ is natural, West thinks it is Michaels). The convention card says "natural", to be sure, but it is not clear that the partnership actually knows what is on the convention card or has actually agreed to play what is on the convention card. Supposing that the actual meaning of 2♦ was "no agreement"; does one conduct a poll with the premise "your partnership has not discussed 2♦"? No - again, one explains "you are playing 2♦ as natural". Yet this also seems contrary to the actual words of the Law. If I were being polled in the actual case (and assuming the situation were presented as "you are playing 2♦ as natural), then I would certainly pass 2♥. Nor would I redouble if given the opportunity - I would be pleased to put down a decent dummy, but it wouldn't particularly surprise me if partner could assemble only four or five heart tricks in his hand, a ruff in mine and the ace of spades.

Indeed. This is why I remarked that the Director should proceed by asking South why, if North was asking South to bid, South did not bid. True. With the ace of spades in addition, South would be on still firmer ground.

Oh yes they are. For in Beijing on 10th October 2008, the WBF made this infamous pronouncement: This means that if you don't know the Laws, you cannot ask what they say, even though you are still expected to abide by them. You are not allowed, for example, to ask for a copy of the IMP or the VP scale currently in force. This is, of course, abhorrent. Nevertheless, it is the Law, and players are (presumably) expected to know it (and the rest of the Laws and Regulations) in detail before they sit down to play. If not, may God help them, because the Director cannot.

By asking South why, if North was "asking South to bid", South didn't bid. Not that South should bid, of course - this is a routine pass. But South should try not to express open contempt for bluejak's view that it isn't, however strongly and justifiably that contempt might be felt, lest some ridiculous "fielded misbid" charge be laid against him. Of course, if North stood on his chair when he doubled 2♠, I might... no, I might not. This is still a pass, even if jallerton won't ever have me on his team again for thinking so. I could have queen-jack sixth of clubs and a bunch of king-quacks; instead, I have only five clubs and ace-king-ace by way of defensive values. And I rebid 2♣, not 1NT, so partner isn't counting on me for anything at all in spades when he doubled in the knowledge that it might go all pass. When in the name of mercy will I ever pass this double, if not now?

Does it, by golly? Is it therefore "at all likely" that if I buy a single ticket for the National Lottery, I will win?

I agree with the sentiments expressed above, but not with the reasoning. If a ruling is given on the basis that a player has conceded "a trick that his side would likely have won", it is sufficient for an appellant against that ruling to ask "which trick?" or at any rate "with which card would the trick have been won?" On being told by the constabulary that "we don't know", the appellant can rest his case with complete confidence that he must succeed. There is no interpretation of the actual words of the Law that allows otherwise; in English, "a trick that [X]" must refer to some one specific trick of which X is true. Of course, the actual words of the Law are not what the people who wrote them intended. They intended that a concession should be rectified if it involved conceding more tricks than the conceders would likely have lost. They should have said so, and perhaps in 2017 they will (changing "a trick" to "any trick" would suffice). Meanwhile, if "likely" means "with probability greater than 50%", what does "at all likely" mean?

Idle speculation prompted by the previous three posts prompted these thoughts: Suppose A, B, C and D enter a dice-tossing tournament consisting of two knock-out rounds. B, C and D are armed only with regular cubes whose faces are numbered from 1 to 6, but A has got a regular octahedron with faces numbered from 1 to 8. An octahedral dice (yes, I know what the singular is according to the dictionary, but one should never say "die") will beat a cube with probability 0.642857143 (this is equal to 9/16 + [9/16*1/7], and if you don't know why it should be equal to that, you should study the works of Jeff Rubens until you do). Who is most likely to win the tournament? Why, A of course. Is A likely to win the tournament? No - he will do so only with the above probability squared, which is less than one half. So, even within a very small range of possibilities, that which is most likely to happen is unlikely to happen. Should the lawmakers have used the word "likely" in Law 69B2? Probably not.

Perhaps. North and South are allowed to know what 2NT means, while West is not. We presume absent the infraction that South would have doubled it (for takeout of the minors), and we presume that West has heard the rather strange auction 2NT-double to him where as far as West knows, 2NT is 20-22 balanced and he has a couple of kings. Who knows what he might do? It might, I suppose, occur to him to ask whether a double of a natural 2NT has any significance. Then, he will be told by North-South that South wasn't doubling a natural 2NT - he was doubling 2NT that was a weakish minor two-suiter. Is West now allowed to know that East has one of those? Or, should North-South not tell West that South wasn't doubling a natural 2NT - if so, what should they tell him? Or, do we consider that West is not allowed to ask such a question given that the double of 2NT was not alerted (should it be alerted under Norwegian regulations? under English regulations?) Is West supposed to proceed under the assumption that East has opened a natural 2NT, and South has doubled it for penalty - is he effectively barred from thinking for the crime of having given a wrong explanation? In that case, West might conclude that South is an idiot who has doubled 2NT with AKQJ109 in one of the suits where West does not hold the king (more likely diamonds than spades, bien entendu). Then, West might do any number of things - he could bid four hearts, since if South has a solid suit that isn't hearts, 4♥ is by far East-West's most likely game. He might redouble, trusting East to pull to a major (in which case West will know what to do) or to a minor, in which case West can bid 3♥ which must logically show the majors. He might pass, on the grounds that his side can't make a slam and, if East really does have 20-22 balanced with guards in everything, 2NT doubled will be a decent spot. When West's call comes back to East, what should he do? What arrangements do East-West have in place after 2NT-double-pass-pass? After 2NT-double-redouble-pass? In the words of Belloc, these are the things that people do not know; they do not know, because they are not told. I don't blame pran all that much for not finding them out, but... No doubt bluejak would have me, as the Appeals Committee chair, sit for several hours assigning weights to such outcomes as 2NT redoubled by East, 3♥ doubled by North, 4♥ doubled by West, and anything else I could think of. Me, I'd rather be in Philadelphia.

I am close to giving up, because I am not sure I can make pran see what is obvious to me, to campboy, to bluejak (it's all right, David - I promise not to post anything else with which you are likely to agree for at least a fortnight), to Frances and to others. But this worries me. If I can't make a highly-qualified Director like pran see the obvious, then what chance does any Director or any lawgiver have of making the ordinary player see what the Laws are designed to do? The principle that is obvious is this: If a player claims damage because of MI, he should obtain rectification if he would (or might) have acted in a way more beneficial to his side without the MI. But the opponents, who provided the MI, cannot claim that they also are deserving of rectification because if they had known what they were doing, they would not have provided the MI in the first place. Of course, in the actual case that may not help North-South very much at all. After all, if you were West and the bidding started 2NT-double to you, and you had a couple of kings facing partner's 20-22 balanced, what would you do?

My apologies. The scoring is IMPs (Butler pairs, not teams of four). You are vulnerable, the opponents are not. Whatever you do at your second turn, your left-hand opponent will bid the lowest sufficient number of spades less than five, or will pass. Your partner will pass; and your right-hand opponent will also bid the lowest sufficient number of spades less than five, or will pass. What call do you now make?

Well, let us try as far as possible to remove judgement from the equation. An uncontested relay auction concludes: South 4♥; North 5♣; South 7♦; all pass. West, on lead, asks several questions and is inter alia told: (correctly) that South has shown five diamonds and North four; (correctly) that 4♥ was keycard Blackwood with diamonds agreed; and (incorrectly) that 5♣ showed two key cards and the queen of diamonds (the actual agreement is "two key cards without the queen of diamonds"). West, who has three unguarded queens and a singleton trump, leads a diamond in the belief that this will be safer than any alternative - it cannot pick up his partner's queen, because his partner cannot have it. As it happens, West could have led from any of his queens without affecting the result at all. Assuming that South did not pick up East's ♦Q105, which he would not do unaided, the contract would fail. Instead it makes, so the Director is summoned. "If I'd been correctly informed, I would not have led a trump" says West. "No, you wouldn't", says the Director, and adjusts the score from EW-2140 (a bottom) to EW+100 (a top). "Wait a minute", says South. "If I'd known partner didn't have the queen of diamonds, I'd have stopped in six, and I'd have made that whatever West led." "Irrelevant", says the Director. "You must bear the consequences of your own failure to remember the system; but I must adjust the score on the basis that West made his opening lead with correct information." You are the Appeals Committee. Do you: uphold the Director's ruling? (as campboy, bluejak, gordontd, FrancesHinden and I would); or adjust the score to EW-1370 in six diamonds, the result they would have obtained if North-South knew the system (as, presumably, pran would). To see that the latter position is wrong, consider that if you believe it correct, you would also adjust the score to EW-1390 in six diamonds if the trumps had in fact divided 2-2. East-West could claim, justifiably according to pran, that this is the result they would have obtained "without the misinformation".

South opens 1NT, and North announces "15-17". West has enough to double a weak no trump, but his double of a strong no trump is not for penalty so he passes, as do North and East. The cards lie poorly for declarer and the defence is accurate, so the contract is down two. In fact, North-South play a weak no trump at this vulnerability, so the Director is summoned. "If I'd been correctly informed, I'd have doubled" says West. "So you would", says the Director, and adjusts the score from EW+100 (a bottom) to EW+300 (a top). "Wait a minute", says North. "If I'd known it was a weak no trump, I'd have used our patent rescue manoeuvre when West doubled, and we'd have reached two clubs which is down only one even on double-dummy defence." "Irrelevant", says the Director. "You had a balanced six points; you'd have passed a strong no trump doubled, not tried to run to what might be a 4-3 fit. You're not allowed to tell them it was a strong no trump and then bid as if it was a weak no trump. But they're allowed to know what you actually play." You are the Appeals Committee. Do you: uphold the Director's ruling? (as campboy and I would); or adjust the score to EW +140 in two hearts, the best they could achieve if North ran from 1NT doubled? (as, presumably, pran would).

You open 1♥, LHO bids 2♦, partner passes and RHO bids 2♠ (forcing). What call do you make?

I can think of one, and it was the one pran thought of: 2NT-double-pass(?)-3♥-all pass. If one accepts that this would have been the auction had everyone been both honest and compos mentis, it might very well have happened (assuming that West's pass in an untainted auction was no more than "equal length in the minors"). But campboy has (quite correctly) introduced a new and important question: what is West supposed to do? After all, he was the fellow who caused the problem in the first place by explaining 2NT as natural. Does pran suggest that the information that 2NT was not natural is AI to West before the Director had been called? after the Director had been called? neither of the above? Again: why did West bid 3♣ over 2NT? This might be the standard method in Norway when responding to a natural 2NT with 4-5 in the majors, but did anyone ask him? If not, why not? This whole thing is a shambles, but one thing is clear: the ruling was not in any way as straightforward as pran makes it out to be. I might agree with his decision were there any evidence at all that he had extracted the necessary information from West, but there is not. The most charitable interpretation I can put on the case was that West knew what 2NT actually meant, but had somehow become confused when he handed out his explanation (maybe to him, it was "normal" or "natural" that a 2NT opening showed both minors - maybe this was also "normal" to South, who did after all ask what 2NT meant). But this interpretation should not be assumed by a Director, nor should a Director rule on that basis. Once more, Sven: did you find out why West bid three clubs?

Oh, you do not intend to try for a slam - even you couldn't make one of those, let alone partner. But there are certain dangers involved in bidding hearts...

I don't, but it would not surprise me to learn that a club was the only lead to give the contract. Maybe we should have been playing anti-lead-directing doubles of Gerber, so that partner would have doubled with his low singleton (or his void) and I could have avoided this blunder. Of course, this method might lead to defending four clubs redoubled on some hands where we would rather not do that... Christopher Columbus - what was this event? One in which RHO would play the jack from jack third, in case partner had led low against a slam from king-queen fourth? Oh, I see. That kind of event.

[hv=pc=n&w=sqj9763hj95d3ca97&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1np]133|200[/hv] 1NT is 15-17. Assuming that you are going to place the contract in four spades, and assuming that you can do this either by bidding it yourself or by using a transfer so that partner will be declarer, which will you do? This is not a chauvinistic question: you may assume that partner plays them exactly as well or as badly as you.

Yes.

[hv=pc=n&s=sahajt8632dajcaj3&n=skt7532h94dqt2ct2&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp1sp4hppp]266|200[/hv] West leads ♥5 [edited after a wholly justified complaint from matmat], four, queen, ace. Neither of your opponents has six cards in any suit. Therefore, claim your contract before you make a mistake. But just in case, state your line of play. Not sure whether this is really BIL material, but it was actually dealt at the Young Chelsea this evening, and it is a cute hand.

Out in the silent Rockies Tracking the teddy bears, There's a man whose brow is furrowed, Whose hairs are silver hairs. Folks in that far-off region Know him as Jaundiced Jim, And now I'll tell you his story. How do I know it? I'm him. [hv=pc=n&s=skj32hakqt9832dc4]133|100[/hv] You play a strong no trump, five-card majors, and not all that much else. What call do you make? If you would not open 1♥, you may consider yourself barred from the next episode. But if you would, there is more.

Did anyone ask West why he bid 3♣? I can see why he might use Stayman, certainly, but it may be worth discovering whether this is actually his systemic way of proceeding with a game-forcing 4-5 in the majors (as opposed to transferring to hearts and then bidding spades).

Burn pointed out only what pran knew to be true: that South asked about 2NT before being told that it "was natural" (which it wasn't). Pran certainly hadn't missed it; indeed, it was a crucial point in the ruling that pran gave. I am not entirely sure what campboy is on about. Sure, North would have had some UI from South's original question, but what has that got to do with anything? West misexplained 2NT, so South passed it - if West hadn't misexplained 2NT, South would not have passed it (or at least, the preponderance of evidence is that South would not have passed it). So, one rules on the basis that the auction proceeded 2NT - (non-pass) - whatever - whatever. To rule North-South's subsequent actions in the actual position "serious errors unrelated to the infraction", or "wild or gambling", seems to me absurd. South was doubtless trying to place his side in the same position as it would have been in if West had explained East's opening correctly. North was doubtless just as confused by the whole business as everybody else was (and as everybody else still is, if campboy and bluejak are considered a representative sample of "everybody"), so nothing he did could possibly be construed as serious, let alone an error.

Did South ask about 2NT behind a screen? If so, there is no UI, but if not...

Maybe a 2NT opening is more often conventional in Norway than one might expect in England. In that case, South (who played this hand in Norway) might be in the habit of asking whenever 2NT is opened, just in case. After all, he doesn't live in England, where we have a stupid regulation to the effect that... but you all know about it by now.

Since the original post contains the datum that: "2NT was (on request by South at his first turn to call) explained by West as natural" one might be more inclined than one would otherwise be to accept the statement that South would not have passed over it had it been described as unnatural.