MFA

Btw, it IS so terrible to bid 3♣ that I have to mention this too.

I think double is ok. I'm not so confident that this will be a standard 2♠ contract board elsewhere, so there could easily be significant value in a successful double. If -730 will stop partner from balancing vulnerable on some outrageous garbage in the future, maybe that is not so bad after all...

Do all experts play this as penalty or do some play it as negative (bit too weak or off shape to DBL first time)? We had a recent discussion on our team about this. We agreed upon 1♠ - P - 1NT - P - 2♠ - X = penalty 1♥ - P - 1NT - P - 2♥ - X = two-way 1mi - P - 1NT - P - 2mi - X = take-out B) :D B)

I expect spades to be 0-5. I will start with a spade to the 7. 4NT was a huge overbid.

Pass, wtp?

This is a perfect take-out double of 2♦. The takeout double option seems good, except it leaves some issues. 1. Would opener leave the double in with the actual hand? If he does, the reopen leads to the wrong contract. 2. Would opener rebid a 3-card heart suit in response to the double? 3. What follow-up for Responder when Opener does bid? 1. No, not on just 3 diamonds and an easy alternative. It would be a typical matchpoint gamble with the opponents vul to get the magic 200. 2. Sure. Opener usually bids 2♥ immediately with 4, so he can bid a three card suit rather freely after the double. 3. So opener bids 3♣. Responder can then choose from 3♦, 3♥ or 3♠ to descripe his hand further.

This is a perfect take-out double of 2♦.

Double and 4♣ on 3♠. If partner JUMPS to 4♠, I will trust that spades are OK and pass.

1) 3♥. 2) 5♦. I prefer pass to 3NT, but in second seat red, I'm used to solid preempts, often with good distribution. 3) Is this from the same hand as Q1? :) After I got this idea, it's simply much too irresistable to rise with the ♦A and play ♥A+heart. :) On the basis that either 2♠ is on 7 spades (and thus no ♥K) or 3♠ is on 4card support, which might indicate some secondary stuff outside, especially in hearts.

4♦ splinter is fine. I don't like the exclusion idea. The spade suit is far from running yet, and where is the ♥Q? We will struggle in a bad 5♥ too often, while 4♦ rates to make partner do the right thing.

He can still adjust based on 72B1, if he determines that the defender could have known that his lead out of turn would work to their benefit. I'm not so sure about that. Article 53A is clear, and there's no reference to 72B1! I wouldn't read too much in that, § 72 is about general principles. http://web2.acbl.org/laws/proprieties.htm

7♠ is a huge overbid, even 6♥ would be too much IMO. I don't have a serious problem with any of the other calls.

Pass - too little defense to double although down 1 is quite likely. 4♥ was probably not a winner as things have developed (not that it matters much for my decision now).

Right, we have a free shot on finding west with the singleton ♥A. I think we should cash ♦KA (and ♠K) before we lead a heart up, though, so we don't lose to west's 5224 with ♥Ax and ♦Jx. If west then wins his singleton ♥A, he will have to play a spade and squeeze partner.

We have 2 legitimate ways to win, ♦T and ♥K. I'm not going to do something fancy that jeopardizes those two. So, ♠ruff (just in case ♦ are 0-6), ♣Q and ♣. In theory, I would like to squeeze east from ♥QJ (no A) and ♦Jxxx. But I don't see how that can be done. But perhaps something will turn up.

I don't quite get your point. Can you give an example of when it could be wrong? For myself I find it perfectly ok, for instance, if a pair plays UDSP just because they hope that the opponents are too lazy to study the CC (where it is indicated, of course)! Would you also find that ok?

OK, sounds like we're in agreement here then, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Are we in agreement on the following? "If an irregularity by you or partner is not correctable (because it's not a correctable issue or because it is longer correctable because opponents have continued on), then it is laudable but not required to bring it up at the end of the auction (if your side is declaring) or the end of play (if it occurs during play or you are defending). This includes: -Revokes (once they've been established) -Insufficient Bids -Leads out of Turn -Failures to Alert -Hesitations by your side Unless the issue can still be corrected, you should wait until the auction or play is complete. If you are unsure as to whether an irregularity can (still) be corrected, you should call the director". Hmm, hmm, it's reasonable, sure, but not quite my views actually. I make a sharp distinction §72B1 - not§72B1. I'll try to explain. In the general case, §72B3 applies: This takes care of all standard revokes, LOOTs, and bids out of turn. I see no reason, really, to "turn yourself in" for these. And if someone wants to impress me with his ethical standards, he should focus on other areas instead. (like full disclosure etc.) :) [Failures to alert and hesitations by our side are different from the three above. We must notify our opponents about a missing alert, whereas if they feel damaged by our hesitations in any way, they should take action. Ok, I might help a very inexperienced player, but that's all!] So why is a potential §72B1-situation different? §72B1 is applied when an irregularity by our side... - clearly is to our own advantage - and we could have known at the time of the irregularity that this would likely be the case. In a sense, we have done exactly what a cheater would have done! Inadvertently, yes, but still. This I can't just watch and do nothing. I'm unsure if §72B3 technically also covers §72B1-situations, but I don't care. To me it's an active ethics extension, we must speak up. Note the difference. In the general situation the irregularity is bad for us. Penalty tricks, penalty cards, choices of accepting/declining our play, UI, etc are lurking - it's big time -EV. If we survive unscratched, we're lucky, and that's perfectly OK. On the contrary, in a §72B1 case the irregularity was clearly to our own advantage, and we could have known this. We can't keep quiet about that. Imagine what our opponent would say after the session, if he finds out that we ran a blocked suit against him and said nothing. His words won't be rosy, and who could blame him? Not me!

@ jtfanclub I agree with you that it's optimal to call the TD afterwards in this situation. My focus has been to resolve the case itself, and to judge if I thought it an ethical necessity to call the TD at all. Which I do.

I'll have to take your word for it if there is a majority interpretation of 1), and I certainly make no claims of being some authority on the laws, but that seems nonexistant as far as I'm concerned. The law could have said "low risk" or something but it didn't, it said "likely" to gain. 1% chance of gain with 0% chance of loss is not 'likely to gain'. 70% chance of gain with 30% chance of loss is 'likely to gain'. This seems obvious to me. Like I said, any lead out of turn has a 0% chance of gaining and a >0% chance of losing, unless the opponent is completely irrational. Irrational, yes agreed. But you might (well, I might :ph34r:) be caught sleeping here. The opps are running a suit against me, and all I'm really thinking about is to discard properly. I might have played before noticing the "coup". And so would others. Our Danish friend did (in an analogous situation), and he's just about "world class" according to the BBO classification (for whatever that's worth :)) I'm not talking about some LOOT, where this gained. I'm talking about this one! RHO is running an otherwise blocked suit, and he could know that trying this is to his advantage. Give him a certain entry, for instance, and it is already another story. In general, if some LOOT just happens to help the player, then fine, LOOT accepted and score stands. We need the "could have known" part. Note that it's the application of §72B1 in these situtions that I thought was "mainstream interpretation". The concrete explanation of the term "likely" is my own - an extract of various discussions, for instance the one on BLML, I linked to.

The lead from the wrong hand is not even CLOSE to "likely to damage the non-offending side" because (despite what happened at the table) they will not let you lead from the wrong hand unless it is to their benefit. It is much more likely to damage the offending side, since that is the only time declarer will accept it, theoretically. How could anyone ever expect their opponent to be so braindead as this one was? The term "likely" points in two directions: 1) Relative likelyhood. In this situation, there is no risk! This is important, although the laws do allow for some small risk of backfire. 2) Absolute likelyhood. There should be some realistic, positive chance that the "coup" would work, which is the case here. §72B1 should be considered a fence against the player, who happens to be just so lucky as to make his infractions at the times, where they are clearly to his advantage and he could know this. Nothing at all about the c-word in the practical cases, it's just a fence... Note that this part of the laws is new since 1997. I strongly believe that the application of §72B1 in the actual case is mainstream law interpretation. The top danish directors are backing me up on this. But it's only fair to mention 2 things: a. There has been a minority view against it. But this might primarily have been a political view up to the 2007 laws revision, I'm not sure. Dburn has been arguing against in a director's forum, is he reading this? :) b. It's far from clear if it's correct to assign full redress to the nonoffending side. This is about the Kaplan doctrine: If a player subsequently makes an egregious error, he will lose his side's right to adjustment (adjusted for one side only). An egregious error is VERY bad. It could be argued, if following to the LOOT is "egregious" and especially if it is a subsequent error. Notabilities such as Ton Kooijman supports the use of the Kaplan doctrine (and §72B1 of course) in LOOT situations, while our national directors seem not to ... any longer! There was a case 5 years ago in the Danish Premier Division, where a declarer made an impossible slam by leading from hand instead of dummy at trick 12. Second hand followed... This case was resolved by adjusted score for the declaring side only. §72B1 + Kaplan. Unfortunately, there was no appeal to get a second view, but it was two top director's ruling. I know that one of them later has changed his mind, finding it appropriate to adjust for both sides(!). He was very much in doubt when the case arose. That case was discussed on "BLML" (bridge laws mailing list) back then: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml...hread.html#2013

What would this adjustment be? Declarer could have called the director, or not. Declarer chose to follow from the wrong side. Doesn't matter what happens next, there is no adjustment. There could, eventually, be a 3 IMP penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct, I guess, if your partner 'forgets' this a lot. If somebody can find a case of it ever happening, I'd like to see it. And if you're accusing your partner of that, your partnership isn't going to last long. But once declarer has played, he's played, and he doesn't get to decide later that he'd rather have the lead from the other side even if the LOOT was deliberate. Law 72B1: "B. Infraction of Law 1. Adjusted Score Whenever the Director deems that an offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue, afterwards awarding an adjusted score if he considers that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity." So TD adjust to best result that was likely for NS, had the irregularity not happened. This situation is analogous to the classical AK tight opposite QJxxxx with no entries in NT. Declarer plays A, K and calls for the Q. Even if RHO is caught sleeping and plays to the trick, §72B1 will protect him.

* There HAS been an irregularity, so if anyone says "huh?" (draws attention to it), TD must be summoned. * You don't have to draw attention to an inadvertent infraction from your own side. * The LOOT was accepted, so it's too late to correct it, but score adjustment afterwards is still very likely, because the defender could have known at the time that it would clearly be to his advantage to LOOT. Because of this point, I voted "yes". I'm not convinced that the spirit of the laws approves of keeping silent with infractions that may lead to these kind of adjustments.

I think that awarding all 4 tricks would be too much here. jdonn advice to play the partner of the huddler for the queen of trumps is spot on. 90% to succeed is about right.

@dburn How about the restricted choice that applies when declarer chooses his x from Axx? :blink: East could have QJ, Q2, Q3, J2, J3, so the odds of QJ is only 20%. But surely, if west decides to pay off to QJ tight, and to QJ tight only, he can and will do so whatever agreements and/or logic he think applies in this situation. He can take his 80% and run, so to speak. I find it more interesting to try to enable E-W to improve on the 80%. To do so takes some clues about declarer's hand, obviously, which we don't have in this exercise. But in real life, with bidding and 8 preceding tricks and all, we are bound to have some clues. If we then, at the critical point, don't know for sure whether p will play Q or J from QJ, we are strugling with an a priori 80-20 that clues have to overcome, regardsless of p played Q or J. So getting it right, when we need to make a Croc, will be hard. But if we realize that bridge logic dictates (which is my claim) that p should play J from QJ, we are better off. When the Q shows, he is 100% to have Qx. When the J shows, it is now only a 67-33 proposition that clues have to make up for. We will be able to make an educated Croc much more often. Well, nuff said from me. This discussion has suffered badly from people not discussing the same thing at the same time. (At least, this is what I hope has gone wrong).

I did most certainly take this into consideration. See? Just because we know that declarer ought to have full count, doesn't mean that he always has. People are known to miss some points from time to time :rolleyes:.