Lanor Fow

I'm sure that can't be correct Codo. Assume the same thing happened, (no alert, corrected) and this time instead of just reacting partner had said "But had you alerted I would have doubled, I have the Ace and King of spades", are you implying that that too wouldn't be UI?

I assumed that either this meant that one of the players thought it was a two suiter, or that if the players had been spoken too and both said 4H is not systematically a two suiter the original post would have mentioned it. As I said if i go to the table and find both players saying that either they had no relavent agreements (which seems unusual as the sequence isn't particually unusual) or that two suited was not the agreement, then i would probably rule differently. On the evidence given by the OP i'm ruling MI.

I'm assuming that under yuor juristriction 4♥ should be alerted if two suited (otherwise there is no ruling to give). I cannot particulaly see any reason to presume misbid rather than misexplination. As the post lies it seems to imply that the players involed said that it shuold have been a two suiter. Obviously at the table i'd have talked to the players concerned and may have come to a different conclusion, but based on the post I'm ruling misinformation (lack of alert). If East knew that 4H was a two suiter he'd pass (could the two suiter have contained hearts? if so that may change things slightly, but i dont think significantly). As such i'd rule 4 hearts down however many (early in the morning, looks like down 6 or so at a quick glance).

The law uses the term 'unintended call' As your call was intended (with the information you had at the time, albeit the incorrect information about your hand) it cannot be replaced under law 25A. If you were to attempt to substitue the call then your LFO can accept the substitution, but otherwise it is withdrawn.

Even in a case with split scores and procedural penalties, in some jurisdictions it is advised procedure to give ave+, ave- scores in cases of illigal conventions. The EBU gives that advice, for the reason that the possibilities of what would have happened had the convention not been in use are 'numerous or not obvious' (law 12C1D). With artificially adjusted scores, if a pair is not at all at fault for the irregularity then they are assigned ave+. Whether they should keep there score, having made some error later (which i think is passedouts point) is to do with the error. If the action is deemed 'wild or gambling' then the non-offending side will keep their score, whilst the offending side would receive the adjusted score. (please note i'm not trying to imply there was any irregularity in the OPs post, just what would happen if there was).

I'm not sure it actually matters what there agreement is, unless Mike or his partner were to claim to be damaged by misinformation, which I dont think he is claiming. Without any claim of damage through misinformation it becomes purely a UI case, and tehre agreements dont matter. Either north has bid systemically and has the UI that his partner has thought it was something else, or north has forgotten the system and still has the UI that south thinks its a splinter. He cannot be woken up by this, so in either case the UI received is identical, and the ruling will surely proceed along the same lines. As for the ruling, it seems the director has decided that 4 spades has been demonstratably suggested by the UI and that 5 clubs is a logical altenative. If both of these are true then it becomes interesting as to what south thinks 5 clubs is. South says that 4c was geber, if so what does a 5c responce to gerber mean? That north has denied heart controls I think is an incorrect conclusion, becuase they are not, according to south, in a cue bidding auction.

I'll have a go: a) South’s explanation seems to be the correct one, as backed up by system notes. Therefore West has not been misinformed. He is entitled to know agreements only, not whether North has misbid or not. As such there is no case for any adjustment based on west changing his actions. East has been misinformed, but has not made any claim that with the correct information (that given by south to west) he would have played differently. Hence no adjustment. B) not sure, but i'm reasonably confident that E/W are only entitled to look at the convention cards, rather than more complete system notes. Explanations ofc should be complete, and system notes can be sued as evidence to the TD in cases of MI/misbid. c)Yes! d) Not sure. As a director I try to talk to all players at the same time in most situations when working out what happened. e) Yes i would think it can help if they are questioned separately if possible. f) I would be interested if East felt damaged, but this did not seem to be suggested by e/w so I probably wouldn’t ask. g) As to how correct it is, I wouldn't like to comment. In this case it seems west has been told the correct agreements and so isn't entitled to any redress whatever is correct. Had west been given misinformation then the error would have to be deemed serious, wild or gambling to deny redress (i think its s/w/g, used to be irrational, wild or gambling, or in some places wild or gabling). At least in the EBU (which I know this case is not from) defensive errors are given more leeway than bidding errors in this regard. If redress is denied to e/w because of a serious/wild/gambling play, then the score is still adjusted for north south. h) Souths current explanation is systemically correct, if he explains in the way given (systemically correct but with some doubt) I stil believe the correct systemic information has been given and thus west has not been misinformed. No adjustment still. i) As East has not claimed to be damaged, I dont think that Norths explanations are relevant to the ruling. In the case that North didn't give any explanation, no misinformation has been given to either E or W and there can be even less case for an adjustment. j) Similarly if souths explanations are systemically correct, which as backed up by the system notes I am likely to accept, and north gives the same explanation, there is no misinformation and no adjustment. k) NO change, still no misinformation to west. l) No change, still no misinformation to west, and east isn't claiming to change his play based on misinformation given to him by north. m) NO change, still no misinformation to west. n) No. people, even world class players get agreements wrong. I dont think that this deserves a PP. The vast majority of systemic mistakes end with a bad score, why punish them for the time they get lucky too (assuming of course MI didn't aversely affect oppos).

I'm not sure I see why not Jillbean. Isn't the aim in a MI ruling to work out what might have happened without the MI and adjust accordingly if there is damage? If what woudl have happened is you would have got too high in a minor then there is no damage and no ajustment (i'm not claiming that to be necessarly the case here, and even if it was then it was extremely poorly explained).

In either case (being called before the 10♥ is led or after it has been) I would ask if defenders if they knew the rules regarding lead penalties for MPCs. If either defender doesn't then I rule that the 3♦ is not a penalty card as Blackshoe did. This means that I am not ruling in the way obvoius to skaeran, but my reason for doing so is that defenders are autherised to know that they have a penalty card (althoguh not what it is, i think, not completly confident on that though), and knowing that there is such a card and there could be lead penalties invoked could have changed the way either defender played. I have no particular problems with poeple not calling the director for MPCs, but in my opinion having failed to do so you shouldn't then try to impose lead penalties. If all parties invovled knew about the lead penalties then i'm likely to rule that the 3♦ is a penalty card. As such I will probably rule that a dimond lead is requierd. Whether i determine the 10♥ to be a penalty card is something I would have to decide at the table, and probably quite heavly based on the tempo of the lead. If it was very quick, then then 10 stays on the table. I would also factor experience of both sides into it as well.

They also played New Suit NF over 2M pre-empts... I don't know if that changes anything. I think it does, since East should probably have at most 1 ♠ to pull it. This seems pretty unlikely, given your shape in the majors. Is this ACBL territory? If so, did East alert the 2♠ as non-forcing? He's supposed to continue alerting and bidding as if he didn't hear his partner's original alert and explanation. I must respectfully disagree. Although he has to carefulyl avoid taking any advantage from the unautherised information of the alert and explination, he should alert and describe their agreements. If their agreement is that 2♦ is flannery then he needs to alert or explain 2♠ given that 2♦ is flannery even though he will then need to conitnue bidding as if it is whatever he originally thought it was. If, for example, 2 dimonds was alerted but not asked for or explained originally (which didn't awake him to his misbid for some reason, lets say he had bid it as a multi or simmilar alertable bid), but asked about later; if 2♦ being flannery woudl have chagned any of teh alerts, lack of alerts or explinations he had already given he must go back and correct them, and teh director should be immidiatly called (as in all MI situations). Of course he still needs to follow the UI laws (73C, 16A) with regards to his bidding. Odd as this seems in some ways, I'm pretty sure thats according to the laws.

Primes in cryptography are normally in the region of 128 to 1024 long (or that order of magnitude). Even if all of these were published it wouldn't make a difference to the strength of cyphers (well nto a significant difference) as the number of primes 1024 digits long is immense, testing them all is not a significantly easier problem than factorising the 2048 digit number in the first place.

Harm whom? Last friday Washington Mutual basically went under, Monday Wachovia got bought out. Its only been a very short length of tiem since lehmans went under and since then 5 investment banks have gone under beenboguht or changed, AIG has been nationalised, those two i mentined earlier, fortis in belgium, bradford and bingly and hbos in the uk, the list keeps growing. IN fact banks seem to be failing on almost a daily basis at the moment, so coudl this bill ebgin delayed a few days have an impact? Most definatly it could. As for the money in teh stock market not being real, well what is? Even cash in hand changes value on a daily basis both in the country its worth (inflation and deflation) and in other countries (exchange rates). The old 'gold standard' means very little either as gold is one of the most volitile comodities around. In the end money and worth is all abstract, peoepl beleive that one dollar will buy such and such just as they beleive that a stock in a company is worth such and such.

Fannie May and freddi mac have about 1.2 usd worth of morgages on their books (if i get my numbers right). AIG suplpy hundreds of billions of inurance to banks, companies and directly and indirectly to the average person on the street. If you run your lemonade stall into the ground then I dont get to drunk lemonade. Though I am partial to a glass of the stuff now and again, I thin ki can manage without too much inconvience. There may, therefore, be somethign siad for lettling the obvoiusly somewhat flawed system fail, if your analogy were to hold. The trouble is, though it may seem to provide a nice argument, I dont think that it is a partiucualy useful analogy. If these companies had failed I am not sure exactly the impact, noone is, hence a lot of the market turmoil, but I am pretty sure it would had a direct affect on millions of poepels insurance, pensions, morgages and possibly even savings. We saw that Lehmans beign allowed to fail caused such market uncertanty that, for example, Hbos was hurredly bought. Would it have failed if it hadn't been? Who knows, if it had what woudl have happened to the savings in the bank? Also proabbly not clear. AIG falling, according to most analysts, woudl have created a much bigger problems than lehmans. I'm not an economist or market analyst. I can claim no expert status on this subject, far from it. But I venture, in my mostly ignorant state, to suggest that allowing the system to self distruct would very possibly cost the average tax payer more than $2,000., very possibly a lot more. In these unprecidented times no doubt changes will have to be made to stop such a crisis happening again. However getting through the crisis first should probably take precidence.

hmmm best I can see is to win the first ♥, play my other top ♥ then lead the ♦K. If this is ducked then I can cross to dummy with the ♠k and finesse the club giving me time to ruff a club (going down if the k♣ is offside and ♣ break 6-2 or both trumps break 4-0 and ♦7-1 with the long ♦ with the offside k♣). If is taken by left hand opponent, who is smart enough to not return a ♥, I win a trump in hand and cross to the q♦ if they break 5-1 or worse i will have to rely on the club finesse, ruff a ♦ high play, home if they break 3-3, otherwise play a trump to the king, if they break 2-2 i can set up 4-2 ♦, otherwise i have to rely on the club finesse. If they return a ♦ I play the same but cash a of trumps before crossing to the king of trumps. If right hand opponent takes the ace play goes as above unless they play a club when I take the ace and play as above excepting that I can no longer take the club finesse. I think this is better than finessing but quite sure of the odds. I'm sure there is a better line but i can't see it.

Don't worry Ant it was in the indy on thurs (i know because the shouts from opps came across the room, aparantly there was a 9 card and an 8 card major fit both missed to get a top in no trumps.