sailoranch

I disagree with "ii) is not satisfied unless the correct information would have made West more likely to find the correct lead." I think (ii) is satisfied if the correct information would make it more likely that West would play differently. So in scenario (ii), we compare the table result from a heart lead to a 50/50 guess between spades and diamonds. If we didn't adjust, we'd basically be saying that because West chose the losing option of a heart, we're making him lead the losing option of a diamond with the correct information. I don't see why a diamond lead without the MI would be perfectly correlated with the heart lead at the table. It's true that a 50/50 guess in spades and hearts has the same expectation as a 50/50 guess in spades and diamonds. But the player chose a heart at the table, when he would not have chosen a heart without the MI. That was caused by the infraction. Yes, the possibility of an adjustment would give the NOS a better EV than they would have if they had been correctly informed, but I don't think that's a problem. I don't understand why the fact that West flipped a mental coin to choose a heart at the table is relevant at all to assessing damage in 12B1.

I think this is just the nature of weighted rulings. The NOS didn't get the chance to make the most favorable action. Any adjustment with less than 100% of that action is going to be worse. You adjust to the expectation without the MI, not to some weighting that will make the expectation of the result (possibly adjusted, possibly not) equal to that without the MI.

[hv=pc=n&s=st7543htdakjt872c&w=saq982h84d93ck972&n=skj6hkqj95d65cq64&e=sha7632dq4cajt853&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=3dpp4c(*)p5cpp5ddppp]399|300[/hv] East-West vulnerable at matchpoints. ACBL sectional pairs. South is somewhat inexperienced (non-LM) and accustomed to limited games. North is a pickup partner. East-West are more experienced and in an established partnership. East's 4♣ call was alerted. At his turn to call after 5♣, North inquired about the alert of 4♣. West first explained it as Non-Leaping Michaels and further specified it as showing clubs and a major. After passes by North and East, South bid 5♦. At this point, West called the director, claiming that North broke tempo after the explanation. North confirmed that he had asked about the alert, but disputed that there was a pause afterward. The director then instructed the players to proceed and left the table. West then doubled, which was followed by three passes. West led a club, and the table result was 5♦X=, NS +550. How would you rule? Thanks in advance.

I'll take a stab at this. In scenario 1, West would attempt a 50/50 mixed strategy with or without the correct explanation. His attempt at randomization at the table resulted in a heart lead. Is there any reason to believe that he would vary his randomization process based on the different explanation? I think expectation in 12B1 is conditioned on West's actual lead of a heart. If you think that there is a perfect correlation between the misinformed lead and the corrected lead, then no adjustment. If they are independent, you would adjust to 50% making, 50% -1. Good luck ruling if you think it's somewhere in between. For what it's worth, I would lean toward no adjustment as it's hard to actually play randomly, and unless West is choosing his lead based on some parity in the nth word of declarer's explanation, I have doubts that the choice would be different. In scenario 2, I think it's clear to adjust, because the actual table result is worse than the expected 50/50 in spades and diamonds. The difference is that the actual play of a heart when misinformed was no good under the correct explanation. It doesn't make a difference that the two mixed strategies would yield the same expectation when resulting. In scenario 3, if I think that West would play a spade 75% of the time and a heart 25%, I would adjust to 75% 3NT-1 and 25% 3NT=. Again, the table result of 3NT= is worse than the expectation. But if West is claiming a 75/25 mixed strategy, I would be skeptical. He's judged the utility of each suit to be the same, so it wouldn't matter if it's 50/50 or 75/25 or 100/0.

Wow! North met his partner two minutes before game time and agreed to play "Half Bergen" over a double or Jordan showing precisely three card support, all without any discussion? I don't think we can just start filling in North's convention card with unorthodox agreements just because we're trying to rule mistaken explanation instead of mistaken call. It seems clear to me that North never agreed to play Bergen over a double, and ticking Jordan 2NT suggests that his understandings over a double are different. If North really wanted to agree some form of Bergen/Jordan hybrid, it would be indicated on his card.

If North marked 2NT over a double as a limit raise (plus), it means they're not playing Bergen over a double.

I'll take a stab at this. If we were to adjust, would a split score be reasonable? I think the only likely result without the hitch is the line that declarer actually took at the table. If declarer is trying to make the contract, he'd need at least the one finesse. As for the second round, the fact that the jack held seems to be a stronger inference than any BIT. I don't really buy declarer's claim that without the hitch, he will suddenly be scared that West made a weird duck and play differently. I think the alternative line, playing to the ♥A and pitching spades on the ♦K and the ruffed ♦J, is possible enough to be regarded as "at all probable." So let's say 3♣-2, -100 for NS, and 3♣=, -110 for EW. That's assuming there actually was a break in tempo and that East had no reason for pausing, premises of which I am doubtful.

Just a question. What constitutes "misinformation" in Law 21? It seems like South's decoration pass card fooled West and would be misinformation in the normal sense of the word. But is legal misinformation limited to answers about agreements and such?

Or we can have the director yell at the opponents so there isn't a next time? This was an experienced player who should know better, and the director needs to have a word sooner rather than later.

I thought we were talking generally about why there are few young players. Part of the reason is that no one is learning the game, but part of the reason is that juniors drop the game or play less often because of the club and tournament culture. I agree with everything that Zel said about smugness. My experience is that a lot of this comes from everyone's obsession with masterpoints, both as a reflection of skill and as a reward system. It's hard for a younger player to find an older partner with roughly the same skill and desire to improve, partly because they are already in comfortable partnerships, but also because these players scoff at the masterpoint total. Most of the willing partners are casual players content working their way up to LM in the limited game.

I don't get it. Why is the more reasonable interpretation the one that deems declarer's play to have never have been made at all in order to let him correct his partner's misplay after the correction period prescribed in the Laws? Declarer followed to trick two, and after the trick was quitted, he called for a card while presumably looking at a dummy containing the wrong spades. The Laws specify how long he has to notice the error and correct it, and he didn't. I don't understand this playing to the trick "in a normal way." Designating a card in dummy seems to be the normal way to play a card from dummy. If the problem is that both players were trying to lead, then 58A applies and North's play is deemed to have been made subsequently. It doesn't say anything about completely erasing one of the plays. If there had been no dummy error before and two players tried to lead at the same time, you wouldn't just wipe out the improper lead; it would be deemed a subsequent play as 58A provides. I don't see why North gets special treatment just because he has an error from a previous trick to correct. It also doesn't seem right to just take back the play because it would be a revoke or a play out of turn. We apply the same law as we would if there weren't the previous error to correct. Again, I don't see why declarer is entitled to pretend plays didn't happen just because they are illegal AND he has an error that he just noticed that he wants to correct. I don't buy the argument that both sides weren't playing to the next trick. Both West and declarer seemed to be playing cards because each thought he won the trick that was just quitted, and as a result, each thought he was on lead to the next trick. Am I nuts for thinking the laws are clear in this case?

4♣ is a control-showing cue bid. It's a slam try, and it shows first round control in clubs, usually the ace, sometimes a void. Basically, you're looking for slam, but you're also trying to make sure we have the side suits controlled. Usually, controls are shown up the line. A 3♠ call by South would instead show an ace or void in spades. If you choose to bid 4♣, it's denying first round control in spades. After you make a control bid, a bid in a new suit by partner is also a control bid and means she is cooperating with you with regards to slam. If you bypass a control bid, but cue it in a later round, it shows shows second round control (the king or a singleton). A second cue bid of the same suit shows both first and second round control, something like AK or stiff A or void.

I'd be interested to know which side is pursuing the appeal. Are East-West asking for an adjustment based on damage from dummy's misplay?

I don't think this is correct. Law 58A: "A lead or play made simultaneously with another player’s legal lead or play is deemed to be subsequent to it." This necessarily requires that one of the plays be illegal. The use of the phrase "legal lead or play" also implies that if the lawmakers wanted to refer only to legal plays, they would explicitly say so. Moreover, if we were supposed to construe "played card" in 57C2 to exclude revokes, then that interpretation would have to apply throughout the Laws. If that were the case, the Laws would say that when they defined "play" or "played card," which they don't do. Furthermore, assuming we agree that West played a card at the same time that declarer designated a card, the AC can't overrule the TD's decision based on a different interpretation of "played card" in 57C2.

Probably item 6 under disallowed: "6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)"

A player who likes to open shapely 7 counts would do well to partner this guy. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060711022620/hh/images/thumb/6/60/Sgt._Schultz.jpg/225px-Sgt._Schultz.jpg "I know nothing! Nothing!"

I think a three-level reverse would be something like 1M - 2♦ - 3♣. But the methods are different after a two-level response, of course.

What would have happened if South passed and West went down in 5♠XX? Can East-West make the case that the UI suggested North was thinking about bidding on instead of doubling?

This is probably my misunderstanding of the laws, but I thought an LA was determined by what South's peers would have done in the actual auction without the UI, not what South would have done in a different auction with the UI. The polled players have to bid according to South's partnership understandings, but do they have to use her judgment?

Partners disagreeing about the basic meaning of an undiscussed call means they need to discuss it, not that penalty doubles are awesome in this situation. Please forgive me for interpreting saying you would be North in this confusion and advocating a 2♥ rebid as South and philosophizing about making the same call you would make without the interference as assessing blame in an ATB thread and/or crusading against takeout doubles in general. Clearly I need to read more carefully. Added: Apologies for derailing the thread. I do not agree with your doctrine that we should strive to make the same call we would without interference.

I am confused by this statement. Are you saying you play methods because you think they are effective, or that you think they're effective because that's what you play? I don't think there is anything "specialized" about playing double as takeout. I also don't think there is anything about agreeing doubles as takeout that causes ATB threads.

My understanding is that you should only open the higher ranking five-card suit with a minimum. Your example hand is much stronger than that. I think it's widely accepted that you should open 1♣ with five spades and six clubs. As far as the other hand shapes go, there are different agreements. BWS, for example, opens the higher ranking suit only when your two suits are adjacent in rank (majors, reds, or minors).

wheeeeeeee

Haha, my point was that one auction shows a strong balanced hand with a fit, whereas the other would not. My understanding is that it would show a one-suited hand too strong to open at the four-level. With your example, I would fake the jump shift.

I don't know, I'm expecting OP to tell us?