jallerton

If I were playing with your regular partner, I'd say that there is no logical alternative to concluding that he had forgotten the system. The Laws ask the players to comply with all of the Laws. In this situation, the 2♥ bidder must take care to comply with Laws 16A and 16B as well as Law 73C.

In order to decide what would have been "likely" to have happened if play had continued, the TD needs to form a judgement as to West's state of mind at the point when he claimed. So if possible, the TD should ask West why he claimed the rest of the tricks at that point. According to the opening post, West claimed after South had led a 4th heart. One possible explanation of the claim was that West had not appreciated that dummy would have to follow to the 4th heart; If dummy had been now void of hearts, then ruffing with the 10 or 8 would have been a 100% line. In that case we would conclude that had play continued the contract would likely have made (somewhat luckily for West as the line selected by David's team-mate looks better) and not adjust under Law 69.

Did South change his mind about the 3♣ bid? It would be consistent with the explanation for North to hold a hand with both hearts and diamond support. Couldn't North hold something like his actual hand with the minors swapped, for example?

The title says EBU. Even if VixTD has recently started to direct events for the Estonian Bridge Union, he would need to have regard to guidance from the WBF. "Failing to make that contract was an error. Even Paul's computer program made it so it must be a serious error" is a novel approach. A better approach would be to assume that your computer had been programmed to declare hands as follows; take any obvious ruffs in dummy, then draw trumps, then work out what to do next. That it how many "local" players think. It could be argued that a player who normally adopts this strategy is just playing to his normal standard and may not have made an "error" at all, let alone a serious one. The fact that it would be routine for a Helgemo or a Lamford to make eleven tricks is hardly relevant. Suppose that you were the non-offending declarer on some hand where the best (and winning) line was a backwash squeeze, but you missed this line at the table and drifted one off. Would you expect the TD to deny you redress for any earlier infraction by your opponents on that basis? "Helgemo made the same contract and my computer program, called Deep something, also had no difficulty in making it. Surely I'd expect Lamford to play at least as well as Deep something, which seems to have even less clue in the auction that Wbridge" As I read it, opening a weak NT with a 20-count was given as an example of the type of call which might be considered a serious error; nowhere was it claimed that it was subsequent to any infraction.

What about in WBF/EBL events played with screens? Are defenders allowed to ask about possible revokes under the screen? My understanding is that the English Laws & Ethics Committee wanted to continue the previous practice of prohibiting enquiries by defenders, but because (either by accident or design) the 2007 Laws did not specify a remedy in the event of a prohibited enquiry the L&EC decided that it was impractical to reject the new default option.

I agree with Bluejak, but would like to add that the judgement of what constitutes "SEWoG" is interpreted as depending on the standard of the player involved. If the defenders normally defend like this: remembering the bidding but not stopping to recount the hand, then they have probably not taken a "SEWoG" action. However, if Fluffy and his regular partner had found the same defence, it is far more likely that it would be judged as "SEWoG".

Are you suggesting that the line of play selected is (i) wild ;(ii) gambling; or (iii) a serious error unrelated to the infraction? It looks as though this event was played in England in which case the EBU White Book advice applies: It seems to me that the actual declarer probably does not possess your fine analytical skills. The White Book tells is that "Beginners are expected to make beginners' errors" and by extension players in a local Swiss Pairs event are expected to make local players' errors.

Is Gerber being used as a pyschic control? If AKQJxxxxx x x Ax is a permitted as a 2♣ opener then perhaps not.

The first thing to so is to find out the rest of the auction. Did someone use Blackwood and find out that the partnership was missing an ace/key card? The second thing to do is Opener why he opened 2♣ and to ask Reponder what he would have opened on Opener's hand.

I agree. Based on the authorised auction and South's hand, the 7♣ bid is completely inconceivable. Even if South were allowed to take advantage of the information from North's pause, the 7♣ bid would still be completely inconceivable. So unless Paul has made the hand up [surely not, Ed.] there is only one logical conclusion to draw: South has received unauthorised information about the hand from another source, e.g. he had overheard from another table that 7♣ is cold. Therefore, I rule under Law 16C. Normal play was impossible and both sides receive average plus. Then I give South a large procedural penalty for failing to notify the TD (as required by Law 16C1) of the UI he appears to have received.

Surely "including illegal calls and plays that are accepted" refers to insufficient bids, calls out of turn, and leads and plays out of turn. In these cases the non-offending side is given the option in the Laws of "accepting" the illegal calls and plays. In the revoke case, no-one has accepted the illegal play; it is just deemed by the Law to be too late to correct. I understand where people are coming from when they say that the rest of the play would become too difficult if the illegal play were treated to be UI, and I would agree with them if I had asked this question on the "Changing Laws" forum. However, I've not yet been convinced that this is what the current Laws actually say or imply. If you were not allowed to use this information but did not realise it to be unauthorised, then your actions could not be criticised and you would certainly escape procedural penalties for "use" of the UI. However, when it was discovered that the information had been unauthorised, then presumably the TD would be entilted to adjust the score.

I suspect that you don't play 3♣ as "natural and forcing" either. When 3♣ is played as 4th suit forcing, there are two schools of thought about this sequence. School 1: Opener has described his hand closely so it it up to Responder to select the final contract. School 2: If Responder had definitely wanted to play in 3NT opposite hearts and diamonds, he would have bid that over 2♦. Bidding fourth suit forcing and following up with 3NT suggests doubt about strain and/or level. For School 1, Pass is clearly a logical alternative. For School 2, partner's failure to bid 3NT earlier, whether he was concerned about holding only a single club stop, fishing for spade support, or thinking about the merits of 5♦/6♦, seems to make pulling 3NT clear. Personally I would prefer to pull to 4♦ which I think has to be this shape as 2551 would bid 3♦ over 3♣. How would you bid with a 2542 shape?

I think it could matter. As I understand it, the effect of Law 64C is to restore "equity" as if the revoke had not occurred. Here we could have a situation where: (i) because of the established revoke, one trick is destined to be transferred to declarer at the end of the hand; and (ii) if I am allowed to use the information about ♦8, I might be able to find an otherwise unlikely defence gaining one trick for my side. In this scenario, there would be no net gain for the defenders from the revoke, so Law 64C would not apply. There is also the theoretical possibility that no-one will draw attention to the revoke.

Playing in a charity event the other day, I was defending 3NT. Declarer had ♣J54 in hand opposite ♣AKQ3 in dummy with the suit breaking 3-3. The first round of clubs went ♣4,♣6,♣A,♣2 and when next in hand declarer led ♣J,♣8,♣3,♦8. He then led ♣5,♣10,♣K,♣7. The revoke had now become established. Declarer and I both realised that my partner had revoked, although no-one made any comment about it at the time. Two questions arise for the subsequent defence. 1. Was the fact that partner had played ♦8 authorised information to me? 2. We had agreed to play "high = encouraging" as our discard system and ♦8 did not look as though it had been her lowest diamond. Was the fact that partner had signalled for diamonds authorised information to me?

The TD should ask West to explain why he bid 4♠.

Oh dear, this sounds like an illegal "Reveley" ruling to me. If it is judged that pass of 4♠ is not demonstrably suggested by the UI and/or that there is no logical alternative to passing then (100% of) the table result should be retained. If it is judged that pass of 4♠ is demonstrably suggested by the UI and that there are logical alternative(s) to passing then the pass is illegal and no percentage of the table auction should be allowed. In this case, it would not be possible to arrive at a contract of 4♠ by any other route, so 0% of that contract should be included in the weighting.

Well, it seems to me that if a player bases his call solely on authorised information (as Law 12A3 demands) then that player is also "carefully avoiding taking any advantage" of any unauthorised information he may have (as Law 73C demands).

I got this idea from a red book I was sent by the English Bridge Union a couple of years ago. It's called "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge 2007". Law 12A3 seems clear enough to me, but you can never be too sure these days. I discovered recently that the ACBL has its own version of the Laws, so perhaps Planet Lamfordia has yet another version. Little changes to the wording can make a significant difference. For example, in the PL version of Law 92A, it can be inferred that the first "may" has been replaced by "must". Now it seems from Paul's remarks that the word "No" at the start of Law 16A3 has been replaced in PL by the word "Any". Back in the rest of the universe, my understanding is that the Laws on the use of information operate as follows: 1. In accordance with Law 12A3, the player must decide purely on the authorised information available his possible actions. If he has only one vaguely plausible action available, then that is what he should choose. 2. If he has more than one plausible action (referred to later in the Laws a "logical alternatives") then either: (i) If he has no unauthorised information, he is free to choose whichever logical alternative he thinks best; or (ii) If he does have unauthorised information from partner, he may be restricted in which out of those logical alternatives he had considered in step 1 above may actually be chosen. The restrictions come from both Law 16B1[a]: and Law 73C: Nowhere in the WBF Laws is a player authorised to use unauthorised information to determine which actions are logical alternatives. The unauthorised information is merely used to determine which logical alternative calls and plays (if any) are not permitted to be made.

No, I said "relatively more likely". If the odds of A relative to B are initially 1000:1 and after some event the odds of A relative to B become 5000:1 then A has become relatively more likely.

I'm a bit confused about this. I was under the impression that in such cases the offending side were assigned "the normal consequence of their infraction". If the normal consequence of their infraction involves East bidding 5♦ (or 5♥) 20% of the time, is it consistent to judge the 5♦ bid as "certainly wild, and certainly gambling"?

Yes, I also thought of that one. I'd like to ask Ed whether he ever calls for a "low spade" or a "small spade" from dummy.

North's logical alternatives need to be considered at every turn, including this one. However, I think that the "strong 5-6" (which is based on strong playing strength) does not need as many high card points as the 2452 20-count you suggested, so the double (suggesting that East has some high cards) makes the former more relatively likely.

It seems that you are so busy looking for the next poster to insult that you do not bother to try to understand what anybody else writes. I repeat: from North's point of view, North has shown hearts and all his logical alternatives must be assessed on that basis. If your partner opens 1♦, RHO doubles, you bid 1♥ (natural) and LHO bids 2♣, how many spades do you expect your LHO to have? Five?!? Many experts prefer to bid a 4-card major ahead of a 5-card minor in this position, yet you are expecting an opponent to bid a 4-card club suit ahead of a 5-card spade suit, when your side has just bid diamonds and hearts. At last, one of your numerous posts to this thread becomes relevant.

OK Let's try to construct the layout. (i) South has intended 3♠ as a huge 2-suiter North has a 2524 9-count. South has let's says a pure 5260 16-count West has a 4414 10-count East has a 2245 5-count That all adds up and seems at least vaguely plausible to me. (ii) South has intended 3♠ as a splinter North has a 2524 9-count. South has let's say a 1453 17-count for his splinter raise to game opposite a 1-level response. West has a made a free bid, so should have the odd high card. Let's give him a 3235 6-count. That leaves East with a 7231 8-count, a couple of aces short of a strong jump overcall. Helene used the phrase "very implausible". I used the phrase "virtually impossible". Are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not come up with bizarre psyches, such as making a take-out double on a normal pre-empetive 3♠ overcall hand? If so, I'll change my assessment of the probability of this layout to "completely impossible". So the question is: are we allowed to assume that the opponents have not psyched when assessing the logical alternatives?

I don't think your understanding can be correct. If it were, then North would often be able to infer a N/S minsuderstanding from an E/W explanation. Suppose you respond 2♥ to 1NT which you play as a weak take-out. Unfortunately, partner forgets that you still play this and announces "spades". LHO bids 2♠. Are you entitled to know that LHO has, say "hearts and another suit", rather than spades? I don't think North should be allowed to remember his system unless there is no even vaguely plausible explanation for the 3♠ bid. Clearly, if there is any significant chance that 3♠ might be a cue bid agreeing hearts, then 4♣ must be a logical alternative (though even a 9-card spade fit East/West is quite hard to believe if West would normally overcall 1♠ in preference to a take-out double with 5 of them). Perhaps my conclusion on the meaning of 3♠ is biased by my own agreements. With most partners, I do not play splinters in competiton, other than in suits bid by opponents. I play 1♦ P 1♠ (2♥) 4♣ as natural and game forcing. My competitive system file with a couple of partners even states that non-jump new suit reverses at the 3-level are very strong but NF (e.g. 1♣ P 1♦ 2♠ 3♥). My "lunatic" view is only one answer, which is why I am curious to know how the widely the TD consulted and how he came to his "no logical alternative" conclusion.