sfi

To clarify, my recent post was just considering the inadmissible double and ignoring any subsequent actions. It was basically looking at a world where East doubled and changed it to a pass without anybody saying anything. Now South passes without calling the director and later wants redress. I was trying to simplify the application of 11A. In the actual case I'm still ruling as per my conclusion you quoted. But I'm less sure it's actually correct according to the laws.

I don't think you can use 11A in the way you're reading it. If you just consider the inadmissible double, East was the one who took a "subsequent action [...] in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the law", so the next clause states that only N-S can have their score adjusted to remove any accrued advantage. E-W retain their table score. A related scenario is also worth mentioning. Let's say that the director was called after the initial double and all the options were explained. Now presume East guesses 3NT and makes 9 tricks, while a "normal" auction would get to 4S-1. There should not be an adjustment under Law 12B even though E-W got a better score after the infraction, since the requirement to guess a contract does not improve the expected score - they are allowed to be lucky in their guess.

I think I get what you're querying now. There are actually two potential applications of 11A in the example hand: 1 - when N-S are the non-offending side after the initial double 2 - when E-W are the non-offending side after South makes up bridge laws You're right that E-W maybe should have their score adjusted, and now I'd want to know the various skill levels of the players before making a ruling. But for sure South is getting hit with a procedural penalty.

I think the elements have all been mentioned above, but I don't think the director has any rights to change the table score for E-W. We have a legal auction and a result gained through play, so that should stand. You point out that Law 11A explicitly allows the director to adjust the score for N-S only, but they have not received any advantage. This law may seem harsh on E-W (if they had a biddable game, for example), but E-W have some culpability here. East committed the initial infraction, and then neither called the director when attention was brought to the irregularity. So, table result stands. I will point out to N-S that South's actions risked an adjustment had they obtained a good table score. Now we have to consider the players' actions outside the auction itself. Everyone should have called the director when attention was drawn to the irregularity (Law 9B), and it's worth pointing out this is both a right and an obligation for everyone. South clearly should not have tried to make up laws at the table, so Law 90A gives me the right to penalise the player. I'm going to use it and penalise N-S some amount of matchpoints - probably 1/4 board but could easily be convinced to double that penalty, particularly if South is experienced and E-W are beginners. There are circumstances where this could be obvious bullying tactics, and I'm happy to stop that in its tracks. Next time E-W might be confident enough to call the director and South might follow correct procedure.

Law 42B gives dummy the right to "try to prevent any irregularity." So yes, dummy is allowed to try to stop declarer (or defender, for that matter) from leading from the wrong hand. If declarer has already done so, dummy's best course of action is to simply play the called card since the irregularity has already happened. The defenders now have options, but if they play a card here they have accepted the lead out of turn and play continues as normal. There are some caveats to this (declarer was required to lead a specific card or the lead was to trick 12, for instance), but generally once it's happened dummy should not point it out.

Partner could have doubled 1NT with a genuine takeout hand, so they are likely to be weak and/or offshape. Vulnerability and scoring method both are considerations here, but I would look to give partner a lot of leeway and bid 3H most of the time. Vul at IMPs I will at least consider 4H, but even then probably not.

My first thought is "bid better" ;). But then I wondered what would happen if South had bid 7NT instead. Does anyone have the tools to test that?

Not really, but then I don't care in this situation. If partner psyches they get to sort it out. This is more interesting. For sure I bid something, and I may even try something like 2S in response and hope to steal the hand in a diamond partscore. Again, if partner psyches it it's their own fault. But it's a possibility when I'm looking at six of them. Funny story - many years ago I picked up xx xx xx AKQJTxx. I was all set to open 3NT when RHO started with 1D. Still thinking about NT, I tried 1NT. It didn't work out this way, but partner was going to pull to clubs and hit our 12-card fit. What actually happened was LHO with their 4450 16-count decided jumping to 5D was the optimal spot on the hand. It wasn't.

If North really is the declarer, not splitting with QJx in spades is a bad play with no upsides apart from whatever you gain from a Grosvenor. So you play for QJ tight offside. If South is the declarer, splitting is far from obvious. In this case, the odds of QJx in West vs QJ in East are 3-1, and I think West would duck more than 1/3 of the time. So try the S10.

It looks like both the A and B lines for four tricks rely on Axx onside. Once you win the first trick offside the lines are already doomed and it doesn't look for an alternative way to make those tricks. It looks odd, but isn't really out of line for the purpose of the program.

I'm actually glad they didn't go with the straight technicality approach. It's a rare instance where this government takes a stand on something, and that's better than hiding behind some loophole. As for Djokovic, I'm ambivalent. I kind of think they should have refused a visa because he's a prat, but it has been pointed out this is probably an unworkably broad criterion. The larger question is one of failing a "character test", where Australia refuses entry or cancel the visa for some people who will be promoting ideas seen as wildly different from societal norms or who have a criminal history deemed to be sufficient to not let them in. You can find an incomplete list of people here. You can include Mike Tyson, Chris Brown, Holocaust denier David Irving and recently Katie Hopkins, among others. The Minister has a broad power to cancel visas. Yes, this is problematic. However, the argument that some views should be kept out of the country in the first place is not a nonsensical one. To take your hypothetical, they could ban someone for being anti-capitalism. And if the person were preaching active and violent overthrow of the capitalist system they might just do that. But if they did, the media coverage would be intense enough that everyone would be exposed to the person's ideas and start to form a view of what they are talking about. So the public discussion needs to be considered in this decision anyway - for instance, I know more about Milo Yiannopoulos' views because of that situation than I ever wanted to learn.

It's not clear either made any error, let alone a serious one. West (presumably) led and continued partner's suit. East probably encouraged with outside entries. Both actions look normal.

I agree. The point was that an international player wanted to double two levels lower than the final contract. My second poll was more likely to be a peer of West. Their choices (surprisingly) aligned with West at the table, and they found double at the five-level beyond obvious.

I’m not sure I believe that. I asked a newish player (better than novice but would not belong in open fields). They bid 4H - I was pleased they contemplated double and not 3NT - and passed 5C. They doubled 5S happily but were slightly concerned they were getting a poor score when I said only one diamond was cashing. Declarer losing control didn’t enter into the decision.

BTW, I just ran the hand past an international player. Holding West's hand they wanted to double for penalties at every point in the auction.

In a word, yes. From what I understand, the possible UI is the failure to specify spades as one of the suits. The bidding shows N/S on the same wavelength about that, so I'm comfortable with the finding that West had UI. I'm also comfortable with the suggestion that West may have considered a 3S call on the first round, although I would want to hear more about what it might show and why it might lead to a different outcome. The question of the pause was raised as well. My instinct is that it shows one of two things - either South is trying to remember their agreement or South has a weak hand for their bid. The subsequent auction doesn't clarify that - South still could have a single-suited club hand and have been looking for a heart stopper - but North's 5S bid suggests they were on firm ground about their agreements and that South's hand is weak. North is likely to be able to work all of this out, but there is no evidence they acted on the information. No adjustment there. So there is a case for an adjustment if E-W would have had a substantively different auction after a 3S cuebid by West. I don't really buy it, but I would be prepared to consider it further. But then there's the pass of 5S - that's just crazy. I don't think it's possible to construct a hand where a diamond lead fails to beat the contract (South needs 6 spades for a start, and would not have bid 5C with that hand), and declarer is likely to lose control much of the time. It's probably going to be even worse for N-S if South does have the minors so the MI didn't lead West astray. Down 5 is about par for the hand, so I am comfortable ruling this as "an extremely serious error (unrelated to the infraction)", to use the terminology from Law 12.

Assuming standard agreements, aren't all the hands that would have bid 2M over 2C simply going to bid 3M here? Similarly, we can rule out hands that would have bid 3C over 2C. So the only thing we need to consider for comparable are the hands that would bid 2NT (if they're allowed to bid it) and some strange cases. And those seem quite a low percentage.

The wide range of 2D is an advantage here. I would need to ask about their agreements, but I could easily be persuaded that a number of calls are comparable, including pass, double and 3NT.

2NT game forcing with no clear direction, in most of my 2/1 partnerships. Without any such agreements, 3C.

It only seems like 20 years...

It's somewhat different because there are many fewer restrictions on what you can play. However, you still have to disclose your agreements appropriately - trying to claim that 9 solid hearts and out is somehow adequately described as "strong" without further explanation will leave you open to an adjustment based on misinformation.

sfi 43 - 34 pjmingola https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:f01e5267.51fa.11ec.b879.0cc47a39aeb4-1638289875&u=sfi&v3b=web&v3v=6.0.2

I haven't looked at it that closely, but you obviously can't play the 10 because that gives declarer 9 tricks. But you want to avoid being endplayed later in the hand, and declarer has the option of playing the spade ace and unblocking the 9 from dummy to throw you in. Ditching the 7 deprives declarer of that option.

sfi 12 - 10 smerriman https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e6006998.4f5d.11ec.b879.0cc47a39aeb4-1638002525&u=sfi&v3b=web&v3v=6.0.2 sfi 34 - 29 elyk25 https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:dc445add.4e0e.11ec.b879.0cc47a39aeb4-1637858627&u=sfi&v3b=web&v3v=6.0.2

sfi 1 - 31 kgr https://webutil.bridgebase.com/v2/tview.php?t=ARDCHALLENGE:e024d033.4618.11ec.b879.0cc47a39aeb4-1636983319&u=sfi&v3b=web&v3v=6.0.1