gordontd

I imagine there's an imperfect workaround to give 50% (but not 60% or 40%) to one side, and the table result to the other.

I'm surprised by this, but don't have a version of Scorebridge here to check. Have you tried putting in 40% rather than AV-? A valid result was obtained at the table. There is no basis for taking away the score and replacing it with an artificial score. By all means give them a fine for misboarding (10% is the standard amount in the EBU, but you can give more if you think it's justified; 20% would "balance the books"[edited]), but you can't take away their score.

I believe Italy pioneered this approach. It takes an extremely liberal approach towards allowing replacement calls.

I think that's a poor analogy: without specific agreement to the contrary, a bid of 3NT is always an offer to play there.

I think I'm reading this differently to blackshoe. Does v = void? If so in the first case he's one off (declarer won the revoke trick and won subsequent tricks). In the second case he makes +1 because we don't allow illegal plays in claims.

Shouldn't it be Michaels'?

I've had this too, but I've also had the reverse - those who have been given rectification wanting more, because it matched equity and they thought their opponents should have lost out for revoking.

At this vulnerability 1♣-5 is -500, and 3NT= is -400

I wouldn't either - my reason would be that it only has twelve cards :D

In what way would he gain from doing this, rather than just making aggressive overcalls?

I see now that I had the vulnerability wrong in the original hand record - corrected now. Table result: 620-140 = 480 = 10 IMP Weighted ruling: 620-140 = 480 = 10 IMP 620-120 = 500 = 11 IMP 620-110 = 510 = 11 IMP 620+100 = 720 = 12 IMP Average = 11 IMP Ruling argued for by EW team: 620+100 = 720 = 12 IMP

Yes, that's the case, and I'll give further details now. South is a very experienced but elderly player who is not especially comfortable with complicated system. At the beginning of the match he remarked on the EW system, and said that he would ask a lot and that nothing should be read into it. They discussed how to defend against responses of 1♦ & 1♥, but not 1♠, and it was a point of uncertainty to both of them whether 1NT in the sandwich position should be natural or two-suited. The 1♣ opening had come up several times already and he had asked about it, so he didn't ask again in this auction. The 1♠ bid (alerted) had not come up before and South asked whether it showed spades, before bidding 2♠ himself. Both he and North said that he was asking to try to work out whether the 1NT bid was strong balanced or two-suited, but it did have the unfortunate effect of removing any doubt that North might have had as to the nature of the 2♠ bid. EW reserved their rights at the time and called for a ruling at the end of the match when it transpired that they had lost the match by 3 IMPs. They said that NS had said in discussion that they usually play transfers over a sandwich 1NT. NS were both adamant that they had not made this statement, that this is not so, and that they only play transfers in situations where they have specifically discussed it - they do not extend their agreements to other unknown situations. I concluded that there had been a misunderstanding, and that NS had not claimed to play transfers in this situation. I discussed the case with bluejak, and considered that the question about the 1♠ bid prior to bidding 2♠ provided unauthorised information, and that bidding on (with 2NT, which is what I was told is the system bid) was a logical alternative to passing. It was this question that led me to post the hand here, to see how many would bid on and how many would pass. My expectation was that most would pass, but that enough would bid on to make it an LA. From there I thought that there were various outcomes, bearing in mind that both players knew they were in uncharted territory. I gave a weighted ruling based on equal percentages of 3♠=, 3♦=, 2NT= and 3NT-1. This gave the EW team 1 more IMP (the score at the other table had been 4♠=). By the time I had finished all this, at a bit after 1.30am, only one player remained in the club - a member of the EW team. He thought I should not have allowed any contracts where NS stopped in a part-score. However, I believe that had they been playing with screens, and knowing of the uncertainty of their agreements, they might well have stopped (South held KJxxx, xx, Kxxx, xx). And even if I had accepted this EW argument and awarded Game-1, they would still have lost the match by 1 IMP.

Probably not relevant, except to indicate that at least in this detail you have been misinformed. His partner had ♠KJxxx.

I was filling in for one hand for a player who was late arriving, and we had this auction - but my partner asked questions about the 2♦ call before passing. Because of this I felt constrained to avoid a diamond lead and chose a heart - which was spectacularly successful and we took them three off (though I don't think they were ever making). It occurred to me that there were similarities with the discussion in the recent Slow Double thread. In particular an unethical player (which my partner certainly was not) might ask questions about the 2♦ bid in order to deflect a diamond lead. It seems though that not many would have led a diamond anyway.

Yes it is, but he was more detailed in his explanation than I was.

It would be a transfer to clubs, and the correct rebid with this hand in the methods would be 2NT.

You know that you play them in uncontested auctions, and when there has been a direct 1NT overcall of a suit. You don't usually play them when partner has bid a natural NT in the sandwich position. You have had no discussion about this situation, where neither of the opponents' bids has promised a suit.

[hv=pc=n&n=sq82haq75daqj9ck4&d=e&v=n&b=6&a=1cp1s1np2sp]133|200| 1♣=Weak NT, or clubs 1♠= no 4cM, not single-suited GF (spot cards may differ from original - posted from memory) You are in uncharted territory. Your call now?[/hv]

IMP pairs ♠ A 10 6 4 ♥ 10 7 4 3 ♦ J 9 8 ♣ J 3 RHO opens, and their uncontested auction is: 1♣ 1♥ - 1♠ 2♦*- 3NT P *FSF Your lead?

Are you referring to L73D? "Not always" <> "not".

Really? Cheats have better powers of analysis than ethical players?

Let's think about this from the point of view of a Probst Cheat*: What would an ethically-challenged player do if he was afraid that his partner might pull his penalty double and wanted to stop him from doing so? Making a slow double seems the standout action. * This is the concept used by the London TD John Probst (now happily improving and playing bridge again, after a stroke a couple of years ago) to consider whether an adjustment should be given: if an innocent player takes the same action that would be deliberately taken by a cheat, then we adjust without in any way doubting the ethics of the innocent player.

You've had a couple of opportunities to show diamonds, but this is your first chance to show a takeout of diamonds.

The player has not maintained steady tempo. This is a situation where it could be known that this might work to his benefit. He has not been particularly careful in that situation, and his side has gained from it. There is no specific remedy given in this law, so we turn to L12A1 instead.

Not if it's after the end of the round, but you could still get an adjustment to restore equity.