iviehoff

Why does that appear so? Did South say so? Even if South said it, can we believe S was looking at a 12-count with 2 aces and thinking about passing out 3H?

"You are fighting for the fifth down" implies "You are easily going to get it 4 down." So to my mind he conceded 4 down. This is the trouble - we can't let people get away with implying things so as to escape their legal responsibilities they'd have if they stated it clearly. Treating it as a claim it is plainly 4 down, which has the advantage that declarer clearly thought that is where he was going. As an adjustment under Law 23, it becomes a bit more complicated. I think this is a weighted average ruling jurisdiction, so probably some weighted mix of 4 down, 3 down and making would be a proper ruling under Law 23. Gnasher says he didn't suggest play be curtailed, he suggested it be accelerated. But he suggested it be accelerated because it didn't require much thought to get him 4 down. See second para above.

"Hurry up, I'm going to be creamed here and you can only be worrying about getting me even further down than would be a top" certainly isn't a claim, and that's probably what the player meant. He's going to get some nasty enforcement for it though, because it isn't true and misled the ops. However when he mentions the 5th undertrick in a situation where the contract is going 4 down under best defence, for me that is specific enough to call it a claim, and thus enforce against him as a claim.

You can't say to the ops "it doesn't matter what you do" when actually it does, I hope you accept that. In general statements that do amount to "it doesn't matter what you do" are likely to be interpreted as claims. Let's look at what L68 actually says to see why. L68A Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards. L68B1 Any statement to the effect that a contestant will lose a specific number of tricks is a concession of those tricks; a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any. A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. So whilst showing your cards can be a claim, it is not required to show your cards in a claim. Stating a line of play isn't even part of the definition of what a claim is, and we have all had many claims without lines of play. Sometimes players don't even mention the number of tricks, they just expect you to see the obvious. So none of these things is a necessary part of a claim, though there presence would make it easier to say it was one. Statements to the effect "it doesn't matter what you do" are likely to be interpreted as claims because of the wording on "suggests that play be curtailed". But to my mind, what makes this one quite clealy a claim is that it did mention a precise number of tricks, albeit in a wrapped up way. In mentioning worrying about the 5th (impossible) undertrick, E made it clear that he was expecting to go 4 off, which is what will happen against best defence. If E had said "you are worrying about the 27th undertrick", or some other number that had no relation to the cards in front of us, that would obviously be a joke, not a claim of a precise number of tricks. But precisely because E has implied just the 4-off result he sees as likely, and 4-off is indeed the likely outcome against best defence, we can and should interpret it as a claim of 4-off. 5-off can't happen unless E deliberately plays Misere, because E now has 7 easy tricks regardless of the defence. If it had less clearly been a jokey number like "27th undertrick", and maybe I'd say it was a statement of the kind "it doesn't matter" suggesting play be curtailed. And if not quite clear enough for that, I'd find it an offence against the proprieties (as it clearly is) and then adjust under Law 23. Fortunately on this occasion it is fairly straightforward to interpret as a claim.

What argument leads you to -1? I think Mink is spot on, both reasoning and quantification. Rather a sad case. EW behaved ethically in relation to their bidding mix-up, so they ended up in an appropriately ridiculous contract. I suspect E then letting himself down came from self-pity rather than malice.

Do the people who chose to pass use the Losing Trick Count? To me this is a 6-loser hand, which, is invitational. You can make game opposite a yarborough, if it's the right yarborough. But clearly it all depends on the fit, and making game on these cards is about the fit not the high cards. So you'd better have machinery for locating the fit. People who use the LTC and use fit-locating machinery won't pass this hand, in my view. But quite a lot of people here have said they would pass without a whisper. What are this player's playing methods? Who are this player's peers? What does the hesitation demonstrably suggest? What it demonstrably suggests is doubt. It is often said that that hesitators in the common raising situation are rather more found with something to spare than being a notch short of the requirements. But I rather suspect Directors obtain that impression because they are less often called to the table when it is the latter case.

So far everyone thinks "this is just declarer being kind to the defender". And often it will be; but it ain't necessarily so, as Z says. Declarer can do this to obtain a reaction from a player, which helps him solve a little problem he has in the play. If there is no issue of this, then the defender can say "thanks". But if there is an issue of this, then we need to know how to deal with it. Declarers can't be allowed to have the benefits of claiming without specifying a line of play, if there is something to think about, and this looks like it can be a way of achieving it, if we are so willing to rule it can't possibly be a claim. How are we to protect the defender from this coffee-house? I think we have to say that this is a claim. Unfortunately this means that when declarer was genuinely being helfpul, a secretary bird can peck his eyes out.

Have you ever heard of any prior incident where someone has made a bid nowhere near the agreed meaning because they have hesitated and was concerned about the effect of the hesitation on partner? I haven't. Everyone else here disbelieves at least that much. The main disagreement is between those who disbelieve even more and think he forgot the meaning of the call, and those who think that he was perfectly aware of the meaning of 2N but bid it for a different reason than that stated.

Since this player is aware that his hesitations put partner in a difficult situation, he is clearly a player of some experience and thoughtfulness. It is beyond belief that a player of this level of thoughtfulness can think that it is advantageous to psyche merely because he has hesitated and the correct call would be pass. The agreement that 2N=minors, without any provision for what to do on 15+ balanced hands, is an agreement with a large disadvantage to it. If N simply thought that 2N showed 15-18 flat, or similar, he wouldn't have hesitated, he'd have bid 2N straightaway. So I think it is quite plausible that N was fully aware that 2N=minors when he chose the bid. But, having no bid for this kind of hand, bid 2N simply hoping that he would be understood after he made an "impossible" rebid. If they have been playing this agreement for any length of time, the same situation must have occurred before. Thus I lean towards a MI/CPU ruling rather than a UI ruling.

Let's be careful about this. "Mistaken bid" is not a defined term, and how it can be corrected needs care. On the one hand, it can be an unintended bid - the player thought he was bidding 2NT but his hand put the 1NT card on the table. This can be corrected under the unintended bid laws if noticed by the player in time, but not if he doesn't notice in time, or fails to follow the correct procedure for correcting it. So the player may have mispulled, but not corrected it under the unintended bid laws. On the other hand, the player may have had in mind that what he wanted to do was make a minimally sufficient bid in NT, fail correctly to calculate how many NT was sufficient, and put down 1NT rather than 2NT. In both these two scenarios, when the director asks the player what 1NT means, the player will say it means just what 2NT means, because in effect that is what he was trying to bid, even though in the first case it was a mispull and in the second case it is a miscalculation. In our strange world of the insufficient bid laws, where we need to know what the insufficient bid means, and the only way we can find out what it means is to ask the player's intention in making the insufficient bid. Thus we will find that 2NT has precisely the same meaning as 1NT, because 1NT was bid with the intention of bidding 2NT, whether it was mispulled or miscalculated. These are scenarios in which an artificial 1NT can be corrected to 2NT without penalty under the insufficient laws, and are presumably what you meant by "mistaken bid". There may be some other rare cases where the player was under a different misapprehension but by chance the correction is allowable, but that would be uncommon.

What makes you think that? He is under no obligation to call the director if attention has not been drawn to the irregularity. He is under no obligation to draw attention to an irregularity that he is aware of. To make a call that is sufficient in relation to the previous bid, being an insufficient bid, is not subject to any rectification; although we can argue about whether it is irregular or not, if the director is called he will simply direct the auction to continue and sufficiency in future is relative to the last bid made.

This is a MI case and we can determine what is UI/AI without need to consider the presence of the director. There was misinformation; it has been corrected. Surely it us AI to you that there was previously MI and now it has been corrected. You can draw what conclusions you wish. As far as the ops are concerned, listening to each other's explanations, or absences of them, is UI. So the fact that TD turns up and stuff happens in relation to that is all UI, because it is related to stuff that is already UI.

What's your problem? I said that calling the Director is an appropriate way to begin your attempt to change the call. Precisely as you say, calling the director is always an appropriate way of dealing with an irregularity. But be aware that there is a point at which this irregularity can no longer be dealt with ie once your partner has called, or if you became aware of it and did not take immediate action. So if it can no longer be dealt with, you would be better not drawing attention to it, because doing so will only give unauthorised information to your partner. You are under no obligation to draw attention to this irregularity, not even an ethical one.

A mechanical error or other unintended bid can be corrected until partner calls, but you must begin your attempt to correct it immediately you become aware of it. Calling the director, or saying "that's not what I thought I pulled out", is an appropriate method of beginning your attempt to correct it. If you were perfectly aware you were bidding 2H at the time you bid 2H, that is not a mechanical error or unintended bid, it is a mistake, and is not capable of correction. If your LHO has already called (or for that matter, a call out of turn by your RHO) after your unintended bid, then they get to withdraw their call for free after you have changed yours, and knowledge of the withdrawn call is unauthorised to you, but authorised to them.

As usual, when complaining about bad luck, players overlook their good luck. The SK was right, wasn't it? And that was all the luck she needed. If the SK had been wrong, she really would have needed some seriously good luck in the red suits.

Won't it be rather difficult to persuade partner that 4N isn't Blackwood when you supported hearts earlier? Of course partner will be a bit confused as to why you now apparently have enough to enquire about slam when earlier you could only raise 1 to 2. But since you first bid an impossible 3N and that didn't shut him up, he's already got used to the idea you have a lot more than you promised to start with. It's quite an interesting case because of hte light it sheds on some other legal cases. Often a player makes an "impossible bid" after previously misexplaining or misalerting one of partner's bids, thus partner has unauthorised information (UI) as to what is going on. Often people then say "but it is an impossible bid so the UI told me the same as the auction, so I know it anyway." But here we see a player considering making an impossible bid not from a misunderstanding, but because of an earlier mistake, thus demonstrating that earlier mistakes are also a possible reason for "impossible" bids. As to the actual bidding problem, I don't think there is a reliable way of stopping partner from repeating hearts short of calling 7N. I think the first attempt might be "pass": partner might still continue bidding hearts, but he at least have plausible options to pass or double, so that seems to have some higher probability of avoiding ending up in a high heart contract.

On reflection, I agree that there is no damage. I erred because I'd forgotten about the effect of MPs on weighted adjustments. 3H+1 is already a top, so 4H won't have any more MPs than 3H, so any mix of 4H and 3S is bound to be a worse score than 3H+1. I agree that the proportion of 3H should be zero. So, simples, no damage to NS, they retain the table score. Now to decide whether to adjust for director's error in the case of EW along the lines suggested in my previous post.

When I adjust for NS, I will give them a better result from the table score. Thus for EW, since it is a director's error ruling, the starting position is that I will leave them with the table score. But there is another issue here, which is that, after the ruling, EW committed another offence. This offence was the abuse of UI - W did not bid 3S again, he passed. However, in committing this offence, EW actually damaged themselves, because it would have been better for them to bid 3S again. But, had it not been for the director's error, of failing to warn EW about the UI, EW likely would not have committed this further offence. Because EW actually damaged themselves in committing that offence I am tempted to leave them with the table score, but I think I ought to give them an adjustment from the table score.

Merely poor. SEWOG is for truly terrible actions. Though I do wonder if whether what happened in the rerun auction is that S&W both passed and N reopened. W is clearly a cautious bidder. Apparently he passed in the rerun auction when he knows 2S is weak. So I'm willing to believe he bid 3S is appropriate when he thinks his partner's call is strong. This caution may reflect a realistic assessment of the quality of their card play, since apparently they only came to 3 tricks in defending 3H.

Of course. If NS would have bid differently if properly informed, then they are due an adjustment. The reopening the auction bit is not the entirety of the recourse they get, it is merely an opportunity to get to a situation in which there might be no damage, but if it isn't enough, they still get the benefit of an adjustment. I'll probably adjust the score to a weighted mix of 3H, 3S and 4H, since I expect in a legal auction W will usually overcall 3S over the 3H (he doesn't get to know the correct explanation), and N will sometimes bid 4H. I won't include any portion of 4S, because apparently W doesn't realise he should bid that. Under a director's error ruling, NS will get the better of the table score in 3H and the above, and EW likewise the better for them. The justification for the director's error ruling in the case of EW is that W didn't get proper UI advice that he has to continue pretending that 2S is strong.

Information from the audience is Law 16C, not Law 16A. This is not the kind of UI you have to bend over backwards to avoid taking advantage of, rather you call the director and should get an artificial adjusted score if the board cannot be played, robably Ave+ both ways. If a player can get useful information from mere fact that the audience hasn't gone home, it is a good reason why there should never be an audience perceptible to the players in serious levels of bridge.

OK. That is at least a consistent argument, on a particular defensible interpretation of the law, and lays clear the nature of the disagreement. Though if that is your view of the law you should refuse to give redress rather than apply your formula. If this is the law, then I think it is bad law. Damage occurs at the moment when you rely on MI, not at the point when it is given. Apparently the law will choose either to protect you from that damage, or not protect you from it, according to what might have happened between the point when the MI is given, and the point when you rely on it. You can however obtain protection (subject to any subsequent SEWOG) if you ensure that the information is fresh when you rely on it. That seems to suggest that a player, to ensure the protection from the damage of MI, should ask for a restatement of any information on which he will rely at every moment at which he will use it, which would be very tedious in practice. The law would be improved in its consistency if MI were deemed to have been given at the moment of relying on it, and not just at the original time of stating it. There is a sort-of logic to it. If we think of SEWOGs as being such terrible doings they really are an indication that the player is no longer playing bridge in good faith, which some people would argue is the correct interpretation, then probably the director can say "when you play like this I no longer protect you". Unfortunately plenty of directors think SEWOGs are plays that are merely demonstrably sub-optimal.

And indeed people do commonly play agreements that are not completely defined. But they will get done on a MI rap when the partners seem to understand each other, but give information to the ops that does not give the ops the same ability to understand it. And in the case of someone playing a 1N opening defined by a rule that fails to compute in the circumstances arising, I will, at least in England, probably be further able to find that they are playing an non-permitted agreement. I don't think "I'm not sure in these circumstances" is a permitted range for a 1N opening. This problem will be rapidly revealed by the inability of the opener's partner to announce the range.

This is not the point I am making. A SEWOG action can sometimes be successful, even if the other side play best bridge. You make a crassly stupid double of what ought to be a solid contract, but it turns out that the contract is always going off due to some weird and unlikely happenstance you could have had no idea of when you doubled - eg declarer can't untangle his communications to cash his copious tricks. You say that it is common for the expected score with the SEWOG and no MI to be better than the score with no SEWOG and no MI, but cite only the common case where the SEWOG follows the damage-incurring incident. In the sequence of events MI, SEWOG, damage from earlier MI, that ordering of sizes would be unusual, (it would be the successful gamble mentioned above), and that is the situation we are discussing. That is why I say that, for this sequence of events, this ordering of sizes is unusual, not in the wider case. But you do now seem to acknowledge with your mins and maxes that when the SEWOG would have been profitable but the for the subsequent damage from the prior offence, there should be no adjustment for the SEWOG. Good. Anyway, this is a side-show from what I consider to be the main problem, which is that you are trying to charge for the SEWOG twice over, in the case of the sequence of events MI, SEWOG, damage from earlier MI. I'll make the scores a more likely sizing. If we have: Table Score -200 > MP 1 Score if properly informed, but SEWOG -100 > MP 4 Score if no SEWOG (damage incurring incident doesn't arise in this scenario) -50 > MP 6 Then, according to you the adjustment for the damage is 3 MP, but the adjustment for the SEWOG is 2. So you'll be trying to give them 2 MP according to your formula. But this double-charges them for the SEWOG. The MP4 score already incorporates the damage of the SEWOG, it is based upon a sequence of events that is subsequent. So charging them 2 for teh SEWOG on top is double charging them. And what would you do if it was Table Score -200 > MP 1 Score if properly informed, but SEWOG -100 > MP 3 Score if no SEWOG (damage incurring incident doesn't occur in this scenario) -50 > MP 6 Now the SEWOG cost is 3, but the damage is only 2, so wipes it out entirely. Are you saying that they are due no restitution at all for the MI that damaged them? Clearly the difference between 6 MP and 1 MP isn't due to the SEWOG, only 3 of it is.

Sorry got the letters mixed up. Do it without letters. -100 is a better score than -110. It is a strange situation that the expected score without SEWOG, -110, is a better score than the expected score with SEWOG but no MI, ie -100. So actually the effect of the SEWOG here is "profit", but you have called it damage and charged them for it, when actually it is profit. That's only the first of the two problems with your method. The other is that you have charged them for the SEWOG twice over. Pretend -110 is -50 instead and perhaps you will see what I mean.