greenender

and this hand does not have twelve top tricks. It does not seem completely obvious to me. One possibility is that at that table, the defending side cashed the SA at trick one, after which... FWIW I guess that in many club postmortems the expressions "twelve top tricks" and "twelve tricks on any reasonable line" (here ♣ finesse, ♦ ruff or setting up a long ♠ with or without assistance) are quite likely to be used more or less interchangeably.

I can't imagine why, not without the UI that partner seems to have a long suit to provide a measure of safety. If E/W are about to bid game, why would you want to give them a free opportunity to score 1100 instead, and if they are about to pass out 2♥, partner (who is the one with relative ♥ shortage) will act. This one is in PP territory.

I haven't changed my view that declarer should get his 13 tricks. Although I hadn't thought of it in that way, campboy's analysis makes a lot of sense. However, I don't think anyone should be criticised for asking for a ruling. Whilst I personally wouldn't, that is a matter of my own philosophy of how to play the game. I would raise an eyebrow if a player of reasonable standard or better, knowing me to be of a similar standard, were to do so against me, but perhaps I shouldn't be: if I had failed to mention the club blockage, that would be evidence that I hadn't noticed it. My favourite claim statement, incidentally, is the one favoured by a certain well-known member of the YC: "not doing anything ****ish".

I agree with Jeremy that if one receives an explanation which is at odds with the convention card one is entitled to ask the explainer whether he is sure. This usually arises when (say) E asks a question because he does not know the answer, but W has already looked at the SC and knows that it says something different. I do find E's actions here perverse in the extreme: 1. If he knew what was on the SC, why did he ask? To make sure partner got the info? 2. Why on earth did he prefer the SC explanation to the very definite explanation he got from S? Partners of mine who do that sort of thing are prone to become ex-partners with some degree of rapidity. Which is why I don't buy hotShot's kudos for W: why on earth would a sane W assume that E had deliberately ignored the explanation? Whilst I agree with Jeremy's philosophy, I am inclined to rule that E was not damaged by MI as he chose to ignore the I he was given. It is therefore logically irrelevant to the result whether the I was M or not. Off-topic: what is it with the craze for being able to show a two-suiter including ♣s when RHO has opened 1♣? If the opening side's structure is 5 card Ms, better m, then 1♣ is something like twice as likely (IIRC) to deliver 5+ cards than precisely 3. Even if openers bid 4-card ♦s and 2+ ♣s, it seems much more logical to me to treat 1♣ as natural, and it certainly avoids the myriad disagreements as to which suits are shown by a two-suited overcall, when one partner thinks ♣s count as bid and the other doesn't.

I agree with most of what Ed says, but: 1. I would be more inclined to penalise the next table for an audible post-mortem than this one for its misguided attempt to avoid toubling the playing director. I'd be more inclined to penalise them for not calling a non-playing director. 2. W has UI as well as E, to be sure, but I can't really see how it demonstrably suggests anything. From W's perspective what E heard might have been along the times of "dreadfully unlucky - it's a 75% slam".

I cannot conceive why anyone would bid 3♣ yet be happy for his screenmate to assume it was natural.

Not much of one, IMO :)

I agree that the AC's ruling makes no sense. However, S's choice of 3♣ strongly suggests that S had some reason to think that this would be taken as a cue-bid, notwithstanding that there was no explicitly-agreed defence to this particular opening. Whilst this is strange, it does seem that S thought it would be understood, and he would therefore have expected N to alert it. In England we are advised to alert partner's call if we are unsure of its meaning but are going to assume an alertable meaning. I would have thought that it followed that if a player makes a call about which he has no secure agreement, but which he intends to bear an alertable meaning, then for the purposes of correcting MI at the end of the auction, he should assume that he did have that alertable agreement. Whilst I am unaware of the situation in Iceland, I would have thought that the same should really go anywhere that doesn't have a specific regulation to the contrary. Given that if W knew that S believed there was some sort of agreement that 3♣ showed a two-suiter with ♠s the best suit, rather than the natural ♣ bid with secondary ♠s implied by the auction, there is a significant possibility that W would have taken some different action leading to a better score for his side than -930, I think that there is a case for adjustment. Please note: I am not saying that S must explicitly disclose that N/S have had a misunderstanding, but I think he should say, as least, that "at the time I bid 3♣, I had some reason to think that it was not natural and that there has therefore been a failure to alert it". Of course that tips E/W off to the misunderstanding, particularly if N contradicts, but at least the TD is called while the auction is still live.

I think I will generously allow declarer to score 13 of his 14 tricks. There is no reason to think that he is unaware of the potential blockage in ♣s, and it would not be a normal line to cash too many red winners in dummy so that the actual ♣ blockage becomes a problem.

So, you look at the possible rulings for the two infractions, MI and UI, and work out which is best for the NOS. An adjustment from 2♠ doubled to 2♥ doubled isn't going to get E/W a whole bunch of MPs, so the choice seems to be whether you think E escaping for down 2 in 3♦ undoubled is within the tolerances for adjustment in the ACBL. Otherwise Robin's adjustment seems correct.

I hadn't seen Ed's post when I posted mine, but I entirely agree.

I strongly prefer Robin and Wayne's view here. IMO the misapprehension as to the number of tricks could have come from anywhere, such as the absent sixth ♣ already mentioned. The most favourable play (for declarer) that should be considered by the TD is to assume the cashing of the ♠AK and the other non-♠ winners, leading to a 2-card ending where the options are reduced to the ♠ guess. L 70 E 1 is now squarely engaged and (the ♠J not having dropped), declarer only gets 13 tricks when Jxx is onside. So I'm for down 2. I accept that it boils down to whether playing ♠s from the top was embraced in the original statement. I don't buy it. It would be nice if the law permitted a weighted score in these circumstances, but of course the adjudication of a claim isn't the award of an adjusted score, so it currently doesn't.

In that event I have contradictory evidence as to what each of the players thought the agreement was or should be. I have no basis to judge one way or the other, so I obey the requirement of the law to presume mistaken explanation. (I do know that the law says the TD is to presume mistaken explanation in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and there is evidence to the contrary, but I still think that presuming MI is correct when the TD has no evidential basis for jumping one way or the other).

For me pass is a LA, but I don't buy that the BIT suggests 6♣ over either pass or double. Result stands. It is not forbidden for a side in possession of UI to get an occasional lucky result if the UI laws have not been infringed.

No. :) But it is not unheard of for a TD or AC to be swayed by the contents of the hand [no, they do not look until the hand is finished] when they really cannot decide otherwise. That would be the hand of the person who allegedly broke tempo, to allow the TDs to assess whether it is likely that they had anything significant to think about; rather than the hand of the player who acted opposite the alleged BIT.

The OB does provide some guidance as to what a takeout double is expected to look like (4 H 6): "A take-out double suggests that the doubler wishes to compete, and invites partner to describe his hand. Take-out doubles are frequently based on shortage in the suit doubled and preparedness to play in the other unbid suits, failing which significant extra values may be expected. Partner is expected to take out, though he can pass on a hand very suitable for defence in the context of what he can be expected to hold for his actions (if any) to date." To describe as takeout a double which may be made on the hand in the OP, as well as (presumably) on a shape-suitable 16-count, potentially constitutes MI, although it seems there was no damage. But it does not make it alertable. The TDs seem to have done a good job of investigating, and to have concluded that it was a takeout double, albeit one with a potentially lower than expected point count, and potentially looser than expected shape considerations. Whilst a "potentially unexpected meaning" qualification to the alerting rules for doubles might be helpful, I think that alerting this double under the current rules would not be helpful. After all an alert of a double suggests that the agreement is that the double cannot be something like a shape-suitable 16-count. I think it is much better to keep the alert of doubles for something that really isn't a takeout double, rather than for something which essentially is, albeit with some unexpected constraints. But I would certainly get the pair to put something about shape constraints as well as strength in the "aspects to note" section of the SC and caution them to make sure that these are disclosed in response to any questions.

?!?!?! I have made a 25A change about three times in my entire life. Or maybe fewer. Remember that in the EBU a call is made with bidding boxes when "removed from the box with apparent intent". Given the age and stickiness of some of the sets of bidding cards one encounters, instances of cards sticking to each other are relatively common. Most players notice this before the wrong card is faced on the table, and in those circumstances nearly all players will allow the correction without calling the TD, perhaps because they do not realise that the call has in fact already been made as per the regs. I do find, both as a player and as a TD, that the TD is called when the inadvertency is not noticed till player has let go of the bidding card. In those circumstances I feel that the correct practical thing for the offending player is to say something along the lines of "Wait a minute - I have pulled the wrong card. Shall we have the TD?". If the TD is summoned, then I feel that he should treat any acknowledgement that the card visible does not represent the intended call as if it were an attempt to change, even if, strictly speaking, the player may not explicitly have said he wishes to change it. I agree that the player (in the scenario where the bidding card has been released onto the table, rather than just being half-way out of the box) should not say what he wishes to change to, to avoid unecesary UI in case the change is not allowed.

I have rather more sympathy for E/W that some other posters. I suspect that they may have been relatively unsophiscticated players (I'd love to play regularly against a pair whose systemic bid on the E hand over a strong 1♣ is 1♦ rather than a natural 3♦ or some other form of space-consuming germ warfare). It does seem odd that S's only apparent systemic bid was to show a GF hand with length in the suit bid naturally on his right. Strong clubbers get to know very early on that they need to sort out their methods to cope with intervention over the 1♣ opening. Perhaps the fact that they seem not to have thought through the implications of playing "system on" over 1♣ (1♦) stems from the rarity of a natural 1♦ overcall over a big club. Still it is surprising that there doesn't seem to have been a bid to show a balanced hand of whatever strength S thought he held, with or without a ♦ stop - about as surprising as the fact that they did have a bid to show a game force with ♦s. But did this amount to an implicit agreement that Pass was not simply 0-3? I doubt it, but it will do for the future. This is the sort of rub of the green windfall that pairs like N/S are allowed to benefit from just once.

Laws 12A2 and 12C2 seem to cover it. The provisions of Law 13 quoted above seem to make it clear that normal play of the board is deemed impossible.

Quite so, but... I'm not sure that the TD is necessarily going to be able to find this out. Remember that in some parts of the UK the Multi is popular amongst ordinary club players, who don't necessarily think in those terms. IMO there is also likely to be some positive correlation between the sort of players who don't have such precise agreements and the sort of players who forget which of 3D and 3S is stronger. However, if these are the sort of players involved, my instinct is that their philosophy is more likely to be along the lines of "responder is in charge after 2N" rather than having specific agreements as to what is forcing opposite what. This reinforces my inclination to adjust.

There is AI that the auction is a bit strange. Partner chose to bid 2NT rather than 3S, which would normally suggest that he would want to be in game opposite a maximum with either major. The TD should explore the actual agreements of the pair, not rely on what he (along with some posters!*) assumes to be the case. If, as seems likely to be the case, this does not shed much light on what 3S opposite a maximum is supposed to mean, then the TD can allow the AI that the auction is a bit strange to affect his assessment of the logical alternatives (NB it doesn't cause him to conclude that there was no UI). I'm with Roland here, however: the possibility of 2N being intended as a tactical manoeuvre of some sort suggests that there is a strong enough possibility that if responder had explained 3D as a maximum but still bid 3S, then opener would have passed, so pass is a logical alternative. I think those that argue otherwise are in some danger of trying to justify what they are sure is the winning call, in the face of the UI, rather than observing the dictates of Law 73C and making every effort to take no advantage. *For example, in my experience the proposition that a 2S response to a Multi does not allow opener to differentiiate between min and max if he has hearts is by no means always correct.

I agree with Jeremy, for two reasons. 1. Bum claims normally arise from the claimer labouring under some misapprehension. The fact that yours was that you only had one loser (so that the location of the ♠K was irrelevant) doesn't disapply Law 70E which effectively bans non-marked finesses unless it would be irrational not to take the finesse. At the time of your claim you thought that you only had two ♠s, and for such a player it would not be irrational to cash the ♠A along the way. 2. If you follow your claim statement literally, you cash the remaining ♦s, and are in the wrong hand to take the ♠ finesse. Whilst the general objective of the claims law is to do equity to both sides, albeit resolving matters of doubt against the claimer, this does not equate to allowing a claim if the director "thinks the claimer would have made the tricks claimed had the hand been played out". Now, had you played the hand out, you would obviously have taken the ♠ finesse, had you realised the position in time, but you are not entitled under the claim law to the benefit of that realisation. No overtrick.

Strange. Jeremy and I live in the same city, play at the same club, and play in most of the same events, but in my experience it's more common to use the intermediate step to show the better hand. As for which is better, it depends partly on your requirements for showing the better hand: you should aim to maximise the frequency of opener's playing the hand when responder is signing off. If you often show a fit, you should play it Jeremy's way; if you rarely show a fit you should play it the other way. Probably correct in theory, but in practice only the better players (amongst which I include all of Andy, David and Jeremy) are likely to choose for technical merit. Of the club players in England who play full transfers, the vast majority (IMO) play that completion of the transfer denies a fit, just to avoid memory strain - other transfer breaks show something extra in terms of the anchor suit, so they play the intermediate bid over the transfer to a minor to show the better fit. The fact that the logic is different because the transfer "break" is below the cheapest level of the anchor suit doesn't come into it.

Given the fact that breaches of Law 66A are common, it feels terribly harsh for the OS to be saddled with 100% of 3NT+1. I therefore have a lot of sympathy with the route chosen by the TD. There does seem some vague logic in not applying the UI law, in that partner only provided the information in response to a request which is commonly, albeit improperly, allowed. If W had done something unprompted to draw attention to the position, that would have sounded more of a case for the all-or-nothing adjustment under the UI law. But I admit that this sounds a bit like reasoning backwards from the result that is perceived to be fair. I hadn't previously considered that the full rigour of the ban on Reveley rulings was likely to be unduly harsh to the OS. Perhaps it is only an isolated sort of example.

Isn't that a non-sequitur? It is routine to consider MI in a case brought to the TD's attention because of possible UI, and vice versa. Is it not correct to consider both possible infractions and give the OS the worse of the possible MI adjustment and the possible UI adjustment? It should not make a difference that application of one adjustment (here the MI adjustment to 3♣ passed out) would have denied the OS the opportunity to commit the other infraction. Here it seems clear that a possible UI adjustment would at least potentially involve some weighting of a high-level doubled ♣ contract, so that a UI adjustment is potentially better for the NOS. I therefore do feel that it was somewhat lazy for the TD to rule as he did. Not deliberately lazy, of course, but not ultimately quite as thorough as we have come to expect from most EBU TDs.