Coelacanth

This requires a specific version of Java to run properly. It is unlikely to be the version that came pre-loaded on your machine (if any). Fortunately, Ping is very responsive and helpful.

Firstly, I agree with most of the other posters that there is not convincing evidence that A was attempting to throw the match. However, I note for completeness' sake: Admittedly there is some ambiguity as to whether this means playing to win the event, or playing to win each deal. The intent is to make clear that deliberately attempting to achieve a poor score on any deal is not permitted. So if this took place in the ACBL and if it was determined that A had deliberately thrown the match, then Team A would be in violation of the Conditions and subject to discipline. In the actual case it appears that neither of those conditions were met.

What? ACBLscore doesn't care whether the boards are hand-dealt or preduplicated. ACBLscore does not (currently) work well with Bridgemates for Swiss teams, but this has nothing to do with how the boards are dealt.

Next time I put down an unhelpful dummy I will say "Sorry partner, I have the hand of the death". Gotta love google translate.

This is an established revoke; no need to involve L14. L64B3 directs that there is no rectification for this revoke. However, L64C directs the TD to assign an adjusted score if the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated.

So the TD ruled that, UI or not, passing was not an LA with this hand vul at IMPs. The question of whether certain LA's might be demonstrably suggested is a more difficult problem. At the table, the East player simply bid 5♦ over 2♠, which proved to be cold for 13 easy tricks on the lie of the cards. Had she bid 3NT or something which led to a diamond slam, there might have been cause for an adjustment, but 640 was probably the worst score possible for EW, so no damage and no adjustment. At the table where I was playing, the auction progressed differently, with N overcalling 1♠ over 1♦. My partner sitting East (a relatively inexperienced player playing in a pickup partnership) simply leapt to 3NT which made 12 tricks thanks to some friendly defense. She asked me what she "should" have done and I suggested that 2♠ would be the normal call. But that just postpones her bidding problem. What call would you make with the East cards after 1♦-(1♠)-2♠-(P) 2NT-(P) or 1♦-(1♠)-2♠-(P) 3♥-(P) ?

ACBL, IMP scoring [hv=pc=n&e=sa6hajdj9432ca753&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=1dp2d(See%20text)pp2s(Inquiry%3B%20see%20text)]133|200[/hv] It should be evident from the hand and auction what happened here. EW were not playing inverted minors, but E had forgotten this and thought that 2♦ was strong and forcing. In the passout seat, N asked about 2♦ and was told that it was a natural simple raise. E now committed what I have seen referred to here as unauthorized panic and took a (non-pass) call, and N summoned the TD. North's original request was based on MI; if he'd known E had a strong hand, he would have passed out 2♦. The TD was unsympathetic to this view, given that N had a correct explanation of EW's agreements at the time he made the 2♠ call. The TD now moved to the UI situation. Clearly E has UI from partner's explanation of her 2♦ call. What are E's LAs over 2♠? Crucially, is pass a LA? Are any other LAs demonstrably suggested by the UI? Does the AI from partner's pass supersede the UI? Opinions please.

In looking through the Laws, I can find no definition of what constitutes "normal" play. Yes, 12A2 sets forth a course of action when "normal" play is impossible, but it does not define what "normal" is. Here, we have an irregularity, and a rectification has been applied in accordance with L29 and L30. It seems to me that this is entirely "normal"; it's the expected resolution of an auction which begins with an opening pass OOT. Suppose that, instead of passing, RR had opened 7NT OOT, quickly accepted and doubled by E. Clearly this is not a "normal" result, but would you assign an artificial 12A2 score in place of the score for 7NTX down however many tricks it went down? We now return to our regularly scheduled L23 discussion.

ACBL, matchpoint pairs if that matters South is declarer and leads a club from dummy. East wins the ace as West discards a diamond. Before anyone moves to the next trick West says "whoops, I have a club", corrects his revoke and leaves his diamond on the table as a penalty card. Nobody feels the need to call the TD at this point. East asks the table "I'm on lead, right?"; declarer agrees. East leads something; declarer now asks "wait a minute, he (West) has a penalty card, don't I have some options here?" Director please! How do you rule?

In the event, the South player bid 3♥. The TDs decided not to adjust, but there was some discussion of imposing a pass over 2♠. The consensus was that if the small club had been a spade, this would be a much more difficult ruling, but with a singleton spade a pass was not a LA. On the lie of the cards, both 3♥ and 2♠ are doomed to failure (North has ♠JTxx and a singleton heart; West has ♥AQTx.)

You've probably already worked out what the issue is. The 2♥ call was alerted and explained as DONT, showing hearts and spades. (This pair plays DONT vs strong NTs but has agreed to play natural vs weak; North forgot.) So South has UI at his second turn. Based on the comments thus far, the LAs seem to be 3♦, 3♥, possibly 4♥. Does anyone think Pass is an LA (would North not bid this way with 6=0=3=4 and < say 8 HCP)? Are any of those calls demonstrably suggested by the UI?

This is the hand I pictured when first presented the problem. One of the reasons I posted it was to see what other constructions people could come up with.

I don't play much against weak NTs, and I also realize I didn't list the vulnerability. Let's say you are NV vs vul. I'm wondering about what kind of invitational hand with spades would fail to overcall 2♠ directly over 1NT. I would think that the given south hand is a maximum for the 2♥ call; any bigger hand would start with a double. Thus, for north to be inviting, he probably needs near-opening values. But again, this is probably just my unfamiliarity with tactics vs. a weak NT.

ACBL, Regional Swiss Teams (IMP scoring) This is a UI problem but first, a bidding poll. [hv=pc=n&s=skhk96532daqt6cq3&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1n(12-14)pp2h(Natural)p2sp]133|200[/hv] In balancing chair after LHO's 12-14 1NT, you overcall 2♥, natural by agreement. Partner's 2♠ advance is undiscussed. What do you expect in partner's hand for this 2♠ call? Is 2♠ forcing? What call do you make, and what other calls do you consider?

My intention here was to spark discussion. I didn't change any facts; I withheld facts from the OP so that the discussion of 'do you take into account what the player said he would bid?' could be more general. I didn't want to get bogged down in "2♠ is a terrible call; he's not getting an adjustment from me if he is going to bid like that!"

Well this is the gist of why I posted the hand in the first place. In the ACBL, we must consider outcomes that are "at all probable" or "likely" when assigning an adjusted score. It's clear to me that for THIS player, who wanted to bid 2♠, a NT contract was not even at all probable. But in the abstract (Among all players who would bid 1♠ originally, and who received an explanation of 'no agreement' for the 2♣ call, would some of them find their way to 3NT?) it probably is. I think in general it is unfair to ask players what they would have done differently. Their thoughts are clouded by having seen the hand played out and by the result. It's difficult for them to think back to what information they had at the critical moment. Once the TD establishes MI and that there were alternative actions possible, he should then move directly to the consideration of possible outcomes (possibly by polling other players, etc.) But when the player blurts out, unprompted "I would have taken (what turned out to be) the unsuccessful action!", should we take that into account?

[hv=pc=n&s=sj984h85d54cq9732&w=s2hak74dqj8632c84&n=sat5hj963dkt9cat5&e=skq763hqt2da7ckj6&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1c1s2c(Alerted)2dppp]399|300[/hv] Here's the whole hand. 2♦ made 10 tricks for 130 EW, a 75% matchpoint result. I think it's clear that there was MI and that EW are entitled to an adjustment if they were damaged. This is where it gets tricky. East stated (paraphrased) "If I had known 2♣ could be that weak I would have bid 2♠." Now, if E bids 2♠ there is no way EW will find NT. E has failed to bid NT twice now and W will never bid NT with two small clubs. A 2♠ call by E will result in a final contract of 2♠ (making some number of tricks less than 9) or 3♦ (making the same 10 tricks they made in 2♦). Thus, no damage, no adjustment. East volunteered his statement about bidding 2♠; I didn't ask him what action he would have taken. If he had said "I would have done something different" I think you have to consider a NT contract, but when he makes a specific statement you have to take that at face value. Don't you?

Surely, as the defending side, South should not call until after play is completed. As to the nature of the explanation, I don't know if she just said "inverted" or described the likely holding (she said "10 or so points with clubs" to me, but I'd already established that there was no agreement and thus MI)

Sorry, whoops, North explained 2♣ as inverted. Will edit the OP.

ACBL club game matchpoint scoring players not of the highest standard (N is a decent player, S less so, EW are new/novice) [hv=pc=n&e=skq763hqt2da7ckj6&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=pp1c1s2c2dppp]133|200[/hv] 1♣ is standard american style, 3+ cards 2♣ was alerted by North West did not enquire about 2♣; at East's last turn he asked and was told "inverted" by North 2♦ made 4 for a surprisingly good matchpoint score (EW are cold for 3NT) At the end of the hand, EW realized that S's hand does not correspond to an inverted raise (she had 3HCP including Q-empty fifth of clubs). NS are an occasional partnership; S's CC is not marked with inverted raises while N's is so marked. In conversation with the players it was established that N thought this was an inverted raise and S did not. N's explanation of "inverted" thus constitutes MI. E is adamant that if he had known S could be weak he would have bid. Two questions: Do you adjust? Do you take E's statement about what bid he would have made into account when considering likely/at all probable outcomes? Edited for clarity.

It's referred to as TD University ("TDU") and the first run of it was this past September. The intent is to provide training for new(ish) TDs to get them prepared to be a DIC of a sectional.

My thoughts are pretty much in line with this. NS chose not to appeal. This was a qualifying session. The table result (4C -2) was an average plus while 3NTx going 2 or 3 off would be a near top. Since the NS pair qualified, the only thing at stake was carryover.

The hand was Board 21 from the Friday evening pair game.Link maybe East's hand is x, KJxx, J98x, KQxx. Unusual is perhaps an apt description of his 2NT call. NS felt that West, as an unpassed hand, could well have something like AKx, xx, KTx, Axxxx where 3NT has solid chances. I would certainly raise a natural 2NT to (at least) 3NT with that hand. There's also the question of damage. 4C failed by two tricks, so 3NTx would need to be down two for damage to have resulted. Not clear whether that is likely or at all probable.

I did ask the question poorly. At this point I'm more interested in what's demonstrably suggested. The only non-alertable 2NT call in this sequence would be natural. 2NT for the minors here IS alertable, although I suspect that fewer than 10% of ACBL players know that.

[hv=d=n&v=n&b=5&a=2d(Flannery)2n(See%20text)p3n(Very%20slow)ppdpp4cppp]133|100[/hv] ACBL, from the NABC Matchpoints I'm just presenting the auction without the actual hands since I'm primarily interested in a LA discussion. N opened 2D, Flannery. E bit 2NT; he believed that this was Unusual showing the minors. No alert from W. S passed and W bid 3NT after an extended (1+ minute) hesitation. After S doubled in the passout seat E ran to 4C. . Prior to the opening lead W was asked if they had an agreement about 2NT; she admitted being unsure as to its meaning. The hand was played out and the TD summoned. The NS position: E has UI from W's hesitation that W may be unsure of the meaning of 2NT. This demonstrably suggests not playing 3NTx. Passing 3NT is a LA. Score should be adjusted to 3NTx making however many tricks it makes. The TD ruled that passing 3NTx was not a LA. NS disagreed; I'll post the hand later and you can make up your own mind. I'm interested in opinions on whether the hesitation demonstrably suggested running (to a player who was happy to sit for 3NT undoubled), and whether S's double has any whiff of a 'double shot' not worthy of protection.