campboy

Agree. Basically, whether you would have realised in time had you not claimed is a doubtful point. You would have to notice before playing the second diamond from hand.

Please note that when directing I am obliged to rule according to the laws, and this may include awarding tricks to the defence in claims that I would not myself have contested. However, as TD I would take a dim view of any attempt to bully opponents out of calling me.

1. Of course a winning finesse is allowed to be repeated. The player merely has to state that that is what he is doing to get all the tricks. However, if he does not state that he is taking a finesse then we are in law 70E1 territory; a finesse is not "marked" unless someone has shown out of that suit (or will do so before we have to decide whether to take it). 2. I do not see the distinction. The ethics of any game derive from the rules; what is ethical in one game may be unethical in another.

FWIW, if forced to play out a bunch of cards I believe to be equal and winning, what I will do depends on where those cards are. If in hand I will play from the top. If in dummy, I might play from the bottom as it is easier to say "club" than "top club". Of course, things are quite different if one of them is the ♦7 :rolleyes:

I was under the impression that those who think the EBU psyche/misbid regulation is illegal were not arguing that it is wrong to adjust for fielded misbids, merely that it was wrong to give an artificial adjusted score. But perhaps we are thinking of different discussions.

Amber is certainly reasonable here.

HotShot - yes, you can deduce that something strange is going on. But since you "trust partner", evidently it is opponents' bidding which is strange. Perhaps East was concealing a good club fit, knowing he would get another chance to bid after the transfer was completed.

We are not ruling that there is a CPU, we are ruling that there is a sufficiently strong possibility of a CPU to justify adjusting the score. I agree with jdonn that it is the failure to bid 3♥ at the second opportunity that is the problem. Had the player merely failed to break a transfer I would not adjust the score.

Law 40 (concealed partnership understanding) or law 21 (misinformation) if you like. The problem with treating fielded misbids as MI, though, is that in some cases the concealed understanding would not be a permitted agreement even if disclosed. [edit] I didn't read the last post carefully enough. If there was no partnership history of partner forgetting -- or perhaps I should say if there is partnership history that partner does not forget -- then that is evidence that there is no CPU. But the onus is on the players to provide that. No partnership history is not necessarily enough; there are certainly players of my acquaintance whom I know to be likely to mess up agreements despite never having partnered them.

Eh? According to the first post: and this is the point we are answering. I accept that there was no UI on this board, but if South knows that North is likely to forget, and is going to act on that, then he should disclose it. South used his knowledge that they were not on firm ground to take an unusual action, but he concealed that knowledge from E/W.

Only if he is using the knowledge that partner's bidding is less reliable than the opponents'. It is pretty pointless making complicated deductions about opponents' distribution from their auction while refusing to make the very simple deduction that partner has 5 hearts from the fact that he has transferred to hearts.

I don't see how NS can get a better score. Even if the auction does start 2♥ - p - p - dbl - 3♥, surely South is going to bid.

Even assuming that partner would bother to take action over 2♣ with such a poor hand (and he also knows we are vulnerable), it's difficult to reconcile that hand with the opponent's bidding. East must have good diamonds, but didn't bid them or double 2♦, and he has made a mistake in preferring 3♣ to 2♠.

Apologies, I misread the previous posts and didn't realise that Jeffrey was talking about a different distribution.

1. No. There is enough evidence that North has misbid, so no MI. 2. Yes. It's a fielded misbid which is a breach of Law 40A3. The EBU procedure for dealing with this is probably not the same as the ACBL's, though, so I can't give an exact ruling.

Admittedly, when I wrote "plausible" I should have said "plausible and reasonably likely". But I think the rest of my post is fine. My dictionary defines "irrational" as "inconsisent with reason or logic; illogical; absurd". I don't think any of that applies to this play.

I think the question of whether a successful action can be wild or gambling is a distraction. If an action was successful, how can it matter under the 2007 laws whether it was wild or gambling? Law 12C1b says that in the WoG case the player "does not receive relief [...] for such part of the damage as was self-inflicted". But if the action was successful, none of the damage can have been self-inflicted.

There are a lot of responses in this thread, but very few refer to what the laws actually say, despite Henry quoting them early on. The opponent has not shown out; it is not irrational to play for the drop now as there are plausible layouts on which that is necessary. So 70E1 says that the director shall not accept the (unstated) finesse.

I would not give him the tricks. How hard is it to say "with the finesse"? As WellSpyder says, West should play the king even if he also has the jack.

It looks much more attractive to sacrifice over 4♥ with a known 11-card fit than to sacrifice over 3NT with a possible 8-card fit.

I had assumed when writing my previous post that 3♥ would be forcing, so no double. If it isn't then it it's not so obvious what North would bid.

Perhaps the director was ruling based on MI rather than UI? It seems likely that North will bid 3♥ rather than 3NT with correct info. However, East will probably still decide his partner has shown the minors and bid 5♦. So I agree that the table score should stand.

Personally, I would not consider raising 3♠. The bid makes no sense at all in view of the previous pass, but I am not going to play partner for an overcall he didn't make. It doesn't matter whether I wake up to my misbid or not (I don't suppose I would). Having said that, I am probably not a suitable person to poll since I strongly disagree with the 2♥ bid even if the auction was as he thought. [edit] In other words I agree with those who say I am not allowed to wake up to my misbid because of the alert; however, I do not think 4♠ is an LA even if the player continues to think the auction started with 1♦.

I have consistently said that if the pair have an agreement that transfers are on after a double then it is quite a different matter, and I would adjust. There have been similar cases to that on the old forums, and I said so then as well. But the rest of us are talking about Nigel's hypothetical case from the first post.

I don't think it is so hard to distinguish between IBs which are innocuous and those which aren't, actually. YMMV, but in my experience if the IB is only one level too low, and follows a pass by RHO, 95+% of the time the player knew what the auction was, intended to bid that denomination at the cheapest level, and got confused about what level that was. I have, for example, seen (and perpetrated) plenty of insufficient Stayman/transfers after a 2NT opening, but never one where the player actually thought his partner opened 1NT. On the other hand, if the IB is more than one level too low, or there was a bid by RHO, misapprehensions about the auction become much more likely and it is no longer innocuous.