axman

Maybe the tables are squeezed together, maybe they are far apart. Maybe there is a Howell where the remark is 4 feet away or 40 feet. Maybe it is a Mitchell and the players are 6 feet apart or 20 feet. If the players were close then there is little that the players could have done to prevent the hearing of the remark. If the remark was audible from 20 feet then the talker has immense culpability in tainting comparisons. The actions of E appear to be very improper. Why didn’t he complain about the loud mouth immediately and get him to shut up ? Instead of reporting the incident in such a way that his partner was unaware [in hopes of preventing the tainting of comparisons] he communicates with partner during the auction other than by call or play [L73B]- and still does not report to the TD immediately. It is no far leap that if E has heard the remark then W also has and E’s table talk makes it crystal clear just which remarks he refers to. As to bidding judgment, there is no information about what has been communicated by agreement so there is no way to draw appropriate judgment as to W’s bidding. But it is W that doesn’t have many tricks and who hasn’t yet been told that E has tons of tricks. Yet it is W who blasts into slam with the possibility of H losers and a S loser. Now if the agreements explain to W that E has [which] 8-1/2++ tricks then W’s bidding can be explained by fair play. But E’s remarks also explain pard’s bidding much better than the auction does and it looks very dirty. And it is ill considered to do something about it without adequate fact collection.

[a] E asserts he heard a gratuitous comments from another table we are not told the movement nor geography [c] E has made a gratuitous comment to the table [d] the auction does not make sense [how does W know there aren't 2 H losers?] [e] we have not been told the bidding agreements [f] not enough information to draw conclusions

The facts that are missing include the agreements to the bidding. As I read the auction W has made an invitational strength 3D opposite a 10-12 NT [as in responder needs to be pretty substantial-like worth a 1 of a suit opening- to be invitational]. So, is NS bidding 5C to make on this auction? While they might very well like to make 11 tricks I should think they are preventing 4S. EW have given the opinion that 5C does not make, so there is the expectation that 6C does not make when it is bid. That 5CX was taken out suggests that setting 5C would be less than making 5S- remember that opener freely bid 4S. THe strongest inference from the BIT is that he was concerned that the defense might slip in 5SX. WHat is clear to me is that inferences from the BIT [a] did not suggest that 6C would make and demonstrably suggested that 5SX would be successful.

Well, declarer confronted (as far as I can tell) this position: [hv=n=sk32&w=s&e=s&s=sq54]399|300|[/hv] In passing, I should say that if a world champion (who presumably knew the position) did in fact give any thought at all to which card he should play under the king, and particularly if he did so against an opponent without much in the way of nous, I would... well, I would not be able to strip him of his titles, but if I had the power to order his summary execution, I would certainly do so. Normally, Burn speaks with great accuracy, but not here. The expectation to avoid improper deception is not that he not think, but that he not vary his manner.

GIven that it is common practice to allot 7 minutes to complete a board and the choice of the two minute buzzer the appropriate approach might be- When given warning of the round ending it is a slow play infraction to start an auction** once a [two] minute warning is given. For each offending side a PP for the first offense shall be ???; second offense ???? etc ** even if the cards have been removed from the board further contemplation brings additional issues: My feelings are that once a board has been started, or at a minimum an auction has started, the board should be completed. The primary consideration with respect to rmoving cards from from the board being a matter of security- it being too easy talk over the hands yet to be [otherwise] played. It being better to not present the temptation. So, to provide additional impetus to avoid infracting the buzzer it seems a good idea to provide for assessing contingent PP for finishing the board after the start of the new round say in so much PP for each minute of delay.

GIven that it is common practice to allot 7 minutes to complete a board and the choice of the two minute buzzer the appropriate approach might be- When given warning of the round ending it is a slow play infraction to start an auction** once a [two] minute warning is given. For each offending side a PP for the first offense shall be ???; second offense ???? etc ** even if the cards have been removed from the board

I have always wondered a little about this which is perceived wisdom. A slow 3♠ may be 2.5♠ or 3.5♠, that is true in general. But is it true in particular? If one player always hesitates when considering bidding more, and his partner always acts as though it is a 3.5♠ bid, he will be quite successful. But if the next player along only really thinks before making an optimistic call, then if after thought his partner assumed a 2.5♠ bid he will be relatively successful. I know the arguments against "If it hesitates, shoot it" but there is one obvious argument for such an approach: the actual partner may have a good idea what a hesitation means [even if only on a subconscious level]. The only way to deal with this may be to assume that success should not be allowed. Actually, the prescription found in L16, if followed, leads to shooting after the hesitation except in rare circumstances. The reason that L16 is not enforced as written very often is that it is viewed as too onerous.

seems entirely reasonable. This is actually quite a difficult "helpmate" problem - can North take no tricks with spades as trumps, assuming the best defence and the worst play? But it is not "entirely reasonable" for anyone to be called upon to solve it as part of the administration of a game of bridge. Suppose that with the ruling on this board outstanding, the (knock-out) match score is plus 1 IMP to North-South's team, and that East-West at the other table record plus 400 (unlikely, but they might have defended a higher-level spade cue bid and defeated it eight tricks on "normal" play - bridge is a funny game, although it is not intended to be). Now: if North is ruled down eight or fewer in three spades, he wins the match; if he is ruled down nine, he loses it. Is jallerton's notion simply that because of North's outburst when he found himself declarer in 3♠, a Committee should be formed that might or might not solve the tricky problem of whether North could, if he made strenuous efforts, have gone down nine? It would seem that equity would be served if the defenders offered a line of play. And then it would be straight forward for the TD to tally the resulting tricks with accuracy. Presumably there is left about 3 minutes of the allotted time for the board and it would therefore be reasonable to give those 3 minutes to the defenders to give it their best shot. It might be noticed that such an approach will result in some semblance of the hand being solved by the players.

I watched a man named Barrack Obama on TV yesterday. He says that America’s biggest problem is that too many Americans don’t have health insurance. He spent the time twisting the arms of various powerful men. But what is plain to me is that he doesn’t have the faintest idea as to what his actual problem is; and should he achieve what he has set out to do, well, I’ll put it this way. The real problem is that too many have health insurance, and of they who do, too many of them have not paid enough for it. The point is that it is all well and good to solve problems, but if you don’t know what the problem is then there is a significant likelihood that anything that is done will not merely be in the wrong direction but, in a bad direction. For as long as the words are the rules it behooves all to know what they say. Because for as long as they are present any issue within them will continue. It is wrong headed to chastise someone who comes along and repeats them to mean as they say. Because it is they who expect the words to mean what they say- and they are right; and they who purport them to mean other than they say who are wrong irrespective of any good intentions they have by doing so. I have tremendous problems with forcing a square peg into a round hole and then expecting someone else to believe that the two fit together. There is nothing so frustrating than confronting the same thing that is broken time and time again because everyone resists getting it right. The problem is that the law has some wrong words and the solution is to black them out and insert the correct words.

Things are not quite so easy- To illustrate in part what L62C1 states consider that N revokes at T5. at T9 N states that he ‘has a Spade’. In addition to the information he has a spade [take note of L49] he also has acknowledged a revoke. Well, the revoke is established but L62C1 says EW may withdraw and return to hand any card played after the revoke til present, so long as EW has not yet infracted any law [during the hand?]. Take notice of the effect of EW taking advantage of this provision. It now is possible that they each withdraw 4 cards and restore them to hand. This is what is termed a mess. What perhaps is messier is that the only law that provides for fixing this mess is perhaps L67 because now there are tricks that only have two cards and there is no provision to take cards from the hand after putting them there except for play to future tricks. However, things get more perplexing because L63 provides: Once a revoke is established, it may no longer be corrected (except as provided in Law 62D for a revoke on the twelfth trick), and the trick on which the revoke occurred stands as played. Which is in direct conflict with the provision of L62C1/2. Now, if you want to consider that 63B saves the day from preposterous monkeying with the cards then how are defective tricks containing established revokes to be remedied [L67]? Along with the defective tricks T6,T7,T8?** ** while 63B requires T5 to remain as it was, it does not ‘extend’ to those other tricks.

I am certain that this is what Sven meant, and I think that it is a valid argument. Given the premise that the board has been previously played the thing that is certain is that after twelve tricks one player holds no cards and his partner 2 cards. It is a valid conclusion that one card/ [or more than one card] are in different hands than when played previously. While it is no particularly great crime to not count one’s cards before looking at them, it is a great crime to look at one’s cards when you possess other than the requisite 13 because of the likelihood of fouling a scheduled comparison that could easily have been prevented. In this case there is a very strong likelihood that E and W have committed the great crime of looking at their cards when they did not hold the requisite 13. But that does not mean that there hasn’t been collateral crime. Twelve tricks having been completed there is the possibility [that is highly probable] that other even greater crimes have been committed; a player [be it E or N or S] that wound up with W’s card may have played it to a previous trick thereby making the trick defective; and poor W may well have discarded on a trick when had he instead possessed his 13th card he could have followed suit.

How do you know whether damage has occurred if you are going to completely ignore what would have happened without the infraction? You are suggesting that only potential results that include the irregularity are to be included? Do you normally give assigned scores with no consideration whatever for what would have happened without the irregularity? At the completion of trick 12 the situation (as known to us) is that West has started off with only 12 cards from the beginning. The play is about to be completed; essentially is is completed when there is only one trick left to play. At this stage declarer has an expectation of (at least) a 95% score on the board, the fact that West does not have a 13th card to lead does not change this expectation in any way unfavourable to declarer. Now a new irregularity is revealed: East has an extra card, and the Director must of course also handle this irregularity. If the Director now rules that the final rectification should result in any score less favourable to the non-offending side than the above expected 95% score obtained at the table then this ruling actually damages the non-offending side and therefore is a violation of Law 12 by the Director! A second violation of law by an already offending side in a first violation of law cannot justify a total rectification less favourable to the non-offending side than the rectification had only the first violation of law occurred. I don't particularly like it when, in a fit of stupor, I go about apologizing for producing rubbish when in fact my apology was not supported by the facts- it was [the apology] that was rubbish. As for this situation it has been suggested that it is lawful that NS receive a score for taking at least 9 tricks; as I attempted to patiently explain, once the TD has been called the law provides that once ascertaining the facts of the hypothetical then the cards are returned forthwith to the pockets 14/12 and all and an artificial score is awarded. Me [as in TD]- I am assessing a 50% PP for W not counting his cards [due to an adjusted score] and the same for E- which works out to be about the same as what some jurisdictions assess for misduplication. It then behooves the TD to stay close for the next round so that he can get this board 'started' first and make sure the cards are counted- and then he can lawfully go about his figuring out how to restore the board while the other boards are being finished. Now there is no one who thinks these shenanigans are more preposterous than I so others should realize that their mention is not made lightly, and certainly not in jest. The law could easily have been written 'if an incorrect card is found in a hand it shall be corrected' rather than taking the difficult pains to construct it as is. As for the hapless NS who have been deprived of their share of the tops being dispensed by EW I can explain that the ruling was rigorous as provided by law which is [the law] quite wrong headed; and that the best** way to try to get satisfaction is to take it up with the WBF. ** not that it will turn out to be at all satisfying

It's not a diversion. The very first thing the TD should do when called for an irregularity is to investigate what happened. There's a lot of "we don't need to investigate, we already know" in this thread. We don't know — some of us are making assumptions. However likely those assumptions are to be correct, they're still assumptions. This is, among other things, a teaching forum. We do not want to teach inexperienced directors that the way to deal with an irregularity is to guess what happened. We do not want to teach them the old Kaplan "rule": "decide what ruling you want to make, and then find a law to support it". We want to teach them the right way to make a ruling — and the right way is to investigate and find out the facts, not to make assumptions. blackshoe has said much in this thread that is well worth listening to. I would like to add a couple of things. Issuing a ruling without establishing the reasoning and the facts upon which the reasoning is based is among the gravest disservices that a TD/adjudicator can do to players. WIthout this information the player becomes an out of control locomotive without a compass. ANd with them the avenue is paved to correct wrongs that do occur. iow the route to avoiding infractions is to give rulings for the the right right reasons because players learn what is important. Somewhat recently I responded to a skip bid UI case where I essentially said that it was important to investigate the facts because as the case was presented it had been asserted that there was UI a fact because an opponents accused the player was slow- while omitting the circumstances surrounding the accusation [that would shed light upon its validity]. For stating the importance of determining the facts needed to draw conclusion I was castigated. Sometimes the best way to establish the facts is to reenact and get agreement/ establishment how far from agreement the sides are. To draw conclusions about players' assertions concerning the roads not taken it often is imperative to establish what systemic agreements to all actions were- not merely to one or two actions. Gratitude to Ed for his persistence against withering fire. As for this case we do not know if cards fell from a couple of pockets and they didn't get restored to the correct pockets, or sloppiness at the previous table saw cards shift when returned to pockets, or even if a player at the table moved the cards. That is why it is important to investigate first, yet not be surprised when E has W's thirteenth card- rather than taking a card directly from E to W only to discover at the end that the TD fouled the board for everybody.

My "common bridge sense" tells me that 4♣ (with or without agreements)probably shows a singleton or a void. I don't think that I would have adjusted the table score at all. I was about to take issue with these assertions [particularly about common sense] when a bout of education took hold- Thank you Sven. According to Kearse about 20 years ago [bCC '90] the three level was for stiffs and 4 level for voids. But it never occurred to me to believe that there was any sensible value of finding out pard had a void when it also meant the possibility of 4-6 side suit losers when minimum- while leaving only 2 or 3 bidding steps to find out if the 5 level is safe. [personally, I prfer strongly the 3-level for shortness and the 4-level for at least AKQ+]

However, the situation that is the subject of this thread has no provision to correct the hands before proceeding. I apologize for the above rubbish. Indeed L14B provides for finding the missing card which presumably will lead to the 14th card [and any other incorrect card] somehow finding its proper home. As such there is a lawful mechanism for correcting the hand forthwith, of which blackshoe has mentioned various issues. I'll add that where deciding the fairness of completing play I point to the scenario where the missing card is found among a 13 card hand and its restoration then makes the 13 card hand deficient [which may or not may make a trick defective]. In such case supposedly L67 deals with it prior to T13. I might suggest that such a resolution is less than satisfactory in the fairness department since there was no mechanism for the player to avoid this plight. This speaks to the inept provisions of L67; and possibly to reasoning that such a case is valid grounds to rule that completing play is unfair and thus the hand unplayable.

I found a curious provision of law under L39B: ..... if the infraction is .............. any call by the future declarer or dummy there is no further rectification. which begs the question, when, say early in an auction there is an infraction, is someone supposed to know who the future declarer is so as to know to do no further rectification? I bring this up because someone had the temerity to write such rubbish into law. But having had the practice there was so little additional effort to fabricate L25A3 which some seem to believe [and I suggest erroneously so] provides for the auction to proceed after the third in rotation pass even though L39A provides that all calls after an auction ending pass be canceled. It seems to me there is, should be, ought to be some principle that an auction that has ended not proceed further; or that it does proceed further- but at least don't call the auction ended, so as to not instill confusion amongst the masses. In the subject case there has been an auction ending pass and L39 specifies that any subsequent call be canceled- which I should think includes those made at the insistence of the TD. The facts suggest that dealer wanted to continue the auction but did not, however the TD told the dealer to call "OOT" [had the auction indeed been alive] so he did. What ought to be obvious is that for dealer to make any further call to this auction, the auction must be reopened and the last two calls canceled, FIRST. It is notable that the law provides for only one occasion for such a feat- MI from an opponent. And the facts suggest no such occurrence.

This is a bit difficult to describe so please be forgiving. When the issue is too many or too few cards in a hand the law provides different remedies to make the hands otherwise correct for different class of situations. As in, if this that and the other then X; if that this and the other then Y; if the other that and this then Z; and so forth.... However, the situation that is the subject of this thread has no provision to correct the hands before proceeding. Given the edict of that which is not provided by law is extraneous relegates leaving the cards as is until at least the next round on which occasion the counting of the cards before looking at the faces might lead to correcting who has what. As much as I [in the capacity of the TD] want forthwith to restore the hands, ascertain that there hadn’t been some other fouling, and determine the culprits whether they sit at this table or are somewhere else, the law does not provide to do so at this time. But what the law does provide for is awarding an adjusted score. I take note that being unable to correct the cards there is no mechanism to complete normal play of the board. The situation here has been provided for by L12A2 via L13B; and as L12A2 provides the indemnity to the defenders and L12B2 admonishes to not manipulate the scores, there is no provision for use of L12A1 form of score adjustment. Being done with that I have been mulling over [addressing the concern originally indicated] the idea that there may be nothing inherently wrong with and everything right in providing [a] for immediate restoration of the hand for the TD to rule as to his perception of fairness in continuing [c] under certain circumstances [including the above] permit the NOS to petition that the hand be completed [without indemnity for extraneous information that arises from the restoration] in spite of the TD’ s assessment. The basis for these thoughts arise from the notion that the offenders should have prevented the problem prior to looking at their cards and thus are culpable; and any miscues or errant actions are the consequence of their own misunderstanding. It being right that they prosper or wither at their own hand. Notably, as demonstrated above, to be suitable such provisions would require far more than a couple of sentences.

Well I am impressed that you would have foreseen and anticipated that RHO would not be stopped by the 3 level jump to 6♠ to compete at 7♥. And all that without breaking the tempo of the 6♠ bid. I don't agree bidding 7♥ makes South ♥ much longer, reducing the chance of possible wasted values in ♥ West might have. It also suggests that the few ♠ left for N/S split with a void in South hand. It also suggests that more honors are located with South, in the right position to finesse. If 6♠= is the referece score, that 7♠-1 with or without X will lose 17 IMPS, Setting 7♥X nonvul. will still lose 15 IMPs. Making 7♠ can win about 13 IMPs. So even with odds 6:1 against making 7♠ you only risk losing 2 more IMPS (to the 15 you will have lost anyway) but you gan gain 13 if it works. And this has nothing to do with West BIT. So I think you should reconsider. Having thought over your suggestions the following occur to me- a. 3S might have put the partnership in a -1100 or -1400 position, so it's better to be lucky than good b. as such W's expectation for values should have started at 6 good spades and close to 3+QT and some push cards c. it is probable for W to be counting on some semblance of those QTs for basing his choice of 6S- iow he would expect enough of his holes to be solidified somewhere d. therefore there is an expectation that W has some holes e. and E has nothing to fill them with f. it is unknown what the indicated capacity of the hand is, including that even 5S may be too high g. the hand belongs to EW and it is imperative to bring back a plus h. W's 7HX indicates that he does have holes i. I think 10% rate of success for 7S is overly optimistic yielding an average expected outcome of 10%(+13) + 90%(-17)= -14 while the ave expectation for 7HX is 20%(-15) + 40%(-14) + 40%(-12)=-13.4 [20% dn 2, 40% dn 3, 40% dn 4] j. it is possible if not probable that 6S when successful will be difficult to reach without an unusual aggressive action by E [such as here]

I should think that W should know [s had indicaated the intention bidding on once he changed suits so 7H could be foreseen and anticipated] at the time he chose 6S what he will do after 7H. As such, W ought to have been in a position to act in his normal tempo. If W's tempo has been consistent then there is no question of a L16 infraction. bluejack has asserted that there is still the question ' was there a BIT? ' even though it had been established that W was slow. <personally, if W had a consistent tempo of 3s but this time he took five it would never occur to me as an opponent to assert he broke tempo even though I might be unhappy with E's action> But if there is actually a question as to the accuracy of the established fact that 5s created UI, I believe that the answer lies solely with the existence of mitigating factors. The mitigating factors I am refering to consistent of the behaviors of the opponents [a] how long did N pause after 6S? what are N & S tempo and did they vary it during this auction so as to deprive W of time he would have expected? [c] did N & S vary their routine such as do they often play with the bidding cards after putting them on the table- but not this time. Such things are 'always overlooked' when gathering evidence as being unimportant. But my opinion is that when fair play is an issue that such matters can shed a light differently. So, while I am told that the fact of a BIT has been established, all I can say is that if I had investigated I may have come to different conclusions. As for this so-called principle that in difficult auctions players should take longer than consistent tempo to act makes a difference as to whether 5s [or whatever] creates UI or not, I hope it is clear that my view is that the principle is bogus: skip bids are easily recognized; 'difficult auctions ' are not readily recognized. FOr instance, it would never occur to me to consider 7H to be something to think over more than 2 milliseconds- 6S was a tremendous risk and 7S is foolhardy without adequate information. So, is my partnership to be subject to penalty for my doubling lightning fast [my normal tempo]? As for E's 7S. After 6S what sensible action is there? There are so many losers and no information as to what or how many are covered. E apparently came to that conclusion when he passed. And what is different after 7H? Nothing, other than if 6S is the field contract then 7HX is likely to not be a high score but probably the best available. And even if W has a source of tricks [it is likely that it's not enough to cover all the losers] it is far from clear that NS can't cash a minor suit winner. However, given the sparse nature of E's honors it is unlikely that E has what W needs to make 7S a decent contract. As such, without UI 7S is extremely dubious; and with UI from W's tempo still dubious. But clearly, the tempo suggests controls and a long side suit and thus is the only factor that motivates 7S.

OK, let's consider the relevant Laws: Law 70D talks about alternative normal* plays. Logically, this must be interpreted to mean "alternative normal* plays consistent with the claim statement" or else there would be no point in anybody making a claim statement! As the claim statement implies that declarer will play East for ♥J, there are no alternative normal plays in the heart suit. [if West had happened to have started with ♥KJ(x)(x) then the contract would of course be ruled as going off.] Law 70E1 does not apply because the finesse against East's presumed ♥J was implied and therefore not "an unstated line of play". Therefore the claim should be allowed. If anyone is still in any doubt, have a look at Law 70A. Given the timing of the claim, is it really a doubtful point how declarer planned to make 3 heart tricks? Is it really being "as equitable as possible to both sides" to assume that declarer will suddenly switch to a totally inconsistent line of play? Some care is needed here. Reading what 70D says can be translated as follows: 70D instructs the TD as to what he may not do. It give no provision as what to do; nor does it say to do something with those things that other laws [such as they might be] say he should accept. As such 70D is of little help when remedying disputed claims as it only tells what to not do. I am reminded of an anecdote illustrating the non sequitar surrounding an unhelpful claim. After a player opened 2H a game contract by an opponent ensued. Early in the play the opponent claimed using only the statement 'I take X tricks if he has what he promised'. Just as 70D is unhelpful in remedying claims, so was this claim statement unhelpful even if the 2H bidder had what he promised [it being known that he often didn't]. But, as you anticipated, the 2H bedder in fact did not have what he promised. Yet claimer had not stated how many tricks in that event.

Yes, delaying the game unnecessarily is an infraction, and subject to penalty. This is wrong. A player that takes so long to solve a hand where his side uses so much more of the time apportioned to his side that the time allotted to the round is exceeded is certainly subject to penalty. However, under no circumstances is a player ever compelled to solve a hand via a claim. As in NEVER. To put things into perspective. Some players are skillful enough that they know when they can control the outcome perfectly and being able to do so proceed to describe how to do it rather than play out the tricks. The rules of the game [L1,41,44,45 primarily] are such that there are occasions when it can be done successfully- so it is prudent for the rules to further delineate what to do if it happens [not that the rules are appropriately constructed]. This is borne out because players also get claims wrong- they take short cuts that do not, as well as cannot work perfectly thereby creating issues as to what score was earned. So, while rules are provided that deal with claims there is no requirement to claim. It could be that a claim that is perfect may well prevent a slow play violation, but that is no valid reason to censure a player for not claiming and it is reprehensible to suggest it.

Again, very different. This time the finesse is marked, as East would have defeated the contract immediately by winning with the queen of spades on the first round, and then cashing the ace, so the second finesse is the only rational line. The second TD was right by a big margin. My good friend Grosvenor has been known to say <g> that the cards are not necessarily where the opponents purport them. For instance a couple days ago I took a 'losing' diamond hook where the Q instead held. The opponent's failure to win the K lost them the opportunity to take three tricks they could otherwise have won- as I didn't repeat the hook.

This assertion is not in accordance with law- specofically L70A...The Director proceeds as follows. which refers to L70B to E.

Without knowing the evidence [i don't see any valid evidence presented] I am circumspect about making an ethics allegation. I had never considered before the case of ruling when it is doubtful what the spots were. Thanks. Presumably, folding the cards means return them to the board? and the claim was disputed? THere being a disputed claim the remaining cards are relevant [we weren't given the remaining three hands]. Considering that declarer has abandoned his hand before the score is agreed and without showing it there is doubt as to what his cards were. L65D provides: A player should not disturb the order of his played cards until agreement has been reached on the number of tricks won. A player who fails to comply with the provisions of this Law jeopardises his right to claim ownership of doubtful tricks or to claim (or deny) a revoke. HAving abandoned his hand it is doubtful that he has an entry to dummy's claimed tricks. Therefore it is deemed that declarer leads a small card of a suit the defense holds and the defense can be ruled to win the next trick provided they hold a card that dummy can't beat. and such subsequent tricks as well. As declarer kept his hand secret it is irrelevant what declarer's cards were. Should declarer go about trying to prove what his cards were he has a stiff pp coming for improper delay of game, and another stiff PP for irritating the opponents.

I consider W's pause for considering deception to be improper deception. However, N is not in a position to be deceived out of a profitable action. Because his hand is not conducive to an action- lacking strength to handle unsuitable responses from partner. And as it happens, any 'sensible' action if you could conjure one by N will propel the partnership to the 4 or 5 level because of S's forward going strength. As such, I fail to visualize the perpertration of damage. Huh? North has a borderline double that for some people would be normal (I would double!) and south has a normal 3♣ response showing values. Why would they get any higher? And since east says he might compete to 3♥.... what am I missing? S has a normal 4C response, 3C is not a normal response to a TOX. In a different thread on rgb are sentiments that are aptly expressed: On Jan 20, 4:57 pm, "Richard Pavlicek" <rich...@rpbridge.net> wrote: > Norman wrote: > > I am curious whether you would bid or pass with this hand. > > RHO deals at equal vulnerability and bids 2H. You hold: > > AQ98xx > > xxx > > Kx > > Jx > On the cusp, but with a six-bagger the reward/risk quotient > seems higher for bidding -- and I'm stickin' to that story > in the postmortem to explain minus 800. > Richard Pavlicek > Web site:http://www.rpbridge.net -100 or -200 for for a 6-7 imp loss is more likely. You know your partner is going to put you in game with Kx xx Qxxxx KQxx. With the hand you want him to have: KJx xxx AQx AQxx.... he is still bidding. The other Rich