AndreSteff

♣[hv=pc=n&s=sathq43dt942ca742&w=s32ha7dqj873ckqt9&n=sq764hj62dk6cj853&e=skj985hkt985da5c6&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1d]399|300[/hv] The auction (West deals, not North), NS pass 1♦-1♥ 2 ♣-2♠* 3♣-3♠ 4♥ all pass 2♠ is alerted as fourth suit. 3♠ is not alerted, but South investigates and gets as explanation: Asks for half a stopper. South now leads the Ace of spades and the contract is made (play information not available). South complains: had he known that East held real spades, he would never have led them. The conventions card is silent on the matter. East states that his partner explained his 3♠ call correctly, but that he misbid. What now?

OK, I think I understand David's answer now: in the ACBL weighted scores are not applied in general. In the ACBL Law 12C1e is applied.

Thank you David. What do you mean with the application of "decimals of points"?

If I understand it well, with BAM scoring 420 versus 430 will score 1 (a win) for the 430 score and 0 (a loss) for the 420 score. What happens if I decide to weight the result on one table? 40% 420 and 60% 450 versus 100% 430 on the other table?

I know that case! ;) The difference is that in this case there is no way that 5♦can be meant to play, except when you use the UI.

Well, I must say that I had expected more discussion about wether NS are damaged by the MI at all, or only partly damaged, leading to an adjusted score that includes a percentage of the table result.

1A: 3NT 1B: 4♥ 2A: A strong hand with at least 5 good hearts 2B: 4♠,4NT as Blackwood or if I am afraid for a misunderstanding 6♥, but that could be very costly if we miss a grand.

I spent a good 15 minutes writing an explanation for you, but on posting it dissolved into Cyberspace <_< Perhaps other contributors can provide you some links on why the case was presented as I did.

Please elaborate!

Everybody knew what was going after the 5♥bid.

West must have at least 4 diamonds, but it can easily be 5 and even 6 would not be unheard of.

Do you have any reason to doubt that assertion?

He misbid. I edited my post.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj75hak62dt9cqt93&w=st64hqj983dk762ck&n=skq9832ht4daqj8c7&e=sah75d543caj86542&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=2h2s3c3hp4sppp]399|300[/hv] Result 4♠+1 +650NS 2♥:'Muiderberg' 5 card hearts with at least 4 cards in either minor. 3♣: West hesitates but explains to South that he assumes it to be convertible : pass with clubs, or correct to diamonds. East would typically hold at least 4-4 in the minors for that call. The TD is called after play. NS feel damaged: a double of 3♣ would have been for penalties, but South refrained from that because he forsaw EW running to 3♦ (West confirms that he would have bid 3♦). Had South known that 3♣ was real he would have doubled for penalties as EW now for certain have no diamond fit. The convention card mentions that 3♣ indeed is convertible, but that is when the opponents pass or double. EW agree after some discussion that 3♣ just showed clubs and nothing else. How do you rule?

I have been to lenient, as I awarded NS 3 tricks in 5♣ doubled. It should have been two. West's pass on 5♥ for me certainly passed the shudder test, 5♥ and 5♠ both can be on, so I distracted the difference in IMPs between 5♥-2 and 5♥X-2 from the 16 IMPs that EW won on this hand. Thinking about it, I cannot be sure that a double of 5♥ would have passed the shudder test either, when the contract would have been made. My agreement is thus: after freely bidding a vulnerable game against non-vulnerable opponents we either play, or defend a doubled contact. East's pass then conveys the message, that he thinks 5♠ may be made. Since partner had no penalty double, while I hold a void 5♠ must be the winning call. I polled three players on this and they agreed, but two of them would have doubled in stead of bid 5♠. Moreover, West told me that he had wanted to call me after the 5♥ call, but that his partner (a TD) had told him not too as "everybody knew what was going on anyway".

[hv=pc=n&s=sqt87hj85daktca73&w=s53hat9762dqcjt96&n=skj92hkd765432cq4&e=sa64hq43dj98ck852&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=3hd3sp4hppp]399|300[/hv] OK, here it is. 3♥was alerted as 'Verdi' a transfer preëmpt. The TD was called when it surfaced that West held hearts in stead of spades. After the play West damned himself by stating that he had deliberately bid 4♥ to wake partner up (and succesfully at that :o ). Sadly a lot of information is missing, like: Why did East pass 4 ♥? What would the meaning have been of a 3♠ call over a natural 3♥ , or a correct Verdi 3♦? What options other than 4 ♥ did West have over 3♠? West misbid, the explanation was correct according to the conventions card, but as this was not a regular partnership in Holland the TD may rule misinformation. So, what would you probably have done with this?

Two more pollee's to go :rolleyes:

♠[hv=pc=n&w=s85hat9632d6cjt96]133|100[/hv] Let's start this one with a poll... You play in a semi-strong tournament with quite a good partner. You play now and then together and have made no special agreements this time other than 5 card majors, weak two's and common sense. In first hand, green against red you decide to open this hand with 3♥. The auction: 3♥(dbl) 3♠(pass) ??? Which calls do you seriously consider? Wich do you choose?

Establishing misinformation is tricky indeed, but that is not what we are discussing here. South's actions are not under debate, he has no UI so is free to bid as he pleases. North however, has by the lack of an alert on 3♣ the UI that his partner has not understood that 3♣ showed hearts+diamonds. This UI suggests bidding 5♥ and is therefore only allowed if passing is not a logical alternative (read Law 16B).

North stated that you may run with a singleton in partner's suit. So he thought 5♣ to be a natural raise of his presumed clubs.

I like it!

Because it was an exam question :D

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt85haqjda42ckq2&w=sht976432dt85ct96&n=skq76432hk5d97caj&e=sa9h8dkqj63c87543]399|300[/hv] South plays 6 spades. The ♦9 is hidden beneath the 7. Lead of a small diamond to the Ace. Declarer proceeds to ruff two diamonds in dummy and then claims his contract. While North gathers up his cards the ♦9 is revealed. What now?! This was a much debated TD-exam question in Holland, of which I thought that finally one view had been universally accepted. But not so... View 1: Applying Law 64C we allow declarer to embark on a different plan had the ♦9 not been hidden. Playing a diamond in trick two is now clearly ridiculous. Adjusted score: 50% of 6♠-2 and 50% of 6 ♠= since declarer has no way of knowing on which AKQ combination he can discard his losing diamond. While this solution feels most like a result had no infraction occurred it has a flaw: the result of the ruling will differ according to the moment that the ♦9 is discovered. Had the 9 come into view on ruffing in trick two then declarer would have been down one. View 2: We apply Law 64C to the moment of the revoke and not earlier: that South would never had played a diamond in trick 2 is irrelevant, more so as NS are the offenders here. So declarer loses a diamond and the Ace of spades. What do you think?

Is nobody taking offence at West's pass?

Acutally I scored 5/6 people who passed in my poll, while the 'pollees' dit not know the hand at that. Still, they gave their opinion with a certain degree of glee, or commiseration, very well aware what the poll was about without my explicitly mentioning it.