PeterAlan

There was the following rather curious hand in a Swiss Teams event today. I'll give the auction first, but since the diagram editor seems to be a bit picky about what one can create it'll have to be in two halves. It started [hv=d=w&v=e&b=16&a=2c2hp3c3sp4sdpprp]133|100[/hv]and continued[hv=d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p4hdp4sppdpprppp]133|100[/hv] By way of comment: W's 2♣ was Benji - 8+ playing tricks in some suit or 23+ balanced E's 4♠ and first XX were expressions of confidence in partner after N's insufficient 4♥ E seemed to think it might be worth offering W an extra option S's second X was presumably based on a conviction that her first X couldn't have been a misjudgment E's final XX seems to have been based on the view that when partner bid 4♠ she knew what she was doing and was more likely to have been right than S The hands were as follows: N led away from the ♥K; W won perforce, crossed to dummy's ♦Q, and played ♠10; when S didn't cover and W ran it that was 12 tricks for a rather improbable +1880. [hv=pc=n&s=skj4hj4dt6cak9543&w=saq7632haqdakj2cj&n=s8hk98732d9743c86&e=st95ht65dq85cqt72]399|300[/hv] Has anyone else had an auction where the same redoubled contract has been bid twice?

(My enhancements) This includes any (and every) reasonable reason you might have for hoping that your partner understands your call. Pran, I find your determination to treat anything and everything as based on some form of explicit or implicit partnership agreement quite unrealistic. It allows nothing for the structure and logic of the game. Consider the following thought experiment. It is the first board of some Individual event where: I have never met or spoken to any of the other players, including the partner with whom I am about to play this first board All players have received the same system card from the organisers which they are all required to play There has been no supplementary discussion whatsoever On this first board I am dealer and the auction goes: I open 1♠ LHO passes Partner makes some relatively neutral system response, such as 1NT RHO passes I bid 7♥ Clearly I am asking partner to decide which grand we will play. Equally clearly this interpretation is not based on any sort of partnership agreement, implicit or explicit - it is not covered in the system card, we have had no discussion of any sort, and we have no past history of having played a single board together (ruling out any form of "mutual experience"). It is instead based on the structure and logic of the game. Additionally, it is also clear that both LHO and RHO are as much in the picture about the meaning of the auction as my partner. Yet you would apparently rule that partner and I have some form of partnership agreement that is not available to our opponents without explanation. That is, in the strict sense of the term, nonsense.

The ruling seems correct: Your partner has made a faced opening lead out of turn (you've said that it was an intentional lead and not, for example, a dropped card) at the same time as your unfaced lead Your face down lead is required to be retracted (first sentence of Law 54) Declarer then has the usual 5 options after an opening lead out of turn. Declarer may refuse to accept the lead (Law 54D), in which case the withdrawn card becomes a major penalty card, Law 50D applies, and the declarer may inter alia forbid the lead of a ♥ by you. Since you ask, this belongs better in the Simple Rulings forum under the International Bridge Laws Forum section towards the bottom of the forum homepage.

If E/W and N/S are at the same table, then a line of play for one side is also the line of play for the other. What are the circumstances that you have in mind?

However much better it might or might not be, those aren't the rules we have at the moment: my point is that they are what we should be following, not what we might like them to be. The discretion of the Director should be exercised in a manner consistent with the objectives set out in the Preface ("They [the Laws] are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged.") and 12B1 (already cited), not in pursuit of some other agenda.

It played no part in the general argument I was advancing, which is precisely why I did not include it there and, when I did introduce it, added the words "in this particular case". You're playing the man, not the ball, here, and it doesn't stand up.

Can we not instead start by seeing what the Laws and the Regulations say, and by trying to apply those, instead of pursuing personal agenda? First, perhaps it's appropriate to remind ourselves of what we should be trying to achieve: This does not appear to include teaching East a lesson. Second, under the 2007 Laws the weighted score approach (Law 12C1(c)) to adjusted scores became the norm with the older "most favourable / most unfavourable" approach relegated to an alternative (Law 12C1(e)) which a Regulating Authority may in its discretion decide to adopt in its place: The EBU (the Regulating Authority in this case) has decided it will use the weighted score approach, and eschew the option to revert to the 12C1(e) version. It does not seem appropriate to me to try and subvert this decision by the back door. True, but the circumstances in which adjusted scores that do not balance arise are covered in the White Book 2013 (particularly 4.1.1.3 & 4.1.1.5), and do not include the circumstances in question; they are summarised at the end of 4.1.1.5 thus: I have seen nothing, Pran, in what you have posted that convinces me that there is any justification for departing from the standard weighted score approach, supplemented, where there has been a deliberate attempt to mislead, by a Disciplinary (not Procedural) Penalty. We have a perfectly well-established process; why do you regard it as appropriate to subvert it? Finally, in this particular case I understand that the elderly East has recently undergone a medical event that may have contributed to a momentary lack of concentration and to the unfortunate tempo etc. This in no way diminishes N/S's rights to redress, but it's as well to bear such possibilities in mind before starting on the re-education.

That's not what should be determining the weights in the ruling. In the EBU regime (which applied here) the TD can and should apply a disciplinary penalty in addition to adjusting the score if (s)he concludes that the hesitation was deliberately done to mislead (White Book 2013 2.8.3.4(m)). If not done deliberately, then distorting the weighting as a way of warning East is a misuse of the process. I should also declare an interest in this one: I was East's North teammate on this deal (this was a one-off team-up for the evening of two unmatched pairs), and I was unaware until this morning that a ruling was even pending - it was only when I saw the posted scores that I found out what had happened. I believe that the TD's adjustment was appropriate (it accorded with lamford's initial stab, though if WellSpyder is checking (a) he may wish to note that I think the subsequent arithmetic went a bit wonky and I reckon that the adjustment posted was 1.2 IMPs too high in his favour - not that I'm complaining about it; and (b) the format in which the result was posted is misleading - the actual adjustment isn't shown either against the board or elsewhere, but is included in the total IMPs for his team and mine). I would have had no reason to object if a DP had been imposed on top.

If you play transfers the 4♠ call is an idle bid. Whenever this is true, it makes sense to use both 4♠ and 4NT as natural invites to 6NT. But there can be other uses for the call. I just don't believe they make as much sense. As mikestart13 suggests, right-siding the contract does not always mean the 1NT opener playing it, especially if you play a weak NT. I dare say wanting to have responder as declarer is of greater frequency than the options opened up by your treatment.

I'm another of those who don't find the endless re-hash of the Reese-Schapiro case at all helpful, but to add a lighter note it's always amused me that when Mark Horton re-issued Reese's "Story of an Accusation" in his paperback BBN imprint he included a plug on the back for his own book "Better Signalling Now"!

Jan, I don't think that a natural 3NT would be alerted here just on the grounds that it could be very strong, but I'm sure you're right on the mark when you talk of both players being in their own "worlds". I happen to know the couple in question (I was playing at the same event) and, whilst I fully understand the UI ruling process, the idea that the kind of analysis conducted on this thread is going to be found in real time at the table is fantasy. They just aren't going to have thought as clearly and deeply about the hand as, say, jallerton has post hoc. Nor will they have analysed in such depth how to handle any UI.

First, Law 68D makes it clear that dummy is entitled to contribute objections to the claim. Second, the White Book guidance is helpful here in setting the general context in which the ruling should be approached: Law 70B sets out the procedure for the TD to follow; in this case the claimer has not made a clarification statement (70B1), and indeed is not in control of the relevant part of the play sequence, so the TD next hears the opponents' objections (but is not limited to considering only them) (70B2) and then considers the claim, subject to the guidance in 70C (not applicable here), D and E. Without going into detail, I can see nothing in those that supports either seeking, or then relying on, a statement from West on how she would have continued the play. The TD's job is to decide within the parameters of 70A what the outcome is to be, and I agree with you, lamford, that he should do so without that input. Another problem is that the TD has only asked West for what is essentially a snapshot view - even if it were to be admitted, he would also have to consider that she could still have woken up to the endplay possibilities after playing the first top diamond, even if not aware of them before, or, since she knew N's cards, have called for the ♥ thinking it didn't matter in what order she lost or won her tricks. So on the basis of reasonable doubt I would rule 3 tricks to E/W and 1 to N/S. Had W been making a claim, and used in her claim statement the words attributed to her here, I would have ruled 2-2, but that's not the case we're dealing with. Finally, you make no mention of the TD having consulted before making the ruling, but that would have been appropriate in such a judgment case. I hope it's not asking for trouble to raise a pedantic point with you, but you're either +£20 vs £0 or you're £0 vs -£20, depending on whether your starting point is after or before the £20 that you've put down - there can't be a swing of £40 over the appeal cost.

I can't agree with you about this, Ken - but I'm a Nic Roeg fan. Next you'll be telling us you don't rate "Don't Look Now"! I'd like to add Terrence Malick's second film, Days of Heaven to the discussion - memorably described in the Time Out Film Guide review thus: “Eventually … the narrative collapses, leaving its audience breathlessly suspended between a 90-minute proof that all the bustling activity in the world means nothing, and the perfection of Malick’s own perverse desire to catalogue it nonetheless. Compulsive.” Also with Sam Shepard, and an early big role for Richard Gere - check it out. Peter

As Zel has said, it's what you get when there is a sit-out, but it also depends on you having the Neuberg formula in operation - this is a method of adjusting scores to a common matchpoint top when different boards are played by different numbers of pairs (the sit-out instance is the commonest special case of this). So-called "normal matchpointing" was a computational convenience in the days of hand scoring, but with computerised scoring there is little reason not to use the Neuberg approach and, as the article explains, this is increasingly what is adopted. There's usually a parameter in most scoring programs to switch between the two approaches. Edit: I see this has crossed with StevenG's reply - since you're UK based, I've given you a link to the EBU's (Max Bavin's) article on the topic.

Basis: Concerned only with 4-3-3-3 to 6-6-1-0 shapes; all 7+ suit hands excluded Similarly all 22+ HCP hands, and 11 or 20/21 HCP balanced (4-3-3-3; 4-4-3-2; 5-3-3-2) hands, excluded (not opening 1x) All 11-21 unbalanced opened (including 11 HCP 4-4-4-1) 5-5 or 6-6 M-m open M; 6-5 m-M open m 50% (ie 5m) of 15-17 HCP 5-4-2-2 open 1NT; no 6-3-2-2 do If I've interpreted you correctly, of the hands with no 5+ card suit that are opening 1m: 25% of 4-3-3-3 hands open 1♦ (4 card), 25% 1♣ (4 cards) and 50% 1♣ (3 cards) 50% of 4-4-3-2 hands open 1♦ (4 card), 8.33% 1♦ (3 card), 33.33% 1♣ (4 card) and 8.33% 1♣ (3 card) 75% of 4-4-4-1 hands open 1♦ (4 card) and 25% 1♣ (4 card) (All 5+ card hands that open 1m have the same frequency of 1♦ and 1♣.) Then (E&OE): There are 234,166,911,312 1x opening hands in this sample space 34,297,838,856 (14.65%) open 1NT and 77,785,551,954 (33.22%) 1M 61,884,385,734 (26.43%) open 1♦, of which 2,637,795,564 (4.26%) are 3-card, 25,871,765,277 (41.81%) 4-card and 33,374,824,893 (53.93%) 5+ card suits 60,199,134,768 (25.71%) open 1♣, of which 10,353,046,632 (17.20%) are 3-card, 16,471,263,243 (27.36%) 4-card and (again) 33,374,824,893 (55.44%) 5+ card suits I can give you a fuller breakdown if needed: you should probably check what I've done, as I'm perfectly capable of slipping in a silly mistake!

Depends on what shape / HCP ranges 1m is opened. Or are you implicitly just considering balanced hands? Semi-balanced as well? Specify more fully, and I'll give you some numbers tomorrow.

32519, you raised the issue of the compliance of your 2♦ opener with EBU regulations, and Vampyr gave you a partial reply. For the reasons already noted, it's hardly a matter of great practical importance, but since I could do with an opportunity to look at the EBU's regulations on multi bids, here's why I consider your 2♦ opener does not meet them. The current EBU regulations (Blue Book 2013 "BB") define bidding regulations in terms of Levels. Level 4 (part 7 of BB), which applies for most EBU tournaments and club sessions, is probably the most relevant for just that reason; the more restrictive Level 2 (part 6 of BB) typically applies at novice / "no-fear" events and the like. There are also Level 5 (part 9) and something broadly corresponding to the now obsolete Level 3 (part 8). It would be too lengthy to quote all the EBU regulations, but an important definition is Extended Rule of 25 ("ER25"; BB5C3), which is used (but not at Level 5) to distinguish between hands treated as "strong" and other hands: a hand satisfies ER25 if it's (1) Rule of 25, or (2) 16+ HCP, or (not applicable here) (3) 8 "clear-cut" tricks + other conditions. In terms of the characteristics that apply for EBU regulations: a) This is classified by EBU as "weak to intermediate" in strength (BB4F1&2). Doesn't meet ER25 (it's no more than Rule of 15, ie 6♦s, 3 of some other suit and 6 HCP). b) Doesn't meet ER25 (it's Rule of 20 (6+4+10)); does not meet criterion of "a king or more above average strength". c) Meets ER25 because 16+ HCP. d) Doesn't meet ER25 (it's Rule of 24), but would if range raised to 15+ HCP. Conflicts: Level 2 & below: "‘Multi’ style openings are not allowed" (BB6D3) Suggested Level 3 replacement: Specifies traditional ‘Multi’ style opening; in particular only non-ER25 option is either a ♥-only or a ♥ or ♠ weak option of limited HCP range (BB8C2). Level 4: Non-ER25 options (ie your a), b) and, if not adjusted, d)) must all fit the same single choice from 4 options specified in BB7C1(b). a) and d) fit the same, but b) is the problem as it can't conform to the same category as a) / d). Level 5: (Assuming not covered by WBF/EBL Category 3 exemption (BB9A)) b) doesn't show a hand with a king or more above 10 HCP (BB9A3(a) & BB9A1). Additionally, you couldn't describe the bid as just "Multi" or "Multi-2♦" (BB3G1): further "appropriate qualification" is required. Finally, a convention requires more than regulatory conformance to "shine brighter by the day". It also needs a cadre of people wanting to play it. I note your apt self-chosen Member Title - are there enough others?

What's the point of asking rhetorical questions on an internet forum?

Well I've given you the tools to calculate whatever you want. For example, 5X♣/5X♦ 5-10 HCP: Exactly 5-5-x-x shape: 0.3247% = 1.9482% / 6 Including 6-5 & 6-6 shapes: 0.4404% = (1.9482% + 0.3425% + 0.3163% + 0.0356%) / 6 It's down to you from here.

Let's deal with the easy ones first (these figures come from the sub-divisions of all 6,350,135,596,000 possible hands, and are not simulation results): All 4-4-4-1 hands with 17-24 points are 0.1933% of the total; divide by 4 for any specific suit singleton. Including all 17+ hands raises the total to 0.1946% 20-22 balanced (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2 or 5-3-3-2) are 0.6494% of the total. If you stretch the definition of "balanced" the proportion will rise. In the other cases, you need to decide exactly which shapes you are considering. 15+ hands with a longest suit of exactly 7 cards are 0.4444% of all hands; again divide by 4 for a specific suit to be 7-carded. This total includes 0.0123% for 7-5-1-0 hands, and 0.0006% for 7-6-0-0 hands, ie those that also fit a 2-suited category. If we widen the scope to all 7+ card suits, then the total becomes 0.5005%, including 0.0003% for 8-5-0-0 hands. Turning to the 5-10 hands, those with exactly 5-5-x-x (ie 5-5-2-1 & 5-5-3-0) total 1.9482% of all hands; divide by 6 for any specific pair of suits (you left S/H 2-suiters off your list). The 6-x-x-x hands where the second suit is less than 5 cards (6-3-2-2, 6-3-3-1, 6-4-2-1 & 6-4-3-0) total 7.2578% of hands; divide by 4 for a specific suit. This becomes 8.9306% if you include 7-2-2-2, 7-3-2-1, 7-3-3-0, 7-4-1-1 and 7-4-2-0 shapes as well, and 9.1854% if all longer not-2-suited hands are included. That leaves the 6+-5+ two suiters, 0.7524% in total, and comprising 6-5-1-1 (0.3425%), 6-5-2-0 (0.3163%), 6-6-1-0 (0.0356%), 7-5-1-0 (0.0537%), 7-6-0-0 (0.0028%) and 8-5-0-0 (0.0016%).

4♠, assuming partner is showing both majors. Ideally I'd like a bit more information on (a) how we use X in this sequence, and (b) opponents' pre-empt style, but without that this is what I'd choose. It should have good chances, and I see no reason to suppose we're taking 500 from 3♦X.

You are carrying things too far to claim that declarer has not "named" the ♦10 for the purposes of the Laws. Law 46 - which covers complete designations as well as incomplete ones - is couched in terms of "calling" for a card rather than "naming" it, and it is clear that "call" here and "name" in Law 45 essentially refer to the same thing. I really do not think it is reasonable to contend that completion of the "call" of a card under the provisions of Law 46C3(a) does not constitute "naming" it for the purposes of Law 45, not least because otherwise a normal, complete "call" that fully complies with Law 46A could also fail your "name" test. The Laws do not specify the "names" of cards (they specify in Law 1 labels for the suits and the ranks but, if I am going to be as picky as you, do not specify how these are combined to name a specific card). Is the name of the card in question the "10 of Diamonds"? The "Diamond 10"? Both? One but not the other? Something else as well? Is the next higher card the "Jack of Diamonds" but never the "Knave of Diamonds"? Moreover, even if you contend that declarer has not satisfied the requirements of Law 45B, there is still Law 45C4(a) "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play" (my emphasis). To contend that neither of these Laws applies in these circumstances, but that instead Law 45D, which is clearly intended for a wholly different set of circumstances, kicks in is, in my view, to carry language-lawyering to a risible extreme, and one that the drafting precision of the Laws was never intended to accommodate or embrace. (I refer you to the fate of the narrator of Ian McEwan's "Solid Geometry".)

To be clear, Paul, you are positing a situation where declarer has made an incomplete designation ("ten") which Law 46B3(a) requires to be interpreted as ♦10 a second or two later, dummy places ♦10 in the played position simultaneously E plays ♣A E states that (1) (s)he was unaware that ♦10 was in dummy, but (2) knew that ♣10 was in dummy, (3) had processed declarer's call for "ten" as an incomplete designation of ♣10 under Laws46B3(a)&(b), and (4) had played ♣A accordingly we may assume that ♦10 was clearly visible in dummy before being placed in the played position.

I think you're glossing over a few details here, Paul. Did East give declarer a chance to complete his designation? What, precisely, was said and done and in what timescale and sequence? For there is the interesting question of the point at which an incomplete designation finally becomes completely incomplete ...

This of course leads to the interesting topic in the metaphysics of bridge, namely how you disclose such variations. Of course you must, as over time you would otherwise develop a concealed partnership understanding. Isn't the game wonderful? :)