RMB1 Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 (edited) [hv=d=n&v=e&b=9&s=sk852hkj92dkjcaqj&w=st76h8763dt52c754&n=sa43ha4dq963ct962&e=sqj9hqt5da874ck83&a=p1nx2cxppp]399|300|[/hv][Added board number/dealer/vulnerability and approximate auction.] West plays in 2♣ doubled on a club lead. On sight of dummy West suggests "-1100" and one defender accepts. The other defender is not so happy and says so, but allows the score to be entered and plays the next board. A few rounds later both sides are discussing the hand and call me, the player who was not happy is still not happy and wants a ruling. I decided that because I was not called at the time, agreement was established (Law 69A) and has now been withdrawn (Law 69B). So how many more tricks are likely for the defence? Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transfering more than one trick? It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely? There are match-points at stake here: without this result the frequencies are 1700 x 2, 1400 x 6, 1100 x 7, 490 x 1, 460 x 6, 430 x 2. This is the land of the weak NT, and at many tables the auction will have started 1NT-X, and NS continuing to double. Edited April 19, 2011 by RMB1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted April 17, 2011 Report Share Posted April 17, 2011 My experience of playing and defending contracts like this over the years is that you chuck tricks in defence at an alarming rate, and I think -1100 perfectly likely. Of course -1400 is possible, but no more likely, and I hardly believe the defence will do much better. Still judgement does not interest me very much. Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transferring more than one trick?Not in my view. Consider if the TD thinks there are two tricks that would likely have gone the other way: now look at the wording. Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C .... if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.Consider the first trick: according to this it gets transferred. Now consider the second trick. Surely the same applies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=sk852hkj92dkjcaqj&w=st76h8763dt52c754&n=sa43ha4dq963ct962&e=sqj9hqt5da874ck83]399|300|[/hv] West plays in 2♣ doubled on a club lead. On sight of dummy West suggests "-1100" and one defender accepts. The other defender is not so happy and says so, but allows the score to be entered and plays the next board. A few rounds later both sides are discussing the hand and call me, the player who was not happy is still not happy and wants a ruling. I decided that because I was not called at the time, agreement was established (Law 69A) and has now been withdrawn (Law 69B). So how many more tricks are likely for the defence? Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transfering more than one trick? It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely? There are match-points at stake here: without this result the frequencies are 1700 x 2, 1400 x 6, 1100 x 7, 490 x 1, 460 x 6, 430 x 2. This is the land of the weak NT, and at many tables the auction will have started 1NT-X, and NS continuing to double. Was the hand played in 2♣x by West at any of the other tables? If so, that will give you an indication of what might have happened at this table, had play continued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 To answer my own question, 2♣x was declared at two other tables. Played by East, on a low spade lead, declarer was held to 2 tricks. Played by West, on the inferior lead of ♥A, declarer managed to scramble 3 tricks. At this table, a trump was led through dummy. South will win, put partner in with a major suit ace and North will play another trump, followed by a 3rd round of trumps. Now the only likely results are down 6 (-1700 as E/W are vulnerable) and down 7 (-2000) depending on whether declarer makes a spade trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jallerton Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transferring more than one trick? Not in my view. Consider if the TD thinks there are two tricks that would likely have gone the other way: now look at the wording. Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C .... if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. Consider the first trick: according to this it gets transferred. Now consider the second trick. Surely the same applies? After the board has been "rescored" for the transfer of the first trick, does the Law allow for the board to be "rescored" again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 To answer a question that hasn't yet been asked, EW were vulnerable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluejak Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 After the board has been "rescored" for the transfer of the first trick, does the Law allow for the board to be "rescored" again?Yes, why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamford Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 To answer a question that hasn't yet been asked, EW were vulnerable.A possible reason it wasn't asked is that people worked it out from:"It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
campboy Posted April 18, 2011 Report Share Posted April 18, 2011 A possible reason it wasn't asked is that people worked it out from:"It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely?"I would have asked had Frances not mentioned it, since it wasn't clear to me whether the hand diagram or the numbers were wrong. Anyway, I would think two tricks for declarer the most likely outcome after that start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted April 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 ... , since it wasn't clear to me whether the hand diagram or the numbers were wrong. When I decided not to enter the bidding, the hand generator did not ask for vulnerability, and the default colouring looks like "love all". If I can I will edit the original post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 19, 2011 Report Share Posted April 19, 2011 Seems to me that declarer can only chuck 1 extra trick if he's lucky: ♠Q. So NS should get at least 1700. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.