Join Bridge Winners
All comments by John Portwood
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just to clarify, Kit, we don't use ‘LAs’ to discuss what would happen since they only apply to Law 16 (UI), not 21 (MI). South has said that he would double 3 - no matter why. So we decide whether he would and if so how likely it is he would do so. Once that is decided we try and work out the possible results.
Dec. 10
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
This is screens, so the wicket is probably just a bit green and not sticky (even if Derek Underwood is playing!)

Maybe I am a bit cautious, but aiming to play a 3-level (or 4-level!) contract on the South hand with such marvellous spot cards and fit for partner seems a bit self-serving.

There is also the possibility that West (with such good clubs) fielded the (to him) misbid.

We also seem to be assuming that East gave the correct partnership agreement.

So maybe South should have been told “Either a limit raise in diamonds or a fit jump”

For all those compaining about South's actions - it is not what he did with the incorrect information that matters (since almost certainly any serious error is related to the infraction) - it is whether he would do better with the correct.
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In GO - sessions often end with a ‘sealed move’ the theory being that the player who has to start the next session doesn't have the extra time between sessions to plan their move, since it depends on an unknown move from the opponent.

(In practice the ‘sealed move’ is often a forcing one to which there is only one sensible reply, giving the person who made the sealed move the advantage).
Dec. 9
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The player who mistakingly alerts is passing misinformation by definition. 75D (amongst others)

1. Players are expected to disclose their partnership agreements accurately (see Law 20F1); failure to do so constitutes Misinformation.


Law 73C kicks in

1. When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any
advantage from that unauthorized information .

(Law 16B is UI from partner)

(I did mention the UI situation above - no one else seems to have discussed it).

The reason why there is no automatic adjustment is that East has no UI from West's bid (we may judge he has fielded it) - and so can do what he likes. For the contract to be adjusted to 3 we have to decide that West has UI (he has from the unexpected explanation) that demonstrably suggested pass (probably) and that 3 was a logical alternative - well it may well be,but that is for the TD to poll.
Dec. 8
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As ever - go to the lawbook. 16D (in part)

2. If the Director considers that the information would likely interfere with normal play he may, before any call has been made:

(a) adjust the players’ positions at the table, if the type of contest and scoring permit, so that the player with information about one hand will hold that hand;

(b) if the form of competition allows of it order the board redealt for those contestants;

© allow completion of the play of the board standing ready to award an adjusted score if he judges that the extraneous information affected the result;

(d) award an adjusted score (for team play see Law 86B).

(a): In this case the TD could perhaps have placed himself in the position of the 3 caller, and presumably would have passed anything after the 3 call.

(b): not appropriate

(c ): action chosen

(d): I see no reason why AV+,AV cannot be awarded. The TD is only partly at fault - the player who acted after the BIT is surely also partly to blame (Law 12C)
Dec. 8
John Portwood edited this comment Dec. 8
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How long did South take to pass the 5 call (or 4NT one)? That should be the time he took to pass the 7NT bid. (OK the board can be kept on the side for a few seconds after both players have called to reduce BITs AFAIK).
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well I had to say something - no one in the previous 50 odd comments had mentioned the UI position.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Law 27

Non‐offending Side Damaged

If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different, and in consequence the non‐offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome Dof the board had the insufficient bid not occurred.

Thus it is not sufficient just to say that “Without the assistance from the 2NT call NS wouldn't have reached 6H”

It's not quite that easy - The 4 call was bid, presumably, to be a comparable call, (if not we don't rule under 23C). What we must do is decide that IF the IB hadn't taken place, would the result of the hand have been different.

Thus if North had calls available that would not be comparable by themselves, but would have been made had he not made an IB AND the result of those calls would be that the slam would have been bid anyway - then we do not adjust.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Just remember that most of them are under the old laws - which affects the results i.e. no weighted decisions before 2015 for instance.
Dec. 6
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Well one of AKA didn't stand up so there is obviously at least a singleton somewhere (if not a void).

I think I mention that I think a weighted ruling, rather than the 5X simple one, would be best.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the player over the splinter had KQJX in hearts and might have doubled for a good lead - and his partner with massive heart support would then bid on. The TD DID do a poll, I think about bidding 5 over 4 but there is a question as to whether the OP would have gone to 4 given a sign off over the splinter.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Regrettably in the laws there is nothing that says “doing something is a logical alternative to passing” . The closest is LAw 73C which states a player “must carefully avoid taking advantage of taht UI”

If West doubles then his partner is very likely to pass with that spade holding - and that would be worse for the NOS. Depends on the meaning of course.

SO what other LAs can you think (given that East is a minimum hand because he passed 2)

X : already discussed
2N : with no spade stop?
3C : Not the best of suits to introduce at the 3 level
3D : With partner not supporting the suit (remember that the fact partner thinks that 2 shows hearts is UI), it does not seem a good idea
3H : On 2-card support when partner may only have 5?
3S : Asking partner to bid 3NT with a stop? This is a bid that can work well when partner does have the stop, but if he hasn't then you are up to the 4-level on a 5-2 fit. In this case you end up in a making 3NT contract
3N : On JX in Spades?
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
As mentioned - if we assume director error then we treat both sides as non-offending. NS get 6H slightly weighted in favour of the finesse working and EW get 4H slightly weighted in favour of the finesse failing.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the TD should explain his decision in rather more palatable terms than “You were fixed - there is no score adjustment”.

Maybe:

I have looked at the EW convention cards: it states “Drury” on it. I am therefore going to rule that there is sufficient evidence to regard this as a misbid rather than a misexplanation under law 21 and thus under law 75C there is no rectification.

I have also looked at the Unauthorised Information position. I think/ have polled and found out, that there is no logical alternative for West to pass in this situation as he only has fice diamonds and a moderate hand.
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
And the problem in this case (as in so many UI ones) is that you can't do a weighted score. Either the Diamond lead is acceptable or it is not. (You can weight the results of other LAs of course, but in this case it seems from the information I've read that only a Diamond defeats the contract).
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
You can - anything that results in an adjusted score can be made liable to a pp - and there is a specific law stating that it is up to the director not the players to implement the lawbook (or WTTF)
Dec. 5
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
with your first paragraph I agree - I can only remember one real-life case when this happened (my partner had misexplained a 2-suited overcall) - and 21B3 certainly applies: all we are really discussing is what the adjusted score should be: The original TD gave 100% to 5HX-1 which seems too extreme.
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Yes additional information can mess things up (as it does with the Monty Hall Problem).

In your example

Young : Old
Girl : Girl
Girl : Boy
Boy : Girl
Boy : Boy

So since only option 4 is impossible you get 1/3 girl: girl.

BUT

If you are told the younger is a girl then you only have the first two options: 50:50
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
But would North in a local club? This is why you need the TD - he has to find out what meanings could be attributable to the IB and what possible alternatives there could be that might be comparable.

(I don't want to get into the argument as to whether he should advise a player as to whether a Call is comparable. There are pros and cons for each).
Dec. 4
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
10B again.
Dec. 4
.

Bottom Home Top