[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Opening lead KH. Table result 6S?

There was another incident at the individual at the North London Club last week, again involving SB and RR. The Rabbit opened a strong Two Hearts, as only strong twos were permitted, the Corgi who had swapped with Molly for the second board, doubled, and SB was soon in the reasonable slam. West led the king of hearts and SB paused to consider the play. "You're exposing yourself, again", he broke off to say to the Rabbit who was writing down the contract. "Your two of spades could be seen by your partner, and we need the director". Stuart the Stoat, a visitor from the Tottenham club came to the table, as Oscar the Owl was busy at another table. SB related what occurred. "I think that it is a m-m-m-ajor p-p-penalty card," SS stammered. "No, it is a m-m-minor p-p-penalty card" mimicked SB, "as it is below honour rank and was not led out of turn. Don't they teach you anything in Tottenham?" SS found the relevant law and the two of spades was placed on the table. SS gave the relevant ruling for minor penalty cards and SB, who had originally intended to play RR for a singleton honour, ruffed a heart, cashed the ace of spades, and then finessed the nine of spades. East won and exited with the jack of diamonds, and SB later got the clubs wrong, knowing that East had four to West's two, and was one down.

SB was apoplectic. He launched a tirade at RR. "You could have been aware that exposing the two of spades would cause me to play restricted choice on your partner, as you could no longer have a singleton honour," he began. "You could also have been aware that opening a weak two when only strong twos were permitted" could cause me to misguess the queen of clubs," he ranted on. "In addition, your partner, Molly the Mule, should have doubled Six Spades, and she fielded your systemic misbid of Two Hearts."

RR seemed confused. "Does that mean the score is 6Sx-1?" he asked. "And I thought strong twos meant that they had to be stronger than usual, and I had a seven-card suit with two of the top three honours."

"No, it doesn't mean that," replied SB, "the maximum you can get on the board is now 40% as you used a convention not permitted by the RA." "The relevant law is 40B2. (a) The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. The announcement at the start made it clear that only the NT opening range could be varied."

"Your choice is 40%; or 6S=, or even 50% of 6S= and 50% of 6S+1", he suggested to Stuart the Stoat. "Let m-m-me rule m-m-myself", SS replied.

How do you rule?

[pran]

lamford, on 2016-September-10, 03:55, said:

---

Matchpoints. Opening lead KH. Table result 6S?

There was another incident at the individual at the North London Club last week, again involving SB and RR. The Rabbit opened a strong Two Hearts, as only strong twos were permitted, the Corgi who had swapped with Molly for the second board, doubled, and SB was soon in the reasonable slam. West led the king of hearts and SB paused to consider the play. "You're exposing yourself, again", he broke off to say to the Rabbit who was writing down the contract. "Your two of spades could be seen by your partner, and we need the director". Stuart the Stoat, a visitor from the Tottenham club came to the table, as Oscar the Owl was busy at another table. SB related what occurred. "I think that it is a m-m-m-ajor p-p-penalty card," he stammered. "No, it is a m-m-minor p-p-penalty card" mimicked SB, as it is below honour rank and was not led out of turn. "Don't they teach you anything in Tottenham?" SS found the relevant law and the two of spades was placed on the table. SS gave the relevant ruling for minor penalty cards and SB, who had originally intended to play RR for a singleton honour, ruffed a heart, cashed the ace of spades, and then finessed the nine of spades. East won and exited with the jack of diamonds, and SB later got the clubs wrong, knowing that East had four to West's two, and was one down.

SB was apoplectic. He launched a tirade at RR. "You could have been aware that exposing the two of spades would cause me to play restricted choice on your partner, as you could no longer have a singleton honour," he began. "You could also have been aware that opening a weak two when only strong twos were permitted" could cause me to misguess the queen of clubs," he ranted on. In addition, your partner, Molly the Mule, should have doubled Six Spades, and she fielded your systemic misbid of Two Hearts."

RR seemed confused. "Does that mean the score is 6Sx-1?" he asked. "And I thought strong twos meant that they had to be stronger than usual, and I had a seven-card suit with two of the top three honours."

"No, it doesn't mean that," replied SB, "the maximum you can get on the board is now 40% as you used a convention not permitted by the RA." "The relevant law is 40B2. (a) The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. The announcement at the start made it clear that only the NT opening range could be varied."

"Your choice is 40%; or 6S=, or even 50% of 6S= and 50% of 6S+1", he suggested to Stuart the Stoat. "Let m-m-me rule m-m-myself", SS replied.

How do you rule?

Another unjustified attempt to involve Law 23
Table result stands.

[helene_t]

I can't make any sense of the "could have known" clause but in any case, you don't have partnership specfic agreements in an indy so there can be no such thing as illegal agreements or fielded misbids.

[Cyberyeti]

As Helene says, you can use an illegal convention providing partner is as surprised as the opps, it is not an illegal agreement as E has no clue..

There is no reason for E to X, it sounds like S has something truly extraordinary like 8 spades (14) in the minors, and partner's strong two is a lot of solid hearts and a card.

[Cyberyeti]

There is a decent argument for serious error on declarer for his play.

How do you think the hearts are ? (may be obvious after a count signal)

If 7:3, the chance of W having 3 spades along with 7 hearts reduces to 10.99% against the 37.09% chance of 2:2 so even with restricted choice you should comfortably play for 2:2.

If 6:4 you should still play for the drop although it's closer (41.54 v 17.31)

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2016-September-10, 04:45, said:

I can't make any sense of the "could have known" clause but in any case, you don't have partnership specfic agreements in an indy so there can be no such thing as illegal agreements or fielded misbids.

"Could have known" applies to the exposure of a small trump though.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-10, 05:03, said:

As Helene says, you can use an illegal convention providing partner is as surprised as the opps, it is not an illegal agreement as E has no clue..

There is no reason for E to X, it sounds like S has something truly extraordinary like 8 spades (14) in the minors, and partner's strong two is a lot of solid hearts and a card.

I agree with the latter, but the RA had specified strong twos, and E-W were playing weak twos. An illegal agreement.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2016-September-10, 10:20, said:

I agree with the latter, but the RA had specified strong twos, and E-W were playing weak twos. An illegal agreement.

Maybe, but you have combined to unrelated issues.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-10, 09:50, said:

There is a decent argument for serious error on declarer for his play.

How do you think the hearts are ? (may be obvious after a count signal)

If 7:3, the chance of W having 3 spades along with 7 hearts reduces to 10.99% against the 37.09% chance of 2:2 so even with restricted choice you should comfortably play for 2:2.

If 6:4 you should still play for the drop although it's closer (41.54 v 17.31)

There is a decent argument for serious error in most of your posts. If the hearts are 6-4 (and why should any East give true count in hearts here with QJ doubleton of spades?), then West has 5 available spaces to East's 8 at the time of the decision, but the latter is reduced by half because of restricted choice. The finesse is therefore the correct line (I think 5/9 to 4/9). And you seem to be as obsessed with count signals as the rabbit was. Maybe you should find one to partner.

[lamford]

pran, on 2016-September-10, 04:11, said:

Another unjustified attempt to involve Law 23
Table result stands.

If that is the case, every time I think that partner could have QJ doubleton of trumps, and the ace and king are in opposite hands I will drop a small trump. Now declarer will play my partner for a singleton honour, as I can't have one. I thought this was a standard cheating opportunity, but maybe I have just had some devious opponents over the years.

I think this is a completely automatic adjustment, and your post is nonsense.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2016-September-10, 10:20, said:

I agree with the latter, but the RA had specified strong twos, and E-W were playing weak twos. An illegal agreement.

No they weren't, one of them was and there was no agreement (unless E announced the 2 as weak, which I'd imagine you would have specified in the OP if he did and there's an adjustment).

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2016-September-10, 10:30, said:

There is a decent argument for serious error in most of your posts. If the hearts are 6-4 (and why should any East give true count in hearts here with QJ doubleton of spades?), then West has 5 available spaces to East's 8 at the time of the decision, but the latter is reduced by half because of restricted choice. The finesse is therefore the correct line (I think 5/9 to 4/9). And you seem to be as obsessed with count signals as the rabbit was. Maybe you should find one to partner.

Well 6:4 is much much less likely than 7:3 in my book anyway here as 4♥ or 3♠ hasn't been bid (as surely one would be with only quacks, 4 hearts and a stiff spade).

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-10, 10:50, said:

Well 6:4 is much much less likely than 7:3 in my book anyway here as 4♥ or 3♠ hasn't been bid (as surely one would be with only quacks, 4 hearts and a stiff spade).

Molly the Mule would raise to only three with Q Jxxx JTxx xxxx or with her actual hand. "Only 4 points partner ..." And with seven hearts, RR would normally have opened 3H. It was only his bizarre interpretation of "strong twos" as slightly stronger than "weak twos" that made him choose 2H. And your requirement for SEWoG, where SB actually made the correct play, suggest that you might (re)read the White Book where these are clarified as things like revokes, or failing to cash the setting trick against a slam. Curiously, misguessing a RC situation is not listed therein, so perhaps you should contact RMB1, who I think is the editor, to put right the omission.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-10, 10:42, said:

No they weren't, one of them was and there was no agreement (unless E announced the 2 as weak, which I'd imagine you would have specified in the OP if he did and there's an adjustment).

East did not announce, but she admitted they had agreed to play a strong NT and three weak twos at the start of the round.

[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2016-September-10, 10:58, said:

Molly the Mule would raise to only three with Q Jxxx JTxx xxxx or with her actual hand. "Only 4 points partner, but you forced me to bid when you opened 2H, strong ..." And with seven hearts, RR would normally have opened 3H. It was only his bizarre interpretation of "strong twos" as slightly stronger than "weak twos" that made him choose 2H. And your requirement for SEWoG, where SB actually made the correct play, suggest that you might (re)read the White Book where these are clarified as things like revokes, or failing to cash the setting trick against a slam. Curiously, misguessing a RC situation is not listed therein, so perhaps you should contact RMB1, who I think is the editor, to put right the omission.

No he didn't force you to bid over the double, you could have passed/redoubled/bid 2N not meaning the same as in the unopposed auction. Again you're making a player play like a cretin to support your argument. What was the announcement ? and did they both share this interpretation ?

The argument that "holding QJ I wouldn't give a correct count signal" is also rubbish, I would be slightly surprised partner had one trump and astonished he had 2 on this auction opposite a strong 2, as I would be expecting S to be weaker with a LOT more spades.

My figures were correct for the initial probabilities and appeared to be that you'd taken a line half as good as another, but yours are correct having seen all the small cards.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-10, 11:08, said:

No he didn't force you to bid over the double, you could have passed/redoubled/bid 2N not meaning the same as in the unopposed auction. Again you're making a player play like a cretin to support your argument. What was the announcement ? and did they both share this interpretation ?

The argument that "holding QJ I wouldn't give a correct count signal" is also rubbish, I would be slightly surprised partner had one trump and astonished he had 2 on this auction opposite a strong 2, as I would be expecting S to be weaker with a LOT more spades.

My figures were correct for the initial probabilities and appeared to be that you'd taken a line half as good as another, but yours are correct having seen all the small cards.

Molly would raise with three or four trumps. But even she would not give meaningless count here against a slam, which can only help declarer. The cretin is someone who does give count here, changing the odds in the spade suit.

I am pleased that you agree that my figures are correct on the right play in the spade suit (if hearts are 6-4). Irrelevant of course, as you have not admitted your error of suggesting that the line is anywhere near SEWoG.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-10, 11:08, said:

I would be slightly surprised partner had one trump and astonished he had 2 on this auction opposite a strong 2, as I would be expecting S to be weaker with a LOT more spades.

As would I, strongly suggesting that RR and MM were deliberately cheating by playing an illegal method of weak twos, and not disclosing it. A PP to each, as well as adjusting to 6S+1? And SB stated that MM played the nine of hearts, but then she always encourages with an honour ... I would also play the nine, suit preference for diamonds in case partner might be squeezed in the minors. Giving count is pointless.

[shyams]

A slight digression but I have a question:

Suppose I as declarer observe a defender accidentally expose a card in such a way that their partner could have seen the card, if they were looking. It is also clear to me (and everyone at the table) that their partner did not see the card.
Can I insist that the accidentally exposed card become a penalty card? Leaving the ethics aside, what stops me from doing so?

[lamford]

shyams, on 2016-September-10, 11:17, said:

A slight digression but I have a question:

Suppose I as declarer observe a defender accidentally expose a card in such a way that their partner could have seen the card, if they were looking. It is also clear to me (and everyone at the table) that their partner did not see the card.
Can I insist that the accidentally exposed card become a penalty card? Leaving the ethics aside, what stops me from doing so?

The benchmark is only whether it could have been seen by his partner.

[manudude03]

Assuming 6Sx-1 was less than 60%, then I guess I would adjust to Avg-/Avg+ for the illegal convention being played. If we determine that we can't award an artificial score since the board has been completed, then table result stands. I am somewhat tempted to give a DP to the SB for disrespecting the director. I know if I had a bad stutter and someone was mimicking me I would be offended.

There has to be some threshold for Law 23 to actually qualify. If not, then the law would simply read something along the lines of "If the non-offending side was damaged by an infraction, there will be an adjustment". We are told that West is the RR, who is unlikely to know much about anything and I doubt the possibility of partner having QJ doubleton leading declarer to a restricted choice decision ever came into his head. Law 23 says to adjust if in director's opinion (not the non-offender's), the offender could have known there could be damage from the infraction. Even if Oscar was busy, Stuart can still consult with him later regarding RR's standard if they are unacquainted. There is also Law 73D1 as the forced play of the ♠2 is still a play (even if effectively out of turn) and it is stated to draw inferences at your own risk.

Assuming SB believed West to have a strong 2, then West would need to have had KQJ-9th in hearts to have the 8 clear cut tricks (and it is impossible for HCP+longest 2 suits to get to 25) and would be extremely unlikely that West would have 3 spades and so the odds would be to play for the drop anyway.