[lamford]

---

Individual; Butler IMPs. Table Result +1440. Datum: NS +245

There was an entertaining board on this hand from an individual at a North London club last Friday. North was the weakest member of the club, and one with whom everyone plays too much system. He alerted the very slow 2NT and, when asked by West, replied "I think it is Kokish, showing 25-28. I think we rebid 2H with 23-24." The first round of the auction was clearly a dim and distant memory, and RR, mistakenly thinking his partner would be playing it, jumped to 6NT with his chunky 6-count. SB decided that he could get a double from the TD later if he was misinformed and decided to pass, as did his partner, and East led a passive diamond. RR got the hearts right and then tried to squeeze East in the rounded suits, with some efforts at a double squeeze, as he did not initially notice the fall of either the 8H or the 8C, and emerged much to his surprise with 12 tricks, running the seven of clubs in the ending.

SB began his assault. "You breached Law 73C", he announced, turning to face the Rabbit. "You selected from LAs one demonstrably suggested by the UI." He paused to catch his breath and continued "6NT is demonstrably suggested over Pass by the UI". "Although South had a normal raise to 2NT, he was clearly thinking of passing opposite someone of your ability, but he could have been thinking of bidding 3NT". "Your leap to 6NT played him for a maximum and perfect cards, and a miracle layout to boot. If the TD does not adjust to 2NT+4, then I want to ring an EBU referee. I am sure campboy will adjust." "Director, please", he bellowed.

"Interesting line of play", commented South. "I have not seen a squeeze before where you actually have all the remainder in top tricks! I guess we could call it a squeeze without a count". RR hung his head in shame.

How do you rule?

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2014-November-30, 07:03, said:

How do you rule?

Same as before: Result stands.

Rabbits are allowed to be rabbits...

Rik

[dicklont]

Correct this score to 6NT doubled. It is clear that EW should have doubled this and only fair that the director restores the balance.

[blackshoe]

Tempting, dick, but I don't think so.

lamford, on 2014-November-30, 07:03, said:

SB began his assault.

It seems clear that the only way to cure SB of this behavior is to give him a PP every time he does it. So yeah, result stands, and a PP.

[pran]

Individual event, and "weakest member of the Club"?

My Automatic ruling would be table result stands, but I do indeed fancy the idea of an (irregular) adjustment to 6NTX=

[lamford]

pran, on 2014-November-30, 10:05, said:

Individual event, and "weakest member of the Club"?

My Automatic ruling would be table result stands, but I do indeed fancy the idea of an (irregular) adjustment to 6NTX=

I thought the same laws applied to everyone. I am sure that Pass of 2NT is an LA; some will argue that 6NT is demonstrably suggested as partner is more likely to be upper range for his 2NT as a result of the BIT. I do not agree that this makes it demonstrably suggested, but I was surprised that campboy et al have not already adjusted the score.

[nige1]

IMO, when a player chooses an illogical alternative, the director should treat it as an LA, for legal purposes. Here, South's tank could suggest bidding 3N over passing. But the director is likely to judge that the UI could hardly suggest North's enterprising 6N over any LA. Although, admittedly, the director might find it hard to find a sample of players to match RR in skill and luck

[blackshoe]

Grattan Endicott suggested to me that the phrase should be treated as "plausible alternative for the class of player involved". Still, 6NT is really off the wall. I doubt very much that one could show how 6NT might be suggested here.

[weejonnie]

And a disciplinary penalty for breaching BB@B rules.

RR seems to have two LAs:

A quantitative raise to 4NT - playing South for a minimum for his pause.
A Speculative raise to 6NT - playing South for a maximum for his pause.

Neither seem to be demonstrably suggested.

However - what about the UI for South? Partner has raised his 2NT rebid to 6NT - maybe partner intended to bid Baron 2NT (15+) last round. Perhaps 7NT has a play.

The UI demonstrably suggests passing - therefore South should raise to 7NT - which I suspect east, on lead with an ace, might double.

[Trinidad]

weejonnie, on 2014-December-01, 03:39, said:

However - what about the UI for South? Partner has raised his 2NT rebid to 6NT - maybe partner intended to bid Baron 2NT (15+) last round. Perhaps 7NT has a play.

The UI demonstrably suggests passing - therefore South should raise to 7NT - which I suspect east, on lead with an ace, might double.

Nice thinking...

However, South has described and limited his hand. He is out of the equation and needs to respect his partner's decision to place the contract. 7NT is not an LA.

Rik

[campboy]

I think this case is like one where RR had forgotten the system, in that when we determine LAs, etc, based on what RR thought was going on. In that case, then to RR the BIT could mean any of the following:

• partner is unsure which way round Kokish is;
  
• partner is minimum for his 25-28;
  
• partner is maximum for his 25-28.

Now how likely 1) is will depend on partner, but certainly 2) is more likely than 3) since 25-point hands are much more common than 28-point hands. 1) and 2) suggest bidding less; 3) would suggest bidding more. So if anything, lower bids are suggested over 6NT, not the other way around.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-December-01, 05:28, said:

I think this case is like one where RR had forgotten the system, in that when we determine LAs, etc, based on what RR thought was going on.

But Law 16B tells you to determine LAs based on the system of the players. And I don't agree that the Rabbit had forgotten the system, or that he ever remembered it. He actually forgot the first round of the auction which, in what passes for a brain, was 2C-2D. I hope you do not think we determine LAs based on some imaginary auction! Not even a rabbit would think 1X-1NT-2NT was 25-28 if he was aware of what the auction was. So, the only two LAs are Pass and 3NT, and the latter is suggested by the UI, in that South is extremely likely, opposite the Rabbit, to have a 20 count for raising him slowly to 2NT, as most people would require a solid 21 count to do so. 6NT is not an LA, true, but there is case Law that it becomes one if selected. Given that South is likely to be stronger for a slow raise to 2NT, you might argue that it is demonstrably suggested, as its chance of success has gone up slightly. I argue that it cannot be demonstrably suggested because it is still a clear underdog, so we agree for different reasons.

Also, even if you allow the rabbit to think that 2NT is 25-28, then 4NT becomes an LA, and that would be less successful than 6NT.

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2014-December-01, 05:28, said:

I think this case is like one where RR had forgotten the system, in that when we determine LAs, etc, based on what RR thought was going on. In that case, then to RR the BIT could mean any of the following:

• partner is unsure which way round Kokish is;
  
• partner is minimum for his 25-28;
  
• partner is maximum for his 25-28.

Now how likely 1) is will depend on partner, but certainly 2) is more likely than 3) since 25-point hands are much more common than 28-point hands.

Very true, but do rabbits think like that? I don't think so.

Rik

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2014-November-30, 08:41, said:

It seems clear that the only way to cure SB of this behavior is to give him a PP every time he does it. So yeah, result stands, and a PP.

Should it not be a DP?

[campboy]

I wasn't suggesting that RR had forgotten the system, just that I don't see a reason to treat this situation (where he has forgotten the auction) any differently than one where he has forgotten the system. And judging LAs on the basis of what the player thought was going on is how I would treat the latter. But I'm aware that you (Lamford) interpret law 16B differently, and I have no desire to get into another debate about that. I only posted my reasons for ruling score stands because you specifically mentioned me as someone you would expect me to adjust.

[edited to clarify who I was replying to]

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-December-01, 07:08, said:

Also, even if you allow the rabbit to think that 2NT is 25-28, then 4NT becomes an LA, and that would be less successful than 6NT.

Yes, but I don't think 6NT is demonstrably suggested over 4NT. I would rather bid 6NT opposite "25 to 28" than opposite "25 or 28".

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-December-01, 07:52, said:

Yes, but I don't think 6NT is demonstrably suggested over 4NT. I would rather bid 6NT opposite "25 to 28" than opposite "25 or 28".

Clearly you cannot think like a cheating rabbit. If partner had 25, he would have already downgraded to 23-24 to allow for my ineptitude; the fact that I will be declarer is known. Therefore the BIT shows that he has 28, or maybe even 29. People never stretch opposite a rabbit. On the actual hand, any sane declarer was seriously considering Pass instead of 2NT.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2014-December-01, 07:47, said:

And judging LAs on the basis of what the player thought was going on is how I would treat the latter.

So when polling under 16B, you would give each member of your bury, colony, down, drove, husk, leash, trace, trip or warren (whichever you prefer) the auction 2C-2D-2NT, and tell them that 2NT shows 25-28 and is forcing? Then you would ask them what a slow 2NT suggests?

That will certainly be the first poll I have ever seen on an appeal form which gave a different auction to the actual one!

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-December-01, 08:29, said:

That will certainly be the first poll I have ever seen on an appeal form which gave a different auction to the actual one!

Perhaps. But that is because players do not commonly get the auction wrong, especially with bidding boxes. It is by no means unusual to conduct a poll which gives the same auction, but with some call having a different meaning.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2014-December-01, 08:23, said:

Clearly you cannot think like a cheating rabbit. If partner had 25, he would have already downgraded to 23-24 to allow for my ineptitude; the fact that I will be declarer is known.

On the hypothetical auction where partner is showing 25-28, the rabbit will not be declarer.