[lamford]

gnasher, on Sep 28 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

He can also bid 3NT to show hearts.  How nice to have two ways to show the same hand.  And what a pity that most of us don't need either of them.

He can also bid 4♦ to show hearts; and how nice to have three ways to show the same hand; and what a pity that most of us do not use any of them.

Out of interest, what should they all mean? I suggest 1-5-6-1 or 2-5-6-0 is 4D (no interest in playing clubs); 3NT is 0-5-6-2 (some interest in playing clubs) and 4C is ?-?-6-5. 4H virtually never exists, and certainly not for the 1-4-6-1 hand that Jeremy wouldn't bid it on.

[jdonn]

lamford, on Sep 30 2009, 05:41 AM, said:

gnasher, on Sep 28 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

He can also bid 3NT to show hearts.  How nice to have two ways to show the same hand.  And what a pity that most of us don't need either of them.

He can also bid 4♦ to show hearts; and how nice to have three ways to show the same hand; and what a pity that most of us to do not use any of them.

Out of interest, what should they all mean? I suggest 1-5-6-1 or 2-5-6-0 is 4D (no interest in playing clubs); 3NT is 0-5-6-2 (some interest in playing clubs) and 4C is ?-?-6-5. 4H virtually never exists, and certainly not for the 1-4-6-1 hand that Jeremy wouldn't bid it on.

In all seriousness, anyone who makes an agreement about one of those bids is approaching that fine line between genius and insanity. Anyone who makes an agreement about two or more of them has crossed it.

[jallerton]

Committee's Comments:

Quote

The Committee decided that there was to be a ruling based on misinformation. The Committee accepted that East would indeed bid 4♥, but found it less likely that West would continue with 5♥ over the 4♠ which would have come then as now. The Committee went on to see if the result of 5♥ doubled down one or two would be 'at all probable' and decided against that one as well.

[The reference to 'at all probable' is because the 1997 Laws were in force]

Committee's Decision:

Quote

Original result restored, N/S +620. 10% Procedural penalty to North/South because of misexplanation and/or misbid.

What do you think about the AC's decision, in particular the decision to award a procedural penalty?

[bluejak]

I think the Committee's decision is interesting. Of course Law 12C3 applies to a WBF event under 1997 Laws, but I suppose if 5♥ does not meet the standard of "at all probable" then it is not really probable enough to acquire a weighting.

As for the PP, while in principle against the WBF Code of Practice, I have some sympathy for PPs in WBF events in a way that I have no sympathy in club events. But I probably would still not give one!

[duschek]

jallerton, on Oct 7 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

What do you think about the AC's decision, in particular the decision to award a procedural penalty?

To me, this PP seems to be yet another case of "after deliberations we rule no damage, so we throw a PP at them instead for the sake of justice".

Certainly, a pair at a WBF event is expected (by the players, not by the laws) to have a clear understanding about a cuebid of a preemptive opening bid, but then, players do forget their agreements from time to time, without the TD/AC having to issue a PP every time.

In effect, the AC decision gives players an incentive to call the TD every time there is a misexplanation, so as to inflict PPs on the opponents (which according to this AC should be given whenever a player forgets his agreement). This is not how the game should be played.

[nige1]

duschek, on Oct 8 2009, 05:04 AM, said:

[SNIP] In effect, the AC decision gives players an incentive to call the TD every time there is a misexplanation, so as to inflict PPs on the opponents (which according to this AC should be given whenever a player forgets his agreement). This is not how the game should be played.

If the misexplanation is an infraction to which attention was drawn then it is both sides' duty to summon the director. IMO, when deciding whether to call a director, players should ignore putative shortcomings in law or director/committee judgement.

[duschek]

nige1, on Oct 9 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

If the misexplanation is an infraction to which attention was drawn then it is both sides' duty to summon the director. IMO, when deciding whether to call a director, players should ignore putative shortcomings in law or director/committee judgement.

Do you mean to say that if, after the play of a hand is completed, I am aware that an inaccurate explanation has been given to me but know for sure that I have not been damaged, I should routinely summon the TD?

[nige1]

nige1, on Oct 9 2009, 03:03 PM, said:

If the misexplanation is an infraction to which attention was drawn then it is both sides' duty to summon the director. IMO, when deciding whether to call a director, players should ignore putative shortcomings in law or director/committee judgement.

duschek, on Oct 16 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

Do you mean to say that if, after the play of a hand is completed, I am aware that an inaccurate explanation has been given to me but know for sure that I have not been damaged, I should routinely summon the TD?

Assuming attention has been drawn to an infraction ...

• I confess that I sometimes fail to call the director.
  
• I feel that calling the director is the ethical course of action.
  
• If the victim calls the director only if he is damaged and in contention, then it becomes even more profitable to break the law.
  
• I believe that the law says the victim should call the director.
  
• I believe further that the law says that the law-breaker himself should call the director. Although few do that.

[blackshoe]

The Law says

Law 9B1 said:

{a} The director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity.
{b} Any player, including dummy, may summon the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity.
{c} Summoning the director does not cause a player to forfeit any rights to which he might otherwise be entitled.
{d} the fact that a player draws attention to an irregularity committed by his side does not affect the rights of the opponents.

The laws say, of "should", that failure to do what one "should" do is an infraction, albeit one which will seldom draw a procedural penalty. So. The director should be summoned. Any player may do so. Regarding "may" the laws say that failure to do what one "may" do "is not wrong". We have a dilemma. Someone should call the director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity. If no one does, there has been an infraction of law. But anyone may call, so if a particular player does not call, he has done nothing wrong. I think a practical interpretation of this is that once someone calls the director, the rest of the players at the table are off the hook. Still, someone should call. The Law does not say the victim (poor choice of words, Nigel, but I'll run with it) should call. It does not say the offender should call. It says someone should call, and leaves wide open who that someone should be.

[Jlall]

No chance west would bid 5H