[lamford]

---

MPs. Table result 4♠=. Lead ♥Q

SB, East was apoplectic with rage at this hand from last Tuesday's duplicate at a North London club. RR, South, alerted his partner's 2NT bid and described it as "Jacoby, a FG spade raise with 4 trumps". As he was minimum, he jumped to 4S and this ended the auction. ChCh did volunteer a correction that 2NT was natural before the lead, and the TD was called, but West, Walter the Walrus, still led the ♥Q. He had not responded ("fewer than six points, partner") and North's 2NT was systemically 19-21, shown on the CC as this, so there was MI and possibly UI. South's 4S was not on the CC, but there was an express agreement between Charlie the Chimp, North, and RR that all game bids were to play in all circumstances. SB argued that 4S by South could not be natural, as it was in a suit opened by the opposition. The Rabbit had notched up 10 tricks.

"I think North took advantage of the UI of the admittedly ludicrous explanation by RR of 2NT being Jacoby", he began, "and calls other than pass would have been less successful." "My partner's ♥Q lead, allowing the contract to make, was equally ludicrous, but far from being SEWoG for a player of WW's standard", he continued. "And it might have been affected by the MI".

The TD was far from convinced. "I think it is just rub of the green", he commented. "It is impossible to find peers of RR playing the same methods, so I don't think there are any LAs after this auction." "And I don't think the MI changes the Walrus' lead. He would just lead his top of sequence every day of every week. And he was aware of the MI before he led."

How do you rule?

[helene_t]

Agree with the TD.

[barmar]

I generally agree with the decision, but I'm wondering about the statement "It is impossible to find peers of RR playing the same methods, so I don't think there are any LAs after this auction." The definition of LA doesn't require you to actually find peers (polling is never explicitly mentioned in the Laws). When it talks of peers, they can be hypothetical -- the intent is to divorce the TD's judgement from the actual player's thoughts (since he's obviously biased by the UI) and try to imagine what any similar player in a comparable situation would be thinking absent the UI.

Did the TD really intend that when there are no peers, the player's actual action is by definition the only LA? Or is he just explaining why he's using his own judgement rather than a poll to determine LAs, and he doesn't think there are any?

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-February-21, 11:32, said:

Did the TD really intend that when there are no peers, the player's actual action is by definition the only LA? Or is he just explaining why he's using his own judgement rather than a poll to determine LAs, and he doesn't think there are any?

No, I think he could not think of any logical alternative when the auction is so illogical. I think North, with UI, now has to "carefully avoid taking any advantage of that UI". I think that he has to assume that the explanation was 19-21 and that the Rabbit, in his own little world, has now bid 4S. LAs must therefore be Pass (if 4S is to play) and perhaps 4NT and 5D. In RR's galaxy, 4S could mean anything, but the UI demonstrably suggests passing it, as it was an attempt to play in 4S.

[richlp]

lamford, on 2017-February-21, 06:33, said:

---

MPs. Table result 4♠=. Lead ♥Q

SB, East was apoplectic with rage at this hand from last Tuesday's duplicate at a North London club. RR, South, alerted his partner's 2NT bid and described it as "Jacoby, a FG spade raise with 4 trumps". As he was minimum, he jumped to 4S and this ended the auction. ChCh did volunteer a correction that 2NT was natural before the lead, and the TD was called, but West, Walter the Walrus, still led the ♥Q. He had not responded ("fewer than six points, partner") and North's 2NT was systemically 19-21, shown on the CC as this, so there was MI and possibly UI. South's 4S was not on the CC, but there was an express agreement between Charlie the Chimp, North, and RR that all game bids were to play in all circumstances. SB argued that 4S by South could not be natural, as it was in a suit opened by the opposition. The Rabbit had notched up 10 tricks.

"I think North took advantage of the UI of the admittedly ludicrous explanation by RR of 2NT being Jacoby", he began, "and calls other than pass would have been less successful." "My partner's ♥Q lead, allowing the contract to make, was equally ludicrous, but far from being SEWoG for a player of WW's standard", he continued. "And it might have been affected by the MI".

The TD was far from convinced. "I think it is just rub of the green", he commented. "It is impossible to find peers of RR playing the same methods, so I don't think there are any LAs after this auction." "And I don't think the MI changes the Walrus' lead. He would just lead his top of sequence every day of every week. And he was aware of the MI before he led."

How do you rule?

Are EW playing 4-card majors? Is so, why couldn't 4S be natural and what else would it mean if RR had properly explained the bid?

[sanst]

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I just don't understand this. E bids 1♠, after two passes N puts 2NT on the table, explained as a FG spade raise. Are in this club E and N partners? If not, it must be clear to everybody that the explanation can't be right, even to RR. So why did he raise to 4♠ with three spades? And how did S managd to make 10 tricks? I don't see how that's accomplished: 3 diamonds, the ace of hearts and 3 hearts trumped and two spades makes nine in my book.

[helene_t]

sanst, on 2017-February-22, 04:51, said:

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I just don't understand this. E bids 1♠, after two passes N puts 2NT on the table, explained as a FG spade raise. Are in this club E and N partners? If not, it must be clear to everybody that the explanation can't be right, even to RR.

Probably he was thinking of his hand from the previous board in which he had a 1♠ opening.

[PeterAlan]

sanst, on 2017-February-22, 04:51, said:

And how did S managd to make 10 tricks? I don't see how that's accomplished: 3 diamonds, the ace of hearts and 3 hearts trumped and two spades makes nine in my book.

After the 3 heart ruffs and the diamonds, East's endplayed twice, first with the club ace, to give dummy all three spade tricks.

[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2017-February-21, 11:47, said:

No, I think he could not think of any logical alternative when the auction is so illogical. I think North, with UI, now has to "carefully avoid taking any advantage of that UI". I think that he has to assume that the explanation was 19-21 and that the Rabbit, in his own little world, has now bid 4S. LAs must therefore be Pass (if 4S is to play) and perhaps 4NT and 5D. In RR's galaxy, 4S could mean anything, but the UI demonstrably suggests passing it, as it was an attempt to play in 4S.

I do not think that your principle here is sound. You are going back to the discredited notion that the player's own action must be logical.

[StevenG]

lamford, on 2017-February-21, 11:47, said:

In RR's galaxy, 4S could mean anything, but the UI demonstrably suggests passing it, as it was an attempt to play in 4S.

The UI demonstrably suggests escaping instead of passing, as RR's bid, in the opponent's suit, was based on a misunderstanding and is most unlikely to be a good place to play.

[weejonnie]

If NS have a (writtent down) agreement that all game bids are to play then I cannot see the problem. Running from 4♠ would be using the UI. (Mind you I am surprised the TD didn't give SB his last call back - surely he would have doubled and RR redoubled - maybe SB sensed the GA in the background).

Even if 4♠ was regarded as some form of leaping Michaels (possibly in RR's armoury of self-inflicting weapons), I cannot see how the UI demonstrably suggests passing 4♠. I mean you cannot assign to a partnership conventions that they haven't agreed. Surely ChCh would, if pressurised, describe the call as 'undiscussed' or 'no partnership agreement' but we have an agreement that all sensible game bids are to play.

[barmar]

I guess it's SB's point in many of these threads, but it seems ridiculous that when a pair stumbles into a contract that no sensible players would ever bid when just looking at their own hands, but just happens to be the best spot, that it should matter that some irregularity happened on the way. It smacks of the myth that when you make an infraction, you're not allowed to get a good result.

[lamford]

richlp, on 2017-February-21, 18:46, said:

Are EW playing 4-card majors? Is so, why couldn't 4S be natural and what else would it mean if RR had properly explained the bid?

They are playing 5-card majors. The test is what North would have done if South had not alerted 2NT, and explained it as 19-21 and then bid 4S, or what would have happened with screens. This is almost certainly undiscussed. I have now discussed it with two regular partners and we play it as simple Blackwood, and bid 4H (transfer) if we want to expose a psyche, with 4NT being natural. I cannot think of any other use for it, although I expect FrancesHinden to tell us she plays it as natural! The UI tells North, however, that 4S is not Blackwood, and therefore North should respond as though it is, as that is one logical meaning for 4S. If South wanted to play 4S he could also transfer at the three level and then bid 4S. I think North should respond 5S, showing three aces and East will double and South will pass that. West will wake up and lead a trump and EW will collect a deserved +1100 (Yes WW's lead really did cost three tricks).

[lamford]

sanst, on 2017-February-22, 04:51, said:

Maybe I'm a bit thick, but I just don't understand this. E bids 1♠, after two passes N puts 2NT on the table, explained as a FG spade raise. Are in this club E and N partners? If not, it must be clear to everybody that the explanation can't be right, even to RR. So why did he raise to 4♠ with three spades? And how did S managd to make 10 tricks? I don't see how that's accomplished: 3 diamonds, the ace of hearts and 3 hearts trumped and two spades makes nine in my book.

"You are clearly unable to think like RR in the auction, but have no trouble matching him in the play". And that is relayed by SB, and is not my opinion.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-February-22, 07:24, said:

If NS have a (writtent down) agreement that all game bids are to play

I did not say it was "written down" and it was regarded by the TD as a self-serving statement by ChCh. When asked, RR confirmed that (3H)-4H would not have been interpreted as natural, for example. He thought it would have been a transfer to 4S, to allow his partner to play the hand.

[mycroft]

I'm sorry, that's not an SB quote, even a Lamford-SB quote; that's pure HH.

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2017-February-22, 09:50, said:

I guess it's SB's point in many of these threads, but it seems ridiculous that when a pair stumbles into a contract that no sensible players would ever bid when just looking at their own hands, but just happens to be the best spot, that it should matter that some irregularity happened on the way. It smacks of the myth that when you make an infraction, you're not allowed to get a good result.

Perhaps SB thinks it's not a myth when you're playing against him.

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2017-February-22, 12:36, said:

I did not say it was "written down" and it was regarded by the TD as a self-serving statement by ChCh. When asked, RR confirmed that (3H)-4H would not have been interpreted as natural, for example. He thought it would have been a transfer to 4S, to allow his partner to play the hand.

The ChCh-RR virtual system notes file has this sequence down as 'not discussed'. The TD cannot assign to any pair an agreement that they do not have, even if the TD or SB themselves play it.

ChCh obviously decided that SB was psyching and that RR's 4♠ call was natural, revealing the psych. WW, by not doubling, has fielded the psych and no doubt ChCh (until he saw the hands) was thinking of calling the TD and asking for it to be recorded as a 'red psych' (it is in fact a 'blue psych'), salivating at getting one over SB in the laws.

NB - For non EBU members: The EBU categorises psychic calls under three categories - the fourth is not officially a category, but sometimes used.

'Green Psych' - the most common: no evidence that partner has fielded it.
'Amber Psych' - there is a possibility that partner has fielded it, but the evidence is not conclusive.
'Red Psych' - partner's actions are clearly taking into account that a psych may have been made.

'Blue Psych' - partner's actions take into account that a psych may have been made - but it wasn't.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-February-23, 08:00, said:

The ChCh-RR virtual system notes file has this sequence down as 'not discussed'. The TD cannot assign to any pair an agreement that they do not have, even if the TD or SB themselves play it.

ChCh obviously decided that SB was psyching and that RR's 4♠ call was natural, revealing the psych. WW, by not doubling, has fielded the psych and no doubt ChCh (until he saw the hands) was thinking of calling the TD and asking for it to be recorded as a 'red psych' (it is in fact a 'blue psych'), salivating at getting one over SB in the laws.

NB - For non EBU members: The EBU categorises psychic calls under three categories - the fourth is not officially a category, but sometimes used.

'Green Psych' - the most common: no evidence that partner has fielded it.
'Amber Psych' - there is a possibility that partner has fielded it, but the evidence is not conclusive.
'Red Psych' - partner's actions are clearly taking into account that a psych may have been made.

'Blue Psych' - partner's actions take into account that a psych may have been made - but it wasn't.

No, he did not decide that 4S was natural. He knew exactly why it was chosen, but only from the UI.

The concept of "Blue Psyche" has long been discredited (and is nowhere to be found in the Laws) and, in any case, if East has five spades and an opening bid, and 4S is natural, then he will be doubling if that is in his interest. SB did not bother to ask for his last bid back (although it was TD error not to offer it), as he had no intention of removing the Rabbit from his "hopeless" contract, and he thought that double might well ask for an unusual lead. As he said afterwards to WW, "Why did you make an unusual lead, WW, when I did not double?" Walter hung his head in shame and mumbled something about "top of a sequence".