[Cyberyeti]

lamford, on 2016-September-10, 11:01, said:

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.

I must admit, I wouldn't bid as N or S till I'd got the announcement, ever, even if there was only one allowed meaning.

If that was their agreement then there is an automatic adjustment.

A very normal arrangement is A for attitude K for count, if I had AKQ 7th, I'd be leading the K so that when dummy comes down with a stiff, I'd know whether I could safely lead another without giving a ruff and discard, this is why we would give count here even without that arrangement.

I have less of an idiocy tolerance than most for SEWoG particularly for good players and I may well be out of step, but taking a 30% line with a 70% line available (which is what I wrongly thought this was) would trip my switch for an expert, as there's a feel of 30% of the time I make, 70% I get it back on appeal.

[weejonnie]

manudude03, on 2016-September-10, 12:55, said:

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.

FYI - from 1st August in England a 'strong' bid must also have at least 10 HCP. BB 5C3

[barmar]

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

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,

RR knows restricted choice?

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2016-September-10, 15:02, said:

RR knows restricted choice?

Not likely.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2016-September-10, 11:01, said:

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.

Were they both then unaware of the conditions of contest? Possible, I suppose, but if so, why then did RR opine that he thought his hand stronger than a weak two?

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-September-10, 13:15, said:

I must admit, I wouldn't bid as N or S till I'd got the announcement, ever, even if there was only one allowed meaning.

If that was their agreement then there is an automatic adjustment.

A very normal arrangement is A for attitude K for count, if I had AKQ 7th, I'd be leading the K so that when dummy comes down with a stiff, I'd know whether I could safely lead another without giving a ruff and discard, this is why we would give count here even without that arrangement.

I have less of an idiocy tolerance than most for SEWoG particularly for good players and I may well be out of step, but taking a 30% line with a 70% line available (which is what I wrongly thought this was) would trip my switch for an expert, as there's a feel of 30% of the time I make, 70% I get it back on appeal.

The CC (provided by the organiser) had "high encouraging" on partner's lead and "high even" on declarer's lead. As it has done as long as I have attended individuals at this club. So no conclusion can really be gleaned about MM's play of the nine. I gave it as a play problem to a couple of strong players, and they both finessed. They thought hearts would be 6-4 as there was no 3H pre-empt, however weak a player West was. So, far from being idiotic, SB's line is clear. I am more interested in the ruling assuming that a weak 2H was allowed, because, if one adjusts for Law 23, then 6S= would be more than 60%. It seems the slam was hard to reach in an individual with simple methods.

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2016-September-10, 12:55, said:

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.

First I totally agree with a DP to SB for mimicking the TD's stutter.

If SB had dropped a small trump, we would all want to adjust because "he could have known", and this is similar to the Alcatraz Coup. We should adjust regardless of the strength of the player, as the law says "an offender" not "the offender". That means if the TD considers it possible for an offender to pull off the ruse, then we adjust. You are, I think, mistaken in quoting "the offender". And I don't think Law 73D1 comes into it here. We are adjusting under Law 23. And RR cannot have nine hearts. He would have opened 4H and Molly would not have raised with a singleton. One would expect the hearts to be 6-4, with the simple reason that RR forgot that strong twos were required. Or that they agreed weak twos.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2016-September-10, 15:02, said:

RR knows restricted choice?

No, he doesn't understand it at all. But "an offender" could be aware that his infraction could well damage the non-offending side. There is no requirement under Law 23 to judge that RR could have been aware. The requirement is to judge that someone committing this type of infraction could have been aware.