[kenrexford]

IMO, E-W should appeal. The result should stand with a procedural penalty to E-W, not a 5-IMP penalty.

The misinformation is too small to make a difference, and, even when it does, the switch does not matter. The lead change argument is self-serving BS. But, the 2♣ bid should have been alerted, and E-W should know this.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on May 28 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 28 2008, 10:19 PM, said:

The misinformation is too small to make a difference, and, even when it does, the switch does not matter.

Agree about the lead, but why does the misinformation not matter to the defense? I think a diamond is the right shift. Whether or not it should matter, well... 4 of 10 experts polled at the USBF trials went down on the shift, so I think that is a good argument that it does matter.

On the club play, North knows that his partner has one or three clubs. If three, clubs are dead. If one, clubs can be revisited upon winning the trump King. So, North tries the diamond to find out what is up. South will presumably come-on diamonds, showing the doubleton and confirming the tripleton club. This creates a roadmap for an advised North to continue the diamonds.

That is, assuming that South, with 3-5-4-1 pattern, would signal odd in diamonds to discourage that line. That play seems fairly easy.

North has some risk to the diamond play that West has 5-4-0-4 pattern, and opted a weird 2♣ rather than a normal 2♥. But, a diamond shift seems obvious.

However, it takes a diamond lead to beat this.

I understand that 40% of the experts could not follow what North could easily follow and therefore went down. That's too scary. My assumption would be that the experts polled in the circunstances of a non-real situation just did not think through the problem in the same way that a real declarer of reasonable caliber would think through the problem. As 40% is egregiously high, I would conduct a second poll of experts and tell them to be really careful and thoughtful in declaring the hand.

In other words, I hear the 40% but I don't believe it.

[cherdano]

Wow, I didn't realize that the only part of the laws relevant to this situation is law 40C:

Quote

If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score.

It does not mention whether he should adjust to the average expected result (assuming a correct explanation), i.e. restore equity, or whether he should assume likely unfavorable outcomes for the offending side.
That being the case, I don't see much merit in appealing either way, the ruling seems clearly within the limits of law 40C. I would have liked to see a small procedural penalty to EW though, this is a frequent auction and they should be used to alert it.

[blackshoe]

cherdano, on May 28 2008, 11:17 PM, said:

Wow, I didn't realize that the only part of the laws relevant to this situation is law 40C:

Quote

If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score.

It does not mention whether he should adjust to the average expected result (assuming a correct explanation), i.e. restore equity, or whether he should assume likely unfavorable outcomes for the offending side.

You are mistaken.

Once a law (40C in this case) gives the director the power to adjust the score, Law 12C tells him how to adjust the score.

[Vilgan]

A procedural penalty is like... one of those things that I hear rumors of, but never actually see in real life. Like Santa Claus, I continue to believe that procedural penalties exist while a preponderance of evidence suggests that it must be a myth as directors refuse to assess them over and over and over.

No real opinion on the actual ruling.. that is a bit beyond my experience.

[jdonn]

I don't think anyone should appeal the ruling. As long as this is done in a jurisdiction that splits scores this way when making rulings (more of a WBF thing than an ACBL thing, right?) then I think the directors did a very good job.

[1eyedjack]

So the 2C bid could be on a doubleton or on a 4 card suit (South having presumably played a card that is consistent with a singleton or 3 low). How is North supposed to know from this that a diamond switch is indicated (following which declarer should still make)? Personally, as North I would still play partner for the one holding that is going to beat this contract without reliance on declarer misplaying. I see that you polled some experts on whether they would make the hand with E/W after a Diamond shift. Did you poll any experts on what they would have done with the North cards at trick 2 (given a full explanation)? Perhaps that procedure would be improper or irrelevant to the due process, but to me it is an interesting question.

[cherdano]

1eyedjack, on May 29 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

So the 2C bid could be on a doubleton or on a 4 card suit (South having presumably played a card that is consistent with a singleton or 3 low). How is North supposed to know from this that a diamond switch is indicated (following which declarer should still make)? Personally, as North I would still play partner for the one holding that is going to beat this contract without reliance on declarer misplaying. I see that you polled some experts on whether they would make the hand with E/W after a Diamond shift. Did you poll any experts on what they would have done with the North cards at trick 2 (given a full explanation)? Perhaps that procedure would be improper or irrelevant to the due process, but to me it is an interesting question.

If South had a singleton club you will still beat it after a diamond shift at trick two.

I assume the polling was done by the director.

[the hog]

Jlall, on May 29 2008, 11:46 AM, said:

Seriously it is amazing what a *oops censored!* joke this forum is these days. It is just impossible to avoid a thread with an idiotic kenrexford/jtfanclub/hog/mike777 post in it. It hurts my eyes.

Good, then stop reading them, prat.

[1eyedjack]

cherdano, on May 29 2008, 07:28 AM, said:

1eyedjack, on May 29 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

So the 2C bid could be on a doubleton or on a 4 card suit (South having presumably played a card that is consistent with a singleton or 3 low).  How is North supposed to know from this that a diamond switch is indicated (following which declarer should still make)?  Personally, as North I would still play partner for the one holding that is going to beat this contract without reliance on declarer misplaying. I see that you polled some experts on whether they would make the hand with E/W after a Diamond shift.  Did you poll any experts on what they would have done with the North cards at trick 2 (given a full explanation)?  Perhaps that procedure would be improper or irrelevant to the due process, but to me it is an interesting question.

If South had a singleton club you will still beat it after a diamond shift at trick two.

I assume the polling was done by the director.

You are right. It would have to be the Diamond Ace, of course, in case declarer is 6-4 in the blacks and plays trumps from the top. And of course it would assume that South's method of signalling on the Diamond Ace is suitable for the occasion and his particular spots remove ambiguity within that context. Maybe a Diamond Ace switch is always right. After all, even if the 2C bid is natural by agreement, West is still permitted by law to bid it on a doubleton.

[FrancesHinden]

What signals do N/S play on the lead of the Ace with KJx in dummy? Count or attitude? Or some form of suit preference? And if attitude, what would South do if his hand were 3=5=3=2 rather than 3=5=2=3?

If North switches to the ace of diamonds at trick 2, is South's signal attitude or count? Or suit preference? (And would these be the same or different cards?)

If this is USBF trials then NS are probably better players than I am, but I let a game like this through the other week, playing with a non-regular partner, in exactly the same position (having to decide which doubleton partner had) when partner thought that, as the attitude in the suit was 'known' at trick one, she would give suit preference and I thought she was giving attitude.... I gave the problem to a few people and got three different answers (count, attitude, suit pref)

This is why a don't think a poll on whether North switches at trick two is so relevant, because whether the switch is a guess, or clear, depends on the detail of the NS agreements.

Anyway, without going into all of that in detail, the ruling appears to be both i) legal and ii) reasonable. Personally I wouldn't appeal as either side.

[FrancesHinden]

jdonn, on May 29 2008, 06:35 AM, said:

I don't think anyone should appeal the ruling. As long as this is done in a jurisdiction that splits scores this way when making rulings (more of a WBF thing than an ACBL thing, right?) then I think the directors did a very good job.

Most of the non-ACBL world splits scores using 12C3.

[helene_t]

(Deleted obsolete confusion, has already been answered by Josh and Frances I just realize)

[Free]

Jlall, on May 29 2008, 05:46 AM, said:

Seriously it is amazing what a *oops censored!* joke this forum is these days. It is just impossible to avoid a thread with an idiotic kenrexford/jtfanclub/hog/mike777 post in it. It hurts my eyes.

It's equally impossible to avoid a thread where his majesty Justin Lall doesn't get offensive to any of the other posters out there... Needless to say, offending only one poster at a time isn't enough anymore!

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on May 28 2008, 11:46 PM, said:

[Unnecessarily attacking rant.]

Wow. Off the meds?

With all due respect to your eloquent description of how offensive my view of this problem, step back for one second, if you will, and consider thinking through something.

I have been watching the polls during the democratic presidential race with great laughter. HRC supporters seem to realize that their only hope is a miracle based on "electability." BHO supporters want unity in the party to come back. So, when asked who each would vote for, versus McCain, the HRC voters say McCain to help the electability argument, whereas the BHO folks do not do so as much. The result is a fake electability argument.

The problem that I have with polling contemporaries after the fact is that the after-the-fact polling is always artificial. Table feel is gone. Personal interest is lacking. The motivation to make the right play is weaker. So, the brain does not think through things as well, IMO. Ask people outside the game what they would bid or play, and it is not uniformly what they would really do at the table. This causes artificial results to pile up.

When you have a problem like this, you are forced into doing something, admittedly. However, I despise this perhaps necessary evil. In this case, you can provide examples, I'm sure, of low percentage holdings that are threats. The feel of this at the table, undoubtedly, would be rather clear, or at least rather strongly suggesting a standout (one that 60% in an artificial environment found).

Why my statement of distaste for a procedure has caused you to attack my standing to contribute is unknown.

[cherdano]

My understanding of using weighted scores is based on 12C3, and so the weights should try to restore equity. This seems like a sensible ruling, then.