[MFA]

lamford, on Dec 26 2009, 07:57 PM, said:

bluejak, on Dec 25 2009, 09:31 AM, said:

Your original ruling included 5♥ undoubled.  The number of tricks in 5♥ undoubled certainly does not include the assumption an opponent cannot have ♥QJT.

I would agree that if the ruling is 5H undoubled, there is an increased chance of declarer going off. Your ruling was for some percentage of 5H doubled, however, and I don't think a good declarer is going off after East has doubled.

And I certainly think that suggesting to his partner that the auction go back to 4H might have the effect of getting East to double; that just seems common sense. Whether that was a wise move is irrelevant; he could have known that a gesture or mannerism might work to his advantage. And for what it is worth I think his 5D was an excellent bid, and, certainly I would back 5H to make after my partner bid it. If I could double for the opponents I might give it a shot.

Are you suggesting that north also "could have known" that NS might well profit from getting doubled in 5♥?

If so, I disagree. North is void in hearts and has nothing special on the side, if I were north and saw the LHO-preemptor double partner in 5♥ I would expect to go off almost all the time, when we can't even muster a single trump to lead from dummy. LHO will have something in trumps for his double.

The actual lay-out is very atypical, since I frankly do not know what south was thinking when he bid 5♥ on AKxxxx. Usually south's hand is of a different type - very long hearts, not particularly strong, but too strong for a 4♥ opening.

[Codo]

I like Michaels reasoning but if this had happened to me and the scoring had been 5 Heart X, this had been fine too.

I think that it is ridicoulous that the joke made East double. North told East that he would prefer to be in 4 HEart then in 5 Heart. Wow, what a surprise. Can you construct one hand where North would prefer to be in 5 HEart compared to 4 Heart? Of course not.

And I cannot see how a South who made 6 club is failing in 5 HEart x.

[lamford]

MFA, on Dec 26 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that north also "could have known" that NS might well profit from getting doubled in 5♥?

If so, I disagree. North is void in hearts and has nothing special on the side, if I were north and saw the LHO-preemptor double partner in 5♥ I would expect to go off almost all the time, when we can't even muster a single trump to lead from dummy. LHO will have something in trumps for his double.

Yes, North will benefit from being doubled in 5H when it makes. I think you (and Codo) are applying the wrong logic.

a) Could North have known that suggesting a heart void could cause the opponents to double?

b ) Could 5H doubled be better than 5H?

Clearly the answer to the first is yes, and the second is yes, when it makes!

The law does not say "is expected to be better" or that the player "believed it might be better". Anybody that thinks 5H doubled could not be better is lacking imagination!

And there is that rather meaningless word "well" in the Laws. Law 23 says "could well damage" the non-offending side. Most legal drafters I spoke to said this means exactly the same as "could damage", but some people think it means that "there is more than an insignificant chance" that the non-offending side will be damaged.

So, North's antics could have caused East to double. North could have anticipated that 5H doubled would make some of the time. Sadly for him the times it does he does not benefit. An expensive little joke.

Bluejak's 70% of 5H making and 30% of 5H going down looks better than my ruling if the TD removes the double.

[MFA]

lamford, on Dec 27 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

MFA, on Dec 26 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that north also "could have known" that NS might well profit from getting doubled in 5♥?

If so, I disagree. North is void in hearts and has nothing special on the side, if I were north and saw the LHO-preemptor double partner in 5♥ I would expect to go off almost all the time, when we can't even muster a single trump to lead from dummy. LHO will have something in trumps for his double.

Yes, North will benefit from being doubled in 5H when it makes. I think you (and Codo) are applying the wrong logic.

a) Could North have known that suggesting a heart void could cause the opponents to double?

b ) Could 5H doubled be better than 5H?

Clearly the answer to the first is yes, and the second is yes, when it makes!

The law does not say "is expected to be better" or that the player "believed it might be better". Anybody that thinks 5H doubled could not be better is lacking imagination!

And there is that rather meaningless word "well" in the Laws. Law 23 says "could well damage" the non-offending side. Most legal drafters I spoke to said this means exactly the same as "could damage", but some people think it means that "there is more than an insignificant chance" that the non-offending side will be damaged.

So, North's antics could have caused East to double. North could have anticipated that 5H doubled would make some of the time. Sadly for him the times it does he does not benefit. An expensive little joke.

Bluejak's 70% of 5H making and 30% of 5H going down looks better than my ruling if the TD removes the double.

Ok thanks, I see your point.

1. Curiously the Danish translation of law 23 goes in the other direction than that interpretation. "Might well damage" is translated to: "... tilbøjelig til at skade", where "tilbøjelig til" usually means: to be inclined to, to be disposed to, or to tend to. ("Damage" = "at skade").
I think the Danish interpretation of Law 23 is along the lines of my previous post, but I will try to clear that up (for myself in case I have misunderstood something once again ).

2. It seems to me that if you don't attach any meaning to the word "well", then law 23 would catch just about any good result that an offending side might get out of the infraction. Because then all it takes is the imagination that this good result was indeed possible. There would be no requirement that the hand itself points towards such a lucky outcome.

Example a.
I'm in 4th hand but open accidentally out of turn with 1♥ on an ordinary 13-count. Partner has to pass throughout now, and when it goes p-p-p to me, I try 4♥. Or pass. Or 3NT. Or 1♥. Am I subject to an automatic adjustment if my actual choice leads to an unlikely but fortunate contract that gives me a good board? I mean, I could have known that I might get lucky, right?

Example b.
I lead the ♦K from ♦KQJ against 4♠ ... but it was really partner's lead. Partner happened to be about to choose his obvious singleton diamond, but now declarer forbids him to lead that suit. Instead he finds the only killing lead - a club.
Adjustment? My hand screamed for a diamond, but of course I could imagine that a club lead might be right instead.

I think the actual case is fundamentally equal to example a and b (if we accept the premise that north's antics might provoke a double - not clear at all).

[Codo]

lamford, on Dec 27 2009, 09:31 PM, said:

a) Could North have known that suggesting a heart void could cause the opponents to double?

b ) Could 5H doubled be better than 5H?

Clearly the answer to the first is yes, and the second is yes, when it makes!

So you look at QJT8 in hearts and double 5 HEart. Why is it easier to double 5 HEart when dummy holds a heart void? Sorry, there is no difference. You make exactly 2 heart tricks in any case. Actually, if you know that dummy has a heart makes it sure that declarer holds at most 8 hearts which is nicer then 9. So IF the joke shows a heart void, this should never ever make East doubling the contract.

So as the answer to your first questions is surely no, the rest is no convincing argument for your case either.

[barmar]

MFA, on Dec 28 2009, 09:58 AM, said:

lamford, on Dec 27 2009, 02:31 PM, said:

MFA, on Dec 26 2009, 06:24 PM, said:

Are you suggesting that north also "could have known" that NS might well profit from getting doubled in 5♥?

If so, I disagree. North is void in hearts and has nothing special on the side, if I were north and saw the LHO-preemptor double partner in 5♥ I would expect to go off almost all the time, when we can't even muster a single trump to lead from dummy. LHO will have something in trumps for his double.

Yes, North will benefit from being doubled in 5H when it makes. I think you (and Codo) are applying the wrong logic.

a) Could North have known that suggesting a heart void could cause the opponents to double?

b ) Could 5H doubled be better than 5H?

Clearly the answer to the first is yes, and the second is yes, when it makes!

The law does not say "is expected to be better" or that the player "believed it might be better". Anybody that thinks 5H doubled could not be better is lacking imagination!

And there is that rather meaningless word "well" in the Laws. Law 23 says "could well damage" the non-offending side. Most legal drafters I spoke to said this means exactly the same as "could damage", but some people think it means that "there is more than an insignificant chance" that the non-offending side will be damaged.

So, North's antics could have caused East to double. North could have anticipated that 5H doubled would make some of the time. Sadly for him the times it does he does not benefit. An expensive little joke.

Bluejak's 70% of 5H making and 30% of 5H going down looks better than my ruling if the TD removes the double.

Ok thanks, I see your point.

1. Curiously the Danish translation of law 23 goes in the other direction than that interpretation. "Might well damage" is translated to: "... tilbøjelig til at skade", where "tilbøjelig til" usually means: to be inclined to, to be disposed to, or to tend to. ("Damage" = "at skade").
I think the Danish interpretation of Law 23 is along the lines of my previous post, but I will try to clear that up (for myself in case I have misunderstood something once again ).

2. It seems to me that if you don't attach any meaning to the word "well", then law 23 would catch just about any good result that an offending side might get out of the infraction. Because then all it takes is the imagination that this good result was indeed possible. There would be no requirement that the hand itself points towards such a lucky outcome.

Example a.
I'm in 4th hand but open accidentally out of turn with 1♥ on an ordinary 13-count. Partner has to pass throughout now, and when it goes p-p-p to me, I try 4♥. Or pass. Or 3NT. Or 1♥. Am I subject to an automatic adjustment if my actual choice leads to an unlikely but fortunate contract that gives me a good board? I mean, I could have known that I might get lucky, right?

Example b.
I lead the ♦K from ♦KQJ against 4♠ ... but it was really partner's lead. Partner happened to be about to choose his obvious singleton diamond, but now declarer forbids him to lead that suit. Instead he finds the only killing lead - a club.
Adjustment? My hand screamed for a diamond, but of course I could imagine that a club lead might be right instead.

I think the actual case is fundamentally equal to example a and b (if we accept the premise that north's antics might provoke a double - not clear at all).

The phase "could well" appears 5 times in the Laws, and I'm not sure what it means, either. But in the context, it seems like it SHOULD mean that he has some expectation of damaging the opponents, not just that they might be damaged.

Normally, forcing a player to guess the best contract (because partner is barred) is pretty severe punishment, he shouldn't lose his result if he happens to guess right. The exception is when the bar allows you to reach a contract you couldn't get to by ordinary bidding, because the bid would normally be forcing or artificial. I'd like to believe that the latter is what the drafters were targeting in these "could well have known" phrases, not just any situation that might work out happily.

[blackshoe]

"could well" means "very probably" or "in all likelihood".

[nige1]

blackshoe, on Dec 28 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

"could well" means "very probably" or "in all likelihood".

I agree that "well" functions as a modal modifier but I woudn't go quite as far as Blackshoe. I think "could well have known" means roughly "could realistically have known"

[Trinidad]

Yes, and when North is running from 4♥ to 5♦, he will not consider it at all that the little joke will gain himself advantage. It is far from realistic.

Other than that I think that everybody should lighten up about the UI. There was no UI other than that North preferred South to declare 4♥ rather than 5♥. Who doesn't?

If I ask any bridge player whether he prefers his partner to play 4♥ or 5♥, they will all choose 4♥. Therefore, the UI that South had amounted to: "North is a bridge player like every other one". Very useful UI indeed.

Rik

[bluejak]

MFA, on Dec 28 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

Partner has to pass throughout now, I mean, I could have known that I might get lucky, right?

I do not understand the reams of argument, which - if I have understood rightly - involve assuming Law 23 always applies and we might as well throw the Law book away. No doubt BLML will welcome such arguments but we teach practical tournament direction here.

For Law 23 to apply there must be an expectation of likelihood of damaging the opponents. Any infraction might get lucky but that is insufficient reason to apply Law 23.

[MFA]

bluejak, on Dec 30 2009, 12:56 AM, said:

MFA, on Dec 28 2009, 03:58 PM, said:

Partner has to pass throughout now, I mean, I could have known that I might get lucky, right?

I do not understand the reams of argument, which - if I have understood rightly - involve assuming Law 23 always applies and we might as well throw the Law book away. No doubt BLML will welcome such arguments but we teach practical tournament direction here.

For Law 23 to apply there must be an expectation of likelihood of damaging the opponents. Any infraction might get lucky but that is insufficient reason to apply Law 23.

I'm trying to be practical too. I don't think adjusting the score here is practical - I think it's wrong.

I was challenged with the argument that a certain interpretation of law 23 was prevalent among the law drafters. That the word 'well' in law 23 is meaningless. How can I not take such a claim seriously?

I think the scope of law 23 is limited to the situations where the player could have known that it would be advantageous to infringe the laws. What do you think?

[bluejak]

MFA, on Dec 30 2009, 01:17 AM, said:

I was challenged with the argument that a certain interpretation of law 23 was prevalent among the law drafters. That the word 'well' in law 23 is meaningless. How can I not take such a claim seriously?

I think that so silly as not to be worth discussing.

MFA, on Dec 30 2009, 01:17 AM, said:

I think the scope of law 23 is limited to the situations where the player could have known that it would be advantageous to infringe the laws. What do you think?

I think that obvious.

[gnasher]

The NSOED includes these definitions of "well":
- With good reason. Chiefly with may.
- Certainly.
- Without difficulty, readily, easily. Chiefly with can.
- In all likelihood, probably. Chiefly with may.

It might be unclear what degree of certainty is implied by "well", but I don't think Lamford's interpretation is reasonable.