[xcurt]

Scoring: MP

---

NS bid to 6D in a BIT auction. The ruling re the auction has been debated elsewhere on the internet, but I think the committee butchered the awarding of tricks in 3NT. I think it's easy enough to make 12 tricks at this level, even if we grant EW the non-trivial (and risky) defense of a spade to the J at T1, that the adjustment should have been to 3NT+3, not 3NT+2.

T1 -- Sx-x-J-K
T2-8 cash 5 diamonds and two clubs

Now, unless E kept a spade, he gets thrown in with a club to break hearts. So he must be down to x, Qx, --, JT. West must keep three hearts, else declarer can pick up hearts risklessly, so he has to be down to AQ, xxx, --, --. Now you cash the last club honor in dummy which squeezes west out of a spade winner, and now you can cross to the HK and throw him in with a spade.

Thoughts? Am I missing an alternative reasonable losing line?

Full disclosure -- N is an old partner of mine.

[Cascade]

With the given information I am not sure that north will know the spade position well certain enough to always go right in the endgame.

Do you have a link to where else this case has been discussed?

[MFA]

If weighted scores are not allowed then I agree with 3NT+2. East keeps all his clubs and hearts and I would not allow north to play for the endplay. If weighted scores are ok, I would say something like 3NT+3 25% and 3NT+2 75%. One is not assumed to conjure magic when an adjusted score is being awarded.

[gnasher]

If you have an illegal auction, you can't expect the ruling to assume that you would have played perfectly in the contract that you should have reached. If NS want the benefit of playing a double strip squeeze, they have to actually play in 3NT.

Quote

Thoughts? Am I missing an alternative reasonable losing line?

To make twelve tricks, South has to know the spade layout. NS are down to

---

But at this point the opposing hands could be, amongst other things

---

or

---

Look at it from EW's point of view. Because their opponents broke the rules, they never got a chance to defend 3NT. If all we give them is an average minus, we're saying, "We know that your opponents' illegal action meant that you didn't get a chance to play the board, but we think you're so much worse than your opponents that you're not entitled to hope for a reasonable score against them."

In the ACBL, I'd just give both sides 3NT+2. Even with weighted scores allowed, I'd only give a small proportion of 3NT+3, and I'd also give them a proportion of 3NT+1. Maybe 10% and 5% respectively.

[nige1]

Agree with gnasher. A director should give non-offenders the benefit of the doubt.

[xcurt]

Cascade, on Mar 19 2010, 09:46 PM, said:

With the given information I am not sure that north will know the spade position well certain enough to always go right in the endgame.

Do you have a link to where else this case has been discussed?

OK, let me clarify my thinking on the number of tricks.

I'll assume a spade lead,probably fourth best. To hold declarer to 3NT+2, the following need to happen. Keep in mind that East is the pro (Meckstroth) and West the client (Perry Johnson).

1. West needs to insert a spade quack. It's quite likely west would be happy partner hit his ace, after all, declarer could easily have a fourth club and the missing HQ and claim if you don't take the ace.

2. West needs to conceal the spade 2 else the spades are counted out. The diamonds and clubs will count out.

3. East needs to keep a spade else the club throw in is riskless. Granted, East is Meckstroth, but pitching down to Qx under the AJT looks very tough.

4. Even if all of these things happen, won't declarer probably figure having gotten this incredible defense, he's looking at a 10-20% board at best, and risk his 11th trick to try to get a 12th. I haven't checked the scores from that section, but I imagine he would be getting at least 2:1 matchpoint odds. Since the HQ is in the short hand a priori he would probably go wrong at this point if he has a count, but the defenders would have to not give up the heart position on the run of the diamonds.

Finally, the threshold is "likely" for NOS (EW). I would imagine this puts -460 at less than "likely." For OS (NS), the threshold is "at all probable." I don't know how to interpret "at all probable" as distinct from "probable" (Andy help me, is this the Queen's English?) but if we assume each of the above things are 50-50 to go in favor of NOS (SJ play, conceal S2, East comes down to 1201 in the 4 card ending, declarer takes heart finesse wrongly or not at all or guesses wrong throw-in) that means that the probability of +460 NS is 2^(-4). I wouldn't consider 0.0625 as "at all probable."

The case is on page 6 of daily bulletin 5: http://www.acbl.org/...tins/2010/01/5/

Edit -- the actual matchpoints for NS (on a 64 top, with the table score adjusted to +460 NS) were +460: 11.5, +490 35.5. I guess this supports a ruling of +460 OS, -490 NOS.

[jdonn]

I think it's a very good guideline that the word "squeeze" should never be used in the line of play used to determine tricks for non-offenders, unless it really can't be missed at all. Art you aren't only wrong, you are clearly wrong.

[gnasher]

xcurt, on Mar 20 2010, 01:55 PM, said:

Finally, the threshold is "likely" for NOS (EW). I would imagine this puts -460 at less than "likely." For OS (NS), the threshold is "at all probable." I don't know how to interpret "at all probable" as distinct from "probable" (Andy help me, is this the Queen's English?) but if we assume each of the above things are 50-50 to go in favor of NOS (SJ play, conceal S2, East comes down to 1201 in the 4 card ending, declarer takes heart finesse wrongly or not at all or guesses wrong throw-in) that means that the probability of +460 NS is 2^(-4). I wouldn't consider 0.0625 as "at all probable."

When I describe something as "likely" or "probable" without qualifcation, it implies a probability of well over 50%. However, this obviously isn't what's intended by the lawmakers, as they imply that there can be more than "likely" result.

I think that "at all probable" means that it has a significant probability of happening. That doesn't have to be more than 50%, and it doesn't have to be the most likely. It sets a higher standard than "possible", and a lower standard than simply "probable". I imagine that the threshold would be in the 5-20% zone.

There's a whole forum full of rules peole who might be able to explain how these terms are interpreted by the ACBL. Why don't you ask them?

[xcurt]

jdonn, on Mar 20 2010, 12:53 PM, said:

I think it's a very good guideline that the word "squeeze" should never be used in the line of play used to determine tricks for non-offenders, unless it really can't be missed at all. Art you aren't only wrong, you are clearly wrong.

The committee itself used the word "squeeze" albeit in reference to a show-up squeeze. I also disagree with the premise of this statement -- the purpose of the adjustment process is not to punish OS, but merely to restore equity. Forcing OS to play bridge below their normal standard is not restoring equity.

I was trying to show that most of the tables that failed to make 6 really just failed to count. Not to say that OS is entitled to avoid all provable errors at the committee stage, but I think not making 6 in this event is a significant error. Nonetheless, enough failed to make 6 that I think one could say +460 is "at all probable."

Also, NS weren't close to Q'ing, so the effect of the appeal was simply on the carryover for EW. In any event EW didn't make it out of day 2, so in the end this was just an academic exercise.