[MrAce]

VixTD, on 2012-March-20, 08:24, said:

If called as director to give a ruling, what would you do?

As TD, i would adjust the score to 3 NT -2 , and apply procedural penalty to NS for South's action.

Unless of course South convinces me that his 4♦ was an attempt to explore slam by showing on cc (documented) where this 3NT actually shows 23+ hcp. Which i strongly doubt that he can.

I agree with those that anything except than pass over 3 NT is NOT a LA otherwise.

[RMB1]

wank, on 2012-March-20, 09:23, said:

Even if you make him lead a spade, which I wouldn't do myself, ...

A spade lead is more likely given the explanation of Lebensohl, as neither player has shown a spade stop.

[RMB1]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-20, 14:14, said:

Not only is pass a LA, I would go so far as to say that anything other than pass is clearly not a LA.

In which case, would a procedural penalty be approriate?

[VixTD]

I was West and playing director. I didn't want to give a ruling myself, and I wasn't sure at the time I'd been damaged. I did think South should be told he couldn't choose this action when in receipt of unauthorized information.

There was another player I could have called upon to give a ruling, but South had recently had a run-in with him over (guess what?) failing to alert, and I didn't want to spark off that row again. I considered sending it to an EBU panel director for an independent ruling, but decided I couldn't be bothered. Then as I left the table I heard South say to his partner about me "he hasn't got a leg to stand on".

I've made a mental note of Bluejak and Robin as two who are prepared to dish out procedural penalties in these circumstances. They'll be top of my list if it happens again.

[FrancesHinden]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-20, 20:42, said:

I'm sorry, I don't know your English levels very well. Is "complete count on the hand" a term normally used when discussing what might happen when a hand is played by "experienced regular county B-team players"?

No.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with the ruling, but this is mainly because on the information givn, South doesn't seem to be able to explain what 3NT actually means in their system and hence has no explanation for bidding 4D other than the UI.

But suppose you had a slightly more sophisticated South player, perhaps in the context of South already being a passed hand and not being certain if they played lebensohl. There seems to be a strong view on this thread that not only is pass a LA, but that 4D isn't one. Well, I couldn't have quite this auction (because I wouldn't bid 2NT on the South hand to start with, it's too strong), but if I did, and partner raised 2NT to 3NT, I would expect a supter-strong balanced hand opposite as West suggested.

Opposite a 2NT opening such as Axx AKxx Axx KQJ I want to be in 6D. Opposite a less control-rich hand such as Qxx AKxx Qx AKQx 5D is a better spot than 3NT. It's hard to construct a hand where 3NT makes and 4NT and 5D both go off. So I think it's an interesting bidding problem, but 4D is certainly a LA. That makes giving a PP for bidding 4D a bit tricky.

So I'd want to talk to South a bit further before giving a PP.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2012-March-20, 08:35, said:

Surely West would lead a spade against 3NT, and South will only go off if he really plays it incompetently - and then only one off.

I agree with the rest of the post, although Frances' argument that 4D could be a slam try is worth investigating, although the tone of the OP suggests that this is not so. But surely West would lead a heart through the presumed strong hand. Declarer will surely play low and East will win with the ten and surely switch to the ten of spades. West will clear the spades and win the queen of diamonds at some point. The defence will surely take five spades, and one trick in each of the other suits for four off. Surely declarer will get the clubs right in the ending. My guess is some weighting of one off, four off and five off is right. I would guess 10% 1 off, 80% 4 off, and 10% 5 off, as I regard the heart lead as almost automatic, but would poll peers, perhaps at the Lords v Commons match.

[lamford]

- we still cannot delete duplicate posts on here -

[blackshoe]

I can. I did so. Note that neither David nor I has any control over who can do it.

[mycroft]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-March-21, 15:36, said:

I agree with the ruling, but this is mainly because on the information givn, South doesn't seem to be able to explain what 3NT actually means in their system and hence has no explanation for bidding 4D other than the UI.

Totally agree. However, VixTD's problem is in fact a problem, and playing TDs sort of have to live with it. I think I would have done the same thing Vix did, and use the results of the thread as my "PP" (likely through a different director, if I could. I have about 6 I can call on that would be able to explain this without my obvious bias, so one hopes at least one of them doesn't have a similar antagonistic relationship with the player).

Quote

Opposite a 2NT opening such as Axx AKxx Axx KQJ I want to be in 6D. Opposite a less control-rich hand such as Qxx AKxx Qx AKQx 5D is a better spot than 3NT. It's hard to construct a hand where 3NT makes and 4NT and 5D both go off. So I think it's an interesting bidding problem, but 4D is certainly a LA. That makes giving a PP for bidding 4D a bit tricky.

I think that with that argument, you'll have trouble avoiding "so, why did you pass 5♦? What could partner do with a 'more slam-suitable' hand?"

I have to admit, I would have trouble. I think that 3NT in my systems should be 20 or so, in which case, unless it's the ace-full 20, 3NT is the best spot. But if it's starting to show 22+, I'd be required by Law to bid 4♦, and I'd use that argument (that passing 3NT is clearly suggested by the UI, because systemically it shows a 22+ish BAL hand, and the UI tells me he doesn't have that, and I have an absolute max for my 2NT call)...

[dburn]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-20, 20:42, said:

I'm sorry, I don't know your English levels very well. Is "complete count on the hand" a term normally used when discussing what might happen when a hand is played by "experienced regular county B-team players"?

Depends on the county. While discussing the hand, some of the London B team are capable of getting a complete count if you give them the hand records. And about five minutes.

[bluejak]

wyman, on 2012-March-20, 18:26, said:

It's only illegal to select from among logical alternatives one suggested by the UI. If you rule that 4D is not a LA, then...

This has been discussed many, many, many times. It is accepted that a choice of a non-LA which is suggested by the UI is illegal and subject to adjustment if it damages opponents.

There are several arguments as to why this is a legal approach. No point going through them, please accept it. Not to adjust is against accepted interpretations of the UI Laws.

If you really want to discuss it again for people who have not read the previous sets of arguments at various times on IBLF, RGB, BLML, and everywhere else, please start a new thread and the logic will be looked at again.