ruling_2018_Jan_31

[Douglas Newlands]

Teams, Board 11, Dealer South, none

KJ4
53
K10954
KQ5
Q8765 109
QJ72 AK1064
- AJ6
9742 A103
A32
98
Q8732
J86

W N E S
P
2S P 2N P
3H P 3N P
4H P P P

You are called to the table with the auction
ostensibly finished and N has a lead face down on the table.
S is unhappy and recounts his tale:
- 2N was alerted
- 3C was alerted and N asked and was told 2S was spades and a minor
and that 3H showed clubs and a maximum
- 3N was to play
- 4H was apparently to play also
South said West wouldn't tell him anything despite the fact it was
clear from his manner that something was wrong.
You press West and he says that East's explanation is correct and he
forgot the system and he has spades and hearts.
There seems little else to do now and you give N the option to change
the lead but this is not taken so you tell them to play it out.
OK so far?

While they play it out, you look at a hand record and think about what
you heard. When play ends, ask West if he thought he was showing hearts
when he bid 3H. He says he thought he was. You suggest to him that the
4H bid was using UI and that you will consult regarding an adjusted
score since the table result was 4H making!
What might you do if 4H went off?

It's difficult to imagine how 4H made: are you considering that the bad
defence is ir/relevant?
Are you going to adjust the score? If so, to what?
The match has ended now and EW players' team have discussed it and are
suggesting that the 3NT bid suggests East has hearts and diamonds and 4H
is a reasonable choice at that point. Does this alter anything?

doug

[Mick Heins]

Post by Douglas Newlands
Teams, Board 11, Dealer South, none
KJ4
53
K10954
KQ5
Q8765 109
QJ72 AK1064
- AJ6
9742 A103
A32
98
Q8732
J86
W N E S
P
2S P 2N P
3H P 3N P
4H P P P
You are called to the table with the auction
ostensibly finished and N has a lead face down on the table.
- 2N was alerted
- 3C was alerted and N asked and was told 2S was spades and a minor
and that 3H showed clubs and a maximum
- 3N was to play
- 4H was apparently to play also
South said West wouldn't tell him anything despite the fact it was
clear from his manner that something was wrong.
You press West and he says that East's explanation is correct and he
forgot the system and he has spades and hearts.
There seems little else to do now and you give N the option to change
the lead but this is not taken so you tell them to play it out.
OK so far?
While they play it out, you look at a hand record and think about what
you heard. When play ends, ask West if he thought he was showing hearts
when he bid 3H. He says he thought he was. You suggest to him that the
4H bid was using UI and that you will consult regarding an adjusted
score since the table result was 4H making!
What might you do if 4H went off?
It's difficult to imagine how 4H made: are you considering that the bad
defence is ir/relevant?
Are you going to adjust the score? If so, to what?
The match has ended now and EW players' team have discussed it and are
suggesting that the 3NT bid suggests East has hearts and diamonds and 4H
is a reasonable choice at that point. Does this alter anything?

To me the real issue is East's pass of 4H. If there were no histrionics
by West, I suppose one might take the view that partner was 5404 or that
partner just forgot the bid (should they be an unpracticed partnership).

If there were no histrionics, then I would think the result should stand.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Mick Heins

Post by Douglas Newlands
Teams, Board 11, Dealer South, none
KJ4
53
K10954
KQ5
Q8765 109
QJ72 AK1064
- AJ6
9742 A103
A32
98
Q8732
J86
W N E S
P
2S P 2N P
3H P 3N P
4H P P P
You are called to the table with the auction
ostensibly finished and N has a lead face down on the table.
- 2N was alerted
- 3C was alerted and N asked and was told 2S was spades and a minor
and that 3H showed clubs and a maximum

I assume you meant that 3H was alerted.

Post by Mick Heins

Post by Douglas Newlands
- 3N was to play
- 4H was apparently to play also
South said West wouldn't tell him anything despite the fact it was
clear from his manner that something was wrong.
You press West and he says that East's explanation is correct and he
forgot the system and he has spades and hearts.

Did the TD ask why he bid 4H? The opponents are only entitled to their
agreement, not what they actually hold. If the TD asked questions that
prompted this extra information, there could be "Director Error"
involved. Although it's not clear how getting correct information about
West's hand could damage NS. If it had allowed them to find the correct
defense, you might award split scores.

Post by Mick Heins

Post by Douglas Newlands
There seems little else to do now and you give N the option to change
the lead but this is not taken so you tell them to play it out.
OK so far?
While they play it out, you look at a hand record and think about what
you heard. When play ends, ask West if he thought he was showing hearts
when he bid 3H. He says he thought he was. You suggest to him that the
4H bid was using UI and that you will consult regarding an adjusted
score since the table result was 4H making!
What might you do if 4H went off?
It's difficult to imagine how 4H made: are you considering that the bad
defence is ir/relevant?

I'm guessing declarer set up spades for a club pitch before the CA was
knocked out. Poor defense is not an "extremely serious error", so they
can be absolved of it if it's ruled that it was due to the infraction.

Post by Mick Heins

Post by Douglas Newlands
Are you going to adjust the score? If so, to what?
The match has ended now and EW players' team have discussed it and are
suggesting that the 3NT bid suggests East has hearts and diamonds and 4H
is a reasonable choice at that point. Does this alter anything?

To me the real issue is East's pass of 4H. If there were no histrionics
by West, I suppose one might take the view that partner was 5404 or that
partner just forgot the bid (should they be an unpracticed partnership).
If there were no histrionics, then I would think the result should stand.

The OP says "it was clear from his manner that something was wrong". I
don't know if that counts as "histrionics", but it might be enough to be
UI to East.

[ais523]

Post by Mick Heins

Post by Douglas Newlands
W N E S
P
2S P 2N P
3H P 3N P
4H P P P
You are called to the table with the auction
ostensibly finished and N has a lead face down on the table.
- 2N was alerted
- 3C was alerted and N asked and was told 2S was spades and a minor
and that 3H showed clubs and a maximum
- 3N was to play
- 4H was apparently to play also
South said West wouldn't tell him anything despite the fact it was
clear from his manner that something was wrong.
You press West and he says that East's explanation is correct and he
forgot the system and he has spades and hearts.
There seems little else to do now and you give N the option to change
the lead but this is not taken so you tell them to play it out.

To me the real issue is East's pass of 4H. If there were no histrionics
by West, I suppose one might take the view that partner was 5404 or that
partner just forgot the bid (should they be an unpracticed partnership).
If there were no histrionics, then I would think the result should stand.

I don't believe East has any UI here, and a player with no UI can do
what they want.

(It's worth noting, though, that the players might not have disclosed
their full system. After making a descriptive bid and partner making a
signoff, any further bids are normally interpreted as conventional
rather than natural. So why did East take 4H as natural? Maybe there's
an undisclosed agreement involved, even if it's one that formed
implicitly over time rather than being naturally agreed.)

[p***@infi.net]

Post by Douglas Newlands
Teams, Board 11, Dealer South, none
KJ4
53
K10954
KQ5
Q8765 109
QJ72 AK1064
- AJ6
9742 A103
A32
98
Q8732
J86
W N E S
P
2S P 2N P
3H P 3N P
4H P P P
You are called to the table with the auction
ostensibly finished and N has a lead face down on the table.
- 2N was alerted
- 3C was alerted and N asked and was told 2S was spades and a minor
and that 3H showed clubs and a maximum
- 3N was to play
- 4H was apparently to play also
South said West wouldn't tell him anything despite the fact it was
clear from his manner that something was wrong.
You press West and he says that East's explanation is correct and he
forgot the system and he has spades and hearts.
There seems little else to do now and you give N the option to change
the lead but this is not taken so you tell them to play it out.
OK so far?
While they play it out, you look at a hand record and think about what
you heard. When play ends, ask West if he thought he was showing hearts
when he bid 3H. He says he thought he was. You suggest to him that the
4H bid was using UI and that you will consult regarding an adjusted
score since the table result was 4H making!
What might you do if 4H went off?
It's difficult to imagine how 4H made: are you considering that the bad
defence is ir/relevant?
Are you going to adjust the score? If so, to what?
The match has ended now and EW players' team have discussed it and are
suggesting that the 3NT bid suggests East has hearts and diamonds and 4H
is a reasonable choice at that point. Does this alter anything?
doug

West believed he showed hearts when he bid 3H. East's 3NT in that context denies hearts, rather than suggesting them. West's 4H looks like an egregious use of UI, namely, his partner's explanation of 3H. I'm not going to attempt to give a complete ruling, but so far I did not see anyone else make this point.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Douglas Newlands
Teams, Board 11, Dealer South, none
KJ4
53
K10954
KQ5
Q8765 109
QJ72 AK1064
- AJ6
9742 A103
A32
98
Q8732
J86
W N E S
P
2S P 2N P
3H P 3N P
4H P P P
You are called to the table with the auction ostensibly
finished and N has a lead face down on the table. S is unhappy
- 2N was alerted
- 3C was alerted and N asked and was told 2S was spades and a minor
and that 3H showed clubs and a maximum
- 3N was to play
- 4H was apparently to play also
South said West wouldn't tell him anything despite the fact it was
clear from his manner that something was wrong.

He certainly should not either.

Post by Douglas Newlands
You press West

A major TD error! South is entitled to know neither what West was
thinking nor whether his bids matched his actual hand.

Post by Douglas Newlands
and he says that East's explanation is correct

That is all he should have said.

Post by Douglas Newlands
and he forgot the system and he has spades and hearts.

It's certainly nice for South to be informed about West's cards -
but that is not how bridge is played.

Post by Douglas Newlands
There seems little else to do now and you give N the option to change
the lead but this is not taken so you tell them to play it out.
OK so far?

Two grave TD errors so far. The system has been correctly
explained, so North mustn't change his lead.

Post by Douglas Newlands
While they play it out, you look at a hand record and think about what
you heard. When play ends, ask West if he thought he was showing hearts
when he bid 3H. He says he thought he was. You suggest to him that the
4H bid was using UI and that you will consult regarding an adjusted
score since the table result was 4H making!
What might you do if 4H went off?

Irrelevant.
No. If North and South take their 2 spade tricks first, West's
queen will eat a club loser, and 10 tricks are easy. That play is
not a grave error, so NS keep their rights.

Post by Douglas Newlands
are you considering that the bad defence is ir/relevant?

Not irrelevant. It must be considered, but it's not grave enough.

Post by Douglas Newlands
Are you going to adjust the score? If so, to what?

Yes. The contract will be 3NT, and the score weighted:
6 tricks: 15 %
7 tricks 75 %
8 tricks 10 %

Post by Douglas Newlands
The match has ended now and EW players' team have discussed it and are
suggesting that the 3NT bid suggests East has hearts and diamonds and 4H
is a reasonable choice at that point. Does this alter anything?

This is a school example of rationalising afterwards. West knows
that the 3NT bid shows hearts *only* because he has the
unauthorized information that his own 2H does not.

[Douglas Newlands]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Douglas Newlands
Teams, Board 11, Dealer South, none
KJ4
53
K10954
KQ5
Q8765 109
QJ72 AK1064
- AJ6
9742 A103
A32
98
Q8732
J86
W N E S
P
2S P 2N P
3H P 3N P
4H P P P
You are called to the table with the auction ostensibly
finished and N has a lead face down on the table. S is unhappy
- 2N was alerted
- 3H was alerted and N asked and was told 2S was spades and a minor
and that 3H showed clubs and a maximum
- 3N was to play
- 4H was apparently to play also
South said West wouldn't tell him anything despite the fact it was
clear from his manner that something was wrong.

He certainly should not either.

Post by Douglas Newlands
You press West

A major TD error! South is entitled to know neither what West was
thinking nor whether his bids matched his actual hand.

Without a system card to consult, how do I tell what has happened other
than by asking them to repeat what has happened and asking for
clarification? Or should I just tell them to play on and get a result
and sort it out afterwards? Sounds like that from what you say.
Although it's not going to happen here, aren't there situations where
the auction can be restarted after an irregularity like MI?

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Douglas Newlands
and he says that East's explanation is correct

That is all he should have said.

Post by Douglas Newlands
and he forgot the system and he has spades and hearts.

It's certainly nice for South to be informed about West's cards -
but that is not how bridge is played.

Yes that's right. I was striving to understand who was actually wrong
in their explanation. W has a reputation in these matters.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Douglas Newlands
There seems little else to do now and you give N the option to change
the lead but this is not taken so you tell them to play it out.
OK so far?

Two grave TD errors so far. The system has been correctly
explained, so North mustn't change his lead.

OK again

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Douglas Newlands
While they play it out, you look at a hand record and think about what
you heard. When play ends, ask West if he thought he was showing hearts
when he bid 3H. He says he thought he was. You suggest to him that the
4H bid was using UI and that you will consult regarding an adjusted
score since the table result was 4H making!
What might you do if 4H went off?

Irrelevant.
No. If North and South take their 2 spade tricks first, West's
queen will eat a club loser, and 10 tricks are easy. That play is
not a grave error, so NS keep their rights.

Post by Douglas Newlands
are you considering that the bad defence is ir/relevant?

Not irrelevant. It must be considered, but it's not grave enough.

Post by Douglas Newlands
Are you going to adjust the score? If so, to what?

6 tricks: 15 %
7 tricks 75 %
8 tricks 10 %

We adjusted to 3N, down 2 which seems to be essentially what you suggest
in effect if not in detail.
Glad we got something right.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Douglas Newlands
The match has ended now and EW players' team have discussed it and are
suggesting that the 3NT bid suggests East has hearts and diamonds and 4H
is a reasonable choice at that point. Does this alter anything?

This is a school example of rationalising afterwards. West knows
that the 3NT bid shows hearts *only* because he has the
unauthorized information that his own 2H does not.

Three members of their team decided not to appeal the ruling.
One still thinks he did no wrong!

doug

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Douglas Newlands

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
A major TD error! South is entitled to know neither what West was
thinking nor whether his bids matched his actual hand.

Without a system card to consult, how do I tell what has happened other
than by asking them to repeat what has happened and asking for
clarification?

You must not ask about what has happened. You may ask what their
system is and what the different bids reveal according to their
system. And you must not ask the person who made the bid. You may
ask his partner.

Post by Douglas Newlands
Or should I just tell them to play on and get a result
and sort it out afterwards?

That is not what I said. A player may ask questions as the law
permits, but you must only ask the partner and you must only ask
about what the system says.

South shouldn't have been 'unhappy' about the explanations. He
should have kept quiet. He is entitled to notice the discomfort
of West, and he is entitled to draw conclusion from that, but he
must keep them to himself.

The error here is that South asks the wrong player (after having
been given the correct explanation), West, about his actual hand
- and that the TD helps him to get an answer.

Post by Douglas Newlands
Although it's not going to happen here, aren't there situations
where the auction can be restarted after an irregularity like
MI?

No, an auction cannot be restarted. Law 21B says that if there is
misinformation a player may change his call if his partner hasn't
subsequently made a call. If he does, his LHO may also change a
subsequent call. That is all.

Post by Douglas Newlands

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
6 tricks: 15 %
7 tricks 75 %
8 tricks 10 %

We adjusted to 3N, down 2 which seems to be essentially what you suggest
in effect if not in detail.

That ruling is okay.

Post by Douglas Newlands
Three members of their team decided not to appeal the ruling.
One still thinks he did no wrong!

Players may think that the TD is accusing then of cheating when
we adjust the score, but we are not. The 4H bid that West made,
is not the result of him trying to do something wrong. It is the
result of him not navigating correctly in a complicated situaion
- which unauthorized information always produces.

[Travis Crump]

Post by Douglas Newlands
Teams, Board 11, Dealer South, none
KJ4
53
K10954
KQ5
Q8765 109
QJ72 AK1064
- AJ6
9742 A103
A32
98
Q8732
J86
W N E S
P
2S P 2N P
3H P 3N P
4H P P P
You are called to the table with the auction
ostensibly finished and N has a lead face down on the table.
- 2N was alerted
- 3C was alerted and N asked and was told 2S was spades and a minor
and that 3H showed clubs and a maximum
- 3N was to play
- 4H was apparently to play also
South said West wouldn't tell him anything despite the fact it was
clear from his manner that something was wrong.
You press West and he says that East's explanation is correct and he
forgot the system and he has spades and hearts.
There seems little else to do now and you give N the option to change
the lead but this is not taken so you tell them to play it out.
OK so far?
While they play it out, you look at a hand record and think about what
you heard. When play ends, ask West if he thought he was showing hearts
when he bid 3H. He says he thought he was. You suggest to him that the
4H bid was using UI and that you will consult regarding an adjusted
score since the table result was 4H making!
What might you do if 4H went off?
It's difficult to imagine how 4H made: are you considering that the bad
defence is ir/relevant?
Are you going to adjust the score? If so, to what?
The match has ended now and EW players' team have discussed it and are
suggesting that the 3NT bid suggests East has hearts and diamonds and 4H
is a reasonable choice at that point. Does this alter anything?
doug

If West thinks he needs to bid his hand out, I'm going to enforce a 4C
on them. East will take this as 5-5 or perhaps more distributional
2-suiter and bid either 4S or 5C. I'd give either a weighted result or
just the result for 5C.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Travis Crump
If West thinks he needs to bid his hand out, I'm going to enforce a 4C
on them.

Which law permits you to do so?

[Travis Crump]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Travis Crump
If West thinks he needs to bid his hand out, I'm going to enforce a 4C
on them.

Which law permits you to do so?

Just the UI law. Both pass and 4C are alternate calls not taken because
of UI. Which would have been taken is a judgment call.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Travis Crump
If West thinks he needs to bid his hand out, I'm going to enforce a 4C
on them.

You cannot force a bid on a player. You have to wait till play is
over. Then you may rule that the actual result is unfair to the
non-offending side, and not until then must you decide on a final
contract.

Suppose that the actual - and illegal - bidding gave a top score
for the non-offending side? Then they will of course keep that
result. They couldn't if you interfered with their bidding.

[Travis Crump]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Travis Crump
If West thinks he needs to bid his hand out, I'm going to enforce a 4C
on them.

You cannot force a bid on a player. You have to wait till play is
over. Then you may rule that the actual result is unfair to the
non-offending side, and not until then must you decide on a final
contract.
Suppose that the actual - and illegal - bidding gave a top score
for the non-offending side? Then they will of course keep that
result. They couldn't if you interfered with their bidding.

I feel like you are willfully misinterpreting my post. I even included
in my original post the possibility of a weighted score. Obviously, I
was waiting until play on the hand was over before deciding how the
auction would have gone absent the UI.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Travis Crump
I feel like you are willfully misinterpreting my post.

I am not. Your formulation made me think that you would interfere
with the bidding.

[Barry Margolin]

Post by Travis Crump

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Travis Crump
If West thinks he needs to bid his hand out, I'm going to enforce a 4C
on them.

Which law permits you to do so?

Just the UI law. Both pass and 4C are alternate calls not taken because
of UI. Which would have been taken is a judgment call.

The UI Law doesn't allow you to force a player to make a specific bid.
You can rule that the bid he made is an infraction, and then award an
adjusted score.

[Steve Willner]

Post by Douglas Newlands
Teams, Board 11, Dealer South, none
        KJ4
        53
        K10954
        KQ5
Q8765       109
QJ72        AK1064
-         AJ6
9742        A103
        A32
        98
        Q8732
        J86
W   N   E   S
            P
2S  P   2N  P
3H  P   3N  P
4H  P   P   P
You are called to the table with the auction
ostensibly finished and N has a lead face down on the table.
- 2N was alerted
- 3C was alerted and N asked and was told 2S was spades and a minor
  and that 3H showed clubs and a maximum
- 3N was to play
- 4H was apparently to play also
South said West wouldn't tell him anything despite the fact it was
clear from his manner that something was wrong.
You press West and he says that East's explanation is correct and he
forgot the system and he has spades and hearts.

This is a complicated case, and I'm glad I've seen other comments. At
the table, I probably would have given the same ruling you did, but now
I don't think it was right.

The first question is whether there was MI or not. On the surface, it
seems not, but "partnership understandings" are more than what is
written in the system notes. In particular, if there's a history of
forgetting, NS are entitled to know that. As Bertel wrote, they are
_not_ entitled to know what hand type West held. Contrary to Bertel, I
think you have to question both East and West. Ideally that would be
away from the table, but with EW almost certain to declare, it may be
practical not to bother. That would create a big problem, though, if
there really was MI, and the auction gets reopened. I wouldn't worry
about it in this case.

Post by Douglas Newlands
There seems little else to do now and you give N the option to change
the lead but this is not taken so you tell them to play it out.

As Bertel wrote, with no MI, North doesn't get to change his lead. And
South doesn't get to change his final pass, as he would have been
allowed to do if there were MI.

Post by Douglas Newlands
While they play it out, you look at a hand record and think about what
you heard. When play ends, ask West if he thought he was showing hearts
when he bid 3H. He says he thought he was. You suggest to him that the
4H bid was using UI and that you will consult regarding an adjusted
score since the table result was 4H making!

That's fine. In principle you might have warned the table earlier, but
it shouldn't matter.

Post by Douglas Newlands
What might you do if 4H went off?

Compare the table result to whatever you would adjust to if you did
adjust the score. OS get the worse of these possibilities. NOS get the
same score (i.e., better for them) unless "extremely serious error" or
similar conditions apply. This will be rare, but I suppose you might
ask how 4H made. If it was because NS revoked, that would make a
difference. Of course you should have been called back in that case,
but one never knows.

Post by Douglas Newlands
It's difficult to imagine how 4H made: are you considering that the bad
defence is ir/relevant?

Mere bad defense is not "extremely serious error."

Post by Douglas Newlands
Are you going to adjust the score? If so, to what?

Yes to the first, and that second question is hard! This is the usual
UI situation, so we consider "logical alternatives" and "suggested over
another."

It seems clear that pass instead of 4H is a LA. Based on authorized
information -- which excludes East's explanation -- West has shown his
hearts and seen partner choose NT. Why not pass? Only because the UI
suggests 4H! Pass leads to 3NT-2, which was my first thought. Bertel
preferred a weighted score, which might be marginally better, but I
don't see much likelihood of -1 or -3. Maybe that's just my poor analysis.

The reason I don't think this is correct is Travis' comment. Why isn't
4C a LA? We know that this West is not a believer in "3NT ends all
auctions." After showing (from his PoV) spades and hearts, why not bid
out his shape and show clubs? East must be looking for a suit contract
in this sequence. The UI suggests pass -- which at least ends the
auction in what might be an OK contract -- over 4C, which leads who
knows where.

I'm not sure what will happen after 4C, but East will take it as showing
at least 5-5 in the blacks, so 5C-7 looks like a real possibility.
There should probably be a weighted score here, perhaps including 6C-8.
(East will be playing West for a max.) I am not certain I have the play
analysis right, but I don't think 3NT is a legal contract for an
adjusted score. (Travis' phrasing was not ideal, but it seemed clear to
me this sort of adjustment is what he was suggesting.)

There's also the matter of UI to East because it was "clear from
[West's] manner that something was wrong." Why shouldn't East interpret
4H as a control bid, perhaps showing a void? This could lead to 5C or
6C by a different route or perhaps something even worse. Depending on
what West's "manner" was and when it was shown, you may need to consider
the possibilities after 4H if East's pass was illegal.

Post by Douglas Newlands
The match has ended now and EW players' team have discussed it and are
suggesting that the 3NT bid suggests East has hearts and diamonds and 4H
is a reasonable choice at that point. Does this alter anything?

As someone else wrote, from West's PoV _based on AI_, 3NT shows the
minors. It's only the UI of East's explanation that tells West he has
never shown hearts at all.

In fact, West's 4H bid was such a blatant violation that you should
consider a procedural penalty. West needs to understand that taking
such advantage of UI is not acceptable. If West had passed 3NT, no PP
would be appropriate. Anyone can overlook a non-obvious LA in a
difficult situation. Bidding 4H, however, was outrageous, as was making
faces to show something was wrong (unless that didn't happen until the
auction was over, in which case it was merely unwise). I think a PP of
3 IMPs is about right, but you might make it 6 if West has made a habit
of this behavior.

How exactly a PP affects the final score depends on your regulations,
but typically it would subtract VPs from EW but not add them to NS. If
this was KO, some jurisdictions would split the PP; others would treat
the match as a draw (and perhaps play a tie break) if the PP means both
teams have lost.

[Steve Willner]

I am not certain I have the play analysis right

Well, that was an understatement! I'm still not sure, but I now think
that the major weight, perhaps 40 or 50%, should go to 5C-5. Other
possible results in 5C are -2, -3, and -6, and I'm far from sure that's
all. I also think 4S is a possible final contract, and at least -2 and
-4 are possible results. I am not at all sure how to weight these or
that these are all the possibilities. I did write at the beginning that
this is a complicated case, and working out the proper adjusted score is
difficult.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Steve Willner

I am not certain I have the play analysis right

Well, that was an understatement! I'm still not sure, but I now think
that the major weight, perhaps 40 or 50%, should go to 5C-5. Other
possible results in 5C are -2, -3, and -6, and I'm far from sure that's
all. I also think 4S is a possible final contract, and at least -2 and
-4 are possible results. I am not at all sure how to weight these or
that these are all the possibilities. I did write at the beginning that
this is a complicated case, and working out the proper adjusted score is
difficult.

In a real situation you find 6 players of the same strength as
West and provide them with Wests hand plus the bidding up to 3NT
and a PASS, explaining that Wests 2S and 3H are natural. What
will they now bid? That will give you the logical alternatives.