[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-April-03, 09:27, said:

But hadn't North received correct information (from East)?

"Auken asking questions about the auction - whether 2♦(assume intended to type 3♦) would often have 4 spades, I think and I think that Helness says that it wouldn't, he'd bid something else with both Majors, but not sure"
That does not seeem like correct information to me.

[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 09:57, said:

"Auken asking questions about the auction - whether 2♦(assume intended to type 3♦) would often have 4 spades, I think and I think that Helness says that it wouldn't, he'd bid something else with both Majors, but not sure"
That does not seeem like correct information to me.

From the bulletin writeup:

...
The facts: The director was summoned at the end
of the hand. West told South that 3NT denied three
hearts or four spades. East said he may or may not
hold four spades. South said he might have led a heart
with the correct information.
...

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-April-03, 10:06, said:

From the bulletin writeup:

...
The facts: The director was summoned at the end
of the hand. West told South that 3NT denied three
hearts or four spades. East said he may or may not
hold four spades. South said he might have led a heart
with the correct information.
...

I presume these were before the opening lead. The BBO commentary suggests that Auken asked an additional question after trick 1. In addition, if South's signalling (based on wrong information) made North fail to find the winning defence, then redress would be due.

[barmar]

Vugraph operator comments about explanations should be taken with a grain of salt. When I'm operating, I can almost never read what the players are writing to each other. The operator sits at the the South-East corner of the table, in a high chair and with a table holding the laptop between him and the table; the explanation pads are several feet away at the South-West and North-East corners, and the players scribble quickly and not very legibly from that distance. Some players go the extra mile and show the explanations to the operator, but that's rare (I wonder if they do it more for Jan, since she's a close member of the expert community).

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 10:13, said:

I presume these were before the opening lead. The BBO commentary suggests that Auken asked an additional question after trick 1. In addition, if South's signalling (based on wrong information) made North fail to find thfecte winning defence, then redress would be due.

Sabine knew that East did not expect four spades in dummy, therefore East could have four spades. She had perfect information, more or less, including the inference that partner knew that dummy could have four spades but would assume declarer did not.

It was Roy's defence that was at issue, I believe.

[c_corgi]

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 10:13, said:

I presume these were before the opening lead. The BBO commentary suggests that Auken asked an additional question after trick 1. In addition, if South's signalling (based on wrong information) made North fail to find the winning defence, then redress would be due.

You mean declarer told North that he didn't expect that dummy? That hardly seems damaging. Regarding the signalling issue, that can of worms has been opened elsewhere and with sufficient vitriol to not want to open it here.

[gordontd]

barmar, on 2013-April-03, 10:17, said:

When I'm operating, I can almost never read what the players are writing to each other. The operator sits at the the South-East corner of the table

If you'll excuse me for going off-topic for a moment, is that standard practice in the USA? In Europe? In the rest of the world? I ask because our operators now usually sit South-West, so that they won't give UI by typing in the calls before the tray has been passed through the screen. I'd be interested to hear other ideas about this.

[aguahombre]

All I know is Jan's commentary doesn't need any grains of salt. She was quite clear, then and now, about what she couldn't see or hear.

[GreenMan]

gordontd, on 2013-April-03, 11:19, said:

If you'll excuse me for going off-topic for a moment, is that standard practice in the USA? In Europe? In the rest of the world? I ask because our operators now usually sit South-West, so that they won't give UI by typing in the calls before the tray has been passed through the screen. I'd be interested to hear other ideas about this.

Some operators, perhaps most, do not enter calls until the tray is passed even if sitting SE.

[gordontd]

GreenMan, on 2013-April-03, 23:42, said:

Some operators, perhaps most, do not enter calls until the tray is passed even if sitting SE.

Then why do they sit there? And do they wait for the tray to go back before entering the S & W calls?

[barmar]

gordontd, on 2013-April-04, 00:34, said:

Then why do they sit there? And do they wait for the tray to go back before entering the S & W calls?

You have to sit at the SE or NW corner to be able to see both sides of the screen, so you can enter the plays. And SE means that the layout on the computer is similar to the orientation of the table (West on the left).

And yes, I wait for the tray to be passed before entering the calls -- I believe Jan trains all her operators to do this.

[awm]

South made a couple defensive "mistakes" that could have been influenced by the UI:

(1) On the first round of diamonds, south played the ambiguous ♦6 rather than the clearer ♦T. On the information he was given, it seems like dummy will have no entry outside hearts (maybe a very slow club entry after south wins two club tricks). If declarer has ♥K the contract is surely cold with hearts dividing, and if not a passive defense is quite probably best. The ♦T would demand an active defense (i.e. club switch) when partner gets in again whereas the ♦6 does not.

(2) On the second round of hearts, south rose with the ♥J and declarer ducked. This is essentially a no-risk play for declarer (who wants to keep north off lead). If south really wanted partner to gain the lead and switch to clubs he would not do this (declarer could still succeed by playing the heart ace and another heart but that is much less clear). Rising seems to offer a chance at -2 (maintaining an entry to partner's diamonds) at no cost (again assuming declarer has three spades and thus no dummy entry).

[lamford]

awm, on 2013-April-04, 08:30, said:

(declarer could still succeed by playing the heart ace and another heart but that is much less clear).

How could it cost? The only danger situation is when North can win and the defence can cash two clubs.

[lamford]

c_corgi, on 2013-April-03, 10:38, said:

You mean declarer told North that he didn't expect that dummy? That hardly seems damaging. Regarding the signalling issue, that can of worms has been opened elsewhere and with sufficient vitriol to not want to open it here.

There is another issue. South was entitled to the information that either opponent or both could have four spades. I polled several strong players with this information, and one led a heart, three a diamond and one a club. They were all reluctant to lead from AQxx into the 18-19 hand. On a diamond lead, declarer will play a top spade at some point, and South will give reverse count. The defence is easy from then on.

If a diamond lead is reasonable, then 3NT-1 is the most favourable result that was probable. I think the AC was right to criticise East for failing to inform South that he had been misinformed. I think a PP was appropriate for a player of this level of experience, but the AC decided that not many people would be aware [of 20F(b(ii)]. On reflection, in view of the different screen rules, I agree.

On that note it is unclear to me how, with screens, declarer can know to inform an opponent that he has been misinformed. Perhaps those familiar with screen regulations can clarify this. On this occasion, East should have asked his partner how he explained 3D and 3NT.

This post has been edited by lamford: 2013-April-04, 10:55

[paulg]

lamford, on 2013-April-04, 08:59, said:

On that note it is unclear to me how, with screens, declarer can know to inform an opponent that he has been misinformed. Perhaps those familiar with screen regulations can clarify this. On this occasion, East should have asked his partner how he explained 3D and 3NT.

In the WBF and EBL (and, I expect, most jurisdictions as they copy one or other of these) the screen regulations explicitly forbid any information passing through the screen during the hand, so East cannot legally speak to his partner or converse with South. Since these are the regulations that Helness plays under most often, it is unsurprising that he did not say anything.

However the ACBL explicitly allows the declaring side to converse to prevent precisely this issue. So Helness, if aware of this regulation, could have checked with Helgemo if he wished.

[aguahombre]

paulg, on 2013-April-04, 09:23, said:

In the WBF and EBL (and, I expect, most jurisdictions as they copy one or other of these) the screen regulations explicitly forbid any information passing through the screen during the hand, so East cannot legally speak to his partner or converse with South. Since these are the regulations that Helness plays under most often, it is unsurprising that he did not say anything.

However the ACBL explicitly allows the declaring side to converse to prevent precisely this issue. So Helness, if aware of this regulation, could have checked with Helgemo if he wished.

Interesting. An ACBL regulation at variance with WBF which seems to be an improvement H & H play under WBF and EBL most often, for sure; but, they do also play under ACBL. I would be very surprised if they were unaware of a screen rule difference that significant. More likely, it just didn't occur to him there might have been MI given to Welland.

I don't see anything (Did I miss it?) to indicate Helness should have suspected a disclosure problem BEFORE the opening lead.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-April-04, 10:41, said:

I don't see anything (Did I miss it?) to indicate Helness should have suspected a disclosure problem BEFORE the opening lead.

I agree. It was only the sight of dummy, and the later questions by North, which should have caused him to suspect. The bulletin states:
"East ought to have realized when he saw the dummy that South had likely received inaccurate information. At that point, he could have and probably should have informed South of the actual East–West agreement."

He cannot comply exactly with 20F5(b), but I agree with the AC that he should have told South as soon as he became aware of likely MI. The adjustment for the opening lead is a separate issue.

[pran]

paulg, on 2013-April-04, 09:23, said:

In the WBF and EBL (and, I expect, most jurisdictions as they copy one or other of these) the screen regulations explicitly forbid any information passing through the screen during the hand, so East cannot legally speak to his partner or converse with South. Since these are the regulations that Helness plays under most often, it is unsurprising that he did not say anything.

However the ACBL explicitly allows the declaring side to converse to prevent precisely this issue. So Helness, if aware of this regulation, could have checked with Helgemo if he wished.

I felt a bit confused when reading this, and looked up the particular part of the Norwegian regulation. It says (my translation and my enhancement):

After all four players have had opportunity to examine the auction (equivalent to the right to require all previous calls to be restated), the players remove their bid cards. Declaring side may at this time exchange information on their own side's explanations.

Our regulation is clear on the point that this is supposed to take place before the screen is opened.

I have every reason to believe that this regulation conforms to the corresponding WBF and EBU regulations and I am quite confident that both Helgemo and Helness are familiar with it.

[paulg]

The WBF regulations (PDF) include:

1.3 Alerts and Explanations

c) At all times from the commencement of the Auction to the completion of play each player receives information only from his screenmate about the meanings of calls and explanations given. Questions during the play period should be in writing with the aperture closed. The screen is raised after the response has been made.

This is quite different from the Norwegian regulation, although the latter is more sensible.

[jallerton]

lamford, on 2013-April-04, 08:59, said:

There is another issue. South was entitled to the information that either opponent or both could have four spades.

No, the opening leader was entitled to a correect explanation of the opponents' methods. The correct explanation was determined by the TD/AC to be the one given by declarer to his screenmate, namely that dummy had shown 5 hearts and had denied 4 spades; whilst declarer had denied 3 hearts but had not provided any information about his spade length. With this information, the opening leader "knows" when he has to choose his opening lead that his partner has at least 3 spades, often 4 and occasionally 5 (if declarer is 2=2=6=3 or 2=2=5=4 say).

Hence it is not surprising to me that all the players polled by the TD led a spade given the correct information.

lamford, on 2013-April-04, 08:59, said:

I polled several strong players with this information, and one led a heart, three a diamond and one a club. They were all reluctant to lead from AQxx into the 18-19 hand. On a diamond lead, declarer will play a top spade at some point, and South will give reverse count. The defence is easy from then on.

Three out of five led a diamond? At which game are these strong players?