[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-24, 04:06, said:

Is the pass artificial? All it states is that the passer wishes to play in the suit last called. The fact that the suit last called is artificial is surely irrelevant. It certainly does not 'unexpectedly convey values', nor 'specify suit holdings'.

It is not the pass that has to be artificial to silence partner throughout. As mycroft points out it is a pass of partner's artificial call, so partner should have been silenced throughout. The other question is, having wrongly only silenced South for one turn, there is director error, and NS should get the result from 7D. South should have been told that the original pass of the multi was UI to him, as that call was cancelled, which is the same as withdrawn. I think NS keep their top, and EW get their 60% or so from making 6S=.

[pran]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-24, 04:06, said:

Is the pass artificial? All it states is that the passer wishes to play in the suit last called. The fact that the suit last called is artificial is surely irrelevant. It certainly does not 'unexpectedly convey values', nor 'specify suit holdings'.

"is surely irrelevant" ??? Carefully read:

Law 31A2B said:

When the offender has called at his RHO's turn to call, then:
1: if that opponent passes, offender must repeat the call out of rotation. When that call is legal there is no rectification.
2: if that opponent makes a legal* bid, double or redouble, offender may make any legal call. When this call
a: repeats the denomination of his bid out of rotation, offenders partner must pass when next it is his turn to call (see Law 23).
b: does not repeat the denomination of his bid out of rotation, or if the call out of rotation was an artificial pass or a pass of partner's artificial call, the lead restrictions in Law 26 may apply, and offender's partner must pass whenever it is his turn to call (see Law 23).

[RMB1]

helene_t, on 2017-January-24, 05:42, said:

Lead restrictions may apply, no? OK it is moot here since North is probably on lead. Just checking.

The lead restrictions would still apply when South first got on lead, no?

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2017-January-24, 08:23, said:

The lead restrictions would still apply when South first got on lead, no?

They would, but that would be after trick 12 on the actual hand. In any case, NS were not told about lead restrictions, nor that RR's original pass was UI to South, so the TD cannot impose those when they were not stated when making the original ruling. RR stated afterwards that if he had known his first pass would have been UI to ChCh, he would have jumped to 7♦ at his first turn, to take the pressure off his partner, and to make the best of a bad job. If the TD now adjusts to 6S= for both sides, RR is deprived of the best result possible by TD error.

ChCh quoted 84C: If a Law gives a player a choice of rectification the Director explains the options and sees that the choice is made and implemented.

[mycroft]

Lamford: You can't give N/S any part of the table result, that's Reveley (even if the infraction was triggered by the TD's misexplanation). If N/S are advised correctly of their requirements, unless RR(!) is going to bid 7♦ all on his own (which I can see, but not once he admits that he knew it was Multi. If he forgot, of course, he might bid the 13-trump sacrifice!) I don't think that "treating N/S as non-offending" is going to make it likely enough that RR will take the sacrifice (after 2♠ or 6) to get any credit for it; if anything, 25% at most?

I don't believe RR's comment, that's classic self-serving commentary based on knowledge of the hand and the result. Swap the ♦Q and A and we'd be hearing "I got my hand across with my pass, why would I ever bid again!" Swap a couple of the diamonds for black cards, and the opponents wouldn't get to 6, never mind make it; and 7♦ would be 800 at least into game. He could have "taken the pressure" off partner 3 different times and chose to pass.

In general: that is the issue with the lead restrictions. With this hand it's irrelevant, but if it turned out that 6♠ was bad (no ♥K, say), but "Win the opening lead, cash the diamond if necessary, pull enough trump to know what's going on (and, with RR's current shape, play enough clubs. Let's pretend the trumps are 3-1, along with no ♥K), and duck a heart into south, force a diamond for the ruff-sluff, make 6", then E/W would get a large percentage (likely 100) of that line, and N/S would still get a large percentage (50+%) of that to go with the 6♠-1, *because after the POOT, even being generous to the "non-offenders" under L82C, this is an obvious line of play*. Doesn't matter that 6♠ can't actually make without the lead restriction. "treated as non-offending" does not equal "gets a good score", even if it's the TD's fault.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2017-January-24, 11:43, said:

Lamford: You can't give N/S any part of the table result, that's Reveley (even if the infraction was triggered by the TD's misexplanation).

I did not advocate giving the table result. I advocated giving NS a subastantial percentage of 7DX reached in a different way. If North had been told that South was silenced throughout, rather than just on the next turn, then he might well have bid 7D once the opponents reached 6S. This would be a good save opposite as little as none JTxxxx Jxxx xxx, and you KNOW partner is void in spades. Even a timid rabbit would save here. I don't accept that RR would have bid 7D on his first turn, but he does have a routine sac when the opponents reach 6S at these colours. In fact, 28 out of 28 experts I polled all chose 7D with the authorised auction. There was director error which deprived North of the chance to do so.

The correct decision therefore seems to be 100% of 6S= for EW and 100% of 7Dx-3 for NS. And a PP for both me and the TD for not knowing that withdrawn calls also include a cancelled call.

[mycroft]

As I said, if South had -- JTxxxx Axx xxxx, and I tried to give them any piece of 7♦ because "it's obvious for the Rabbit to take the sacrifice", I'd need earplugs. (Yes, I realize that also makes given the lead restrictions, if SB chooses to force a diamond lead - as he should. How about -- QJTxx Axx xxxxx?)

[Edit: argh, that is silly. No matter what South's hand, West will know about the heart void. I'm not sure that the difference, however, between -800 and -1430 (vice +100 or -650) is enough that RR, even if he knows that a) partner must be silent, no matter how many diamonds he has and b) when South gets in, West can demand (or forbid) a diamond lead, will know that the sacrifice is right opposite anything.

Still] sorry, not 100% of anything.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2017-January-25, 10:50, said:

Still] sorry, not 100% of anything.

I agree, even treating both sides as non-offending makes 100% of 7Dx too much for the Rabbit. And the Chimp should have been silenced throughout. However, there is an increased chance that the Rabbit will sacrifice because he will see that his partner bid diamonds and he has seven-card support. By the end of the auction he will have long forgotten that it was a multi, which only the bravest of the club's members play with him. Given that we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the non-offenders, and my poll had 100% of Norths sacrificing on the authorised auction, should we not be giving RR and ChCh at least 90% of 7Dx-3?

mycroft, on 2017-January-24, 11:43, said:

"I got my hand across with my pass, why would I ever bid again!"

RR should have been told by the TD that his original pass was UI to South, and even the rabbit should be able to work out that he has not "got his hand across" at all.