[RMB1]

---

[Added board number/dealer/vulnerability and approximate auction.]

West plays in 2♣ doubled on a club lead. On sight of dummy West suggests "-1100" and one defender accepts. The other defender is not so happy and says so, but allows the score to be entered and plays the next board. A few rounds later both sides are discussing the hand and call me, the player who was not happy is still not happy and wants a ruling.

I decided that because I was not called at the time, agreement was established (Law 69A) and has now been withdrawn (Law 69B). So how many more tricks are likely for the defence? Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transfering more than one trick?

It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely?

There are match-points at stake here: without this result the frequencies are 1700 x 2, 1400 x 6, 1100 x 7, 490 x 1, 460 x 6, 430 x 2. This is the land of the weak NT, and at many tables the auction will have started 1NT-X, and NS continuing to double.

This post has been edited by RMB1: 2011-April-18, 18:44

[bluejak]

My experience of playing and defending contracts like this over the years is that you chuck tricks in defence at an alarming rate, and I think -1100 perfectly likely. Of course -1400 is possible, but no more likely, and I hardly believe the defence will do much better. Still judgement does not interest me very much.

Quote

Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transferring more than one trick?

Not in my view. Consider if the TD thinks there are two tricks that would likely have gone the other way: now look at the wording.

Quote

Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C .... if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.
The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

Consider the first trick: according to this it gets transferred. Now consider the second trick. Surely the same applies?

[jallerton]

RMB1, on 2011-April-17, 16:49, said:

---

West plays in 2♣ doubled on a club lead. On sight of dummy West suggests "-1100" and one defender accepts. The other defender is not so happy and says so, but allows the score to be entered and plays the next board. A few rounds later both sides are discussing the hand and call me, the player who was not happy is still not happy and wants a ruling.

I decided that because I was not called at the time, agreement was established (Law 69A) and has now been withdrawn (Law 69B). So how many more tricks are likely for the defence? Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transfering more than one trick?

It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely?

There are match-points at stake here: without this result the frequencies are 1700 x 2, 1400 x 6, 1100 x 7, 490 x 1, 460 x 6, 430 x 2. This is the land of the weak NT, and at many tables the auction will have started 1NT-X, and NS continuing to double.

Was the hand played in 2♣x by West at any of the other tables? If so, that will give you an indication of what might have happened at this table, had play continued.

[jallerton]

To answer my own question, 2♣x was declared at two other tables.

Played by East, on a low spade lead, declarer was held to 2 tricks.

Played by West, on the inferior lead of ♥A, declarer managed to scramble 3 tricks.

At this table, a trump was led through dummy. South will win, put partner in with a major suit ace and North will play another trump, followed by a 3rd round of trumps. Now the only likely results are down 6 (-1700 as E/W are vulnerable) and down 7 (-2000) depending on whether declarer makes a spade trick.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-April-17, 17:28, said:

Quote

Does a strict reading of Law 69B2 stop me transferring more than one trick?

Not in my view. Consider if the TD thinks there are two tricks that would likely have gone the other way: now look at the wording.

Quote

Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C .... if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued.
The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side.

Consider the first trick: according to this it gets transferred. Now consider the second trick. Surely the same applies?

After the board has been "rescored" for the transfer of the first trick, does the Law allow for the board to be "rescored" again?

[FrancesHinden]

To answer a question that hasn't yet been asked, EW were vulnerable.

[bluejak]

jallerton, on 2011-April-18, 12:13, said:

After the board has been "rescored" for the transfer of the first trick, does the Law allow for the board to be "rescored" again?

Yes, why not?

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-April-18, 14:50, said:

To answer a question that hasn't yet been asked, EW were vulnerable.

A possible reason it wasn't asked is that people worked it out from:
"It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely?"

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-April-18, 16:25, said:

A possible reason it wasn't asked is that people worked it out from:
"It is clear that NS can make 12 tricks in clubs and would probably do so if declaring. Is it likely they would make 12 tricks defending, for -2000 or is 11 tricks for -1700 [more] likely?"

I would have asked had Frances not mentioned it, since it wasn't clear to me whether the hand diagram or the numbers were wrong. Anyway, I would think two tricks for declarer the most likely outcome after that start.

[RMB1]

campboy, on 2011-April-18, 16:49, said:

... , since it wasn't clear to me whether the hand diagram or the numbers were wrong.

When I decided not to enter the bidding, the hand generator did not ask for vulnerability, and the default colouring looks like "love all". If I can I will edit the original post.

[Free]

Seems to me that declarer can only chuck 1 extra trick if he's lucky: ♠Q. So NS should get at least 1700.