Leaderboard

It's one of those irregular verbs: We make tactical bids; You psyche; They have an undisclosed partnership agreement.

Hence my merely providing an example of when your 'usually' wouldn't apply, which is not at all the same as saying that your 'usually' was incorrect :D Besides, the main reason I wrote my post was to indulge in my taste for bad puns...the food poissonning line. I usually make very good puns. However, this may be another example in which 'usually' doesn't apply

I have seen "tactical bid" used to describe control/cue bids in a suit where they do not have control. This (to me) has always looked like a psyche: gross, deliberate and intended to deceive. Except that psychic control bids are often not psyches because there is partnership understanding (experience) behind them. Of course, these are rarely disclosed.

common sense is much simpler 2NT is not game forcing, while 3 spades is.

Seems it's worth trying 6♣, as it describes your hand pretty well. I am fine with playing grand opposite 1561 with ♥AQ and ♦AQ, and I don't see partner going to 7 with less than that.

The North hand is a good advert for transfers or Switch.

I can't speak for the ACBL, but it seems to me that any time is an appropriate time to ask a question, provided that you're asking because you want to know the answer. It's legitimate to ask a question with no intention to bid at that point, simply because you want to follow the auction. If you know what the auction means you can start thinking about the opening lead, you can be ready to double a cue-bid, you can be prepared for some action that your partner may take, and you can make better inferences from the opponents' tempo and demeanour. It's unusual to ask about an unalerted bid. However, it is also unusual not to alert a spade bid that you think shows clubs. Perhaps South was aware of a tendency for this West to omit to alert when he should? Or perhaps South was just finding the auction confusing and wasn't sure what an unalerted 3♠ bid in this unusual system actually meant. If South was really asking in order to create a UI problem, I agree that this ought to be illegal, but I don't think it is.

A viable solution: at last

It's not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Pass is a call, not a bid.

But we have answered the real question. A bridge problem that includes partner's explanation is, by definition, partly a UI problem. And the complete solution is the first half of Trinidad's post (no 11). I believe it's a universal approach, but I may be wrong. I think any other approach is unworkable. Suppose that we required the director to use his judgement in this situatiion. Then three people all have the same auction. They make the wrong response to a relay, hear partner's explanation, and then appear to act on the knowledge from the explanation. All three claim that they remembered their methods just before they heard partner's explanation. Two of the players are Mother Teresa and Dr Somebody from Germany. The director believes Mother Teresa, so she keeps her score. He disbelieves Dr Somebody, and adjusts his score to 6NTx-5. Everybody nods approvingly. The third player is a young bridge pro from Madrid. What should the director to do?

From a recent Boston Globe interview with Jennifer Silva:

This is an impossible hand.With this a 1S bid is clear. 1S rather than 1H, because if the bidding reverts to me at the 2 level, I will bid 2H.