Leaderboard

So W is presumed to sit for 10 sec after the skip bid, pretending that he has something to think about, but if he uses the time to ask a question about an alerted bid, then he transmits UI, because it now seems like he does have something to think about? If this case merits an adjustment, something has surely gone wrong somewhere.

I believe 2C will lead to a small improvement. http://taigabridge.net/articles/dd/garbage.htm

Traditionally, strong reverses were in favor. As an approximate standard, the hand should be too strong to open 1NT. More recently, the standards seem to have been slipping, however, a 15 count seems too weak. (All this assumes that we're talking about 5-4 hands. I'm sure that its possible to construct a 6-5 15 count that's worth a reverse)

[hv=pc=n&s=sa9ht75daq963cj85&n=sqj8632h96dkjtcaq&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1h1sp2dp3dp3hp3sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] East leads the 2H to West's K. West switches to the 2 of diamonds. what do you think West's hand might be? plan the play :) Eagles

In the EBU, most people ask only when they need to know, and hardly anyone follows a policy of always (or often) asking. That's mainly the fault of the people who wrote the regulations, which still read Players sometimes say, "I always ask whether I intend to bid or not". This is not recommended because, in practice, players do not follow this approach strictly. Notice what East did here: he heard the alert, but he knew it wouldn't affect his action, so he bid without asking. So this East, at least, doesn't seem to understand the need to ask about alerted bids. Regarding the ruling, a sensible start, especially in the EBU, would be to ask West why he asked the question.

Regardless of what questions partner asked or didn't ask, I think you should assume that partner knew the opponents' actual agreement. I think that the director should explain this whenever there is a corrected explanation. I've never heard a director do that, though.

ro15 is for marginal openers. this isn't a marginal opener.

Why would you adjust? A bid has been alerted (meaning: "Please ask"), and West did what was expected of him. How is this UI? The only time this can be UI is when West normally never asks about alerted bids and only asks when he is interested in bidding. I didn't see that information anywhere, and I think most competitive players know by now to ask frequently, so no UI and no adjustment. Rik

No adjustment, I agree with what RMB1 said. S had the chance to change his call, and that is all we can offer him. If he was worried that his partner might have misunderstood 3♣ because he didn't ask about it, sorry but partner's asking or not asking is UI to south. N chose not to ask about an alerted call - TD established that 3♣ was in fact alerted, as I understand it. Already for that reason N is not damaged by misinformation, since he didn't seek any. Result stand.

I would certainly take this view if South were the Secretary Bird or someone very familiar with the laws. However this is a fairly confusing problem and not one even an experienced player will come across often. If South has passed because he is confused about how he is meant to interpret his partner's double in such a situation then it seems harsh to penalise him. And if it is 'obvious' how the double should be interpreted, perhaps the director should have said something to make it clear. I feel the matter is made more confusing by North failing to ask about the alert. This perhaps gives South UI that North is taking the call as natural and perhaps now he is bending over backwards not to take advantage - for example, suppose North had asked and received the Ghestem answer. This may be the context in which South is passing. However mistaken this view, it does seem related to the infraction whilst being a serious error. Not to mention that North's missing of the alert is probably a serious error too! I must admit I thought this was one of Mr Lamford's constructions :)

Why would the opening hand blast key card when it seems best to cue bid H and hope partner is able to cue bid S. When that happens you can use your t6 card key ask and reach it easy, even without 6 card ask you may well bid it.

You had a good tool with the 6Ace RKC... ( 4D! ) Delay it 1 round and cuebid prior to it: 3D - 3H 3S - 4D! , etc....

I am very interested in advice when it's accompanied by an argument that involves some concept of expectation and either some generalizability of either hand type or reasoning to other hands, since that's how I can actually learn from it. Otherwise what am I supposed to do? Just nod and remember that if that exact hand ever comes up again in the exact sequence I'll have the majority's approval for making a specific call? I'm much less interested when I either don't get an argument, or it simply repeats points I've explicitly discussed earlier in the thread or, better but still less satisfying, it consists solely of a couple of 'what ifs' without addressing the whole set of plausible outcomes. Even then, if I can extrapolate some actual practical advice to take from it, I'll try to do so - for eg, as a result of heavy majority view in the 'sandwiched' thread, I'll be overcalling 1N after two bids on pretty much any balanced 16 count with requisite stoppers. In this thread, I’m still struggling to see what to take from it to other hands, but I guess I’ll be less keen to make penalty Xes against suit contracts without harder controls as well as well-placed honours. (I'm still chewing over Gnasher's comment, so hopefully I'll be able to modify my future decisions based on that) I would hope people here are reasonable enough to differentiate between me probing their claims and dismissing them out of hand. If you can't do so, why do you bother posting answers?

Since any non-psyched OBOOT puts the NOS into an unusual auction that they could get wrong (and be damaged in a way that cannot be replicated at any other table), then I don't think it unreasonable that a psyched OBOOT, forcing NOS into a decision with incorrect information, should automatically be a L23 case.

And what you are suggesting here goes too far too. By this definition almost any psyched OBOOT is a Law 23 case because you can construct some hands where it will work. This kind of bad reasoning is almost certainly why the "well" is written in, to avoid Directors making adjustments for "rub of the green" cases.

2nt. Too dangerous to pass. We'd all, I think, do this with AQx in hearts and on offence this is an equivalent holding almost all the time. I like double less than I like 2NT.

You might fairly safely bet on North not also having a singleton heart, given opps haven't mentioned them. Is there a follow-up you can use to ask for kings/etc? e.g. 5H asks, 5S shows a spade control, then South just bids it. Some people will no doubt suggest cue rather than asking for keycards; they're probably right, as long as they've got good methods to determine there are no keycards missing. (How about: following a sequence of cuebids 5NT shows an even number of keycards?) ahydra

I don't see how you could possibly be a good director if you didn't understand how best to cheat.