mfa1010

If the auction makes it at least just reasonable for east to cash ♣A on the lead then it is a good slam.

3♠. The junk on the side doesn't worry me much, especially not against aggressive opponents who might easily be pushed to high after 3♠.

Partner is showing something like ♠AKJxx, ♥xx, ♦-, ♣AKJxxx. Pass and call the director re the two club kings.

:) Don't mention the war.

You are right of course. Didn't realise we had so many clubs. We don't need to make any statement about unblocking in 4.

Good rule.

If north randomizes his pips it is 3:1 now to play south for the heart length. Restricted choice. To gnasher, we can't play A-Q because north might have KTxx. If the Q holds we can play low to the jack to guarantee the contract. Or enter dummy to play a small heart if we want to try for the overtrick.

1&2: Claim early. 3: I never claim on a squeeze in serious bridge. Squeezes involve counting pips and this could go wrong. It is not like I expect to miscount a lot but the opponents are entitled to see declarer handling it through imo. If a squeezed opponent tanks in the end position I would usually interrupt though, but at that point it is easy to state/indicate something like: If you pitch the club I'll cash my ♣2, if not I will play ♦ from top. 4: Claim, stating the unblock. Any decent player would know that this statement is required here because of the obvious pitfall. This layout could potentially be a director call if an opponent fail to state the unblock. But in general I'm pretty large with the opponents' claims.

But they don't intend that it must not happen either. There is no bridge laws dogma saying that one is not allowed to get lucky or that his opponent is not allowed to make a mistake.

Thanks for pointing out the word "well". It is strengthening the "could have known" condition in law 23 even further. The relevant test is now this (if we consider applying law 23): Could second hand have known that by failing to use the stop procedure (stop card/saying "stop"), third hand could well happen to make an insufficient bid and ensue subsequent damage? My judgment is also: No, too far fetched.

Right. Deliberate infractions don't broaden the area for redress. Instead they tend to lead to PPs :).

We do indeed play: 2♥= good raise with 3 2♠= bad raise with 3 3♥= good raise with 4 3♠= bad raise with 4

+1 +2 Seems textbook to me. +3

We play this as takeout of hearts (except that we play strong club, but had it been a 1♦-opening (4+♦ for us) instead...). So an active 2245 14-count would be ideal for doubling 2♣.

With such loose application of Law 23 the "could have known" condition loses its content completely. Basically you are making the general deduction that a player could know that breaking a rule might cause damage and use that to conclude that the player is liable for whatever his opponent comes up with of silliness, if just we could establish some link to the infraction.

4♠ is a heart raise with a spade control. 4♠ shows a spade control because it pushes the bidding as high as 5♥ does. Compare to (3♥)-3♠-(p)-4♥/5♠, where 4♥ doesn't say anything about a control because we can still get out in 4♠. 4NT would be RKC for hearts. With both minors, a delayed 4NT could become relevant if opener balances with 4♠. 5♥ denies a spade control. For us it is merely a solid invitation opposite one, but for others it might mean "raise with a spade control". This style issue is good to discuss with partner. I would pass (forcing). 6♥ is a little undisciplined but tempting if east is expected to be super rock solid.

I can't help him, this is a regular insufficient bid. The purpose of the stop regulation is to limit UI transmission. Not to service an opponent that he should now be aware that a deeper dig into the bidding box is going to be required for joining the action.

I strongly dislike these restrictions on "dual meaning signals" in ACBL and EBU. They are in dírect conflict with my perception of the game as a partnership game, where we are - in principle - able to refine our partnership bidding and defensive signaling to perfection to solve as many problems as at all possible. Defining everything, every bid and every spot card played, to make guessing as little part of the game as possible. But apparently others seem to see the game more as a sum of efforts by two individual players who could give damn if they ever saw the guy opposite before at all. Everything must be standardized, we can tick a box here and there on the CC, but the allowed partnership understanding is being capped and it is being capped by the lowest common denominator*). :mellow: Well, well. There is also a big problem with the fuzzy term "dual meaning" in itself. It seems to depend too much on how the signals are described rather than what the signals really are. The EBU "definition" consists of nothing but two examples (as I can see above). No wonder that there will be problems with its application on actual cases. :lol: -- *) The problem the restriction purports to try to solve is not a world class bridge problem of ethics. Those players will typically know to keep an even tempo and will usually have a good agreement about what to do if they don't have the perfect spot card for their signaling method. Like playing small if there is no odd card available. It is for ordinary club players who are on deep water. As a result everyone is being restricted no matter his ethical standard or level of play.

The explanations could be improved a little, but there is not really MI, damage or sufficient reason to adjust.

a) Direct X is strong, typically balanced. Initiates penalty doubles. (Note: 1NT-2♦-X-p-p-2Ma-p-p is forcing on 1NT-opener). b) Delayed X is takeout with competitive strength. Opener should not pass the double very often in this sequence.

3NT. 2♦ without the ♦9.

Also 2♠. I play such a style, but we would need quite some more than this to show a "good" 2♠. Opener is on the other hand allowed to compete on (virtually) all 4 card fits or a good hand with 3.

Yes that sounds like a good idea. The alternative is to underbid and unilaterally focus on some strain when he really has no preference.

Does ACBL have its own screen regulations or does it follow WBF rules? I ask because we had a very weird incident at the Spingold (played with screens). In a complicated bidding sequence, where RHO had made a bid he explained as "undiscussed", we sent the tray in and it came back only after some time, LHO having made his most likely bid and partner having passed. Now if I was to guess who was more likely to have tanked it would be partner. But it was still unclear and some time could easily have gone explaining the complicatied sequence. I bid again and there we were. I went -300 instead of -450, but dummy was actually a disappointment for the sequence. But what happened was that LHO, from the other side of the screen, yelled "TD", and when TD was not right there in the room, he raced out to find him. Apparently LHO had bid quickly and my partner had spent all the time thinking. Which I couldn't possibly have known. When TD returned, I said that it is the guy on my side who is supposed to call the TD in these situations, since tempo issues are so often percieved differently on the two sides of the screen. But TD just remarked: "I don't see that it makes any difference who calls the director". :blink: Also in another way was the director's handling of the case a disappointment for us. When he gave us his judgment we got the clear impression that he was basing the ruling on "facts" that he hadn't even confronted us with. Apparently LHO had had time to "prepare" the director on their way back to the playing room. Now I don't mind losing a TD case but this handling was bad. We appealed obviously, but the appeal was not adjudicated because the 4 imps at stake didn't turn out to be decisive in the end.

True, there is some hard work involved in improving.