mfa1010

I would just pass. I need more for a double. Scrambling out to something might work out fine for us, but partner needs a lot of beef before we have them nailed and having them nailed sometimes should be an important factor for doubling here. Partner will rightly pass 1NTX a lot and double 2♥ a lot and it will all be very scary.

Hearts can wait. Perhaps they can only be started from partner's side. We need a deep spade trick as well, and it is much safer to begin there.

That raises the philosophical question, how it is possible to psych an asking bid!? :D

I agree that making an illegal lead (due to UI) is a serious error. There are two separate infractions in play here.

♠Q.

4x♠. Remove the ♠9 and it is a different story.

West's 3♠ is a misbid because it should be natural. Even if it were a cuebid it would be much too optimistic with that crap. 5♥ looks a little desperate - with that west hand I would have taken my chances in 4♠. I think that 3♣ is a little too tough. I prefer 3♥. The values are pretty soft and having only two hearts is a big flaw. Most of the blame to west.

I play what fred said. Against weak NT: X=strong. 14-16 is not weak though.

5 card suits rule against notrumps. Heart is 100% obvious.

Thanks. I'm not a cricket fan so it was too deep for me. :)

Two opponents that both have passed initially would rarely continue to the 6-level, but it could happen. If north was thinking along those lines then he does deserve some credit.

Btw I think that double of 2♠ is better played as a spade raise.

DBL. I try the lightner (they bid a voluntary slam so it is lightner). Can't make dull bids every time. Partner will be confused when I follow to the diamond, but hopefully he continues the suit whatever red ace he has.

What does that mean? :) I agree.

I would probably pass 5♣. Depends on my partner's style, but they all tend to be quite aggressive in getting their suits in. Which is certainly also my style. Partner doesn't deserve to get 7-6 hands when he bids like that. 5♣ is way-way too pessimistic. He must have missed the inference that we are marked with decent minor suit fit on this auction, since we almost never have 6+♠ and pass 2♥. He should clearly play us for a minor suit key card and sufficient lengths for slam and jump to slam himself. Edit: Ok, 2/1 gameforce, missed that. I raise to 6♣ then. But I still think that partner has a normal 6♣ gamble.

I would also move on. What gnasher said. And it is not my responsibility either to educate the opponents.

I agree with the ruling. Me too. And I am in general often particularly clueless when it comes to ACBL. From the text by the dissenters who thought it was an AWM: But at the same time I can almost hear the same people mess: "Rule against the offending side and put the onus on them to appeal". Maybe it is a shift in approach to these cases. But more likely I have just understood nothing of ACBL bridge ruling philosophy once again.

This is beyond exotic. But please notice that you are talking about two infractions by the offending side here: The missing alert (and written explanation) for 4NT and the missing alert (and explanation) for 5♣. The main point of this example is: If opponents are supposed to be able to rely 110% on alerts no matter what, then the opening leader is (in spite of clear knowledge to the contrary for an experienced player) perfectly entitled to make a deduction as I describe it. What should stop him? The setup is certainly realistic, so I think you call it exotic only because this in not how bridge is played. Why? Because some "bad faith" principle does kick in afterall in TD judgements, call it "to protect oneself" or not. But I agree with most of what you says.

The principle of protecting oneself is imo indispensable. But should be ruled upon with care. The alternative of having it is to allow players positively to speculate in MI while being markedly in bad faith. This would be lucrative because the rules regarding MI are really nice to the nonoffending side, who gets a free double shot plus the 'best result likely' when TD is correcting. a. (1♣)-1♠-(2♠)-? 2♠ was not alerted as it should in this jurisdiction. So 4th hand passes with his spade support and later claims damages. b. (1♥)-p-(2NT)-? 2NT is by pure accident explained as "4-card spade support and GF". 4th hand's thinking with a huge spade suit: "Hah, no reason to make my obvious spade bid now." ...! c. (1♠)-p-(4♠)-p, (4NT)-p-(5♣)-p-(6♠) Screens. No alerts although it was a RKC sequence. Opening leader chooses an aggressive but unfortunately ♥ from the K. "Director, I thought that there would be a threatening club suit in dummy and declarer had a balanced hand, so I had to be aggressive. If I had known about (...) I would have gone passive". How would you cope with these? Strong players. It is the "My point of view is 100% opposite"-part of your post that worries me.

I would not have bid 5♠ as north. Sure opposite this south hand it is ok to be in five, but south won't always have such a suitable hand.

Thanks for the info.

Cute post :). But there is no contradiction. Here I'm allowing declarer's second statement as evidence. I can do that at my own discretion. When told that trumps are 4-0, declarer immediately concedes down 1. Obviously because there won't be a trump in dummy for the heart ruff when he has drawn trumps. So now we have a claim of 12 tricks and a plan leading to 12 tricks. Alles in Ordnung. He gets 12 tricks. [Contrast to the other hand where we were left with a discrepancy between declarer's statement and his actual number of tricks.] Declarer won't get a 13th trick because he might misjudge (= miscount) the end position and try to cash a red "winner" before testing the clubs at all. That is within normal play. Merry Christmas everybody :)

What mikeh said.

Right. I missed that fact that he goes down many, if he tries to ruff a heart. So we have to consider if he should be forced to do so. This is a little tricky and I had hoped to avoid this judgement by stating that he will go down anyway. I note that declarer concedes down one immediately after being told that trumps are 4-0. I think that this is sufficient to count as a clarification of his plan = to draw all the trumps. ~Law 70D3. So I stick with down 1, but I withdraw calling the ruling "easy". :)

I don't think that RMB1 is being reasonable (for the reasons that lamford gives). This is an easy down 1. We should allow declarer to make his contract only if all normal sequences of play will do. So we just have to find one normal sequence of play where he will go down. Normal play is not very good and here there are plenty of beef on the end game to go wrong. It is normal to roll all the trumps and then ♥AKQ. When sneaky east has saved only the ♥5, it is normal for declarer to have miscounted and try to cash ♥2. Likewise we could give west a diamond trick instead on the ♦9.