mfa1010

I would not double. Mainly because I think the contract will make.

Adjustment is appropriate in a event with decent players.

Settle for a slightly conservative 4♣. Pass?? That would be really absurd. :)

Just to explain my views: 1) It seemed you were suggesting that whether or not to adjust depended on the "grossness" of the 2♥-bid. The problem of this thread is to judge if UI was transmitted or not and we can't use an ugly bid in itself to establish that it was. An evaluation of the actual bid must be kept for the LA-departement. 2) A procedural penalty is warranted as such, but it shouldn't be used to 'deprive EW of the benefit of an adjustment'. Also it seems exorbitant to penalize if EW have not previously been warned about their announcements.

What do you suggest that east would have done with 4♦+4♣? It seems very natural to me to choose partner's first bid suit then, while with 3♦+4♣ he would raise clubs.

I think you should either call the TD at the table or forever say nothing. It is unfair to your opponents with underhand allegations that they can't defend properly against. As I understand your posts a TD was indeed available for a ruling at the site. I don't know how these things work in England, but I strongly feel that the directing staff should wave you away if you came and presented the case afterwards with the intend to 'harm' your opponents. If the intend was to just get an opinion out of pure academic interest then that is a different matter.

I'm pretty sure that west is 2155, since east bid 5♦ and not 5♣. I would also finesse east since he has most spades. Holding a stray queen shouldn't mean much for the bidding here - nor for the defense.

Agree with han, scramble after a business redouble.

(double post)

It's quite easy to calculate. In the usual restricted choice situation, we divide the odds for finessing by 50% (= multiply by 2), but now we instead just need to divide by 80%. So with your 80-20 assumption it goes /when we see the 9/: 1) Empty spaces: 10 to 11 Odds with 80-20RC: 10 to 11x0.8 = 10 to 8.8 Percentage for finesse = 53,2% 2) (Here we know about the 4-2 in the other suit) Empty spaces: 6 to 9 Odds with 80-20RC: 6 to 9x0.8 = 6 to 7.2 Percentage for finesse = 45,5% So knowing about the 4-2 in the other suit is enough to tip the scales in favour of playing for the drop under the assumption that RHO is 80% to play the 9 on the second round from J9x.

1st round: I would double 1♦. 2nd round: Agree with double. They are potentially in trouble it seems at this point. 4♦X might be the final contract or if LHO runs unilaterally to 5♣, partner might have an opinion about that contract. The alternative is an effort to discover if partner has ♥A or ♥K. Blackwood or 5♥. 3rd round: Can't think of anything better than 5♦. 4th round: 6♥. We might go down but such is life. If partner's pass is encouraging, he should have something useful which can almost only be a heart honour. Even if this is unclear I bid 6♥. It would be a little naive to think that we are about to get wealthy against 6♣X. I expect 200. But on a bad day it slips through. West's bidding opposite a potential misfit marks him with a black monster and he will buy a good dummy with no ♦-wastage. If it is 5-7 opposite a 1273 distribution, the play may go: heart lead to A, spade from dummy, 12 tricks by ruffing three spades and setting up the 5th.

I agree with gnasher and just want to point out a shortcut in the calculations. A- If we have a normal vacant spaces problem with no restricted choice, we finesse west at the decision point if he has more vacant spaces than east. B- If it is a restricted choice situation then the impact of this is smply, that we should halve the number of vacant spaces we count with east. Very easy. --- So here: 1) West has 10 vacant spaces, east has 11 vacant spaces. Restricted choice => east should be counted as only 5.5 vacant spaces. Odds of finesse = 11:5.5 or 20:11. 2) West has 6 vacant spaces, east has 9 that should be counted as 4.5. Odds for finesse= 6:4.5 or 4:3. 3) Cut-off is knowing a suit is 5-1, since that would leave west with 5 vacant spaces and east with 10 counted as 5.

I think either of those two solutions are unwarranted by the bridge laws.

I don't see the dilemma?! I cross to ♥K and finesse spades. Why is that not automatic? I don't have any particular reason to believe that west has 4♥ in the absence of a negative double. So I don't consider playing heart to the T.

ELC should not be thought of as "either/or" but rather "to what extend". Sure there are die-harders out there, who would double with zero extras and plan an ELC with some very imperfect shape for a takeout double. But most sane people would consider it a flaw having to correct clubs to diamonds and require some extras for the initial double when that is the plan. The extend of that "some" is the point, and that is a style issue. I agree that when we double in fourth seat, the auction is less likely to explode if we plan an ELC. Therefore it is sensible to lower the extras requirement somewhat for an ELC double in 4th seat.

I think it is very bizarre to bid 3NT. Partner also has NT-bids in his bidding box if we belong there. It deserves to hit ♠QJ, ♥xxxxx, ♦KQxx, ♣AK. Right, but not quite so unlucky on his part to bid his 5-card suit with a 5440 and then find a huge fit for that suit only. I think he had a routine double.

Marginal hand with 4♥ + 6-7♦? Wants to try 4♥ opposite a fit and 5♦ opposite diamond support. When partner replies 3♦ he is likely to have 5♣ so we take the low road... ;)

No this is a pedestrian hand. You were just unlucky.

Too good imo. I would X then diamonds over clubs with that.

You are right, but perhaps the difference is not so great after all. Take the "ideal" compound situation, where hearts are Qxxx to x. West wins Q and returns hearts and we roll the rest of the suit. On all those hearts, east will discard 1 club and 1 diamond, what else? West will discard spades only. If east now guards clubs (6124) we must now play ♦A-K. If east instead guards diamonds (6142), we must now play ♣K-A to win. Alternatively, if we play ♦A-K we can still make by guessing to take a club finesse. But that would suddenly lose to east's 6133 with ♣Qxx. I think this looks like a very nasty guess.

Maybe you are right, but I don't see it. East eventually discards exactly one minor card in both instances on the penultimate heart. If we assume that he has then abandoned the minor he discards, we are in deep trouble if east shows up with a 6-4. The contract has so great chance to make overall that uncertainty about card reading is a big issue in my opinion. (Did you mean LHO=west or RHO=east where I have bolded the text? I'm confused).

I assume you mean east?! West discards spades. Is that not always the drawback of a compound squeeze that we have to guess what suit he abandoned? Since we need to cash the winners in that suit before playing the squeeze card.

Does partner's 3NT over 3♥ not show a heart stopper of his own? Could be stiff king, I guess, but otherwise...

3♥ for me, but I don't have extras this time.

3♠ splinter over 2♦? Or does it show 5♠+4♦ and a hand that forgot to overcall 1♠? I would bid 3♥ over 2♠ and pass 3NT since I'm now terrified that west is void in hearts. Partner's bidding should usually be 6-4 but it is not guaranteed.