AlexJonson

I'd burn my boats and bid RKC, then 6 over 2 key cards and try for 7 over 3.

If you provide the opponents with an SC and it has your card play agreements, why should you have to talk about those agreements.

OP: '2NT was alerted by East, and when asked he said that he doesn't really know but it might be both minors.'

1. I'd bid the first same way and off. 2. I'd bid 4S with the East hand rather than 3.

I'm uneasy that smart players who say no agreement in this auction get their contract and seemingly poor players get confused and are adjusted against. I guess in real life the TD will judge the situation.

I like the vacant spaces approach. When opponent A showed two of the small cards and B showed one, A has eleven spaces and B has twelve, so play to drop the queen from B. As has been Implied if you know anything about the distribution of another suit, you can adjust the 11:12 spaces and decide.

Just wanted to know if there were more issues Mr Ace wanted to bring out, seems maybe there were.

Phil I asked why ace posted again, not the first time.

Why you posting again Ace. Your hesitation gave UI and luckily partner's decisions were clear.

\you can ask if you thought the opponent was indistinct rather than the alternative (apparently inconceivable or libellous case) that partner wasn't quite with it.

So, in the context of the OP, Duboin didn't want to insult the opponents, so conceded two tricks in the end position with the opponent on lead. Now we have (IMO) a ridiculous debate about whether declarer should go off for his courtesy. Personally (not being Duboin) and with a nod to Bill, I wouldn't have claimed against most of my oppos at that point in time. Too bad Frances, I 'know' I have sure tricks, but I'm not risking them for the opponents' sake when I can't envisage every pointless defence the opponents might try.

Are you arguing that it is unwise to claim in a sure tricks ending unless you are known to be world class.

I think ruffling low is worse than careless for anyone who would claim in this position.

Did you suspect your partner wasn't paying attention.

Raise 1H and pass the rest. Bid sufficient hearts if partner doubles.

Strikes me it would be absurd to rule that a player who explains their bid succinctly and accurately has provided MI.

Just curious, why is the known location of some of the high card collection nonsense. May be the wrong way to tackle the hand, but implies east is more likely to hold the spade king does it not.

2S Despite the heavy alternative positions I wouldn't consider anything else.

I'd bid 3d and would not consider any number of NT because that doesn't describe my hand.

IMO 4H is fine and S should pass with his rubbish hand (from a slam perspective). Maybe I'm influenced by imagining 3H would be passable, maybe not.

If the ebu as 'sponsor' takes 7.5% from major tournaments I can't see that as a problem.

I'm almost completely with the voting - 1D. 1S, 2S.

So If you don't have full info about the players system, which I suppose you very rarely do in a case of any difficulty, you just make it up because a poll doesn't work?

Not sure why this sensible post has not been responded to. Do we believe that literally any distribution was implied?

Does it remain obvious that bidding on in diamonds is an LA? Otherwise I don't see how LAs work at all, and we are just talking about TDs notions about the game.