AlexJonson

Perhaps you could just leave the answering poster to say 'no not joking, it's a reasonable new concept for you to consider'. If that's what he thinks. Why do you think your 'downvote/upvote' adds anything to the conversation.

6♣ undoubled for both sides seems a sensible outcome. I wouldn't judge the double as wild or gambling.

I think that for people with nothing to say and a bit of spare time, upvoting and downvoting is a great innovation.

I was voted wrong last time, but 300 v 650 is still -8 imps. Slam is pushing it a bit, so 5S for me.

I'd be annoyed with myself to make a passive lead (say trump) and the opps cash out when we had four top tricks. So like everyone else it's Q clubs this time and probably next time.

Pretty much always right, but did he answer the question? Maybe he was about to say must bid but it depends on agreements.

Better, perhaps, that you give up the struggle and comment on the OP.

I appreciate your point, but I was not generalising ('in this particular case'. The EBU guidance does say, if I recall, 'particularly when the bid is not alerted'.

In this particular case it seems simplest to suppose that the question was asked because there are various meanings for 3D in this situation. In that case there is no UI of any kind. If we speculate that partner only asks with a reason other than wanting to know, I still doubt that we know his reason when we choose our lead. If we speculate that partner is too experienced to ask with a diamond holding, then we may have a problem. I like the simplest approach, he asked because the bid was alerted and he conveyed nothing about his hand.

My immediate reaction was to bid 5H, on the basis I'm likely to make 300 in defence versus 650 in Hearts. On the basis of other replies, I need to think hard about my evaluation of this kind of position.

It looks like at least one read the post as 'pass it out' rather than 'pass is out'. Also it may be that talking about things depending on partnership agreements attracted disapproval. You may have committed other crimes I don't know about.

Presumably declarer, say sitting South, could be designating a card to be played by, say, East when there will be an appreciable time before dummy has played.

I'd say definitely publish all the scores (full matrix). Why not? Don't be condescending. Players may still prefer their own solution, after all, by definition actual champions are in a minority. Don't assume anyone will be embarassed

Lamford consider - because you are often so precise about the Laws. Two extremes: 1. The Bermuda Bowl final Who does the TD consult? 2. The local club, successful, with 15+ tables. Who does the TD consult? I suspect that all the other arguments we have seen from you and others, only apply to the middle ranking to top(ish) ranking regional/national tournaments, with a mixed level of participants. I've heard of the 'cheat's charter'. Is their a 'bully's charter' that may result from extremes of intellectualised judgements you would not have the nerve to apply to top level players.

I've seen it said the Laws don't require a poll, even on this Forum? (not certain about that). Ask Bluejak his opinion.

I enjoyed the poll, and enjoyed the comments and scoring. Well done as everyone says. I think it is best to allow the panel to give their own viewpoint, and even to allow whinging from some competitors.

I was pleased to see that the recent Laws included a definition of 'Logical Alternative'. However, I now see debates that attempt to undermine this definition. I've seen two lines of attack: 1. No objective test is required (eg a poll of equivalent players). It's just a notion the TD imagines in his mind. 2. It doesn't matter because we have Law 73 up our sleeve, and for some reason the word 'any' in Law 73 has assumed mystical significance that exceeds Law 16. So I'm still not sure, Lamford, that you have made your point clear. You may think it is clear to anyone you care about, but that just takes us back to my original point.

I have found the last couple of related threads puzzling in some respects. 1. I dont understand why it matters what dburn used to play with someone. Why does that define the meaning of an obscure 3NT in a TD case? 2. I don't understand why it matters what jallerton thinks in theory or thinks lamford's partner thinks. There is some interesting debate going on here, but most of us are not part of it IMO. If there is an important question to be investigated, let's spit it out and have the debate.

The only question for North is whether he took any advantage of South's explanation. To me the proposition is laughable. Others may think differently.

When 4Hxx reaches me, I haven't even shown my hand type as South, so I can't see why I'm barred from bidding diamonds. I think 7D doubled is probably a 'sensible' end result.

Seemed to me that 4S was a good way of showing relatively poor spades, and let partner make the next move.

If I remember my choice correctly, I felt after bidding 1H..4H, it was time to pass and let partner take a view after his cue bid.

Clearly pass is sound. But I like two clubs, because it interferes to some extent with oppos bidding. With my concentration of values I am not bothered if partner gets excited with several clubs.

Sour grapes Lamford? 3S seems (as I said, compelling). Sure you happen to squeak one off v 3H (as I said). Nice to recall good old days of double dummy pre-computers.

I would win the Ace of clubs and finesse the Queen of spades.