AlexJonson

Thanks for the clarification Gordon. Of course you may be right, or alternatively wrong.

Another learning experience. We already have the dubious fact that passing gets you out of most ethical problems, because it's too hard for the TD to work anything else out. Now we have the new fact that we have to bid 4S immediately on this hand in case partner should imagine he is not playing snap, and we then can't bid on. I'm happy enough with this new bit of guidance, I'll just bid 4S first time round, much better than trying to play a difficult card game. Who are these judgements for? My experience against strong players, and forays into watching matches online (eg the recent excellent trials) suggest that strong players think when they choose, with more or less total impunity. So who are the players who are not allowed to think without compromising partner?

I voted yes. The worse partner is the more I want to bid 4S. So 'hesitates shows values' doesn't make it easier for me to bid on.

I'd ask South what he was up to. If he said that he didn't notice West's double, and then when the double of 3NT came back, he did, then I would believe him, because it would be an overwhelmingly probable story. What EW do then is their problem at the bridge table, since they must also have known that South missed the double.

The impication, Gnasher, is that they 'say so' and that determines the ruling. I know you mean we should believe what people say, but in every walk of life this may be a dubious strategy, and in an adversarial situation (such as Bridge), an exceptionally poor strategy.

I could equally argue that West is very likely to be void in hearts, in which case his bidding and explanation are more or less impossible. I wouldn't argue with someone who plays for one off in hearts rather than nine tricks in spades: I would argue with someone who thinks the choices have anything to do with UI from West's bizarre explanation.

Mm So, if East uses UI and thinks, 'lets not dig a whole any deeper than we are in, I'll pass', that's fine in your interperetation. But if East thinks, pass is clearly suggested by UI to avoid disaster, so I will make the Bridge bid of supporting spades, and take the consequences, then in your interpretation and that of Lamford he has failed ethically. Well, I very much disagree with you.

There are two opposing arguments to you and Lamford (apart from common sense/bridge sense from Aguahombre). 1. East, North and everyone at the table new West had fallen asleep and got confused. 2. East is top end for a 3S bid, so it is not even preemptive - an optimist might bid 4S. There are no legal barriers to 3S.

On the auction West (from East's point of view) is a big favourite to be short in hearts and hold at least five spades, after the 3H. With three spades, a possibly well placed heart King and top clubs, I would certainly bid 3S as East, if North passes 3H.

With EW likely to bid and make 3S over 3H I can't see the damage. Very strange sort of mistake from West.

3S seemed adequate to me.

So Lamford You are saying that if a player meets the requirements of the Laws, and the local requirements of the EBU, and provides full information on their SC, and provides full information when asked after an alert, that the player should be immune from criticism, censure, recording etc. This has to be one of your least strange or controversial assertions.

The only choice (IMO) is diamonds as already suggested, or Queen of clubs then diamonds.

I was brought up in the land of ACOL 2 bids (power and quality). I bought into it. Can recall the first time I encountered a pair playing the 'Benjamin' 2C/2D bids, and they opened 2C on a 14 count. I was a bit shocked and had a friendly debate with them - power, quality, defensive tricks... They were unimpressed - 8 playing tricks etc, better than 1x rebid 3. The fact that I, in 19xx and Burn or Bluejak in 2011 disapprove of these 2 bids strikes me as a historical curio and otherwise doesn't strike me at all. But I do wonder what all your Benji encounter opponents, fordy, do bid with the hand posted, because I doubt they open other than 2C.

Sounds an excellent idea. I regret introducing any stain on the perfection of your idea.

So you and dburn think that South breached the Laws of Bridge when he got confused and West exploited his confusion. And the idea that the TD is there to use judgement, means what for you guys in this case?

2C It will often be passed out over 1H (IMO).

So, everyone bids more or less sensibly except West. West is scared to bid with his poor hand. It turns out badly for him, but Burn and Bluejak to the rescue.

Judging by this hand, I would much prefer that: a) The 1NT response was described as 4 or 5-10 (whichever it is) b) The 2D rebid was described as 5+, but normally 6+ I can't see anything strange about the NS hands to explain their 'deviations'. Whether East would have bid differently, I don't know, but I guess he gets the benefit of the doubt(?).

Of course your GIB won't do very well at all without sight of all hands, (unlike, for example, Chess computers that crunch the whole position).

3NT

Not sure where we are going here, but I would lead AH v 4S.

Isn't 2C alertable rather than announced? I notice a couple of people have mentioned announcements. Anyway, I don't see a problem with the bidding or disclosure on this hand. Huge numbers of people in the EBU play something like the agreements you mention, and I can't imagine thinking for one moment that I was poorly informed when they turn up with this hand - especially since it is a hand type that generated some debate and presumably determined the wording in the current Orange Book.

I noticed it was a bit slow, and went to bed when I might of stayed up if it was faster. But, if I was competing to represent an expected favourite in the BB, I might not care who went to bed while I was thinking. Mostly I watch Chess live, especially right now, but a one on one game is much easier to control with clocks.

I believe that for time-keeping convenience, we sometimes choose to forget that the claims law creates a special case where players would otherwise be breaking several laws, but are allowed to do so if they claim correctly. So players should claim correctly or not at all, or accept the consequences.