AlexJonson

Ok, let's be serious if you like. If you deconstruct the conversation, then declarer expressed surprise that partner bid 3NT without 'consulting'. There is actually no indication that declarer has needed to count anything, or needs to recount anything. If you are right about ACs then we all need to stop wasting our money on them.

A. As I said re damage. B. If it's about 16B, try a poll to find how many people think they have how many diamonds.

The only decisions players disagree with are judgement rulings (more or less). In this case, there are some who pretend to judge that there has been an infraction with damage, and there are those who disagree. Send it to appeal. You will be very, very unlucky to meet a majority of SB sympathisers on the appeal committee. Send it here...mm...

East seems to have switched his brain off at the important moment, rather than passing 4H. Why not just leave the problem to South? As for the rest, let's ask someone about forcing passes.

I've always assumed that Directors have friends, but I've never met players who have Directors as friends.

If we look back to the original thread, then we we are weighing the idea that players have hundreds of CPUs, or maybe a smaller number of 'meta CPUs', versus the idea that they are honest. Unless you really want to change the Laws to say that after a hesitation, any fantastic bad result is the way to rule, then honesty is overwhelmingly probable in this kind of case. Why? Because expert players with such a fascination with winning, could just agree a better system.

I'm inclined to think it unlikely that NS are colluding in one of (presumably many?) CPUs. It's as if Lamford took off for the moon (wondering if the flight was a fraudulent simulation), and now we are headed for Mars (with Lamford's concerns unanswered). But back on Earth, NS are innocent so far, and I don't know them.

Since South can easily have the same hand but with AK hearts, they are not suitable to accept the slam suggestion with KQ of hearts (IMO).

I don't really get this. Oppos have funny 2's, that they put on the front of their card. So, the problem is... you just got back from the bar with no time to play Bridge properly?

I'm not sure why anyone thinks 2D is systematically GF - didn't he just think with his huge hand and spades that he could go naturally and slowly, only to be disappointed...

I remember a long time ago finding the debate about restricted choice, really interesting. But as several players here have said, it just doesn't matter. In the normal world believe it, it's only a short hand for the possible distributions, and if people are a bit routine and not random, it doesn't matter enough, take the finesse. If they are completely routine, take the finesse anyway, because maybe they changed since last week, and they are a bit less routine.

Mm I believe that in most circumstances, most TD calls are for technical reasons, and the TD's contribution is very welcome and helps everyone immediately. Then there are the UI MI/UI situations. I've been impressed by the practicality of TDs in these situations: given that they will not often leave everyone happy. I've never personally seen a TD exhibit emotion or favouritism. So, though I imagine I understand what axman is talking about, and sort of agree, there is a big difference between a forum and a tournament hall.

Now I remember (but nothing about insults). I used to be over-sensitive to this sort of situation - I think Bluejak is the only one who is sensitive any more. I've since been educated by dburn and Blackshoe to just bid with some logic and table feel, and leave it to oppos and the TD. Condescension reigns, but well intentioned and I think I will take the advice. More seriously, the pair in the post you refer to were clearly hopeless, and the idea (the Bluejak Hypothesis) that poor old zero points partner was desperately bidding hearts to end the auction, met few adherents on high-powered BBO, but all too credible, in the real world IMO. But Bluejak is now on his own, I'll go for 4S, and hope the Director called isnt... Do TDs really do polls of ten people? I don't believe a word of it.

I agree with your reformulation. (Though after a recent thread on doubles in the EBU I might hesitate to say 'takeout, what else could it mean' in any moderately complex auction - more likely to automatically alert and mumble about values). Did I really insist on driving to slam with a 3 count? When was that? I do hold pretty poor cards, so I'm prone to action faced with a few pictures, but 3 points...

You seemed to be advocating that EW invent an agreement they did not have. If West had a bid that showed 5C and 2S, I suspect he might have used it with two aces, and I strongly suspect he might have mentioned it in the later debate. The TD made his decision - and if I had been in NS I'd have accepted it with good grace, but I'm stil not convinced about the EW story, and the poll seems slightly suspect, since it seemed to encounter people who either played a convention EW didn't, or wished they played it.

I agree with your sentiments. I wish that your conclusions were true. But in reality, for the most part, the TD will ask why he has been called. The reasons given for calling the TD in this case are not compelling, and the evidence of the early posts is that the TD may not search assiduously for damage the plaintiffs failed to mention - and nor perhaps should he.

Double. Pushing opps and taking them off at the three level is one of the other reasons for playing IMPs, after bidding low percentage games.

I strongly agree that once NS (as it is here) have messed up the auction by their failure to alert, all balance of doubt transfers to the other side. There still has to be a legal basis for adjustment. Lamford's appears to be a fantasy masquerading as a post. I personally might prefer that the guilty side are automatically punished, but does the Law say that is what happens? I think not. Hence my attempt to cancel the 3H bid, so it's then obvious(?) for EW to continue bidding.

If North knew that 2H was alertable as weak, then his 3H preempt was (IMO) unacceptable. So, 1. If North forgot or didn't know that 2H had to be alerted, there seems insufficient evidence so far that EW would have bid on. 2. If North bid 3H knowing he should have alerted, then I would give EW some portion of 4C/5C.

Just to make sure I'm not confused. If my card says something like 'attitude, can be count on partners lead. But we have suit preference elsewhere, and we both read bridge sites/mags about plays when normal signals are not useful (but there is nothing on our card and we haven't discussed it). So 1. Do we have illegal signals 2. Do we have a bit of a failure to disclose 3. (Eek) are we just playing Bridge according to our SC

Not sure, that was the point of my conversation with reasonable players about passing 3C. If 3C says 'I'm minimum, pass with a minimum', these natural limit bid players bid what to move on? Bear in mind that people in the stone age had their thinking influenced by rubber scoring. That doesn't mean serious players didn't understand MP and IMP scoring.

For full disclosure, I voted is and always was forcing. Be interested to see any good quality player, recorded hand where this auction was passed. I've seen people who would pass 3C (and I had a surprised conversation with them long enough ago to be the stone age). I've not met the hand that passes 3H in this auction, so far (ignoring the usual result needed).

Agreed. And your opinion? Personally, allowing the auction to proceed normally is good (and if the Italians invented it, good for them). Don't really care that much about potential cheats using insufficient bids.

I'd like to ask if it is the same situation: 1. When 4C comes back undoubled 2. When 4C comes back doubled

Other - extreme overbid.