AlexJonson

I a Well Pooltuna -sorry matmat (edited), If we assume that our fellow Laws expert posters are inclined to full disclosure, I'd guess that (ignoring calls about leads out of turn,revokes, claims etc) almost all problematic calls to directors are about bidding and not play. They can correct me if I am wrong. IMO, that's because control of bidding is important and possible. Legal control of play may well be even more important, but definitely not equally possible. Even minnows have huge numbers of bidding agreements, explicit and implicit. They have close to zero, (but not quite zero) ageeements about play. We had a recent thread about play signals in the 'bridge' forums as against 'Laws'. Just re-read those with an extreme Laws hat on - 'just bridge, bridge logic etc'. The whole problem for a player is the total loss of innocence in the auction (officially, though real players just get on with it, mostly). We could (the Laws obviously support it from an extreme view) lose any innocence in the play. I would rather not. I'm not saying the Laws (UI/MI..) don't apply to play in obvious situations, I'm saying that if the extremes of sophistication applied to any and every auction, applied to any and every play, the game would be entirely unplayable over the table.

Not for me, I must admit, but it's not my partner. You definitely need to explain your agreements better. I thought this thread was about card play. If I'm wrong, sorry. Otherwise we get enough about bidding, so maybe we could stay on topic.

Are 3rd seat tendencies on the system card?

I've a strong inmpression that partner leads my shortest suit versus NT (often my singleton). Is this 'special information'. What on earth is 'special information' so we can all understand the intent of the Law you have quoted.

Pass. (not planning to pass a re-opening double).

I've noticed that my Jack Bridge program has a marked tendency to lead singleton trumps. I doubt it would prefer that to AKQ in a side side suit v a part score. In fact, is it just versus game it leads the singletons? You know, I don't know, and I'm definitely not getting into fruitless speculation about partners unknown habits in answer to questions. 'Does he more more often underlead A than Q against a slam'? Yes, guys, play on.

With the upcoming Referendum in mind, you should notice that 'not many' voted for any of the options. You really needed to give us AV so we could rank the choices.

A diamond.

Do we want to introduce the idea of cheating as a regular and distinguishing feature in this particular forum?

Difficult waters you enter in the case of declarer. If I decide to run a long suit, and to think about my future discards before I need to, in order to increase the pressure on defenders, am I following text book advice, or varying tempo in a way I know may well lead to my benefit.

Yes, perhaps. Maybe he is surprised the player on lead had a card in the suit. Maybe he is thinking about ruffing/discarding on a further play of the suit - will there in fact be a further round. Of course I would always always play to a trick and think 'on my own time'. I don't notice that declarers invariably do that, and I wonder if they are actually required to do so by Law, rather than thinking, for valid Bridge reasons, when they choose.

If we return to this case. There will be very, very few situations where you can demonstrate that a declarer had nothing to think about and you were damaged - just think about it for a bit and you will undoubtedly understand what I mean. Even the equals holdings referred to, as well as being rare, are dubious as a basis for an adjustmentment. It's fine to say 'if declarer intends to deceive illegally' he has broken the laws. Gosh, what a controversial assertion that is (not).

Bid 2S on both, Kxx is good, Kx has its advantages.

My declarer opponents are welcome to think. It's much harder to play declarers who play quickly, and I'm not tempted to read anything (automatically) into declarer's play about his immediate holding - after all he might be wondering (in Scotland) if it's time to claim to avoid an apology, Nigel.

With the recent obsession with L12A1, there is a clear and present danger of L73 replacing most of the law book. After which there would be little point in this forum.

Yes thanks Gordon, I think I already mentioned the problem of 'correcting' to a 1D psych. I really must stop assuming people read posts with a willingness to understand and a vestige of humour.

Of course not! Correction to 2NT.

I think you have not had a reply and you should have. I'm sure you would have preferred something from a senior TD, but it is me. There will be many, probably a large majority of situations (IMO), where your proposition that you cannot as a player work out percentage actions and do virtual polls, will be true, and you have to do pretty much do what you always do in that situation - L73 v L16 as you say. Unfortunately there are some common situations where you have to pay attention to L16. The classic slow double - I pulled because pard wasn't sure. The classic slow sign off - I bid game/slam because partner wasn't sure it was wrong. So the legal experts will not agree that a player can ignore L16 and just bid what he intended 'under L73', because that will not always be true. (Please note that I am not an adherent of the Lamford/dburn extremism on L73 - and that I have never seen that extreme position in an adjustment)

Interesting idea that you could correct a mechanical error to a psych (1D?) - unless they had an appropriate 2NT minor suit bid. If they play 2NT for the minors as a preempt, and it is on the card, I would just believe them.

Did partner show a key card, otherwise how would you explain his 4S with QJxxxxx. If he showed more like KQJxxxx or QJTxxxx and club ace, then very different outcome, if I was opposite, (slam in spades in case there is any doubt).

On hand one I guess we are not expecting to make anything, holding pretty much the low end of a raise when partner turns out to be strong. A trump lead is a fair possibility though we do probably get one ruff. Are we bidding 4S expecting it to cost less than 3NT typically?

1. Pass - why not. 2. 4D - promising hand 3S seems to likely to create confusion. 3. 4H - splinter, fragment, whatever, I want to play in 4H.

Shevek You have universal support, and your table mates should have been heavily penalised,perhaps, and you should be delighted to consign them to the outer darkness,perhaps. How do you personally feel about this episode, in the light of the comments you have, and what do you want your relationship with the opponents to be in future.

Other. I'm going to 5D but I think a club lead/switch might be useful

Nigel There is no possibility that you, Bluejak or anyone else, could sanction a captain or a player for recommending/taking the time they need to make correct claims. I doubt that you would even want to try. I don't mind dburn's view (if I have understood it) that players should get the tricks they accurately claim for and lose any others. But I don't believe I've seen him say that it will speed up the game. I don't (much) mind your procedural approach, but I do mind you trying to sell it as 'speeding up the game'. I will follow whatever the claim laws are, and I don't much care what they are, but I'd rather not hear accurate claiming confused with saving time. And I'd rather not hear good Laws about confusing or tiring people by playing very quickly or very slowly, mixed up with the different issue of claiming.