AlexJonson

Mycroft Bear in mind I respect your views. Also bear in mind that I'm a player/student and not an expert, so UI?, CPU?, MI? combinations thereof, you or bluejak or blackshoe are better placed to decide. I find that people explain bids according to their system in the context of their hand. So, if they have a normal opener 3rd in hand, they don't even notice that they are 3rd in hand. So they inadvertently explain badly, perhaps. Then partner (possibly) wakens them up... I have no real idea what a TD or Appeal would make of this case - even if it were presented to them. But it is an interesting area, and I was surprised to be vilified by PaulG for commenting, because it sparked my interest. I am not completely convinced that posts are reacted to by value rather than by author reputation here - perhaps inevitable but regrettable.

I don't recall mentioning coincidence. Would it be so strange to ask North why he bid two hearts, and ask South why he bid four hearts? What would you think if North said it was 'just Bridge' to extend the range opposite a 3rd hand opening?

Such certainty. In this thread it is said that: A 1. North definitely can't bid 3H with an invitational hand (OP advice) 2. North almost certainly can bid 3H with an invitational hand (Hotshot) B 1. South definitely has AI that North has an invitational hand (OP advice) 2. South doesn't have AI that North has an invitational hand (Mycroft) A/B the OP advice is correct (Fluffy) C 1. South doesn't have any UI (large majority) 2 South might have UI though not stated in the OP (Mycroft) - happens to be my personal view. Blackshoe, the reason I don't like what South did is that I believe it was affected by UI when his partner bid 3H. My evidence is scant - just that South bid 4H in this auction, which I think needs investigation.

When I tell partner he has a weak hand, and then he bids on, do you really believe we don't both have UI? You may be right, but I'm lodging an appeal.

Mm So oppo alerts a weak jump, explains, and passes, fine. His pard bids 3H, fine, and he decides to go to four. I don't see that South can bid 4H with impunity. I very rarely call a TD and almost never appeal, but I would do both on this hand.

I'd lead a diamond. It's not illegal for opps to 3325 versus 4423.

Are you confusing this thread with Lamfords invention to investigate Law 73? This thread seems a standard example of choice of genuine candidate logical alternatives.

Thank you Pran. If we are always in 16B3 territory, then given the lack of consensus on this case, it follows that a poll would be the only way to resolve it (IMO).

But Pran, that exactly seems to be the result of allowing people to choose between Laws 73 and 16 when they rule (according to dburn and Lamford). I notice that neither dburn or Lamford care to deal with that, do you?

See the edited version above.

There seems an implication that when 3NT is a worse outcome [ and 4S is bid ], the contract is adjusted to 3NT under 73C. If 4S is a worse outcome [and 3NT is passed]we adjust to 4S under 16B (after a poll). That does not seem satisfactory. Edited for clarity.

This seems a perfect analysis to me (whether or not inconclusive). I will be interested to see if there is a different view of the whole thing based on the (unknown) agreements of the players.

I think the instinctive 'no and no' was clearly correct. An established revoke is not (IMO)an illegal play accepted: I struggle to see how it could be such. The logic that it has to be something more than a revoke escapes me. So I would say the illegal discard (if it means something) is UI.

I think when you make a reasonable attempt at a good score and fail, you move on to the next board. Appellant(s) here have more energy than I could muster to waste everyone's time. Keeping their deposit would be understandable.

What are the 'right questions' if I may ask.

Has to be 4S. Looks like a 5-3 fit on a weak hand. If partner has a slam interest hand where 3NT is a better resting place, too bad.

I sort of agree with you, and even sort of agree with dburn and by implication others. I wonder why the equitable clause is there. I have never understood why we bother to allow claims by law, when poor players never make them, middle players get them wrong, and top players ignore the law.

OK guys. I wanted to investigate what happens when South doesn't have UI from lack of alert. But if the interest is that North has not just forgetten a transfer, but a whole lump of system, then fine I'll lose interest.

4S seemed immediately clearly to me. Little reasoning, so I could easily be persuaded that a champion had a reason to do something different, whatever that might be.

I can't be bothered to use the quotation features, whatever they are. GordonTD. When you approach the supplicants and they present their piteous System Cards to you. Do you ask them 'who in the world bids the way you do'. Would you mind answering yes or no rather than asking me another question. Lamford. Let's say that just 'today', at the End of Time, after 2NT, all artificial and forcing sequences start with 3C/3D and 3H/3S are sign-offs. When partner (possibly/probably/certainly) shows a very good maximum with two spades and five good hearts, when he bids 4H. How many polled players bid on. GTD says they all get cross about it. You say... who knows.

Good to discover that with Lamford in the world, polls are unnecessary, since their results can be judged to infinite precision.

What a feeble post. At least Lamford (albeit with his usual arrogance)replies to the question, rather than asking an entirely pointless question.

For me the question is, had South bid 3S natural and non-forcing, would he have bid on over 4H from North. Be interesting to poll that.

This is now quite interesting, a good thing in itself I think. I'm going to win the spade, though I would love to duck it - that's too hard for me. Now I'll play the top diamonds.