AlexJonson

Looking at North first, is it impossible that South is 3163. If South had alerted and then bid 5♦, would not a lot of North players consider passing. Looking at South, it would seem that North's 5♥ (as TimG suggests) might be a cue bid, as we are asked to believe in the case of South's 5♦.

Thanks for the commments. I clearly went too far in assuming North was considering 3NT, and therefore had something in diamonds, making 4♦ a safe bid. My presumptions did coincidentally correspond to reality. Luckily enough, from an ethical perspective, 3♠ passed out was a poor contract and a poor result.

For me this sort of hand was 4H initially.

Consider 3NT and 4♥. Bid 4♥. After 3NT-4H, 4NT Blackwood and bid 7♥ if North has two key cards.

[hv=pc=n&s=sha643dqj98753cj3]133|100[/hv] All non-vulnerable,teams of four, for better or worse South deals and opens 3♦. West passes, North gives it significant thought and bids 3♠. Regular partnership, but nothing on the card. Legal bids?

I mentioned the Ghestem thread in this thread, because Karlson referred to it as an inconsistency on my part. Perhaps we could have one thread at a time. You had your go on the Ghestem thread. I know the internet encourages abandonment of conversation for abuse, but perhaps you could contain youself and your shouting emphases.

You mistake me. I objected on the Ghestem hand to the proposition that I must commit suicide. It seemed clear from the post that everyone at the table knew what was going on. It seemed in fact an example of the particular approach in Holland to misbids - especially Ghestem. If I ignore lack of alert on that hand, I can still feel concerned about my prospects in 5CX and the size of the risk. Here, if I ignore the alert, there is no clue that this is not a normal auction.

I would bid 4S over 3S, and pass when it is doubled. There is no signicant probability that a wheel has come off in this auction.

Good fun, Lamford And if screens or other technology, do you wonder if 5C was invitational? Leave it, if you have xxx, Hx? Some are obsessed with the much less probable 5C as demanding to play, not invitational, not lead directing - lead directing is less worrying obviously, emphasised in case some idiot seizes on this. Is it an LA to go for let's say 1700+ etc, is it a rational risk. Who knows - ask/consult as Bluejak might say. None of Andre's consulted players seriously passed. We had a stray money Bridge post recently. How do you feel if you personally are carrying the cost of the decision in cash, rather than Internet nonsense.

I like these threads. West has psyched his 2C bid? South as a result misinterprets his partner's 3S? EW can double 5H, but the other side can't pass. Personally I don't play kickback. 'Wrong forum' for the kickback sub-thread?

I have found this post very interesting. I need to get out more and meet players who go for 2300-5200,knowingly, either to punish partner - or themselves as in this case. I'm not really convinced that this constitutes anything resembling ethics. Until I am convinced, I'll bid as a card player and leave it to the opponents and the TD.

Should we interpret Andre's description of his poll, as meaning no-one really passed? That is they all had a good laugh about Ghestem, and indicated that they all understood the position, as did the players at the table. I am quite interested in West's action in passing out 5H. Do TDs ignore a player comment that they passed gambling on an adjustment, rather than obscure the crime by bidding on. Specifically is this kind of action different from gambling in the sense intended in the Laws. I'd be happy enough to see players who use and forget Ghestem suffer for it, but is it legal that they suffer as in this post.

I will be amazed if South cannot legally bid 5D. No need to add any more obvious comments about West.

West seems to have a weird hand. He definitely doesn't have an average overcall with two aces (if he is me) because he didn't cash after seeing a non club void. There are some weird possible layouts and explanations, but I'll leave that to the experts.

I think we are missing the point. The hesitation reduces the risk for North that the opponents are making slam. This is not a complex auction (pace Pran). High-level is not the same thing as complex or surprising. I would be very disappointed as a player if NS could get away with this.

If declarer had said 'cashing the King of clubs and conceding the last trick to the Queen of clubs', the TD would have given him the contract, although declarer would have played Bridge just as badly as in the OP. Yes I know, irrelevant, but I find it interesting. In the real world I might have asked declarer what he intended to play - oh no, I wouldn't, I'm not allowed to do that, I believe.

Siegmund certainly had it right. I uneasily voted 3NT, but I've just remembered an argument - 3NT is two tricks less than 5D, though it does score less than 6D.

Nige I happen to disagree. I suffer a sort of internal groan when I see the latest Lamford 'from the club' post. It's all sub or super BLML, or of course the next wonders of the menagerie. I must say I read it with enjoyment, but without information or education.

I'll take a chance that the auction may not be typical, but the contract is - so pass. Anything else accepts a different risk.

Pass for me. When I bid this sort of hand, I seem to get exactly the dummy I deserve. I don't deny that just occasionally I might struggle to +110. As for other vulnerabilities and forms of scoring - might be different.