AlexJonson

Good, we know diamonds are 6-2, so how do you make nine tricks against good defence. You play clubs, I play clubs, and what next?

Are you saying there is not, or you wish there were not, or something else?

It is obviously a cultural thing. As dummy I would not respond to 'Play!', since I've never used the term, nor seen it used by anyone else. A single interloper in my circle would not change my habit, but if it became very common, I'd have to adjust my bidding style to that of the Hideous Hog, and make sure I wasn't Dummy.

Without disagreeing with a single word in your post, I recall that you are (?) the longest serving member of a relevant EBU regulating committee, and your idea of a strong club here is not the same as that in the EBU regulations.

It's an 'old-fashioned' hand where people used to wonder about defence to preempts because you might have +500 v +430 - if you had a penalty double. But nowadays there is no choice (I think), it's 3NT.

Am I right in think that this is subject to regulation, so that, for example, the definition is very specific in the EBU, and not the same as the WBF?

I'll exit a spade, playing West to be 6124 with KQxx clubs. Whoever wins the spade has to return a spade, ruffed. Heart to the Ace and heart ruff. Jack of clubs, covered, Ace, eliminate hearts. Exit with a club. Either East is thrown in to concede a ruff and discard, or West has to play his remaining club honour.

I think this kind of hand depends on how many IMPs, over the long run, it's correct to sacrifice to avoid a rare loss. Finding E with QT9x in spades, and less than three clubs, and not holding Ace of hearts is about 2% I guess. Is it optimal to lose IMPs by losing the overtrick when spades are 32/23 with the Queen in West?

I need two more tricks, so I'll lead a small club to the eight for now.

Going back to the OP, I think it absurd that a player can't ask when they know the regulations prevent an alert. It's an imperfect world and if you don't like it, petition for transfer announcements at all levels.

I would definitely at the table win the diamond King, cash a spade and cross to a club. Now spade to the Jack.

5C. My hand looks less good for defence than for offence.

Well done E/W. Next board?

I would have been a sceptic on your Committee, but I think the committee job was done well and I'm surprised it has been accepted(?) with so little grace by some of our TD community.

Correction... did you intend the capital at the start of elicit? It was a good post (IMO) from Vampyr, though I don't do voting or read it. But in general on an international Bridge site, spelling, implied pronunciation, grammatical correctness, precision in meaning...All for the point in the day or the point in your self esteem where Bridge isn't cutting it any more.

I'd pass. I'm probably a bit old style, so if you told me at the desk you were really wild, but usually successful, then go for it if it's your hand (though I'd wonder for a moment why you were playing with me, or more importantly why I was playing with you.)

It's amusing in a way that the EBU regulations say the bidder has to keep the stop card out for a specific time. That would solve several of your problems when you are declarer (few attempt to play with the stop card on the table). It wouldn't solve any of your problems when you are defending and declarer 'flashes' the card and puts it away. Personally I don't care whether we have these regulations or not (whatever variant) but I very much like a predictable rhythm of play where people stop when they should, alert when they should etc.

I recall there was a post about this subject some while ago. The discussion (I think) centred round the description of the 2NT. If I remember correctly just saying 'forcing' was regarded as too economical with the truth, if the bid can be made on a wide range of values. In some regulations 'forcing' is defined as 'forcing from strength'.

I'd place West with something like 4 ? ? 7. I'd play Ace and Queen of diamonds and take it from there. East can't then get a club ruff.

Is the 5H still treated as a fielded misbid, if there was no UI, and a concealed understanding is vanishingly unlikely?

I would take the view that you weren't sufficently careful in playing your singleton.

2S and 3H. Both seem descriptive, which is good.

Given the terms of the OP I would bid 6S. Big hand, big fit, two Queens I can't easily evaluate. I wouldn't try science.

Playing a low trump from the King is a cheap shot against Qx with East. It costs little to nothing versus playing the King. If this post was in the A&E section, I would have been reluctant...of course.

I don't know if there was sarcasm, but I do believe that your position is clearly correct in relation to the regulations, because that is what they say (and could hardly reasonably say anything else without attracting derision). Whether it's a good thing to pass an opponents preemptive game bid in this context is not the business of regulators.