Aardv

If you're going to start watching video to find possible signals, it will be much less of a strain to view the Polish Premier League (Glen's link), which is in high resolution. If you want to decode any suspected signal it helps if you have some understanding of the bidding methods: here's their convention card. (Boye hasn't made any statement describing alleged signalling methods, so neither do I.)

Try reading the facebook group "facebridge". Which is in Norwegian.

I've added the counts of suit-signalled-for and impossible-suits to the spreadsheet. paul

Debrett's has "Bath-urst" with a short 'a'. Not that Kevin B need pronounce his name the same way as his namesake the Earl.

I am competent. A specific 4-1 break is more likely than a specific 5-0 by a ratio of 13:9, by vacant places. A priori, with AQ1098 opposite Kxx, the usual line is small to the king, picking up all 3-2 breaks, 4-1 or 5-0 onside, and singleton jack offside (86.7%). The line Schwarz played makes with singleton jack onside or jack offside unless 5-0 (50.9%) (but it's a bit better than that because you usually have a trump coup against 5-0 onside breaks). Running the 10 on the first round makes with jack offside or 5-0 onside (52%). The usual line is very much better than the finesse, unless you think there's a strong indication that LHO thinks the defence has a trump trick. And if he thinks that, he's much more likely to have Jxxxx than xxxx.

I doubt that two other declarers did exactly the same thing (does anyone know?). If you think trumps are lying badly, you run ♦10 on the first round - why shouldn't they be 5-0?

The auction was 2♣-2♦, 2NT-3NT. Opener showed 20-21 balanced, 2♦ gave no relevant information. Relevantly, partner was a passed hand. (Board 24 here).

If ♣A lead is a strong enough indication that the leader is hoping for a trump trick, it seems logical to me to run ♦10 on the first round. That way you can pick up five diamonds in either hand. You pay off to singleton ♦J on your right, but that doesn't fit with your reading of the opening lead. On the other hand, Boye Brogeland in his book recommends that one should believe a defender's spot cards in trumps. If West's ♦7 on the first round is his lowest trump, that improves the odds on the finesse. (Not that I think Brogeland's advice necessary applies in the European Championships.)

6♦ was played nine times (Group A, Group B) in the Open Teams. At seven tables, the recorded lead is ♣A. At the other two tables, the recorded lead is ♥6, which East didn't have, and ♦5, which seems impossible since the contract went one off (this last table was on BBO, but unfortunately it was board 1 and there's no record of the bidding or play). Two of the other six declarers who got the ♣A lead made 6♦, the other four went off. So apparently ♣A is the normal lead, and it's then possible but not usual to get the diamonds right (but I have no information about the other auctions). Watching the video, it seems odd to me that there's no reaction from Schwarz when Verhees discards on ♦10. But you might argue that just shows he's not acting.

I think you misread that.

The EBU offers advice along those lines: However, that's not an injunction. Personally I like to have an idea what's going on during the auction, but I prefer looking at the convention card to asking questions.

The EBU disagrees with you

I saw no need to repeat myself, but since you insist: (It makes no different if it's a misbid rather than a psyche.)

You've overlooked this: (I needn't answer your (2). North must take South's double as showing diamonds, in accordance with their partnership agreements.) If I'm persuaded that South's double was a genuine psyche, then I need to rule whether North's pass made it Red or Amber, as defined by the White Book*. If Red, then I award an artificial adjusted score and a PP. I'd talk to the players, and consult if possible, but my first thought is that 2♦ is the obvious and normal call, so it's a Red psyche. *I'm assuming that if the Blue book was in force, so was the White book.

There's a prima facie case that North's pass over 1♠ was based on or suggested by UI.

You could have an agreement that a double of an alerted 1♦ always shows diamonds, then there would be no problem here. I've never heard of anyone actually having that agreement. My understanding is that this pair plays that a double of an artificial 1♦ shows diamonds, whereas a double of a natural 1♦, even if alerted, is for take out. That agreement is very common. This sort of conditional agreement is unplayable (in the absence of UI) unless you find out whether 1♦ is natural or artificial before you double, whether at the beginning of the round or in response to an alert. If you always find out at the beginning of the round, your partner will act on the basis that you know the meaning of their 1♦. If you always ask (or consult their convention card), your partner will act on the basis that you know the meaning of their 1♦. The knowledge that you've done neither of these things is UI to partner. Therefore he must always act on the basis that you know the meaning of their 1♦. It follows that if opponents are playing Walsh, North must act on the basis that South knew that 1♦ was natural. And if 1♦ was artificial, as it was, North must act on the basis that South knew that likewise.

I'm saying that in practice some players think of asking only if they want to show diamonds. Anyone who's played an alertable 1♦response can confirm that.

Severe trouble? Any director who penalises South for asking for information he needs about an alerted call should find a different game to ruin. "Therefore" is wrong. We're told that the Blue Book applied to alerts: it specifies that "a bid must be alerted if it: (a) is not natural; or (b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning." So the alert of 1♦ did not have to mean that it was an artificial bid. North's hand seems to have been Kxx Axx Qxx 10xxx. I think it's normal at white to bid 2♦ with that, and I suspect that North's pass was influenced by UI contrary to Law 16. I would consider an adjustment to 2♦X.

Sorry, if North doesn't know the meaning of 1♦, he should find out and interpret South's double accordingly. (North needn't find out if North is going to make the same call either way.)

Under Law 16, the fact that South has or hasn't asked a question is UI to North. (But the answer to any question he asked is of course AI.) Apparently the N-S agreement is that the meaning of South's double depends on whether 1♦ is natural or artificial. If South asks, then doubles, North knows what 1♦ means and knows that South knows, so he can and will interpret the double accordingly. That's the alerting and explanation system working as it should. If South doesn't ask, then doubles, North is not allowed to use South's non-question to interpret the double. It follows that if he doesn't know the meaning of 1♦, he should find out and interpret the double accordingly.

It matters because North is supposed to assume and West is entitled to assume that South knows the meaning of 1♦. I'm sceptical that South was psyching; I suspect he doubled for take-out, and would have asked first if he wanted to double to show diamonds.

Why was 1♦ alerted?

In the double-dummy part of the poll, votes for touching cards should be amalgamated. On this hand, an active lead can win only if it sets up partner's 5-card or longer suit. That would have to be diamonds, since he didn't double 2♣ (I assume a double would be primarily for the lead). My judgment is that that's just too unlikely. So we should make the most passive lead. At double-dummy, that's a heart (though it can cost; AJx with partner comes to mind). At single-dummy safety considerations are a bit different - give partner Qxx in both suits and you'd rather lead a heart. It's interesting that the double-dummy simulations agree that the ten is best from Q10x, but not from K10x. I guess that's because it retains the lead when dummy has Kxx and partner AJxxx.

6♣: I suppose that if our play makes a difference, declarer has seven good clubs to go with dummy's AAK, and will take a spade ruff in dummy, which gets him up to eleven tricks. If he's got three spades he'll take two spade ruffs, so give him two, presumably QJ doubleton since partner hasn't raised. The danger is that he's 2227 and can ruff the diamonds good. In that case we need to take out an entry to dummy. A heart might work, but a top spade is safer. Alternatively, if partner's lead is a singleton, declarer is something like 5116. We could try a trump, but unless partner's trumps are at least 98x, or declarer has a heart void, he'll have a double squeeze after ♠ruff, ♦AK, ♦ruff ♠ruff etc. I'll play ♠K at trick two. (But I don't believe this auction)

If you rise ♥A and take the spade finesse, you will go off if the finesse loses, and make if the finesse wins. 50%. If you finesse ♥Q and it wins, you will make almost always (unless you lose a spade trick and a diamond ruff). Call that 98%. If you finesse ♥Q and it loses, you are not in practice going to get to dummy with a club ruff. If you play a club they'll switch to diamonds (what else, with ♠K onside), occasionally getting a diamond ruff and otherwise threatening a ruff. Are you going to play another club? So you might as well lay down ♠A at once. That's 26%. If you estimate the probability of LHO having ♥K and for this lead as p, you should finesse if 0.98p + 0.26 > 0.5. Roughly, if p > 0.25. [correction: you should finesse if 0.98p + 0.26(1-p) > 0.5. That is, if p > 1/3] What do you think LHO would have led from ♥KJ10(x)(x) and small cards in one of the minors? If a heart, you should finesse. If a minor, then the heart finesse is playing for a specific hand (♠K, ♥KJ10, ♦A, ♣A or ♣K. (Would he have doubled 4♠ with that hand?)