Aardv

You might decide that this pair's implicit agreement is that the only meaning for 3♦ is "I've forgotten we're playing transfers". In that case it's hard to understand why West would bid 3♥ rather than 4♥, and how East would know to raise it, so you could ask about that, but the likely outcome is "result stands". Or you might decide that it's at least possible that East would bid 3♦ without having forgotten about transfers, perhaps with unexpectedly good diamonds, and poor hearts. In that case, I strongly disagree with comments that West's 3♥ is unobjectionable: there's a pretty good case for continuing to describe his still-promising hand by bidding 4♣. East would now give preference to 4♦, West would try 4♥, and what East would do I cannot say, but it's not obvious to pass.

There's something odd about this: North seems not to have asked what the 2♠ bid meant. Why on earth not? Surely he would at least consider a different call if given the Ghestem explanation. I want to rule against everyone.

20F5? But yes, obviously that's possible - 20F1 "Law 16 may apply", or see 73B1 which forbids it. If I were the TD, I suppose I would not object to your attempt to draw my attention to something you believed to be an irregularity. As a player, I hope I would keep my (impolite) views to myself. As regards a ruling on your request: it seems to me that this inference is not covered by 73D or 73F. So you keep your table result. It usually doesn't. My point was that the actual hand of the asker is useful evidence when we're considering a possible exception to that. In that case I'd want the TD to make further enquiries... So unexpectedly we learn that the question did in fact show values (and also that South is mad). But a poll supports North's actions anyway, good job by the TD. And perhaps a golden unicorn thrown in. He can't have one.

IMO, the actual hand held by the asker should certainly be relevant to any resultant ruling. IMO, it's utterly unreasonable to assert that the question suggests bidding 4♠ when the evidence we have is that the asker asks on what looks like a one-count with no particular fit. My recollection is that "demonstrably" in 16B1a was intended to be a stronger replacement for the previous "reasonably"; that is the laws tell us not to be unreasonable in penalizing imaginary suggestions.

I'm worried that double will score us +300 instead of 650 in spades, when East has diamonds on the side. 5♥ for me. But perhaps not against some Easts.

This ending is a simple squeeze, not a double squeeze. There are technical reasons why a double squeeze can't work, but I think it's better to approach this hand as a card-reading exercise. East opened 1♣ with a singleton diamond, so he had at least four clubs. West passed a take-out double of 2♦ with only 10xxx diamonds, so he hasn't got a fair four-card major. So East was 4414 or 4315, West was 3244 or 3343. East switched to ♣Q at trick three, and West played ♣A, so East has the guarded ♣J in the ending. West led a small spade on the third round when he could safely have played a diamond of a club, so he hasn't got ♠10, East has. (Consistent with our reading of the shapes from the bidding.) So East guards both spades and clubs in the ending. Presumably both guard hearts. There are no two suits to squeeze West in, so no double squeeze. But there is a simple squeeze on East. For a simple squeeze, one of the menaces has to have an entry. That's clubs. Since East is over that menace, the other menace has to be in the opposite hand (South's). That's ♠6. Then all you have to do is cash winners ending in the hand without the entry. With two cards left, South has ♠6 and ♣9, North has ♣K10, and East is stuffed. It's well worth reading at least one of the books on squeezes (I read Love many years ago), but I would suggest forgetting about the terminology - just understand the mechanics.

I agree with wanoff - I don't see that how we can get more than two meanings for our choice of card in this position where declarer has a hidden spot card. If we divide the four missing spot cards into two pairs, then partner will always have at least one card in each pair, so will be able to give either signal. But if we divide them into one pair and two singles, half the time declarer will hold one of the singles and partner will be unable to send that signal.

From the point they'd got to, plausible results were 5D+1, 6D=, 5Hx-2, 6Hx-3, for scores of 620, 1370, 300, 500. IMP scores of 11, 15, 5, 9 NS. So it seems very generous to West's team to give them +3. 86D: "...the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side)." There are two non-offending sides here, so I think "...should do so..." doesn't apply. But the laws at least give the Director permission to assign an IMP score if he thinks it right. I do think it right. I'll assign NS +11 IMPS and EW -5 IMPS, which correspond to fairly likely better-than-par results at this table for each side, and conveniently have the same 6 IMP spread mismatch as the +3 for both sides I started with. [edited for clarity in response to blackshoe's remark below]

Hand 3 I agree strongly that partner should be up to strength overcalling a weak NT. 2NT for me, which I expect to be F1.

What's the standard meaning of this 4♣? Several of the comments imply that it's a cue for hearts, but I think it's natural. (I'm not saying that's best, I'm saying that's what I'd expect from an expert I'd never discussed it with.) In that case, 4♥ now means we want to play there, and 4♦ means we're in doubt about level or strain. So 4♦ it is.

I think I'm in the minority here, but I believe the actual hand should matter. It's usually daft to rule that a hesitation could demonstrably have suggested that a player is at one end of his range when the evidence of the current hand is that it suggests he's at the opposite end of his range.

I award SB a life ban, under Laws 91 and 94.

fwiw, I think the EBU regulations are now very good - much better than when I started playing. People laugh at the rule on which doubles should be alerted, but I think it's a sensible compromise - it doesn't match standard expert practice on what doubles mean, but it's about as close as you can get without making it too complicated for inexperienced players to remember. I would like to have a rule that's actually followed that all pairs should have two convention cards - if they turn up to play without them, they should use one of a selection of standard cards, which they can modify as they please. And I'd allow WBF cards, with the intention that we'd eventually abandon the EBU card - not that I think the WBF card is better, but I think this is something which could be standardized worldwide.

There's no provision in the laws for declarer to correct an unintended play from his own hand.

Well, nothing is perfect and perhaps I was too dogmatic. But if I understand you correctly, you want to double then cue both with the hand in the OP and with one 4-card major in a balanced hand without a stopper. In that case, how is the original doubler to know what to do after the cue bid with the ordinary-looking hand I mentioned - QJxx Kxxx QJx Ax ?

You don't play ace and ruff a diamond: you establish communications first by leading ♥J off dummy. This needs South to have all the club honours as well as the hearts, or he can put North in to play a third trump, so it's not an obvious line.

It could, but it's inferior to ask the initial doubler to start bidding his majors on a hand that doesn't want to know about them. It's better to use double then cue for a forcing two-suiter.

Do you want to be able to play in 3NT with say QJxx Kxxx QJx Ax opposite xx AQx AKxxx 10xx? If so, one of double and 3♣ has to ask the initial doubler to bid NT if possible as his first priority.

Is accepting the game try a logical alternative? Yes, give partner KQxxx Qxxx Kx xx or the same hand with the minors swapped. At pairs partner will often have 5 spades to justify inviting, and therefore 4 hearts, which improves our KJx. Does the UI demonstrably suggest the pass? Yes, a passed partner is more likely to be minimum than maximum. I don't really want to adjust - I'd prefer a recording system - but there's a good case for it.

SB knows perfectly well that this is a penalty double, and the TD knows he knows. And asking then passing gives nothing away; it's common to ask in an auction where take-out is unlikely, because you're going to want to know during the play anyway.

3♣ is the right call. Double promises two suits. After 3♣ partner should bid 3NT with a club stop in preference to showing a 4-card major.

This hand was played 6 times in the Camrose (Weekend 2, Match 5, Stanza 1, Board 3), twice in 7♣. The other auction was 1♣-(4♥)-5♣, 5♥-5♠, 7♣, and ♦4 was led. Both declarers ran ♣Q at trick two. It's an interesting bidding problem after 1♣-(3♥), for various meanings of the 1♣ opening.

Partner's double here should say that he's got extra values and is willing to defend 3♥X opposite the sort of weak NT I'm quite likely to hold. Our choice of which minor to open doesn't affect that.

Is this 3♦ bid alertable? In the absence of an alert one would understand it to show something in diamonds, but usually not 4+ cards. And the actual agreement is much the same as that, except that N-S have agreed that it promises a diamond honour. I don't think that's enough of a difference to constitute an alertable agreement, not least because an alert would tend to mislead opponents into thinking that it's an artificial call - that puts them at a disadvantage if West wants to double an artificial 3♦ but not a semi-natural 3♦. But suppose that we eventually persuade ourselves that this 3♦ is alertable, what of it? Well, the fact of the director call, and the identity of the caller, should be UI. But if West voluntarily broadcasts information by asking to talk to the director away from the table, on his own head be it - that should be AI to declarer and UI to East. Alternatively, if you think it unreasonable to expect West to know the proper procedure, surely it's more unreasonable to expect North to know that you're going to rule the 3♦ bid to be alertable. Most unreasonable of all is to expect declarer to guess that you're going to rule West's actions to be UI to him. If the TD thinks there's UI, he has to tell declarer so before he plays the hand.

I think that unless the TD tells declarer before the play that West's actions are UI, it's unreasonable to rule against declarer for taking an inference from them. Off topic, but is there any reason to prefer a club lead to a heart lead on this hand? (The auction at my table was 2S-4S.) It seemed harsh to me that we lost a vulnerable game swing for guessing the wrong suit (that's not exactly true, but the defence is much easier after a club lead).