broze

Does this imply that you would also have bid 5H after 4H-(4S)-Pass-(Pass)?

We cuebid all second rounds. And you got it, 4♦ would have been keycard not a control, which leaves 4NT as the ♦ cue (or last train in this auction). Splinter was not available over 3♣ (4D keycard there as well) but was a possibility over 2♣.

Ugh, this hand tilted me - I was going to post it myself. It was clearly a difficult one to bid since no one in a large Swiss Teams field managed to reach the cold grand. Perhaps someone could help with our auction too: [hv=pc=n&w=skj2hdj64ckqjt432&e=saq76h98632daca76&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p1cp1hp2cp2sp3cp4cp4sp5cppp]266|200[/hv] 2S was GF, 4S was a cuebid. We tend not to cue bid shortness in partner's primary 5+ card suit. Clearly this is not a good hand for that agreement since East signed off thinking there was no heart control and West was worried about a Diamond control. Should we reach this one anyway? Or what should our agreements be? EDIT: 4NT by East after 4S would have been last train showing a Heart control and denying a diamond control so that was not available for us.

broze and ibraves for 25th January. Have played one match so far.

Yes, I was having trouble coming up with a plausible auction. You can pretend it is BAM if you want. :D Great analysis here, and very attractive solution by Mr Ace, although just to muddy the waters a tad, you were not quite correct when you said this: although nige1 did well to notice that a cunning LHO can defeat you on most layouts. It's a very cool deal. :) Feel free to stop using Spoiler tags btw. I find it beneficial for the first 2 or three posts when I accidentally scroll down and see the answer but after that don't worry too much. I'll post the full hand tomorrow some time.

B-)

Play 3NT Team scoring. [hv=pc=n&s=saqhaj7432dk764c9&n=skj932h5d83cak654&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1s2s(5-5%20in%20%21H%20and%20%21C)dpp3cppdp3nppp]266|200[/hv] East's 2♠ bid shows 5-5 in the "extreme" suits (hearts and clubs). West plays the Q♦ to East's Ace. East switches to K♥. Spoiler tags please.

Sorry. Had an error in this one.

Fair enough. I was trying to present a hand that I think would be a clear move over 4♥. P has shown a slam try without a diamond control opposite 9-11, and we have a max with AK♦. I couldn't stomach signing off in my partnership but if you and your p are on the same page about it then I guess that's fine. My point was that you would have to forego Keycard in that spot but I suppose it won't hurt that much.

What about this? [hv=pc=n&n=sqt92hj7652dak7cj&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1sp4c(Splinter%2C%209-11)p4hp]133|200[/hv]

http://tinyurl.com/nwtzbgj 20th Dec 2013 What is the process for going about fixing GIB? Are BBO just fixing these individual bugs when they come up or is there some overarching plan?

+1 for a daily limit on giving upvotes.

Chris G et al. have it with the double squeeze of the non-simultaneous variety. You are cold on the lead if the K♦ is onside. Cash your spades, East must guard D and abandon Hearts. Then cash QA♦ and West must keep that fatal K♣, also abandoning hearts. You then have the ♥A back to the long hearts. The point being of course, that almost any other lead will set the contract because it breaks up the communication for the double squeeze. You have to cash the club Ace first for timing and the only way you can do that is if it's led. It's not clear what East would have led without the double (he had KJ...♥) But to think the doubler thought he was attracting a safe lead! So another Lightner disaster but a slightly more unusual one.

Full deal: [hv=pc=n&s=sk543h974dt976cq5&w=s7hk8652da532c973&n=shtdkqj84cakjt842&e=saqjt9862haqj3dc6]399|300[/hv]

The Lightner double was first introduced to call for an unusual lead against slam and the idea is clearly theoretically sound, occasionally giving up the chance to collect a penalty that would have been larger on a normal lead in favour of defeating a slam when the normal lead would not work. However I think it was Terrence Reese who once suggested that so many disasters had resulted from the convention that it might well have proved to be a net loss since its conception. Bear that in mind when observing the following deal. [hv=pc=n&s=sjht95daqj3caq876&n=sakqt9874ha83dtc3&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=p2cp3cp3sp4dp4np5hp5np7ndppp]266|200[/hv] West chooses to make a Lightner double asking partner to lead clubs, dummy's first bid suit. It's a medium-sized Matchpoint field and 7NT is likely to be a top anyway on this...imaginative auction. The 2♣ is duly led. Can you see what is about to happen?

5♠ and then make a Lightner double of their slam.

Care to elaborate, out of interest? Or if you have explained before perhaps you could link it? I'm just always surprised by this because I greatly prefer the new version (although I have to say there are a few annoying blips that have not been addressed since I started playing on it)

Why does anyone think 5N shows the HK - OP didn't suggest that did he? I've never heard of that treatment... For me it would just show a good hand for slam unable to bid 6♣ to show the Ace in that suit. I like 5N but only if 5♥ is void-showing, which I think it should be. It certainly makes no sense to play it as a showing cue-bid.

Surely knowing the vulnerabilities is crucial in making decisions in this kind of auction and evaluating what hand-types p could have? If we are w/r for example p will expect relatively little for 4S and is probably very good. 5♥ in my book guarantees single A or void so it's very likely we have the grand on but I cannot unilaterally bid it However I will try 6♥ which should be a kind of last train bid denying a Diamond control since p does not need to know about my H holding. 6H will get us to grand opposite KQJxx -- Axxx AJxx (if you think p can have that) but not KQJxx -- AQJxx Axx. Again, when assessing what moves I think p would make with these hands I would want to know the colours.

By "prima facie" I meant 'on the face of it' - i.e. without having to resort to any other laws than the obvious one. It appears I also explained myself poorly. Apologies.

Top spade. Didn't really seriously consider anything else.

That's not in the slightest what I was trying to suggest. I wasn't aware I was introducing a "concept" - I don't even understand why you've quoted that sentence of mine and then made that reply. Not only am I not saying that "I can't find a specific rule against it", I'm saying it is illegal under two laws in my opinion (73D2, which the OP thinks is not the case, and 73D1). What on earth is wrong about that? I'm certainly not trying to suggest that something can be illegal without contravening any laws. :blink: 73D1, the law which, barmar and Andy were discussing. I thought that was clear. If you would have used 73D2, then you would have to explain to the OP why you think that by "showing" the ace by his hesitation, he is misleading the opponent. (See my last post why I think this is the case) The semantic point about 'rule' vs 'law' notwithstanding, what is your point? Are you saying that 73D1 is not a good law? I was stating that I think it is a very good law despite the fact that it is, as barmar said, very subjective. I can't work out whether you disagree or not. From your post it seems like you haven't read the whole thread.

Firstly, I do understand the point of the thread. The act OP describes is clearly unethical - so is it covered in the laws?... "Is it legal to hesitate to let [declarer] know you have the ace?" You have couched the question in this way but that is not really what you are doing. Actually you are hesitating to make declarer think you have Ax, which is clearly an intention to deceive. If your hesitation has anything to do with hoping declarer puts up the King then you are actually trying to suggest Ax. As Andy has said this act is illegal anyway under 73D1, but I think it is illegal prima facie anyway. So what? It is not a law like the others, no. But it is important to remember we are dealing with a Law book, not a rulebook. It is perfectly common for "laws" to contain subjective elements to be left to the disgression of the authority (in bridge, the director). This law (unlike so many others) is a good one imo, as it is broad and perfectly unambiguous. No one could claim that by hesitating here you are being at all "careful" not to achieve an advantage from the BIT.

Well, it is up to the director to ascertain whether it is a psyche or a misclick. It seems pretty clear to me that misclicks should be treated in the same way as mechanical errors at the table (also on occasion indistinguishable from psyches) apart from the fact they are never retractable.

100% North. 3♠ is a clear underbid. And having never heard of the 'rule of 7' I am quite happy for that to continue if it suggests bidding 3♠.