c_corgi

I like this better. The alternative of playing LHO to have led a singleton ♦ against slam holding a side ace and a singleton trump seems strange. However, it may be that the auction suggested we didn't care about the ♣A and might also be missing a different ace. This is another reason to want to know what the auction was.

If 4S was bid as a place to play with a 4 card suit, I would expect him to have lots of values in spades and diamonds and nothing much in the rounded suits. Otherwise, why is he avoiding 3NT and not making a slam try? If he has a club control it is likely a singleton, in which case the A♣ doesn't cost given your confidence that East has no club control. I am not even convinced there was any MI - the fact that East's explanation is plausible, whereas West's is not seems like strong evidence of misbid rather than misexplanation.

a) A♣ b) A♣. This sounds like another way of announcing it as a spade control. c) Q♥. The explanation sounds sufficiently odd that they are probably having a misunderstanding. A bit guessy, but I try passive.

Indeed, especially as OP makes no mention of it being alerted as such. It is also not clear whether N/S both knew that they were playing in hearts. If so then I agree with OP that 6H was wild or gambling. If not, and the lack of alerts contributed to this confusion, then I have more sympathy with the 6♥ bid.

South's hand looks like more than zero defensive tricks to me. That is because I expect to be facing something like 2-1 or 2-2 in the majors. It seems unreasonable to expect South to realise that North has 4 spades before evaluating his defence.

So the SEWoG is catering for a 5-0 diamond break in a seriously erroneous fashion. It is therefore not related to the infraction, which merely induced declarer to play for a 5-0 diamond break and a split score is therefore permitted. "Usually denies a 4 card major" sounds like "a 4 card major may be suppressed if the suit quality is poor" rather than "this initiates a scramble sequence", so ruling it was MI seems very reasonable. It sounds like the AC got this one right and both sides should receive the adverse result.

If West has 3♦ and 4♣, then I think he is more likely to lead a diamond, trying to hit partner if he has the Q; more likely to lead a club, trying to set up his own suit if he has the ♦A as an entry. I wonder what the tipping point would be in terms of quality of West's club suit.

I hope that L70A would be interpreted so as to protect the claimer against such shenanigans. That South would - in real life - cash the spade is not a doubtful point, since declarer would otherwise be likely to make the rest of the tricks (in the actual position) and could have ♦QJ (in which case he would be guaranteed to do so).

Declarer has no more stated an intention to take two tricks (his queens) than he has stated an intention to contribute the ♦10 to the next trick. He has simply accepted the inevitable cashing of the 13th spade, a consequence of which is that he will make the last two tricks. I agree with chrism: it makes no sense to interpret declarers statement in the light of the 13th spade not being cashed. It feels like lamford is right and the finesse is now obligatory, although as is often the case when lamford is right, it is not what I would intuitively consider fair! The missing spade is interesting. Is declarer obliged to assume that the missing spade is with North if doing so would cause him to go wrong? After all, he doesn't believe it has been played and it would not be irrational to assume that South would have cashed it if he had it - although it would mean something strange had happened in the auction.

I think that is the crux of it. What if South had called the director after West's pass but before North reached towards 5C? Would that be: 1) an antic to get N/S out of a hole; or 2) a legitimate - or even obligatory - action to prevent an irregularity? If it would be (2), I would be more inclined to suggest to South this is what should have been done rather than invoke L23.

I assume that a player who thought 3H was a sensible rebid also thought that 3H was NF and was content not to describe the hand any further. That means that pass is an L/A. South should be given the opportunity to explain why the assumption is not valid in this case (e.g. 3H was F, must protect expected +140 etc), but I doubt that any such explanation would sway my judgement.

3♠. Partner can then choose the strain. If I choose the strain now I am guessing.

Is there really MI here? It seems to me that "no agreement" differs little from "natural and forcing". If I were to sit opposite any of you with no agreement and I bid 3D to play, wouldn't you think I was mad? Unless East might know of a tendency for West to make surprising interpretations of undiscussed sequences it looks like a clear misbid rather than MI. If there is damage, South would have bid differently over "no agreement" than over "natural and forcing". If that is the case, to explain "no agreement" rather than "natural and forcing" would be exploiting this uncertainty. Surely a clear explanation of an implied understanding is better than a confusing and vague cop-out. I think West should have corrected the explanation as a matter of good form, but I am not sure that he is legally obliged to do so unless he still thought it might be wrong.

In that case, 5D should mean "Partner, please guess the final contract; if you guess wrong, I hope we get lucky."

Over 4D you have owned up to a heart control (assuming not playing last train). You haven't really made a value judgement yet. From partner's POV you could have ♠KJTxxx ♥Q ♦Jxx ♣Jxx. This hand might make a cooperative cue and respect a signoff and partner must allow for it. Phil's example hand is obviously much better and you need to let partner know if that is what you hold. Partner's splinter followed by a signoff doesn't mean "I have a slam drive, but no control in the unbid suit", it means "We have slam values if you have a suitable hand, but I am not worth the 5 level myself. If you have a suitable hand bid on, then we can check for controls/KC etc. as appropriate."

An irregularity is what is required for a Law 23 adjustment to be considered. Surely failing to follow suit when able constitutes an irregularity, even in situations where the normal revoke and exposed card penalties do not apply. 6NT makes whether the ♣A is a penalty card or not, providing it is UI to West. Once West is obliged to duck the second round of diamonds, declarer can unblock the hearts and come to two spades, 4 hearts, two diamonds and 4 clubs.

OP is right that the South hand is awkward for standard methods, not really suitably for opening 2C or opening 1C and rebidding 3C. I think hand evaluation is the important point for this thread. Once South has opened 1C (which I agree with) and heard the 1H response (also reasonable), he can see that 3NT is a good proposition even if North has a very weak hand (♥JTxx and nothing else gives good play). Any action which takes the auction beyond 3NT, including 1C-1H-4C or a 5C opening is therefore not something I would consider. I think the nearest thing to a universal method to convey this hand is eagles' suggestion of a 3NT rebid after 1C-1H, which many people play as a good suit and some outside stoppers. It is less attractive if North responds 1D or 1S. Presumably South rebid 4C because his hand was too strong for 3C (I agree with this premise). North should realise that South is trying to reach game knowing that North is a passed hand. North has a maximum pass. Admittedly it fits badly and hands can be constructed where game will not make, but quite often N/S will have game somewhere. It is too late to investigate the best game, but 4C loses to any making game and only gains when there are none. I think North has to guess at the most likely game and 5C would be my choice.

It is a good effort. Declarer is likely to be fooled into thinking that LHO has ♥JT8xxx and an outside entry. Unfortunately if that is the case he should still duck the 2nd round, so there is no legitimate gain. Playing Ace then Queen does give declarer the chance to make a mistake and that is always a good idea.

If I were West I would be very reluctant to lead a stiff 9 of spades. It looks like a strong inference that spades are 3-2.

To me, the slow 4D suggests the following: a) responder expects opener to push beyond 4H with each of the following hand-types: 1) A diamond control, but no values/suitability beyond that already advertised. 2) Maximum values/suitability, but no diamond control. b) that the 5-level may be in jeopardy opposite one of those hand types, but slam is likely opposite the other. If that is the case, the slow 4D means that responder was making a complex risk-reward judgement, but doesn't demonstrably suggest any action to opener. If the way this pair play last train is not consistent with (a) then some action may be demonstrably suggested.

After the unopposed auction 1♦-1♠-3NT-4♠, what would 5♦ mean?

True. But fixing the laws to such an extent that a literal interpretation of them will never give silly results is a long way off. I suspect that implementing silly rulings whenever the literal interpretation of the laws demand it would mean that bridge ceases to exist long before the laws are fixed. Using the literal interpretation has the benefit of avoiding subjective decisions regarding what is "silly" and what isn't, but IMO the cost would be too high.

Perhaps this question should be rephrased: at the moment it seems to imply that the ethnicity of a president's support can compromise the validity of his mandate. I have no idea what would be plausible answers to your questions, but they seem to be more to do with the condition of the US than with healthcare provision. The answers would likely point to the conclusion "If I were to implement an efficient and fit-for-purpose healthcare system, I wouldn't wish to start from where the US is now". But Obama doesn't have much choice where to start from.

3♣ (over 2NT) seems like a good place to start.

Doesn't ♣A set up the ♣K, which together with the 3rd heart can be used to pitch the 3rd and 4th diamonds? I have no inside knowledge, I just thought the OP suggested declarer cashed the ♠A rather than having it done for him.