c_corgi

I agree with the principle that AI cannot be used to reach the conclusion suggested by the UI, but does it really apply in situations like this where (IMO) the player could not possibly have failed to notice the AI that she had misbid?

The claim statement suggests that he was well aware of the outstanding trump: if North switched to a diamond he was going to play safe and rise with the ace rather than run it round towards his queen, hence the diamond loser. He wasnt going to try (if given the opportunity) to set up clubs to dispose of the diamond loser either, because there was no point. There are other possibilities for what the two remaining defensive tricks will be, such as ace and a club ruff if clubs were 4-1, but in this case the diamond loser does disappear so he knows the defence can never gain.

I don't see how looking South in the eye will help: South will look as though he understands and West will assume he does. If South didn't understand he will ask whether or not he is looked in the eye. Why was West giving the explanation rather than East? It sounds like the only MI was South's failure to alert 3D, although it sounds harsh and hopefully there was no resulting damage in the auction. Edit: It seems odd that South asked the question and that the reply was directed to North. Also odd that North hadn't already asked.

This would probably lead to a more coherent set of laws/regulations. I would prefer less regulation of methods. In particular, restrictions on evaluation and judgement based on whether they have been deemed a "partnership understanding" seem very misguided.

If, in the E/W methods, Bluejak's balanced 6 count was likely, has adequate disclosure been given?

If the agreement was "15-19, basically balanced or NT suitable, but sometimes might have a singleton in partners suit if there is no sensible alternative" then the disclosure would not have been too bad (IMO). Where the tipping point should be between "can reluctantly contain a singleton" and "will usually bid 2NT if he has a singleton heart" is not clear to me, but it feels as though the latter should be explicitly disclosed*. Since it was 15-19 any shape it is clear MI. Note that to discard a singleton heart on one of dummy's clubs requires West to have 10 cards in the pointed suits, which, if systemic should also be disclosed. *This is analagous to announcing 1NT "may contain a singleton", which (I understand) applies to when a significant proportion of e.g.4441 shapes will open 1NT, not when 1NT will contain a singleton 1 time in 1,000.

Crikey, if that is fairly normal then I can see why you don't bid 3D, but if that is normal then words such as bizarre can be stricken from the dictionary, for they will never be used. If that is 1100 at the 3 level it is 800 at the 2 level when it gets what is a pretty suitable East hand opposite.

EBU. But my first response was ill-considered: even more so than acknowledged in my second.

According to you, 3D is down 5 on this layout. That means 2D is down 4, or -800 when the 1NT overcaller hits partner with a 4 card fit, a key Q and a well-supported ace. It seems that your argument leads to the conclusion that the 1NT overcall should not be made on silly hands rather than that responder should suppress the fit. Certainly I see no reason to assume that the West hand is anything other than the 'unsuitable' end of the range. I expect it is too late to find out where in the range the West hand is. I am not sure how valid is your assertion that the objective is to take the 1-level away from responder: my understanding that the most effective way to defend against strong clubs is for advancer to be able to bounce to the 3-level as often as possible. According to me, 3D is down 3 if they lead AKJ of hearts, or down 4 if South does well to play the QD before the 3rd round of H (this is because North holds the D10). Since you have hardly placed the cards to be favourable for 3D, that doesn't seem too bad odds. If they are going to catch you for 800 very often, they are also going to let you out for 500 frequently, either through misdefence or because the cards lie less favourably for them. Of course, the real benefit of 3D will be to suggest a good save for partner to take. This is FAR more important than the occasional 800. No matter how feeble and usuitable West can be for the overcall, she is also going to bid it on KJxxx x KQxxx xx, which will have to defend 4H without help from East. It is not even true to say that 3D takes away no useful bidding space. While it is unlikely that N/S will want to play in clubs, there is a reasonable chance that clubs is South's primary suit, and that the inability to show it at the 3 level will inhibit them from judging the auction as effectively. Depriving them of a cue-bid of 3D is also of significant value.

I don't think North did forget the system (or he would probably have bid 3D preference). But I am coming round to the view that South's raise to 4 was suggested by UI that North might have forgotten the system.

Or we may find that South bids 3H over 3D, or they don't defend double dummy, or that West's honour structure is less unsuitable, or that North doesn't have an obvious double of 3D.

Agua, when it says 'this is deemed to show the suit bid', I think this is intended to refer to RHO's bid rather than our double.

I agree that there is MI. What I don't understand is why West would prefer to play in H when North has the heart length but not when it is South who has the H length.

North's 3S looks ill-judged and pass is an LA to 4S by S (N hasn't even made a game try with 2 available over 3C). But where is the UI? It looks like N forgot to alert, but no reason to suspect anyone had forgotten, or thought partner may have forgotten, the system: 3S looks like he is responding to the splinter with a minimum. If 3S was slow that would be another story.

That is all? The queen of spades is an important card here even if the LTC doesn't account for it. East's club suit is a powerful combination, far better than its loser count. xx xxx xxxx Kxxx is a 10 loser hand, to treat East's hand as the same value is way off.

Can you explain why? 3D looks completely normal to me and allows partner to compete further if suitable. How is partner supposed to save, having already shown a 2-suiter, if we don't tell her about the fit? FWIW I think it is way closer to 4D than pass even though 4D is a definite stretch. If I were to conduct a poll, it would find that 3D was an LA. No doubt others could conduct one to find the opposite.

I think you are saying that East has not actively used UI by working out what anti-systemic hand West had and bidding accordingly. What he has done is passively used the UI by realising that West has not got the hand she has shown and failing to bid as though she did have it. Just because he is not guilty of the former doesn't protect him from rectification against the latter.

They have, but not illegally. They have a better chance of working out what is happening with West has transmitting UI than without. The play to trick 1 marks West with QT7 of diamonds at best. Declarer is playing spades and I can't see a reason why he would do that without expecting to develop tricks there. I think the Ace of clubs switch is OK. At that point it looks like down 3, so the defense must have erred. OP doesn't say which club East continued with, but if it was a high one (unblocking) it was suggested by UI and if it helped the defense in some way I wouldnt allow it (low is correct if W has Kxx). Yes: East has failed to compete at favourable with 4 card support for one of partner's suits and Qx in the other. I think it is clear to bid at least 3 diamonds over 2NT and to save in 4D over 3NT (expecting to make 7 tricks). It is not obvious how they would escape to clubs, so I rule some proportion of 3DX and 4DX, both down lots.

L41A: After a bid, double or redouble has been followed by three passes in rotation, the defender on presumed declarer’s left makes the opening lead face down*. The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2); the withdrawn card must be returned to the defender’s hand. ------------------------------------- I read this as implying that if it is not made by the player on presumed declarer's left (whatever his intent) then it is not the opening lead. It would have to be faced in order to become the opening lead if it was made by a different player.

It is not clear to me that if it is both face down and out of turn it counts as an opening lead, maybe not even as an irregularity. Am I missing something?

On the rare occasions when I am both called upon to enter the score and manage to persuade the device to proceed to the verification stage, the surprise tends to cause me to drop the handset. I can only hope that it has always landed in the middle of the table or a demonstrably neutral part of the floor.

I think this would have appeared to E/W as follows: 1. North is trying to pull a fast one. 2. North is trying to bully us into stating that a claim occurred. I would be inclined to treat self-incriminating statements by E/W with less than their usual weight in these circumstances.

10 tricks and North incurs a dirty look.

Can I have the 4H bid back and double instead?

If you think LHO is 5323 then play the first 6 tricks as per Frances, duck a diamond, win the Ace and play a spade. If LHO rises the defense cannot come to both the 9S and the 3rd round of D. If he ducks, pitch the diamond on a heart.