ANDREX

Thanks to those who took time to respond. I have asked a lot of people my original question and found an interesting correlation about who gives which answer. The players who are 'expert' respond with this shows spades or similar. Non-experts all state the double is responsive! So I imagine I'll have to assess which type of partner I have when I make this double if I haven't discussed this auction previously with them. This apples unless the non-expert has played with or in the company of experts and then the non-expert will says the double shows spades (discovered when I ask why they respond in that way).

I have the opinion that the following auction shows 4S by the final doubler: (1H) X (1S) X If I have 5+ spades I'd bid 2S. How else do you counter the psychic 1S? All three of my teammates this weekend consider the final double 'responsive', showing equal length in the minors. What do you think?

I was North on this hand and the idiot that gave the wrong explanation rather than asking the ops to look at the card! The option to change last the call by West was not provided, but I don't believe he would want to make that change as they had beaten par playing in 2Sx. After the trump lead and econd trump, East pitched the C7 (oops) & C5 after a third trump was played. The D8 was run to the Q and West found the CQ! switch (oops), to the K and A. Now East having thrown the C7 played West for the CJ and return a small club allowing the C9 to win. This allowed the heart pitch to be made on the CJ. It was unfortunate and perhaps unlucky but the C7 discard and CQ switch both contributed to letting the contract through.

During a club pairs night,a defender, on lead with three tricks remaining, places the H984 on the table and makes no statement. Declarer (me) holds H76 and a winning spade. Other hands are irrelevant being void of hearts. It is unclear if this tabling of cards represents a claim or a concession. Also it is not clear that the defender knows that there are any hearts outside of her hand, nor if they are, what rank they are. Is it reasonable to assume, as director, that this is a claim and also that the cards tabled will be played from the top? Could it be thought that defender thinks these cards are all equal and might carelessly 'cash' them in an order that is not 9-8-4 or 8-9-4?