DozyDom

We can see the hand - we know they play 2D as natural with no interest in game. No one I know has discussed this situation specifically, but 2H just looks natural, and from a NT open can't be forcing. There's no way S would rebid 3D here with 3-card support to the K and terrible diamonds. Should be rolled back.

Got Fuchsia Dunlop's The Food of Sichuan for Christmas - absolutely amazing author, and I'd already hooked my eye onto the fish-fragrant aubergine. Looks like we've got some similar tastes!

I don't think there's a logical alternative to a diamond on this auction? Could be the A, j, or t, and definitely most likely the J, but I don't think it makes a difference. N has given UI; that is nowhere near the levels of unethical behaviour needed to merit a procedural penalty, and it doesn't impact the S hand's decision, so I'd think that the result stands.

I did post a solution. It doesn't work on this layout. This will sound silly, but I genuinely believe it is more likely for E to have made a psychic 2H bid, with nearly no strength, some support, and 6 bad hearts, than for W to have 8 spades and a weak hand. On the other hand, I would have gone down, and you made the hand, so it certainly looks like I'm the fool here. EDIT: well, except for the bidding. I stand by what I said on that score.

No need for 8 spades in W; that kind of extremely ridiculous hand in't necessary yet.. If the diamond is onside in a doubleton/singleton and the QH falls doubleton, you make anyway. Duck the first spade, then discard a diamond on the AS. Then cross to hand with a heart (lead the J; it might bait out a cover if the Q, cash the heart, lead QD. You're gold. Still a ridiculous contract with ridiculous bidding. S hasn't shown his excellent diamond support or his 7 card clubs; failing to show one of those would be understandable, but both would be criminal. 3NT is a nonsense bid.

I think at least some people play leaping Michaels as NF, and stick with double for the really wildly strong hands like this one. Incidentally, if E really did double, and that was takeout, it should be impossible for the opponents to miss slam. There shouldn't be any thought about defending 4SX in W's head; holding it to 5 tricks is way, way too ambitious on high card strength alone.

If our suit were hearts, I'd like 3NT. As it is, I think it's a naive bid. It isn't going to stop them bidding to 4H; 4S will always stop them bidding to 4H, and can stop them from bidding to 5H. I think any other choice is a bit silly.

What? S has a normal 5-count and passed over interference. N should have been checked into hospital afterwards - either he's contracted narcolepsy, or he's clinically dead.

Do you really want no regulation of food? Let's go through the factors you mention. Size and shape? There's no such regulation. The origin of the ingredients? The specific location is usually not useful, but it's extremely helpful if I actually want to know (for example, if I'm someone who wants to buy British produce as often as possible) or if I want to rule out it being produced in countries where child labour or modern slavery are major possibilities. Note those will usually be non-EU nations - as noted helpfully by Dave below, the EU takes modern slavery extremely seriously. Organic? Pretty sure you're joking there. Environmental impact and packaging? Again, a joke. I don't have a problem with that - lists padded with humour are great, it's just when it comes to EU regulations the rest of the lists tend to make little sense either. Nutritional content? Gosh, imagine wanting to know what you're eating! E-numbers? Wow, imagine needing to know the additives in your food! Stuff the sausages with sawdust and rat poison, Ma, it's my favourite! When you actually look at the regulations which apply to our food, they're usually perfectly reasonable. When you look even harder, we usually either made the regulations ourselves, or had an input into their development by the EU.

I have played a weak 2C in a Precision-like context in the past. It was singularly useless; neither obstructive nor constructive, while taking a great amount of clarity from our 1D open which now had to include hands with long clubs. This layout seems to take far more clarity away even than that - I can't help thinking that your most common opening is 1C, and the opening your opponents most want to see from you is 1C; not a good combination.

It seems a decent assumption that partner hasn't noticed they won the trick anyway - they weren't paying attention during the bidding, why start during the play?

I kind of like the diamond lead - as FelicityR says, we do have a guaranteed entry, and the club potentially too. If a spade is right and we don't lead it though, our partner might roast us. Still, partner isn't promising any particularly worthwhile suit here.

I agree in general, yeah. Forcing to slam when you have no keycards, not really a great shout as a rule. Opposite a particularly strog hand, or where you've already limited your hand extensively, sure, but it's often enough a sad mistake that I feel like GIB should avoid it more - I can't comment on the code necessary though. Note though that you haven't received any abuse about this problem, even if some people disagree as to the solution.

Which ones are unavailable? If you aren't jumping to game with a minimum hand opposite a GF 2NT - and I would say you shouldn't be - which rebids can you not make?

The fact that you're already thinking about the opps shows you're a more ethical player than most! You don't have any responsibility to disclose when they don't ask about the alert - just to make sure that they have seen that alert. That's why, as you correctly say, it's so important to ask about alerts. If at some point the opponents fail to ask, and are misled by their assumptions, try not to feel too guilty - know that the experience will teach them a valuable lesson about asking for explanations. I play 1H-1NT as showing spades in one of my partnerships, and in the EBU a forcing 1NT is alertable, so we occasionally run into opponents who do not ask about the bid, assuming it is simply a forcing NT. At first we would seek to draw it to their attention; now, we don't. It is too difficult dealing with opponents who think you are being condescending rather than simply helpful.

Nothing in common? I think that depends what you define as Jacoby - is it just the 2NT bid, or does it include a specific set of follow-ups. I would never bother playing a different set of responses to 2NT just because it shows limit+ rather than GF - but that is partly because I would never play 4M as showing the weakest hand variant for opener.

This auction reminds me of a famous quote from a German artist: "I don't think I could eat as much as I want to throw up". But hot damn, what a result! Well done, and I hope you get to tell the story as often as possible - everyone needs hands like this to liven up your life.

Your partnership will have two 8-card fits in about one in ten deals, and a double fit where at least one of the fits is 9 cards or better in about 8% of deals. So all in all that's about 18%, or one every five and a half games. I'm guessing, given that, that the OP is a little mistaken and you meant 1 in 5 hands, which is pretty much right.

I don't think I would change the meaning of my 1NT sandwich. Opener is likely to be stronger than average; responder is likely to be weaker. If you have firm agreements of what 1NT indicates, I wouldn't change things simply because it would create too much complexity for too little advantage. The discussion of what it should normally be is for another debate. With 1NT as unusual, I see no other available call for you on the first round. You will have to pass. And on the second round, too, I think you should pass, with a heavy heart. You have no suit to overcall, and the hand seems to be a misfit - I'd prefer to stay out.

Responder's double is absolutely bizarre; bears no relation to the hand at all except in high card strength, unless you play that as penalty (and if 3H is a stopper ask for you there, it clearly isn't a penalty double). Opener's response is shamefully low; it undervalues the hand by about an Ace or so. Your hand should be forcing to game in as unambiguous way as possible. 4H seems right, to be honest - you should know that you have fits in both minors, and a hand with KS and KC opposite makes slam practically laydown. As it is, your partner has a useless AH and 6C is still on a finesse.

That really is good stuff! You can tell that I was a bit perturbed by E's bidding; the KC being in E does explain things, even if there are shaky inferences (I don't believe that I would start with a takeout double on AKxxxx qxxx - Kxx, so I don't think W has denied an opening hand, but the KC being in E makes their bidding make more sense). Lovely line, thanks for the hand!

It's a tournament with an appeals committee. There is not a single person down at the local bridge club who does not know that you aren't allowed to use things your partner says when informing your decisions. Get a grip, boyo - there is cheating and there is cheating, I'm not accusing them of collusive lead signals and encrypted cigar movements. Some people, in the heat of the moment, will break rules that they are aware exist. That's human, but it's still cheating.

Difficult to ruff a club in the grand. 4H needs no clues - it's just a psyche, with some spade support, or that's how it looks. Looks like W is 6-5-0-2, which... seems fine. Ruff the KS lead in dummy, cross in trumps, ruff a spade high, play five more rounds of trumps. Discard clubs from dummy on the first two discards, then on the last round W has to discard in front of dummy to either bare the KC or allow you to take 4 heart tricks. W could of course be 6-4-0-3, in which case the exact same line works. But in that case E started with QJxxx xx xx jxxx, and has competed at the 6-level on that garbage. 5-5 seems more likely. Or it could be something else and I'm completely wrong, which is very possible. EDIT: or 5-4-0-4, which I didn't consider because I thought they'd start with a takeout double, and because E would again be bidding 6S with a semi-balanced hand. The line still works.

Sorry, not cheating. Breaking the laws of the game to gain an advantage over the opposition. Whoops. I can quite easily believe the facts are not as were described in the OP - the ruling is absurd if the OP is accurate, and that suggests it isn't. But if the OP is accurate, then the 2S bidder is taking advantage of UI in an incredibly brazen way.

If 4S, opposite a forcing 2S, is minimum, the 2S has no business bidding on in a normal situation. When bidding on is suggested by UI, it's just plain cheating. Roll it back to 4S.