dburn

Those who bid six diamonds were about £300 better off than those who did not, at any rate (non-vulnerable, so plus 920 instead of minus 100). I was actually 0-1-6-6 without many points (♠None ♥x ♦Q109xxxx ♣K1098xx) so six clubs was down one (clubs 3-2 onside) but six diamonds would have made. I suppose I should just have bid three diamonds (non-forcing), expecting further bidding after which I could show my hand rather more easily (or at any rate, less ambiguously). But it was possible that there might not be any further bidding - after all, we allegedly held half the deck in high cards, and if partner had four or five spades, 3♦ might have been passed out. Mind you, if he had a bunch of spades maybe we couldn't make game anyway. It never occurred to me that if I bid 3♠ and then removed hearts (or notrump) to clubs, partner would play me for a one-suiter. I mean, if I had a one-suiter, couldn't I just bid four clubs? I did consider that if it went 3♠-Pass-4♥-Pass-5♣ partner might think this was a control bid of some kind, but concluded that even he should not so believe. Following this master plan, I removed hearts to clubs at a rather higher level than I had hoped, but... ...what I stupidly failed to consider was that after 5♥ was doubled, I could have bid 5NT for the minors. As percipient posters here have pointed out, that is what I certainly should have done. But it took even Zia a full five minutes into his tirade to work this out, so maybe at the table it was not as obvious as all that.

As I have remarked before, my belief is that you should be allowed to play what you like provided that you can disclose it properly. Now, "proper disclosure" means at a minimum that the people to whom you are doing the disclosing will understand it. If they will not - either because there is not enough time for you to complete your disclosure or because they are not as clever as you are - then you will fall short of the requirements of Law 40. People who organise tournaments have the right to set, or at any rate to assume, a minimum standard of cleverness among the entrants to those tournaments, so that it will rarely be open to a player to claim redress because he was too stupid to understand what he was being told. But people who organise tournaments also have the right to specify a level of complexity above which a method may simply be disallowed because the time and effort involved in "proper disclosure" is unreasonable. If you seriously mean to tell me that you opened 1NT ("12-15") with ♠Q432 ♥KQ ♦KQ ♣A8542 because you thought it the best available description of your hand according to your methods, then you would indeed have had to spend many hours pre-explaining your methods to me before I could begin to understand that you might have that hand. And although as a veteran of many county teams-of-eight matches I realise that they are to be treated with the utmost seriousness, it is not reasonable for either of us to spend very much of our ever-shortening lives in such a pursuit. If you can't (or won't) disclose it, then you can't play it. That seems both logical and practical to me, and entirely in keeping with the "spirit of the game" (whatever that may be).

Oh, you can open what you like with what you like. I don't care how you count your points, but if you count them in some fashion that does not correspond to your disclosure, then you are chea... er, you are failing to follow the rules of the game. I am getting very tired of these references to "Walter the Walrus", invariably used in patronising tones towards those who "lack judgement" (or at any rate, whose judgement is different from the user's). Sure, there are some 14 counts I will treat as 15 and open 1NT, and there are some 18 counts I will treat as 17 and also open 1NT (but 4-3-3-3 is actually a good shape for notrump and not a bad one, so those who devalue a hand because of that shape are... well, they have rather less judgement than Walter the Walrus). But I will also tell my opponents that this is what I do. My convention cards say in effect "15-17, but some 14s and some 18s may also open 1NT". If I didn't do that, I would be unhappy when some earnest opponent who can count out a hand were to misdefend on the basis that I "had to have" or "could not have" such-and-such a card; moreover, I would believe that opponent entitled to redress, not to the kind of sneering that the "Walrus" merchants are all too prone to employ.

I have fond (though in parts somewhat vague) memories of the first congress I played in Ireland, in the town of Portrush. In the words of one of my contemporaries who was there, the qualifying round of the pairs consisted of eighteen pints of Guinness, and it was meandering to a close when I played a hand in 3NT. On the third round of my solid 4-4 club fit both opponents showed out, and neither felt inclined to show back in again when I played a fourth round. A diamond had been discarded by my right-hand opponent from four of them, so I next ran that suit (which had started life as ♦Qx facing ♦AKxx). On the last diamond RHO evinced much discomfort before pitching a spade, establishing a low card for me in that suit also and giving me the rest of the tricks. A heart discard would have had a similar effect, and of course the poor fellow could not part with his club because then I would have noticed that he had revoked. Since I had lost no trick from the third round of clubs onward there seemed little point in summoning the Director from the bar, especially since I could not trust myself to remain upright for long enough to do so. I never did discover the name of my opponent, which in retrospect is something of a pity, for I am sure that bridge historians would be glad to give proper place to the only man ever to be squeezed in four suits.

Listen, my children, and you shall learn of the midnight ride of David Burn... Law 20F says, plain as a pikestaff, that: At a meeting of the L&E a very long time ago, some people were twitched about possible abuse of Law 20 to create UI. In particular, it was alleged, players used to ask about Stayman and get a club lead against the eventual 3NT (or, more subtly, not ask about it and not get one). A regulation was therefore (or at any rate thereafter) put in place that in its current incarnation reads: Now, this has been seriously watered down from the original version chiefly at the repeated insistence of yours truly that it ought to be abolished because it has no place in logic or in Law. Since we nowadays announce Stayman, the impetus that gave rise to the regulation in the first place has largely ceased to exist; since we don't alert above 3NT any more, a man who doubles a splinter to ask for a lead in some other suit is marginally more helpless than he was before, but there may be no hope for such a spiv anyway. Of course, if a player does not ask a question this may (indeed, almost always does) convey the UI that the player does not need to have his opponent's call explained, but for some reason the Visigoths are not worried about that. The only "defence" against this barbaric regulation, if you want to play bridge instead of some guessing game, is always to ask questions when the opponents alert. But the barbarians smugly say: [a] that people will not uniformly follow this defence (as if that mattered); and that if they did, it might slow down the game; so [c] you can't adopt this position. You know the rest. In the books you have read How a man didn't ask, but passed instead - How opponents tore him limb from limb, And his partner asked in an accent grim "Why couldn't you double? I'd have bid, And we wouldn't have got the result we did." He shrugged, and replied with a downcast look, "I had to obey the Orange Book."

Perhaps he should work at overcomng this reluctance: think how much trouble would have been saved if he had just done the obvious and asked before bidding 3♣. Why should he do that? He knew what 2♥ meant, after all. Surely you are not suggesting that he should ask a question in order to protect his sponsor? Even if he had, it is not clear to me how much trouble would have been saved. After all, he would have bid in exactly the same fashion, and so would the opening bidder, and the doubler would have asked the same question, and...

Not "more along the lines of" but "precisely along the lines of". Moreover, it does not matter whether or not the raiser has already included the IMP factor in his calculations or not - the problem remains the same. The general principle is this: the slower a call that might end the auction, the less happy the caller is that the call will end the auction, and this level of unhappiness is UI to the caller's partner. Whereas this is conclusive in cases involving most slow doubles and almost all slow passes, it is not conclusive in the case of slow limit raises. But if one has to start from somewhere, one might as well start from here as anywhere else.

If it is considered that the question "what did 2♥ mean?" suggests that the asker has some stronger holding in hearts than was suggested by the original takeout double, then there is UI and 4♥ might not be allowed (but see below). If on the other hand it is considered that the question does not suggest anything at all, but was merely idle curiosity on the part of someone who at her turn to call wanted to know what an opponent's alerted bid meant, then there is no UI and 4♥ must be allowed. I do not understand the argument that "the question may have suggested hearts, but this was not relevant" unless what is meant is that even if the question did suggest hearts, a player who bid 3♣ at his first turn really had no logical alternative to 4♥ at his second. That is a matter of bridge judgement; and if the TD and the AC were convinced by the player in question, by their own view of the matter or by a poll of other players that there was no LA to 4♥, I do not consider that their judgement was wrong (although I would not necessarily find no LA to 4♥ myself). It remains, I need hardly say, my irrevocable conviction that no question about an alerted call should be held to create UI. And furthermore, I think that Carthage ought to be destroyed.

Would not consider a PP appropriate - I know what the Law says, but I also know that very often, disputed claims are sorted out at the table without the need to dial 999 (or 911, or 112 depending on jurisdiction). As to ruling a trick to the defence (or defense, again d.o.j.) this implies that "normal" play for South (who knows that nobody still has the queen of hearts) is to ruff in his hand, draw two rounds of trumps and attempt to cash the five of spades. Is it really?

2♥. I already pretended to have an eighteen count. I'm not going to pretend to have a heart guard also.

Would overcall. Far too old for one of a major, and marginally too old for 1NT. What remains is left as an exercise for the reader. A more interesting exercise for the reader is figuring out what you think the auction is, as you seem to overlook what else remains. Well, I thought the auction was two passes and 1♦ to me. Could be right to bid four clubs, but not very likely. Partners always seem to think I have something when I bid two clubs. Maybe I should bid three. What do you reckon?

Presumably what whoever wrote that means by "12C1(e) does not apply" is that 12C1(e) does apply, giving the EBU the discretion to use some or all of the procedure laid out therein, but that the EBU has elected not to use any of it (nor to permit TDs to do so). Perhaps. But the EBU can't elect not to use any of it - they have to use "all or part of" it. Now, they (in the personae of their Directors or ACs) can if they like use 12C1c to weight the scores so that the cheats get some of plus 50 for 6NT down one, or they can if they like use 12C1e(ii) so that the cheats get a bottom. Many of the weighted scores actually awarded are of the form "EW minus 620 for cheating, NS plus 620 some of the time and plus 170 the rest for being innocent but suspected of timidity in the auction". No one bothers to give NS some of plus 140 as a "reward" for not only being unable to bid but also unable to play, and no one ever gives them any of minus 100 for being the latter but not the former. This is pretty much standard operating procedure among ACs. If it's illegal, I think we should be told (but discreetly, or a class action on behalf of one of a thousand or so wronged cheats will follow).

He was obviously hoping you would bid 3NT, there is nothing more to it. And how could he be hoping that? I mean, if the next hand had passed, you would have bid 4♥ with four whether or not you had a spade stop, and you would have bid 3NT if you did not have four hearts whether or not you had a spade stop. It is one thing to hope that partner can bid 3NT, but it is quite another thing when even if he bids it, you will have no idea whether or not it is the right contract. Still, thanks to all who have contributed. I will come clean about the full hand shortly, but there may be more to be said by others first.

Sure I can. For Law 12C1e gives me (as an agent of the Regulating Authority) the power to apply "all or part of the following procedure..." So I give the NOS what "equity" tells me to give them per Law 12C1c, and I give the OS a bottom per Law 12C1e(ii). Since that's what they both deserve, there isn't a problem - unless, of course, Bluejak is praying to a different Deity than mine.

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=skq92haj92d4c10963]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] East opens 1♣ - they play a weak no trump and four-card majors. Two passes to partner, who bids 4♥. East passes, and you...?

2NT. Jubjub.

Would overcall. Far too old for one of a major, and marginally too old for 1NT. What remains is left as an exercise for the reader.

A difference that may be no difference (I am unsure) is whether we are adjusting the score so that the NOS have to play this doubled contract, or so that the OS do. The "benefit of doubt" mentioned by Bluejak is usually held to work in favour of the NOS. This may be a relic of the earlier Laws in which the NOS got the best of "likely" results while the OS got the worst of "at all probable" results (of course, these Laws may not be "earlier" at all in certain jurisdictions - they may still be the law). Suppose for example that barring "cheating" (such as misinformation) by the OS, the NOS would sometimes reach a slam in notrump that relied on playing a suit of AJx facing K10x for three tricks. Under the "old" Laws both sides received plus or minus 990. Under the "new" Laws, what I do is give the OS minus 990 and the NOS some percentage of plus 990, some percentage of plus 490, some percentage of plus 460 and some percentage of minus 50. Is this wrong?

Would have more sympathy with the notion that 4NT is natural if I could picture what it showed, or what opener was supposed to do about it with various hands. Certainly would not respond keycards to a natural 4NT - whatever else 4NT does, it invites me to place the contract (since presumably 1♣-1♥-3♣-4NT is also natural, and I can't show keycards over that). But would not worry about reaching seven - there is no hand on which responder can be prepared for me to pass 4NT where we can make seven diamonds. If you want to play 4NT as natural, you should as a minimum agree that it shows (or denies) a certain number of keycards for diamonds, otherwise opener will not have a clue what to do. But for me, 4NT is keycard for diamonds (just as 1♥-1♠-3♥-4NT is keycard for hearts, and so on and so forth). Now, I agree that it is better to use other bids (such as 4♦ or 4♥) as keycard for diamonds, but if the OP had those available, the question would not have been asked. Still, if you want to play 4NT as natural there is an awful lot of discussion you need to have beforehand, and if you and I haven't had it, 4NT is Blackwood.

Not enough information. If double "would not be penalty", what would it be?

For those who do not understand encrypted signalling, the simplest example is where declarer is known to be playing an eight-card fit, perhaps because of Stayman. Now the defender with an odd number of trumps plays standard signals, and the one with an even number of trumps plays reverse signals. Both defenders know what they are doing, but declarer does not know until part way through the hand. Such signals are not permitted in EBU, WBU, ACBL, EBL or WBF events, I believe. Now, a correspondent asks: I noticed that some of the Italians play a lead style of Low = odd with an honour or even without an honour High = odd without an honour and even with an honour Is that legal here? Are these leads encrypted? Shouldn't think so, any more than "second best without an honour, fourth best with an honour" leads are encrypted. In both cases, leader's partner does not automatically know when he sees the lead what kind of suit the leader has. Sure, he may know because of what he can see in his hand and the dummy, and the declarer may not know, but this does not matter. The essence of an encrypted lead or signal is that it is based on some key possessed (or assumed to be possessed) by the defenders but not by declarer before the play is made. In other words, each defender knows what message is intended by the card played, but the declarer does not know (and cannot tell until he has played a few more tricks to establish the key, by which time it may be too late). Of course, the banning of such signals is further evidence that the game of bridge should in the view of the fossils who currently play it be permitted - nay, encouraged - to fossilize. But that is a separate issue.

5S? Isn't that a grand slam try in hearts? Not after they have made a penalty double. And after they have made a striped-tailed-ape double?

Because, with apologies for obvious confusion and with downcast head, I confess to being a reluctant and temporary member of the cool school (or perhaps in my case the lukewarm school). You see, in the last eighteen months or so I have been persuaded to adopt this method, which I am assured is all the rage: After 1♥-2♥, 2NT is "any game try". A new suit is a slam try. (The really cool school play 2♠ as any game try and 2NT as a slam try in spades or some hand with which 3NT could be right, after which responder relays with... but I am an old man and would forget all this stuff even if I were inclined to remember it in the first place.) Hence, on the auction I quoted, 3♦ was an unequivocal slam try and showed... well, it showed either ♦AKxx or two low and the rest solid, or... The point remains the same, though: what disclosure are you obliged to provide, on the basis of past partnership history (or even on the basis of a mutual suspicion that partner has read Bridge My Way or the BBO forums)?

Yes it does. And to paraphrase a comment you made earlier, it is truly shocking for a member of the EBU's Laws and Ethics Committee to condone a situation in which players lie to their opponents on a regular basis.

Was wondering about that on the bus home from work. Came to the conclusion that although I could easily convince myself that it was right, I could not so easily convince team-mates should it prove wrong. Why not? It is the percentage play in the suit in a vacuum when you have no entry to the long hand (ie you cannot unblock when its Jx anywhere). Surely it is. Sorry to be editing my own posts and making nonsense of the thread, but this is a difficult hand. The 4-0 heart break with East having four - a solid 5% shot - has (no doubt for reasons of simplicity) been omitted from initial consideration, but...