fbuijsen

I am not at all sure that I want to describe my complete distribution to partner (and opponents) at all on this auction. It will just help the opponents in their defense. 3NT and 5♣ are by far the most likely game contracts we can possibly make. If we have no game, I want to be in clubs, as low as possible. I play an Ekren variation myself and find that there is considerable merit in bidding 3NT while not having both majors stopped: the opponents will need to find the right lead. That gives me a certain respect for just bashing 3NT here. However, the chance that we won't be able to take 9 top tricks is way too large for this, so I choose the mundane 3♣ answer, giving us a chance to reach 3NT if partner has enough useful cards to bid on. If he can't, odds are there isn't a game for us anyway. I dislike 4♣ because it goes past 3NT, so I would prefer the 5♣ bash if I decide to pass 3NT.

It is usually not a good idea to just ask aces, but this seems like an exception to me. Partner's strong bidding makes it odds on that 6NT will make as well. So I would just bid 4NT (RKC for spades, or whatever form you play), and folllowing a somewhat positive answer, blast 6NT. A direct 6NT is possible too. I see no good way to find out about all of partner's cards, so I'm not going to try. In IMPs I choose 6C like you did. The problem with 4C and other attempts at the 4-level is that they are rather ambiguous, which makes it less clear what to make of partner's answers too. For example, is 4C a cue, or just really long clubs and very short spades? Your partner's pass over 6C seems automatic.

Seems like a very clearcut pass to me. Let's give partner about the best possible hand, something like ♠xxx ♥AJxxx ♦xx ♣xxx. You are likely to lose 1 spade, 2 diamond and 2 or 3 clubs. So if everything works perfect, you'll be 3 down for -500. But you shouldn't be too surprised about -1100 or worse either. (I'm actually doubtful about whether dbl would be takeout here, since you can't really have a hand that wants to bid it for takeout).

I agree with other posters that the explanation of the 2♦ bid is misinformation. The question is: is there damage to EW? That is not so easy to answer. EW will make 8 tricks in a heart contract, and I note that: (1) a dbl with the east hand is a possibility. but hardly automatic at this vulnerability. (2) if it goes 1NT - p - 2♦ - dbl - 2♥ (south still thinks it's transfer) / dbl (penalty) - 3diamonds], will east bid 3♥? Will this get doubled for 1 down? Or will north continue to 4♦? It's not easy to find a good assigned score here. You can give a small percentage to EW 3♥ -1 (maybe 20%), but it's quite unclear whether EW actually suffered damage.

East's initial double is fine. West's 3♦ bid is OK too; though west has quite maximum values for the bid, but the weakness of the suit warrants some cautiousness. East's 4♠ is a strange bid. The normal standard meaning for the bid is a control in spades (probably first round control even) and slam-going, establishing diamonds as trumps. Note that east doesn't have the promised control. West's pass of 4♠ is absurd. West actually has a magnificent hand now, with 2 aces. A jump to 6♦ is the simple bid, but it's reasonable to try for the grand slam here, since east is promising a massive hand (inviting slam opposite a possible zero point hand). Still, seeing all hands it feels like a bit of result oriented argument. Just bid 6♦ at this point. I would prefer this auction: 2♠ - p - p dbl p - 3♦ - p - 3♠ p - 3NT - p - 4♣ (now a club cue with diamonds as trumps) p - 4♥ - p - 5♦ p - 6♦

Probably of little help to you, but the Dutch bridge union NBB has an on-line version with annotations at http://www.nbbclubsites.nl/spelregelboekje/html/index.html

Correct procedure is to call the director immediately when the irregularity comes to light. That is, when east corrects the explanation. The TD wold then allow North to change his final pass (but not south). If this doesn't happen, nothing else happens at this point. Certainly south doesn't have to give these arguments to the TD at this point, since this will give UI to his partner, and free information to the opponents. I also strongly disagree with mgoetze's "double shot" argument. NS are the non-offenders here, and none of their actions are at all unreasonable or gambling. There is clear damage from the MI, since with correct information the doubles south claimed he would make are very plausible bids, and he has missed the chance to make them because of the MI.

The way I read the wording, it's actually a bit stronger than that. It says that if the NOS is damaged by the information from seeing the MPC, the TD should adjust. lamford's quest here seems to be to determine how far that goes. Intuitively I think it means that if the NOS is damaged compared to the outcome without any offense happening, the TD should adjust. If the use of the AI under 50E1 results in the offenders getting the score they would have gotten without the offense (rather than the horrible score resulting from making the offense and not being allowed to use the information about the MPC), then there is no need to adjust, since the overall handling of the situation has not resulted in damage for the NOS compared to the outcome if no offense occurred.

The way I read the wording, it's actually a bit stronger than that. It says that if the NOS is damaged by the information from seeing the MPC, the TD should adjust. lamford's quest here seems to be to determine how far that goes. Intuitively I think it means that if the NOS is damaged compared to the outcome without any offense happening, the TD should adjust. If the use of the AI under 50E1 results in the offenders getting the score they would have gotten without the offense (rather than the horrible score resulting from making the offense and not being allowed to use the information about the MPC), then there is no need to adjust, since the overall handling of the situation has not resulted in damage for the NOS compared to the outcome if no offense occurred.

I think this is that otherwise you will be forcing partner of the MPC holder to play ridiculous cards in a lot of everyday situations with MPCs or, more likely, force the TD to adjust the score in a lot of such situations. The idea of the semi-automatic handling of situations like LOOTs and MPCs is that the TD can rule without having the need to fully analyse the equity situation and the entire UI situation in great detail. Because that takes a lot of time on every case (lamford's examples do a good job in illustrating that). Rather, you want the TD to give the somewhat automatic ruling, which in most cases is already costing the offenders points compared to not having made the offense thus solving the situation in a short time and without a lot of work. The NOS has their own responsibility if they feel they have been inadequately compensated by the standard rulings to appeal to the TD again after the hand.

Ah, now I see it. Thanks. Yes, you have to adjust here.

West has AI, from the bidding and play, that south's hand distribution is 5-1-3-4 (5-1-4-3 or even 5-1-5-2 is also possible, but then the contract is cold). So he knows east has a singleton club. So south's remaining distribution is ♠Jx ♥- ♦- ♣Qxx/xxx. Looks to me like west's analysis is correct. The UI of knowing partner has the ♣Q makes it easier, for sure, but I don't see that's enough to adjust the score.

It works quite fine for that purpose in nearly all cases. Only in very unusual cases, such as possibly this one, the NOS will fell they are still damaged after application, in which case the director has to make a more intensive investigation afterwards anyway.

Well, yeah, there are various "penalties" involved when you do something you shouldn't. These are designed to ensure that the offending side doesn't benefit from their infraction, but doesn't ensure that they may not suffer damage from the director action resulting from it. In the L57 case you may suffer a bit more for this specific case, but that's not really important. The way it was explained to me, these laws are designed so that the director can apply the law without needing to analyse extensively what the exact equity situation is for each case. Basically you apply a big hammer to give the situation a good hard whack. If that hurts the offenders' score on the hand, tough. As long as you're sure they don't benefit from it (which is why there is the catchall bit about UI in L50 -- it takes away a route to benefit that wasn't closed by the rest of the law).

He is authorized to know that partner has a MPC and that it is the ♦A. That makes playing the ♦K is simply absurd (unless it's some kind of unblocking play), since he knows partner is gonna play the A anyway. It is also authorized not to lead a suit trying to give partner a ruff, when you know he won't be allowed to ruff (because he has to play the ♦A. (EDIT: scratch that remark -- I'd temporarily forgotten that diamonds are trump ....) What is unauthorized is, for example, deciding your lead based on the knowledge of partner's possession of the ♦A. Let's say the contract is 7NT, and it is clear from the bidding that declarer has a long running suit that will give him 13 tricks from the top. So the opening lead needs to find partner's ace (if he has any). Now it would be really helpful to lead the ♦A out of turn, if it allows partner to find the diamond lead (it's a bad example, I know, since declarer can simply forbid the diamond lead). Campboy's reason for adjustment, as I understand it, is still different: it's not because of th use of UI, but because exposing the ♦A has altered the way in which the hand played out from what would have happened without that offense, and is therefore damaging the NOS. This is disputable, since arguably the declarer could have prevented the damage by choosing a different option to handle the LOOT, but it is not about UI.

I am copying over the minute from pran's post in the other thread to make it a bit easier to discuss: This says, explicitly, you are allowed to lead a small card because you know partner is obliged to play the ace. The only way I can interpret law 50E and the minute/comment with it, is that west (i.e. partner of the MPC holder) is, in all situations, allowed to know that when ♦ are played, partner will play the ♦A, and thus play low. What is not allowed, is deduce the best lead (or play) based on the knowledge of east's possession of the ♦A. (Say for example that based on the bidding he knows they have to cash their ace immediately, but he can't know for sure in which suit their side is holding an ace).

The reasoning seems weird. When choosing his lead west is allowed to know that partner has a large penalty card in the ♦A, but later on in the play he is no longer allowed to know it is the ♦A, but only that a penalty card exists?

My experience is similar. My regular partner is an optimistic bidder. When he makes some kind of limit raise after a long tank, he has convinced himself to make a slight (or sometimes not so slight) overbid the vast majority of the time.

There are two ways to use this information: (1) For your own bidding. (2) To understand opponents' bidding. For the first, it's best for a novice to stick to methods that are (1) simple, (2) easy to understand and remember and (3) technically reasonable. For this, it's best to play the 3M bid in this situation as invitational ("Partner, please bid game if you are maximum for your 2M bid"). For the 2nd, it's useful for a novice to know that there are other methods available, and that specifically 3M as a semi-preemptive bid is fairly popular. I note that Michael Rosenberg in his book "Bridge, Zia and Me" insisted that the "invitational approach is by far superior technically.

I don't think it does, it's actually showing a minimum for the 2♠ bid. West's 4♥ bid seems decidedly optimistic.

I'm passing. I'm hoping we can beat it, with a H trick, 2 tricks in the minors and a spade trick. If we don't have those, 4S will be off 3 tricks so I'm only losing 4 IMPs then. (Oops, misread vulnerability -- I pass even more now when we're vul vs not -- I don't think we'll make 4S under the assumption RHO is strongish.) PS: is the 2NT enquiry also a strong (15+) bid? It's played that way in Holland, but maybe the UK players play it differently.

I'm leading a spade, hoping this can prevent the ♣ ruff in dummy. The plan is that partner plays another spade when in with a club.

Another vote for 4♠ from me. It ought to have a shot.

Your hand is a maximum 2C overcall to me. It would be a dbl, but the poor quality of the club suit makes me decide for an overcall. Your friend's auction is a fine case of resulting with both hands in sight. Double is acceptabel, and you would get something like (after the dbl): 2♣ 2♥ 2NT 3NT after that. I play the 3♣ raise as a positive bid, roughly 7-10 HCP and at least 3 clubs. On the N hand here, 3♣ is a bit tame, but OK.

Ok, thx :) So what would be YOUR bid after 3♣ and why? It's hard to say, because seeing both hands it quickly becomes just resulting. But since my hand is a total maximum, I even have visions of slam, and have sufficient faith in 5♣. I expect at least one club honor with partner. I think I'd try a 4♦ cuebid. I guess partner would bid 5♣ or 4♥ on that. Over 4♥ I'd bid 5♣, hoping that makes it clear to partner I need the ♠A. But it's much easier seeing both hands :P