MFA

I would try a spade also. No strong feelings though.

hardly partner did have a stiff T after all. ;) Who is at fault here? declarer for asking the question or the opposition for trying to take advantage of the question? The very fact that question was asked prior to any other cards being played would only lead me to believe this was more in line with the use of coded 9 or 10's. The fault here lies with not having a full written description of leads, something that can be easily passed to the declarer with no questions required. If anyone were to pose the ethics of the situation, I would lay this squarely on the opening leader for trying to take advantage of the situation. Only mitigated if a full description of your leads were available. Because an obvious inference has been made in trying to take advantage of the situation, otherwise why behave as if your nose had been put out of joint? Just to underline the whole absurdity of declarers plot, he has to mind meld with the opposition to identify the Q was led from QJxxxx (whilst holding 4 and dummy 2) and that his partner held the singleton 10 for this devious plan to bear fruit. Furthermore the fact the question was asked, whilst holding 6, would suggest that declarer has options and that the probability of the 10 being a singleton has increased significantly. Any TD worth his salt would have a wry little smile and suggest a chat at the bar after the session. Surely declarer could have known that an opponent could be misled by such kind of question. And declarer has no bridge reason to ask specfically about a holding the opponent can't have. The TD might want to go to the bar (as you suggest), but that would be to get something strong after an unanimous AC has decided to change his ruling and adjust the score (according to law 73F2).

hardly partner did have a stiff T after all. Yes I know, but I wasn't really talking about the actual layout.

I can fully support Rik's views in this thread. What he is saying is quite accurately the mainstream view among "the intellectual elite" in my country (Denmark). Which I happen to agree with (on these issues). After some thinking, I find that Obama is an excellent choice for 2009, and this is why:

Adjusted score (for both sides) and a warning to declarer to be more careful in the future. Since we surely don't think he did it on purpose, do we? <_< Lead small from this holding and blow your trick instantly like a man.

If partner spanks it, I sit. Of course I do. I expect 3♦ to go down, but probably not a lot. Partner is a good player and knows all the dozens of good reasons why his double could go wrong in this sequence. And still he doubles. My hand is defensively in range. It's backwards if I have to make some very obscure and perhaps suicidal rescue action with a normal minimum. It can't be the way this sequence should be played.

If partner knew our hand, then I think double would be a winner. But he doesn't, and he is likely to hang us, typically by passing or bidding 3NT too often. Have to pass here.

I think 2♠ is a fine pressure bid.

Annoying, but I'd try a double. Good things might happen, if not partner will get some training in handling a 4-2.

That's not it. The point is one tries harder if there is a good team spirit. This means a lot. Especially when things run badly at the table, and they inevitably do sometimes in the long, difficult tournaments. Then is extremely important not to throw everything away right there, but really fight for the team and escape from the session with just a small minus.

NS are misinformed and I would rule on that basis. I would not consider any of NS's bids a serious error, because the thread seems to indicate that the level of the players is low in general. Still taking the level of the players into account it's far from clear that NS would actually have been able to optain their maximum if they had got the right information. A weighted score seems right. I would probably have been a little more generous to NS than bluejak, but perhaps the 6-way split is just right in this somewhat random game of bridge. That goes to some extend for me. But I think, btw, that it's only fair to assume that when hands are posted at these forums the level of the players is at least decent. Otherwise maybe a note about it would be in order.

Yes clear double.

I don't know whether or not he thinks that, but I don't think he said so above. He wrote: "Partner could believe 3♣ is non-forcing but is wondering whether to raise it to 4♣." suggests to me that he believes this to be a likely cause of the BIT, and my point was that this demonstrably suggests 5C is more likely to be successful. I think that there is a general agreement that partner's thinking of raising a (what-he-thought-was-a) NF 3♣ is a likely cause of the BIT here. But there are other likely causes, some of which might point in the other direction. We need to make a full judgement, taking into accout all possible causes and their relative weights.

A few years ago this sequence came up in our national pairs championship: 1♥ - pass - 2♦ - 4♣ Gerber! :ph34r: pass - 4♦ - pass - 4♠ pass - pass - 4NT Blackwood! :D 6♥ bid (but not made as far as I remember). 4♣ was serious enough (although optimistic to find partner with 2 aces).

Yes, 4♥ is a fundamental error. Better to focus on that rather than a delicate decision between 3♥ and a cuebid (a decision she got right btw). So vital to learn that supporting partner is the most valueable bid in the bidding box.

We don't prealert in Denmark. We might just shortly state if we play an unusual general approach, like "precision". In strong tournaments it would be normal not to do that either. On the other hand we are generally more disciplined with the CC than what I've experienced almost anywhere else. I like it our way. I think prealerting is annoying - to do as well as to listen to.

Your obligations are just what you are trying to do right now: Examining your system to see if there is anything unusual that you judge the opponents will have a special interest in knowing in advance (apart from all the ordinary stuff that one is required to fill in the CC). One can't (and shouldn't try to) write everything in the CC. About doubles you might describe a general style ("almost all low-level doubles are T/O") and perhaps write down explicitely a few important sequences if you felt it would be right and helpful. Some people seem to fill out the CC with font size 6 to the very last millimeter. While it may be of good intentions, it is really not very helpful to the opponents either.

Absolute total complete and utter nonsense. If you don't want Appeal Committees changing directors' decisions then rewrite the laws to say so. Either throw the Laws out and let Regulating Authorities make all the rules as it suits them or follow the laws as written. I must say that I am heartily sick of reading posts defending regulations that are unambiguously illegal. Hence the vehemence. I don't see any reason why this practice should be illegal. :) The appeal option is there. It is only natural and sensible that if more compentence is put in to the TD's rulings in the first place then their assessments and decisions will have more weight in a following AC. It would be a bad AC if it didn't care at all about the polls made by the TDs (for instance). I don't see anything wrong either in openly announcing this sensible practice.

Strongly agree with this. A ruling based on 3♥X would not be reasonable.

We need to make some decisions here though. One of them is "do we believe that South would not have doubled if it had been explained that 2♥ was a transfer?" My inclination is not to believe it. However, it is much more believable if South had made this claim before seeing the dummy or the result. You are right, of course, that it would be more believable. But it is not normal procedure to state what one would have done differently in situations like this (apart from a final pass that can actually be changed). It's before the play and one can't be expected to disclose the content of the hand. That would help declarer (and hurt partner, who would have UI).

These cases can be a little uncomfortable to handle in print only, since one has to get a feel about if the actual south was damaged. I'm pretty far from awarding compensation here though. South's explanation tells us that she either stopped thinking or just assumed that W had gone completely mad. Hearts was bid and raised, it makes no sense that west should run if he indeed has a heart suit. At least she could inquire. The offending side is not liable for the bad results of the nonoffending side that is due to such unreasonable play. In law terms the nonoffending side has to be innocent of their own bad score. Which south is not.

That's a good point, although I seem to remember, on another forum, at least one thread discussing the (hypothetical, as I recall) situation where A is suggested over B, which is suggested over C, which is suggested over A. I don't wish to debate that here, this isn't the place for it, but it does indicate that your assertion may not always hold true. Practically speaking, I would expect the assertion is true, so perhaps we shouldn't worry about these "outliers". :P In my optics such a dilemma is not possible. It's not exact science and shouldn't be at all, but in a sense one should add the weigthed consequences of the possible interferences to get the complete impact of the UI on the given LA. It's all about likelyhood really. Has the UI all in all made it more likely that LA "A" would work and less likely that LA "B" would work, then A is illegal (and would lead to adjusted score if succesful) while B is not. It follows from simple mathematics that when one or more LA are thus 'promoted' other(s) will have been degraded. Since the sum of probabilities would always be 1. So there will always be at least 1 legal option, no matter how the situation is constructed. There is no such thing as all LA being demonstrably suggested at the same time by some UI in the sense of the bridge laws.

I'm against the CD penalty idea. Working with conventional systems is a part of the game and we already have (too) strict limitations in that departement. The bad results optained will be penalty enough. I agree with those saying that the laws already deal with excessive forgets, since that would constitute a partnership understanding that has to be disclosed. I can understand why players don't like much playing against habitual forgetters, but for me it's just equivalent to any other bad bridge which is not so enjoyable as good bridge. Others can feel differently about this of course.

Sure, it means that when there are two possible logical actions, you must choose a third, illogical action :D ---then take your zero and not bother with a director call. Except that if the"illogical alternative" gives you a top, it will be ruled away. There was a thread long time ago in another forum where the case was 1S-...3S-7S By a miracle, it made (or maybe it was 6S, I don't remember). It was ruled back because the illogical alternative bid was "caused" by the UI. Apparently the opener was frustrated that whatever he did and it was successful, ie. pass the game invite or bid a game, it would be ruled against so he decided to take an alternative that could not possibly have been suggested by the UI... There is no escape, since the bid chosen is always regarded as a LA for that player :P. I can understand the frustration. There are many cases where the TD has been too quick to establish that the UI did point towards the action chosen by the player. And where one could reasonably suspect that had the player done the exact opposite, the TD would have ruled that as influenced by the UI as well.

I would say that "an action could have been suggested by" is just the usual gentle wording of the laws that allows us to rule against a player without accusing him of having done anything unethical. "Demonstrably" is the word that requires the UI to be clear as to direction/usefulness. I agree that more than one action (LA) could be illegal. But then it would be actions along the same line, for instance different slam tries (as opposed to passing partner's sign off). There is by definition always one LA that is legal, since the illegal ones are the ones that "demonstrably could have been suggested over another LA".