kevperk

So, the opponents preempted their bid, but did not "steal" it. :)

Released just means that they have removed their hand. The bid was made.

My guess is table 8 brought the boards to their table, rather than put them at the bottom of the "assembly" stack. Have caught this happening many times. Even after several rounds of them doing it right.

I would always say, "From length, we lead fourth best"

I have always thought the law quoted was referring to asking the opponents a question for the benefit of partner. Never even thought it was relevant to the issue being discussed.

From the lack of any more information, I think, although I could be wrong, that the pair in question play standard weak two bids, and that this player chose to make this bid because he was in third seat. I think answers from this perspective would be most helpful for the OP. My only comment at this point is that this pair may not have discussed anything related to this, but there may be some partnership tendencies that partner of this hand may know, and should disclose.

I don't understand your reference to UI and misleading the opponents. My point is that if declarer says these things, it IS clear what card he was calling for in dummy.

Who said it had to be a law that says so? I was just saying you can't have a lengthy discussion. I meant more along the lines of how you explain, in my hypothetical, if you had all the time in the world, you might take a lot longer to be sure the fillin understands. In a real world situation, you would try to be as brief as possible, as long as you were sure the opponents understood. And I would stress SURE.

I would suggest to avoscill to imagine that he is the opponent playing against two who are playing his methods. Now imagine that someone who doesn't know the methods is going to take over for him at the moment in question. What information would he know about the bid (and auction) that he would tell the fillin player? That is the information that the opponents should be told. Of course, full disclosure has to be tempered by brevity due to time constraints.

What if declarer says, after he corrects his play, says "Sorry I thought spades(or diamonds, etc.) were trump" ? What if he says it right after he is informed that the contract is notrump? If these are treated differently, then declarer should keep their mouth shut, verbalizing their intent is costly here.

As was already mentioned, you DO NOT select a standand 11 table Mitchell, you select External, scroll to the bottom, and select "Create your own one winner movement"

Nobody has brought this up yet. What if the opponents had looked at the card, saw Widget listed, knew what it is, and didn't ask any questions? What would the ruling be then? What information were the opponents entitled to?

Criss Cross(or Double Weave) Mitchell Round 1__NS__EW_boards__Round 2__NS__EW_boards__Round 3__NS__EW_boards__Round 4__NS__EW_boards Table 1__1___1____1-2______Table 1__1___2____7-8______Table 1__1___4____5-6______Table 1__1___3____3-4 Table 2__2___2____3-4______Table 2__2___1____5-6______Table 2__2___3____7-8______Table 2__2___4____1-2 Table 3__3___3____5-6______Table 3__3___4____3-4______Table 3__3___2____1-2______Table 3__3___1____7-8 Table 4__4___4____7-8______Table 4__4___3____1-2______Table 4__4___1____3-4______Table 4__4___2____5-6 boards 1-2 and 5-6 keep going lower; boards 3-4 and 7-8 keep going higher; e/w pairs 1 and 3 go higher round 2; e/w pairs 2 and 4 go lower round 2; for round 3, all e/w skip higher/lower (amounts to the same thing), e/w pairs 2 and 4 go higher round 4; e/w pairs 1 and 3 go lower round 4 Not sure you will find this is better than the Relay/Byestand Mitchell, it works well for any multiple of 4 if you understand the underlying movement well.

I think it is similar to gadget, tool, convention.

Where I play, "custom and practice" is that EW CAN have their paws on the boards.

I never understood this belief that E/W are not supposed to move the boards. My lawbook says any stationary pair is PRIMARILY responsible for maintaining proper conditions. It seems a far leap to infer that they are SOLELY responsible for moving the boards.

What's wrong with this? Much better than just "yes".

I think he is asking why the laws treat these two situation differently.

Yes, sorry. That is only for the declaring side. Was thinking of the given situation too much.

To clarify, once the auction is over, the person who made the call has an obligation to volunteer (as per the alert procedure) any information not given (or given incorrectly) of what the partnership agreement is as to the bid in question (but not what is actually in the hand, in case of a misbid or psyche). The laws also say that the director is to be called, but unfortunately this usually doesn't happen unless the other side has an issue, which often has unintended UI problems. Kevin Perkins

As a director, I have seen it plenty of times, with it hardly, if ever, causing a problem. Rarely do all three pick up the bids. A lot of times, the last person does, a fair amount of time, the second person does, and occasionally all three do. I AM surprised that SO many have never seen it, and surprised they think that something that causes so few problems is such a big issue. Most of the time, everyone is ok, occasionally, someone wants to bid, and the passes are put out. Every once in a while (very rarely), there is a problem. When it is, it is dealt with. I don't think it is rude, they ones that people do it against don't think it is rude. For us, it is not rude.

Just bringing up that the disagreement with OP and partner about the 4NT followup bid can be solved by go through Jacoby or Texas. Not that have RKCB is that valuable after a transfer.

Do you play Texas transfers? Then Texas followed by 4NT is RKCB.

It would occur to me that I had a bid if my partner had made a bid rather than pass, even if my RHO were picking up my cards. I guess I pay more attention to what my partner does, and less my opponents.