sfi

Not now, if there ever was. What declarer can't do is guess something correctly. So, if there is a finesse or drop guess, the ruling would assume that declarer would get that wrong all the time unless it can be shown that the correct line is marked. Here, North showing out removes the guess and changes the situation regarding the claim. More generally, adjudicating claims takes into account non-percentage lines. But it does not force no-win plays on declarer.

You can make by noticing the 5-0 break, going to dummy and drawing 4 rounds of trumps. As long as you then cash minor suit winners South can't beat you. You don't even need to think about getting them to shorten trumps. Declarer has to try really hard to not make this hand.

It's not logical to assume he's going to continue on this path once North shows out on the first trump (or second trump, for that matter). Even with the claim, there is some recognition that declarer will take the marked finesse.

The fifth option is not a bad guideline, but I think I broke the first four criteria just in one session tonight.

The first couple of hands are at least partly a matter of style and it's unclear whether there is one "best" method. However, the last two examples seem to arise from differing agreements about the negative double over 1S-2C. If you simply show 4 cards in the unbid major and say nothing about diamonds then the actions make a lot of sense. When you are 5332, 2H is supporting partner's suit, while 2D is showing a 4 card suit. And in the last auction responder is showing four hearts (with the double), two spades (because they did not support the previous round) and an invitational hand (because they bid again) without a good club stopper (no 2nt bid). Which is pretty spot on - not surprising given that the author got to pick the hand.

To be fair, put the DA in the East hand or make South's QC the king and 5S-X is the par score. However, that is a very narrow target to aim at. Generally, once you make them guess in the auction you don't want to give them a second chance at getting it right. Here they guessed by pulling the penalty double. Looking at the North hand you're not sure whether 5S is a good sacrifice or what they are making. Given that, 5S just takes some losing options away from them. And yes - 4H is ridiculous. There's no reason to save them here though.

I don't think you can set vulnerability, but you can select who you want as dealer under the General tab. This will result in you only playing hands 2, 6, 10, 14, etc., but it will also generate hands according to the dealer script you enter under the Advanced tab.

True enough - they might get ideas.

Composting worms and chickens appreciate them, so that would be pet likes rather than pet hates.

True enough. He's still protected though.

Maybe I'm being overly suspicious, but given that EW are described as veterans I think this scenario is plausible. What if East knew the law well enough to know that it was too late to be able to change his bid? In that case, East has a free double shot by strongly suggesting that he might have saved in 7C. If it turns out that 6H isn't making or that 7Cx is too expensive he quietly (and possibly even magnanimously) drops it - after all his opponents are the "offending side". If 7Cx is the right spot to play, he has already shown the director that he was considering the sacrifice. A no-lose ploy. Even if the director mistakenly lets him bid 7C, he'll get an average-plus due to director error. The blind sacrifice is straight out of La-La Land. Especially against inexperienced players it's just not happening. And the mere fact that North has a void rather than a singleton ace doesn't change that one whit. Table score stands and as a director I would be talking to the recorder and other directors to investigate any previous incidents. Something really looks dubious.

Many other good points have been raised here, but ignoring these boards is really bad. One of the key elements of the game is not letting your opponents play well, and these boards can be symptomatic of that. Why are other tables staying too low or getting pushed to high at other tables but not at yours? Why aren't you setting these contracts when the hand record says they can be made? Competitive part-score hands can kill you in events and the hand record analysis will often paint a false picture of what should happen at the table. To answer the original question, simple lack of concentration costs me probably 95% of my negative results. Working out how not to do clearly stupid things would improve my game enormously.

Which is indeed the case, as it turns out from the system added to the OP.

This hand is too strong to bid 1NT, which shows 6-10 or so. 10+ hands with long clubs bid clubs. Edit: PhilKing's hand looks a lot like a 2NT bid rather than 2C unless precluded by the system.

I don't think much of South's 3NT bid with only one stopper - I would have gone with 5C to show good trumps but no outside controls, but would prefer 4C if that's the system bid. But once North bids 4S, South is likely to think there are two cashing red suit tricks. Why not 4D? Finally, having put South in this situation, North could have realised it and simply bid the slam. In short, I think the decisions degenerated significantly after 3H.

Spot on. If the only construction is one very specific hand where North is required to make a dubious call and the opponents to not raise the preempt in an 11 card fit, then pass cannot be a serious consideration. On a similar theme, North could have a more reasonable 3S bid with AKxxx Jx Jxxxx Q where they can't raise hearts. Still not worth catering to.

But he's not really expecting 0-4 given the explanation of the pass. And given the explanation, the pass isn't even a misbid. Finally, since the explanation expressly allowed for stronger hands without a clear action, so presumably balanced with no club stopper, there's no reason to suggest a CPU.

This double manages to have it both ways. :)

You can minimise the entire section and never have to look at it again, if that is what you want. This really seems like it should be a non-issue.

Not at all. Having read through the appeal writeup, the one thing I am certain of is that I would not be qualified to be on the appeals committee for this case (and I'm saying this from the point of view of someone who does get asked to be on these committees at a national level). The law and how to apply it is straightforward. Assessing the appellants' agreements, carding, and decisions on the hand does not appear at all simple. The one thing I would feel on solid ground about is that it has merit.

Down 1 is good bridge. Surely you've heard that?

A common treatment around here in the context of Bergen raises is for 1♠-3♥ to be a 3 card limit raise. Another option would be to allow 1♠-4♥ to be natural and have 3♥ as the splinter bid. I currently play jump shifts in response to a major as a 6+ card suit with invitational values and no fit. This takes a lot of pressure off the 1NT response. But yes, treating them in a similar way to your 3♣ and 3♦ responses makes a lot of sense for any but the most practiced partnerships.

1♥ - 3♣ (invitational, no heart fit) makes it trivial to reach the grand. If playing a style where 2/1 is GF unless rebid, I would bid: 1♥ - 2♣ 4♣ - 4♦ 4NT ...

It's actually a pretty common agreement by a passed hand in this sort of an auction. The idea is that you are unlikely to have a hand good enough to bid here without a heart fit.

The opponents are entitled to the systemic meaning of 3♦, not what partner thinks it is. If a game try is not alertable in the ACBL, you should not alert it, and if asked you should explain what the bid actually means. You should not explain what 3♦ would normally be in response to a Jacoby 2NT, and given that you don't play it partner may have different responses than normal anyway so your explanation may simply be misleading. This will provide partner with unauthorised information, but it is up to partner to handle that appropriately. At the end of the auction (assuming your side becomes declarer), you need to inform the opponents of the incorrect alert and explanation. You should also summon the director at this point, but in practice I would only do that if the opponents are inexperienced (otherwise I tend to ask if they want the director).