sfi

South is "out of the woods" as far as Law 26 is concerned. He has already shown spades with his 2NT bid (part of the legal auction) so Law 26 can never apply to his withdrawn 3♠ bid. (The question of UI is still relevant, but a different matter) Exactly. The director needs to consider 16B and 16D in relation to the 4♠ bid.

South isn't out of the woods with the 4♠ bid. They have two pieces of UI that have to be considered - that partner did not alert 2NT (thus North could have extra spade length) and that RHO doesn't really have a 4♥ bid (which has a number of factors to consider). Either of these could suggest that bidding 4♠ is a winning action, so I would want to investigate on the actual auction before I move on from the hand.

Since you worked out that he went wrong from his bids and your cards, and nothing else, no, you're not. But how about when dummy (my hand) comes down? They can see that something is wrong but I know what it was and what he thinks he was showing, but they can't work it out because we're playing a weird system.

We had a hand came up in an online match, but it got me thinking about what would have happened in real life against people that haven't been playing this system for years. The situation is that we play a relay system and by the time my partner bids 4NT, he has told me that he is 1-3-4-5 with no diamond honour and that we are missing exactly 2 controls (Ace=3, King=2, Queen=1). The problem is that I'm holding AJx in diamonds, so I know something is wrong. After thinking about it I worked out that partner had very likely missed a step in the relay and was trying to show 2-2-4-5 with 6 controls rather than 8. All's well and good - I pass and we're in a fine spot. Imagine this happens in a real life match. I'm obviously required to tell the opposition what his bids actually meant. Am I also obliged to tell them where he is likely to have gone wrong (I was 90%+ sure of what happened), since there is no way for them to be able to work it out on their own without more study than is going to be allowed in a timed event? And how much obligation do we have in general to tell the opponents when we know what mistake partner has made?

I know of one top pair who play their one-level doubles exactly this way, and they do pre-alert them. However, it's common enough for people to double with an opening hand and no particular shape that I would not expect the majority of (largely less experienced) players to say anything beforehand. Nor would I expect an adjustment even if the top pair forgot to say something before the match or round.

I don't think you are allowed to do this - I think you have to pick one under the guidelines of Law 70. You're not assigning an adjusted score. Rather, you're evaluating the claim, and that looks to be a different thing under the laws.

According to Law 68A, declarer has made a claim when they suggest that play be curtailed, so the fact that E/W have faced their cards is irrelevant. It is clear from declarer's aborted claim statement that they were going to draw one round of trumps before realising there is an issue. At this point they are not (barring second sight) going to make the contract. I would rule down 1 since the club queen does not come down doubleton (SA, CA, diamond ruff, CK).

Apart from this exchange I would not have expected the UI to suggest that 3♠ will be more successful than 4♠. However, South's comments suggest that the UI affected his actions and I would likely have adjusted to 4♠-1. Offhand I don't see any reason that the defence would be different. On a side note, there is no reason to adjust the contract to 2N. Passing is simply not a LA.

Absolutely - especially if you're playing against me. I bet the number of times opponents have stuffed up 1430 vs 3041 against me is far greater than the number of times that playing one or the other would have made a significant difference. For any but the most serious partnerships, it's a great way to waste time and energy that could be more usefully directed elsewhere.

It is if they play UDA Clearly they weren't though. Otherwise North would have switched.

My zip code is 2600, so I need to be defending a level higher to see it.

I would take the signal as attitude since South is the one who has a much better idea of which trick to cash than North does. South needs to play the most discouraging heart at trick one to get a spade switch, and the queen doesn't look like the right one. North might still get it wrong, but North will definitely continue hearts after an encouraging signal.

When you have the 10, you want to lead from dummy for the first trick in the suit. It makes it harder for RHO to falsecard with J9xx, since they might be giving up a natural trick in the suit by playing the 9.

Someone once said that you're not playing enough bridge if you don't swear to give it up at least twice a week. Less flippantly, it's really important to enjoy the game - you might need to take a break, play with someone new, or go to a major tournament. They have all worked for me in the past. As Justin said, there is time to get the hang of the game. It is worth remembering that this is not a simple game and measurable success comes slowly. If you're looking for quick improvements, you will struggle to see them.

LHO opened the bidding - not partner.

I can't really imagine anyone making a decision on this hand without knowing what 5♦ means, so asking about it seems routine. Suggesting that it discloses anything specific about your hand is a big stretch.

The question I tend to have of partners in this situation is whether they want me to bid 3NT with a balanced 18-19 count. I'm happy with whatever the answer is, but I don't think that the 3♦ bid should cover both sorts of "weak" hands.

It's not that much of an overbid. Give partner a perfect minimum of: Axxx ATxx x ATxx And you would be unlucky not to make an overtrick in game. You do have an eight loser hand with a five card, an expected double fit, and finesses will be taken through the strong hand. And you know that most of partner's values will be working. If partner has something like: KQJx Kxx Ax xxxx then you may go down in 2♥, but your opponents can make 3♦ and may not be able to bid it.

This is a maximum for the 1♥ bid (and I wouldn't argue with an initial 2♥ bid), so not bidding over a raise is very poor. IMO this hand gets the bulk of the blame for missing game.

I've had the same experience. Issues have even arrived out of sequence, but they do make it here eventually. The one time I reported one missing I received two copies of that issue, but that was slow as well.

If you overcall 1♥ (my choice), rebidding 2♥ is massively undervaluing the hand. It's going to play well with the club shortage well placed and the points located. 2NT looks like a perfect continuation.

It was certainly fairly common in Texas in the early 90's. The notes I have (which were a straight copy of Soloway's system with someone) suggest that we used: - Stayman & 3♦ to show invitational 5-5 hands - Stayman & 4♦ to show game-only 5-5 hands - Transfer to spades and bid hearts to show slammish 5-5s Hands with long diamonds started with 2NT. We had no problems with it.

At the risk of compounding my inability to count the diamond suit (I blame it on posting at work), I'll point out that declarer should just make this hand. Give declarer: Ax JTxxx KQJx xx the best percentage line is just to lead trumps and rely on a 3-2 diamond break. Anything else risks a diamond ruff no matter how they divide - I would have to be sure of the layout before playing on spades at trick 3.

Why can't east, with the ♥A and singleton diamond, be planning to put pard in with the Club Queen to get a ♦ ruff? Even so, it must be better to play A-K-J of spades planning to discard the club on the third round. It's the same 50% shot if a ruff is being threatened, and it goes down a trick less when it loses. The one thing that declarer knows when they don't cash the second club is that the HA is not in the same hand as the long diamonds. Either diamonds are 2-2 and the contract is cold, or they are 3-1 and he needs to find the SQ in the right place. Edit: 3-2 or 4-1 - can't count

Won't the expert declarer ask why you didn't cash the second club trick before switching to the diamond - particularly since you have the club ace and can guarantee to be able to win trick 2? He shouldn't really fall for that against competent defenders.