StevenG

in 3) (assuming that partner is rock solid about transfers in this sequence) everyone at the table knows (at least, in the circles I have mostly played) that partner has missorted his hand and that 5♦ is now the last chance to bail in a sensible contract. So the only sensible choice is to pass. Since everybody knows, I don't see how passing can be evidence of a CPU - there is nothing concealed about it. I know that this is not what TDing theory says, especially in the EBU where the concept of "fielded misbid" has been formalised. However, if partner does make an "impossible bid", and you know no more than the opponents, I fail to see why the pragmatic bid is unacceptable. There are no LAs (in the literal sense, not the formal sense) after an impossible bid, as the sequence hes become intrinsically illogical. This does, of course, not absolve partner from any use of UI in bidding 5♦ in the first place.

I wouldn't discard a high heart, unless that's all I had. If so, it must mean no interest in clubs (or hearts) - up to you to work out something sensible on that basis. Maybe not the best of methods, but this is the I/A forum, and trying to get functional methods that intermediate partners can read pays off in practice. (Many of the replies on this thread are from experts, who, I suspect, don't understand the practical problems of partnership building between non-experts.)

I discard the 2♥ because I play McKenney (Lavinthal) in all my partnerships. Throwing any sort of club would just confuse my partners. So, if the answer Frances wants is whatever the signal is for a club switch, it depends on partnership methods.

Fixed But, even with minimal agreements, you usually agree some form of Blackwood. I'd bet on a lot of spades, at least one void and not much else.

If partner has a hand suitable for 7♠ opposite the right 2NT opener, why has he lurched to 6♠ without investigating?

In retrospect it might be a good idea. It would be nice to get rid of that pesky multi-2♦ (at least at club level). Of course, having to alert everything that wasn't Polish Club might be a bit annoying.

I think "weak 5+ cards" would be adequate.

This particular tourney isn't played to a high standard (alas), and many of the players don't have a wide knowledge base. I'd recommend to the OP that overdisclosure does no harm bridgewise and leads to happy opponents. (And I'd also like to congratulate him on doing so well last night.)

It's unlike you to repeatedly troll. I play in EBUland, and nobody I've ever spoken to has argued that completing a transfer didn't show willingness to play in that suit. The whole philosophy here, at least amongst ordinary players, is that opening 1NT means you are willing to play wherever partner chooses. As for the OB, if I play something new, I am much happier having a reference where I can find out which bids are or are not alertable, rather than muddling through and waiting for an ambiguous situation to create unhappy opponents and director calls. If you don't play in a jurisdiction, and do not understand how ordinary players play bridge in that jurisdiction, then making adverse comments on how that jurisdiction is regulated is futile.

Rik, you seem to be saying that if the card had said "attitude, suit preference" you would have been happy(ish), but with a card saying "count, suit preference" you are not. Isn't that argument one of the "I play this way, so everybody else should" type? What do you think the card should say? I ask because I've never seen this situation in real life, but I do use a lot of suit preference, and if it did come up I suspect I would give suit preference rather than count, and that my partner would understand. It wouldn't have crossed my mind that "count, suit preference" on the card could draw an adverse ruling.

Why not just open up a blank new tab and navigate to BBO?

Last night I played three consecutive boards on which I never saw a score at the time, because nobody else played them before the table score needed to be reset. Why does this happen? There is no need, given the number of times a board is played (at IMPS anyway). The first was played at 22:23 GMT, the other 15 between 22:47 and 22:53 The second was played at 22:31, the others between 23:00 and 23:04 The third was played at 22:36, the others between 23:38 and 23:41 We do sometimes manage to set up simple competitions at a table, if four people are hanging around long enough. It's most frustrating when boards do not deliver a score.

Are you not entitled to know all the opponent's system before the hand starts? If so, you are saying you lose those rights during the auction. If not, bridge is a very different game from what I thought it was.

Am I, as a defender, expected to accept a claim when I have seen neither declarer's hand nor dummy?

I don't think this is quite right. If these were weak players (and I am unconvinced that this is the case here), what would be happening is:- West: 3♣ East: What? I told him I wanted to play in spades. He must have long clubs and only a couple of spades. But I haven't got any clubs, so we can't play in those. Our spades must be better and I still want to play there. So I'll bid spades again and he'll get the message. East, in my experience, (without the UI) will not see this anything but a salvage operation, and will not even think of bidding diamonds. In general, weak players will rebid a 5-card suit if they are not sure what to do, rather than look for anything more subtle. I feel that a lot of sequences that are castigated here as "unauthorised panic" are actually just a case of "panic", in that they would have bid exactly the same way without the UI, because they had an fixed idea of how to bid, and what contract to be in, before the problem occurred.

Are these foreigners a figment of Nigel's imagination? I never see any.

Trouble is that in the real world you'll see sequences like 1♥ - says 5, points to natural.Pass - points to natural.2♠ - points to haven't got a clue.

All the contributors to this thread are good players. Do they not realise that any system of this type would he hopeless for ordinary players who have little idea of what is going on in any sequence other than completely routine ones?

In other circumstances, people here rule that all sorts of unlikely lines fall into the category of normal. I don't believe that cashing running suits other than from the top is normal, yet I am in a small minority in that view. Whatever the ruling in this case, I believe that, where it is possible, players will accept a mechanical ruling (where the rules are formally codified) whereas a director's judgement ruling, if disputed, will lead to apparent unfairness. If, in this case, that leads to 4 down, or whatever, then that's the way it is.

I suspect (I might be wrong) that this post follows a situation I saw last night where the host had been a kibber - long AWOL - who had inherited the table when it completely emptied. I cannot see the problem with allowing the host to be booted if the host is not actually at the table - whether the time invested in writing the code would be worthwhile is another matter. I'm not entirely sure why kibbers inherit empty tables, it only seems to cause trouble.

I don't think VixTD specified the scoring anywhere. If this is MPs, is 6♣ such a good contract?

Click on the little cog-wheel to bring up the options menu. Select the "At a table" tab. Bottom middle, tick "Kibitz partner when dummy".

It's obvious - West asked about the 2♦ bid because he had long diamonds :)

The average club player just wants a gentle game of logic, and constructive bidding sequences are something they might get right once in a while; certainly, waiting for a good hand is what makes the tedium of defending bearable. If opponents mess that one good hand up by psyching, it spoils their game. Defending against psyches is like doing a Sudoku where the newspaper has misprinted one of the numbers - the logic falls apart and the whole thing becomes a waste of time. Quite frankly it's only the ultra-competitive who psych at club level anyway (other than amongst themselves, where it's not a problem). If you're not willing to accept that most players are there for primarily social reasons, and you're not interested in trying to keep their evening enjoyable, why go?

It isn't? I only ever ask such questions if I don't have a specific interest in the suit (I've been reading these forums long enough to know the UI implications ...)