StevenG

FWIW, if forced to play out a bunch of cards I believe to be equal and winning, I always play from the top, and I do my best to ensure that my partners do the same. I have seen too many accidents when they don't.

How much of this is relevant? The claim statement was that declarer now had three heart tricks. Only lines of play where declarer expects to make three tricks without any further thinking should be considered. That means either that he will repeat the finesse (and go off to KJ doubleton), or that he has forgotten that some card (but what?) is out. Lines where declarer knows that he might not have three tricks, and plays the odds accordingly, are not consistent with the claim statement.

They have an agreement, but no agreement about what that agreement is? Weird.

This is wrong within the EBU. The Orange Book says so Sven's inerences are, I believe, correct.

Easr knew that the ♦K was with North because the double was takeout? Where did he think South's ♦ stop was for the NT bid? As for the double, it is MPs and you don't let opponents play at the 2 level if you can help it, do you? Is pass a LA? It probably depends how aggressive a balancer South normally is.

Has the problem of a player not knowing about lead penalties not been discussed here before? I seem to remember that the conclusion was that the director could be called at the end of play and award an adjusted score, if appropriate.

Just curious - do people never think ahead? I wouldn't bid like East on this, so I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this case, but I would certainly use the time available on the initial double to make sure I knew what I would do after any of the likely continuations. If, having realised THEN that I would often not get enough information from the auction to be clear what was best, I had decided that I would punt 3NT on some difficult sequences, the 3NT itself would come out in tempo. In the case in hand, I understand that a slow 3NT suggests doubt about whether it is the best BID (not the best choice of final contract), but I certainly don't accept the view that a fast 3NT can only show specific hand types, or the inferences that follow from that assumption.

If it doesn't, it promises a good enough suit to be playable opposite Ax. A natural 3♦ is normally played as game-forcing. With an average five-card heart suit, opener will bid one of 3♠, 3NT, 4♣, or 4♦. That may be the expert agreement, but we are not told that NS are experts. In my non-expert partnerships I would expect North to bid 3♥, South to bid 3♠ and North to sign off in 3NT. I cannot see why South should lurch directly to 4♥ when there are spade losers and no guaranteed means of ruffing them. Perhaps with Gnasher's agreements, 4♥ is a LA, but with my agreements, 3♠ is so superior a bid that I cannot imagine anyone who had 3♠ available choosing 4♥ in preference. Therefore I have my doubts that 4♥ is a LA for ordinary players.

My partners don't do that sort of thing! So I have no experience of it happening. For me, it would be a demonstration that the wheels have fallen off. Perhaps for others that wouldn't be the case. Can you please construct a set of hands consistent with the bidding where there is play for 2NT. I can't. Anyway, in my view, the FIRST piece of UI suggests that passing 2NT could be the right thing to do - for that reason, I would disallow a pass, not a 3♣ bid

I cannot agree with Sven. East has a lot of UI. West's bidding 1NT after initially passing has presumably shown a balanced hand, almost, but not quite, good enogh to open a weak NT (although, as this is 5cM territory and I suppose they are playing a strong NT, the inferences may be slightly different, but not a lot so). The partnership probably has no more than 15 HCP or so. So East commits to playing in 3♣ . Then comes a nonsensical 2NT opposite, and more UI. How on earth can passing 2NT be a LA? It can only make sense if you use the UI that West has a full opener and misbid. No, East committed to 3♣ BEFORE the UI that West had misunderstood the 2♠ bid. It seems to me that bidding 3♣ is the only rational bid. As it is clearly what East would have bid without the second bit of UI, it is also an entirely ethical bid. I can see no reason to disallow the bid.

I don't understand at all - I'm obviously just some fool who expects the OB to mean what it says. I repeat my previous question:- 'If all hands of this type can always be opened, because they are freaks and there is no agreement, then what hands are barred by the phrase "even if the hand is at least Rule of 18"? '

Surely not. West thinks the 2NT-3NT is a strong sequence and that 3NT is highly likely to be making. If she knew that 2NT showed a weak hand and 3NT not the normal response, I do not think it likely she would sacrifice, even as a beginner. I think that NS should be playing in 3NT (leaving others to decide how many tricks),

My problem is with the phrase "even if the hand is at least Rule of 18". Presumably this was inserted into the regulation for a reason. Any hand of 7 HCP or less which is Rule of 18 is essentially a freak about which one is unlikely to have an explicit agreement. If this sort of hand comes up occasionally, do you develop an implicit agreement? If all hands of this type can always be opened, because they are freaks and there is no agreement, then what hands are barred by the phrase "even if the hand is at least Rule of 18"?

As far as I know, I do not know anyone who does play System On over a natural 2NT overcall.

I don't think these odds matter. It is the set of hands on which partner would hesitate, tthen bid 2NT which counts, not the set of all hands on which partner would bid 2NT.

Does it? More to the point, do NS play that? I didn't know this traditional view, and, to me 5♣ looks automatic with no entry to the hand outside clubs. However, what I don't understand is why South passed the 5♣ bid. Surely from his point of view that's a cue with spades agreed. So I'd expect 5♦ or maybe 5♠, but I can't see pass without use of UI. But where does that UI come from? Probably not the hesitation, if there was one, since 5♣ bid in panic would probably be banged out. My instinct is to disallow South's final pass, but, obviously, you need to talk to South to find out why he passed.

I would have passed over 2NT with some partners, for the simple reason that any bid here would be constructive. Having passed, I can now balance quite easily as that in no way misdescribes my hand. I don't think you can necessarily talk about "class of player" in isolation. My methods in any partnership are constrained by partnership methods, which in turn are usually constrained by how my partner likes to play.

The big problem seems to me to be that:- - You have no agreement about a specific sequence. - You have a general agreement that doubles below 3NT are normally for takeout, unless they obviously are not. - Partner makes a double that common sense suggests might be intended for penalties, but it's not clear. Do you go with your agreement or your instincts? What if your instincts are affected by the contents of your own hand? At club level, I've given up trying to draw inferences from opponents' failure to alert in these sequences. Even people who take an interest in the laws/regulations don't know whether they should be alerting or not, especially as, if asked, they'd usually say something like "values", or "do something sensible, partner", rather than "takeout" or "penalties". Different players have very different doubling styles. With the hand in question, in my partnerships, I'd expect to do exactly what North did, i.e. assume the double was takeout and convert to penalties (500+ looks certain, and beats any game we might have). But that's because doubles in my partnerships are strongly takeout oriented. Clearly, players whose doubling style is penalty oriented see this as an easy penalty double. It's certainly not at all clear to me.