gordontd

Your carefully constructed layout doesn't leave partner a 1♠ opener.

Maybe you could double-check that? :)

It sounds from what you write as though the actual hand is a deviation from their agreement, so isn't really evidence of misinformation in any case. Had they said "strong, artificial, and forcing to game" (assuming as I said before that they really do play it as forcing to game), I really can't see in what way that would be inaccurate. What they actually said doesn't seem to me to differ from that in any material way.

I can't see much wrong with the description, if they really do play it as game-forcing. I'd ask them if North would have to bid on with a balanced Yarborough in the the auction 2♣-2♦-3♣. Clearly it conforms to the Extended Rule of 25 (with something to spare), but some posters here seem to want to criticise NS because the EBU regulation doesn't say exactly what they think it should. As others have said, West doesn't deserve much sympathy for failing to bid his hand. Would he still complain if North's ♦A had been in South's hand?

In this instance a web movement is identical to a Bowman. Your description of it above is accurate. I use it quite frequently and find it works well. The more general explanation of how web movements work for odd numbers of tables is as follows: Put out one complete set of boards on the lowest numbered tables. The remaining few tables will be an even number. Put a second (and third if you want to avoid any board sharing) set of boards on them as though they were their own mini-web section. Pairs move up as usual. Boards move down as usual, but with a relay at the bottom of each of the three parts of the movement. Example for 19 tables with 13 board-sets: Tables 1-13 start with board-sets 1-13. Tables 14-19 are treated as a six-table web movement, so get board-sets 1-3 on tables 14-16, set 2 on table 17, set 1 on table 18, and set 13 on table 19. Pairs move up around the whole 19 tables. Boards move down around 1-13; a second set moves down around 14-16 (tables play them in normal ascending order); a third set moves down around 17-19 (tables will be playing them in reverse set order). For convenience you can combine the first two sets of boards so that you feed in from the relay at T16 and pass them down all the way to T1, where they come out and go to the relay.

East's behaviour seems more troublesome than South's.

It was at one time a common way to play, but I'd be surprised if it still is. Apart from making it easier for the opponents to pre-empt you when you have a fit, it's actually harder for B/I players because it involves learning a different set of rules, rather than just doing the same (with a couple of minor changes) as they would without the double.

I suspect that in the given system that would show 4H & 6D. Probably you would need to retransfer into hearts first to show this hand.

5Dx=

You seem to me to have too many ways to bid hearts and not enough ways to bid diamonds. Surely either 3D or 4D should show diamonds?

That seems completely the wrong way around.

Why did E bid 3C?

deleted

It's usual to play that jump bids over pre-emptive openings are strong. 4♥ is not a jump. You are entitled to know your opponents' system agreements (even if they don't), and to construct your defence around them and the evidence of the dummy.

1NT strikes me as a distinct under-bid, both before and especially now.

It's impossible in my world: why would someone cue-bid KQJx opposite a singleton? (Remember we're considering it from South's point of view.

I wonder if anyone will disagree with that? :)

Which seems to support my point, that "No agreement" is a better explanation than "I think it is for majors".

Of course it is. It's true and it's not misleading. I'd have a good shot at working out what's going on, when partner bids spades, with "no agreement", but much less chance when told "I think it is for majors".

I still don't understand. Did North intend to bid 3♦, or did he think that's what 3♥ shows? If I thought I had bid correctly thus far, I'd bid 5♦ now.

No, you would open 1♥ & rebid 2♥ if partner responds 2♣ or 2♦.

Except that this thread suggests it isn't.

What if dummy actually did choose a card (to your detriment)? Or indeed if he chose one and it was to your advantage? We have a top-class player here who has a habit of choosing a card to play from dummy even when his partner hasn't invited him to! I'm sure he would have jumped at the chance.

Tell them to stop making their own rulings?

Whenever there are only two cards in dummy and declarer says "play anything", it is exactly the same as saying "dummy, please decide which of these two cards to play". The motivation may be different, because when you say "play anything" you generally expect it to make no difference which card is chosen, but in either case the words indicate a play without designating either a suit or a rank. What would your view be if he had said "play something", or "play one of those cards"?