gordontd

I think you'll have to give us the whole auction again.

On the contrary: why are you looking to penalise the non-offenders, rather than trying to assess what might have happened without the misinformation?

I think one would be less likely to bid game in a major with the explanation that one of the opponents has shown the majors, than with the explanation of "no agreement" or "I don't know".

deleted

Isn't it simpler just to use the stop card when there's a jump, than to figure out whether this situation is an exception? Yes, stop cards are not used with screens.

Time for a Plum Meredith 1♠ opener perhaps? :)

Then let's look at your exact words to which I was replying: So which is it: everyone disagrees with you; or you are in a significant minority? Or does the whole thing break down as soon as you contradict yourself, allowing us to disregard everything you say and imagine you are actually proposing a normal line of interpretation? :)

I doubt if the lawmakers will see any need to change the laws to take account of a single idiosyncratic interpretation of them.

There are two possibilities for what he intended when he claimed. Is it really too much to ask him to clarify?

So that your partner knows which minor-suit ace would be useful to you?

This seems like a rather confused question. If it's not an LA, it's not an LA. (I'm not commenting on the hand in question here, just disagreeing with the idea that something that's not an LA becomes one in the presence of UI).

How would he find out if the clubs break 3-3? By playing three rounds and seeing if both opponents follow. They do, so in terms of the decision that leads him to make next, they "do" break 3-3.

This isn't really to the point, since we aren't adjusting, penalising, or rectifying.

I don't. Apart from other considerations, it would probably make our life harder: imagine how difficult it is to construct a line of play that really is the worst. Rather harder than working out the best line (because it's harder to see things the opposite way than we're accustomed to), and we know from arguments about Deep Finesse analysis that seeing the best line isn't always obvious.

Why?

Not in my experience. In those circumstances, I would have thought 2♣ would be the least twisted rebid. But I agree with the majority that 2♠ is the standout rebid.

Not able to?

I remember a hand from about 15 years ago at the Young Chelsea on a Friday night (IMP pairs) when about half the field played in 2♦xx +2, after some players thought it was a good idea to make a lead-directing double of 2♦ with something like KJxxx & a card.

I'm not sure that it is: I've noticed myself doing that type of thing. It's consistent with our general principle that when players believes all their cards are winners, they might well play them in any order and so we impose on them the least favourable order.

The Palmer Bayer is a simple-system event that doesn't allow short club openings. I hope you and Bob Brinig didn't break the rules when you won it, Paul!

Having seen that the clubs are breaking, is there any reason why he wouldn't cash his DA before discarding his losing diamond on the "good" club?

I think perhaps it does matter, since the post to which I was replying said:

4♣ seems routine.

I blame East at table 2 for bidding 7♦.

It would be a more interesting question if we swapped the C7 & C5, and put the DK onside. Oh, I remember now, this is a real hand.