gordontd

Maybe, but we know that IE has always had a disregard for standards.

♣ is the fast winner. They're not exactly cold on other leads.

Off topic (without any guarantee of authenticity): there's a man called Stan Ritter whose eponymous 2C convention (asking for the majors but also for range, in response to 1NT) is played by a large-ish group of players mainly in Essex. Someone playing against Stan alerted his partner's 2C response to 1NT, and described it on request as "Modified Ritter". "Oh really" said Stan, "what's that?" The player gave a lengthy description of the convention and it's responses, to which Stan said "that sounds a lot like Stayman". "Yes, it does" came the reply.

No, that's not what it says. It says that if I call for a card from dummy and the wrong word comes out of my mouth I can correct it as long as I haven't played from my own hand and I've corrected it the moment I realise what I've done. If my RHO has already played a card he can change it. It doesn't allow me to change my mind, nor to change a card I've played from my own hand - only one that was "designated". It could apply to a defender who stated a card he was about to play but hadn't yet actually played, though in practice that's unlikely.

Yes, it certainly should!

I'm sure you would find the railway interesting too.

That depends where you are. The Q lead from this holding is an American thing, as far as I know.

I'd have bid 3NT on the first round.

Yes - between Goa & Kerala. A bit less touristy than either. I spent New Year there 18 months ago.

Agreeing with something requires either that it happened or that someone has suggested that it should. I don't think either of those things apply here.

I think it depends on whether you play Walsh or not.

Being told they have nothing to disclose will not please their opponents, who will not have as much of a chance to work it out as those whose system it is.

Yes, you did.

If partner wanted my opinion, he might have asked for it B-)

He said it to his opponents It doesn't seem to me a natural sort of question to ask. My opponents had a different impression of what happened than I did. Why would I think they are accusing me of lying? And how could I think I could ask such a question in that kind of way without causing offence?

I don't see that bidding 7NT is any more of a breach of L74 than would be bidding 6♠, which is what I was responding to. Oh, misguided? D'you reckon?!!!

No you don't: there's quite a gap between saying "I don't think what you say is correct", and "You are a liar". I directed an event this weekend where one of the TDs issued a disciplinary penalty to a player for saying "Are you calling me a liar?" when there was a difference of view as to the facts.

If I had a partner who thinks it's sensible to bid 4S on this in that auction, I might as well bid 7NT because I wouldn't have much interest in continuing the partnership.

Didn't the trust start to ebb away at the moment partner made the impossible 4♠ bid? I'd pass too - I'd prefer to believe that one of us got the system wrong than that partner has no understanding of captaincy.

So now, when you have 3631 opposite 3136 you get to choose between playing 3♣, 3♥ or 2♠, rather than 2♥.

Whose sig is "gibberish in, gibberish out"?

It's there: But that's not what the player chose to do.

I know some people have agreements (at least over on this side of the Atlantic) that include forcing passes & takeout doubles in specific situations, but I think the normal thing in these sorts of auctions, without any specific agreement, is that double is penalty and you can (forcing) pass with any hand that might have made a takeout double. Passing & pulling shows a stronger hand (ie invites slam) than does making the same bid immediately. So when partner passed 4H he either said he didn't mind defending if I want to (which I don't see that I do), or that he wants to invite slam even if I do want to defend. I agree it's hard to construct hands so that everything makes sense, but perhaps the 4H bidder might have had nine solid missing the ace, and partner x, A, KQJ, AKQJxxxx (move a few small minor cards around as you wish). Now we're cold for a grand in three denominations [edit: actually only two] and 4H is only two off.

No need for the brackets - the comma did the job perfectly well.