gordontd

2♣-2♦ 3♠-4NT 5♥-...6NT 2♣ showed a strong balanced hand, or 9 playing tricks, or a GF. The 3♠ identified it as the 9 playing trick type hand. 2♦ was a relay 4NT was RKCB 5♥ showed 2 key cards (no trump queen) 6NT was agreed to be slow. What do you think this suggests?

I don't see this anywhere in the original post.

I think you've missed the important point that a Double-Weave requires a multiple of four tables, so eight & twelve are fine but ten is not. You could do a 7-round Web Mitchell for 10 tables though (3-board rounds mean the board sharing is less of a problem), or an 11-round Hesitation Mitchell (but that requires sharing two-board sets at Tables 1 & 10).

The original post tells us that the first double was alerted and explained, but doesn't tell us for what reason. [edit: I now see it's in the diagram, not the text]. I don't think the ethical thing to do is to pass 2♥ - a raise of hearts seems more appropriate.

A double does not stop being for takeout simply because partner might choose to convert it to penalty - indeed that's a feature of all takeout doubles.

I don't think it sounds like a coded message, and I wouldn't be wondering if my opponents were cheating. However, it does sound like the sort of comment that would not be made if East had anything to think about, so that is UI that West has. I don't suppose it's likely to become relevant, but it could.

No, the EBU splits up doubles of suits into takeout and others, not takeout and penalty.

Players often claim on the assumption that the worst break won't happen. It doesn't mean they wouldn't notice it if it did.

So, these players who you think are incapable of noticing that a defender discards on the first round of a suit, are bound to play a double-squeeze?

I don't agree that is a strong probability - more like a slight possibility.

You seem to be arguing two different things: that because you don't know which trick they would have been likely to win, the conditions of the law are not satisfied; and that because they agreed to an imperfect claim they might well have misdefended. Which is it? If the latter, it just seems to me to be judgement question as to how likely they are to have misdefended. But the first point has been presented as though winning a diamond, a club, or trick 13 are separate possibilities, whereas the most likely time for the defence to win either a diamond or a club is at trick 13. I thought the point of making up an example was to demonstrate a point in its purest form, without any external clutter to add confusion, but this one seems to me to lack clarity.

OK, but that's well before BBO existed.

OKB always charged a subscription.

If I rated our chances as 55% and you asked me if we are likely to win (it's "likely" that's used in the wording, not "probably") I'd say yes.

No, you are not there to protect the offending side from its own errors.

As one of my former partners would say: Pull trumps, claim.

Can't they cash the ♦K before playing back a trump?

There's something odd about this situation: the winning team are meant to hand in both cards (isn't that universal?) Yet one team who thought they had won just went home, and the other team, who claimed they had won when asked, made no attempt to agree the score with their opponents or hand in the scores. Unless it was all down to the director's misunderstanding, Team A don't seem so blameless to me.

They are expected to have an accurate result available for their opponents to agree.

Depending on the hands, and the way the play went, an AC might give him some proportion of 4Hx-3 or 4H-4. From my reading of the original post that would be enough to make a difference.

I had a claim called to my attention last Friday. Declarer claimed a number of tricks, the defenders initially agreed but then realised before putting their hands back in the board that declarer had failed to notice a loser that would develop. Declarer agreed with that, but claimed they were too late to get the extra trick. I'm glad I had the claim laws to make it easy to deal with.

Leading the 8 is standard in my experience. It feels like you've answered your own question by asking it: if you are playing UDA in this situation you give attitude, so play the 2. The only time you might have a problem here is if you are playing Std Count & UDA - a rather strange method that seems to have lots of adherents who haven't been able to explain to me its advantage over UDCA :D

Too late for the original poster, but others might be interested in https://www.facebook.com/pages/Duplicate-Bridge-in-Vietnam/201353303217760

Your original post said he asked at his first turn to call.

Pass shows clubs Redouble asks partner to bid their longer/stronger suit Suit bids other than hearts are natural