gordontd

L45C2. Declarer must play a card from his hand if it is (a) held face up, touching or nearly touching the table; or (b) maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played.

The replies in this thread suggest that you probably shouldn't expect an American partner to be aware of the differences.

You shouldn't unless they happen to be American.

That applies to defenders not declarer.

Facing the other players? Yes.

For 3n+1 pairs (where n is odd) or for 3n pairs where n is even, you can run a Mitchell + Howell combination over three sessions with movement of lines between sessions. Do it twice and you have six sessions. For 5n+1 pairs (where n is odd) or for 5n pairs where n is even, you can do the same thing over five sessions with movement of lines between sessions. If you have an odd number of tables you can run a Mitchell (missing out the first round) with an interwoven Howell. Or you might run a Barometer Howell. More detail when I have a proper keyboard!

2♣ openers with 4M + 5m are a problem. One solution (that originated with Robson, I think) is to play 2♣-2♦-3M as showing 4M + 5♦, and to play that after 2♣-2♦-3♣, 3♦ asks for a four-card major. You give up the suit-setting 3M rebid, but the only time I've ever had a hand for that was just after I adopted this treatment!

The definition of artificial calls does not include reference to calls that (by regulation) are alertable, whether explicitly or implicitly. The fact that a call is alertable does not in itself make it artificial. ... but the fact that it conveys information, other than a willingness to play in the denomination named, does.

They do have a great flag though.

Personally, I don't think it actually does show willingness to play in the denomination named. It only shows willingness to play in that denomination if partner has that suit. As such, it is quite different from giving preference when partner has shown two suits. The reason it's different is that it shows reverse preference. When there's a disparity, you always bid the worse one. That's why they are sometimes known as "Paradox Responses".

In what contract?

Indeed. I've always been led to believe pass or convert bids should be alerted as artificial. From "definitions" (in the Laws): Artificial call — is a bid, double, or redouble that conveys information (not being information taken for granted by players generally) other than willingness to play in the denomination named or last named; (Emphasizes are mine) I cannot understand other than that a "pass or correct" bid shows willingness to play in the denomination named? It does show willingness to play in the denomination named, but it also conveys other information about the spade suit - spades might be longer than hearts, hearts won't be longer than spades.

I agree, but I would even (under the same presumption) allow it under law 27B1A. In what way could either 2♥ or 3♥ be considered artificial when they both expressed "pass or correct"? With two hearts and four spades you would bid 3♥ rather than 3♠, wouldn't you? That sounds artificial to me.

Isn't that precisely the meaning of the word "inadvertent"? L25 uses the word "unintended" rather than "inadvertent" in the 2007 version of the Laws, I am told because of the difficulty of translating "inadvertent" into some languages.

With 5332 you would have no preference - aside from the point above about what pass shows.

Bears in the woods come to mind :rolleyes:

When you want to bid 1S and pull out the 1NT card by mistake, all it tells your partner is that you have a 1NT card in your bidding box, and that it's close to the 1S card. When you want to play the D7 and pull out the D4, you tell your partner that you have the D4 in your hand, so it's dealt with in exactly the same way as any other occasion when you expose your D4.

Were you playing duplicate or rubber bridge?

It's covered by a different law. There's no law for defenders that allows them to change an unintended legal play. There is one that allows players (within certain parameters) that allows them to change an unintended call.

Some might just describe it as paying attention :rolleyes:

The player would not be basing their call on such other information. The player has already decided on a call without the assistance of any UI, but now realises that the intended call has not been made.

The Bamberger point count (7-5-3-1) was used in the Vienna System in the 30s, before Goren popularised the Work point count. During that time Culbertson was recommending Honor Tricks as the method of hand evaluation, but the simplicity of Milton's method appealed to the great bridge-playing public, and led to it being almost universally adopted.

Masterpieces of presentation? :(

Is that really how you play your 4♠ bid - a hand that forgot to open? :(

That's standard in America. Not everywhere.