greenender

I agree that partner is much more liekely to have been thinking of doubling than of bidding on, so: - whilst pass is a LA - bidding on is not demonstrably suggested. So, no adjustment. However, in three-way option cases where it is less clear what partner may have been thinking about, "not pass" tends to be demonstrably suggested over pass. Furthermore, double tends to be demonstrably suggested, as doubling does not preclude partner pulling if he was thinking of bidding on, whereas bidding does prevent partner doubling if that was his other option.

If the pair has not considered the meaning of 3-level cue-bids as opposed to 3♠, then it is unlikely that they have any agreements as to forcing passes in this sort of auction. Kantar's recommendations are all very well, but - many partnerships will not have thought about the question at all; and - a fair proportion of those who have discussed it will have reached a different conclusion. Besides, for those in whose methods 4♠ merely denotes possession of a 6-4 fit, it is stretching it to say that they have issued and accepted an invitation.

The clarification period (the correction period being something quite other).

If the correction is given as should be, then the leader knows that: - dummy has shown a ♣ singleton; and - declarer thought dummy was asking for a ♥ stopper Whilst players are not in general entitled to know what misunderstanding their oppoonents are having - all they are entitled to is the agreed meaning of the calls - a non-offending player is entitled to use all information that he actually has. In this case he knows about the ♣ singleton, and he knows that declarer doesn't know about it, and that declarer may therefore not have the secure ♣ stopper that the agreed meaning of 3♥ implies. On that basis I reckon that a ♣ lead is more likely than it normally would be for a player with QJ9xx in an unbid major.

Remind me not to have a game with responder. Opener's view is much more logical.

Actually, I was having fun guessing!

This is an example of the general tension between simplicity and appropriateness in alerting regulations. For the sake of simplicity there is a rule that unalerted doubles of natural suit bids [up to a certain level] are for takeout. If you wanted to make all alerts as appropriate as possible (i.e. alert the unexpected, don't alert the familiar), then you'd have to make a lot of complex rules or have exceptions to your nice simple general rules, and everyone would get into a mess. Here you have a meaning which is technically alertable, but which is not in fact at all unexpected. So you ask what the player would have done differently with an alert. In the EBU we have a rule which says that players should protect themselves if they know what is likely going on and can ask without putting their side's interests at risk. Here the player is likely to know that: 1. Nearly everyone plays this double as penalty; and 2. Quite a lot of people don't bother to alert it. So it is wise for him to protect himself because it is frankly rather unlikely that the message sent by the non-alert is actually genuine. That pre-supposes of course that he has somewhere to escape to if he knows the double is penalty. Although this is only a regulation in the EBU, AFAIK, it seems a helpful approach anywhere.

Surely the poll that the director should take is as follows: 1. What would you lead if 4♦ is explained as ♦ shortness? 2. What would you lead if 4♦ is explained as last train? (and it might be necessary to explain the inferences from last train as intended by W). The answers to the first question define your peer group. The answers to the second tell you whether the peer group views lead you to conclude that N was damaged by the MI. Of course you have a difficulty if you cannot find a peer group, because nobody leads a diamond on the information N actually had, but a TD's life is not always easy. My feeling is that the correct ruling would be no damage, on the basis that the peer group is likely to demonstrate that a ♦ lead is more rather than less likely with the right information. I also feel that N's claim of damage may be influenced by the notion that he is entitled to know that E/W are on different wavelengths, which as has already been noted, is not correct.

I can't see any basis for a normal score adjustment, because the side opening the Multi have done all that the regulations required. I suppose that if, as the Multi side, I had noticed when providing the opponents with the defence that there was a gap, I would probably have pointed it out and given them the opportunity to agree something, but that is a matter of "personal ethics". I wonder, however, whether the combination of the regulation and the fact that the agreed meaning of redouble doesn't feature in the suggested defence, has made normal play of the board impossible. We could then give both sides the good score bluejak would like to see. But this is only really appropriate if the TD is called during the auction if the dilemma is noticed. Otherwise a bridge result has been obtained, and if the opening side has got a good score, they should be entitled to keep it.