CamHenry

The embargo is on naming names. If I were to post saying, for example, "bluejak gave this ruling and we appealed it because we thought it was ridiculous", that would be over the line. One is allowed to name oneself - as I have done in the past, when Matt and I were the OS. For what it's worth, we were happy with the director's ruling on that occasion :)

I think the director was less egregiously wrong than has been suggested. Dustin's statement is that the director ruled "no damage". Suppose the actual result had been 5♦-1, not 5♦+1. In that case, your score has changed from -150 in 4♥ to +50 in 5♦, and your score has been improved. In that case there's genuinely no damage. Now, I find it difficult to believe that there was "no damage" since they scored 420 here. It may be that everyone else played 6♦, or doubled 4♥ for 500, and there was no matchpoint damage: but even if that is true, the director should have adjusted. It looks like laziness rather than outright bias, since it is at least possible for an illegal action (East's 4♠ bid) to cause no damage. If I were directing, I'd have had a word with East about not bidding based on UI, adjusted the score (even if there was no MP change), and given at least a warning to EW.

For Q1, I think 9 tricks is sound. For Q2, I'm not quite sure what you mean: are you envisaging a position like: Ax KJxx - Axx Kx A8xx - KQx In this case, I'm ruling 8 tricks: 2 spades, 3 hearts, three clubs, and the HQ to lose at the end.

[hv=pc=n&s=skt9842ht6djtct98&w=s63hk973d63ca6532&n=sj5hj82daq974ckj7&e=saq7haq54dk852cq4&d=s&v=b&b=11&a=pp1nd2h(Alerted%2C%20not%20asked)ppp]399|300[/hv] North forgot thesystem and thought 2♥ showed ♥ and a higher suit (i.e. both majors). In fact it was a transfer. After the auction, before the lead, N says to S (who is not yet overly familiar with the alerting, explaining & disclosure regulations): "If I was incorrect to alert 2♥, you should tell the opponents now". South said "No, it should be alerted" (true). At this stage, W asked "What was it?", and N explained that it showed both majors. Due to the earlier misleading statement, S didn't realise she was supposed to say "it's actually a transfer and he's got it wrong". After the play (2♥-5, -500), North said "If you think you'd have got a better score with correct information, let's get the director over to have a look at it". W replied "I think we were damaged; we'd have bid game with the correct explanation". How do you rule?

Look at Blackshoe's hand diagram, not the OP: the OP has South above North, which thoroughly bewildered me for a while.

Morning all A hand from last night, at matchpoints. 4th in, vulnerable against not; RHO opens 4♣. You hold:[hv=pc=n&n=sa8543h962daq96ca&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp4c]133|200[/hv] Your call? If you double, the auction continues: P - P - 4♣ - X 4♥ - 5♦ - P - ?

5♥ exclusion :-)

♥A, ♠A, ♥ ruffed low. I then wonder who dealt: if "someone other than S", I know W has some values. I play a ♦ to the 9, as each exit to W sets up an endplay.

An example of this would be when declarer (or dummy) did in fact have the trump A.

Thanks for the critique, and I agree with many of your points! I will only argue with your statement that there is no elegance: I think elegant is subjective, and I was quite pleased with it at the table :)

OK, safe for now: you can fall back on a ruffing finesse in diamonds.

... depends if the menace is the ♦7, requiring partner to furnish a round of drinks.

The elegance is not that the endplay always works, but that it's opps' UNT that made it clearly the right line. Maybe I'm a simple soul, but it pleased me at the table! (And yes, the spade elimination is necessary: RHO's shape was 1=2=5=5, so without the spade elimination he's got a safe exit.)

[hv=pc=n&s=sk94hqt8732d8caj3&n=sa532hj96dkjtcq75&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=1c(Possibly%20short)2n(Both%20minors)3hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] You arrive in 4♥, with an apparent loser in each suit and two in trumps. LHO leads the ♣6, which goes 7-K-A. Well, that misdefence takes care of clubs, so there's some hope. You then lead a heart, won by W who then cashes a second heart (they split 2-2) and exits with a club. Short of a miracle or a defensive revoke, how do you proceed?

To me, the 3♦ bid would be strong(ish), asking me to bid my better major. Partner's then bid 4♦ over their 3NT - this clearly reveals his misunderstanding (or possession of many diamonds) in my opinion, because if he knows I have both majors he can double (with no fit) or bid 4M with a fit. There's nothing to stop partner holding x/Qx/KQJxxx/xxxx, in which case 4♦ has good play. Passing 4♦x looks like an LA. As for whether pulling is suggested: partner's bidding diamonds because he thinks I have them, not because he has them. This implies that 4♦x is going to be worse than 4M, and makes the pull more attractive.

I think E may have a 3♠ bid after 2D-P-2H-P/P-X-P.

4♦ would be... I think an invitational hand with long diamonds (we're a relatively new partnership; partner is used to an agricultural style of bidding). There's no discussion of relative strength of options. 4♣ is a first-round club control; 3M is probably a second suit (6-4) and 3NT is to play. I suspect 4M is a splinter, so maybe I should choose 4♠ over the 4NT I selected. The final contract was 6♦-2, for a 9IMP swing. The standings for the event as a whole would not have been affected by another +- 8 IMPs on this board, so it's mostly an academic question on this occasion :)

Bill's hit the nail on the head here. The UI was, in fact, worse than a slow bid: opener mumbled, grabbed the alert card, and then said (unprompted) "I think that's probably a transfer to clubs". That UI definitely suggests getting out in 3NT, I think. Given the fact that "some appropriate slam try" is generally considered the only LA, I am quite happy that my slam try (4NT keycard; we don't have sophisticated methods) was required by ethics. Unfortunately, partner's hand was AKJT/Kxx/xx/Kxx, and with a club and a heart to lose we did not score well. The fact that diamonds were 4-1 offside made the loss easier to bear!

[hv=pc=n&n=s2hqj9dak9876ca98&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(15-17)p2n(Transfer%20to%20diamonds)p3c(Superaccept)p]133|200[/hv] What do you bid, and what do you consider?

I think you'll find that the youth of today (myself included) have simply given up on ever holding a strong hand, so there's weak (nominally 5-10, but plausibly as low as 1 with 0 being a mere deviation) and intermediate (weak, but with scattered defensive values as well: something like QJ/QJxxxx/Kx/Kx). If we ever pick up a 16-count or a solid suit, we bid game and hope. :)

Note that the ♥4 then ceases to be a major penalty card, and its presence is AI to EW but UI to S.

For my part, I chose "3N but would consider spades". Why? - something's breaking badly, which is likely to be a problem at a suit contract. - partner's shown fair strength so we may have a little extra for the NT game. - my club values are less useful at a suit contract. - on the other hand, we do have (!) a 5-3 spade fit. As for 3S or 4S - I agree about the fast approach concerns you raise, bluejak, but I do not consider this hand strong enough to make a slam try so I bid 4S signoff.

Who needs a responsive double when you have a responsive hesitation available instead? ;)

I maintain that "double them for penalties if at all possible" is a good policy here!

Well, I'm glad Exclusion has its adherents. Unfortunately I don't play it with this partner, so I doubled 3♣ to show unspecified extras: 4♥ was likely to engender panic-then-5♦. Oppo then bid 5♣, which I doubled for a 70% board. Partner's hand was [hv=pc=n&e=s83h3dkq7652cj765]133|100[/hv] and careful play by E makes the grand; most pairs played some failing contract by W as the club's general level doesn't cover 6-0 heart breaks and 4-0 diamond breaks...